If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Entertainment Weekly)   Twenty-six instances where the book was better than the movie. Watchmen isn't on the list, presumably because the movie was just as good as the book   (ew.com) divider line 196
    More: Interesting, The Great Gatsby, Gatsby, Mia Farrow, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ralph Lauren, Robert Redford  
•       •       •

10842 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 10 Mar 2012 at 10:32 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



196 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-03-10 09:01:33 AM
I don't need no stinkin' slide show to know that the correct answer is "all of them".

/Especially Starship Troopers.
 
2012-03-10 09:03:18 AM
http://desli.de/3ZW (new window)
 
2012-03-10 09:11:48 AM
The Da Vinci Code sucked balls so the movie couldn't have been worse. Same with Gatsby.

And how is this list only 25 long?
 
2012-03-10 09:13:10 AM
"The Running Man" is a great movie. Perfect when I need something mindless to watch.
 
2012-03-10 09:16:34 AM
The book is almost always better. The only exception I've come across is Silence of the Lambs. The movie is much better.
 
2012-03-10 09:24:21 AM

jaylectricity: http://desli.de/3ZW (new window)


Thanks.

Of course no Starship Troopers, but I'll absolutely go along with Dune.
 
2012-03-10 09:28:03 AM

jaylectricity: http://desli.de/3ZW (new window)


You are my new favorite person.
 
2012-03-10 09:28:38 AM

kxs401: The book is almost always better. The only exception I've come across is Silence of the Lambs. The movie is much better.


V for Vendetta.
 
2012-03-10 09:40:40 AM

unlikely: kxs401: The book is almost always better. The only exception I've come across is Silence of the Lambs. The movie is much better.

V for Vendetta.


Fight Club, at least in the way it ended (and I think even Palahniuk has said the movie's ending is better than the book's)
 
2012-03-10 09:51:22 AM
The Great Gatsby sucks, in whatever medium.
 
2012-03-10 10:03:03 AM
Nice troll subby.
 
2012-03-10 10:42:25 AM

Mentat: Nice troll subby.


Subby fail because extended length comic books are not a respectable medium.

/irtroll
 
2012-03-10 10:45:31 AM

kxs401: The book is almost always better. The only exception I've come across is Silence of the Lambs. The movie is much better.


One more exception
www.wildsound-filmmaking-feedback-events.com > 3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-03-10 10:47:11 AM
Planet of the Apes, the original Charlton Heston version, is far superior to the book. Actually, even the Mark Wahlberg version is better than the crappy book.
 
2012-03-10 10:47:15 AM
The Iron Giant movie was way better than the book.

/Rare exception is rare.
 
2012-03-10 10:49:45 AM
Oh, and Blade Runner was better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

/No expects the Spanish Inquisition.
 
2012-03-10 10:50:40 AM

Earpj: "The Running Man" is a great movie. Perfect when I need something mindless to watch.


Their claims of why it's not any good is why I watch it.
 
2012-03-10 10:53:30 AM
Jaws the movie is better than Jaws the book.
 
2012-03-10 10:54:20 AM
www.filesfeed.com
 
2012-03-10 10:54:37 AM
Backdoor Sluts XXIV

The book dragged a bit.
 
2012-03-10 10:54:45 AM
I liked The Musketeers, but it was more a remake of Iron Monkey than an adaptation of the novel.
 
2012-03-10 10:56:33 AM

Harv72b: I don't need no stinkin' slide show to know that the correct answer is "all of them".

/Especially Starship Troopers.


Jaws would like a word.
 
2012-03-10 10:57:35 AM
I couldn't get through the first chapter of Dune, so I better stay the hell away from the movie, I guess.
 
2012-03-10 11:01:00 AM

BumpInTheNight: [www.filesfeed.com image 428x638]


Thread over.
 
2012-03-10 11:03:19 AM

LoneWolf343: I couldn't get through the first chapter of Dune, so I better stay the hell away from the movie, I guess.


I don't see how the movie would make a lot of sense to someone who hasn't read the book, unless you just really want to see Sting and Captain Picard fighting with knives.

The Dune mini-series by Sci-Fi on the other hand, is worth checking out. I think it's a great adaptation and makes perfect sense on its own.
 
2012-03-10 11:04:25 AM
I have to say that the apes in the tim buton version of planet of the apes were much more "ape" looking then the ones in heston's movie. in spite of what he article says.

1968 version still far superior.
 
2012-03-10 11:09:24 AM

LucklessWonder: kxs401: The book is almost always better. The only exception I've come across is Silence of the Lambs. The movie is much better.

One more exception
[www.wildsound-filmmaking-feedback-events.com image 300x452] > [3.bp.blogspot.com image 360x591]


I prefer the book. I get that I'm the only one. I felt the story was more complete in the book.

This is not to take away from the movie and its sequel, which is an entirely different experience.
 
2012-03-10 11:10:42 AM

SithLord: BumpInTheNight: [www.filesfeed.com image 428x638]

Thread over.


Whether he was being snarky or not, I agree. The Passion of the Christ was about a guy getting the shiat beat out of him for three hours, getting nailed to a cross and then emerging from his burial cave for some reason. A weird androgynous creature with a creepy midget child rounds out the cast. A movie should not have required reading to make sense, even if that required reading is the Bible.

On that subject, even though I haven't read The Lord of the Rings, I would submit that. The film never explains WTF the "Grey Havens" is, we never get a real resolution to Christopher Lee's character and I'm assuming the book explains why those eagles couldn't just fly the Hobbits to Mordor. And the people I've spoken to who have read the book always complain that there wasn't something called the "scouring of the Shire". With all the time wasted on walking, one would think they could leave room for explaining major plot points.
 
2012-03-10 11:14:08 AM

NeoCortex42: LoneWolf343: I couldn't get through the first chapter of Dune, so I better stay the hell away from the movie, I guess.

I don't see how the movie would make a lot of sense to someone who hasn't read the book, unless you just really want to see Sting and Captain Picard fighting with knives.

The Dune mini-series by Sci-Fi on the other hand, is worth checking out. I think it's a great adaptation and makes perfect sense on its own.


...

*goes to watch the movie.*

/spice must flow and such
 
2012-03-10 11:16:04 AM
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-03-10 11:16:39 AM
Forrest Gump. The book was high southern camp, heavily playing on an "idiot savant" theme, that had Gump as a wrestler, an astronaut, a harmonica player in a rock band, a chess wizard and an actor wearing a costume in a monster movie. He didn't take up shrimping, he took up aquaculture. Bubba was a white guy who played with him at Alabama who got drafted with him, Lt Dan didn't turn him into a multimillionaire and his momma was timid mess, always getting ripped off. And the best two characters in the book, the wild man Curtis and the female astronaut with an attitude, were completely left out, along with the best story in the book, the training camp incident where he blew up the boiler.

The movie changed the book into a politically correct baby boomer's nostalgia feel good movie. It became a big hit because it was formula written for a target demographic. But what a disappointment for Winston Groom fans to see what a pile of sh*t they made of his masterpiece.
 
2012-03-10 11:19:44 AM
i call bull shiat on troy and running man.
 
2012-03-10 11:20:22 AM
The 13th Warrior was better than Eaters of the Dead, like a kick to the balls is better than a punch to the balls.
 
2012-03-10 11:23:00 AM

thecpt: i call bull shiat on troy and running man.


Actually, The Running Man book was better than the film. It's highly unlikely that we'll ever see a faithful adaptation of the book though.
 
2012-03-10 11:24:19 AM
One Stephen King that was better as a movie, Needful Things, the movie flowed better than the book.
 
2012-03-10 11:24:23 AM
The first Bridget Jones movie was better than the book. The sequel was worse than the book.

The Natural movie was nothing like the book. They completely changed the character of Roy Hobbs, and gave the movie a very different ending. They're so different it's hard to say which is better.
 
2012-03-10 11:25:46 AM

Mugato: thecpt: i call bull shiat on troy and running man.

Actually, The Running Man book was better than the film. It's highly unlikely that we'll ever see a faithful adaptation of the book though.


It might happen at some point, but certainly with a different ending. Even with a different ending, I think it would still be worth it, though.
 
2012-03-10 11:25:49 AM
I've never read the book, but I've been told the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is far superior.
 
2012-03-10 11:25:51 AM
upload.wikimedia.orgorigin.foxuk.com


The only part of the novel remaining in the screenplay was the names of the lead characters.

/turned a bleak, nihilistic tale into a watered-down AfterSchool special
 
2012-03-10 11:26:05 AM

Mugato: Actually, The Running Man book was better than the film. It's highly unlikely that we'll ever see a faithful adaptation of the book though.


I liked both the film and the book of running man, but they are not the same story. They are both good stories but not the same story.

/The movie probably would have sucked with out Richard Dawson.
 
2012-03-10 11:26:26 AM

Subdue their bellies: The 13th Warrior was better than Eaters of the Dead, like a kick to the balls is better than a punch to the balls.


What!? 13th Warrior is one of my favoritest movies ever!

/dog can jump
 
2012-03-10 11:26:30 AM

Mugato: and I'm assuming the book explains why those eagles couldn't just fly the Hobbits to Mordor


IIRC, they have an explanation that really isn't an explanation. You just accept it and move on.
 
2012-03-10 11:30:49 AM
The Watchmen was an illustrated book for children not an actual "book".

ftfy
 
2012-03-10 11:32:32 AM

coco ebert: The Great Gatsby sucks, in whatever medium.


