|
|
Post by nycgirl on Apr 25, 2012 15:32:40 GMT
We could go on all day about films that didn't live up to the book, but occasionally there comes along a film that trumps its source material.
That's how I feel about The Godfather. Mario Puzzo's novel was engaging enough, but in my opinion would not be memorable if not for the film's success. The movie got everything right: the iconic performances, the moody lighting, the script, the soundtrack. And it wisely jettisoned the unimportant parts of the book (like a whole chapter dedicated to Sonny's mistress' anatomical insecurity. Who cares?!).
Any others?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2012 17:38:18 GMT
I have to think about this, because I have found films to be better than the book quite regularly, but not a single title is coming to mind at this precise moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by lola on Apr 25, 2012 17:40:59 GMT
Yes! Coincidentally, this song has been in my head all morning:
Anthony Minghella and all improved Talented Mr. Ripley by lots.
Another Matt Damon effort that beats the book, in my opinion: Bourne Identity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2012 18:04:21 GMT
Exactly! That is a film that is better than the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Apr 25, 2012 18:25:52 GMT
Films about the Bible tend to be better than the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2012 18:54:55 GMT
Far more exciting in any case.
|
|
|
|
Post by lola on Apr 26, 2012 1:40:18 GMT
I certainly liked the movie version of  better than the book. |
|
|
|
Post by nycgirl on Apr 26, 2012 2:36:03 GMT
I was surprised when I read the book how different The Wizard of Oz film is, but the filmmakers' choices certainly left an indelible impression on viewers. Who can forget those songs and the gorgeous cinematography. Even making Dorothy's shoes red instead of silver was a good move.
I wish they had kept a couple of elements from the book, though. Dorothy in the book was more like a tough Dust Bowl kid, not so prissy. Also, in the book, Oz was real, but the filmmakers explained it away with "it was all a dream" because they were afraid audiences wouldn't buy the fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Apr 26, 2012 6:51:43 GMT
I read the book a long time ago, and I remember something odd about being made to wear goggles to look at the Emerald City so it would look green. Am I imagining that?
I think Gone with the Wind improved on some things when they made the movie, getting rid of the babies Scarlett had with her first two husbands, for example.
Bambi, the book by Felix Salton, was not a children's story, unlike the Disney film. One of my favorite books.
The Notebook movie was a lot more interesting than the book by Nicholas Sparks.
|
|
|
|
Post by nycgirl on Apr 26, 2012 18:03:27 GMT
I read the book a long time ago, and I remember something odd about being made to wear goggles to look at the Emerald City so it would look green. Am I imagining that? That's right, I forgot about that. The film did a good job of giving the viewer more spectacle than the book described. My husband said the movie Jaws is better than the book. |
|
|
|
Post by lola on Apr 27, 2012 4:03:52 GMT
I'll go ahead and stir things up.
The Harry Potter movies are better than the books. Rowling has a gift for narrative, plot, and amusing detail, but not, I submit, for characters or for prose.
|
|
|
|
Post by lola on Apr 27, 2012 4:06:08 GMT
I might have to give the Oz book another try, though. Just looking at that cover art gives me a hankering.
|
|
|
|
Post by nycgirl on Apr 27, 2012 13:32:59 GMT
I'll go ahead and stir things up. The Harry Potter movies are better than the books. Rowling has a gift for narrative, plot, and amusing detail, but not, I submit, for characters or for prose. Oooh, that's an interesting take.  I respectfully disagree. The first two films were dreadfully uninspired and have not aged well. Looking at them today, you wouldn't believe they were shot in the 21st century. The lead actor was embarrassingly bad in the first two (I know he was a little kid, but talented child actors do exist). He was more assured, but was still shaky, in the following few. I only think he was really good in #6 and #7, Part 1 and 2. Of course, the huge cast of renowned British character actors is a big selling point. Loved what Alan Rickman did with his role. Still, a lot of times I think the script short-changed his fascinatingly ambiguous character. |
|
|
|
Post by lola on Apr 28, 2012 1:32:37 GMT
I like respectful disagreement! This forces me to admit I'm not qualified to judge all of either the movies or the books, because I haven't read or seen them all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2012 4:48:48 GMT
I will take an intermediate stance on the Harry Potter movies, since some were better than others. However, it is pretty much the same with all big, thick books -- the movies cut out the "boring parts" which are not at all boring to everybody. This is the case with Lord of the Rings as well. I often envy people who go to movies without having read books like that and then have the desire to read the books, because they discover so many more details and plot twists.
