# Movies that are better than the novels they are based on



## Dark Jezter (Aug 26, 2004)

Many movies out there are based upon novels, and every once in a while, a movie adaptation of a novel actually manages to improve over its source material.  This thread is for people to list such movies.

I'll start by mentioning _Forrest Gump_ and _The Green Mile_, both of which were very good movies based on mediocre books.


----------



## KenM (Aug 26, 2004)

*puts on flame proof suit*  The Lord of the Rings. I think JRRT's style is not very good. He spends too much time describing almost every blade of grass, and the characters break off into some song that has nothing to due with the main plot. He glosses over major inportant plot points, while over describing small details that don't move the plot along. IE: At the end of FOTR, when the orcs attck and the fellowship breaks up, JRRT just mentions breifly the orcs attacking, no real details of the fight. I understand JRRT was a pacifst and did not like to talk about violence, but when you are talking about a war, you need to describe the battles as well as the world. The first part of FotR novel is also very slow in getting going.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Aug 26, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> *puts on flame proof suit*  The Lord of the Rings. I think JRRT's style is not very good. He spends too much time describing almost every blade of grass, and the characters break off into some song that has nothing to due with the main plot. He glosses over major inportant plot points, while over describing small details that don't move the plot along. IE: At the end of FOTR, when the orcs attck and the fellowship breaks up, JRRT just mentions breifly the orcs attacking, no real details of the fight. I understand JRRT was a pacifst and did not like to talk about violence, but when you are talking about a war, you need to describe the battles as well as the world. The first part of FotR novel is also very slow in getting going.



 KenM, you've just opened up a real...


----------



## KenM (Aug 26, 2004)

I know, I know. I don't want to hijack thish thread. If we want to talk about why I think the LotR movies are better then the books, someone start a new thread please.


----------



## Scorch (Aug 26, 2004)

My vote:

Fight Club

Loved the movie.  The book was OK...


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 26, 2004)

The Godfather I & II.  Loved the book, worship the movies.


----------



## Darth Krzysztof (Aug 26, 2004)

Oh, that's easy. _Jaws._

I agree with _The Godfather,_ also.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 26, 2004)

_Where Eagles Dare_ by Alistair MacLean was an OK book, but the film version with Richard Burton, Clint Eastwood and Marie Ure is _excellent_.

There should be a correllary in the O-T forum for songs where the remake is better than the original...


----------



## Knoxgamer (Aug 26, 2004)

*Movies > Books*

2001: A Space Odyssey, and 2010.


----------



## vtaltos (Aug 26, 2004)

Jurrasic Park: The Lost World and Hannibal


----------



## Dark Jezter (Aug 26, 2004)

I'm also going to mention that most James Bond movies are better than the Ian Fleming novels they were based on.


----------



## Kai Lord (Aug 26, 2004)

Most people I know who've read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" have felt that Blade Runner was better.


----------



## Villano (Aug 26, 2004)

Off-hand, I can think of *The Howling*.  Joe Dante, the director, even said that his regret is not that they used so little of the book, but any of it at all.


----------



## RustyHalo (Aug 26, 2004)

Silence of the Lambs.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 26, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Most people I know who've read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" have felt that Blade Runner was better.




They are quite different in tone, emphasis and just about every other thing.  Almost two different stories in fact.  I do agree though.


----------



## Sorren (Aug 26, 2004)

Lord of the Rings & Interview with the Vampire (though the Queen of the Damned movie was terrible)


----------



## Wombat (Aug 27, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> The Godfather I & II.  Loved the book, worship the movies.




Yep.  Movies much, much better -- actually, I think the books are pretty thin and cheesy, but they were written-on-demand, so that probably affects matters for me.

Add _Silence of the Lambs_ to that list -- the book is a mess, with far too many badly shifting points of view -- the movie is more neatly organized, much darker, and less of a potboiler (thanks to the stars!)


----------



## reanjr (Aug 27, 2004)

The Iliad.


----------



## reanjr (Aug 27, 2004)

Oh, and Bram Stoker's Dracula and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.  The Coppola versions are much better.  Hmmm...  Godfather, Dracula, Frankenstein.  Coppola has a good track record for book->movie.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 27, 2004)

I know it's all opinion, but I found the original novel Dracula far better than the Coppola's version (which I found very disapponting). 

I also thought the Howling book was far better that the movie, though neither was stellar. 

For my picks, I'd say Jurassic Park. 
Blade Runner (better than the story it comes from, but in fairness, they are quite different in the way they develop). 
The Princess Bride.
Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (but hey, Roald Dahl wrote the screenplay, so in effect, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is an earlier draft of the work).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 27, 2004)

The N...

The N...

Oh, I give up.  I was going to post 'The Neverending Story II' as a joke, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

-Hyp.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 27, 2004)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I know it's all opinion, but I found the original novel Dracula far better than the Coppola's version (which I found very disapponting).
> 
> I also thought the Howling book was far better that the movie, though neither was stellar.
> 
> ...



 I thought Jurassic Park was a better story in the book, but the visuals on the movie were mindblowing at the time.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 27, 2004)

Hunt for Red October

While the best of Clancy's books that I've read, still a pretty wretched waste of trees.  Movie was at least fun, though, mainly thanks to Connery.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Aug 27, 2004)

I disagree on the "Silence of the Lambs" comments. A lot of movies were either much better or much worse than the novel. "Silence of the Lambs" is the only one I can think of that maintained its quality almost exactly. I found reading the book and watching the movie to be an almost identical experience.

I'll join KenM on the whole "Lord of the Rings "thing too. While I felt that Jackson did do a lot wrong things (or rather a lot of little things wrong quite often), his over-all movie version of LotR was a much better experience than the books. 

There are things that I love in the book more than the movie (like the scene with Eowyn vs. Witchking), but for the most part . . . the books have more annoying things that I don't like than the movies do. 

Okay, that aside, I'll throw in another odd book to movie translation from left field. I enjoyed "Predator" more than the mini-novel "Hunter". Although they're very close - - except in the book, the alien was a shape-shifter lizard thing. And you got to see his spaceship at the end.

And even though the "Sound of Thunder" movie isn't out yet, the trailer looks like a really bad movie. But I did like the little short story by Ray Bradbury.


----------



## Silver Moon (Aug 27, 2004)

The Wizard of Oz.    I've read all of L. Frank Baum's books, and they are very good but a little weird.   The 1939 Movie however was fantastic.


----------



## kingamy (Aug 27, 2004)

Karate Kid 2

(I'm kidding; I just found the "novelization" of that movie when I was cleaning out some of my old junk out of my parents' house the other day)

For the record, I have a hard time directly comparing the LotR books and movies.  They are entirely different things for me, but each are my favourite in their own medium.  

It's like comparing eating pumpkin pie with playing hockey.  Both are wicked awesome, but how do you measure them quantitatively?

kingamy


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 27, 2004)

Godfather for me too. The books were flat out juvenile in places. I mean who gives a **** how well Sonny is endowed? 

However I think movies and books are very tough to compare which is why a movie MUST change considerably from any book its based on. They are different media completely.

Now plays and movies, that's a slightly different story. 

But whether its a lot better or a lot worse a movie is just going to be different.

For instance a lot of Heinlein fans derided Starship Troopers. But would anyone have been able to stay AWAKE through a movie filled with expositions on political and military theory?

Not me. 

Chuck


----------



## Maerdwyn (Aug 27, 2004)

Total Recall 
Big Fish
A Christmas Story


----------



## TheBadElf (Aug 27, 2004)

You guys already beat me to the only movies that I honestly thought were better than the books...Princess Bride, Silence of the Lambs, and LOTR.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Aug 27, 2004)

I'm pleasently surprised by this thread; we've already had several people say that the LotR movies are better than the novels, and so far no Tolkienophiles have shown up to accuse them of being stupid and tasteless.  Just another reason why ENWorld is the greatest internet community I've ever been a part of.


----------



## KenM (Aug 27, 2004)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (but hey, Roald Dahl wrote the screenplay, so in effect, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is an earlier draft of the work).






  I did not know that Dahl wrote the screenplay. Heard he hated the movie, too many changes. Rumor is the new verson that Tim Burton is directing and stars Johnny Depp as Wonka is closer to the book.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 27, 2004)

Interview with the Vampire. Ann Rice wrote the script for that one too. 
Superman (quasi-kidding  )


----------



## Nasma (Aug 27, 2004)

"one flew over the cuckoo's nest"


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Aug 27, 2004)

The movie Hannibal was better than the book. I was so disappointed in that book. I'd never read "Silence of the Lambs" or any other of that author's books (can't think of his name offhand...) but I'd heard how he was so good that his editors never touched a word he wrote, and was really looking forward to Hannibal.. and then I really wished that his editors had touched it, it was so bloody awful. The movie wasn't great, but it was much better than the book.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 27, 2004)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Godfather for me too. The books were flat out juvenile in places. I mean who gives a **** how well Sonny is endowed?
> 
> However I think movies and books are very tough to compare which is why a movie MUST change considerably from any book its based on. They are different media completely.
> 
> ...



