Edward (post: 1487272) wrote:When usually movie adaptations suck compared to the book, especially if the book holds a special place in one's heart, sometimes the movie really is better. In my opinion, I think the movie version of The Princess Bride was better than the book, which I found rather boring, as the humor doesn't work very well in print, wheras the movie is hilarious.
What do you think? Does anyone else know of a movie that they find better than the book? (It has to be a movie adaptation of a book, not a book adaptation of a movie)
Atria35 (post: 1487275) wrote:I will second Princess Bride and, while I know this will be hotly contested, I volunteer Lord of the Rings (extended versions, though. The original cuts left a little to be desired, at least when it came to Boromir and his motivations.) Don't get me wrong, I love Tolkien, it's just that his books are very. heavy. reading. They require time, patience, and a good vocabulary to get through. I love the books! But... Yeah. Tolkien is long-winded on the best of days.
FllMtl Novelist (post: 1487281) wrote:Personally I enjoyed the Harry Potter movies 1-6 more than the books, simply because the books took me a while to read. While I don't have any specific problems with the books, they just didn't grab my attention as much as some other works, and when I read them I was a slower reader than I am now. The movies, on the other hand, each took only two hours or so, and I was done. The only thing I really disliked about the film adaptions was how little screentime Alan Rickman got. XD He makes an awesome Snape.
Radical Dreamer (post: 1487276) wrote:Another one that comes to mind is The Prestige, written by Christopher Priest and directed by Christopher Nolan. I really liked the book, but I felt like the movie handled a lot of bumps in the story a lot better. The beginning of the feud between the magicians feels a lot more...legitimate, in the movie. XD In the book, the feud starts over something that feels ridiculously petty, and though that may sort of be the point, it doesn't really do a good job conveying that. XD Besides, it's a lot easier to like characters who have a legitimate reason to be angry with one another, so that was a smart change to make for the movie. XD
Of course, the start of the feud is only one aspect of the story. I really loved the way the book was put together, and I found the ending really interesting, though in a far less believable way. Even so, when comparing the two, the movie is definitely the better of the two. XD
KhakiBlueSocks wrote:"I'm going to make you a prayer request you can't refuse..." Cue the violins.
Agloval (post: 1487353) wrote:While his prose isn't great, I don't think Tolkein is heavy reading at all. Our collective reading muscles have just atrophied in the decades since he published. We're hardly talking late-period Henry James (whose prose is great, just impenetrable!).
I'm willing to bet the problem was more the content than the prose -- hence the famous 'Not another [expletive delted] elf!'Atria35 (post: 1487355) wrote:Tolkien often had his friends over for dinner and occasions where he would read bits from his books. His contemporaries demanded that he stop reading them passages from his book because it was so boring and terrible.
I think that's a strong hint that it's not just us modern readers.
Scarecrow (post: 1487389) wrote:LotR Books > LotR Movies by a long shot. Don't get me wrong, the movies were fantastic but they don't touch the books. The only part in the book series I think I actually felt bored was in Fellowship in the Old Forest or whatever. It was cut from the movie and for good reason. I can't think of one thing that happened during that chapter that actually had any significance or importance to the rest of the story. I think a tree tried to eat someone but that was about it.
I can't believe people are saying the movies are better... although it seems the ones saying this are the ones who never actually got very far reading them. I'm thinking many people picked the books up after seeing the movies and expected them to be constantly fast paced like the movies were. I read the books before the movies ever came out and had nothing to expect whatsoever. I thought they were fantastic.
You could argue Fellowship movie (extended) is better than Fellowship book and I may not agree but I could see that. Two Towers and Return of the King though... no way. Anyone saying otherwise I don't think read them at all. Truth be told I was disappointed with Two Towers and even moreso with Return of the King when they came out (which was the worst in the movie series but my favorite in the books). I had to look at them as movies and not the books before I could start enjoying them. RotK really got botched as a lot of what was in that movie was still from the Two Towers book so a bunch from RotK got cut.
Scarecrow wrote:Don't get me wrong, the movies were fantastic but they don't touch the books.
I'm thinking many people picked the books up after seeing the movies and expected them to be constantly fast paced like the movies were.
If you want hard reading, try picking up Tolkien's The Silmarillian. THAT is heavy reading. Not because it has big words or stuff like that but because there are SOOOO many names and characters you can't keep anyone straight and each chapter introduces new characters and stuff as the Silmilrillian takes place over thousands of years.
The Fellowship is really the worst-written book of the trilogy. If you had ever managed to survive past (that's past, not to) the Council of Elrond, the rest of it picks up a bit.Nate (post: 1487392) wrote:Nope! I tried reading the books long before a movie was even considered being made. I read The Hobbit when I was like 8 and I loved it. Then I tried reading Fellowship and couldn't stand it, it was so terrible. Then, later on, I looked at the books again (this was when I was in high school or so, so around 1996, 97) and tried reading them a second time. Again, could not make it through Fellowship for the life of me.
And then the movies came out and yes, I tried to read the books yet again...and failed. If I try three times to read a book and it is consistently terrible each time, I'm prepared to say that is not my fault as a reader, it is his fault as an author.
The movies could 'tell the story' better than the books and still be inferior, because (I believe) a good book doesn't have to have a well-told story.Nate (post: 1487392) wrote:the movies tell the story better than the books do because they don't wander around aimlessly and aren't terribly written
Agloval wrote:The movies could 'tell the story' better than the books and still be inferior, because (I believe) a good book doesn't have to have a well-told story.
Digressions and the stammering can be a feature, not a bug.
'another [expletive deleted] elf'.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests