Movies that were better than the book

[eugimon]

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

terror at horrible boobs are quite common in America... I remember when Teri Hatcher showed her boobs... I do believe I heard puking from the back row.

[Bri]

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.

I said the movie IS a satire, is it so hard to read? The book lacks a propper structure, it's storyline is dull and the main character lacks any form of personality. The book fails as a political essay, any undergraduate student who has done a bit of social studies can tear Heimleins musings to shreds. I'm sorry but the only people who can enjoy this book are the ones that get a hard-on from endless discriptions of bootcamp and military structures. The movie for all it's faults is entertaining, the book far from it.

[DJ Loe Kee]

I said the movie IS a satire, is it so hard to read? The book lacks a propper structure, it's storyline is dull and the main character lacks any form of personality. The book fails as a political essay, any undergraduate student who has done a bit of social studies can tear Heimleins musings to shreds. I'm sorry but the only people who can enjoy this book are the ones that get a hard-on from endless discriptions of bootcamp and military structures. The movie for all it's faults is entertaining, the book far from it.

the book got made into a movie, so the book must be successful.

[eugimon]

I said the movie IS a satire, is it so hard to read? The book lacks a propper structure, it's storyline is dull and the main character lacks any form of personality. The book fails as a political essay, any undergraduate student who has done a bit of social studies can tear Heimleins musings to shreds. I'm sorry but the only people who can enjoy this book are the ones that get a hard-on from endless discriptions of bootcamp and military structures. The movie for all it's faults is entertaining, the book far from it.

i don't think the two of you are thinking the same thing when you guys talk about it being a satire...

[taksraven]

I said the movie IS a satire, is it so hard to read? The book lacks a propper structure, it's storyline is dull and the main character lacks any form of personality. The book fails as a political essay, any undergraduate student who has done a bit of social studies can tear Heimleins musings to shreds. I'm sorry but the only people who can enjoy this book are the ones that get a hard-on from endless discriptions of bootcamp and military structures. The movie for all it's faults is entertaining, the book far from it.

most political SF fails miserably. the best political SF is 1984 and Brave New World. A lot of SF people think that "Star Trek" politics are a good idea. (and thats all i'm saying about politics.)

taksraven

[myk]

I'll put in a vote for the Narnia movies. Trying to read C.S. Lewis' books is a sure fire way to put you to sleep.

You know, I used to be a MAJOR LOTR-film fan, but seeing how 90% of the movies takes place in slow-motion while Elijah Wood and the cast make silly faces I just don't care for the movies any more. I'll watch it for the charge of the Rohirrim in movie 3, but that's about it...

[Gubaba]

I'll put in a vote for the Narnia movies. Trying to read C.S. Lewis' books is a sure fire way to put you to sleep.

Now THAT'S crazy talk...unless you're talking solely about the first quarter or so of "Prince Caspian."

[eugimon]

Wow... the Narnia movies are better than the books...? That's not saying a lot for the books... lol

[David Hingtgen]

Narnia=best books I've ever read. My all-time favorite series. So I strongly disagree with myk.

[eugimon]

Narnia=best books I've ever read. My all-time favorite series. So I strongly disagree with myk.

CS Lewis, Ayn Rand, Robert Heinlein, they all have the same problem, their fiction is just little more than their philosophy or religion repackaged for easy consumption. If someone doesn't care for the underlying message, it's hard to see past it to the actual story telling.

[David Hingtgen]

I disagree with that, too. My fave book of them is "A Horse and his boy". Pure story IMHO. "The Final Battle" is my least-liked. Most preachy.

[eugimon]

I disagree with that, too. My fave book of them is "A Horse and his boy". Pure story IMHO. "The Final Battle" is my least-liked. Most preachy.

uh, not really, there's pretty strong ties to the exodus story, shasta as a Moses. The theme of the lions pursuing him but actually helping him is a pretty common biblical motif as well, one that Christians interpret as signs of Jesus in the old testament.

[Gubaba]

CS Lewis, Ayn Rand, Robert Heinlein, they all have the same problem, their fiction is just little more than their philosophy or religion repackaged for easy consumption. If someone doesn't care for the underlying message, it's hard to see past it to the actual story telling.

I'm Gubaba and I approve of this message.

That said, I like the Narnia books a lot. Much more than Ayn Rand (my least favorite author) and Heinlein (although I really liked "The Past through Tomorrow").

[David Hingtgen]

Ok, so if you don't realize the parallels, does it still count? If you eliminate the "morality/preaching" aspects---is it not just a story? (that goes for the bible itself, too)

[Vile]

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.

