|
Post by toei on Jan 20, 2017 18:42:36 GMT -5
The popular wisdom is that the book is always better, but I can think of a few examples where the movie is clearly better; I'm wondering if anybody can add to that list. No particular order:
The Godfather. Mario Puzo's stories are usually good, but he's not a great writer. Also, the book has a long, involved subplot revolving around a woman getting vaginal reconstruction surgery, which was discarded for the movie because what the fuck does that have to do with anything? Plus the legendary acting, direction, music, esthetics, etc. etc. completely elevate the story to another level.
Battle Royale. Mediocre sci-fi/horror book, great movie. Fukusaku took their struggle seriously so that you can feel their will to live at any cost; he also added the whole theme of reactionary adults losing their minds over the perceived epidemic of juvenile deliquence and punishing it with something much worse. Plus Kitano's whole character is so messed up and memorable. I don't even like him all that much, but he was great in that movie.
Clockwork Orange
Once Upon A Time in America
The Shining (that one's debatable)
I'm sure there were others, but these come to mind right now.
|
|
|
Post by Snake on Jan 20, 2017 19:43:33 GMT -5
Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep? / Blade Runner. (Also debatable) We Can Remember It for You Wholesale / Total Recall.
|
|
|
Post by lurker on Jan 20, 2017 20:34:30 GMT -5
Jaws and Forrest Gump
|
|
|
Post by surnshurn on Jan 20, 2017 23:08:06 GMT -5
Fight Club
|
|
|
Post by alphex on Jan 20, 2017 23:16:48 GMT -5
Clockwork Orange's ending is very different in the movie - the last chapter is omited completely (I think it was cut from the American release of the book as well, for whatever reason). Not gonna spoil it, but it changes the message of the piece COMPLETELY.
|
|
|
Post by GamerL on Jan 21, 2017 3:16:44 GMT -5
The Godfather. Mario Puzo's stories are usually good, but he's not a great writer. Also, the book has a long, involved subplot revolving around a woman getting vaginal reconstruction surgery, which was discarded for the movie because what the fuck does that have to do with anything? Plus the legendary acting, direction, music, esthetics, etc. etc. completely elevate the story to another level. Not only that, but isn't Michael Corleone the only guy with a big enough dick to satisfy this large vagina'd woman? Mario Puzo probably put the subplot in as a joke. Agreed about Jaws, I tired to read it once and it simply sucks. Anyway I would nominate Children of Men, the movie is fantastic, the book, while pretty well written, is just not as interesting, kind of boring really, the book, written in 1992, depicts a mankind that has mostly calmly accepted it's imminent extinction and is just kind of running out the clock, the movie on the other hand, made after 9/11, depicts what it would really be like, utter chaos and misery. Basically all the movie did was borrow the basic premise, the two are almost nothing alike, even the ending is completely different with Theo actually becoming the new leader of Britain instead of heroically sacrificing himself It's also clear today that the movie is basically a warning for the coming backlash against mass immigration, which ten years later is actually starting to play out, none of which has anything to do with the original novel. That's one of the most clear examples I can think of, another one that's highly debatable is Jurassic Park, I love the Jurassic Park novel, but the movie does improve on it in many ways, the character of John Hammond is way more interesting in the movie, more of a tragic figure than the two dimensional villain of the book, however way, way more stuff happens in the book, a lot of it would have been cool to see in the movie (one notable sequence involving pterodactyls that was later used for Jurassic Park 3) and the book is in it's own way just as scary and thrilling as the movie is, in fact one advantage the book has is gore, there's some pretty unsettling descriptions of dinosaurs ripping people to shreds, most notably Nedry's death, which is played for laughs in the movie but is highly disturbing in the book. However some Michael Crichton adaptions that are definitely inferior to the books are Congo and The Lost World, the Congo movie is laughable, the book is great though and while I like the Lost World movie ok it's not as good as the book.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Jan 21, 2017 11:41:42 GMT -5
The Godfather. Mario Puzo's stories are usually good, but he's not a great writer. Also, the book has a long, involved subplot revolving around a woman getting vaginal reconstruction surgery, which was discarded for the movie because what the fuck does that have to do with anything? Plus the legendary acting, direction, music, esthetics, etc. etc. completely elevate the story to another level. Not only that, but isn't Michael Corleone the only guy with a big enough dick to satisfy this large vagina'd woman? Mario Puzo probably put the subplot in as a joke. Anyway I would nominate Children of Men, the movie is fantastic, the book, while pretty well written, is just not as interesting, kind of boring really, the book, written in 1992, depicts a mankind that has mostly calmly accepted it's imminent extinction and is just kind of running out the clock, the movie on the other hand, made after 9/11, depicts what it would really be like, utter chaos and misery. Basically all the movie did was borrow the basic premise, the two are almost nothing alike, even the ending is completely different with Theo actually becoming the new leader of Britain instead of heroically sacrificing himself It's also clear today that the movie is basically a warning for the coming backlash against mass immigration, which ten years later is actually starting to play out, none of which has anything to do with the original novel. That's one of the most clear examples I can think of, another one that's highly debatable is Jurassic Park, I love the Jurassic Park novel, but the movie does improve on it in many ways, the character of John Hammond is way more interesting in the movie, more of a tragic figure than the two dimensional villain of the book, however way, way more stuff happens in the book, a lot of it would have been cool to see in the movie (one notable sequence involving pterodactyls that was later used for Jurassic Park 3) and the book is in it's own way just as scary and thrilling as the movie is, in fact one advantage the book has is gore, there's some pretty unsettling descriptions of dinosaurs ripping people to shreds, most notably Nedry's death, which is played for laughs in the movie but is highly disturbing in the book. However some Michael Crichton adaptions that are definitely inferior to the books are Congo and The Lost World, the Congo movie is laughable, the book is great though and while I like the Lost World movie ok it's not as good as the book. It was actually Sonny Corleone who had a big dick (James Caan's character in the movie). Michael is faithful to his wife, as far as I remember. And yeah, I loved Children of Men and had heard the book was no good, that's definitely one I'd add to the list.
|
|
|
Post by Snake on Jan 21, 2017 13:55:15 GMT -5
Too bad they didn't include the part with Forrest becoming a NASA astronaut in Forrest Gump.
|
|
|
Post by X-pert74 on Jan 21, 2017 15:46:08 GMT -5
Umm... I think I remember reading the short story that inspired The Shawshank Redemption in a film studies class I took. I can't honestly remember... but I'd have a hard time imagining it lives up to the quality of the film, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Elvin Atombender on Jan 21, 2017 18:28:39 GMT -5
Speaking of movie inspired by Stephen King's stories, the movie adaptation of The Mist is so good that even Stephen himself wished he had come up with the movie ending. Also, it's nice to see an adaptation which is darker than the source material for once!
|
|
|
Post by elektrolurch on Jan 21, 2017 19:17:18 GMT -5
Clockwork Orange's ending is very different in the movie - the last chapter is omited completely (I think it was cut from the American release of the book as well, for whatever reason). Not gonna spoil it, but it changes the message of the piece COMPLETELY. I know, but for me, the movie is in its message (and overall tone) WAY superior to the book. Otherwise: 2001 bladerunner
|
|
|
Post by GamerL on Jan 21, 2017 19:54:36 GMT -5
Umm... I think I remember reading the short story that inspired The Shawshank Redemption in a film studies class I took. I can't honestly remember... but I'd have a hard time imagining it lives up to the quality of the film, lol. I've read the Shawshank novella, I wouldn't say the movie is exponentially better, I think sometimes you have a good adaption of a good original work with no clear winner, the collection it's from, Different Seasons, also contains the novella The Body which inspired the movie Stand By Me and it's the same deal basically, good movie, good novella, both are worth experiencing. However Different Seasons also contains Apt Pupil, which is superior to the movie, the novella is one of the most disturbing things King has ever written because it's about all too real monsters, the movie is meh in comparison, even Ian McKellan isn't as good as you'd hope in it. Speaking of movie inspired by Stephen King's stories, the movie adaptation of The Mist is so good that even Stephen himself wished he had come up with the movie ending. Also, it's nice to see an adaptation which is darker than the source material for once! The Mist movie is good but it's hampered a bit by the mediocre CGI for the monsters, the novella is scarier because it's your imagination, but that whole end sequence of the movie up until the ending is indeed incredible, I saw it in theaters and while there weren't a lot of people there was enough that you could really sense the "am I really seeing this?" vibe during the ending.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Jan 22, 2017 16:15:57 GMT -5
True, Frank Darabont's Stephen King adaptations (Shawshank, The Mist, Green Mile) are all pretty great, but they're actually based on some of King's best writing, so it's not a clear-cut case of outdoing the book. He'd have been a great choice to adapt The Dark Tower saga, actually, though I think it'd work better as a HBO series than movies.
|
|
|
Post by The Great Klaid on Jan 22, 2017 17:46:45 GMT -5
Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep? / Blade Runner. (Also debatable) We Can Remember It for You Wholesale / Total Recall. Yeah, I'll debate Blade Runner all day long. I don't understand how anyone can even figure out what the hell is going on in Blade Runner without having read the book.
|
|
|
Post by GamerL on Jan 22, 2017 23:47:04 GMT -5
True, Frank Darabont's Stephen King adaptations (Shawshank, The Mist, Green Mile) are all pretty great, but they're actually based on some of King's best writing, so it's not a clear-cut case of outdoing the book. He'd have been a great choice to adapt The Dark Tower saga, actually, though I think it'd work better as a HBO series than movies. I wish he would do at least one more King adaption, but he seems semi-retired now. Another fantastic Stephen King adaption is Misery of course, I'm kinda surprised Rob Reiner never did another one after Stand By Me and Misery. One that's not great, but decent is The Dark Half by George Romero, which manages to capture a certain vibe of King's style that's often missing from the movies. And finally one really unique one is the TV miniseries Nightmares and Dreamscapes, where every episode adapts a different short story, some of the episodes are lame but some are really standout, especially the first one Battleground with William Hurt, I wish they'd do another miniseries like that.
|
|