Oh, stop. You know it's the greatest novel ever written.
 
2012-03-10 11:38:26 AM

James Scameron: The Watchmen was an illustrated book for children not an actual "book".

ftfy


Oh look, it's Mr. "I'm way more mature than you guys" again. I'm surprised you didn't mention Camryn Manheim. Oh, wait, is part of the judge's order that you can't mention her online anymore?
 
2012-03-10 11:38:57 AM
Of the movies on that list that I've seen, I only like Fever Pitch. I never read the book.
 
2012-03-10 11:41:15 AM

Earpj: "The Running Man" is a great movie. Perfect when I need something mindless to watch.


The thing about the movie was that the book was a completely different game format. The book gave the guy free run of the country but he had to elude capture for a month (he gets a 12 hour head start), any old person off the street got prize money for ratting on him, and he had to send in videos regularly which gave away his location.

Prize: a billion dollars. Show record: nine days.
 
2012-03-10 11:42:07 AM

James Scameron: The Watchmen was an illustrated book for children not an actual "book".

ftfy


Given the content's level of violence and sexual situations, Watchmen is NOT for children. Sure it's a graphic novel or comic book rather than actual book if you want to view it that way, but it's definitely pitched towards older teens and adults.
 
2012-03-10 11:42:24 AM

varmitydog: Forrest Gump. The book was high southern camp, heavily playing on an "idiot savant" theme, that had Gump as a wrestler, an astronaut, a harmonica player in a rock band, a chess wizard and an actor wearing a costume in a monster movie. He didn't take up shrimping, he took up aquaculture. Bubba was a white guy who played with him at Alabama who got drafted with him, Lt Dan didn't turn him into a multimillionaire and his momma was timid mess, always getting ripped off. And the best two characters in the book, the wild man Curtis and the female astronaut with an attitude, were completely left out, along with the best story in the book, the training camp incident where he blew up the boiler.

The movie changed the book into a politically correct baby boomer's nostalgia feel good movie. It became a big hit because it was formula written for a target demographic. But what a disappointment for Winston Groom fans to see what a pile of sh*t they made of his masterpiece.


Forrest spent a good portion of the book smoking weed and getting it on with Jenny, if I remember rightly.
 
2012-03-10 11:43:59 AM
Point of Impact was miles better than "Shooter" with Marky-Mark.
 
2012-03-10 11:57:40 AM
First Blood. Story is pretty much the same but wildly different tone. For instance, Rambo (no first name in the book) kills several cops before he even leaves the police station, all while butt-naked.
 
2012-03-10 12:01:04 PM

coco ebert: The Great Gatsby sucks, in whatever medium.


The plot and characters suck but, boy, did Fitzgerald have a way with words. It would be like if Leonardo only did hotel paintings. Boy, could he paint but...hotel paintings.

Also, I have yet to see an adaptation of Animal Farm that got the point of the book. Why do writers and directors feel a need to give it a happy ending? The fact that it ended on a bleak note was the point. It was a fable.
 
2012-03-10 12:02:40 PM
The Stand (book) & It (book) crushed their respective "movie" versions.

Any Dean Koontz adaption sucked more than the source novel.

/ymmv
 
2012-03-10 12:03:05 PM

PhiloeBedoe: First Blood. Story is pretty much the same but wildly different tone. For instance, Rambo (no first name in the book) kills several cops before he even leaves the police station, all while butt-naked.


Doesn't Trautman kill him?
 
2012-03-10 12:05:43 PM

jake_lex: unlikely: kxs401: The book is almost always better. The only exception I've come across is Silence of the Lambs. The movie is much better.

V for Vendetta.

Fight Club, at least in the way it ended (and I think even Palahniuk has said the movie's ending is better than the book's)


I thought the way Jack and Tyler met was much better in the movie as well.
 
2012-03-10 12:05:43 PM
I can't think of a single John Grisham book that was outdone by its big-screen counterpart.
 
2012-03-10 12:07:41 PM

LucklessWonder: James Scameron: The Watchmen was an illustrated book for children not an actual "book".

ftfy

Given the content's level of violence and sexual situations, Watchmen is NOT for children. Sure it's a graphic novel or comic book rather than actual book if you want to view it that way, but it's definitely pitched towards older teens and adults.


Don't waste your time with James here. He loves to pop into pop-culture threads and post something to the effect that everyone else in the thread is totally immature. You should see him in Batman threads, he really goes ape-shiat in those.
 
2012-03-10 12:08:01 PM

ShamWowofDamocles: The Stand (book) & It (book) crushed their respective "movie" versions.


Yeah the mini-series of "It" was really lacking in not having a scene where a bunch of guys ran a train on a little girl.
 
2012-03-10 12:09:02 PM
No mentions of Jurassic Park yet? The first book is great and the first movie, while good, does not hold up to the book.

I thought the second book was a lost cause, until I saw the movie they made based of it. The second Jurassic Park movie probably should have been named 'King Kong staring a T.Rex'.
 
2012-03-10 12:10:21 PM
I haven't read Prozac Nation and the only thing I've seen from the movie is Christina Ricci's nude scene, so I can't really say that I'm disappointed by that movie.
 
2012-03-10 12:17:28 PM

Slives: No mentions of Jurassic Park yet? The first book is great and the first movie, while good, does not hold up to the book.


I dunno, the book was really preachy and long winded, even moreso than Jeff Goldblum in the film. A true adaptation would have to be an R rated film, which of course was out of the question. Same with Jaws, although Jaws was much better than the book despite the toned down subject matter.

And like Jaws, Spielberg made the ending of JP much more cinematic, with the T-Rex saving the day.
 
2012-03-10 12:19:31 PM

NeoCortex42: LoneWolf343: I couldn't get through the first chapter of Dune, so I better stay the hell away from the movie, I guess.

I don't see how the movie would make a lot of sense to someone who hasn't read the book, unless you just really want to see Sting and Captain Picard fighting with knives.

The Dune mini-series by Sci-Fi on the other hand, is worth checking out. I think it's a great adaptation and makes perfect sense on its own.


I liked the mini series as well. It's a little low on the budget, but I thought Alec Newman did a good job going from petulant prince, to a man trapped by his own powers of prophecy, to finally an old, blind hermit that accepts he's too weak to do what needs to be done and washes his hands of the future. I thought he did well as the Preacher.
 
2012-03-10 12:27:50 PM
I disagree Subby. The book didn't have that horrendous sex scene.
 
2012-03-10 12:29:00 PM
List fails without The Lord of the Rings.

Absolutely love the movies, but they're nowhere as awesome as the books.
 
2012-03-10 12:33:56 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: I disagree Subby. The book didn't have that horrendous sex scene.


I think it was the sound track to that scene that butchered it so badly, out of all the songs they could have picked they decided to use Leonard Nemoy's one song with heavy religious overtones.
 
2012-03-10 12:36:00 PM
Have to disagree with Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. The book has many sections which read like a Savannah travelogue. And Spacey was awesome in the film.
 
2012-03-10 12:46:47 PM
FTFA:
THE RULES OF ATTRACTION (2002)
The Bret Easton Ellis novel read like fun musings of college life...


I must have read a different novel by the same name.
 
2012-03-10 12:47:06 PM
The Running Man isn't that bad, but it hasn't aged well at all. It's also completely different from the book, so it's a bit of a moot point to say one is better than the other.


Mugato: On that subject, even though I haven't read The Lord of the Rings, I would submit that. The film never explains WTF the "Grey Havens" is, we never get a real resolution to Christopher Lee's character and I'm assuming the book explains why those eagles couldn't just fly the Hobbits to Mordor. And the people I've spoken to who have read the book always complain that there wasn't something called the "scouring of the Shire"


I don't recall the Grey Havens being explained too much in the books, though it's been a while since I've read them. The Scourging of the Shire was included with the extended version of Return of the King, I believe. It was obvious cut for time constraints as it would've added at least another 20 minutes onto the end of the film. I can see why people would complain, but it really would've made ROTK much longer than it already was; hell, in the book the ring is thrown into Mt Doom 3 chapters into the second half of the book.
 
2012-03-10 12:48:48 PM
Mugato
Slives:
No mentions of Jurassic Park yet? The first book is great and the first movie, while good, does not hold up to the book.

I dunno, the book was really preachy and long winded, even moreso than Jeff Goldblum in the film.


I don't remember much of the book because I only read it once and that was even before the movie was in the cinemas, so I don't remember details.

But I remember being in the cinema and being disappointed that they removed things from the plot that I thought created the most tension in the book while the movie was mainly a "who will be eaten next"-competition.
I think it was some of them thinking they reactivated the security system when they really didn't (or it only ran on batteries and those gave out later or something); but mostly that some of them not only had to survive, but also had to think of something or take risks to stop a ship with dinos hidden on board in time before it reached the mainland.
 
2012-03-10 12:51:21 PM
An obvious exception that no one's mentioned yet is the novelization of movies. They're usually just a cash grab.
 
2012-03-10 12:51:35 PM
How's about the granddaddy of them all? (new window)
 
2012-03-10 12:52:57 PM

jake_lex: Fight Club, at least in the way it ended (and I think even Palahniuk has said the movie's ending is better than the book's)


The movie of Fight Club is definitely better than the book, but its not the ending where it most shows. Its the scene when they're driving in the car and Tyler lets go of the wheel. In the book that scene introduces a never-seen-before-or-after character called "The Engineer" that is very jarring and out of place. The movie handles that scene much better.

