Movie way better than the book

I'll probably get trashed, but the big one for me has always been Jurassic Park. I've always thought Crichton was overrated as a writer, and nothing in the novel took my breath away like seeing the Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus) on screen for the first time.

Very rarely the case

quote:

Originally posted by indybob:
I'll probably get trashed, but the big one for me has always been Jurassic Park. I've always thought Crichton was overrated as a writer, and nothing in the novel took my breath away like seeing the Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus) on screen for the first time.

a biometrically and mechanically incorrect model of one anyway =)

Not a big Stephen king fan, but Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption has definitely been my favorite of his Works. However, there was such a tight bond between Red and Andy on screen that was simply a true joy to watch. Liked it even more than the novella.

The Wizard of Oz belongs in the discussion, albeit with a caveat. The book was good, but the movie, and what it did for the future of the motion picture, was unparalleled. But it is not the same as The Shawshank Redemption, because Shawshank held its importance strictly because of how they brought the script to life... The Wizard of Oz was more significant as a movie marking a new era in Hollywood, not necessarily significant because it was better than the book.

And despite what anyone else says, I would much rather spend 6 hours watching the godfather 1 & 2, than reading Puzo's masterpiece, despite the fact that it is exceptional.

quote:

Originally posted by Jcocktosten:
Very rarely the case

+1. I'm sure I will think of some, but not off the top of my head.

quote:

Originally posted by indybob:
I'll probably get trashed, but the big one for me has always been Jurassic Park. I've always thought Crichton was overrated as a writer, and nothing in the novel took my breath away like seeing the Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus) on screen for the first time.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Jcocktosten:
Very rarely the case

Concur! I could go on forever about movies that did a great disservice to the book - even some movies that are considered classics.

It is actually one of my great joys as a teacher - showing the movie to my students after having read the book and having students complain about the movie!

quote:

Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad:

quote:

Originally posted by Jcocktosten:
Very rarely the case

Concur! I could go on forever about movies that did a great disservice to the book - even some movies that are considered classics.

Indeed. It's why it's unusual to have a movie that is better than the book.

quote:

Originally posted by indybob:
I'll probably get trashed, but the big one for me has always been Jurassic Park. I've always thought Crichton was overrated as a writer, and nothing in the novel took my breath away like seeing the Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus) on screen for the first time.

Didn't like either, but I've alway thought Spielberg is overrated as a director. After the Columbo episode and the TV movie Duel it was all downhill from there.

The DaVinci Code At least the movie was only an hour and a half.
I found the author had an intriguing idea, but very poor writing skills. His publishing company really needs to assign him a better editor.

quote:

Originally posted by mneeley490:
The DaVinci Code At least the movie was only an hour and a half.

The movie was a mind-numbing 2 hours and 29 minutes. Audrey Tautou could not act in English, there was no chemistry between her and Tom Hanks and Hanks' hairdo was worse than the one I have right now.

quote:

Originally posted by mneeley490:
The DaVinci Code At least the movie was only an hour and a half.
I found the author had an intriguing idea, but very poor writing skills. His publishing company really needs to assign him a better editor.

I'm guessing Mr. Brown is doing alright for himself, even with a lesser editor (although I thought his most recent book was awful). I loved the book, but have yet to see the movie. I didn't hear the greatest things.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Cabernet:

quote:

Originally posted by mneeley490:
The DaVinci Code At least the movie was only an hour and a half.

The movie was a mind-numbing 2 hours and 29 minutes. Audrey Tautou could not act in English, there was no chemistry between her and Tom Hanks and Hanks' hairdo was worse than the one I have right now.

Have to agree. I think they did a better job with the screen version of Angels & Demons, however neither were able to pull it off anywhere near the books.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Cabernet:

quote:

Originally posted by mneeley490:
The DaVinci Code At least the movie was only an hour and a half.

The movie was a mind-numbing 2 hours and 29 minutes. Audrey Tautou could not act in English, there was no chemistry between her and Tom Hanks and Hanks' hairdo was worse than the one I have right now.

Sorry. I may have slept through part of it.
I did enjoy Christopher Plummer, though.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Cabernet:

quote:

Originally posted by indybob:
I'll probably get trashed, but the big one for me has always been Jurassic Park. I've always thought Crichton was overrated as a writer, and nothing in the novel took my breath away like seeing the Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus) on screen for the first time.

Didn't like either, but I've alway thought Spielberg is overrated as a director. After the Columbo episode and the TV movie Duel it was all downhill from there.

Funny... I think Spielberg is underrated as a director. From E.T. and Raiders of the Lost Ark to Schindler's List I think he played a huge role in shaping modern filmmaking, and in the cases of the movies I mentioned, and others, he directed a staggering percentage of the very best of the best movies of the past 40 years.

quote:

Originally posted by winetarelli:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Cabernet:

quote:

Originally posted by indybob:
I'll probably get trashed, but the big one for me has always been Jurassic Park. I've always thought Crichton was overrated as a writer, and nothing in the novel took my breath away like seeing the Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus) on screen for the first time.

Didn't like either, but I've alway thought Spielberg is overrated as a director. After the Columbo episode and the TV movie Duel it was all downhill from there.

Funny... I think Spielberg is underrated as a director. From E.T. and Raiders of the Lost Ark to Schindler's List I think he played a huge role in shaping modern filmmaking, and in the cases of the movies I mentioned, and others, he directed a staggering percentage of the very best of the best movies of the past 40 years.

Yes, he shaped the movies, for the worst, in the last 40 years. He, and Lucas, created the mindless summer blockbuster category that plagues us to this day--Green Lantern anyone? His hackneyed techniques--look with wonder into the bright lights--starting with Close Encounters and E.T. right up today's Spielberg produced J.J. Abram movie Super 8 are the height of banality. I normally don't even mention him as overrated because he doesn't belong in the panoply of great director's like Bergman, Truffaut, Goddard, Fellini, Kubrick, Kurosawa or even Hitchcock etc. etc.

His cheapest cop has to be the girl in red from Schindler's List that owes it all to the red smoke in Kurosawa's High and Low. As alway his technique shows like a magician caught with cards up this sleeve.

Wow, harsh criticism of Spielberg. I'm not a fan either, but will acknowledge a few successes. Jaws. Munich. And I guiltily confess to liking the previously mentioned Jurassic Park.

As for the subject at hand, there is only one movie I can think of that was better than the book. A Clockwork Orange. Burgess' book was excellent, but Kubrick took it to another level.

Honorable mentione to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Pretty close.

Mr Cab, while I don't agree with most of your Spielberg take, I do agree wholeheartedly about Schindler's girl in red. THAT gimmick was cringe-worthy and just about killed the movie for me.

You will find a bit of red in a black and white movie used effectively in two movies: The previously mentioned red smoke in High and Low and the shot (literally) in Hitchcock's Spellbound.

I would say that pretty much any porn I've seen is better than the book.

quote:

Originally posted by Rothko:
I would say that pretty much any porn I've seen is better than the book.

.

quote:

Originally posted by Rothko:
I would say that pretty much any porn I've seen is better than the book.

Not exactly porn but with The Story of O the book is better.

The other movie I had in mind when I started this was Frankenstein. Another great story poorly written.

I disagree completely. I think the book was well-written and suspenseful without the gore of the movie. The movie closest to the book starred DeNiro as the creature.

quote:

Originally posted by aphilla:
The other movie I had in mind when I started this was Frankenstein. Another great story poorly written.

Are you assuming that Mary Shelley wrote the novel?

quote:

Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad:

quote:

Originally posted by aphilla:
The other movie I had in mind when I started this was Frankenstein. Another great story poorly written.

Are you assuming that Mary Shelley wrote the novel?

?

The one I read had Shelley's name on it. I didn't know there was a backstory on authorship.

quote:

Originally posted by aphilla:

quote:

Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad:

quote:

Originally posted by aphilla:
The other movie I had in mind when I started this was Frankenstein. Another great story poorly written.

Are you assuming that Mary Shelley wrote the novel?

?

The one I read had Shelley's name on it. I didn't know there was a backstory on authorship.

I know of no back story except those in two dreadful movies. The better one is Ken Russell's Gothic from 1986. The other is 1988's Haunted Summer. Both deal with the party at which Mary's future husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, played a key role at the party's evening game of creating stories. The movies suggest there was direct involvement by P.B. Shelly in the story's creation. Certainly he encouraged her to expand the story further, but there is no evidence that any of the ideas in it were his.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Cabernet:

I know of no back story except those in two dreadful movies. The better one is Ken Russell's Gothic from 1986. The other is 1988's Haunted Summer. Both deal with the party at which Mary's future husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, played a key role at the party's evening game of creating stories. The movies suggest there was direct involvement by P.B. Shelly in the story's creation. Certainly he encouraged her to expand the story further, but there is no evidence that any of the ideas in it were his.

Ah, yeah, I was aware of that much of it. I was fascinated by that circle of folks for awhile, which is probably why I read _Frankenstein_ at all.

quote:

Originally posted by aphilla:

quote:

Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad:

quote:

Originally posted by aphilla:
The other movie I had in mind when I started this was Frankenstein. Another great story poorly written.

Are you assuming that Mary Shelley wrote the novel?

?

The one I read had Shelley's name on it. I didn't know there was a backstory on authorship.

Yup, there is. There is an element in the academic community that feel that Percy and Lord Byron actually wrote it, as Mary was very young, had never produced anything of note, and really didn't produce much afterword.

Note that the prose is not considered very good--as might be expected from a young first time author. It might be assumed that it would be better if written by either of the two world renowned authors that are often suggested.

As for someone who didn't produce much of note and never really did again, refer to To Kill A Mockingbird author Harper Lee.

As I said there is no really strong back story on the authorship, just like with the Shakespeare debate--a sometimes amusing parlor game.

Mr. C. - The debate is that she never really produced anything else, and that Percy and Byron "wrote" the story and Mary then wrote it. I am not saying that it is what actually happened, but that it is debated amongst Romantic scholars.

Lee is a different story. TKAM was an autobiographical novel. She simply told a story that she experienced, hence nothing further.

Shakespeare? Really?

quote:

Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad:
Shakespeare? Really?

I'm surprised you say that. There is a strong contingent who is always saying that Shakespeare didn't write most, or all, of his plays. I'm no scholar, but I tend to believe he did.

It isn't a strong contingent, but a vocal, extremely tiny minority - and yes, I have heard it. Poppycock.

I remember a professor talking about authorship once told us with a wink -
"The latest scholarship tells us that the Iliad wasn't actually written by Homer but by some other less well known individual who also happened to be named Homer."