Movies that were better than the book

[F-ZeroOne]

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

I seem to recall that they got round this by saying the screenplay was written by Kubrick, based on the book by Clarke, and the book was written by Clarke, based on the screenplay by Kubrick...

[dreamweaver13]

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?

While i'm always for loyalty to the "source material" as much as possible, this time my vote is for the movie version. in my opinion, the razing of the shire had always been anti-climactic. sure, it showed how strong and mature the hobbits have become, but doesn't the whole trilogy show that already?

And besides, if you still added the whole shire saga... how many false endings would that make for the movie??

[shiroikaze]

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

I looked it up, and you're right. He had no hand in the third movie and surprisingly the second movie.

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.

Point taken, I admit I would like to see more of those kind of battles you're talking about. Starship Troopers Chronicles did a better job with the Bugs.

Edited July 29, 2009 by shiroikaze

[EXO]

I thought Coyote Ugly was a lot better than the book, Maxim. But I have the same problem with both versions... no boobies. Maybe there's a british cut somewhere.

[Gubaba]

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

You are then bound to be disappointed, then. Every single time.

Scriptwriting is a COMPLETELY different discipline than novel writing, and stuff that works on the page often doesn't work on the screen, and vice-versa.

Here's a challenge: read In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust. Then try to write a screenplay based on it. You will fail miserably, no matter how many years or decades you devote to the task.

Then read Harold Pinter's Proust screenplay, and notice how even though it's not much like the novel, it evokes the novel brilliantly.

EDIT: Hey! I'm no longer wring with the Jamming Birds...now I've apparently moved in with Basara. Mmmm...free Fire Bomber backstage passes...

Edited July 30, 2009 by Gubaba

[Gui]

I seem to recall that they got round this by saying the screenplay was written by Kubrick, based on the book by Clarke, and the book was written by Clarke, based on the screenplay by Kubrick...

That's the sort of stuff these guys could come with, especially Kubrick...

[Knight26]

That's the sort of stuff these guys could come with, especially Kubrick...

ACtually the book and screenplay were written concurrently and were based off an original short story by Clark. Where the pair differed was the destination clark wanted Saturn, thought it was more interesting, Kubrick wanted Jupiter (he thought it was more interesting and easier to create on film), and of course the endings are vastly different. Of course in the end Clark Retconned the book to Jupiter, but that is a whole other issue.

[Radd]

I recall Clarke writing that Kubrick changed the destination to Jupiter because they couldn't come up with a Saturn visual that he was happy with for the movie. This, in turn, had the happy side effect of making the story a little more streamlined and Jupiter's moons provided more to play off of in the sequels.

[Gubaba]

I thought Coyote Ugly was a lot better than the book, Maxim. But I have the same problem with both versions... no boobies. Maybe there's a british cut somewhere.

I knew there was a reason I never saw that movie...

[VFTF1]

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 think this is an unfair generalization. First of all, Rand herself wrote that the characters in the Fountainhead were archetypes that in their own ways were closer and further from the ideal of human happiness. However, the ideal of human happiness is itself a general thesis which never makes any pretense to contain specific requirements (aka - you don't have to be an architect who dresses like Roark, likes the same food as Roark, has the same hair style etc). These are just the particular trappings.

I think the problem you're having here is distinguishing between "choice" and "happiness" or freedom and rationality. You see, obviously Rand would never say that "any way someone chooses to live will be good, as long as they choose it htemselves" because a person can choose ANYTHING. In fact, in Atlas Shrugged, Rand makes explicit (in Galt's speech) that one of the dinstinguishing features of man is that he has no "instinct" that pre-programs his actiosn throughout his whole life like most animals do. Most animals cannot deviate from their nature. Man CAN. Man can, for instance, choose suicide, collectivism, Man can choose to believe that a rock is actually a God and needs to be worshipped. Man can, in short, choose a whole host of absurdities that are contrary to his nature. But - Man can also choose to use his mind to think about what it is that would be BEST for him out of ALL possible choices?

Rand's ideal is a Man who thinks rationally about the best possible choices that are in accordance with what is truly good for him, rather than what is conventionally held to be good, or thoughtlessly pursued through "herd mentality."