Also, I'm going to risk being tarred and feathered by saying David Lynch's Dune is way better than the book. I can't stand Frank Herbert's writing.
 
2012-03-10 12:58:31 PM

BumpInTheNight: The My Little Pony Killer: I disagree Subby. The book didn't have that horrendous sex scene.

I think it was the sound track to that scene that butchered it so badly, out of all the songs they could have picked they decided to use Leonard Nemoy's one song with heavy religious overtones.


[Not_Sure_If_Serious.jpg]
 
2012-03-10 01:00:28 PM
No Country for Old Men
/yeah I said it. the book is so much more balanced.
 
2012-03-10 01:07:22 PM

Harv72b: I don't need no stinkin' slide show to know that the correct answer is "all of them".

/Especially Starship Troopers.


The movie was better than the book. The book took itself seriously. The movie was hilarious.
 
2012-03-10 01:07:23 PM
FeedTheCollapse The Scourging of the Shire was included with the extended version of Return of the King, I believe. It was obvious cut for time constraints as it would've added at least another 20 minutes onto the end of the film. I can see why people would complain, but it really would've made ROTK much longer than it already was;

Besides the obvious time thing it wouldn't have worked too well (for me) because the movies didn't really set up the characters of Merry and Pippin and more or less took out (or even a piss on their) time with the Ents.


Oh, and as for the eagles thing, Mugato: I always say that they would have been taken out by Sauron's AA guns.
 
2012-03-10 01:07:49 PM

BumpInTheNight: [www.filesfeed.com image 428x638]


I ruined this movie for other movie goers. I laughed in way too many parts of it.
I guess they thought it was the literal truth. LOL
 
2012-03-10 01:10:08 PM
mybookshelfreview.com

Somewhat better than the book.
 
2012-03-10 01:10:45 PM
The game of thrones is the best adaptation that I have ever seen.
Would actually like to see a list of great books which were made into equally great movies/series.
Roots is probably a good example, except I have never read the book so I cant speak to that.
 
2012-03-10 01:12:28 PM

namatad: BumpInTheNight: [www.filesfeed.com image 428x638]

I ruined this movie for other movie goers. I laughed in way too many parts of it.
I guess they thought it was the literal truth. LOL


Did you bust out at Satan Baby? I totally lost it.
 
2012-03-10 01:18:15 PM
www.internationalhero.co.uk
 
2012-03-10 01:18:54 PM
The Mist by Stephen King. I think King even admitted the movie was better than the book.
/great to see The Running Man love in the thread. I'm glad I saw the movie before I read the book, so I could still pretend Ben Richards was still Ahnuld.
//Last season's winners: Whitman! Price! and Haddad!!!
 
2012-03-10 01:19:21 PM

Mugato: SithLord: BumpInTheNight: [www.filesfeed.com image 428x638]

Thread over.

Whether he was being snarky or not, I agree. The Passion of the Christ was about a guy getting the shiat beat out of him for three hours, getting nailed to a cross and then emerging from his burial cave for some reason. A weird androgynous creature with a creepy midget child rounds out the cast. A movie should not have required reading to make sense, even if that required reading is the Bible.

On that subject, even though I haven't read The Lord of the Rings, I would submit that. The film never explains WTF the "Grey Havens" is, we never get a real resolution to Christopher Lee's character and I'm assuming the book explains why those eagles couldn't just fly the Hobbits to Mordor. And the people I've spoken to who have read the book always complain that there wasn't something called the "scouring of the Shire". With all the time wasted on walking, one would think they could leave room for explaining major plot points.


The books do not explain. Although you come to realize that the Eagles are basically God stepping in to save the heroes at worthy points, so they are only used when the heroes' backs are completely against the wall. Also, there were flying Nazgul, so a direct flight would have resulted in getting shot down.

They could have included a throwaway line in the Council of Elrond scene where they shoot down the suggestion.
 
2012-03-10 01:22:07 PM

MagSeven: The Mist by Stephen King. I think King even admitted the movie was better than the book.
/great to see The Running Man love in the thread. I'm glad I saw the movie before I read the book, so I could still pretend Ben Richards was still Ahnuld.
//Last season's winners: Whitman! Price! and Haddad!!!


I now see that I have the thread inverted in my head.
/moar coffee!
 
2012-03-10 01:22:46 PM
I wouldn't say it was a great book to begin with but Sin City was the best comic book...excuse me, graphic novel adaptation to film ever. Rodriguez made the film look like a comic book without literally painting comic book panels on the screen like Ang Lee's Hulk. The only thing that wasn't faithful was that Jessica Alba's character was supposed to get naked.
 
2012-03-10 01:24:09 PM
The movie is always better because nobody has ever gotten a sneaky handjob from his date while reading a book.
 
2012-03-10 01:24:52 PM

booksmart: BumpInTheNight: The My Little Pony Killer: I disagree Subby. The book didn't have that horrendous sex scene.

I think it was the sound track to that scene that butchered it so badly, out of all the songs they could have picked they decided to use Leonard Nemoy's one song with heavy religious overtones.

[Not_Sure_If_Serious.jpg]


Are you seriously not sure?
 
2012-03-10 01:25:05 PM

Mugato: I wouldn't say it was a great book to begin with but Sin City was the best comic book...excuse me, graphic novel adaptation to film ever.


Agreed.

I still think Watchmen was an overrated graphic novel and an underrated film though.
 
2012-03-10 01:26:13 PM

srtpointman: The movie is always better because nobody has ever gotten a sneaky handjob from his date while reading a book.


Bite thy tongue.
 
2012-03-10 01:32:21 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: I disagree Subby. The book didn't have that horrendous sex scenes.


FTFY
 
2012-03-10 01:32:44 PM

FeedTheCollapse: The Running Man isn't that bad, but it hasn't aged well at all. It's also completely different from the book, so it's a bit of a moot point to say one is better than the other.


Mugato: On that subject, even though I haven't read The Lord of the Rings, I would submit that. The film never explains WTF the "Grey Havens" is, we never get a real resolution to Christopher Lee's character and I'm assuming the book explains why those eagles couldn't just fly the Hobbits to Mordor. And the people I've spoken to who have read the book always complain that there wasn't something called the "scouring of the Shire"

I don't recall the Grey Havens being explained too much in the books, though it's been a while since I've read them. The Scourging of the Shire was included with the extended version of Return of the King, I believe. It was obvious cut for time constraints as it would've added at least another 20 minutes onto the end of the film. I can see why people would complain, but it really would've made ROTK much longer than it already was; hell, in the book the ring is thrown into Mt Doom 3 chapters into the second half of the book.


Remember that book 2 ended with Deodorant being taken down by Shelob, Sam finding out he was still alive, and Sam going off to rescue him. Also, Helms Deep was not as big a deal in the books. I think the changes made it work better for film. Watchmen could've used some adaptation.
 
2012-03-10 01:33:49 PM
Apparently Android autocorrects Frodo to Deodorant. Write your own joke.
 
2012-03-10 01:35:23 PM

Summer Glau's Love Slave: Oh, and Blade Runner was better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?


Any movie based loosely on a Philip K. Dick story is going to be better then the book.
 
2012-03-10 01:36:20 PM

indarwinsshadow: [www.internationalhero.co.uk image 382x500]


There was absolutely no reason to remind us of that film (a word I use reluctantly).
 
2012-03-10 01:37:09 PM
www.trueknowledge.com

This is my favourite book. I've never actually been able to find the movie (torrent sites to iTunes to libraries and back), so i figure it must be horrible.
That, and its 25% Rotten Tomatoes rating.
 
2012-03-10 01:38:27 PM

bigtotoro: Apparently Android autocorrects Frodo to Deodorant. Write your own joke.


images.wikia.com
latimesblogs.latimes.com
www.wallpaperbase.com
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-03-10 01:40:04 PM

Slives: No mentions of Jurassic Park yet? The first book is great and the first movie, while good, does not hold up to the book.

I thought the second book was a lost cause, until I saw the movie they made based of it. The second Jurassic Park movie probably should have been named 'King Kong staring a T.Rex'.


So, Godzilla? Because that's what I thought of when I first saw that rampaging T. Rex sequence.
 
2012-03-10 01:40:28 PM

bigtotoro: Apparently Android autocorrects Frodo to Deodorant. Write your own joke.


I was wondering WTF that was about. There's been a lot of autocorrect-ownage recently now that everyone's writing things on their styrofoams.
 
2012-03-10 01:41:19 PM
They missed another one...

www.moviesonline.ca
 
2012-03-10 01:45:34 PM

bigtotoro:

Remember that book 2 ended with Deodorant being taken down by Shelob, Sam finding out he was still alive, and Sam going off to rescue him. Also, Helms Deep was not as big a deal in the books. I think the changes made it work better for film. Watchmen could've used some adaptation.


i42.tinypic.com
 
2012-03-10 01:46:27 PM

Free Radical: They missed another one...

[www.moviesonline.ca image 430x580]


Movie was way better than the book. The book wouldn't have sucked had King left out the hedge animals.

You want to see a movie better than the book, but still close enough to not eclipse it? Misery. All the good parts of the book, yet none of that Bourka Bee Goddess horsesh*t.
 
2012-03-10 01:49:06 PM

LeroyBourne: No Country for Old Men
/yeah I said it. the book is so much more balanced.


The lack of proper punctuation bothered the hell out of me. Since the film followed the book reasonably closely, I'd still give the nod to the book.
 