 Must change?  What must change?  I can see the delivery of some story elements changing but the story itself shouldn't be changed just becuase. I've seen a lot of movie adaptions that made needlesss story changes just so the the director can say "I'm improving on the original work", at least as far as I can tell.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 27, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I'm pleasently surprised by this thread; we've already had several people say that the LotR movies are better than the novels, and so far no Tolkienophiles have shown up to accuse them of being stupid and tasteless.



Well, it kinda goes without saying.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 27, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Must change?  What must change?  I can see the delivery of some story elements changing but the story itself shouldn't be changed just becuase. I've seen a lot of movie adaptions that made needlesss story changes just so the the director can say "I'm improving on the original work", at least as far as I can tell.



But for every one of you who read the original work and found it better, there's one of me who really likes some of the changes and sorta dislikes others, and there are 50 people who will never read the book and would never, ever have enjoyed the story in its original form.

The sheer amount of money made by Jurassic Park, LotR, etc. shows that the changes were received positively by the vast majority of the world.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 27, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> The sheer amount of money made by Jurassic Park, LotR, etc. shows that the changes were received positively by the vast majority of the world.



But that's a bit of a strawman.  Some of those changes did have to be made because of the media involved.  Others did not, and were made for some other reason.  It's hardly a given that one can relate the success of the movies on the _changes_ made to the books, though.  That could very well (and in my opinion for both movies) have more to do with the strength of the original source material that showed through _in spite_ of some of the changes that were made.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Aug 27, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Well, it kinda goes without saying.



 What goes without saying?  That the LotR movies are better than the books? 

Seriously, though, I can't decide in that area.  I feel that there are areas where the books are superior to the movies, and areas where the movies are superior to the books.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Aug 27, 2004)

reanjr said:
			
		

> Oh, and ... Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.  The Coppola versions are much better.  Hmmm...  Godfather, Dracula, Frankenstein.  Coppola has a good track record for book->movie.




Did Coppola do _Mary Shelley's Frankenstein_?  I thought that was Kenneth Branagh, with DeNiro as the monster, Helena Bonham-Carter, et al. ....

If Coppola did it, I'm thinking of something different, in which case never mind the following:

I do have to say that, for me, the Branagh version of _Frankenstein_ was not better than the book, but then, I think the book is a work of genius, so I'm biased.  Still, how many times in the script did it read: Victor (Branagh) falls to his knees crying out to the heavens in furious angst.  With his shirt off.  In the rain.

Cleese was great in his brief cameo, though.

I agree that Coppola has done a great job with some of his book-to-film projects.  I liked _Bram Stoker's Dracula_, except for Keanu Reeves, who I thought was execrable as Harker.  _The Godfather I & II_ were excellent films (especially part II).  Way to go, Francis! 

Anyway, if I'm thinking of the wrong film, sorry, never mind, and we now return to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Thanks for listening!

Warrior Poet


----------



## Ferret (Aug 27, 2004)

The only one I can think of is...Nope. Can't think of one. Not a sausage. Or movie for that matter.


----------



## KenM (Aug 27, 2004)

My main beef with the Jurassic Park book/ movie is: 



Spoiler



they changed too much from the book to the movie, different people got killed, ect. All they took was the basic plot of the book


----------



## Kesh (Aug 28, 2004)

Knoxgamer said:
			
		

> 2001: A Space Odyssey, and 2010.



 Gotta disagree, there. The novels really hit stride with me, while the movies were a little too light. Kubrick's film was certainly good, but left out far too much.

As for the subject... hm. I really don't know of any. In every instance I can think of, the book was better than the film.


----------



## Krieg (Aug 28, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> My main beef with the Jurassic Park book/ movie is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can understand the streamlining of characters, but the one thing that has always bothered me is that in the film Hammond is a sweet old man who "did it for the children", in the book he is a right bastard who did it for the children "who's parents can pay for it"!


----------



## Dark Jezter (Aug 28, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> I can understand the streamlining of characters, but the one thing that has always bothered me is that in the film Hammond is a sweet old man who "did it for the children", in the book he is a right bastard who did it for the children "who's parents can pay for it"!



 I was just disappointed that the big game hunter died in the movie (I think his name was Muldoon); he was a very cool character in the book.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Aug 28, 2004)

I'll second Fight Club.  Good book, but even the author himself (Chuck Palahniuk) thought the film outdid it. 

Chuck's follow-up novel, _Survivor_ , was far better than Fight Club... it looks like the movie plans for it are stillborn, however...


----------



## Krieg (Aug 28, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I was just disappointed that the big game hunter died in the movie (I think his name was Muldoon); he was a very cool character in the book.



Yeah the fact he was taken completely surprise by the Raptor's tactics when they aren't any different from those employed by many contemporary big predators was a load.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 28, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> But that's a bit of a strawman.



Yep.  