That's also my view. What I found mind-boggling back when the movie was released was the much-touted opinion that it was hard to follow - I wonder what those people would have made of Electric Sheep ...

[eugimon]

Ok, so if you don't realize the parallels, does it still count? If you eliminate the "morality/preaching" aspects---is it not just a story? (that goes for the bible itself, too)

Well, just because it doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it doesn't apply to others or even most other people. It's the same reason people get their news from outlets that cater to their political tastes rather than from old fashioned objective news outlets.

But my point is that those authors start with their philosophy/religion/whatever-got-stuck-up-their-craw-that morning and then create stories to illustrate those beliefs. If you strip the Jesus analogies from the Narnia books, there's not much left.

Hemingway and Frank Herbert had pretty strong political/philosophical cores as well but you can still read their books purely for the story and prose... they don't stop the narrative every 5 pages to expand on their belief system. I admit CS Lewis probably scews a little more that way then Heinlein or Ayn Rand, but his stories are pretty much accepted as biblical analogies... it's one of the reasons why the Narnia books are so beloved by evangelical christians.

[anime52k8]

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.

ok, the original cut of blade runner is a better story, but I enjoyed the book a lot. The book is more interesting to me and has more to say than the first cut of the movie. the latter cuts of the film try to add themes form the book back in but it fails miserably and I refuse to watch any version of blade runner other than the original theatrical cut.

I disagree with that, too. My fave book of them is "A Horse and his boy". Pure story IMHO. "The Final Battle" is my least-liked. Most preachy.

really, A Horse and his Boy is my least favorite of the books. I never found it that interesting and it just doesn't fit with the rest of the books to me.

I'm Gubaba and I approve of this message.

That said, I like the Narnia books a lot. Much more than Ayn Rand (my least favorite author) and Heinlein (although I really liked "The Past through Tomorrow").

I love Narnia AND Heinlein if that's possible. Starship Troopers is one of my favorite serious science fiction novels.

one movie I actually do like more than the original book is 2001: A Space Odyssey.

[Nied]

anime52k8 beat me to half of it by about 15 minutes, but as a big Kubrick fan I have to say 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Dr. Strangelove are easily better than the books they were based on.

[mikeszekely]

anime52k8 beat me to half of it by about 15 minutes, but as a big Kubrick fan I have to say 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Dr. Strangelove are easily better than the books they were based on.

I can't comment on Dr. Strangelove, but I couldn't disagree more on 2001. I loved all of the Space Odyssey books (well, except maybe 3001). There was just something in Clarke's writing that really sparks my imagination, especially the way he described the mundane day-to-day life of space travelers. Kubrick, it seemed, tried to capture Clarke's descriptions by overly long shots of astronaut exercise. And don't even get me started on how Kubrick turned Bowman's coherent experiences from the book to one big acid trip.

But my point is that those authors start with their philosophy/religion/whatever-got-stuck-up-their-craw-that morning and then create stories to illustrate those beliefs. If you strip the Jesus analogies from the Narnia books, there's not much left.

If you eliminate the "morality/preaching" aspects---is it not just a story? (that goes for the bible itself, too)

I'm not exactly qualified to comment on how preachy Narnia is or is not, since I've never actually read the books. But I feel like David's question is worth coming back to. It often seems to me that in our so-called "intellectual" society that reading up on Buddhism (Siddhartha was assigned summer reading at my college before my freshman year even started) or other non-Judeo-Christian religions is encouraged as broadening your horizon or appreciating other cultures. Yet anything that smacks of Christian is regarded either scorn or outright hatred by these same "intellectuals."

Can Narnia be divorced from the underlying Christian tones? Even if it can't, is it impossible to enjoy the story if you yourself aren't Christian? Again, I can't really say, because I haven't read it.

But I have read the Bible... as an agnostic, no less. Modern law, as well as the English language, are both heavily influenced by the Bible, and to have any kind of truly intellectual (as opposed to "intellectual" in quotes) discussion on law, history, or language it only seemed reasonable to study the available material. And I've got to say, even if you don't believe it, there's some good stories there. Especially the Old Testament stuff... the story of Exodus, for example, has a hero rising up to challenge the oppressive establishment. There's magic, there's supernatural killings, even a chase scene. Maybe the writing could use some work, but the fundamentals are certainly solid. In fact, the themes that come up in Exodus have been revisited in many other stories. Like Star Wars.

Edited July 28, 2009 by mikeszekely

[Gui]

[...]

one movie I actually do like more than the original book is 2001: A Space Odyssey.

