has there been any movie that was......

[avidreader55]

Originally posted by froggerz40
Dan-o
Incidentally, I thought Tim Curry was perfect, as Pennywise the Clown! D.

Tim Curry was much better as Frank-n-Furter... Oh, never mind, completely different topic. Just wanted to comment.

 

[avidreader55]

Originally posted by murphyz
[B

Other films better than books include the Godfather and Watership Down.


Mxx [/B]

Nope, nope... Watership Down was much better as a book.

 

[Ell]

Nope, nope... Watership Down was much better as a book.

Thank-you, thank-you. My feelings exactly, but can't seem to find many others who agree.

Tim Curry as Pennywise totally freaked me out - so did the job. [He was perfect as Frank 'n Furter ]

 

[Beatrycze]

I wouldn't agree that "Gone with the wind" was better as a film. In the book the relationship between Rhett and Scarlett was presented in more equal way. In the film, it looked like he did everything to conquer her and she rejected him.In the book it was different- he never confessed that he loved her, he mocked at her and made her think that she was only a sexual object for him.I think that the writer or director liked him and showed him in more positive way.
I think that it's impossible to make better film than book is, as film is always more definite and puts limits on you and doesn't let the imagination work. You can like film more only when you watched it before reading the book. Therefore books based on the films are always unreadable.

 

[member 737]

Re: Interesting Choices

Originally posted by Oberon
I think Harrison Ford's voice-over work was terrible.
O

I agree with you here, Oberon. It was completely unnecessary and it made an impression of treating viewers like children, who are not able to figure out by themselves what the actions on the screen can mean. Besides, in a film a picture is what should say most.

 

[Oberon]

Voice over

Not so much whether the voice over was necessary or not--especially the early narrations sounded as if Ford didn't understand what he was reading! And Ridley Scott should have sat down and chatted with Ford about that!

O

 

[member 737]

Maybe he didn't.

If there is still a discussion whether his character was an android, or not...From what I've read, Ford and Scott have different opinions about this small, unimportant, minor detail.

 

[Marc Sulinski]

Of course the director's cut of Blade Runner has no voice over, and has a different ending. From what I understand, Ridley Scott did not want a voiceover, but he was getting pressure from the studio, so he wanted Harrison to read it in the most monotone, dull voice he could possibly do. The hope was that the studio would dislike the voiceover and not use it.

 

[Martin]

And boy, did that backfire!

Cheers, Martin

 

[member 737]

Originally posted by Marc Sulinski
Of course the director's cut of Blade Runner has no voice over, and has a different ending.

Different ending? So how does the film end in the director's cut?

 

[Marc Sulinski]

In the ending of the director's cut of Blade Runner,

Spoiler

it is revealed that Dicard is actually a replicant. The scene with the unicorn from the theatrical version is not present.

There may be other differences as well, but that is all I remember right now.

 

[corythosaurus]

I prefered the theatrical release of Mystic River over the book. Dennis LeHane is one of my favorites, but I thought the story played better as a movie than on the written page.

 

[member 737]

Originally posted by Marc Sulinski In the ending of the director's cut of Blade Runner

I heard that this could be the truth, but I'm still surprised. For me, it doesn't match the film at all.

 

[mr_michel]

i have the feeling that i have posted in a similar thread, maybe it was books that dissapoints, but anyway here are my two cents

the exorcist
rosemary's baby
forrest gump
sophie's choice

in the other hand, in the as good as the book category
murder on the orient express (even when it has one of the less liked pourot actors)
chronicle of a foretold death
like water for chocolat
the latest version of pantaleon y las visitadoras (Captain Pantoja and the Special Services in english acording to amazon) was pretty good, funny fact, vargas llosa direct its own version in 1975 and it was pretty bad

thats what comes to mind right now

 

[Jenem]

i also think i have posted about this before. but my answer is "The Princess Bride". The book was close to terrible. It was written after the movie, and it included a lot of personal (but fictional) tangents that i found boring and depressing. the movie is actually one of my favorites and the book is on my "never read again" list

*ah, i see The Princess Bride post in here. this is where i remember this from

 

[Linguana]

Actually, this phenomenon has happened to me a lot lately! First, I love Nicholas Sparks adaptations - they're usually better than the books, but I think only because in the movies (A Walk To Remember and The Notebook) they show much more little things than make you love the characters and understand their love for each other more, which is totally omitted in the books and just taken for granted.
I also preferred the Lotr movies to the books, although I always argue about that with myself, since I think the book can't be compared to anything - not even their own movie adaptation

Then there are some movies I liked a lot, although not better than the book, for example Little Women or Dangerous Liaisons (and Cruel Intentions which is only the modern version of it - which much better looking actors )

 

[Michigan]

I think there's at least one

I think there's at least one case of a movie that's better than a book. I've read the Princess Diaries books. Trust me, the movie was better. Although I don't know about this new one, it looks pretty dumb.

Generally I think the books are better. You can fit more into a book.

 

[Oberon]

Posted this on a similar thread: "M*A*S*H" succeeded both as a movie and series better than the book.

I liked "Carrie" better than the book and it was certainly a good adaptation of a Stephen King novel.

There's another side of this adaptation business that many have touched on. Do we like or dislike the movie version because of fidelity to the book? For instance, the first two Harry Potter movies are slavishly detailed and follow the books as closely as possible within the limitations of time and budget. The third film definitely leaves a lot of stuff out. I happen to think the third one is better for having made choices and because it is better directed. The first two movies suffer from an abuse of "reaction shots" -- the faces of various characters reacting to situations.

Discuss!

 

[novella]

Posted this on a similar thread: "M*A*S*H" succeeded both as a movie and series better than the book.

I liked "Carrie" better than the book and it was certainly a good adaptation of a Stephen King novel.

There's another side of this adaptation business that many have touched on. Do we like or dislike the movie version because of fidelity to the book? For instance, the first two Harry Potter movies are slavishly detailed and follow the books as closely as possible within the limitations of time and budget. The third film definitely leaves a lot of stuff out. I happen to think the third one is better for having made choices and because it is better directed. The first two movies suffer from an abuse of "reaction shots" -- the faces of various characters reacting to situations.

Discuss!

Maybe the expectations you bring to a movie weigh a lot. I remember when I was very young how devastating it was to see To Kill a Mockingbird (a great movie) and feel that it did not fairly represent the book, which I was awed by.

On the other hand, the movie Adaptation, inspired by The Orchid Thief, is brilliant, and nobody going to see that has the expectation of seeing the book brought literally to the screen.

There's also the whole expectation from technology now, that a more "realistic", closer rendition on screen is possible. If you look at an old movie like The Grapes of Wrath, it's rather stiff and folksy and preachy, but is still considered a classic tour de force. If you made that movie now, the reviews would be terrible, because one expects to see, feel and be so much more with and in the characters, to have the production appear unstaged.

Some books lend themselves really well to screenplays. MASH is a good case in point, full of jolly one-liners, big characters, and a single important setting.

Think of a book you love and how you would translate it to screen. Definitely an interesting problem.

 

[Oberon]

Just wanted to bump this great thread to keep the discussions going.

The Orchid Thief is a wonderful example. A terrific book but a lousy idea for a movie and so the writer assigned to adapt it does something very different and succeeds in making a great movie.