David Hingtgen Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 I'll start off with "Last of the Mohicans" due to it being *way* better than the book. Another that comes to mind is "Fellowship of the Ring". Quote
Dobber Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 I'm sure I'll be flammed for this, but I'll say The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Chris Quote
Hiriyu Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 ...Another that comes to mind is "Fellowship of the Ring". Blasphemer. BURN HIM! Quote
anime52k8 Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 all books are better than there movie adaptations, no exceptions. No movie needs a sequel ever, no exceptions. there, end of discussion. No need for any more of these threads. Quote
Bri Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) Plenty of movies better then the books: Forrest Gump, Bladerunner, Jurasic Park, Silence of the Lambs, Starship Troopers just to name a few. Edited July 27, 2009 by Bri Quote
Gubaba Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) all books are better than there movie adaptations, no exceptions. No movie needs a sequel ever, no exceptions. there, end of discussion. No need for any more of these threads. I'm tempted to agree with you...however... Yeah, I'd agree that Fellowhsip of the Ring was better, in that I found the book boring at twelve, and I surprised myself by finding it boring AGAIN twenty years later. And I've read TONS of books that are considered "difficult" or "unreadable" and enjoyed them...I don't know what my problem with that particular book is. Other than that, I'd venture that "The Wizard of Oz" is better than the book (or at least more iconic), and "Wild at Heart" was certainly more interesting than the novel on which it was based. EDIT: And just to piss everyobdy off, I'll say "Starship Troopers" as well. Edited July 27, 2009 by Gubaba Quote
David Hingtgen Posted July 27, 2009 Author Posted July 27, 2009 I specifically said Fellowship of the Ring, not the whole LOTR. That book was boring. I'd read the Hobbit when I was 10 or 12 or so and loved it, and a year or two later I found Fellowship in the school library--I don't think I ever finished it. A few years later I found the Hobbit/LOTR 4-pack cheap and bought it, vowing to finish LOTR. I did and enjoyed LOTR on the whole, but still struggled through FOTR. As for Jurassic Park---nope, I definitely thought the book was better. Quote
JCSaves Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) I feel DYRL? is better than the comic book series. That counts...right? Edited July 27, 2009 by JCSaves Quote
David Hingtgen Posted July 27, 2009 Author Posted July 27, 2009 Isn't that an adaptation of the movie, not the other way 'round? Quote
JCSaves Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Isn't that an adaptation of the movie, not the other way 'round? Hmmmmm....I guess so. Darn. Oh yes, here's one then, "Boondock Saints". Quote
Radd Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 I'll just say I strongly disagree with some of the examples others have given and leave it at that. Quote
Gubaba Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 I feel DYRL? is better than the comic book series. That counts...right? Comic book series??? There's a comic book series? Quote
JCSaves Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 I'll just say I strongly disagree with some of the examples others have given and leave it at that. I disagree that you disagree. Quote
David Hingtgen Posted July 27, 2009 Author Posted July 27, 2009 I'll just say I strongly disagree with some of the examples others have given and leave it at that. Last of the Mohicans? Quote
anime52k8 Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Plenty of movies better then the books: Forrest Gump, Bladerunner, Jurasic Park, Silence of the Lambs, Starship Troopers just to name a few. Jurassic Park, Starship Troopers and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? all blow their movie versions away. Quote
BeyondTheGrave Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) idk hard to say. Edited July 27, 2009 by BeyondTheGrave Quote
Wanzerfan Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 I'm tempted to agree with you...however... Yeah, I'd agree that Fellowhsip of the Ring was better, in that I found the book boring at twelve, and I surprised myself by finding it boring AGAIN twenty years later. And I've read TONS of books that are considered "difficult" or "unreadable" and enjoyed them...I don't know what my problem with that particular book is. Other than that, I'd venture that "The Wizard of Oz" is better than the book (or at least more iconic), and "Wild at Heart" was certainly more interesting than the novel on which it was based. EDIT: And just to piss everyobdy off, I'll say "Starship Troopers" as well. ... ... ... I'll bite my tongue just this once. I have to say that both the book and David Lynch's Dune are both equally good. Battlefield Earth was definately better than the book, and even then, the movie sucked donkey dicks. Quote
Gubaba Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 I have to say that both the book and David Lynch's Dune are both equally good. I'll bite my tongue just this once as well. Quote
realdeal Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 I'm sure I'll be flammed for this, but I'll say The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Chris I agree, probably because Peter Jackson's imagination is much better than mine. Quote
Keith Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 "Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex, But Were Afraid To Ask" Quote
Graham Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Plenty of movies better then the books: Forrest Gump, Bladerunner, Jurasic Park, Silence of the Lambs, Starship Troopers just to name a few. Starship Troopers!!!!!!! Surely you jest, sir? Them be fightin' words. Graham Quote
Bri Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Starship Troopers!!!!!!! Surely you jest, sir? Them be fightin' words. Graham Nope I'm not joking. The novel is mainly a political essay about the writers views on military and politics more so then a sci-fi story. The views of the writer are dated imo and best left in the fifties. The book fails to deliver in entertainment as the sci-fi plot gets clouded by the writers views. To the books credit, it is visionary in the way new technology and the future of infantry is seen, but that can't save the book as it is neither entertaining nor politically relevant. As for the movie, it's only loosly based on the book and that really saves it. It is entertaining and works as a satire on both media handeling of military conflict and militarism, so it beats the book in both ways. Besides I love seeing all the pretty boys and girls go splat Quote
electric indigo Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Jurassic Park, Starship Troopers and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? all blow their movie versions away. I'd like to hear why you think "Electric Sheep" is better than "Blade Runner". I read quite some of Dick's work, and while there are brilliant gems, I found "Electric Sheep" to be a mess. Quote