There is no original book, but a short story called The Sentinel; the book was written based onto the scenario that Kubrick and Clarke wrote together in taking this short story as a basis and in extrapolating it

David Hingtgen & Gubaba: me too, I couldn't read Fellowship of the Ring, at 12 as at 32... One day, maybe I'll finish it... One day... Maybe...

[Radd]

I'll also add that Starship Troopers was just a bad movie, regardless of what one thinks of the book. Personally, I thought the CG was overrated even when the movie was still in theatres. Too many identical bugs running around made it visually uninteresting. The attempt at plot was so stupid I still mourn the braincells sacrificed in watching it. The campiness might have saved it, except there was far too little of that in comparison to the just plain brainless frat boy style action and tortured attempts at characterization.

Also, maybe it's just me, but since Robocop, Verhoven just comes off as if he were some other poor schmuck poorly mimicking Verhoven. I love Robocop, I love that style, but Verhoven just never seems to hit the right notes like he did back then.

As for 2001: A Space Odyssey, it's my opinion that the book and the movie compliment each other perfectly. Like Gui points out, they are both the product of Kubrick and Clarke working together, bouncing ideas and feedback off of each other. I love the book, and I love the movie. And I enjoy each all the more for the existence of the other. They each excel in their format, and accomplish what the other cannot.

[eugimon]

I can't comment on Dr. Strangelove, but I couldn't disagree more on 2001. I loved all of the Space Odyssey books (well, except maybe 3001). There was just something in Clarke's writing that really sparks my imagination, especially the way he described the mundane day-to-day life of space travelers. Kubrick, it seemed, tried to capture Clarke's descriptions by overly long shots of astronaut exercise. And don't even get me started on how Kubrick turned Bowman's coherent experiences from the book to one big acid trip.

I'm not exactly qualified to comment on how preachy Narnia is or is not, since I've never actually read the books. But I feel like David's question is worth coming back to. It often seems to me that in our so-called "intellectual" society that reading up on Buddhism (Siddhartha was assigned summer reading at my college before my freshman year even started) or other non-Judeo-Christian religions is encouraged as broadening your horizon or appreciating other cultures. Yet anything that smacks of Christian is regarded either scorn or outright hatred by these same "intellectuals."

Can Narnia be divorced from the underlying Christian tones? Even if it can't, is it impossible to enjoy the story if you yourself aren't Christian? Again, I can't really say, because I haven't read it.

But I have read the Bible... as an agnostic, no less. Modern law, as well as the English language, are both heavily influenced by the Bible, and to have any kind of truly intellectual (as opposed to "intellectual" in quotes) discussion on law, history, or language it only seemed reasonable to study the available material. And I've got to say, even if you don't believe it, there's some good stories there. Especially the Old Testament stuff... the story of Exodus, for example, has a hero rising up to challenge the oppressive establishment. There's magic, there's supernatural killings, even a chase scene. Maybe the writing could use some work, but the fundamentals are certainly solid. In fact, the themes that come up in Exodus have been revisited in many other stories. Like Star Wars.

wait wait wait... I never said the Narnia books, or ayn rand or heinlein books were bad *because* they were ideological, I said *if* the reader is antagonistic towards those beliefs *then* the reader may have a hard time getting past it... because for those authors their ideas were either as important or more important than the story they were trying to tell.

There's lots of people who are so against those ideas where they'll just reject the work out of hand, I'm not saying that authors should try to write ideologically free fiction. Far from it, I think one of the great things about fiction and especially sci-fi and fantasy is that it allows writers and readers to explore complex, moral, ethical, religious and philisophical themes divorced from real world entanglements.

[mikeszekely]

wait wait wait... I never said the Narnia books, or ayn rand or heinlein books were bad *because* they were ideological, I said *if* the reader is antagonistic towards those beliefs *then* the reader may have a hard time getting past it... because for those authors their ideas were either as important or more important than the story they were trying to tell.

There's lots of people who are so against those ideas where they'll just reject the work out of hand, I'm not saying that authors should try to write ideologically free fiction. Far from it, I think one of the great things about fiction and especially sci-fi and fantasy is that it allows writers and readers to explore complex, moral, ethical, religious and philisophical themes divorced from real world entanglements.

Yeah, sorry if it looked like I was addressing my comments directly at you or calling you out or anything. I didn't mean to, I just thought that you're quote segued into David's before I added my own two cents (even though your post actually came after). By and large, I agree with what you're saying, that some people avoid certain literature because of ideological differences. I already mentioned that there seems to be a number of people who are almost irrationally anti-Christian. To be perfectly fair, that goes both ways too... how many Christians (Pentecostals?) have condemned Harry Potter for "promoting witchcraft"?

