Books to Movies

Moderator: Lethal Interjection

ScienceGal
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:00 am

Books to Movies

Post by ScienceGal »

I have yet to see a movie based on a book be anywhere near as good as the book. What do you think?

User avatar
mountainmage
Mage of the Mountains
Posts: 9595
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 11:42 am
Location: Right here. Right now.

Post by mountainmage »

I agree wholeheartedly. Although, I wish it wasn't true. Maybe one day they'll make a movie that actually includes everything from the book. Until that day comes, people will continue to say "It was good, but it left a lot of the book out."
No more white horses ♬ ♫ ♪ ılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılı ♪ ♫ ♬ for you to ride away

ZachWeiner
Iron Chef Texas
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 5:12 am
Contact:

Post by ZachWeiner »

Frankenpenis was a lot more entertaining than the original Mary Shelley novel.

The most heinous movie adaptation of a book ever was, easily, Starship Troopers. That one hurt. A lot.

User avatar
Lottel
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:27 am
Location: Slightly to the Left of his Right
Contact:

Post by Lottel »

LOTR is a good adaptation. No Tom but good on the whole.
How DARE you bring joy and laughter to the smiling faces of children everywhere. Purveyors of hope and all that is pure in the world, DIE DIE DIE!!

User avatar
Hanibalicious
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:31 am
Contact:

Post by Hanibalicious »

George Miller's take on Babe was as good, if not better than the movie. The spirit of the novel was made flesh, and added to. The cinematography was breathtaking. The wacky sidekick was, for the first and only time in all of cinema (not counting Peter Lorre in Casablanca), appropriate, and a character that not only furthered the plot but was genuinely funny- "Christmas is carnage! Christmas is carnage!". The voice acting was stellar, and Nigel Westlake's soundtrack is made immortal by stoic James Cromwell's one moment of selfless abandon.

The Night Watch/ Day Watch duo is wholly entertaining modern-day fantasy, and while being no where as long, or as rewarding as the Watch tetralogy, it is certainly a fun addition to the mythos, as it is, in a fan-boyish nod, actually acknowledged in the books as the timeline of a parallel reality.

Also, having reread Jurassic Park, the movie is better, because Grant, faced with the opportunity to escape the island that has massacred all of his friends and recent acquaintances, decides to head back (in the book) to count raptor eggs in a volcano. That is some awful, awful character motivation. Maybe if John Williams did the footnotes?

ScienceGal
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:00 am

Post by ScienceGal »

Did you see Jurassic Park 2 and 3? Quite possibly the worst movies based on books EVER made. The Lost World the book was NOTHING like the horrible movie. I will agree though that Jurassic Park 1 was a pretty good movie.

In Jurassic Park 3, I especially like the part where the satellite phone survived passing through the digestive tract of a carnivorous dinosaur. Not only that, but it was ringing at the exact same time as the raft passed by the HUGE pile of poop in which the phone was buried. That and they were able to find the phone in the huge pile of poop before it stopped ringing.

ScienceGal
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:00 am

Post by ScienceGal »

.....and I know plenty of scientists that would return to the island to count raptor eggs on a volcano. Have you met scientists? They're a little crazy....

User avatar
Hanibalicious
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:31 am
Contact:

Post by Hanibalicious »

ScienceGal wrote:Blah blah blah jurassic park 2 and 3.
Nope. Sorry. Those movies didn't happen. Just like the so-called star wars prequel, the zelda cd-i games, and the the fact that our parents had sex, I refuse to accept their very act of being.

And yes, although I do believe Grant was nuts, he was portrayed nowhere near THIS kind of nuts. Until the end.

User avatar
Lethal Interjection
Death by Elocution
Posts: 8048
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: Behind your ear. It's magic!
Contact:

Post by Lethal Interjection »

Have you guys even read the Jurassic Park books?
I mean, the whole bloody movie trilogy is based on the first book, and some very small parts of the second. It wasn't so much an adaption as a fleecing. And, yeah, the sequels were crap (movie-wise).

Sphere (speaking of Crichton) was alright. At first I didn't like it because of where it strayed, but after a few more viewings I ended up really liking the movie, in it's unique differences. Andromeda Strain was pretty alright too.