> Some of those changes did have to be made because of the media involved.  Others did not, and were made for some other reason.



How's audience expectation grab you?



> It's hardly a given that one can relate the success of the movies on the _changes_ made to the books, though.  That could very well (and in my opinion for both movies) have more to do with the strength of the original source material that showed through _in spite_ of some of the changes that were made.



In those two cases, LotR was unfilmable as written, IMO, and therefore isn't a good example.  We could debate that, but it would get us nowhere, as you will never convince me (several have tried) that LotR could have been directly translated into a palatable film.  Jurassic Park, on the other hand, is debatable.

So here are what I see as the issues with the book that, good or bad, end up breaking audience expectation:

1) No romantic interest for the main character.  Wasn't even a significant change, anyway.

2) Politically incorrect: two kids.  1 boy, 1 girl.  In book, boy solves everything, girl only exists to cause problems.  Irritated me in the book, would irritate a movie audience.  Fix: Make girl older and marginally useful.  Don't understand the problem, personally.

3) Hammond was a right bastard.  Can't have your only senior citizen be a jerk who gets eaten by dinosaurs.  Not politically correct.  Bad change, but I can see why they made it.  Besides, the movie focused on the dinosaurs as the villains.  A mildly sympathetic human villain would have muddied the waters.

There are others, but I'm really tired and need sleep...

Mmmmmm... sleep...


----------



## Krieg (Aug 28, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> A mildly sympathetic human villain would have muddied the waters.



You mean kinda like Burke in Aliens? 


Of course Creighton's long winded commentary on chaos theory wouldn't have translated well. They handled it nicely (and more importantly succintly) with Goldblum's water drops.


----------



## Zulithe (Aug 28, 2004)

While not technically based off of (a single) book, I think Spider-Man 2 was better than most Spidey comics written over the last 20 years or so. Especially the ones from the 90s. Clone Saga, anyone?  Dozens of poorly written and drawn venom or carnage mini-series?

 And I disagree about the LotR movies being better, even though I LOVE the movies. Tolkien is unconventional, definitely doesn't follow the "rules" of writing a good story, but is brilliant and unsurpassed in the craft of fantasy writing IMO.


----------



## Jaws (Aug 28, 2004)

I thought the ending in the movie of the Pelican Brief was better than the book. The book was good too though.

As for movies like Jurassic Park, Hunt for Red October, and the Lord of the Rings trilogy; I thought the movie and the book were both good equally but for different reasons.


Peace and smiles 

j.


----------



## Aeric (Aug 28, 2004)

I read somewhere once that Coppola's Dracula was based on a stageplay written in the '60s, and not on the original novel.  From what I understand, the stageplay was where the romance between Vlad and Mina was added.  That being said, I felt that the movie was done well.  I didn't look at it as an adaptation of the book so much as a reinterpretation of it.  That being said, it was a good movie.


----------



## Orius (Aug 29, 2004)

I'll add another vote for _The Princess Bride_.  I just liked the movie better than the book, though the introduction in the book is pretty good.

 As for _The Lord of the Rings_, it's hard for me to compare. The movies are very well done, but some changes/additions kind of irritate me because they're Hollywood cliches, or they distort the original.


----------



## dreaded_beast (Aug 29, 2004)

While not a better movie based from a worse book, I think that the Buffy TV series was much better than the Buffy Movie.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 29, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> While not a better movie based from a worse book, I think that the Buffy TV series was much better than the Buffy Movie.




Heathen 

-Hyp.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Aug 30, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> While not a better movie based from a worse book, I think that the Buffy TV series was much better than the Buffy Movie.




Gah.  I think the Buffy movie is what is keeping me from ever watching the Buffy TV series.

Princess Bride defiantely makes a better movie than book.  Golding did a good job on it but really should have left out all the stuff about introducing it to his kids and re-writing it.  It breaks the atmosphere the story should be creating.  Not a fun read.

I enjoyed the first two Harry Potter movies much more than the books.  Of course I can't say i enjoyed the movies very much either.

Master & Commander: Far Side of the World was a much better movie than book.  I just find Patrick O'Brien nearly impossible to read.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 30, 2004)

The obvious:

_The Godfather_ and _The Godfather, Part II_. I really like the novel but those films are spectacular.

I also agree with those voting for _The Lord of the Rings_. The only problem I have with the novel is that Tolkien's technical writing ability is exactly what you'd expect of an interwar professor of philology - i.e., not much chop.

The obscure:

_The Devil's Advocate_, which is literally my favourite film of all time and the first acting performance of Keanu Reeves' screen career. Andrew Niederman's book is interesting but the film, which takes little other than its central premise from the novel, is far superior. Full credit to Johnathan Lemkin for taking a decent idea and turning it into a spectacular one.

(The reason it's my favourite film is simple: I wrote my Honours thesis on representations of the Devil in cinema, and I discovered that I can watch it over and over again without getting bored. It's not the only film with this property for me, but it's got *such* an excellent premise.)

_A Time To Kill_ - There are so many excellent actors in this film, they lift it above the fairly mediocre John Grisham potboiler it's based on.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 30, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Yeah the fact he was taken completely surprise by the Raptor's tactics when they aren't any different from those employed by many contemporary big predators was a load.



 The story was given a typical "Hollywood" makeover to soften the ending and make the characters more likeable.  It was great for the special effects and visual impact but I thought the story was much better the way Crichton wrote it.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Aug 30, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> I know, I know. I don't want to hijack thish thread. If we want to talk about why I think the LotR movies are better then the books, someone start a new thread please.




When you'd rather watch the movie than read the book? never read any Tolkein nor want to.... same goes for alot of stuff... I thought Battlefield Earth was ok but I'll NEVER read the book.


----------



## Someone (Aug 30, 2004)

Ben-Hur.


----------



## Tanager (Aug 30, 2004)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Gotta disagree, there. The novels really hit stride with me, while the movies were a little too light. Kubrick's film was certainly good, but left out far too much.
> 
> As for the subject... hm. I really don't know of any. In every instance I can think of, the book was better than the film.





I think that's a little unfair to Kubrick as the novel _2001: A space Odyssey_ was only really begun as they (Kubrick and Clarke) roughed out the screenplay together. The original source for the project was an earlier short story by Clarke called, I believe, _The Sentinel_. I haven't read it so I can't comment on any changes there.


----------



## RogueRonin (Aug 31, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> *puts on flame proof suit*  The Lord of the Rings. I think JRRT's style is not very good. He spends too much time describing almost every blade of grass, and the characters break off into some song that has nothing to due with the main plot. He glosses over major inportant plot points, while over describing small details that don't move the plot along. IE: At the end of FOTR, when the orcs attck and the fellowship breaks up, JRRT just mentions breifly the orcs attacking, no real details of the fight. I understand JRRT was a pacifst and did not like to talk about violence, but when you are talking about a war, you need to describe the battles as well as the world. The first part of FotR novel is also very slow in getting going.




I agree with this completely. I didn't get around to reading the books until I heard there were movie versions in the works. This was a while before the first film came out. So I read the books first, and went to the movie expecting to be very bored, but I wasn't at all. I can see how people would disagree, but that's what I think. I shouldn't say that the movies are _better_, but I enjoyed them more than the books.


----------



## Angcuru (Aug 31, 2004)

_The Princess Bride_ film was a lot better than the book, IMO.  Even with the unnecessary old dude talking to his grandkid.  Especially the dialogue added in the Wesley / Inigo fight.   

The Lord of the Rings movie was better then the books in the manner that it was far more emotionally gripping and entertaining than the books.  Other than that, it was one man's interperetation/vision of the books made into a movie.  Tolkien's writing is brilliant in the way that such amazing, never-before-seen concepts are portrayed in a story that will never go out of popularity.  BUT it has no real entertainment value for me.  The movies are more entertaining, but the books are informative, and put your imagination into overdrive.  Each have their ups and downs, and myself, I'd rather watcht the movies than read the books, even though the books are a damned good read, even the third time around.  Emotional eye-candy vs. Intellectual mind-candy.  You decide.

Green Mile, definitely better as a movie.  

Dune, Dune Messiah, and Children of Dune (the recent ones) were good movies, but only _Dune_ itself was better than the book, IMO. Messiah and Children seemed very rushed, although I liked the really rugged Muad'dib prophet look.  Really crusty, cool, and awesome-creepy.     The first Dune was a good movie, but strayed so far from the book that I won't even consider it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 31, 2004)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> _The Princess Bride_ film was a lot better than the book, IMO.  Even with the unnecessary old dude talking to his grandkid.  Especially the dialogue added in the Wesley / Inigo fight.




I enjoyed the book.

The movie is my all-time favourite film. 



> The first Dune was a good movie...




"Ha!  Usul, we have wormsign the likes of which even _God_ has never seen!"

-Hyp.


----------



## shilsen (Aug 31, 2004)

Someone said:
			
		

> Ben-Hur.



 Interesting. I really like the movie, but I thought the book was far better.


----------



## rangerjohn (Aug 31, 2004)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> I thought Battlefield Earth was ok but I'll NEVER read the book.



The thing about Battlefied Earth is he tried to put too much in one book.  I read the first part, which didn't make it into the movie.  It had a totally different feel.
So much so it through me off stride for the rest of the book and I wasn't able to finish it.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 31, 2004)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> I thought Battlefield Earth was ok




Well, that shows such a disturbing level of taste that all of your opinions concerning movie quality become quite suspect, at least in my eyes.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 31, 2004)

After reading his good Battlefield Earth Dekology I tried to read Battlefield Earth...I got about 200 pages in, looked at the 1000 or so pages I still had to go and said to myself, "What the HELL am I thinking?" and put it down.  I use it to level my couch.


----------



## Villano (Aug 31, 2004)

I just remembered another one, *The Mothman Prophecies*.

The movie has been described as an average X-Files episode.  That's still a million times better than the book, which is typical UFO conspiracy theory stuff.  To cite some examples of the book:

The author, John Keel, claims that UFOs aren't from other worlds but other dimensions and that they were the inspiration for leprechauns and other magical creatures.  What's funny is that he mocks those that believe they come from space.  As if one theory is more credible than the other.  :\ 

Then he talks about a teacher or professor who commited a series of burglaries and blamed it on being abducted by aliens.  Keel then asks the reader if aliens are brainwashing people to commit crimes, to which he replies, "The disturbing answer is yes" (or words to that effect).  He then goes on to say that many assassins have claimed to have been guided by "God", including the killers of Abraham Lincoln!   

That's right, ole Honest Abe was murdered on order of aliens.  And, if you follow Keel's trail of logic, Lincoln was killed by alien leprechauns from another dimension!   

Makes "average X-Files episode" look good, doesn't it?

EDIT:  In case anyone missed my point, Keel maintains that his book is non-fiction.  It's supposed to be about his investigation of the Mothman sightings.  That's what makes the Abe Lincoln thing funny.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 31, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> You mean kinda like Burke in Aliens?



Yep.  I'm not saying I agree with the sentiment of Hollywood, but it's clear they think that way.  Aliens gave the audience a fair bit more credit than Jurassic Park did.



			
				Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> The story was given a typical "Hollywood" makeover to soften the ending and make the characters more likeable.  It was great for the special effects and visual impact but I thought the story was much better the way Crichton wrote it.



Mostly agreed.  But it had more emotional resonance in the movie.  The relationships between the characters were simpler and more straightforward, which is pretty much expected in a big budget movie nowadays.

In Hollywood, the public is assumed dumb, and we do very little to prove otherwise.


----------



## Spatula (Sep 1, 2004)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> Dune, Dune Messiah, and Children of Dune (the recent ones) were good movies, but only _Dune_ itself was better than the book, IMO.



You're kidding, right?  Please tell me you're kidding.  The Sci-Fi Dune was terrible.  Terrible acting.  Very poor casting.  Changes from the source throughout (despite the director/adapter talking about how he was going to make a faithful adaptation of the book).  The special effects and sets were bad, but I expected that, at least.


			
				Angcuru said:
			
		

> The first Dune was a good movie, but strayed so far from the book that I won't even consider it.



Well, Herbert was happy with it.  Both Lynch's and the Sci-Fi adaptations change quite a bit from the book.  Lynch's version is certainly the better film.

Dune, the novel, is basically unfilmable (much like LotR, although for different reasons).  Everything that makes it a great book are things that cannot be adaquately translated to film.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Sep 1, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well, that shows such a disturbing level of taste that all of your opinions concerning movie quality become quite suspect, at least in my eyes.




Everyone has varying tastes in stuff. Just because you're more narrow-minded in your "tastes", don't ridicule those of us who are more broad-minded. 

Personally, I think Monty Python is stupid, mostly for that stupid custom or reciting every bloody line in the movie. That :: me off more than the flick itself. And why I won't watch another bloody Monty Python flick ever.

I prefer watching Spaceballs if I want to watch a parody flick.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Sep 1, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> You're kidding, right?  Please tell me you're kidding.  The Sci-Fi Dune was terrible.  Terrible acting.  Very poor casting.  Changes from the source throughout (despite the director/adapter talking about how he was going to make a faithful adaptation of the book).  The special effects and sets were bad, but I expected that, at least.
> Well, Herbert was happy with it.  Both Lynch's and the Sci-Fi adaptations change quite a bit from the book.  Lynch's version is certainly the better film.
> 
> Dune, the novel, is basically unfilmable (much like LotR, although for different reasons).  Everything that makes it a great book are things that cannot be adaquately translated to film.




Never saw all the Dune movies on Sci-Fi. The 80s movie was ok at best but the books were much, much better. I read those things multiple times back in school.


----------



## drnuncheon (Sep 1, 2004)

Holy Bovine said:
			
		

> Gah.  I think the Buffy movie is what is keeping me from ever watching the Buffy TV series.



 Don't let it.  In fact, expunge the movie from your mind as much as possible.  The TV series is what Whedon wanted to do all along, the movie got Hollywoodized.



> Princess Bride defiantely makes a better movie than book. Golding did a good job on it but really should have left out all the stuff about introducing it to his kids and re-writing it. It breaks the atmosphere the story should be creating. Not a fun read.



 Wow.  I'm surprised at how many people said this.  

 I usually regard the movie as a great example of what to do when adapting a novel to the big screen.  It is faithful to the story where it can be and abandons the things that wouldn't work in the new medium.   Of course, it helps that Goldman wrote the screenplay as well as the book.

 That said, TPB is one of my three favorite books (along with The Hobbit and Bridge of Birds by Barry Hughart).  The movie was a great fairytale, but the book added another layer to be enjoyed.  For me the little asides about what was excised and why were as enjoyable as the main story- maybe because I've read novels like Les Miserables which are exactly the sort of thing he's parodying.  And reading it after seeing the movie was akin to the experience Goldman supposedly had when first reading the unabridged Morganstern.  Those extra levels made the book more complex, more mature and ultimately - in my case at least - more enjoyable.

 J


----------



## Klaus (Sep 1, 2004)

IIRC, the Dracula/Vlad Tepes correlation was added after the studies of two scholars, Raymond McNally and Radu Florescu. The Bram Stoker novel just isn't as entertaining without the Vlad Tepes side of Dracula.

So I vote for Coppolla's Dracula as being better than Bram Stoker's.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 2, 2004)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> That said, TPB is one of my three favorite books (along with The Hobbit and Bridge of Birds by Barry Hughart).



 I'm with you.  I don't consider the movie to be better, per se, but a great compliment.  Supposedly, a reviewer for the Philadelphia Inquirer got fired when he reviewed the book, and didn't realize that Goldman was joking about being an original story from his native homeland.  But I consider it to be one of the best examples of successfully translating a book into a movie.  They complement each other (where did he really get that Holocaust Cloak?  Read the Book!)

 The Hobbit goes without saying, and Bridge of Birds is just a wonderful, wonderful book.  I may go reread and it's sequels soon. 

 Concerning Tolkien, Shelley and Stoker:  I love the LotR movies more than the books, but let's remember that the books _aren't _novels, they're trying to recreate an nordic saga.  Tolkien knew how to write a novel...that's not what he was doing.  That doesn't mean I want to read them, but let's be fair.  Shelley was writing a gothic story in the early 1800s, and the rules for writing were different, then.  Stoker....well, OK, you got me on Stoker. 

 I would vote for Stephen King's 'It'.  While it foundered a little bit towards the end, I thought the miniseries was just better than the book, which lost it's way much sooner. 

 My biggest complaint about Jurassic Park (which was an awesome read), was that the lawyer was made into a comical 1-d bad guy, when in the book he was one of the most sympathetic good guys.  And he didn't die as part of a poop joke. :\


----------



## Templetroll (Sep 2, 2004)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (but hey, Roald Dahl wrote the screenplay, so in effect, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is an earlier draft of the work).




I understand a new movie of that will be made.  Apparently, the Dahl family was not happy with the Gene Wilder version.  Go figure.  My wife despises the grandfather character in the movie.  She blames him for all the trouble Charlie gets into.  I thought he had all the bad traits a kid could have, so I agree with her on that.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 2, 2004)

Templetroll said:
			
		

> I understand a new movie of that will be made. Apparently, the Dahl family was not happy with the Gene Wilder version. Go figure. My wife despises the grandfather character in the movie. She blames him for all the trouble Charlie gets into. I thought he had all the bad traits a kid could have, so I agree with her on that.



 Roald Dahl _hated_ the movie so much that he denied them the rights to its sequel.  I know that my sister and brother, who were something like 9 and 7 at the time, thought it was one of the BEST MOVIES EVAR, and they were big fans of the books, as well.  I think that Willy Wonka isn't faithful to the books, but is an excellent movie, anyhow (Much the way some folks feel about Jackson's version of LotR, afaik).  I'm a huge fan of the original myself, but seeing Tim Burton and Johnny Depp try the material on for size looks to be very interesting, too.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 2, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> (Much the way some folks feel about Jackson's version of LotR, afaik).




 

the books are better. for all of the above movies.

i haven't read a book that became a movie where the movie was better.


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 2, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I would vote for Stephen King's 'It'. While it foundered a little bit towards the end, I thought the miniseries was just better than the book, which lost it's way much sooner.



Holy crap, there really _is_ no accounting for taste.  I also disagree with the couple of people who say that the _Green Mile_ movie is better than the novel. Unless you dislike King's style in general, what's in the book is pretty much what's on the screen. The film was way too long though, IMO. As for Coppolla's treatment of _Dracula_, _don't_ get me started!

Hmm, what was the original question again..?


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 2, 2004)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Everyone has varying tastes in stuff. Just because you're more narrow-minded in your "tastes", don't ridicule those of us who are more broad-minded.




Yes, and in my opinion, your tastes in movies appear to be so whacky that it makes all of your movie opinions suspect. _Battlefield Earth_ was such an unwatchable piece of drek that I find it hard to believe that anyone has a neutral opinion regarding it, let alone a favorable one.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 2, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes, and in my opinion, your tastes in movies appear to be so whacky that it makes all of your movie opinions suspect. _Battlefield Earth_ was such an unwatchable piece of drek that I find it hard to believe that anyone has a neutral opinion regarding it, let alone a favorable one.



 To put this in proper context, let's look at the reviews for Battlefield Earth.  Tally on Rotten Tomatoes?  *4%*.  And that's including the one positive review that says "Is it worth seeing once?  Sure."  And that's the only positive comment in the review.  It's average, on IMDB.com is 2.6%, placing it at #29 on the bottom list.  That is, of the massive number of films that IMDB.com charts, it is only 28 from the worst film rated, and of the bottom 100, it has more votes than other movie, at nearly 13,000 votes.  Only Speed 2 comes close, and it's down in the 90s.  It has a poorer rating than such cinematic titans as "Hercules in New York" and "Police Academy 6".

 It's total gross was about $30 Million US, and it was budgeted at $73 million, not including marketing campaigns.  Travolta's pay was based on box-office performance...so when it tanked, he got much-less than his standard rate.  

 This isn't to say you aren't entitled to like it...but by virtually every yard-stick I tend to measure such things by, it's a bad movie.  I have some guilty pleasures, too...but I recognize that "Death Race 2000" and "The Sword and the Sorceror" are really bad movies.  I love 'em all the same.  But I'm not going to try and defend them as being oscar-worthy.


----------



## Orius (Sep 2, 2004)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> I usually regard the movie as a great example of what to do when adapting a novel to the big screen. It is faithful to the story where it can be and abandons the things that wouldn't work in the new medium. Of course, it helps that Goldman wrote the screenplay as well as the book.
> 
> That said, TPB is one of my three favorite books (along with The Hobbit and Bridge of Birds by Barry Hughart). The movie was a great fairytale, but the book added another layer to be enjoyed. For me the little asides about what was excised and why were as enjoyable as the main story- maybe because I've read novels like Les Miserables which are exactly the sort of thing he's parodying. And reading it after seeing the movie was akin to the experience Goldman supposedly had when first reading the unabridged Morganstern. Those extra levels made the book more complex, more mature and ultimately - in my case at least - more enjoyable.



 I liked the bits about Morgenstern's original story in the book.  Here's a story he loved hearing as a kid, he gets the book for his son, his son is bored to death, and he thinks, "What the hell?!"  Then he goes back, actually reads it and finds out it's a long, boring political satire, yet his father somehow learned how to extract the fun parts into a story.  So he decides to rewrite it as a cool swashbuckling romance instead of some long-winded anti-nobility rant or something (I might be remembering some of this wrong, it's been a while since I read the book).

 The movie leaves that out, because it's too complex to put on screen.  But it does leave in the story-in-a-story element.


----------



## Karl Green (Sep 2, 2004)

Interesting reads so far...

Mine would be *The Thirteenth Warrior* based on one of the most BORRING stories I have ever forced myself to read *Eaters of the Dead* by Michael Criton (sp). I had just read *Jurassic Park* and thought _wow he is good writter, lets see what else he has put out and read that also!_ 

Anyway the movie was fun, and SOOO much better then the story


----------



## Dark Jezter (Sep 5, 2004)

I've got another entry:

The movie *Red Dragon* (the one starring Edward Norton, not *Manhunter* starring William Peterson, which was based on the same book) is better than the original novel by Thomas Harris.


----------



## Cymex666 (Sep 5, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Most people I know who've read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" have felt that Blade Runner was better.




I completely agree. Also, I feel that the book and the movie bear little relation to one another.


----------



## Ununnilium (Sep 5, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> To put this in proper context, let's look at the reviews for Battlefield Earth.  Tally on Rotten Tomatoes?  *4%*.




<snip similar stuff>

IMHO, gauging how good a movie is, based on reviews, doesn't work very well.  Some of my favorite works have been universally panned, and there's stuff the great majority of people love that just leaves me cold.

Having said that, yeah, Battlefield Earth wasn't very good.  Book was much better.

Andrew "NO .SIG MAN" "Juan" Perron, friggin...


----------