The point I mean to make is that people who do so are often doing themselves a disservice. I mean, it's one thing to look for news that slants your way... it's almost impossible to find news that isn't slanted anymore, so you might as well find one you agree with. But when it comes to fiction, I think you can enjoy a story for what it is regardless of the ideology. I've already mentioned that I think the Bible (and specifically the Old Testament) has some great stories. Or if we're looking at something more modern, I happen to LOVE Star Trek, even though the Socialist utopia the Federation represents strikes me as impractical in the real world.

[the white drew carey]

Also, maybe it's just me, but since Robocop, Verhoven just comes off as if he were some other poor schmuck poorly mimicking Verhoven. I love Robocop, I love that style, but Verhoven just never seems to hit the right notes like he did back then.

It sucks when someone is the poor man's version of themselves, but I think you just hit the nail on the head.

[shiroikaze]

Too many identical bugs running around made it visually uninteresting.

What? Forgive me for doing this but let me change it up a bit

Too many identical ants running around made it visually uninteresting.

Too many identical bees running around made it visually uninteresting.

Too many identical termites running around made it visually uninteresting.

It's a colony of bloodthirsty bugs man, cannon fodder foot soldiers is a must for every hivemind.

I did enjoy the movie, but I do honestly agree with you that the movie itself was definitely bad and that Verhoeven was better back in the days. Though, I had fond memories of Robocop 3... rewatching it just recently shattered that small bit of my childhood. Just like how the Zelda cartoon did it...

Edited July 28, 2009 by shiroikaze

[Bri]

Also, maybe it's just me, but since Robocop, Verhoven just comes off as if he were some other poor schmuck poorly mimicking Verhoven. I love Robocop, I love that style, but Verhoven just never seems to hit the right notes like he did back then.

It sucks when someone is the poor man's version of themselves, but I think you just hit the nail on the head.

This is true unfortunately, except the decline didn't start after Robocop, but after the Fourth Man. Robocop is too mainstream and cartoony to compare with his older work. Verhoeven's recent "Black book" is a lot better than his hollywood work. I have high hopes for Winterqueen.

It's a shame he never got to make his dreamproject: Crusader. A dark medieval story with Arnie as a crusader knight chopping his way through the middle east with a finale of the sacking of Jerusalem . A more grim and serious version of Conan.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Bri

[dreamweaver13]

CS Lewis, Ayn Rand, Robert Heinlein, they all have the same problem, their fiction is just little more than their philosophy or religion repackaged for easy consumption. If someone doesn't care for the underlying message, it's hard to see past it to the actual story telling.

I'm Gubaba and I approve of this message.

That said, I like the Narnia books a lot. Much more than Ayn Rand (my least favorite author) and Heinlein (although I really liked "The Past through Tomorrow").

Ok, so am I the only weird one here who loves Ayn Rand, and was actually interested in what would eventually happen to Howard Roark, storywise?

Edited July 29, 2009 by dreamweaver13

[eugimon]

I liked Ayn Rand back in high school and read fountainhead and atlas shrugged... then I read "anthem" and was pissed to learn I could have just read anthem and saved myself some 3000 pages of angry ranting. lol

[miles316]

What? Forgive me for doing this but let me change it up a bit

It's a colony of bloodthirsty bugs man, cannon fodder foot soldiers is a must for every hivemind.

I did enjoy the movie, but I do honestly agree with you that the movie itself was definitely bad and that Verhoeven was better back in the days. Though, I had fond memories of Robocop 3... rewatching it just recently shattered that small bit of my childhood. Just like how the Zelda cartoon did it...

Verhoeven did not Direct Robocop 3 though he did produce it I think.

[Gubaba]

Ok, so am I the only weird one here who loves Ayn Rand, and was actually interested in what would eventually happen to Howard Roark, storywise?

The Fountainhead is, I think, her best book (and, to keep it on-topic, let me just say that the movie is much better than it has any right to be), but after reading it (when I was 18), I was describing it to one of my friends, who said, "But, if she [Ayn Rand] bdlieves in individualism, then she should think that any way someone chooses to live will be good, as long as they choose it themselves, right?"

I replied, "I have to be wrong about this, because it makes no sense, but I really get the feeling that she thinks if everyone were truly an individual, they'd be exactly like Howard Roark."

Imagine my surprise when I picked up Atlas Shrugged a few months later and discovered that I had been exactly right...

[DJ Loe Kee]

I'll put in a vote for the Narnia movies. Trying to read C.S. Lewis' books is a sure fire way to put you to sleep.

