Memento was based on a short story by the name of Memento Mori and the film was vastly superior.
Films better than the books they are based on
- Thread starter WolfThomas
- Start date
Recommended Videos
He isn't "a terrible writer", well, opinionslol, but I would argue that he was genuinely talented.Echer123 said:
The point? Well, it is an analogy for the bible and the creation of Earth but MAINLY it is a children's book.
Dude, I loved those books!
That last point of mine was a joke, by the way.
"Angels and Demon's" was a half decent movie that was worth the £3 i paid. The book on the other hand...well, it did a good job of keeping me warm these winter months.
I chalenge you to a duel sir for sullying the honour of one of the greatest of books! Kill-O-Zap Guns at dawn I say!Bad Cluster said:
Wait people like the Narnia films when did this happen, have they started making good ones ? , have they started making them in the right order ?grimsprice said:
Do you really expect a Magican's Nephew film? Or a horse and his boy? (Granted that is one of my favourites). For anyone going to see the film who hasn't read them, which I assume is a large number, they'll seem strange and out of place.molester jester said:
The Name of the Rose: Umberto Eco's original novel was brilliant in many ways, but it went in too many directions and the giant blocks of Latin were more than a little daunting. The movie focused on several aspects of the book; admitted, many changes were made, but they made it a much simpler story that was easier to follow. Not that I have a problem with challenging writing; this novel was just too dense. The movie also featured rich scenery and excellent acting with more dramatic tension that seemed lacking in the book.
Dracula: Maybe I'm just not down with Victorian era fiction, but the journal style jumping from character to character and the overall writing style just bored the shit out of me; I have yet to finish the book. Bram Stoker's Dracula, starring Gary Oldman, however, stands as one of my favorite movies of all time. Stylish, erotic without being trashy, all-star cast (with the glaring inclusion of Keanu "Whoa" Reeves, the only lackluster part of the movie); oh yes, quite good indeed.
Dracula: Maybe I'm just not down with Victorian era fiction, but the journal style jumping from character to character and the overall writing style just bored the shit out of me; I have yet to finish the book. Bram Stoker's Dracula, starring Gary Oldman, however, stands as one of my favorite movies of all time. Stylish, erotic without being trashy, all-star cast (with the glaring inclusion of Keanu "Whoa" Reeves, the only lackluster part of the movie); oh yes, quite good indeed.
Never read or saw the Narnia series, but I have to agree on the Lord of the Rings. Methinks they should give the books another shot; the movies came off more like some sickening Dungeons & Dragons circlejerk.FROGGEman2 said:
Funny a horse and his boy was my favourite out of the series, But yes i would have loved to see those books made into movies instead of the cheap LOTR knock offs they are producing now. They may well seem strange and out of place but they still have an exciting story to tell, if they were were given a chance.BrynThomas said:
HAHAHA!RossyB said:
Don't panic!
You've just encountered a being with a different opinion than yours
By the way, did I say the book was bad? Nop, I didn't, simply the movie was better in my opinion.
As for Sci-Fi satire, nothing beats Stanislaw Lem's Star Diaries.
I actually found the Green Mile to be one of the best Movie Adaptations. When I was reading the Green Mile, the movie was playing in my head, and there was VERY LITTLE that was removed from the book when they made the movie (then again, the movie is hugely long, but I digress). The Green Mile was a great novel which they made into a great movie. This thread is mostly about shitty novels that became good movies.KingTiger said:
And to the person that mentioned Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, fuck the hell no. like, holy fuck no. The ONLY redeeming quality of the movie is the fact that it's NOTHING like the book. Everytime Adams re-made Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, be it for radio, old TV shows, video games, etc. They were always different, sometimes in huge ways.
But to say that the movie was BETTER then the book... I puked in my mouth just thinking about it.
True, but that could just be the transition to a visual medium.imp_spittle said:
"What do you see with your Elf eyes?" isn't so bad when on paper, but said aloud it's a little weird.
I do generally have an issue with the idea of "better because it didn't bore the shit outta me" (no offense intended) 'cause of the high chance that the reader just ain't sophisticated enough to get it.
Still, opinions, right? The merit as to whether the reader can understand the writing or not is basically irrelevant.
Oh, I was quite aware of my own hypocrisy, calling Dracula out for being boring but celebrating LotR. It all boils down to personal preference. A major aspect is what someone is expecting from the book. I was expecting Dracula to be much different from what it was, so perhaps I was the problem, not the book. I'm willing to go back someday to give it another go, but finding it among the vast piles of books I own is the problem.FROGGEman2 said:
Ah, it just seemed that you watched the movie long ago, and read the book even longer ago. I thought the book made it fairly obvious that they where men early on, just not clear on what kind of men until later. The movie never really made it clear that they where Neanderthals.BrynThomas said:
first movie was okgrimsprice said:
second one sucked hard
it had "big" set pieces that where anything but interesting
and it lost alot of the character development that happened in the first one
