Films better than the books they are based on
- Thread starter WolfThomas
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh yeah and the fact he's French so the "We are not monkeys, we are apes!" didn't even originate with the book, as Singe means both ape and monkey.Veylon said:
"We are not Singe, we are Singe!" (In the french translation of the film) To quote comedian Kitty Flanagan: "We are not Singe, we are singe!" and the French are just sitting their going "Oh how very existential".
The Shawshank Redemption, definitely. The changes that were made make the film soooooo much better. oh and I saw the Green Mile mentioned so I'm just gonna say that Frank Darabont directed both of those movies and is underrated but thats a bit off topic...
Star Wars was far better than Hero with a Thousand Faces...
And if that doesn't count...
Field of Dreams is better than Shoeless Joe
Jaws the film is better than Jaws the book
Godfather film is better than Godfather book
Jurassic Park film is better than Jurassic Park book
People need to stop with this Lord of the Rings nonsense. Both the novel and the films are so good that they transcend comparison (IMO). Another two that can't be compared are the novel To Kill a Mockingbird and the film To Kill a Mockingbird.
And possibly the Maltese Falcon because it had Humphrey Bogart slapping that one guy and saying, "When you're slapped, you'll take it and like it"
And if that doesn't count...
Field of Dreams is better than Shoeless Joe
Jaws the film is better than Jaws the book
Godfather film is better than Godfather book
Jurassic Park film is better than Jurassic Park book
People need to stop with this Lord of the Rings nonsense. Both the novel and the films are so good that they transcend comparison (IMO). Another two that can't be compared are the novel To Kill a Mockingbird and the film To Kill a Mockingbird.
And possibly the Maltese Falcon because it had Humphrey Bogart slapping that one guy and saying, "When you're slapped, you'll take it and like it"
I disagree... the main part of the hobbit story is to highlight that, while peaceful, this slow to anger race are more resourceful and stronger of will then humans! The way the movie made it out the hobbits might as well been nothing more then children, needing adult humans to achieve anything. Without us to distract the enemy at critical moments, to carry them out of danger and to be there to watch their back even the strongest of the race is going to falter, to be defeated. [sarcasm] Cause everyone knows a race that gay has to be weaklings. [/sarcasm]CrazyHaircut94 said:
In fact looking at how they handled themselves in the old wood compared to the war of the shire also shows a great deal of character growth. No story should be faulted for exploring character growth! Beside the war of the shire shows that the whole race, even when brought into substitute by a sudden powerful armies surprise attack can and will be able to form a resistance and even succeed in overthrowing a stronger foe. Quite noble if you ask me.
Personally I do wonder why they didn't just make the movie is as long as they needed to be to include everything, it is a epic tale after all. Where does this mentality that a movie has to fit a certain time length to be 'proper' come from? Why not make a movie longer if it is needed to properly tell the story? The fact that many still sit through all movies, back to back, shows that we viewers don't give a damn about length of movie as long as it is a good movie!
And over all, the movies where good. The books, because they contained the whole story, where better in my opinion. The act of sacrificing story for a smaller movie is what makes it worse then the books.
PS: I am not pleased they took a short side story and re-wrote the story just to add a romance angle. They sacrificed main story points just to explore this not-so-important relationship. All for the simple reason of marketing! Screw the story, we need our beautiful elf on rugged human action!
I won't say ironically, cause I am trying to use that word right, but if they made a movie without time limitations then this side story could of been added with ease.
I actually rather enjoyed the novel. Admittedly I haven't seen the movie with Gary Oldman, but I do know that the ending of the novel is significantly better in my opinion than that of the old black and white movie.imp_spittle said:
I personally cannot say I have seen a film that I found better than the book it was based on. There are always little details in a book that ruin a film version for me for some reason.
I like that someone else has read that book.Noobsalad said:
OT - Total Recall. Yes, the short story is very interesting (I love Philip K Dick), but Total Recall may be one of the most entertaining films ever made.
If you do give the '92 Gary Oldman movie a shot, expect significant differences. I haven't seen the black and white movie, but I have seen the '70s movie starring Frank Langella. I avoid that one due to the drowsiness it induces, but some people (like my father) enjoy it.Cain_Zeros said:
Lord of the Rings. The books were great, but the movies went so far above everything in quality that it is easy to say that they are better than their novel counterparts.
It is a Hollywood production of a novel. Differences (and missed plot points) are inevitable. However, I may check it out some time. If I ever get enough spare time that I can bothered to go rent a movie.imp_spittle said:
