Lets face it though, the movie version of I am Legend and the book had roughly nothing in common.
I'm still amazed at how different they are.
I'm still amazed at how different they are.
Movies That Are Better Than the Book
- Thread starter dantheman931
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A lot of films are actually based on books, but the books were so unknown/odd/bad that noone knows
Slumdog Millionaire, for example, was from a novel called Q&A
I'd say the Godfather was the best 'better than book' film out there
Slumdog Millionaire, for example, was from a novel called Q&A
I'd say the Godfather was the best 'better than book' film out there
What? How are those spectacle-porn, vacuous movies bettOnyx Oblivion said:
ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
Truth be told, I love the movies and find Tolkien's writing style to be extremely long-winded and all too fond of the fantastically mundane.
American Psycho.
The book was annoying as hell. He spent so long talking about clothes. Yes, I know that's his character; he's shallow and all he cares about are appearances and stuff. But it just got so fucking tedious when he describes every single character down to their watch and belt EVERY SINGLE FUCKING SCENE.
The movie cut out this bullshit.
The book was annoying as hell. He spent so long talking about clothes. Yes, I know that's his character; he's shallow and all he cares about are appearances and stuff. But it just got so fucking tedious when he describes every single character down to their watch and belt EVERY SINGLE FUCKING SCENE.
The movie cut out this bullshit.
Also this. A Clockwork Orange was a short enough book that Kubrick didn't have to cut out too much stuff.Fire Daemon said:
Schindler's List is a better movie than book.
Jaws is another movie that is better than the book it was based on.
Duel is a better movie than the source material. Richard Matheson wrote both.
The Minority Report is a more coherent movie than the short story it was based on.
Vampire Hunter D and Bloodlust are better than the light novels.
Jaws is another movie that is better than the book it was based on.
Duel is a better movie than the source material. Richard Matheson wrote both.
The Minority Report is a more coherent movie than the short story it was based on.
Vampire Hunter D and Bloodlust are better than the light novels.
I agree with you there.TheSunshineHobo said:
Personally, I think The Lord Of The Rings films are better than the books. Tolkien may have a had a brilliant world that he constructed, but his writing style is slow and dull.
Big Fish was a much better movie. The book's a little disjointed and hard to follow.
And I might be a touch controversial here, but Watchmen. I think the characters in the film are far more well rounded, and the changes to the plot make far more sense than the book.
And I might be a touch controversial here, but Watchmen. I think the characters in the film are far more well rounded, and the changes to the plot make far more sense than the book.
I feel slightly guilty that I haven't read any of the Hitchhiker books (want to though). I saw the film though, and thought it was briliant (although that's partly due to my indie-boy crush on Zooey Deschanel...). As for Romeo + Juliet, I loved the play, and studied it for GCSE. However, I thought the film was amazing, Baz Luhrman is one of my favourite directors and that film is one of my favourite films of all time (and yes, I did love Citizen Kane, before anyone says I have no taste in films...).dantheman931 said:Keep in mind that these are just my opinions. Also, I don't believe that the movie is always or even usually better; the first Hitchhiker's novel was superior in every way to the movie, for instance, and the less said about Romeo + Juliet, the better. But I want to hear about other cases where the movie did right what the novel failed to do, for whatever reason. So: Opinions. Go.
Anyway, I'll come right out and say it now. I preferred the Lord of the Rings movies to the books. True, Tolkien was a damn good writer. But Peter Jackson took what he did brilliantly, and then made it even better. Plus, in the books I felt some parts were drawn out a bit, such as the time spent in the Houses of Healing after Pelennor Fields. In addition, I really hated the part of the book spent in the Barrows and with Tom Bombadil (don't gasp, I just really hated that character and saw no reason for the group to go there, since if you look at any map of Middle Earth they were going extremely out of their way going there on their way to Bree). And there wasn't any real purpose to be served, I feel, in what Tolkien did with the end of Two Towers. He basically split it so the events that were happening to Frodo and Sam were chronologically ahead of the events with the rest of the Fellowship. Peter Jackson did a good job putting it all so that all the events were shown as they happened together, and made Return of the King a muchmore enjoyable film as it was easier to understand what was going on (which wouldn't have been the case if the army in Minas Morgul hadbeen shown to be heading for Osgilliath right in the middle of freaking Helm's Deep and the Siege of Orthanc...
"A Series of Unfortunate Events". I'm not too fond of either the books or the movie, but I must commend the movie for managing to improve upon its source material in every way.
Regarding the "Hitchhiker's Guide" movie: I was disappointed by the movie, but I must commend it for having the best trailer ever.
Regarding the "Hitchhiker's Guide" movie: I was disappointed by the movie, but I must commend it for having the best trailer ever.
"Audition".
It's not often that a film gets inside your mind more than a book does. Kiri, kiri, kiri.
It's not often that a film gets inside your mind more than a book does. Kiri, kiri, kiri.
I disagree, Alex in the movie is much more relatable than Alex in the books, which is a very bad thing. I'm not bashing Kubrick, the man is an amazing director, but in he didn't make the character evil enough. By changing scenes like:dfphetteplace said:
Alex rapes 2 10 year olds in the book, in the movie it a fast-forward sex scene
Alex kills one of his cellmates in order to be sent to the new treatment facility, in the movie he is just picked from a group
i just ran through the comments, curious, but i have to say this: i do believe that anne rice is one horrible writer, as being mistress of the vampire stories...as i always finish every book i start to read, i had one hell of wasting time, when reading her books. i had to literally force myself through it, as if i was chewing on a gum made of bricks. so, in short, i liked the movie 'interview with the vampire' much much better, and thats not because of the deadly pale brad pitt. nor tom cruise. ok, perhaps yes.
I'll have to disagree with you. Yes Alex in the book is more evil, but what I like about the movie is that Kubrick took someone that was like this and made him someone I could relate to. Anyone else directing this movie and I wouldn't have cared what happened to Alex, he would have got what he deserved. I also like the exclusion of the 21st chapter, as it made the movie much more menacing. I really do like the book, and the first scene you gave an example of is a great point (that turned my stomach when I read the book), but I will have to respectfully disagree with your view.Cbargs said: