KRISTEN'S BOARD
KB - a better class of pervert

News:

Movies that surpass the book they are based on

phtlc · 1772

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline phtlc

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 4,574
    • Woos/Boos: +207/-6
    • Gender: Male
on: March 20, 2017, 11:43:14 PM
I used to always hear the saying "The movie was OK but the book was better" but from my experience this has not always been the case, and I'm also hearing it less frequently now. A classic example was "jaws". Apparently it was a best seller but there is no way that book compared to the movie. As a matter of fact the characters in the book were so dislikeable that Steven Spielberg is quoted as saying "by the end I was rooting for the shark" when referring to the book.

What movies do you feel surpassed the book they were based on?

While you're waiting in vain for that apology, why don't you make yourself useful by getting on your knees and opening your mouth


Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,023
    • Woos/Boos: +3086/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #1 on: March 21, 2017, 12:38:28 AM

Good question!

I've always rolled my eyes when people say, "But the book was soooo much better than the movie." The media are usually so different that they don't compare. Add to that, condensing a 480 page book into a two hour movie is a near impossible task.

But to answer your question, the best example of all is "The Godfather." I saw the movie several times before I read the novel it's based on. The novel is a cheesy potboiler. The film is an operatic work of art.

Don't read the book, see the movie!





"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline herschel

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,703
    • Woos/Boos: +222/-1
Reply #2 on: March 21, 2017, 07:12:42 AM
The most memorable book/movie combination for me in recent years was the Millennium Trilogy, a series of three novels by Stieg Larsson. The three volumes in the series were The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played with Fire, and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest. I saw the movies first, in their European versions. I sort of remember seeing the American re-takes, but the European productions were just too hard to beat. It's a humdinger of a psychological thriller, which on several occasions gave me the feeling I was being kicked in the gut and having my teeth drilled. The general mood throughout the series was intense, and that's putting it mildly.

The plotline is complex, and watching the movie it was sometimes hard to remember what character was threatening to do what nasty to what other character, so I bought the book in order to be able to leaf back and forth to follow the threads of action. The book helped me follow some of the subtle connections, and I'm glad I did that. However my settled opinion after the entire experience is that the book was a work of imaginative genius, but the movie was an even better work of movie production, largely because the casting, acting and direction were all excellent, and the evil characters were so fucking evil I wanted to eat their livers. However the book was for me indispensable to a better appreciation of the movie. As with many other great works of imagination, one viewing/reading is not enough to absorb all the thrills and tickles.

As for the complaint that a two-hour movie is not enough to give a fair picture of all the words in the novel, the Brits came up with the solution to that, which is to include every word of dialog from the novel in the movie script, and then let it run as many hours as it takes, for presentation in a TV series. They did that with Somerset Maugham's Brideshead Revisited. With the movie you get casting, which is an under-appreciated art that literally brings the novel's character to life; you get settings, including scenes shot in appropriate weather, which induces a mood; you get music, which does so much to enhance and amplify mood; you get costume design, in which the clothes make the man and woman; you get sets, which include architecture and interior design. You get so many pictures within pictures, each of which speaks thousands of words that would make the literary work fill too many shelves in a library. In short, you can cram an overload of images into a movie that is beyond the power of the written word. So, another example of a great novel becoming the springboard for an even greater film production.

Nobody does drama like the Brits.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2017, 07:17:47 AM by herschel »



Offline herschel

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,703
    • Woos/Boos: +222/-1
Reply #3 on: March 21, 2017, 07:22:59 AM
PS: The Godfather series is worth seeing again and again, at least every five years.



Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,023
    • Woos/Boos: +3086/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #4 on: March 21, 2017, 03:04:58 PM

As for the complaint that a two-hour movie is not enough to give a fair picture of all the words in the novel, the Brits came up with the solution to that, which is to include every word of dialog from the novel in the movie script, and then let it run as many hours as it takes, for presentation in a TV series. They did that with Somerset Maugham's Brideshead Revisited. With the movie you get casting, which is an under-appreciated art that literally brings the novel's character to life; you get settings, including scenes shot in appropriate weather, which induces a mood; you get music, which does so much to enhance and amplify mood; you get costume design, in which the clothes make the man and woman; you get sets, which include architecture and interior design. You get so many pictures within pictures, each of which speaks thousands of words that would make the literary work fill too many shelves in a library. In short, you can cram an overload of images into a movie that is beyond the power of the written word. So, another example of a great novel becoming the springboard for an even greater film production.

Nobody does drama like the Brits.


It wasn't a "complaint," it was a recognition of the extreme difference between the two media, thereby rendering a comparison between a given book and a movie based on that book beside the point.

I don't disagree that the mini-series version of Brideshead Revisited stands side by side with the novel it's based on (and, by the way, the author is Evelyn Waugh, and not Somerset Maugham). But since the topic of this thread is movies, and not 11-hour mini-series, choosing it is kinda cheating. And the same goes with "A Dance to the Music of Time," one of the best books I've ever read, and the source for an equally great mini-series, which clocks in at 14 hours.

Another example of a film adaptation that stands alongside the novel it's based on is "L.A. Confidential." Interestingly, the movie makes several significant departures from the novel -- including completely changing the ending -- but both endings work, and each is true in context. The acting in the film, with one notable exception, is uniformly excellent, with Kevin Spacey, Russel Crowe, and Guy Pearce portraying the three protagonists as distinct and fully-realized characters.






"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



freddy1984

  • Guest
Reply #5 on: March 21, 2017, 06:11:57 PM
Stephen King's Silver Bullet film based on his novel, Cycle of the Werewolf was better. I didn't dislike the book, but I thought the movie was more entertaining as the book covered a whole entire year, whereas in the film it was only during a short time period. To me, the book dragged the story for a long time, plus in the book the Reverend who was the Werewolf didn't have any memories of being one or knew he was one, in the film he did and to me made him more sinister.



KitKat

  • Guest
Reply #6 on: March 21, 2017, 06:17:30 PM
The Lord Of The Rings




Offline JulesVern

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 856
    • Woos/Boos: +51/-0
    • Gender: Male
Reply #7 on: March 21, 2017, 06:31:59 PM
I used to always hear the saying "The movie was OK but the book was better" but from my experience this has not always been the case, and I'm also hearing it less frequently now. A classic example was "jaws". Apparently it was a best seller but there is no way that book compared to the movie. As a matter of fact the characters in the book were so dislikeable that Steven Spielberg is quoted as saying "by the end I was rooting for the shark" when referring to the book.

What movies do you feel surpassed the book they were based on?

First things first... It depends greatly on which one you experience first. As someone who read Jaws before watching the movie, I disliked the changes made for the movie so much that to this day, I still don't like it. And yes, some of the characters were dislikable which is why the movie pissed me off! :-p

That said, I can't off hand think of any movies that surpassed their books... Even books that I read after the movie though their aren't many of those. As a later post says, The Lord of the Rings comes closest but I only say that because I have never been able to get through the first book. The movie as far more accessible.




Offline Elizabeth

  • Life Is Short........Play Naked..!!!
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,744
    • Woos/Boos: +379/-9
    • Gender: Female
Reply #8 on: March 21, 2017, 08:27:08 PM
South Pacific (both) Movie and Book happen to be excellent.
The movie turned into a musical (which I doubt James Michener ever had in mind).
But either way read it or watch it, you won't be disappointed (unless you already hate musicals).

Love,
Liz
 



Offline JulesVern

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 856
    • Woos/Boos: +51/-0
    • Gender: Male
Reply #9 on: March 22, 2017, 12:59:39 AM
South Pacific (both) Movie and Book happen to be excellent.
The movie turned into a musical (which I doubt James Michener ever had in mind).
But either way read it or watch it, you won't be disappointed (unless you already hate musicals).

