• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

the book is always better than the movie...

I can't think of one movie that was better then the book, but I did thoroughly enjoy Jurassic Park. They changed a lot of things, but they did it the right way.
 
2001: A Space Odyssey. As works of art, the film and book are wonderful complements to each other, but Kubrick's film was more important to its medium than Clarke's novel was. Don't get me wrong, I think the novel is one of his best, right up there with Rendezvous With Rama, but there are few films of any genre that have a sensory experience quite like Kubrick's piece.
 
lots of people can think of lots of examples of books which are better than the movie. can you think of a movie which was better than the book upon which it was based?

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
lots of people can think of lots of examples of books which are better than the movie. can you think of a movie which was better than the book upon which it was based?
Click to expand...

Maybe "The Big Sleep".
 
fear & loathing in las vegas

for reason i've stated many times before. summerised as, i did not live in that time and that place, so the presumption that one is well aversed in the era and local made by the book completely misses the mark in me. the film brings that era to life in the fantastic set and costume design. that, and i love terry gilliam's visual artistry.
 
Godfather: the book is OK but nothing special, the film is great.

Trainspotting: the film runs the book close, but the book wins due to its brilliant sense of structure and the internal links between seemingly unrelated scenes.

Children of Men: the book is verrry different. It's also worth a read, but the world it creates is totally ridiculous (England is apparently a bunch of nice middle class people sitting around eating brie that they bought from the local farmers market. No mention of the panic that would be occuring in the cities, no real sense of refugees crashing England; world trade still functions, etc).

I'm pretty close to agreeing with Lefty on Fear and Loathing.
 
DigitalDuality said:
Fight Club the movie was better than Fight Club the book, imho. The book was just a little too slow, whereas the movie was tight-knit and immaculate.


Palahniuk is a great great author, Choke, Lullaby, Invisible Monsters..and even fight club.. all great books. I will say though that the movie was handled so well, that i think the movie is actually better in this cased

.
Click to expand...
have you read survivor? f'in amazing!
 
The Fury.

Brian DePalma's film is excellent...John Farris' book is a pretty standard potboiler.

Nobody can do a villain like John Cassevetes.
 
Last edited:
silverwheel said:
2001: A Space Odyssey. As works of art, the film and book are wonderful complements to each other, but Kubrick's film was more important to its medium than Clarke's novel was. Don't get me wrong, I think the novel is one of his best, right up there with Rendezvous With Rama, but there are few films of any genre that have a sensory experience quite like Kubrick's piece.
Click to expand...

The book came after the movie. There's a story called "The Sentinel" that came first, but the 2001 story is lots more fleshed out with details. Kubrick went to Clarke and had him think up something.
 
Sim0n said:
I'm pretty close to agreeing with Lefty on Fear and Loathing.
Click to expand...

wow, that's a first.

i normally get called a heretic and blasphemer and get banana skins and soiled contraceptives thrown at me for proclaiming such a thing.
 
the book was better than the movie.

chaos butterfly... your comments about "the beach" in the danny boyle thread led me to this thought, so don't be offended as it's not directed towards you, but towards people in general. :)

anyways, being someone with such a short attention span, i can't for the life of me understand why ANYONE ever says the book is better than the movie. i mean, i understand WHY i suppose, but they're two completely different formats of story telling and to me, really can't be compared.

a book is to be read at your own pace and has more license to use detail whereas a movie (unless it's a miniseries or something) really can only go into so much detail as it's basically got to stay within a certain time frame. not to mention... in MY opinion reading is so much more boring than watching a story play out.

i've never read a book and thought "i want to read that again," but i've watched many movies and wanted to watch them again. maybe it's because they leave me wanting or maybe it's because they're more of a coke buzz than an acid buzz (to use a drug analogy), or maybe it's even just my lifestyle because i rush to do things and want to do a LOT of things with not nearly enough time to do them.

who knows, but for those reasons... i'll probably never say the words "the book was better than the movie" unless i'm quoting someone else. =D
 
Well... I think To Kill A Mockingbird is a literary masterpiece, but the movie was just terrible (My opinion only, I realize it won awards).

I LOVED the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but I rally hated the movies. I find all the accolades heaped on those movies completely baffling.
 
*bump*

somewhere in a related thread, someone said the notebook and i would have to agree. i actually found the movie to be touching, but the book i could barely get thru a few pages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top