2012-03-10 02:02:41 PM
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. What a horribly overrated book. The Swedish movie was significantly better. The American movie, while still pretty bad, was still better than the book. Best part? The movie didn't go through detailed descriptions of the characters' Apple products and Ikea furniture...
 
2012-03-10 02:03:08 PM

varmitydog: Forrest Gump. The book was high southern camp, heavily playing on an "idiot savant" theme, that had Gump as a wrestler, an astronaut, a harmonica player in a rock band, a chess wizard and an actor wearing a costume in a monster movie. He didn't take up shrimping, he took up aquaculture. Bubba was a white guy who played with him at Alabama who got drafted with him, Lt Dan didn't turn him into a multimillionaire and his momma was timid mess, always getting ripped off. And the best two characters in the book, the wild man Curtis and the female astronaut with an attitude, were completely left out, along with the best story in the book, the training camp incident where he blew up the boiler.

The movie changed the book into a politically correct baby boomer's nostalgia feel good movie. It became a big hit because it was formula written for a target demographic. But what a disappointment for Winston Groom fans to see what a pile of sh*t they made of his masterpiece.


SO MUCH THIS!!!
Also I enjoyed Running Man the movie for what it was but to do the book justice they should do it again as a movie.


Of course the hero flying a plane into a building while holding onto his guts is not what the typical viewer wants to see in a post 9/11 world.
 
2012-03-10 02:07:37 PM

rikkards: Of course the hero flying a plane into a building while holding onto his guts is not what the typical viewer wants to see in a post 9/11 world.


The typical viewer should get kicked in the balls for a lot of other things, too.
 
2012-03-10 02:07:42 PM

mekki: coco ebert: The Great Gatsby sucks, in whatever medium.

The plot and characters suck but, boy, did Fitzgerald have a way with words. It would be like if Leonardo only did hotel paintings. Boy, could he paint but...hotel paintings.


"Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter--tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther.... And one fine morning-- So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

Great use of language about horrible people. Which is sort of the point.
 
2012-03-10 02:08:29 PM

nonvideas: The movie didn't go through detailed descriptions of the characters' Apple products and Ikea furniture...


Did the books do that?
 
2012-03-10 02:10:48 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: mekki: coco ebert: The Great Gatsby sucks, in whatever medium.

The plot and characters suck but, boy, did Fitzgerald have a way with words. It would be like if Leonardo only did hotel paintings. Boy, could he paint but...hotel paintings.

"Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter--tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther.... And one fine morning-- So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

Great use of language about horrible people. Which is sort of the point.


Some people think it's wonderful to feign boredom at Citizen Kane. Other people can't tell the difference between Citizen Kane and the Great Gatsby.
 
2012-03-10 02:11:15 PM

Fano: Mugato: SithLord: BumpInTheNight: [www.filesfeed.com image 428x638]

Thread over.

Whether he was being snarky or not, I agree. The Passion of the Christ was about a guy getting the shiat beat out of him for three hours, getting nailed to a cross and then emerging from his burial cave for some reason. A weird androgynous creature with a creepy midget child rounds out the cast. A movie should not have required reading to make sense, even if that required reading is the Bible.

On that subject, even though I haven't read The Lord of the Rings, I would submit that. The film never explains WTF the "Grey Havens" is, we never get a real resolution to Christopher Lee's character and I'm assuming the book explains why those eagles couldn't just fly the Hobbits to Mordor. And the people I've spoken to who have read the book always complain that there wasn't something called the "scouring of the Shire". With all the time wasted on walking, one would think they could leave room for explaining major plot points.

The books do not explain. Although you come to realize that the Eagles are basically God stepping in to save the heroes at worthy points, so they are only used when the heroes' backs are completely against the wall. Also, there were flying Nazgul, so a direct flight would have resulted in getting shot down.

They could have included a throwaway line in the Council of Elrond scene where they shoot down the suggestion.


I swear I read in the book that Gandalf alluded when the eagle saved him that in general they do not get involved in anyone else's affairs. This link (new window)kind of points at that as well especially in The Hobbit. If you don't want to read the link basically the gist is:
Why doesn't Frodo ride an eagle?
Because the gods don't want him to.
 
2012-03-10 02:17:02 PM

rikkards: Why doesn't Frodo ride an eagle?
Because the gods don't want him to.


I have said this to every midget who has fondled me.
 
2012-03-10 02:19:38 PM

FeedTheCollapse: The Running Man isn't that bad, but it hasn't aged well at all. It's also completely different from the book, so it's a bit of a moot point to say one is better than the other.


Mugato: On that subject, even though I haven't read The Lord of the Rings, I would submit that. The film never explains WTF the "Grey Havens" is, we never get a real resolution to Christopher Lee's character and I'm assuming the book explains why those eagles couldn't just fly the Hobbits to Mordor. And the people I've spoken to who have read the book always complain that there wasn't something called the "scouring of the Shire"

I don't recall the Grey Havens being explained too much in the books, though it's been a while since I've read them. The Scourging of the Shire was included with the extended version of Return of the King, I believe. It was obvious cut for time constraints as it would've added at least another 20 minutes onto the end of the film. I can see why people would complain, but it really would've made ROTK much longer than it already was; hell, in the book the ring is thrown into Mt Doom 3 chapters into the second half of the book.


The Scourging of the Shire wasn't in the extended edition, although it was alluded to when Frodo looks in Galadriel's pool. The extended edition did have the death of Saruman, though; but he dies at Orthanc (still killed by Wormtongue) instead of the Shire. I think it was a slap against Christopher Lee that they didn't include that in the theatrical release.
 
2012-03-10 02:23:00 PM

spacebar: List fails without The Lord of the Rings.

Absolutely love the movies, but they're nowhere as awesome as the books.


I'd argue the opposite. Tolkien needed an editor and the movie gave it to him. It helps immensely. Tom Bombadil and a lot of the back story really don't add anything and slow things down. The only real criticism I have of the movies is their weird addition of elves at places they didn't belong, like Helm's Deep.
 
2012-03-10 02:28:46 PM

odinsposse: spacebar: List fails without The Lord of the Rings.

Absolutely love the movies, but they're nowhere as awesome as the books.

I'd argue the opposite. Tolkien needed an editor and the movie gave it to him. It helps immensely. Tom Bombadil and a lot of the back story really don't add anything and slow things down. The only real criticism I have of the movies is their weird addition of elves at places they didn't belong, like Helm's Deep.


yeah you need an editor. here's what your edit would look like

I'd argue the opposite. Tolkien needed an editor and the movie gave it to him. It helps immensely. Tom Bombadil and a lot of the back story really don't add anything and slow things down. The only real criticism I have of the movies is their weird addition of elves at places they didn't belong, like Helm's Deep

I know big well written books bore someone as smart as you, but do refrain from statements regarding who needs an editor.

now go stack some more boxes k?

good.
 
2012-03-10 02:29:32 PM

Earpj: "The Running Man" is a great movie. Perfect when I need something mindless to watch.

The Running Man

is the most correct vision of the future I've ever seen.
A huge media conglomerate controls what people see & hear and make up stories about people that don't follow their doctrine.
For trying to protect the helpless and innocent man is thrown in a bureaucratic prison system.
The populace is distracted by reality TV and gambles their pennies away while multi-millionaires make more & more in a society with rampant unemployment.
 
2012-03-10 02:30:28 PM
What's that movie where the two gay guys are on that mountain?

Oh, right Lord of the Rings. Movie was way better.
 
2012-03-10 02:30:31 PM

Teufelaffe: James Scameron: The Watchmen was an illustrated book for children not an actual "book".

ftfy

Oh look, it's Mr. "I'm way more mature than you guys" again. I'm surprised you didn't mention Camryn Manheim. Oh, wait, is part of the judge's order that you can't mention her online anymore?


oh look it's Mr "I got Nothin!"
 
2012-03-10 02:31:16 PM
I know it's been mentioned and is not in the article but Jackson actually butchered
Lord of the Rings. I don't mean by just a little bit either. He changed the disposition of
characters and inserted others where they never where in the books.
You should never butcher a classic under the guise of artistic license.
Not looking forward to his butchery being used on the Hobbit.
 
2012-03-10 02:32:20 PM

LucklessWonder: James Scameron: The Watchmen was an illustrated book for children not an actual "book".

ftfy

Given the content's level of violence and sexual situations, Watchmen is NOT for children. Sure it's a graphic novel or comic book rather than actual book if you want to view it that way, but it's definitely pitched towards older teens and adults.


Witless Wonder:

I own an autographed copy thanks.
 
2012-03-10 02:33:33 PM

James Scameron: odinsposse: spacebar: List fails without The Lord of the Rings.

Absolutely love the movies, but they're nowhere as awesome as the books.

I'd argue the opposite. Tolkien needed an editor and the movie gave it to him. It helps immensely. Tom Bombadil and a lot of the back story really don't add anything and slow things down. The only real criticism I have of the movies is their weird addition of elves at places they didn't belong, like Helm's Deep.

yeah you need an editor. here's what your edit would look like

I'd argue the opposite. Tolkien needed an editor and the movie gave it to him. It helps immensely. Tom Bombadil and a lot of the back story really don't add anything and slow things down. The only real criticism I have of the movies is their weird addition of elves at places they didn't belong, like Helm's Deep

I know big well written books bore someone as smart as you, but do refrain from statements regarding who needs an editor.

now go stack some more boxes k?

good.


It's kind of sad that you think liking Tolkien makes you smart.
 
