+- RepairmanJack.com Forums (https://repairmanjack.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Other Topics (https://repairmanjack.com/forum/forum-9.html)
+--- Forum: Off Topic (https://repairmanjack.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Thread: The MOVIE was Better (/thread-2522.html)
The MOVIE was Better - law dawg - 10-12-2007
Ken Valentine Wrote:I've read it -- a couple of times. That's one of those almost nonexistent times when I liked both the book and the movie. The others are A Town Like Alice, (which was actually a TV mini-series) and Pride And Prejudice starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth (another mini-series.)Ken, you have my full respect for even finishing LOTM. I couldn't do it.
Ken V.
But what a movie! Gorgeous and moving. Great soundtrack too.
Your other choices I have no experience with, so I can't comment.
Do love Colin Firth though. Great actor.
The MOVIE was Better - Sigokat - 10-12-2007
law dawg Wrote:Blade Runner.
This is a seminal work. And again, it's tough because I am a huge fan of Phillip K. Dick's body of work (well, most of it), but I don't think Androids quite hangs with Blade Runner.
Even though I liked the book alot (its one of my favs) I do agree that the movie was better. There were some elements that the book stressed (electric animals for example) that the movie only very briefly touched. However those elements were not necessary for the movie like they were for the book, imo.
I will say that I liked the character of Deckard alot better in the book then the movie. I do not like the idea Deckard was an android in the movie. In the book he was cool, collective, and sadasitc...what the bounty hunter needed to be...and he was human.
Ok enough about Blade Runner.
Someone already mentioned Jurassic Park, but that is one I agree with as well.
Bram Stoker's Dracula. I thought the movie (with Anthony Hopkins and Gary Oldman) was better then the book...even though I enjoyed the book.
Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring. Yes the book was a masterpiece, but damn, I suffered through those Tom Bombadil chapters!!!
The MOVIE was Better - Ken Valentine - 10-12-2007
law dawg Wrote:Ken, you have my full respect for even finishing LOTM. I couldn't do it.
The writing was tedious, but the story was pretty good. It's the first example of a novel where fictional characters were placed into an actual historical event. The seige of Fort William Henry. (The movie covered it pretty accurately too. Including the massacre by the Indians after the fort had fallen.)
Quote:But what a movie! Gorgeous and moving. Great soundtrack too.
I agree with every bit of what you say.
To me, that movie makes up for what the director did to FPW's THE KEEP.
Quote:Your other choices I have no experience with, so I can't comment.
They're both mini-series', and because they're both five hours long, the screen writer was able to follow the book very closely.
A TOWN LIKE ALICE is based on an actual historical event:
There were about 80 women and children who were captured by the Japanese on Sumatra. Nobody in the Japanese military knew what to do with them, so they were marched from one area to another throughout the entire war. (Let somebody else deal with it.) Only about 30 of the prisoners survived to the end of the war.
The novel was written by Neville Shute, who also wrote ON THE BEACH -- another good movie.
Quote:Do love Colin Firth though. Great actor.
PRIDE AND PREJUDICE was the role that gave him his real start -- the one that made him famous.
It follows the novel so closely that if you see the movie, you can pretty much say that you read the book.
Ken V.
The MOVIE was Better - Auskar - 10-12-2007
I normally like the book better, but the two I thought of right off the top of my head have been mentioned.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep vs. Blade Runner.
Eaters of the Dead vs. The Thirteenth Warrior
Eaters of the Dead just sucked as a novel and I read it ages before I saw the movie. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was interesting, but Philip K. Dick novels are sometimes... kinda hard to grab hold of. I read it after I saw Blade Runner (except for an excerpt in a short story collection).
And I like the Dexter television series better than I liked the novels.
And Shakespeare? I find Shakespeare almost intolerable to read mostly because of my own limitation on "getting" 16th century english, but sometimes there are great versions of his works on screen.
The MOVIE was Better - Kenji - 10-12-2007
Barry Lee Dejasu Wrote:It's a given that when you read a book before you see the movie based upon it, you'll tend to like the book more. But of course, that ain't always the case - especially when you read the book AFTER the movie.
What are some of your favorite movies that you liked BETTER than the books they were based on?
I agree Blade Runner, Man on Fire, Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, and The Dead Zone.
I add them...
Stand By me from "The Body" by Stephen King.
River Phoenix, Wil Wheaton, Corey Feldman, Jerry O'Connell, and Kiefer Sutherland........if they didn't appear in the movie, this movie would have been one of '80s's teen movies. Good casting and perfect adaptation!
Servants of Twilight from "The Servants of Twilight" by Dean Koontz
Ending scene was completely different than the novel, but I prefer movie's ending. That was very chilly moments!
Of Mice and Men
A looooooong time ago, I read John Steinbeck's novel, and it's masterpiece. But Gary Sinise and John Malkovich were excellent!
The MOVIE was Better - bones weep tedium - 10-12-2007
sigokat Wrote:Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring. Yes the book was a masterpiece, but damn, I suffered through those Tom Bombadil chapters!!!
lol me too, I got kinda fed up with the poems and songs too . . . a lot of LOTR that I remember struggling to plow throiugh were the obsessive descriptions of the landscapes they were moving through; with the faithful screen version taking care of that, I was free to enjoy the story.Have already been pipped to the chase on Blade Runner, a decent little novel turned into a classic movie.
I am tempted to say The Prestige, but the book and the film are very close in my estimation.
The MOVIE was Better - Barry Lee Dejasu - 10-12-2007
beowulf Wrote:I'm not sure I have ever experienced this phenomona...
...But if you ever want a real book-to-film disappointment read Stephen King's "Dream Catcher" then see the movie...awful. I also thought the Bourne movies ruined the amazing plots of the books...but they would have been nearly impossible to translate to the big screen accurately.
Ap-ap-ap-ap--! This is a thread quite specifically for the MOVIE being better than the BOOK. But that said, I can agree that except for that final 1/3rd or so, Dreamcatcher was almost halfway decent...and then said 1/3rd came on, and I wanted to break the theater seat in front of me in half. But I digress.
bones weep tedium Wrote:I am tempted to say The Prestige, but the book and the film are very close in my estimation.
It's interesting how completely different both the book and the movie were from each other, and yet how equally intriguing they were. Tie score, as far as I'm concerned.
The MOVIE was Better - cobalt - 10-12-2007
King's The Stand was pretty good as a movie.
The MOVIE was Better - Sigokat - 10-12-2007
cobalt79 Wrote:King's The Stand was pretty good as a movie.
I never read the book even though I was into Stephen King in high school around the time the mini-series (movie) came out.
I rented the first two tapes (the entire thing was divided up onto 4 VHS tapes...two per rental at blockbuster...I worked there so I remember...lol)
I watched the first two tapes and with about 15 minutes till Blockbuster closed for the night I raced back up to the store to get the last 2 tapes...got back home...started watching...and was extremely disappointed with the ending. Great movie up until the very end, imo.
The MOVIE was Better - KRW - 10-12-2007
I can't really think of a movie that was better than the book, but I can think of a movie that was better than the song.... "OKLAHOMA"! (barely)