• Café Life is the Colony's main hangout, watering hole and meeting point.

    This is a place where you'll meet and make writing friends, and indulge in stratospherically-elevated wit or barometrically low humour.

    Some Colonists pop in religiously every day before or after work. Others we see here less regularly, but all are equally welcome. Two important grounds rules…

    • Don't give offence
    • Don't take offence

    We now allow political discussion, but strongly suggest it takes place in the Steam Room, which is a private sub-forum within Café Life. It’s only accessible to Full Members.

    You can dismiss this notice by clicking the "x" box

Films which are better than the books that they are based on

Status
Not open for further replies.

Marc Joan

Basic
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
LitBits
0
Carol Rose's irritation at remakes of already perfect films (movies) in another thread reminded me of how I usually dislike seeing movies (films) based on my favourite books...because they never live up to what went on in my head when I was reading it. Also, the director inevitably rewrites or leaves out or reinterprets some favourite passage ... grrrr... But there have been a couple of notable exceptions where I found the film (movie) to be even better than the story. One such was Birdy -- I thought the film by Alan Parker actually eclipsed an already great story by William Wharton. Anybody else seen a film that was better than the great book on which it was based?
 
So, I liked both The Hunger Games books and movies, but I liked them each for different reasons. The book was much better at the internal struggle Katniss was going through, but the movies were **so** much better at depicting the actual action going on around her. The movies probably win over the books IMO.
 
LA Confidential is one of my favourite movies ever. Surprisingly, I wasn't that keen on the book when I read it. For me, the film was superior and a masterclass in how to compress a complex plot into the short window movies/TV offer, something the hopelessly convoluted and erratic True Detective 2 failed to learn from...
 
The thing is, I've never seen the LOTR movies, and yet I still totally disagree with you...because I just know they can't possibly be as good as the read version.

I just know, OK??!! :mad: Don't mess with my Tolkien...snarl snarl
For a start they are in order on a proper timeline :p lol I too agree that the LOTR films are way better than the books, as is The Hobbit BUT 3 films was just milking it. MILKING IT!

I was so hyped up abotu His Dark Materials and it just didn't live up to the books at all. Neither did Eragon. So sad.
 
The only movie based on one of Stephen King's books I liked as much as I enjoyed the book - not better than but liked just as much - was The Green Mile. The casting was perfect and Tom Hanks is just … well … he's always perfection. :)
 
And I adore both the movie and the book versions of To Kill A Mockingbird. :)

Oh, and they did a very good job with Little Women in 1994. :)
Oh yeah! I forgot about Little Women!

I liked the books and films for both 1984 and Animal farm.
Oh! Much Ado About Nothing and
Romeo and Juliet (I'm a big Baz Luhrmann fan)
 
One Stephen King adaptation that went really well was the TV miniseries of The Shining. Not the movie. The one with Steven Weber and Rebecca De Mornay.
YES. MUCH better than Stanley Kubrick's version, although Jack Nicholson was his usual insane self and carried that part for him and Shelley Duvall both. But I still love "Stop swingin' the bat. Put the bat down, Wendy. Wendy? Give me the bat…" and "Heeere's Johnny!" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
foodstadiumblogsdotbabble2.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top