2012-03-10 02:33:57 PM
I don't care what the fanboys or the movie critics say, because I liked the Watchmen. The acting is okay (even Malin Akerman) and the plot was fine. I liked the special effects and it kept as true to the comic as possible. I've worse adaptations or "inspired by ...". Green Lanterrn was just cheesy, as well as the first two Punisher films although Thomas Jane was okay in the second one.
 
2012-03-10 02:36:26 PM

sparkeyjames: I know it's been mentioned and is not in the article but Jackson actually butchered
Lord of the Rings. I don't mean by just a little bit either. He changed the disposition of
characters and inserted others where they never where in the books.
You should never butcher a classic under the guise of artistic license.
Not looking forward to his butchery being used on the Hobbit.


when you raise a few million and make a few billion, you get to do that.

guys that make a few thousand and lounge around in their gonch on the internetz get to throw in a few armchair passes of the foam football.

so..

peter jackson +1
you and your opinion 0

there could have been worse directors.

but yeah, better to biatch about someone who has done something than say, someone who has done something biatching about you no? lol

/this thread
//full of whinge
 
2012-03-10 02:38:19 PM
A much better/harder-to-compile list would be movies that were better than the book
 
2012-03-10 02:38:25 PM

skinink: I don't care what the fanboys or the movie critics say, because I liked the Watchmen. The acting is okay (even Malin Akerman) and the plot was fine. I liked the special effects and it kept as true to the comic as possible. I've worse adaptations or "inspired by ...". Green Lanterrn was just cheesy, as well as the first two Punisher films although Thomas Jane was okay in the second one.


I liked it too. Why "even Malin Ackerman?" What's she ever done wrong?
 
2012-03-10 02:38:37 PM
I don't know that it's possible to be worst than Prozac Nation.
 
2012-03-10 02:38:46 PM

odinsposse: James Scameron: odinsposse: spacebar: List fails without The Lord of the Rings.


It's kind of sad that you think liking Tolkien makes you smart.


naw, your weak comeback is what is sad.
 
2012-03-10 02:41:01 PM

James Scameron: sparkeyjames: I know it's been mentioned and is not in the article but Jackson actually butchered
Lord of the Rings. I don't mean by just a little bit either. He changed the disposition of
characters and inserted others where they never where in the books.
You should never butcher a classic under the guise of artistic license.
Not looking forward to his butchery being used on the Hobbit.

when you raise a few million and make a few billion, you get to do that.

guys that make a few thousand and lounge around in their gonch on the internetz get to throw in a few armchair passes of the foam football.

so..

peter jackson +1
you and your opinion 0

there could have been worse directors.

but yeah, better to biatch about someone who has done something than say, someone who has done something biatching about you no? lol

/this thread
//full of whinge


The "whinge" really crests with your posts, I have to admit.

/what a minge
 
2012-03-10 02:43:00 PM

hogans: LeroyBourne: No Country for Old Men
/yeah I said it. the book is so much more balanced.

The lack of proper punctuation bothered the hell out of me. Since the film followed the book reasonably closely, I'd still give the nod to the book.


If the punctuation bugged you, don't go near Blood Meridian; it was very difficult to get through with all the characters and not knowing who the hell is saying what. And I heard they're making a movie on it.
/kinda excited
 
2012-03-10 02:44:11 PM
Disagree:
Dune, Running Man

Both are stylish takes on the original material. You have to buy into the director's style to like them. If you don't then they'll never work.

Starship Troopers was similar in that regard. It left a lot out from the book, but stylishly captured some of the books themes.
 
2012-03-10 02:45:41 PM
STUPID GUY: why couldn't those eagles couldn't just fly the Hobbits to Mordor?

Dear JRR,

We were all sitting around wondering why classic tales take so long. We are starting from a really stupid premise and then arguing that as our central point.

Being that none of us are intelligent or cultured enough to know what language, writing or reading is about, maybe you could fill us in.

Thanks,
Mr. Stupid

p.s.

do you have a facebook?
 
2012-03-10 02:47:12 PM

thamike: nonvideas: The movie didn't go through detailed descriptions of the characters' Apple products and Ikea furniture...

Did the books do that?


Yep. Here's a sample from The Girl Who Played with Fire:

She drove to IKEA at Kungens Kurva and spent three hours browsing through the merchandise, writing down the item numbers she needed. She made a few quick decisions.
She bought two KARLANDA sofas with sand coloured upholstery, five POÄNG armchairs, two round side tables of clear lacquered birch, a SVANSBO coffee table, and several LACK occasional tables. From the storage department she ordered two IVAR combination storage units and two BONDE bookshelves, a TV stand, and a MAGIKER unit with doors. She settled on a PAX NEXUS three-door wardrobe and two small MALM bureaus.

She spent a long time selecting a bed, and decided on a HEMNES bed from with mattress and bedside table. To be on the safe side, she also bought a LILLEHAMMER bed to put in the spare room. She didn't plan on having an guests, but since she had a guest room she might as well furnish it.

The bathroom in her new apartment was already equipped with a medicine cabinet, towel storage, and a washing machine the previous owners had left behind. All she had to buy was a cheap laundry basket.

What she did need, though, was kitchen furniture. After some thought she decided on a ROSFORS kitchen table of solid beechwood with a tabletop of tempered glass and four colourful kitchen chairs.

She also needed furniture for her office. She looked at some improbable "work stations: with ingenious cabinets for storing computers and keyboards. In the end she shook her head and ordered an ordinary desk, the GALANT, in beech veneer with an angled top and rounded corners, and a large filing cabinet. She took a long time choosing an office chair - in which she would no doubt spend many hours-and chose one of the most expensive options, the VERKSAM.
She made her way through the entire warehouse and bought a good supply of sheets, pillowcases, hand towels, duvets, blankets, pillows, a starter pack of stainless steel cutlery, some crockery, pots and pans, cutting boards, three big rug, several work lamps, and a huge quantity of office supplies - folders, file boxes, wastepaper baskets, storage boxes, and the like.
 
2012-03-10 02:50:24 PM

nonvideas: thamike: nonvideas: The movie didn't go through detailed descriptions of the characters' Apple products and Ikea furniture...

Did the books do that?

Yep. Here's a sample from The Girl Who Played with Fire:

She drove to IKEA at Kungens Kurva and spent three hours browsing through the merchandise, writing down the item numbers she needed. She made a few quick decisions.
She bought two KARLANDA sofas with sand coloured upholstery, five POÄNG armchairs, two round side tables of clear lacquered birch, a SVANSBO coffee table, and several LACK occasional tables. From the storage department she ordered two IVAR combination storage units and two BONDE bookshelves, a TV stand, and a MAGIKER unit with doors. She settled on a PAX NEXUS three-door wardrobe and two small MALM bureaus.

She spent a long time selecting a bed, and decided on a HEMNES bed from with mattress and bedside table. To be on the safe side, she also bought a LILLEHAMMER bed to put in the spare room. She didn't plan on having an guests, but since she had a guest room she might as well furnish it.

The bathroom in her new apartment was already equipped with a medicine cabinet, towel storage, and a washing machine the previous owners had left behind. All she had to buy was a cheap laundry basket.

What she did need, though, was kitchen furniture. After some thought she decided on a ROSFORS kitchen table of solid beechwood with a tabletop of tempered glass and four colourful kitchen chairs.

She also needed furniture for her office. She looked at some improbable "work stations: with ingenious cabinets for storing computers and keyboards. In the end she shook her head and ordered an ordinary desk, the GALANT, in beech veneer with an angled top and rounded corners, and a large filing cabinet. She took a long time choosing an office chair - in which she would no doubt spend many hours-and chose one of the most expensive options, the VERKSAM.
She made her way through the entire warehouse and bought a good supply ...


Sure.
 
2012-03-10 02:51:28 PM

Fano:

The books do not explain. Although you come to realize that the Eagles are basically God stepping in to save the heroes at worthy points, so they are only used when the heroes' backs are completely against the wall. Also, there were flying Nazgul, so a direct flight would have resulted in getting shot down.

They could have included a throwaway line in the Council of Elrond scene where they shoot down the suggestion.


AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAA!

cough..pause..."did i just read that?"

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

while YOU may have "come to realize" that, that's not the case at all and it is explained quite clearly why in the books.

if you knew anything about the author and his views which...(snicker) you do not, you would know how absurd your pronouncement is.

maybe some of you should actually read the books before getting in here and guessing...

/comedy gold
//nazgul haz guns so they be shooting stuff too and i know. i haz internets
 
2012-03-10 02:55:01 PM

mooseyfate: James Scameron: sparkeyjames: I know it's been mentioned and is not in the article but Jackson actually butchered
Lord of the Rings. I don't mean by just a little bit either. He changed the disposition of
characters and inserted others where they never where in the books.
You should never butcher a classic under the guise of artistic license.
Not looking forward to his butchery being used on the Hobbit.

when you raise a few million and make a few billion, you get to do that.

guys that make a few thousand and lounge around in their gonch on the internetz get to throw in a few armchair passes of the foam football.

so..

peter jackson +1
you and your opinion 0

there could have been worse directors.

but yeah, better to biatch about someone who has done something than say, someone who has done something biatching about you no? lol

/this thread
//full of whinge

The "whinge" really crests with your posts, I have to admit.

/what a minge


weak is what weak posts eh?
 
2012-03-10 02:55:36 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: I think it was a slap against Christopher Lee that they didn't include that in the theatrical release.


eh, the theatrical versions were kind of crap compared with the extended versions.
 