Love,
Liz
 

I would say there are quite a few titles where they are both excellent... and significantly different. Starship Troopers comes to mind. You can argue about the quality of both ... and they are quite different even as they share a lot but I very much enjoyed them both. Funny though, this is one where I watched the movie first.

Blade Runner is another. Significantly changed in many ways but based on a very good short story. Which is better? That's hard to say. :-p



Offline Elizabeth

  • Life Is Short........Play Naked..!!!
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,744
    • Woos/Boos: +379/-9
    • Gender: Female
Reply #10 on: March 22, 2017, 03:57:43 PM
South Pacific (both) Movie and Book happen to be excellent.
The movie turned into a musical (which I doubt James Michener ever had in mind).
But either way read it or watch it, you won't be disappointed (unless you already hate musicals).

Love,
Liz
 

I would say there are quite a few titles where they are both excellent... and significantly different. Starship Troopers comes to mind. You can argue about the quality of both ... and they are quite different even as they share a lot but I very much enjoyed them both. Funny though, this is one where I watched the movie first.

Blade Runner is another. Significantly changed in many ways but based on a very good short story. Which is better? That's hard to say. :-p

I think the movie was much better than "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep".
I read the book first, then saw the movie in both versions (Director's Cut and Movie release) The Director's Cut for "Blade Runner" was fantastic. A few years ago there was talk of doing a re-make of Blade Runner (a new version that finishes up where the original left off), but apparently nothing came of it.

Love,
Liz



Offline JulesVern

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 856
    • Woos/Boos: +51/-0
    • Gender: Male
Reply #11 on: March 22, 2017, 06:10:46 PM
Quote

I think the movie was much better than "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep".
I read the book first, then saw the movie in both versions (Director's Cut and Movie release) The Director's Cut for "Blade Runner" was fantastic. A few years ago there was talk of doing a re-make of Blade Runner (a new version that finishes up where the original left off), but apparently nothing came of it.

Love,
Liz


I'm pretty sure the there is a new movie coming. I thought it was actually nearing release but now I will have to look it. :-p

My memory of the book is somewhat fuzzy so I can't really give a good opinion at this point but I seem to remember enjoying it like many of Phillip K. Dick's stories...

As for the movie, it wasn't exactly a big hit at release, but soon became a cult classic. I personally enjoyed it and never did get the hate on the original voiceover version. Having watched the many various cuts since I'd say that I appreciate them all and can't say really I prefer any one version.



Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,023
    • Woos/Boos: +3086/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #12 on: March 22, 2017, 07:35:06 PM

My pick would be another Coppola movie, Apocalypse Now. Heart of Darkness was a great book, but wasn't quite the masterclass of its medium that Apocalypse Now is. The main difference, to me, is that Kurtz had this larger than life reputation that the character could never fulfill in the book while Brando completely lives up to the hype when he finally appears on screen.


I'd disagree with the lower status you grant the novel. I think it's one of the finest novels ever written, with a perfect compactness and a beauty of language. The film is bloated (and that extended cut is even more bloated).

But your point is nonetheless spot on. From the first page/frame, everything is leading inexorably toward Kurtz. And in the rivers in each serve as a metaphor of that unstoppable journey. In the book, Kurtz turns out to be something of a petty martinet, while in the film, Kurtz is more like Alexander after conquering all the known worlds. He appears to be fully sated in every possible respect, his satiation leading to a lethargy and apathy that's physical, mental, and moral.

Oh, by the way, spoiler alert...








"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline JulesVern

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 856
    • Woos/Boos: +51/-0
    • Gender: Male
Reply #13 on: March 22, 2017, 11:56:18 PM
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is one of my favourite books. Blade Runner looked great and had many good moments, but it was one of those movies you could tell had issues in production. It wasn't a book that particularly lended itself to a Hollywood adaptation in the first place. A movie that managed to explore similar themes much more successfully, in my opinion, was Ex Machina.

My pick would be another Coppola movie, Apocalypse Now. Heart of Darkness was a great book, but wasn't quite the masterclass of its medium that Apocalypse Now is. The main difference, to me, is that Kurtz had this larger than life reputation that the character could never fulfil in the book while Brando completely lives up to the hype when he finally appears on screen.

That's the trouble with books that aren't written to be adapted... lol.

At the risk of going way off topic,  I like to think about a Piers Anthony book, Split Infinity, and wonder just how someone would adapt a book about a serf who lives in a culture that demands all serfs to be naked at all times, unless the specific task they are doing requires it. Changing just that aspect would ruin one of the basic tenets of the book.

Anyway, Ex Machina, a movie I keep telling myself to watch but never quite get to. :-p I hear it is good.

As for Apocalypse Now, I don't recall reading the book, but then I'm one of the few who didn't enjoy the movie. Though it seems that MissBarbara isn't a fan either. :-p

And lol for the spoiler alert... If you haven't seen it by now, then oh well. :-p



Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,023
    • Woos/Boos: +3086/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #14 on: March 27, 2017, 02:56:29 PM

I'd disagree with the lower status you grant the novel. I think it's one of the finest novels ever written, with a perfect compactness and a beauty of language. The film is bloated (and that extended cut is even more bloated).


To me the movie communicated its themes more clearly, but I can't argue with the quality of the prose in the book.


What's fascinating about the sparkling prose is the fact that Joseph Conrad, one of the greatest English prose stylists of all time, was born in Poland and didn't even begin to speak English until he was in his 20s.





"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline Elizabeth

  • Life Is Short........Play Naked..!!!
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,744
    • Woos/Boos: +379/-9
    • Gender: Female
Reply #15 on: October 15, 2017, 11:34:38 PM
There is a new "Blade Runner Movie".....Harrison Ford will be in it, as Decker, "BUT" this movie will focus on a search for Decker (who has gone missing for over twenty years).
I'm looking forward to seeing it.....should be very good.

Love,
Liz



Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,760
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-52
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #16 on: October 16, 2017, 04:10:06 PM
The Lord Of The Rings

I think not.

I love the second movie -The Battle of Helm's Deep is one of my favorite scenes- but without things like Tom Bombadil and The Scouring of the Shire it seems lacking.

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Movie_vs._Book:Major_Differences

#Resist

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB


_priapism

  • Guest
Reply #17 on: October 16, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
To Kill a Movkinbird is being pulled from school bookshelves this week "for making people uncomfortable."  But Gregory Peck's turn as Atticus Finch surpasssed the original's reach and spread an uncomfortable message to the corners of the globe.



Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,023
    • Woos/Boos: +3086/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #18 on: October 16, 2017, 06:32:33 PM

To Kill a Mockingbird is being pulled from school bookshelves this week "for making people uncomfortable."  But Gregory Peck's turn as Atticus Finch surpassed the original's reach and spread an uncomfortable message to the corners of the globe.


I agree with everything you say here.

The whole point of the novel is to make the reader feel uncomfortable. That's precisely the source of its power -- and the reason why it's as relevant today as it was first published in 1960, or when the film was released a few years later.






"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline Hades

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,063
    • Woos/Boos: +165/-1
    • Gender: Male
  • Despite of it all, still an aspiring decent person
Reply #19 on: October 18, 2017, 11:47:13 AM
Anyone here remember the "Da vinci code"?  Ok, so I don't think the movie lived up to the super over inflated hype, but i thought the movie was quite enjoyable.
A few month later i was given the book.  Talking about a let-down.  I put it aside after one chapter. 
A harsh critique from a guy who is yet to post a story on KB, to a guy that wrote a dozen or so bestselling novels but still...

Don't ask me.
I'm just as clueless about life as you are.