The Lord of the Rings
discussion
Is there a film that is better than the book?
message 1:
by
James
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
11 ott. 02:52
With all these books being made into films (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Da Vinci Code etc) is ther a film that was better than the book?
reply
|
flag
*
There's a few that I liked better than the book, for example:Bridget Jones's Diary (both parts)
Bridges of Madison County
The Horse Whisperer
(They seem all to fall in the same category, Romance/Chick flick - hmm, have to look for some others...)
Oh, Soylent Green; it's not better than the book, but I did like the changes they made, especially re Soylent Green, a lot.
Desert Hearts - definitively better than the book!
The Werewolf of Paris and Logan’s Run are both much better executed in the movies than in the novel.
The movie I always put forward as the exception to the "the book is always better" rule is Forrest Gump..... If you ever read the book (which I do not recommend), you only end up appreciating the movie that much more.
Shawshank Redemption. This was just a short story by Stephen King, but the movie was so epic. The other is Green Mile. Loved the books, but the movie was just brilliant.Minority Report, Bladerunner, Imposter, and A Scanner Darkly are all great modernizations of Philip K. Dick's works and when I watch them, I can imagine him being thrilled with the technology represented. (Yes, even Paycheck remains one of my faves.)
On the classical front: Emma and Sense & Sensibility by Jane Austen are great movies. As You Like It is my favorite Shakespeare interpretation along with Midsummer's Night Dream.
It may be heresy to say this, but the LOTR films were way more enjoyable than the books. This is not a case for dumbing down, but anybody who has read TFOTR and struggled through the chapters about Tom Bombadil and the old forest will know what I mean!! Plus the songs were pretty 'naff in my view.
No Country For Old Men comes pretty close to an authentic eclipsing of Cormac McCarthy's masterpiece. It won the Academy Award and who can forget Javier Bardem, who channeled 'Chigurh,' the most terrifying, baddest, nastiest, most evil villain in filmdom. He also won the Academy Award for best supporting actor for that unforgettable role. "Call it, Friend-o." Wow, it still gives me the heebie-jeebies!
Jeffrey wrote: "No Country For Old Men comes pretty close to an authentic eclipsing of Cormac McCarthy's masterpiece. It won the Academy Award and who can forget Javier Bardem, who channeled 'Chigurh,' the most te..."Got this still to read, but still delaying it having watched the film. True, JB was chilling, so worried the words might not capture that.
R.M.F wrote: "It may be heresy to say this, but the LOTR films were way more enjoyable than the books. This is not a case for dumbing down, but anybody who has read TFOTR and struggled through the chapters about..."I'm with you on that one.
"Three days of the condor"(robert redford) was a better than the book "six days of the condor"i thought another redford movie "the natural" was also better than the book of the same name, by bernard malamud.
R.M.F wrote: "It may be heresy to say this, but the LOTR films were way more enjoyable than the books. This is not a case for dumbing down, but anybody who has read TFOTR and struggled through the chapters about..."I LOVED Tom Bombadil!!!! While the movies were wonderful, they just are not as good as the books.
Yeah, Shawshank is a good read.Never knew that No Country was based on a book. I take back what I said about the genius of the Coen brothers!
Yeah, I'm a heretic.
I would second: Shawshank Redemption, Bladerunner, Bridget Jones Diary.I would add Princess Bride and Clockwork Orange.
Totally agree about Forrest Gump and Bridget Jones. Forrest Gump is one of my favorite movies, yet I couldn't even finish the book. As for Bridget Jones, the movie was definitely better, and even that I thought was only okay.
Count of Monte Cristo: I LOVED the movie with Jim Caviezel as the Count. What a great story of love, revenge and redemption.
I was devastated when this one did NOT have the happy ending the movie did. Was SO not ready for the "get thee to a nunnery" ending! What were you thinking, Dumas?
Hi R.M.F. The Cohen Brothers' genius was their ability to render the terror of No Country For Old Men to the big screen. Boy, did they ever succeeed! Other movies from Cormac McCarthy's novels: All The Pretty Horses and The Road. His masterpiece novel Blood Meridian is also being made into a movie. McCarthy is considered by some as America's greatest living novelist. His books are like witnessing a violent car wreck. You know you shouldn't look but can't help yourself!
The English Patient was a very boring and difficult book for me to read and understand. I absolutely love the movie.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, although based on a short story written by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Does that count?Evening with Claire Danes based on the book by Susan Minot. I hated the book and the writing style.
John wrote: "The movie I always put forward as the exception to the "the book is always better" rule is Forrest Gump..... If you ever read the book (which I do not recommend), you only end up appreciating the ..."I agree
R.M.F wrote: "It may be heresy to say this, but the LOTR films were way more enjoyable than the books. This is not a case for dumbing down, but anybody who has read TFOTR and struggled through the chapters about..."I totally agree, LOTR movies were far better than the movie. Sure, they left some stuff out, but it was all stuff that could be left out and not damage the integrity of the story. IMHO I found the books to be a little dull.
