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

L

Serial Killers of the World Unite!

  • Litopian
  • Replies: 7
J

Guess what's coming up...

  • Jennifer Stone
  • Replies: 83
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jason Byrne said:
I can tell you right off the top of my head some movies that aren't as good as the books.

Anything made from a Stephen King book. They just can't seem to get them right.

Okay, now...
View attachment 339
THE LORD OF THE RINGS MOVIES ARE BETTER THAN THE BOOKS!
View attachment 340
Click to expand...
I disagree. "The Hobbit" movie was six hours. The book didn't contain a story-line that would warrant six hours of film. After seeing all six hours of the movies, I found a lot of information interjected into the movies that wasn't in the book.

"The Lord of the Rings" movies (again with the six hours- gotta love Peter Jackson), were exciting graphically, but there were things that weren't in the book. I liked what I had envisioned when I read the book, and it didn't fit with the movies.
 
Marc Joan said:
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
Click to expand...
I agree with you, @Marc Joan and I have seen all 12 hours of the movies.
 
Marc Joan said:
Thanks MontanaMan - I was starting to feel a little lonely! And film directors who try to 'improve' a book by interjecting their own hare-brained concepts really annoy me..
Click to expand...
They annoy me because they were made for people who are too lazy to read the book! I mean, why read when Peter Jackson will make a movie that is a lot longer than it needs to be and put in all kinds of information that wasn't there originally. I felt the same way after seeing both versions of "Dune" (the movie and the TV Mini-series). My wife gets a kick out of being in the room when I watch them. I'll periodically call bull-shit during the movie.
 
Exactly! But you obviously have more patience than me, as in those circumstances I normally try to turn to a different channel, or if outvoted, leave the room in a sulk.
 
The Godfather. No question.

The book is interesting but there's this bizarre subplot involving an oversized vagina (really) and goes into insane detail about Johnny Fontaine's singing career with yet another subplot about surgery on his throat. It takes some of the least interesting aspects of the film (or at least those used to magnify the characteristics of others) and goes off on a tangent about this utterly banal shit that nobody could care less about. So yes, when they adapted the book, they REALLY improved it.
 
Marc Joan said:
Exactly! But you obviously have more patience than me, as in those circumstances I normally try to turn to a different channel, or if outvoted, leave the room in a sulk.
Click to expand...
For me, half the fun is finding all the flaws in movies of this type. Since my wife is blind enough to make reading very difficult, I watch them more for her exposure to the things I enjoy, as she can still see the 56" TV...some at least. She can't read the screen if there it writing on it, but she can still see some of the film. As a disclaimer, I have a huge collection of movies and tv series, and those movies are in the collection.
 
For me, I thought "The Stand" (tv mini-series) was better than the book. The book was long and excessively wordy, even though there were some explanations in the book that weren't in the movie. "The Puppet Masters" was about equal to the book, but "Starship Troopers" movie was a huge disappointment compared to the book.
 
Now, I didn't say I thought the LOTR movies were better than the books, I said I liked them both! There's a difference. It's like a friend of mine who declares she likes real coffee and instant coffee--she claims that "instant" isn't coffee, and therefore she can like them both, because they are entirely different things. In a way, movies and books are the same...I mean they're different. What works in a book does not necessarily work in a movie. What works in a play, doesn't always work on paper (thank you, Mr. Shakespeare--I love your work, but I have to read it aloud, because otherwise it's nonsense!). What works in a poem doesn't work in a novel...see what I mean (Can we compare the work of ee cummings with that of Jules Vern)? I think Peter J did a phenomenal job turning LOTR into a film, precisely because he added things, removed things, "pimped" the dialog, and included a soundtrack. But it is not the book. The books are something magical unto themselves...
 
MontanaMan65 said:
I disagree. "The Hobbit" movie was six hours. The book didn't contain a story-line that would warrant six hours of film. After seeing all six hours of the movies, I found a lot of information interjected into the movies that wasn't in the book.