CrusherJ Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 I think Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust is much better than the novel it was based off of. Quote
Vic Mancini Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) Fight Club. You beat me to it. Choke on the other hand..... Not so much. Edited July 27, 2009 by Vic Mancini Quote
Mr March Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings The film version has the virtue of a much better beginning than Tolkien's original novel, so I admit this is rather a cheat. The first 150 pages of Fellowship has always been one of the poorest introductions I've ever read in a major work of literature. The rest of Tolkien's trilogy is sublime, but even after re-reading the books several times, Fellowship's introduction is still a sour grape in an otherwise fruitful tale. Fight Club This is a tough one since I love both the book and the film adaptation. David Fincher managed to enhance nearly all the aspects of the already solid source material and injected even more of a media zeitgeist than there was in Palahnuik's novel. American Psycho This one always get's the Bret Easton Ellis purists going, but I found the satirical subtext of the Mary Harron film much more entertaining than the all-out repetitive gore of the book. American Psycho's social commentary worked much better in film form than on the written page. The dialogue in particular made for far better material than the vivid mutilations in the book that could have easily been so over-the-top on screen as to become comedy. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? While the book bears only superficial resemblance to the film adaptation, I think Blade Runner managed to grapple with the reality-bending concepts of the story in a more engaging and relevant manner. Philip K. Dick's book was always far more concept than execution, a problem that Ridley Scott easily solved with his amazing visual gravitas. The Shining Like Blade Runner, The Shining is another case where the film director understood how to realize themes and concepts of the book much better than the original creator. Kubrick's masterpiece remains far more engaging and relevant than the Stephen King book. Quote
Knight26 Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Nope I'm not joking. The novel is mainly a political essay about the writers views on military and politics more so then a sci-fi story. The views of the writer are dated imo and best left in the fifties. The book fails to deliver in entertainment as the sci-fi plot gets clouded by the writers views. To the books credit, it is visionary in the way new technology and the future of infantry is seen, but that can't save the book as it is neither entertaining nor politically relevant. As for the movie, it's only loosly based on the book and that really saves it. It is entertaining and works as a satire on both media handeling of military conflict and militarism, so it beats the book in both ways. Besides I love seeing all the pretty boys and girls go splat Seriously what color is the crack you are smoking, the ST movie is horrible, unless viewed as a satire. The book is still considered a masterwork of military sci-fi, with only books like Armor and Forever War handling the same/similar subject matter better IMHO. Quote
eugimon Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Seriously what color is the crack you are smoking, the ST movie is horrible, unless viewed as a satire. The book is still considered a masterwork of military sci-fi, with only books like Armor and Forever War handling the same/similar subject matter better IMHO. hahaha, what this guy said! I can appreciate not everyone is going to care for Heinlein's political musings but the ST trooper movie failed as an action movie and as a social satire. Denise Richards kept her shirt on, so it fails there too. Quote
the white drew carey Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Nope I'm not joking. The novel is mainly a political essay about the writers views on military and politics more so then a sci-fi story. The views of the writer are dated imo and best left in the fifties. The book fails to deliver in entertainment as the sci-fi plot gets clouded by the writers views. To the books credit, it is visionary in the way new technology and the future of infantry is seen, but that can't save the book as it is neither entertaining nor politically relevant. As for the movie, it's only loosly based on the book and that really saves it. It is entertaining and works as a satire on both media handeling of military conflict and militarism, so it beats the book in both ways. Besides I love seeing all the pretty boys and girls go splat I know everyone is allowed their own opinion but still, yours is wrong. Besides how does replacing Heinlein's political/military commentary with Verhoeven's political/military commentary* work any better? Whereas Heinlein thought out his military tactics, Verhoeven uses the retarded "everyone run up and shoot" idea that ignorant Hollywood directors have been using for ages. Michael Ironside: "Oh, Rico used his awesome football skills to kill the big bug... awesome to the extreme!!!" That movie is crap with two P's. The only redeeming quality was the neat SFX (for the time) and Gary Busey's son. *besides- all of Verhoeven's "tongue-in-cheek" commentary is just a rehash of his stuff in Robocop. Nothing new. Quote
nugundamII Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 I agree, probably because Peter Jackson's imagination is much better than mine. I want to see someone make a movie from my PMBOK PMP exam prep book because its so dam boring and convoluted Quote
shiroikaze Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 I haven't read all of Jurrasic Park but I liked Spielberg's portrayal of a softer Hammond over the book's Hammond. Whereas Heinlein thought out his military tactics, Verhoeven uses the retarded "everyone run up and shoot" idea that ignorant Hollywood directors have been using for ages. ^THIS, this hurts so much among other things. Though I do admit that Starship Troopers was a fun movie--well, whenever the bugs were on screen. I still think the CG still holds up pretty well. Quote
reddsun1 Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Plenty of movies better then the books...Starship Troopers just to name a few. Look, there's no need to get sarcastic. Quote
taksraven Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 hahaha, what this guy said! I can appreciate not everyone is going to care for Heinlein's political musings but the ST trooper movie failed as an action movie and as a social satire. Denise Richards kept her shirt on, so it fails there too. Nah, never read the book but i thoroughly enjoyed the film. And so did the other several hundred others in the cinema. Got a massive audience reaction (Laughter, cheering, cries of terror at the sight of Dina Meyers horrific breasts, etc......) and audience reaction like that is relatively rare in Australia. Taksraven Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.