• Odd cases in which the movie is better than the book.
    105 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;29465742] I have tremendous respect for Tolkein and the incredible world that he imagined and created but, as far as writing an interesting story went... I didn't like reading [i]The Lord of the Rings[/i] at all. I understand that it's not supposed to be an action-packed book but that doesn't exactly excuse the horrendous pacing. I just find it dull. He spends more time describing the history of a building than he does detailing what happens at the siege of Helm's Deep. But, again, I'll stress that the history and the detail in it is truly beautiful, it's just that, as a piece of pure entertainment, I prefer the films.[/QUOTE] Try reading the Hobbit. Personally, I couldn't get in to the LoTR books since it went so slow, might attempt it again soon, but the hobbit is quite a bit better paced.
I actually prefer Blade Runner to Dick's novel, just because of the world Ridley was able to build, and how the story was structured. While both were fantastic pieces of work, the movie, to me, is better.
[QUOTE=5killer;29478597]I actually prefer Blade Runner to Dick's novel, just because of the world Ridley was able to build, and how the story was structured. While both were fantastic pieces of work, the movie, to me, is better.[/QUOTE] Depends on which version of the film you're talking about. I couldn't enjoy the theatrical cut simply because Harrison Ford is annoying when he explains EVERYTHING!
The Shining. And most of the Kubrick films.
[QUOTE=Nikota;29479837]Depends on which version of the film you're talking about. I couldn't enjoy the theatrical cut simply because Harrison Ford is annoying when he explains EVERYTHING![/QUOTE] Oh definitely the final cut.
[QUOTE=5killer;29480396]Oh definitely the final cut.[/QUOTE] Yeah. With the theatrical cut its kind of pathetic when there's even a voice over about him eating at a noodle shop.
Children of Men.
[img]http://www.cyber-cinema.com/british/OneFlewOvertheCuckookNest_BRT.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=The Maestro;29477571]I thought Jurassic Park was better as a movie, but it's been a long time since I've read it.[/QUOTE] I didn't know Jurassic Park was a book for a long time and when I finally read the book I considered the two totally different things. The movie is still good but the book is drastically different. [editline]28th April 2011[/editline] Somewhat off topic: I think Jurassic Park aged super fucking well and I can still watch it without complaint.
I'll elaborate: [img]http://www.lost-world.com/Lost_World02/Jurassic_Park.Site/images/JPLogo500a.GIF[/img] The book is just... odd. It's full of even more pseudo-scientific broken paleontology than the film, based off old 90s theories that have since been proven wrong or, more commonly, just disappeared and forgotten. Two cases in point: [b]climbing trees[/b] (yes, some very small theropods may have been able to do this but for some reason Crichton decided that in the book he would have medium-sized herbivores do this) [b]swimming T-Rex[/b] I'm sure there are more but I haven't read the book in a few years. Neither makes sense. Also, Hammond is cast as some really evil, non-caring, machiavel capitalist character and it just comes across as really 2D. The misguided and optimistic Hammond of the film is a much more complex and interesting character. Oh yeah and Robert Muldoon, the game keeper from the film, runs around the visitors' centre and shoots raptors with a fucking [i]rocket launcher[/i]. It defies explanation. That said, I think [i]The Lost World[/i] is a far better book than it is a film and the storylines of the two differ quite hugely.
[QUOTE=Banned?;29482395]I didn't know Jurassic Park was a book for a long time and when I finally read the book I considered the two totally different things. The movie is still good but the book is drastically different. [editline]28th April 2011[/editline] Somewhat off topic: I think Jurassic Park aged super fucking well and I can still watch it without complaint.[/QUOTE] I agree, this movie has some incredible special effects. For me it's just through and through a masterpiece.
Starwars.