I also thought the LOTR films far better and more approachable than the book. Not that the book isn't brilliant, too.Also, "Stardust" the movie was amazing, while the book I've found a bit meh. Same thing for "The Princess Bride".
Oh, and offcourse "Da Vince Code" - the book I've found unreadable, the film pretty cool.
Carolyn wrote: "I LOVED Tom Bombadil!!!! While the movies were wonderful, they just are not as good as the books. "I agree with you. I don't see what people have against Tom Bombadil. However, I was ok with his removal from the movie, as it made the story flow better. What I found unforgivable, though, is the removal of The Scouring of the Shire. IMO, removing that was like removing the entire point of the book.
Of course! There are many films that are better than the books. To suggest otherwise is mere snobbery.
Bad books could make good movies :-)Forest Gump is much better than the book.
X Men are much better than the comic.
Some movies are equal to the book. The Unbearable Lightness of Being is an excellent adaptation of the source material. It's a great movie on it's own.
I thought that both "The Firm", and "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" were better as movies..
James wrote: "With all these books being made into films (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Da Vinci Code etc) is ther a film that was better than the book?"TrumanCoyote wrote: "Of course! There are many films that are better than the books. To suggest otherwise is mere snobbery."
The general rule of thumb has always been: Good book, bad movie; bad book, good movie.
Jaws is the perennial example of a pretty bad book turned into a really great movie.
Full Metal Jacket is a superb movie based on a trio of short stories (found in
The Short-Timers), the first two of which were mediocre and the third seemed written under the influence of LSD and god knows what else. Kubrick did a similar thing with the book Red Alert which he turned into Dr. Strangelove.
There is also a book by an indian author Jhumpa Lahiri, The Namesake... the novel is excellent and the movie also has captured all the essence of the book and since it had done that i felt the movie was better..
I think all of the John Le Carre movies are much better than his books. I find him to be a terrible writer but the stories are excellent. John Grisham has a similar effect on me. His writing -- especially the dialogue is hard to believe but in the movies they work it all out nicely. I read the Dexter books and found them also to be very poor but the TV show is outstanding.
Stardust (Neil Gaiman) - I hated the book's ending. Loved the movie's, and how it was interpreted.Fightclub (Chuck Palahniuk) - Hated the book, loved the film.
Jeff wrote: "Some movies are equal to the book. The Unbearable Lightness of Being is an excellent adaptation of the source material. It's a great movie on it's own."Yes, I'd agree.
I agree with Jeni, "Shawshank Redemption. This was just a short story by Stephen King, but the movie was so epic. The other is Green Mile. Loved the books, but the movie was just brilliant."Lord of the Rings is an excellent read, and I liked it better than the movie because I could skip over any songs (in the book) I wanted, and in the movie version, that whole trek with Frodo seemed interminable.
Par of me thinks the correlation from book to movie quality isn't dependent upon either sources quality. Some great books have become great movies, like Harry Potter, Hunger Games, Cloud Atlas (hopefully). I think there is a closer correlation to how the director and cast view the source material. If they appreciate it and want to do the original justice, then it has a better chance. If they are trying to capitalize on the success of the book and don't actually care, then the chance of it being terrible goes up dramatically.I think the inverse is also true, if the book is bad but the cast and the director want to do justice to the core of the work then the quality of the filming has the chance to overcome the lack of quality in the book. If, once again, it is all about trying to make something that us a blockbuster and nobody cares about the source material, then the odds of it being horrid go up.
In both cases, I think the attitude of the cast and crew in regards to the book determines how good the movie can be.
Generally, I'd say no, just because books allow you to "see into" characters better than movies. In a book you can know what they're thinking and learn more about their motivation to act the way they do, whereas movies have no way of "showing" what's going on in their head except through actions (and hoping the viewer interprets them correctly). That being said, there have been some great film adaptations of books. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a great example, and I'm looking forward to seeing The Hobbit on the big screen too.
Hunger Games makes BY FAR a better movie than a book. Hated the book, liked the movie (not love, but I enjoyed it well enough).
R.M.F wrote: "It may be heresy to say this, but the LOTR films were way more enjoyable than the books. This is not a case for dumbing down, but anybody who has read TFOTR and struggled through the chapters about..."I completely agree with you. I'm just not a Tolkien fan, and I tried to be after hearing about how epic the trilogy was. As a kid I couldn't get through it, and as an adult I struggled, but managed. The films focused on the great things in the novels while cutting out the dreadfully boring stuff. Learning the entire lineage of hobbits doesn't make for entertaining reading, nor long detours with characters that had no effect on the story. Loved the movies, though!
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer was a wonderful book.I think the movie was even better with all the cinematography and specially Ben's character as Jean Baptiste Grenouille.
all discussions on this book |
post a new topic
Forrest Gump (other topics)
L.A. Confidential (other topics)
The Hunger Games (other topics)
The Count of Monte Cristo (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
The Lord of the Rings (other topics)Forrest Gump (other topics)
L.A. Confidential (other topics)
The Hunger Games (other topics)
The Count of Monte Cristo (other topics)
More...
