...better than the book

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

...better than the book

Post by Hermit » Tue May 27, 2014 6:45 pm

More often than not films are at least a little bit of a let-down in comparison to the novels they are based on. More often than not they don't get near the richness of the picture a reader gets through his or her imagination while reading reading the book. There are exceptions, though. At least two films I can think of right now are actually better.

D. H. Lawrence's Women in Love was a turgid piece of crap, infused with the psychoanalytic babble that was so fashionable at the time. I suppose it was a revolt against Victorian morality and effectively contributed to its eventual demise, but that doesn't really make it a good read. Ken Russell stripped the Freudian rubbish out, leaving us with a very intriguing and gripping story about a couple of relationships and how they developed toward very different ends. I had no problem following how and why this happened without having to endure interminable ruminations about deep and dark forces.

The Siege of Trencher's Farm by Gordon Williams is about a dweeb who by circumstance beyond his control finally becomes a real man. Sam Peckinpah took this unpromisingly flat and unrelentingly superficial narrative and turned it into a credible narrative about how an ordinary situation can develop into a totally out of control and absurd mess and leave the main protagonists bewildered and at a loss in regard to what to do next. Oh, the film is titled Straw Dogs. There is a recent remake of it, which I have not seen.

There must be others. Do you know of any?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 6938
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: Planet Earth on slow boil
Contact:

Re: ...better than the book

Post by macdoc » Tue May 27, 2014 7:08 pm

The Reivers perhaps - if Stenbecks prose is wonderful describing the horserace the cinematography is absolutely stunning.

Deliverance in a similar vein tho I have to give the nod to the book when he's climbing out of the river valley....one of the best bits of descriptive prose I've ever read ( doesn't hurt the author is a poet ) The film I think more viseral that the book

Dr. Zhivago - has to be better than reading Pasternak.

Blade Runner was better than the book it was based on........Electric Sheep n'all

Out of Africa - the book was good but the movie better.

A tie perhaps in Seabiscuit ....both movie and book which I did on the same day were brilliant yet different and very much one complimented the other
Resident in Cairns Australia Australia> CB300F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

NamelessFaceless
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:43 pm
Contact:

Re: ...better than the book

Post by NamelessFaceless » Tue May 27, 2014 8:31 pm

I think any movie based on a John Grisham book is better.

I also thought the film adaptation of Stephenie Meyer's The Host was better than her book.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: ...better than the book

Post by Animavore » Tue May 27, 2014 9:43 pm

Shawshank Redemption, even though the book and film were exactly the same except for two lines.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: ...better than the book

Post by Svartalf » Tue May 27, 2014 9:53 pm

Yeah, I guess that movies made from Stephen King books have potential to be better than the original.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
klr
(%gibber(who=klr, what=Leprageek);)
Posts: 32964
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:25 pm
About me: The money was just resting in my account.
Location: Airstrip Two
Contact:

Re: ...better than the book

Post by klr » Tue May 27, 2014 9:56 pm

Hermit wrote:More often than not films are at least a little bit of a let-down in comparison to the novels they are based on. More often than not they don't get near the richness of the picture a reader gets through his or her imagination while reading reading the book. There are exceptions, though. At least two films I can think of right now are actually better.

D. H. Lawrence's Women in Love was a turgid piece of crap, infused with the psychoanalytic babble that was so fashionable at the time. I suppose it was a revolt against Victorian morality and effectively contributed to its eventual demise, but that doesn't really make it a good read. Ken Russell stripped the Freudian rubbish out, leaving us with a very intriguing and gripping story about a couple of relationships and how they developed toward very different ends. I had no problem following how and why this happened without having to endure interminable ruminations about deep and dark forces.

The Siege of Trencher's Farm by Gordon Williams is about a dweeb who by circumstance beyond his control finally becomes a real man. Sam Peckinpah took this unpromisingly flat and unrelentingly superficial narrative and turned it into a credible narrative about how an ordinary situation can develop into a totally out of control and absurd mess and leave the main protagonists bewildered and at a loss in regard to what to do next. Oh, the film is titled Straw Dogs. There is a recent remake of it, which I have not seen.

There must be others. Do you know of any?
Hmmm ... I read Sons and Lovers at University. I thought the whole semi-autobiographical/Freudian angle was essential, and without it, the story would have been something utterly different. Each to their own I suppose. :dunno:
God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers

It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner

The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson

:mob: :comp: :mob:

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: ...better than the book

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Wed May 28, 2014 12:17 am

macdoc wrote:Blade Runner was better than the book it was based on........Electric Sheep n'all
Much as I love Philip K Dick, I have to agree. However, the film was essentially a totally different story than that in the book, merely using the basic premise, including a few plot points that worked, and ditching the majority of the original plot! And well done, Mr Scott - Blade Runner is far better than any faithful film of "Do Androids Dream..." could have been. :tup:
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: ...better than the book

Post by Animavore » Wed May 28, 2014 6:56 am

Svartalf wrote:Yeah, I guess that movies made from Stephen King books have potential to be better than the original.
And yet they're largely not. Even in other cases where they're the exact same as the book in every way. Sometimes what works in books doesn't work in films.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: ...better than the book

Post by Svartalf » Wed May 28, 2014 7:14 am

Not that the starting material is that good... I never understood why king is such a star writer; he knows how to start books, but not how to finish them.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: ...better than the book

Post by pErvinalia » Wed May 28, 2014 7:20 am

Misery and The Shining are the only ones I really liked. Well, Carrie scarred the bejejus out of me, so I supposed I like it too, in a way.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: ...better than the book

Post by JimC » Wed May 28, 2014 7:53 am

Sacrilege!

Books are always better than tawdry movies...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

NamelessFaceless
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:43 pm
Contact:

Re: ...better than the book

Post by NamelessFaceless » Wed May 28, 2014 2:53 pm

Animavore wrote:Shawshank Redemption, even though the book and film were exactly the same except for two lines.
Oh yes, that one. Of course, the book was just a novella so the movie expanded on the story.

And from the same collection of novellas, he had a story called "The Body" which was adapted into Stand By Me. The novella was excellent but the movie expanded on it, just like in Shawshank Redemption. I think I'd have to say the movie was better only because it was such a great movie.

User avatar
Scott1328
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:34 am
Contact:

Re: ...better than the book

Post by Scott1328 » Wed May 28, 2014 4:21 pm

Brokeback Mountain was largely faithful to the short story it was based on, but in all, I think, the movie was better.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: ...better than the book

Post by Hermit » Wed May 28, 2014 4:41 pm

klr wrote:
Hermit wrote:More often than not films are at least a little bit of a let-down in comparison to the novels they are based on. More often than not they don't get near the richness of the picture a reader gets through his or her imagination while reading reading the book. There are exceptions, though. At least two films I can think of right now are actually better.

D. H. Lawrence's Women in Love was a turgid piece of crap, infused with the psychoanalytic babble that was so fashionable at the time. I suppose it was a revolt against Victorian morality and effectively contributed to its eventual demise, but that doesn't really make it a good read. Ken Russell stripped the Freudian rubbish out, leaving us with a very intriguing and gripping story about a couple of relationships and how they developed toward very different ends. I had no problem following how and why this happened without having to endure interminable ruminations about deep and dark forces.
Hmmm ... I read Sons and Lovers at University. I thought the whole semi-autobiographical/Freudian angle was essential, and without it, the story would have been something utterly different. Each to their own I suppose. :dunno:
Yes, the novel was plainly a slightly fictionalised autobiography, and yes, the Freudian angle was central, and in the context of the circumstances at the time understandable, but I don't think the psychoanalytical gumph was essential to either character development or plot.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56484
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: ...better than the book

Post by Pappa » Wed May 28, 2014 5:41 pm

Xamonas Chegwé wrote:
macdoc wrote:Blade Runner was better than the book it was based on........Electric Sheep n'all
Much as I love Philip K Dick, I have to agree. However, the film was essentially a totally different story than that in the book, merely using the basic premise, including a few plot points that worked, and ditching the majority of the original plot! And well done, Mr Scott - Blade Runner is far better than any faithful film of "Do Androids Dream..." could have been. :tup:
I agree that it's an entirely different story, but I also really like Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. I'd like to see it made again but in a faithful way. Actually, they'd probably do a shit job of it though.

The Jaws film was better than the book.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests