Moives better then the book?

psu199 · 10-05-2003, 12:03 PM

Hey, my friend and I were talking about how every single movie that was based of a book was a relitive dissapointment.

Every movie was not as good as the book we felt. While there deffinatly are good book/movie transformations (Jurrasic Park, The Tom Clancy series, LOTR, Harry Potter, etc...) We couldn't come up with one that we felt the movie improved on the book. Was just wondering if anyone could think of one, or had any opinoins on the subject.

Tuco · 10-05-2003, 01:04 PM

I think the problem with converting a book into a movie is both complexity in a movie and time constraints.

It's easy to write, 'Our adventurer joe walked into a beautiful garden with a streaming blue waterfall etc etc.' For those that have active imaginations, we already imagined an adventurer with a sword at his side, chain maille or leather, walking into a paradise in awe. Now creating that scene is another story. And of course the watcher of a film is given less freedom of imagination than a reader of a book.

While a book might take 50-80 hours to read, few movies exceed 3 hours for a book.

Therefore, books have a far greater amount of content. Most of us eat content up like mom's sugar cookies, so we like books.

Personally, I liked LoTR the movies more than the books. I read the books multiple times, but the movies are more awe inspiring to me. Just a personal opinion.

(Another reason is that porting a movie from a book means they can sell the name andm ake a subpar movie people want to see)

Cybsled · 10-05-2003, 05:01 PM

I'd have to say Jurassic Park 2. The movie ended with the dinosaurs being alive, unlike the book where they had madcow disease and died.

ChewieTobbacca · 10-05-2003, 05:05 PM

lol personally i thought the jurassic park movies sucked (well 1 was pretty good) compared to the books

problem with books to movies is... movies are limited by what the audience can see and hear

a book can go in depth into feelings and character whereas a movie is limited in that scope and what not

not to mention that hte books that can be adapted into movies based mainly on simple lots or whatever are generally not very good books whereas the good books are turned into bad movies

Uber Uberest ~Rathe · 10-05-2003, 08:29 PM

Some books are slow going like The Firm by John Grisham but when it was mad einto a move with Gene Hackman it blew the book out of the water.

I'd also have to say that The Shawshank Redemption was better as a movie, I only say this because Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins truly portray what the characters in the book should have been.

My girlfriend wants me to put down East of Eden, because "James Dean is hot."

Snootay · 10-05-2003, 09:22 PM

I will be lynched for this, but I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were far, far better than the books.

Tolkein is just too verbose and dry for me. Not that I mind detailed adventures and am afraid of big words; far from it. However, he spent way too much time detailing the world and not enough time telling a story. You could skip entire pages and read two paragraphs, then skip another page and read another paragraph, and still follow the story because he spent so much time doing nothing but describing every flower in the field they were crossing.

Ham n Cheese · 10-05-2003, 09:25 PM

Hahaha... Robert Jordan is Tolkien^3

Cybsled · 10-05-2003, 09:27 PM

I always wanted to see Stephen King's novella "The Mist" made into a movie. That story used to creep the shit out of me. It's the one where that fog rolls in and all the people in town are holed up in the supermarket because of all the twisted shit living in it.

Snootay · 10-05-2003, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ham n Cheese
Hahaha... Robert Jordan is Tolkien^3

Yeah. I have that conversation with my friends all the time.

"Dude, you should read Wheel of Time!"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because Robert Jordan sucks."
"WHAT!? He's like Tolkein, man!"
"..."

Muuru · 10-05-2003, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Snootay
I will be lynched for this, but I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were far, far better than the books.

Tolkein is just too verbose and dry for me. Not that I mind detailed adventures and am afraid of big words; far from it. However, he spent way too much time detailing the world and not enough time telling a story. You could skip entire pages and read two paragraphs, then skip another page and read another paragraph, and still follow the story because he spent so much time doing nothing but describing every flower in the field they were crossing.

Funny, I found that to be just the way the first film was made compared to the second one! The first film was about an hour of helicopter pan shots of the heroic band crossing vast landscapes, and about 2 hours of actual substance. The second movie, on the other hand, had very little of that in it. That's why I almost left partway through the first one, I was bored to tears!

Iannis · 10-05-2003, 09:58 PM

I think they could quite possibly condense the first 5 or something books of the Wheel of Time into one movie.

As much fun as pages of Rand saying OMG THE ULTIMATE EVIL fuckz0r he was just one of the 11 disciples of the ultimate evil OH GOD I'M INSANE BECAUSE I'M A MALE WIZARD wait, why am I having long pointless internal debates if i'm insane, OMFG HOT BONDAGE DOMINTRAX SEX TOWER OMGOMGOMG I CREAMED MY PANTS etc...

Ugh. Give me a nice 150 page Peter Beagle book that is capable of building a world, telling the story, and getting out of it with no sequel anyday. The only Beagle book that had a pseudo-sequel was The Innkeeper's Tale...remember he included a short story with the two characters in Giant Bones.

Zanoan · 10-06-2003, 12:30 AM

I think all the 3 Hannibal movies were made pretty good. I think Thomas Harris' writing can be hard to really imagine sometimes and it gives you an unclear picture of the enviroment. But he's good at describing personalities and characters (naturally, just look at Dr. Lecter). So that'd be my best guess if a movie was better than the books, and I'm not saying the books are bad.

I also think Waterworld with Kevin Costner was made pretty brilliantly in comparison to the book.

Well, LOTR.. I dunno. I happened to be one of those morons who started to read the books AFTER the movies. Well, atleast half of them. I read them all between FOTR and TTT. And I must admit, that I had trouble getting a clear view of the many descriptions and hard details that Tolkien fantasized about. It was way easier in FOTR because I saw the movie already and Jackson made an amazing work out of it too (the shire, rivendell etc. etc.).

But I still think the books are good, but I'd say the movies are really great too so far. And no, lets NOT turn this into a TTT-sucked-because-the-storyline-has-gone-off and yada yada.

Uber Uberest ~Rathe · 10-06-2003, 04:38 AM

Wasn't The Godfather a book? If it was even though I never read it I would have to say the movie was better. Also I forgot Jaws, the first time I saw that I was probably 13 and I couldnt go in the water without being petrified.

Oakman · 10-06-2003, 05:50 AM

fight club

Diakonov · 10-06-2003, 06:30 AM

Forest Gump. Not that the move wasn't great but i personally liked the book over the movie. They left a considerable amount (kinda had to) such as Forest being a chess wiz, going into space, a wrestling champ, several others.

10-05-2003, 12:03 PM	#1 (permalink)
psu199 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 546 -3 Internets	Moives better then the book? Hey, my friend and I were talking about how every single movie that was based of a book was a relitive dissapointment. Every movie was not as good as the book we felt. While there deffinatly are good book/movie transformations (Jurrasic Park, The Tom Clancy series, LOTR, Harry Potter, etc...) We couldn't come up with one that we felt the movie improved on the book. Was just wondering if anyone could think of one, or had any opinoins on the subject.

10-05-2003, 05:01 PM	#3 (permalink)
Cybsled Registered User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 9,214 +14 Internets	I'd have to say Jurassic Park 2. The movie ended with the dinosaurs being alive, unlike the book where they had madcow disease and died. __________________ Training the citizens of Norrath from 1999-2003!

10-05-2003, 09:27 PM	#8 (permalink)
Cybsled Registered User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 9,214 +14 Internets	I always wanted to see Stephen King's novella "The Mist" made into a movie. That story used to creep the shit out of me. It's the one where that fog rolls in and all the people in town are holed up in the supermarket because of all the twisted shit living in it. __________________ Training the citizens of Norrath from 1999-2003!

10-06-2003, 12:30 AM	#12 (permalink)
Zanoan I wish I was queer, so I could get chicks Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 1,840 -3 Internets	Well I think all the 3 Hannibal movies were made pretty good. I think Thomas Harris' writing can be hard to really imagine sometimes and it gives you an unclear picture of the enviroment. But he's good at describing personalities and characters (naturally, just look at Dr. Lecter). So that'd be my best guess if a movie was better than the books, and I'm not saying the books are bad. I also think Waterworld with Kevin Costner was made pretty brilliantly in comparison to the book. Well, LOTR.. I dunno. I happened to be one of those morons who started to read the books AFTER the movies. Well, atleast half of them. I read them all between FOTR and TTT. And I must admit, that I had trouble getting a clear view of the many descriptions and hard details that Tolkien fantasized about. It was way easier in FOTR because I saw the movie already and Jackson made an amazing work out of it too (the shire, rivendell etc. etc.). But I still think the books are good, but I'd say the movies are really great too so far. And no, lets NOT turn this into a TTT-sucked-because-the-storyline-has-gone-off and yada yada.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

10-05-2003, 01:04 PM	#2 (permalink)
Tuco Forum Janitor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Detroit Posts: 8,216 +12 Internets	I think the problem with converting a book into a movie is both complexity in a movie and time constraints. It's easy to write, 'Our adventurer joe walked into a beautiful garden with a streaming blue waterfall etc etc.' For those that have active imaginations, we already imagined an adventurer with a sword at his side, chain maille or leather, walking into a paradise in awe. Now creating that scene is another story. And of course the watcher of a film is given less freedom of imagination than a reader of a book. While a book might take 50-80 hours to read, few movies exceed 3 hours for a book. Therefore, books have a far greater amount of content. Most of us eat content up like mom's sugar cookies, so we like books. Personally, I liked LoTR the movies more than the books. I read the books multiple times, but the movies are more awe inspiring to me. Just a personal opinion. (Another reason is that porting a movie from a book means they can sell the name andm ake a subpar movie people want to see)

10-05-2003, 05:05 PM	#4 (permalink)
ChewieTobbacca is a maverick pirate. Yarrrrr Join Date: May 2003 Location: Southern California Posts: 1,697	lol personally i thought the jurassic park movies sucked (well 1 was pretty good) compared to the books problem with books to movies is... movies are limited by what the audience can see and hear a book can go in depth into feelings and character whereas a movie is limited in that scope and what not not to mention that hte books that can be adapted into movies based mainly on simple lots or whatever are generally not very good books whereas the good books are turned into bad movies

10-05-2003, 08:29 PM	#5 (permalink)
Uber Uberest ~Rathe Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 1,710 +0 Internets	Some books are slow going like The Firm by John Grisham but when it was mad einto a move with Gene Hackman it blew the book out of the water. I'd also have to say that The Shawshank Redemption was better as a movie, I only say this because Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins truly portray what the characters in the book should have been. My girlfriend wants me to put down East of Eden, because "James Dean is hot."

10-05-2003, 09:22 PM	#6 (permalink)
Snootay Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 189 -1 Internets	I will be lynched for this, but I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were far, far better than the books. Tolkein is just too verbose and dry for me. Not that I mind detailed adventures and am afraid of big words; far from it. However, he spent way too much time detailing the world and not enough time telling a story. You could skip entire pages and read two paragraphs, then skip another page and read another paragraph, and still follow the story because he spent so much time doing nothing but describing every flower in the field they were crossing.

10-05-2003, 09:25 PM	#7 (permalink)
Ham n Cheese You can betray me Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 8,659 +20 Internets	Hahaha... Robert Jordan is Tolkien^3

10-05-2003, 09:58 PM	#11 (permalink)
Iannis Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Butt Hugging Moose Jockey Posts: 4,968 +0 Internets	I think they could quite possibly condense the first 5 or something books of the Wheel of Time into one movie. As much fun as pages of Rand saying OMG THE ULTIMATE EVIL fuckz0r he was just one of the 11 disciples of the ultimate evil OH GOD I'M INSANE BECAUSE I'M A MALE WIZARD wait, why am I having long pointless internal debates if i'm insane, OMFG HOT BONDAGE DOMINTRAX SEX TOWER OMGOMGOMG I CREAMED MY PANTS etc... Ugh. Give me a nice 150 page Peter Beagle book that is capable of building a world, telling the story, and getting out of it with no sequel anyday. The only Beagle book that had a pseudo-sequel was The Innkeeper's Tale...remember he included a short story with the two characters in Giant Bones.

10-06-2003, 04:38 AM	#13 (permalink)
Uber Uberest ~Rathe Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 1,710 +0 Internets	Wasn't The Godfather a book? If it was even though I never read it I would have to say the movie was better. Also I forgot Jaws, the first time I saw that I was probably 13 and I couldnt go in the water without being petrified.

10-06-2003, 05:50 AM	#14 (permalink)
Oakman Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 462 -2 Internets	fight club

10-06-2003, 06:30 AM	#15 (permalink)
Diakonov Registered User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Mongolia Posts: 294 -1 Internets	Forest Gump. Not that the move wasn't great but i personally liked the book over the movie. They left a considerable amount (kinda had to) such as Forest being a chess wiz, going into space, a wrestling champ, several others.