It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
tinyE: You can't splice "subversive images" or "subversive characters" onto a piece of paper. Well some say you can but now we are getting into "They Live".
avatar
Ivory&Gold: tinyE, I like you, but that's madness!
no one likes me :P
I admit I may be talking out of my ass, as I usually am, but could you elaborate?
avatar
orcishgamer: The True Blood HBO series is about 1000 times better than Catherine Harris' books, because Harris is actually a fairly terrible writer (I'm sure she's a nice person and tries hard, her writing is simply tragically bad).

Caveat emptor: I haven't watched the True Blood series in several seasons, it could be ass now, it started out great, though.
avatar
Robette: "So, how is her writing?"
"Well, I am sure she is a really nice person"
Beautifully devastating, neither going to read the book nor watch the series thought.

I guess I am going to draw a bit of heat for that, but I would consider listing Lord of the Rings...
I read only 1 1/2 of the books and stopped about half way into book two because at the time it felt like it was just dragging out. I was rather young back then thought and would not really insist on this evaluation, I might just have been a lazy reader at the time.
Tolkien's books are full of lore and yes it may seems boring but so does history class, but it makes the movie that much for interesting, thats one book and movie together makes a awesome combination of lore and as orcishgamer mentioned they were written almost a century ago. Same thing with john carter and princess of mars loved the movie and books

As for which movies are better then book, hands down harry potter ones, couldnt even get through the first book, but the movie was very tolerable, hell really liked the last last movie,,
Starship Troopers the movie is substantially more entertaining than Starship Troopers the novel. The only thing the novel does better than the film is that in the novel, the troopers have power armour and jet packs.
avatar
bevinator: While the Princess Bride is a book that's a good book, the movie is much better as a movie. I think the Peter Falk framing device works a lot better than the "good bits" metafiction framework, and the casting agent for the film should have gotten a damn medal.
I completely agree with this - especially the medal part. There isn't a character in this film that wasn't perfectly cast. This is one of very few films that I will watch over and over and never tire of. The only thing I would change is I'd improve the special effects for the RUS's, but the fact that it's so obviously a man in a giant rat costume both lends to the movie's charm and detracts from it.

My other choice would be Jurassic Park. I am sooo glad I saw the movie before I read the book, because without knowing what I was supposed to see, the movie was amazing and is still one of my very favorite movies. The book was excellent, but if I'd read the book first, I'd have been really disappointed in the character and plot changes.

And on Lord of the Rings, I love the books. The Hobbit, too, which I've actually read a few more times than LotR. However, this is another case where a combination of the director, screenplay author and the film editior know exactly what to cut to keep the movie true to the book without making the movie boring. Both Jurassic Park and LotR would have been really dull movies if they were filmed exactly like the books. Sometimes it takes creative license to marry the books and the films. In Jurassic Park, Michael Crichton wrote both the book and the screenplay, so he clearly understood that what makes a great book does not necessarily make a great movie.
avatar
tinyE: I admit I may be talking out of my ass, as I usually am, but could you elaborate?
I'm a movie nut, and I guess it can be argued that film is now the culturally most important art form, but literature has shook up societies since thousands of years!

As for subversiveness in the sense I think you were talking about, what about Charles Baudelaire, huh?

...If rape or arson, poison or the knife
Has wove no pleasing patterns in the stuff
Of this drab canvas we accept as life—
It is because we are not bold enough!

But maybe I just completely misunderstood you.
avatar
tinyE: I admit I may be talking out of my ass, as I usually am, but could you elaborate?
avatar
Ivory&Gold: I'm a movie nut, and I guess it can be argued that film is now the culturally most important art form, but literature has shook up societies since thousands of years!

As for subversiveness in the sense I think you were talking about, what about Charles Baudelaire, huh?

...If rape or arson, poison or the knife
Has wove no pleasing patterns in the stuff
Of this drab canvas we accept as life—
It is because we are not bold enough!

But maybe I just completely misunderstood you.
I was just refering to the stills of Tyler spliced into early parts of the film before the character makes his "official" first appearance. As an English major no one knows the power of literature more than myself and I apologize if I came off differently. I absolutely totally agree with you; I was just refering to "Fight Club" specifically and how the movie was more effective at showing the character's illness than the book was. It's safe to say that the movie being a step ahead of the book in this particular regard puts this situation in the EXTREME minority.
Children of Men - great movie, shite book
avatar
tomimt: I still haven't read the book myself, but many people have said that the Clocwork Orange is better movie than a book.
Do not listen to those people. They have a horrible taste in movies.

I'll throw Stardust into the discussion. It's an excellent book, it really is, but the movie outdoes it in at least one very important aspect. In the book, Captain Shakespeare's involvement in the story takes up about a page and a half and is pretty unremarkable. Normally, I'm against inventing story elements of your own when making a movie out of a book, but what the movie does with the Captain Shakespeare character is nothing short of brilliant.
Blade Runner, definitely. Total Recal also went above and beyond the source material.

To throw in some graphic novels, I'd say Watchmen (exactly the same, apart from a better ending) and Wanted. The graphic novel left me somewhat ambivalent and unsure as to what it was striving for. To me it seemed like the protagonist was just as much a tool by the end as he was at the start. But I don't think that was the point. The movie didn't have that problem.
avatar
tinyE: snip
No need to apologize for me not being able to get the meaning of your post!
avatar
granny: Starship Troopers the movie is substantially more entertaining than Starship Troopers the novel. The only thing the novel does better than the film is that in the novel, the troopers have power armour and jet packs.
But when you think about it, everything that made the film great would have been ruined by power armour and jetpacks. Which is the only possible scenario in which power armour and jetpacks could ruin anything.
The BFG.
The Big Fucking Gun?
Basically every book by Stephen King that has been made into a movie. The further King stays away from the movie production itself the better. King is good at creating interesting premises for stories, but I don't think he is a good author.

Lord of the Rings. I just can't stand the books, I find them to be dull & boring (Bilbo on the other hand, now that is a book that I like).

avatar
Ivory&Gold: The Big Fucking Gun?
Big Friendly Giant.

And yes, good point about it ydobemos. I thought both the book & movie were quite good, but the movie left a deeper impression on me.
Post edited February 10, 2013 by AFnord
avatar
Ivory&Gold: The Big Fucking Gun?
Battleftar Galactica