2012-03-10 03:05:34 PM

James Scameron: sparkeyjames: I know it's been mentioned and is not in the article but Jackson actually butchered
Lord of the Rings. I don't mean by just a little bit either. He changed the disposition of
characters and inserted others where they never where in the books.
You should never butcher a classic under the guise of artistic license.
Not looking forward to his butchery being used on the Hobbit.

when you raise a few million and make a few billion, you get to do that.

guys that make a few thousand and lounge around in their gonch on the internetz get to throw in a few armchair passes of the foam football.

so..

peter jackson +1
you and your opinion 0

there could have been worse directors.

but yeah, better to biatch about someone who has done something than say, someone who has done something biatching about you no? lol

/this thread
//full of whinge


Does not make it right though does it?
Just because he makes xxx millions billions whatever does not invalidate my opinion. Many many others
share my view on this. Some (the non book readers) like the way he does his movies others don't. Live with it.
This is a thread that invites opinion and all you've brought to it is the ability to insult everyone here. Good going.
 
2012-03-10 03:21:29 PM

LucklessWonder: kxs401: The book is almost always better. The only exception I've come across is Silence of the Lambs. The movie is much better.

One more exception


Godfather's a weird case. It was actually a (very long) screenplay first. Robert Evans bought it for Paramount, but couldn't get his bosses in New York to greenlight the money to make it. He knew people in publishing, so he told Puzo to rewrite it as a novel, and sold the book. Once the book was a HUGE best-seller, he was able to get the money to shoot the movie.
 
2012-03-10 03:31:25 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Godfather's a weird case. It was actually a (very long) screenplay first. Robert Evans bought it for Paramount, but couldn't get his bosses in New York to greenlight the money to make it. He knew people in publishing, so he told Puzo to rewrite it as a novel, and sold the book. Once the book was a HUGE best-seller, he was able to get the money to shoot the movie.


Puzo wrote the novel in 1969. The script in 1972. It was a novel first.
 
2012-03-10 03:33:41 PM
On the few that I've seen both I pretty much like which ever one I seen first better. bionicjoe: Earpj: "The Running Man" is a great movie. Perfect when I need something mindless to watch.

The Running Man is the most correct vision of the future I've ever seen.
.


I'd say we are a little closer to Fahrenheit 451 than Running Man, Wall sized flat TVs and Rampant political correctness ban and burninate anything that might offend anyone.
 
2012-03-10 03:37:23 PM

thamike: Free Radical: They missed another one...

[www.moviesonline.ca image 430x580]

Movie was way better than the book.


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-03-10 03:38:10 PM

Oldiron_79: On the few that I've seen both I pretty much like which ever one I seen first better. bionicjoe: Earpj: "The Running Man" is a great movie. Perfect when I need something mindless to watch.

The Running Man is the most correct vision of the future I've ever seen.
.

I'd say we are a little closer to Fahrenheit 451 than Running Man, Wall sized flat TVs and Rampant political correctness ban and burninate anything that might offend anyone.


Think it all depends on where exactly you live, I think the US is headed mostly towards Running Man with a bit of F451, whereas UK is headed more 1984/F451 combo
 
2012-03-10 03:38:22 PM

Oldiron_79: I'd say we are a little closer to Fahrenheit 451 than Running Man, Wall sized flat TVs and Rampant political correctness ban and burninate anything that might offend anyone.


Like Huckleberry Finn? I think it's depressing that the same people who burn "offensive" books complain about "political correctness."
 
2012-03-10 03:40:55 PM

thamike: Oldiron_79: I'd say we are a little closer to Fahrenheit 451 than Running Man, Wall sized flat TVs and Rampant political correctness ban and burninate anything that might offend anyone.

Like Huckleberry Finn? I think it's depressing that the same people who burn "offensive" books complain about "political correctness."


Here's an oldie but a goodie:

We have now reached the point where every goon with a grievance, every bitter bigot, merely has to place the prefix, 'I know this is not politically correct, but...' in front of the usual string of insults in order to be not just safe from criticism, but actually a card, a lad, even a hero. Conversely, to talk about poverty and inequality, to draw attention to the reality that discrimination and injustice are still facts of life, is to commit the sin of political correctness. Anti-PC has become the latest cover for creeps. It is a godsend for every curmudgeon and crank, from fascists to the merely smug.

That was written by Finian O'Toole.

In 1994.
 
2012-03-10 03:41:16 PM

Free Radical: thamike: Free Radical: They missed another one...

[www.moviesonline.ca image 430x580]

Movie was way better than the book.

notsureifserious.jpg


Serious. Enjoy your Cosmic Hedge Animal Park. I'll enjoy my well-made psychological thriller.
 
2012-03-10 03:42:29 PM

odinsposse: Here's an oldie but a goodie:

We have now reached the point where every goon with a grievance, every bitter bigot, merely has to place the prefix, 'I know this is not politically correct, but...' in front of the usual string of insults in order to be not just safe from criticism, but actually a card, a lad, even a hero. Conversely, to talk about poverty and inequality, to draw attention to the reality that discrimination and injustice are still facts of life, is to commit the sin of political correctness. Anti-PC has become the latest cover for creeps. It is a godsend for every curmudgeon and crank, from fascists to the merely smug.

That was written by Finian O'Toole.

In 1994.


I would like to buy you a steak.
 
2012-03-10 03:54:12 PM
thamike: Oldiron_79: I'd say we are a little closer to Fahrenheit 451 than Running Man, Wall sized flat TVs and Rampant political correctness ban and burninate anything that might offend anyone.

Like Huckleberry Finn? I think it's depressing that the same people who burn "offensive" books complain about "political correctness."


odinsposse: thamike: Oldiron_79: I'd say we are a little closer to Fahrenheit 451 than Running Man, Wall sized flat TVs and Rampant political correctness ban and burninate anything that might offend anyone.

Like Huckleberry Finn? I think it's depressing that the same people who burn "offensive" books complain about "political correctness."

Here's an oldie but a goodie:

We have now reached the point where every goon with a grievance, every bitter bigot, merely has to place the prefix, 'I know this is not politically correct, but...' in front of the usual string of insults in order to be not just safe from criticism, but actually a card, a lad, even a hero. Conversely, to talk about poverty and inequality, to draw attention to the reality that discrimination and injustice are still facts of life, is to commit the sin of political correctness. Anti-PC has become the latest cover for creeps. It is a godsend for every curmudgeon and crank, from fascists to the merely smug.

That was written by Finian O'Toole.

In 1994.


Calling everyone that doesn't like political correctness a Fascist with no good basis for doing so...... Yet more proof of Godwin's law.

Well its obvious that you guys are good goose stepping pinheads that will do anything your overlords tell you to as long as they accuse whomever they want to you attack of being racist.
 
2012-03-10 03:56:21 PM

Oldiron_79: Calling everyone that doesn't like political correctness a Fascist with no good basis for doing so


Nope. Try reading it again.
 
2012-03-10 04:04:01 PM
I have yet to see a movie version that is better than the book. Why? Because when I read a book, I make up my OWN movie version in my head. I tend to visualize as I read. I "hear" the characters speak their dialogue as I read the text. Someone attempting to put the same book onto a movie screen is going to put THEIR version up there, not mine. And mine is always better, more real, more intense. The only thing I lack is a John Williams score, which I admit is kind of a bummer. (Funny thing, though- I've found that when I re-read LOTR, I mentally insert the John Williams score into the action.)

Until Hollywood can produce big-screen versions of MY interpretations of books, THEIR adaptations will never live up to a book I've read.
 
2012-03-10 04:10:13 PM

tillerman35: I have yet to see a movie version that is better than the book. Why? Because when I read a book, I make up my OWN movie version in my head. I tend to visualize as I read. I "hear" the characters speak their dialogue as I read the text. Someone attempting to put the same book onto a movie screen is going to put THEIR version up there, not mine. And mine is always better, more real, more intense. The only thing I lack is a John Williams score, which I admit is kind of a bummer. (Funny thing, though- I've found that when I re-read LOTR, I mentally insert the John Williams score into the action.)

Until Hollywood can produce big-screen versions of MY interpretations of books, THEIR adaptations will never live up to a book I've read.


though I will agree that the subject of TFA was going to be awfully broad, I think I would be more interested in movies that surpass the book version or are dramatically different enough from the source material to be its own separate entity.
 
2012-03-10 04:31:06 PM

Oldiron_79: Calling everyone that doesn't like political correctness a Fascist with no good basis for doing so...... Yet more proof of Godwin's law.


If you had any idea what "Godwin's Law" is, you would know that you just faceplanted into it.
 
2012-03-10 04:36:05 PM
Watchmen is a Time Warner property as is EW. That's why it's not on the list.
 
2012-03-10 04:52:50 PM

Mugato: SithLord: BumpInTheNight: [www.filesfeed.com image 428x638]

Thread over.

Whether he was being snarky or not, I agree. The Passion of the Christ was about a guy getting the shiat beat out of him for three hours, getting nailed to a cross and then emerging from his burial cave for some reason. A weird androgynous creature with a creepy midget child rounds out the cast. A movie should not have required reading to make sense, even if that required reading is the Bible.

On that subject, even though I haven't read The Lord of the Rings, I would submit that. The film never explains WTF the "Grey Havens" is, we never get a real resolution to Christopher Lee's character and I'm assuming the book explains why those eagles couldn't just fly the Hobbits to Mordor. And the people I've spoken to who have read the book always complain that there wasn't something called the "scouring of the Shire". With all the time wasted on walking, one would think they could leave room for explaining major plot points.


Now... I am a big Tolkien nut and I don't wish to sound insulting, but.... saying that the books are better than the films seems to me to be a discussion on the incredibly obvious. You may as well hold a symposium on the fact that the sky is blue or something. And I actually like the films, a lot.
 
2012-03-10 05:05:12 PM
Late to the party, but here's a movie that was better than the book:


worldsoforos.com
 
2012-03-10 05:23:26 PM
I was going to mention "Battleship Earth", but then I realized that the movie is much funnier than the book.
 
2012-03-10 05:46:36 PM

NeoCortex42: LoneWolf343: I couldn't get through the first chapter of Dune, so I better stay the hell away from the movie, I guess.

I don't see how the movie would make a lot of sense to someone who hasn't read the book, unless you just really want to see Sting and Captain Picard fighting with knives.

The Dune mini-series by Sci-Fi on the other hand, is worth checking out. I think it's a great adaptation and makes perfect sense on its own.


I'll second that. Though I liked the Lynch "Dune" version, the mini is much more faithful to the book.


indarwinsshadow: [www.internationalhero.co.uk image 382x500]


They never made a movie out of that. YOU LIE!
 
2012-03-10 05:50:07 PM
Nice headline, trollmitter.

Also people, The Great Gatsby sucks? I understand if you didn't like reading it high school but maybe as an adult you can go back and grasp it in its proper context.
 
2012-03-10 06:06:53 PM

James Scameron: The Watchmen was an illustrated book for children not an actual "book".

ftfy


I'm sure you're trolling; for if you actually read the book itself, even you'd admit this was trolling.
 
2012-03-10 06:29:11 PM
I've seen a LOT of people try to explain away the Eagles not taking Frodo to the volcano in LotR thing over the years (rather than just admit the truth, which was that Tolkien simply never thought of it). Lots of theorizing about Sauron having fantastical aerial defenses or the Eagles being more susceptible to ring corruption, or many others.

What none of them ever successfully managed to explain was why these things (none of which has any textual support; heck it's suggested that no one was even aware the Nazgul had flying mounts in the first place) could possibly make things even less safe than the plan they eventually ended up going with. Fly the ring to the cracks of doom before Sauron can respond? Too dangerous. Send a couple hobbits to walk it there instead? Brilliant!

Let's not forget that Frodo was caught no less than four times along the way after leaving the rest of the companions. Nice planning there, Gandalf and Elrond!

LotR had many brilliant things in it making it one of the greatest novels ever written. Its plotting was NOT one of those things. It's full of a lot of author pushing and pulling at an unwieldy and at times inconsistent plot trying to avoid ever gaping holes and not entirely succeeding.

That said, it did better than the movies did. While the first two movies were fantastic, the changes made to the plot in the third one were very poorly thought out, especially screwing up how Minas Tirith was saved (for all intents and purposes rendering the entire Rohan plotline meaningless).
 
2012-03-10 07:12:25 PM

King Gorilla: I've never read the book, but I've been told the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is far superior.


The Combine made you say that.
 
2012-03-10 07:32:18 PM
Tryfan
Lots of theorizing about Sauron having fantastical aerial defenses

I never needed a lot of theorizing to not be bothered by that "why didn't they fly"-thing.
If you're dealing with some ancient evil being that's powerful enough to make the greatest wizards crap their robes, I'm perfectly happy to assume that he can turn some eagles entering his HQ into a bucket of KFC by pointing with his finger.

Send a couple hobbits to walk it there instead? Brilliant!

Well, there were tens of thousands of people walking around and nobody in the air; so if you want to slip in unnoticed, you better don't book a flight.
 
2012-03-10 07:52:57 PM

Sliding Carp: King Gorilla: I've never read the book, but I've been told the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is far superior.

The Combine made you say that.


Kesey's book is interesting, as The Chief is the narrator.
 
2012-03-10 08:05:23 PM
Timeline. The book was actually full of a lot of cool ideas, even if the actual quantum mechanics were simplified a bit. But hey, let's not pretend like the real stuff wouldn't have flown directly over my head anyway (that shiat requires both the math and the general intelligence I just am not capable of).

But it had just enough "reality" in it to be extremely cool. The movie was a Paul Walker action flick where they killed off the only enjoyable and memorable character (the ever enjoyable Billy Connolly) in the first half an hour.
 
2012-03-10 08:31:20 PM
worldsstrongestlibrarian.com
 
2012-03-10 08:36:50 PM
The novelization of the movie Caddyshack sucked
 
2012-03-10 09:31:44 PM

Tryfan: I've seen a LOT of people try to explain away the Eagles not taking Frodo to the volcano in LotR thing over the years (rather than just admit the truth, which was that Tolkien simply never thought of it). Lots of theorizing about Sauron having fantastical aerial defenses or the Eagles being more susceptible to ring corruption, or many others.

What none of them ever successfully managed to explain was why these things (none of which has any textual support; heck it's suggested that no one was even aware the Nazgul had flying mounts in the first place) could possibly make things even less safe than the plan they eventually ended up going with. Fly the ring to the cracks of doom before Sauron can respond? Too dangerous. Send a couple hobbits to walk it there instead? Brilliant!

Let's not forget that Frodo was caught no less than four times along the way after leaving the rest of the companions. Nice planning there, Gandalf and Elrond!

LotR had many brilliant things in it making it one of the greatest novels ever written. Its plotting was NOT one of those things. It's full of a lot of author pushing and pulling at an unwieldy and at times inconsistent plot trying to avoid ever gaping holes and not entirely succeeding.


He did think of it though. In one of his rough drafts Tolkien referred to a Mordor Special Mission Flying Corps, presumably those flying beasts that the Nazgul used. From: Tolkien Artist & Illustrator (http://www.amazon.com/J-R-R-Tolkien-Illustrator-Christina-Scull/dp/06 18083618), pp 189-190.)

The whole conceit of the Hobbits was that they were perpetual innocents. That's why Gollum (a kind of archaic Hobbit), Bilbo and Frodo could hold on to the ring for so long without alerting Sauron to its whereabouts. They never tried to use it to control others so they could stay under the radar. Of course it's all justification for a weak plot point but Tolkien was quite religious. Frodo's journey was supposed to be guided by the will of Eru. He had to suffer to succeed.
 
2012-03-10 09:32:48 PM
gregtork.files.wordpress.com

Costner still deserves a cockpunch for what he did to this book.
 
2012-03-10 10:30:02 PM

Shadowknight: Timeline. The book was actually full of a lot of cool ideas, even if the actual quantum mechanics were simplified a bit. But hey, let's not pretend like the real stuff wouldn't have flown directly over my head anyway (that shiat requires both the math and the general intelligence I just am not capable of).


The thing that kind of turned me off on that book was the whole exchange where one of the characters is asking how they figured out how to bring their people back after they traveled through time/to a different reality. The response was basically, "We never figured it out. The people that keep coming back from these trips are from a different reality where they figured that part out." That just annoyed me.
 
2012-03-10 10:53:05 PM

kxs401: The book is almost always better. The only exception I've come across is Silence of the Lambs. The movie is much better.


No one mentioned the Kama Sutra as another exception yet? For shame!
 
2012-03-10 11:28:51 PM
I'd like to add some titles to that list:

I, Robot
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 
2012-03-10 11:34:17 PM
the books are usually better, which is why I don't read books.
 
2012-03-10 11:36:35 PM

skepticultist: Also, I'm going to risk being tarred and feathered by saying David Lynch's Dune is way better than the book. I can't stand Frank Herbert's writing.


never read the books, but I can't stand voice overs in movies.
 
2012-03-10 11:36:44 PM
The Troy and Dune movies weren't worse than the book, they were just "loosely inspired", i.e. completely unrelated save a few thematic elements, by the books. Troy was a perfectly legit semi-historical action flick that had nothing to do with the Iliad and Dune was actually a pretty fun generic pulp sci-fi movie with dueling princes and lasers and shiat produced by a studio of people who never heard of Frank Herbert.

Short version: haters gonna hate, I guess.
 
2012-03-11 01:41:33 AM
I'm glad they added Simon Birch. They seem to always take a few chapters of books by John Irving and write the screen play.
His books are better suited to a mini-series.
It's one thing to leave out little things but, they always butcher his books.
 
2012-03-11 09:49:13 AM

domo_kun_sai: I'm glad they added Simon Birch. They seem to always take a few chapters of books by John Irving and write the screen play.
His books are better suited to a mini-series.
It's one thing to leave out little things but, they always butcher his books.


The movie adaptation of "The World According to Garp" seemed to assume that you've read the book,and thus it doesn't need to explain anything. You'd never know how Garp's kid died if you hadn't read the book. I don't even think the gearshift is mentioned at all in the movie.
 
2012-03-11 09:54:51 AM
upload.wikimedia.org

Book was better than all the Rambo movies combined.
 
2012-03-11 09:55:22 AM
Mr Tolkien was obviously keenly aware of classical literature, Scandanavian sagas and the like. The hero's journey is never only about reaching a goal or arriving at a destination. Rather, it is about the journey itself, how the hero's suffering and his choices define him in the end. Therefore, to say 'why couldn't Frodo just ride an eagle to Mount Doom' misses the point entirely.
 
2012-03-11 10:03:18 AM

Jake Leg: Mr Tolkien was obviously keenly aware of classical literature, Scandanavian sagas and the like. The hero's journey is never only about reaching a goal or arriving at a destination. Rather, it is about the journey itself, how the hero's suffering and his choices define him in the end. Therefore, to say 'why couldn't Frodo just ride an eagle to Mount Doom' misses the point entirely.


It doesn't miss the point. Obviously it would be a very short and boring story. It's just something that could have been explained with a throwaway line.
 
2012-03-11 10:09:52 AM

Mugato: Jake Leg: Mr Tolkien was obviously keenly aware of classical literature, Scandanavian sagas and the like. The hero's journey is never only about reaching a goal or arriving at a destination. Rather, it is about the journey itself, how the hero's suffering and his choices define him in the end. Therefore, to say 'why couldn't Frodo just ride an eagle to Mount Doom' misses the point entirely.

It doesn't miss the point. Obviously it would be a very short and boring story. It's just something that could have been explained with a throwaway line.


True, but I just never thought it really needed explanation
 
2012-03-11 10:49:18 AM

PacManDreaming: Planet of the Apes, the original Charlton Heston version, is far superior to the book. Actually, even the Mark Wahlberg version is better than the crappy book.


this.
 
2012-03-11 12:15:27 PM

Teufelaffe: Shadowknight: Timeline. The book was actually full of a lot of cool ideas, even if the actual quantum mechanics were simplified a bit. But hey, let's not pretend like the real stuff wouldn't have flown directly over my head anyway (that shiat requires both the math and the general intelligence I just am not capable of).

The thing that kind of turned me off on that book was the whole exchange where one of the characters is asking how they figured out how to bring their people back after they traveled through time/to a different reality. The response was basically, "We never figured it out. The people that keep coming back from these trips are from a different reality where they figured that part out." That just annoyed me.


Well, to be fair, that is kind of how quantum mechanics and multiverse theory operate. Its all just a philosophical mindfark supported my math.
 
2012-03-11 12:49:39 PM
I Am Legend. Really loved that book (short story). I wanted to like the movie, but they changed way too much. The worst was the damn happy ending they gave the movie. I guess test audiences were too stupid to get the original ending.
 
2012-03-11 01:07:52 PM

indarwinsshadow: [www.internationalhero.co.uk image 382x500]


came for this mention.

/comics movies deserves it's own list
//sci-fi book movies too
 
2012-03-11 01:25:50 PM

bearcats1983: I Am Legend. Really loved that book (short story). I wanted to like the movie, but they changed way too much. The worst was the damn happy ending they gave the movie. I guess test audiences were too stupid to get the original ending.


That Soylent Green was made of people?
 
2012-03-11 01:53:38 PM

bearcats1983: I Am Legend. Really loved that book (short story). I wanted to like the movie, but they changed way too much. The worst was the damn happy ending they gave the movie. I guess test audiences were too stupid to get the original ending.


I actually didn't mind the movie until that part. That part, I agree, just damaged the entire rest of the movie.
 
2012-03-11 02:45:42 PM

Shadowknight: bearcats1983: I Am Legend. Really loved that book (short story). I wanted to like the movie, but they changed way too much. The worst was the damn happy ending they gave the movie. I guess test audiences were too stupid to get the original ending.

I actually didn't mind the movie until that part. That part, I agree, just damaged the entire rest of the movie.


Yea, totally agree. I was actually looking forward to the modern adaptation of the book. I really loved the post apocalyptic NYC setting they portrayed. Just hated that they swayed so far from the actual story. It's not a happy ending in the story..unless you're one of the vampires, I suppose.
 
2012-03-11 06:52:35 PM
Sum of All Fears

And I wish they'd make "Without Remorse" into a movie.
 
2012-03-11 07:57:35 PM

zarberg: Sum of All Fears

And I wish they'd make "Without Remorse" into a movie.


That book was great. I mean, I get that it was revenge fantasy porn for guys who only WISH they could be so badass (Yo), but it was pretty great nonetheless. Especially since I read "Rainbow 6" before "Without Remorse," so seeing where Clark came from was like reading the most badass prequel ever.
 
2012-03-11 08:19:27 PM

Shadowknight: zarberg: Sum of All Fears

And I wish they'd make "Without Remorse" into a movie.

That book was great. I mean, I get that it was revenge fantasy porn for guys who only WISH they could be so badass (Yo), but it was pretty great nonetheless. Especially since I read "Rainbow 6" before "Without Remorse," so seeing where Clark came from was like reading the most badass prequel ever.


But for the love of all that's holy, it better not star Liev Shriber or Willem Dafoe. They were both so not even close to what I pictured as Clark.
 
2012-03-11 08:23:51 PM
I always imagined him looking like Sam Fisher in the Splinter Cell games, myself.

thegamershub.net

I don't know who you would get to play him, but this is what my mind's eye envisions.
 
2012-03-11 08:46:01 PM

Shadowknight: I always imagined him looking like Sam Fisher in the Splinter Cell games, myself.

[thegamershub.net image 349x451]

I don't know who you would get to play him, but this is what my mind's eye envisions.


That's a damn good one. Too bad Henry Rollins is old and short, but then I picture him because like the character you pictured he also has a jaw that looks like it was born to take abuse.
 
2012-03-11 08:58:19 PM

zarberg: That's a damn good one. Too bad Henry Rollins is old and short, but then I picture him because like the character you pictured he also has a jaw that looks like it was born to take abuse.


I could see Rollins doing Clark in his Rainbow 6 days. But as a youngish man, just out of the service...

One suggestion I heard was using George Eads.

www.georgeeads.com

It might work, if you can gruff him up a bit. Make him look like his skin has been slightly leathered on sea air and testosterone, slightly grey his hair, and it would work.
 
2012-03-11 09:47:05 PM

bearcats1983: I Am Legend. Really loved that book (short story). I wanted to like the movie, but they changed way too much. The worst was the damn happy ending they gave the movie. I guess test audiences were too stupid to get the original ending.


Of the three movies versions made, Last Man On Earth with Vincent Price, is the most faithful adaptation. The Omega Man, not so much(but I like it just because I like Charlton Heston sci-fi movies).
 
2012-03-11 11:45:02 PM

zarberg: Shadowknight: zarberg: Sum of All Fears

And I wish they'd make "Without Remorse" into a movie.

That book was great. I mean, I get that it was revenge fantasy porn for guys who only WISH they could be so badass (Yo), but it was pretty great nonetheless. Especially since I read "Rainbow 6" before "Without Remorse," so seeing where Clark came from was like reading the most badass prequel ever.

But for the love of all that's holy, it better not star Liev Shriber or Willem Dafoe. They were both so not even close to what I pictured as Clark.


They actually were set to make this movie starring Keanu Reeves as Clark. I am not kidding.
 
2012-03-12 10:13:17 AM

Mugato: Jake Leg: Mr Tolkien was obviously keenly aware of classical literature, Scandanavian sagas and the like. The hero's journey is never only about reaching a goal or arriving at a destination. Rather, it is about the journey itself, how the hero's suffering and his choices define him in the end. Therefore, to say 'why couldn't Frodo just ride an eagle to Mount Doom' misses the point entirely.

It doesn't miss the point. Obviously it would be a very short and boring story. It's just something that could have been explained with a throwaway line.


You're not getting it. Deus Ex Machina is possible in any story that has gods. Never mind the eagles, the elves could have remustered all their might and marched from the Undying lands. Tom Bombadil could have taken the ring to Mordor. Manwë could have sent an army of invincible Valar and Maiar to do it. Ilúvatar could have snuffed Sauron out of existence with a single thought.

One of the main themes of LOTR as well as Greek and Norse myths that Tolkein was copying from style-wise is that man must stand on his own two feet and fight his own battles. If and only if he shows his worth and is successful, will the gods then grant him favors. Peter Jackson misses the mark several times by going off book and doing things that wreck the theme. The elves were leaving Middle Earth, not fighting at Helm's Deep. Despite the nice CGI, the dead do not kill anyone, not in the south and certainly not at Pelennor fields. This point is driven home in the Scouring of the Shire, where the Hobbits, with no help at all from anyone else, free the Shire of the evil men from the south.
 
2012-03-12 06:41:25 PM
Whar Prince of Tides? Whar??
2.bp.blogspot.com

I'll never forgive Streisand for that one.
 
2012-03-12 08:58:09 PM

LeroyBourne: No Country for Old Men
/yeah I said it. the book is so much more balanced.


Nah. I saw the movie four times in theaters. I love it. I'm also currently reading the book and I have maybe 30 pages left. The book is great as well, but not as good. Chigurh, for example, is too long winded in his philosophizing. It's still good, but I prefer the more taciturn depiction in the film. The film also gives more of a feeling to Carla Jean and Ed Tom to some extent.

Both are gripping and hard to turn away from. The movie is still better.
 
2012-03-12 09:01:29 PM

Wayne 985: LeroyBourne: No Country for Old Men
/yeah I said it. the book is so much more balanced.

Nah. I saw the movie four times in theaters. I love it. I'm also currently reading the book and I have maybe 30 pages left. The book is great as well, but not as good. Chigurh, for example, is too long winded in his philosophizing. It's still good, but I prefer the more taciturn depiction in the film. The film also gives more of a feeling to Carla Jean and Ed Tom to some extent.

Both are gripping and hard to turn away from. The movie is still better.


One thing I'll add: Moss' final encounter and conversations with the young runaway girl - which were totally absent in the movie - were amazing in the book. It garnered a lot more sympathy for him and didn't paint his death as such a shock. I understand that it might've dragged or felt out of place on screen, but I loved reading it.
 
Displayed 196 of 196 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report