Any of the Jack Ryan series by Tom Clancy have been pretty terrible adaptions. They just miss a lot of the key elements and the coolest parts. Particularly in Sum of All Fears where they actually changed who the enemy was...

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy had it's moments (realize I've never heard the radio show the books were ultimately based on), but was far too much of a tiny little snippet into that series, missing so much of the cool and funny stuff.

I think Fight Club is probably better as a movie than as a book, but I've mentioned that elsewhere.

American Psycho was definitely a better movie than book. The book was interesting, especially in some of it's literary techniques. It was just that the plot seemed very jumpy in the book, and it took a few reads to properly understand.

That's about all I can think of where I've both read and watched.

I mean, I do try to view them as different mediums, and thus judge them separately, when I can. I mean, you can fit way more into a book than you can a movie (I was disappointed with what they left out of the LOTR trilogy, but at the same time, you can't include everything without it being a ridiculously long, unmarketable movie).

User avatar
ruotwocone
sock-puppet of the infinite
Posts: 1917
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: true... wait, false!
Contact:

Post by ruotwocone »

seriously i thought Jurassic Park was much better as a movie. I thought the book was terribly dull. Barely any science in it at all (not that the movie had a bunch of science or anything, but it had awesome, kick-ass dinosaurs). Seriously, the movie had (at the time anyways) convincingly realistic dinosaurs! DINOSAURS!

User avatar
Hanibalicious
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:31 am
Contact:

Post by Hanibalicious »

ruotwocone wrote:Seriously, the movie had (at the time anyways) convincingly realistic dinosaurs! DINOSAURS!
To me, Jurassic Park stands up because of the soundtrack, the cast, and the first really organic integration of CGI in a film.

It will forever and always be my personal citizen kane because I shit myself when I was 12 and I saw that brachiosaurus. That movie made me laugh, cry, think, and expel fecal matter- this is what art should aspire to.

(And yes I read the Jurassic Park books. The first movie was a trimmed first book, the second was the second book plus gymnastics, a living hammond, and a mild dose of completely retarded, and the third was all the dinosaurs left over from the books plus a heaping, steaming dose of retarded.)
Last edited by Hanibalicious on Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Raptor_Jesus
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:34 pm

Post by Raptor_Jesus »

I can't honestly name a single movie based on a book that was better than its counterpart. And Jurassic Park is no exception. You know why? It's easier and more time friendly to put down or burn a bad book than to go to a theatre to watch a two hour movie and end up leaving after 45 minutes only to have to drive back home.

ZachWeiner
Iron Chef Texas
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 5:12 am
Contact:

Post by ZachWeiner »

How about "The Godfather?"

User avatar
Hanibalicious
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:31 am
Contact:

Post by Hanibalicious »

wiztoast wrote:How about "The Godfather?"
How about it.



But seriously, I haven't read or seen the godfather since I was 12, and I remember the book more vividly for 2 reasons.

1.) There was way more penis description than I had previously thought possible. He was very graphic. I don't even remember word one about the female genitalia, but ten years later I remember how Puzo loved his penis adjectives.
2.) I learned that people shit themselves when they die. At my young age, this alone made it better than the film. Although, I suppose I may have to see it again, because at 12, I probably glossed over all it had to offer me while I enjoyed slow motion oranges and exploding cars.

User avatar
Simon.
Simon.
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:58 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Contact:

Post by Simon. »

Lethal Interjection wrote:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy had it's moments (realize I've never heard the radio show the books were ultimately based on), but was far too much of a tiny little snippet into that series, missing so much of the cool and funny stuff.
Do you mean the more recent movie or the tv series? I thought the tv series was fantastic, not as special effectsy, but it had the right feel to it. I watched the movie last night and couldn't help but be annoyed at some things they'd changed, Marvin's voice, for example, annoyed me to no end. That was actually my main gripe, but there were others I can't remember. Oh yeah! The whale's voice as it falls down! Fuck that annoyed me, especially the added "Hello ground!" after "I wonder if it'll be friends with me", which should be the last thing it says before it splats.

IMO.
Not a big fan of signatures.

Post Reply