It is a false contradiction to say that Rand is actually against individualism because she wants "everybody to be like Roark" and then, on the other hand, suggesting that individualism is just "doing whatever you want."

In fact, "doing whatever you want" is an empty shell. Praxeologically speaking, everybody ALWAYS "does whatever they want" because in the end, they always chose their actions based on a host of factors and subjective whims.

Rand's only "requirement" for true individualism (which I would suggest should be understood as meaning "autonomy" or simply "freedom") is a thoughtful, rational consideration of all possible alternatives - and choosing in accordance with your real desires - your "heart" if you will - and not being afraid of it.

Finally, just to pre-empty any "well what if I sit down and rationally come to the conclusion that I want to rule other people, be a dictator, thief, murderer etc" - Rand, like Aristotle and Plato (although she probably wouldn't like to admit her link to the first...but then again it's impossible really to "prefer" Aristotle who was, in the final analysis, a STUDENT of Plato) - would argue that there is no rational, logical justification for the idea that being a "parasite" (crook, murder, tyrant etc) would lead to human happiness.

This is a vey sublime argument, and unless someone insists on pursuing it, I will leave it at that and hope that most people are sensible enough to understand why....

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.

Again, I would take the books themselves into my defense. I think what is really the problem is the Ayn Rand Institute itself, and the entire aura of a radical cult that has grown up around it, and their "banishment" of people who are not "like minded" - and the fact that they basically treat Rand's books as some Fundamentalists treat the Bible - as a basis for exercising their own personal excentricities rather than as food for thought and happy living.

The books themselves do not trivialize the problems of the real world, except insofar as all fiction does that by being an "open-shut" case where the author has final say as to how something proceeds and therefore, the role of "chance" or "fate" is zero.

I do agree that there is a bit of a "revenge fantasy" lingering in the works - but...so what? Who wouldn't want to write a revenge fantasy against fascism and communism? That's kind of like blaming people for wanting to write a "revenge fantasy" where their loved one WASN'T killed by a drunk driver, or where they DIDN'T get cancer.

It's natural that people want to dream up ideal worlds and road-maps of how to get there. It's natural that people want to think about how to be happy and how to live together in a way that is just.

I think that if people actually sat down and considered the merits and demerits of the books, the actual characters and the situations therein - they would see that there's a lot of food for thought.

Again - the problem is (IMO) not the books, but the somewhat cultic and excentric personalities who have taken up the mantle of Ayn Rand. The "banishments" and the subsequent descent into pettiness...

But...I guess that's also a generalization...

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."

See - I have the same feeling. I also always loved her romantic view of life. The notion that life does not have to be mundane and boring, and that the passions and dreams of young people aren't things you "grow out of."

I think on the whole, her books are important and her ideas are correct.

The problem starts when professional philosophers try to build a system out of Objectivism that is divorced from LITERATURE.

This is my opinion of course, but I think that you need to always consider the FORM that something is presented in, and that FORM always to some extent DICTATES content.

Example wise ... Look at Plato's dialogues. Notice they are not a treatise. Plato didn't just sit down and write "My Theory of Justice." He wrote a dialogue between numerous people presented numerous views about this.

Same with Rand - she didn't ever write "Objectivism 101: Here it is from A to Z." She wrote a literaly work of fiction putting different human archetypes into a situation which compelled them to make fundamental choices about good and evil, and to really think hard (or resign from thinking about it) about what will make them happy.

People like Lienord Piekoff, on the other hand, love to spin webs - to create these vast abstract philosophical systems. These of course have their merits and I am not saying they are just wrong - but they are a completely different item. They lack the dramatism that literature or theatre presents (and yes, Plato's dialogues are just basically theatre plays). In this sense, they are far removed from the human experience, which actually has more to do with fictional literature and theatre plays than with dry treatises.

Pete

[hirohawa]

Don't know if it has already been mentioned but JAWS is better than the book- wonder what ever happened to that director, he did a good job.

[taksraven]

Don't know if it has already been mentioned but JAWS is better than the book- wonder what ever happened to that director, he did a good job.

Story goes that Peter Benchley, the author of the novel, turned up on set to check things out and was so vocal in his displeasure as to how things were going that the director had to throw him off the set. Might be an urban legend though.....

Taksraven