The Sword and Laser discussion

481 views
What Else Are You Reading? > The movie is better than the book!!!

Comments Showing 51-61 of 61 (61 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 2 next »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 51: by Dustin (new)

Dustin (tillos) | 365 comments Miklos wrote: "Maybe, I'll be alone with this but The Hobbit is better in film, so far."

Agreed. Also I agree about Jurassic Park.


message 52: by terpkristin (new)

terpkristin | 4407 comments I don't watch a ton of movies, but ones that stick out for me:
The Sword in the Stone: I enjoyed the book but the Dusney version had so much more whimsy. Then, that's Disney.
The Princess Bride: I preferred the grandfather reading to his sick grandson over the snarky, sarcastic narrator in the book. And the movie was just SO. Well. Cast! It's in my top 5 all-time movies.
The Pelican Brief: I usually like Grisham novels for the popcorn book they are, but I couldn't get into this one.
Jurassic Park: I hadn't thought of it originally but I agree with the consensus here. Bonus, Jeff Goldblum.

Finally, I haven't read The Hunt for Red October or The Sum of All Fears but I have read other Clancy Jack Ryan novels and I'm guessing those movies are better than the books. Then again, both were cast so well.

I think the take home here is that for me, casting seems to play a big role!


message 53: by Micah (last edited Mar 03, 2013 05:57AM) (new)

Micah (onemorebaker) | 1071 comments @terpkristin - The hunt for red October was perhaps the best Tom Clancy movie right besides patriot games. But The Sum of All Fears was a really bad adaptation. They took a lot of creative license with the movie. There were no Neo Nazi ish people at all and Jack Ryan was the Secretary of Defense instead of just another low level analyst in the book.


message 54: by Simon (new)

Simon (kane856) | 13 comments Pretty much all the Philip K Dick movies - never could get into any of the books :)


message 55: by Joseph (new)

Joseph | 2433 comments I may have mentioned this in the other thread, but I'd say the movie version of L.A. Confidential is certainly more accessible than the book.


message 56: by Sky (new)

Sky Corbelli | 352 comments Stardust, The Prestige, and, dipping into the world of Broadway musicals, Wicked... and all for pretty much the same reason: The performance took a more or less rambling book and gave it focus.

That said, I enjoyed Stardust and thought that The Prestige was very interesting, but I could hardly believe that Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West gave birth to the play.


message 57: by Andrew (new)

Andrew Clark | 35 comments kickass and wanted were both way better than the comics, I don't know what it is about mark millar but i just cant stand his writing


message 58: by Neil (new)

Neil | 165 comments Andrew wrote: "kickass and wanted were both way better than the comics, I don't know what it is about mark millar but i just cant stand his writing"

Wanted was so different from the book that I see them as entirely separate and like them both. The Kickass film was closer to the source material and I was willing to go with it right up until the (view spoiler)


message 59: by Rasnac (new)

Rasnac | 336 comments I hate Mark Millar deeply; yet I must admit that those movies are waaay worse than comics. At least those comics each had one (kinda) original idea or a suprise in them; movie scripts killed even those and made those stories even more bland.


message 60: by Trike (new)

Trike | 11254 comments High five for Millar hate. (Which is only fair, since he hates comic book readers.)


message 61: by Rasnac (new)

Rasnac | 336 comments description

:D


« previous 1 2 next »
back to top