You know, I used to be a MAJOR LOTR-film fan, but seeing how 90% of the movies takes place in slow-motion while Elijah Wood and the cast make silly faces I just don't care for the movies any more. I'll watch it for the charge of the Rohirrim in movie 3, but that's about it...

wth?!? i read all of the narnia books when i was little and they are really good. then, i saw the movie and i was disappointed. i don't remember anything from the book but the movie really did not remind of the book or jog my memory. i just didn't draw me into the story like the book did and i was sure that they changed alot of things.

[Ghost Train]

The Fountainhead is, I think, her best book (and, to keep it on-topic, let me just say that the movie is much better than it has any right to be), but after reading it (when I was 18), I was describing it to one of my friends, who said, "But, if she [Ayn Rand] bdlieves in individualism, then she should think that any way someone chooses to live will be good, as long as they choose it themselves, right?"

I replied, "I have to be wrong about this, because it makes no sense, but I really get the feeling that she thinks if everyone were truly an individual, they'd be exactly like Howard Roark."

Imagine my surprise when I picked up Atlas Shrugged a few months later and discovered that I had been exactly right...

I also read the Fountainhead when I was 18, I think if I had done so now at 28 I would have thrown it away halfway through... at the time I thought it was great. Atlas Shrugged I never liked even after the first read... while reading through it it felt like IM'ing with Ayn Rand herself TYPING IN ALL CAPS TRYING TO FLAME U OMG.

Further derailing the thread, I find that both books really exaggerate and trivialized the problems of the real world when it comes to collective thought and action. Unfortunately the word "emo" was not invented at the time. Both books are akin to a social outcast in high school who decided to vent and write a revenge fantasy... though in her case I can see the mental trauma caused by experiencing the Russian revolution, so can't blame her.

[dreamweaver13]

The Fountainhead is, I think, her best book (and, to keep it on-topic, let me just say that the movie is much better than it has any right to be), but after reading it (when I was 18), I was describing it to one of my friends, who said, "But, if she [Ayn Rand] bdlieves in individualism, then she should think that any way someone chooses to live will be good, as long as they choose it themselves, right?"

I replied, "I have to be wrong about this, because it makes no sense, but I really get the feeling that she thinks if everyone were truly an individual, they'd be exactly like Howard Roark."

Imagine my surprise when I picked up Atlas Shrugged a few months later and discovered that I had been exactly right...

Yeah, i actually saw that movie, and i found it surprisingly satisfactory. i had doubts how it could be made into a movie... but it turned out ok.

i always thought that Atlas Shrugged was something that could be translated easier into film (which Brad Pitt plans to produce, IIRC), since it has that "who is john galt?" mystery behind it. hey, it worked for laura palmer, didn't it?

Ayn Rand's stringent and uber-high standard of the ideal human aside, i always liked her thesis on how to live: "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

[Radd]

What? Forgive me for doing this but let me change it up a bit

It's a colony of bloodthirsty bugs man, cannon fodder foot soldiers is a must for every hivemind.

I understand your point, but it doesn't change the fact that the action was, by far, pretty uninteresting. In the books, there were other kinds of aliens, and though it's been probably over a decade since I actually read the book I recall it seeming as if the bugs were described as being more advanced, with more variety amongst the ranks, than is shown in the movie.

At the very least, the actual battles in the books were described in such a way that would have translated pretty well to the big screen. There's more to battles than a flood of identical bugs flooding a large open plain while G.I. Joe jumps to the walls, firing wildly into the mass of insectoid bodies, whether your talking books or novels.

I did enjoy the movie, but I do honestly agree with you that the movie itself was definitely bad and that Verhoeven was better back in the days. Though, I had fond memories of Robocop 3... rewatching it just recently shattered that small bit of my childhood. Just like how the Zelda cartoon did it...

Nothing wrong with enjoying a bad movie. I enjoy plenty of bad movies. I could see people enjoying Starship Troopers as a bad movie. I didn't. If it were more camp, and less everything else, I'd probably love it. Neil Patrick Harris being a more central character could seriously have 180'd my ability to enjoy the movie. Doogie makes everything better. Space Nazi Doogie, fighting with his physic powers to save the human race from the bugs who were fighting back against our invading them? That could have been spectacular. More of the propaganda, less of the 90210 space GI Joes.

Still would have been a bad movie, but it would have been a gloriously bad movie!

[Wanzerfan]

When I see a movie based off a book I'm going in expecting what I call plagerism on the screen.

Starship Troopers fell infinitly short of that mark.

Dune made some changes, but they were logical.

Peter Jackson screwed up Return of the King by killing off Saruman way too early in the film (exteneded edition DVD).

He was killed off near the beginning of the film; wasn't he responsible for the razing of the shire at the end of the book?