King wasn't very happy with Kubrick's Shining.
Needless to say, he didn't direct any further adaptations of Stephen King novels.
Any Movie Adaptions Better than their Books?
- Thread starter Scoreboard Red
- Start date
King wasn't very happy with Kubrick's Shining.
Needless to say, he didn't direct any further adaptations of Stephen King novels.
I prefer the book of Carrie to the film, maybe that's just me. The ending is definitely weirder than in the book. The shining i like the film version, it's hard for me to call between them but the film definitely would be better if it didn't have that toothy bint who does nothing wortwhile but hurt my eardrums.
Have to disagree on that one.
The book's explanation of Don Vito's rise to the top was a lot more thorough and detailed than the otherwise brilliant flashback sequences in the second film and that's just one example of the book adding clarity and evocativeness to an already engrossing plot.
And like any book, it gave the characters a level of depth that the film wasn't able to convey simply by providing back stories for each.
Popcorn novel though it may have been, I found it unputdownable.
Have to disagree on Fight Club as well
Saw the film before I read the book and found the whole 'holy shit, I'M Tyler Durden!' plot twist to be really gimmicky and a bit of a cop-out.
The book, on the other hand, gave me a far more plausible sense of how such a personality split might function in a practical sense. It also stretched credulity far less in the book than it did in the film.
The bith that made the plot twist particularly difficult to accept was the scenes which showed Norton's character hanging around in the downstairs part of the house as he tried to ignore the sounds of Tyler having sex with Marla in the upstairs part of the house. If Norton's character and Tyler are supposed to be the same person then how could Norton's character be continuing a self-aware existence one part of the house while Tyler's having sex with Marla in a different part of the house?
Norton's character fighting against himself also just looked fecking silly on screen, whereas in the book it didn't seem as silly because you couldn't actually see it.
Saw the film before I read the book and found the whole 'holy shit, I'M Tyler Durden!' plot twist to be really gimmicky and a bit of a cop-out.
The book, on the other hand, gave me a far more plausible sense of how such a personality split might function in a practical sense. It also stretched credulity far less in the book than it did in the film.
The bith that made the plot twist particularly difficult to accept was the scenes which showed Norton's character hanging around in the downstairs part of the house as he tried to ignore the sounds of Tyler having sex with Marla in the upstairs part of the house. If Norton's character and Tyler are supposed to be the same person then how could Norton's character be continuing a self-aware existence one part of the house while Tyler's having sex with Marla in a different part of the house?
Norton's character fighting against himself also just looked fecking silly on screen, whereas in the book it didn't seem as silly because you couldn't actually see it.
How do you know its better than the book then?
Passion of the Christ?
I didn't like Godfather the book at all. Tried a couple of other books by Mario Puzo and didn't like those either. His writing reminds me of Ludlum. And I hate Ludlum.
Edit: HIs writing might actually be nothing like Ludlum's. It's been years since I read either author but I remember not enjoying Puzo's writing at all. And hating Ludlum's.
Edit: HIs writing might actually be nothing like Ludlum's. It's been years since I read either author but I remember not enjoying Puzo's writing at all. And hating Ludlum's.
Stephen King is a unique one. Most movies based on his books are really really bad. But he's a poor writer too. I'm guessing at least one of his movies must be better than the book. Stand By Me, maybe? Haven't read the book, decent movie though. Shining?
The Princess Bride. Good book (the abridged version, not read the full version), great film.
Lord of the Rings
King hated it so much, he produced a very shit tv movie in the 90s of The Shining. He sure showed Kubrick...
The Shining was beautifully shot, and tense, and shit, but I'd have enjoyed it more if I'd had a fecking clue what was going on.
LA Confidential was done really well, and I thought Tarantino nailed the tone of Elmore Leonard in Jackie Brown.
The Virgin Suicides was a great adaptation too.
The Virgin Suicides was a great adaptation too.
Jurassic Park
You really don't want to. He spends a whole chapter of the book describng Buttercups beauty. Although Montoyas relationship with his dad is sorely missed in the film.
Tom Bombadil was an important character, but a rather confusing one that would have left audiences going more "what the frak" than adding to the story.
That in my opinion was the best omission from the trilogy. I was often wondering in other places why they cut parts. The whole Arwen replacing Glorfindel in the flight to the Ford part always annoyed me.
Well Arwen as a character is made much more important in the films than the books. Also, I read the books fairly recently and I remember the entire Helm's Deep scene being different. I don't recall the Elves turning up in the book, and it's also resolved in an entirely different way - rather than Gandalf turning up with reinforcements it is instead a load of ents who just appear when it gets foggy. There's no grand fight just suddenly the fog clears and all the orcs are dead.
Not to mention that in The Two Towers book Helm's Deep takes up about three chapters, whereas it's most of the damn film.
It was a far better book than Salem's Lot, which was a good read mind.
King is a brilliant writer at his best. His biggest flaw is that he often lets the characters go where the story takes them which makes the end a bit confused and disappointing sometimes.
I'm not really a fan of the genre but it is hard to think of a writer who makes their characters as real as he does (until they turn into brain sucking, fire starting zombies).
From the trailers I've seen, they seem to have included much more of a backstory, which could be good, but could equally not...