I had not read The Shining when I saw the movie, so I was fascinated by all of the extra information when I read the book. And the book turned out to be even more exciting, because the ending was not the same, so there was none of the "I know what's going to happen; hurry up and get on with it" stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Apr 29, 2012 8:59:59 GMT
At the risk of howls of disagreement echoing around the board I would like to say that I thought that Peter Jacksons' LOTR films were a more enjoyable experience for me than the books. Harry Potter...um I wasn't mad about the books but they were for children and I'm an adult. I read them as my OH insisted and because I wanted to see what all the hype was about. I agree with Lola, and also think that the child actors seem to have been chosen more for their physical resemblance to the characters they played...by the final films however I do think that Rupert Grynt in particular had developed into a fine young actor.
The Dan Brown books were better as movies imo...altho I didn't really enjoy either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Apr 29, 2012 16:12:39 GMT
I agree with K2 about The Shining. The topiary that came to life was way better than the hedge maze they used in the movie. (Nowadays with CG techniques they could re-do it, though.)
|
|
|
|
Post by joanne28 on May 16, 2012 18:02:55 GMT
I feel any movie based on a D.H. Lawrence novel is an improvement. It's probably just me but I always feel like I'm underwater when reading Lawrence. I did really like "Women In Love" but I was probably about 16 or 17 when I saw it. I would have to see it again with my far less romantic outlook on life.
|
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on May 20, 2012 4:54:55 GMT
I loved Lawrence when I was younger. Reading it now would probably make me run my head through a brick wall.
I adored the movie "Women in Love" and remember being hugely affronted when my 20-years-older cousin mocked parts of it. I'd probably agree with him now.
I really liked all the Potter books except for the little-kid gross stuff in the first couple. The first Potter movie turned me off so badly that I never watched another one. Talking about sucking the magic out of something!
Gad, I read the Godfather so long ago -- when it first came out -- that I can't really compare it to the movie. I liked both of them, & remember being pleased with what the movie did with the book. I've seen the movie several times & it always holds up. I don't know if the book would, though.
Wow, I'd forgotten about Scarlett's other kids. The movie is a cringe-fest.
Strangely, I've never read the Oz books, although I can almost recite the entire script of the movie.
The Shining was a ka-zillion times better book than movie.
Well, I didn't really contribute anything to this discussion (great topic, by the way), so will offer up this tiny nugget -- Dances With Wolves was a movie first & book second.
|
|
|
|
Post by nycgirl on May 20, 2012 20:24:45 GMT
The first Potter movie turned me off so badly that I never watched another one. Talking about sucking the magic out of something! Agreed. Chris Columbus, who directed the first two, has no vision. They looked bad when they first came out, but watching them today you would never know they were filmed in the 21st century. The Lords of the Rings trilogy, by contrast, still looks very handsome all these years later. I think those films are just as good as the books. Peter Jackson even added a couple of touches that were improvements, such as the expansion of female roles. Tolkien didn't go out of his way to include ladies in his man-fest. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 1:20:28 GMT
Having watched The Yacoubian Building last night and recently having read the novel from which it was taken, although, a tough call, I have to now say the movie was better.
I think largely because I needed someone else's visual of Cairo to 'make it right'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 5:41:14 GMT
I think that is often true for "exotic" locations, even when the exotic location is in one's own country.
|
|
|
|
Post by rikita on May 27, 2012 18:07:25 GMT
i liked the "herr lehmann" movie better than the book, in case anyone heard of that. of course, i nthat case i also saw the movie before reading the book, so that might have had to do with it...
|
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Jun 3, 2012 23:17:20 GMT
Well, I didn't really contribute anything to this discussion (great topic, by the way), so will offer up this tiny nugget -- Dances With Wolves was a movie first & book second. So did you like the book or movie better? |
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 4, 2012 0:19:33 GMT
The book was an emergency read -- the only thing I had at the time. I remember it as being really okay, despite having seen the movie first. Surprising.
|
|