"The Lord of the Rings" movies (again with the six hours- gotta love Peter Jackson), were exciting graphically, but there were things that weren't in the book. I liked what I had envisioned when I read the book, and it didn't fit with the movies.
Click to expand...
The Hobbit films were better than the book but I agree with Steve, there are things that just aren't right. And it should have only been 1 film, it was overkill. The additions were silly re the female elf and they forgot flibbetywidgetshapeshifter manny... I forget his name now... He played a big part, plus getting caught by tree roots. agg. The general story telling of the film versions is better, but they cut out key things I don't think they should have, particularly in their milking of The Hobbit.
 
Karen Gray said:
The Hobbit films were better than the book but I agree with Steve, there are things that just aren't right. And it should have only been 1 film, it was overkill. The additions were silly re the female elf and they forgot flibbetywidgetshapeshifter manny... I forget his name now... He played a big part, plus getting caught by tree roots. agg. The general story telling of the film versions is better, but they cut out key things I don't think they should have, particularly in their milking of The Hobbit.
Click to expand...
The tree roots are in the double-length extra-extended versions! Which between TH & LotR total 20.53 hours...

There still wasn't room for Tom Bombadil, thank God... That was just weird.
 
Mark Odell said:
The Godfather. No question.
Click to expand...

I actually read The Godfather when I was 13/14. But I have never seen the movies. I thought the book was dumb.

I've actually not seen many movies required for cultural literacy. I do watch Netflix, but I tend to pick obscure and foreign movies. (Yeah, I'm a hipster.) For example, the Millennium Trilogy, based on the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo books--my favorite movie series. It is to me what Star Wars is to guys.

I also thought the movies for that series were just as good as the books.
 
Jason Byrne said:
The tree roots are in the double-length extra-extended versions! Which between TH & LotR total 20.53 hours...

There still wasn't room for Tom Bombadil, thank God... That was just weird.
Click to expand...
Yeah he was really weird :/ Still took up a chunk of story though but... real weird.
 
Karen Gray said:
Yeah he was really weird :/ Still took up a chunk of story though but... real weird.
Click to expand...
I had heard that Tom Bombadil was supposed to be a God allegory, because he was "eldest, fatherless," and because the Ring had neither power nor meaning to him.
 
Jason Byrne said:
Tolkein's a hell of a choice, to try to bite off for an essay. Did you pick it yourself?
Click to expand...
Yup. I got a B for the critical and an A* for my creative writing but pretty low marks for the other stuff (because we got literally no tuition for all but 2 weeks of term time. Most of my class scraped by or failed) I ended up with a high B overall simply because of my creative writing and being able to analyse stuff from outside the box ;)
 
I can't remember if the Clan of the Cave Bear film was better than the book or not :rolleyes: I remember wanting to be Ayla when I was a kid... You know I just realised why I really liked the name Ava and used it for one of my MC's :eek: Cool :p
 
Jason Byrne said:
I had heard that Tom Bombadil was supposed to be a God allegory, because he was "eldest, fatherless," and because the Ring had neither power nor meaning to him.
Click to expand...

Tom Bombadil drives me nuts. This camp lunatic who shows up, sucks all power out of the ring by going 'meh, not interested' and then prances around in yellow boots going 'Hey dol! Merry dol! Ring a dong dillo' and other such nonsense. Hey Tom, why don't you go and throw the ring in Mount Doom yourself if it's no bother to you? Dick.
 
Hehe.

Kind of makes you wonder what part of Tolkien's life he represents doesn't it?
 
Mark Odell said:
Tom Bombadil drives me nuts. This camp lunatic who shows up, sucks all power out of the ring by going 'meh, not interested' and then prances around in yellow boots going 'Hey dol! Merry dol! Ring a dong dillo' and other such nonsense. Hey Tom, why don't you go and throw the ring in Mount Doom yourself if it's no bother to you? Dick.
Click to expand...
Be fair. That would have made a crap film.
 
Bernard Stacey said:
I'm thinking of starting a thread called 'Is there any situation for which Jason doesn't have a picture or video?'
Click to expand...
No need to ask... lol. The answer to that question is...
tumblr_mgpc1nVMLh1rziwwco1_250.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Serial Killers of the World Unite!

  • Litopian
  • Replies: 7
J

Guess what's coming up...

  • Jennifer Stone
  • Replies: 83
Back
Top