As for the Godfather...Not a great book. Not particularly well written
I love how people mistake detail for depth...ditto regarding the LoTR and that ilk...Depth isn't necessarily just lots of little pointless details about the characters lives, it's also about the accurate and understandable conveyance of emotion or motivation..."Oh this book has so much more depth than the film becasue we knew what he ate for breakfast every morning and how many rabbtits he had when he was 7"..The Godfather book for example, isn't very well written so, to me at any rate, there's very little character resonance for me, and therefore to an extent, depth. I didn't warm or connect with the characters because they weren't very well represented ..whereas the films are so very well acted that it's given more profundity, which is unusual becuase usually books have the advantage in that regard, what with getting to describe something films can often only convey with a look (although to be fair I just imagined them all as their film counterparts anyway when i read it, which I couldn't really help)
Most of Tolkien's work is the ramblings of a mad man with some bizarre form of anal OCD that manifests itself in writing endless scripture about every minute details in the lives of fictional, otherworldly magic people...That Jackson managed to whittle it down to 10 hours is a god send
LA Confidential was a great movie, mugged at the Oscars by Titanic in my opnion...
They fecked up the ending though. In the book the main villain wasn't killed off and he reappeared in Ellroy's follow-up novel. Said novel (White Jazz) would make a great movie if handled correctly.
Sounds like a bad idea to me but I hope I'm wrong.
I'm somewhere inbetween. I thought the films were brilliant and that they captured the essence of the books. I loved the books but some of the songs and poems made me want to go postal. Tom Bombadill was as an utterly pointless and annoying character and I was very glad that he wasn't in the film. Or his hippy missus who was straight out of a Led Zep song - hedgerows rustling left right and centre.
Tolkien's divisive I suppose. It's each to their own. As for The Road, well look for yourself...Neither the event itself nor his wife are included as prominently as it suggests they are..but it is a trailer, you never really know with trailers, they're cut with distinctly different agendas than the films themselves..But the fact she's played by Charlize Theron implies she'll have a larger part, in fact it seems to imply she's a fairly central and ubiquitous character
YouTube - The Road - Official Trailer [HD]
YouTube - The Road - Official Trailer [HD]
Two Towers - the book was virtually unreadable(for me anyway)
Other than the poems and songs, the worst bits for me where when JR decided to go all biblical in his explanations of mans, elven and dwarven heraldry. Elwe begat Mefanwe, who took the song of old to temples past, who begat Umfafoo etc. I found Bombadil annoying with his Hey Merry doll singing, but i liked the idea that this little gnome character was the most powerful creature on all Middle Earth.
Both films and books were incredible but it was impossible for me for the films to surpass the books.
Another bit that was completely left out were the Barrow-wights, although these did tie in with Tom Bombadil (whom I liked in the books), which is most likely the reason why they were omitted.
Another bit that was completely left out were the Barrow-wights, although these did tie in with Tom Bombadil (whom I liked in the books), which is most likely the reason why they were omitted.
Shrek!
The view that the Godfather is a poorly written book is one that seems to be quite common. Suffice to say, I disagree. Puzo isn't an outstanding writer by any means but he's a fairly competent one at worst IMO, and it's really the content of the book that made it appeal so much to me more than the prose.
As for your 'how many rabits he had when he was 7' example, I haven't got a fecking clue how you deduced that to be the point I was trying to make in my post, but I'll assume it's because I wasn't clear enough in what I was trying to say.
The Sonny character is one example I would use of a character who achieves greater roundedness in the book than in the film. The book gives us a history of his childhood as well as his beginnings as a mafiosi which help to formulate a far more palpable sense of character than the film, in which he's really a bit of a caricature gangster with a foul mouth and a bad temper. The book also provides a sub-plot of his relationship with the girl with the massive vagina and this offers the reader an insight into his tender side, ultimately creating a more sympathetic character than the one-dimensional one we see in the film.
None of this is intended to refute your very apposite points about the power of good prose to give a character resonance, or the way great actors can use gestures and looks to bring a character to life without needing this level of story-telling to do the same job. However I think it's also fair to say that a character being given a backstory, and appearing in sub-plots and interacting with other characters in different contexts also gives the character a greater roundedness. Of course films have far less scope to do this than books, but that's why books are almost invariably better than the film.
In my opionion Goodfellas was better than the book - Wiseguys
I'm with you on that - loved the books and the films and I think leaving out the songs and Bombadil were good moves. The most excruciating part of the films is in Return of the King, when Strider starts warbling. Yikes
I think it is really impressive when film makers handle the transition of full length novel to the screen well. From the amount of times it falls flat, it is clearly a pretty difficult thing to master.
I think Kubrick's version of the Shining is a masterpiece - different from the book which is great - but a fabulous piece of cinema. I only read the book after watching that Friends episode where Joey keeps it in the freezer and found it far more impressive than I expected - he kept the gore fest down (which is what usually puts me off his books).
It's a few years since I read it, but I think I preferred the film version of One Flew Over the Cuckoos nest - mind you the book still made me blub.
Bridge over the river Kwai - good book, great film.
Slumdog millionaire? - is the book as good as the movie?
Slumdog millionaire? - is the book as good as the movie?
I struggled to finish it TBH. The detail was excruciatingly boring and the writing was of a standard almost as bad as John Grisham. That said the truly brilliant film was 2 and that largely down to great direction and an unsurpassed performance from Pacino.
LOTR triology 
The Lotr trilogy is one of the few books i've actually read. The movies were good but nothing beats the books.
but christine the book is better than the film, although i enjoyed the salem's lot film ( the david soul version )
Jaap Stam?
Christine the book wasn't one of his best, but the film was awful. I think the David Soul thing was tv rather than a film. Cujo was a decent film although they pussied out at the end. The Dead Zone was also a very good film and had an excellent cast. It also stayed fairly true to a brilliant book.
Not seen Pet Sematary or The Tommyknockers but i've heard they're pretty terrible. The former was one of his best books. The Green Mile was excellent in both film and novel form.