2001: A Space Odyssey was on par with the book it was based on, but 2010: Odyssey 2 was better than the book. [editline]28th April 2011[/editline] well the book and film of 2001 came out at the same time but whatever
I know no one will agree, but I liked Lord of the Rings much better while watching it. The books included too much ''folklore'' elements, I really didn't like that.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;29488810]Starwars.[/QUOTE] star wars wasnt a book i dont think. [editline]28th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Paravin;29491587]I know no one will agree, but I liked Lord of the Rings much better while watching it. The books included too much ''folklore'' elements, I really didn't like that.[/QUOTE] actually i think everyone would agree. the books are amazing no doubt but the movies are a masterpiece
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;29484456]I'll elaborate: [img_thumb]http://www.lost-world.com/Lost_World02/Jurassic_Park.Site/images/JPLogo500a.GIF[/img_thumb] The book is just... odd. It's full of even more pseudo-scientific broken paleontology than the film, based off old 90s theories that have since been proven wrong or, more commonly, just disappeared and forgotten. Two cases in point: [b]climbing trees[/b] (yes, some very small theropods may have been able to do this but for some reason Crichton decided that in the book he would have medium-sized herbivores do this) [b]swimming T-Rex[/b] I'm sure there are more but I haven't read the book in a few years. Neither makes sense. Also, Hammond is cast as some really evil, non-caring, machiavel capitalist character and it just comes across as really 2D. The misguided and optimistic Hammond of the film is a much more complex and interesting character. Oh yeah and Robert Muldoon, the game keeper from the film, runs around the visitors' centre and shoots raptors with a fucking [i]rocket launcher[/i]. It defies explanation. That said, I think [i]The Lost World[/i] is a far better book than it is a film and the storylines of the two differ quite hugely.[/QUOTE] I too liked the movie over the book, but I find the gore in the book is much better, the way it describes the part where the little lizards with euphoric poison, when bitten they are just in a state of euphoria while the lizards eat him... Fucked up. I just pictured this dude enjoying himself watching a bunch of lizards pull his intestines out
[QUOTE=The Maestro;29488262]I agree, this movie has some incredible special effects. For me it's just through and through a masterpiece.[/QUOTE] Funny how a movie released 18 years ago looks better than some of the highest budget movies utilizing CGI today, especially considering how easy and commonplace is it compared to back then.
Eyes Wide Shut
[QUOTE=mark6789;29491810]star wars wasnt a book i dont think. [editline]28th April 2011[/editline] actually i think everyone would agree. the books are amazing no doubt but the movies are a masterpiece[/QUOTE] Yeah, Star Wars was a book too, and if I remember correctly it came out before the movie. It was pretty much just a screenplay-into-a-book thing if I remember correctly, since George Lucas had pretty much everything in his head from Day 1.
A series of unfortunate events.
The Shining
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;29484456]I'll elaborate: [img_thumb]http://www.lost-world.com/Lost_World02/Jurassic_Park.Site/images/JPLogo500a.GIF[/img_thumb] The book is just... odd. It's full of even more pseudo-scientific broken paleontology than the film, based off old 90s theories that have since been proven wrong or, more commonly, just disappeared and forgotten. Two cases in point: [b]climbing trees[/b] (yes, some very small theropods may have been able to do this but for some reason Crichton decided that in the book he would have medium-sized herbivores do this) [b]swimming T-Rex[/b] I'm sure there are more but I haven't read the book in a few years. Neither makes sense. Also, Hammond is cast as some really evil, non-caring, machiavel capitalist character and it just comes across as really 2D. The misguided and optimistic Hammond of the film is a much more complex and interesting character. Oh yeah and Robert Muldoon, the game keeper from the film, runs around the visitors' centre and shoots raptors with a fucking [i]rocket launcher[/i]. It defies explanation. That said, I think [i]The Lost World[/i] is a far better book than it is a film and the storylines of the two differ quite hugely.[/QUOTE] Actually... There was old concept art for the movies where it showed, from underneath a Tour Boat, a T-Rex balancing on the bottom of the river with its head near the surface like a Crocodile
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;29484456]I'll elaborate: Oh yeah and Robert Muldoon, the game keeper from the film, runs around the visitors' centre and shoots raptors with a fucking [i]rocket launcher[/i]. It defies explanation. [/QUOTE] The rocket launcher bit was explained (I think). The launchers themselves were used to launch heavy duty tranquilizers into things like the T-Rex. I don't remember where they got the rockets.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;29492616]Yeah, Star Wars was a book too, and if I remember correctly it came out before the movie. It was pretty much just a screenplay-into-a-book thing if I remember correctly, since George Lucas had pretty much everything in his head from Day 1.[/QUOTE] ah did not know that well thanks for the info
[QUOTE=Hiccuper;29465980]Where the Wild Things are is one of those extremely rare cases where the movie has more content than the book.[/QUOTE] am i the only one that hated that movie with all my soul?
[QUOTE=Ryuken;29500718]am i the only one that hated that movie with all my soul?[/QUOTE] Yes
[QUOTE=Ryuken;29500718]am i the only one that hated that movie with all my soul?[/QUOTE] Nope. I didn't really care for it. Course I never read the book/had it read to me.
V for Vendetta. Both are good, but the movie is just better.
[QUOTE=Nikota;29479837]Depends on which version of the film you're talking about. I couldn't enjoy the theatrical cut simply because Harrison Ford is annoying when he explains EVERYTHING![/QUOTE] From what I have heard, I consider myself lucky only to have seen the final cut.
[QUOTE=Ryuken;29500718]am i the only one that hated that movie with all my soul?[/QUOTE] right here bro.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.