NorthSideSox72 Posted November 13, 2007 Author Share Posted November 13, 2007 QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 05:00 PM) Wow... Did you read the book? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDylan Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Oh, the movie "Adaptation" was far, far, far, superior to the book, "The Orchid Thief." Sure, it's not truly an adaptation as the movie was just Kaufman writing about his struggles to adapt the book. But it sure as hell turned out better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 03:54 PM) O no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no... No. No. Just, no. Have to agree with that 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Do we have fans of the book here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 05:16 PM) Do we have fans of the book here? Not particularly, but I think the movie looks really cheesy. I generally dislike any movie that goes way over the top with CGI, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 07:26 PM) Not particularly, but I think the movie looks really cheesy. I generally dislike any movie that goes way over the top with CGI, though. Agreed. It reminds me of the story-telling parts within video games. I can't imagine watching that for 2 hours (or however long it is). Though I like the book, too. And the movie doesn't much resemble it, as far as I can tell. What I've seen makes me think more of 300 than of Beowulf. Only in cartoon form. Blech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 03:54 PM) O no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no... No. No. Just, no. I'm glad others voiced my thoughts first on several objections. Beowulf is a beast! Haaaaaaaaa! (Really, great great great story.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 QUOTE(BobDylan @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 11:20 PM) Oh, the movie "Adaptation" was far, far, far, superior to the book, That's funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Three pages and no mention of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas? Granted, the book was better than the movie, but that isn't to say that the film wasn't good, the movie was excellent as well. I think that the movie did a better job than most movies which originated from books do. Also, I think that High Fidelity was better movie than book, but I probably think this because the book was set in England (therefore using English terms), while the movie was in Chicago. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 12:25 PM) I have to disagree. But I'm biased. As a kid, there was a period of time where Roald Dahl was my favorite author, and I read everything he wrote, including both Wonka books. The more recent adaptation, with Mr. Depp, was quite good. But, still not as good as the books. I agree here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 I guess I should say I value Beowulf so far down the list of great books that Bugs Bunny in the lead role would have been a better movie than book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 04:15 PM) Did you read the book? You're probably trying to tell me that the movie was more faithful to the book than Gene Wilder, but I could have done without jack sparrow as Willy Wonka. It looked and felt ridiculous so I only got through about half an hour of it. And yeah, I read the book, when I was a lot younger, although I didn't read the second one. Neither movie was how I envisioned it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 I would say that the movie adaptation of Stephen King's "It" was close to, if not better than the book. The book was good, dont get me wrong, but there is a whole sub-plot involving It killing a small population of homosexuals in Dairy(Derry?) that was left out of the movie, probably because it really didnt fit in the scheme of the storyline(or what was considered proper at the time the movie came out). The book is so thick, and it is a long part of the book that didnt really fit with the rest. Stephen King's "Cats Eye" has a couple of good adaptations of his short stories as well, especially the tennis player on the ledge. While I am at it, "Creep Show" was pretty damn good at adapting some of those comics as well, especially with adding the comic book flavor to the movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 08:55 AM) While I am at it, "Creep Show" was pretty damn good at adapting some of those comics as well, especially with adding the comic book flavor to the movie. As an avid EC horror fan who owns all of the Russ Cochran slipcase reprints and a good number of original comics, I definitely love Creepshow and the homage to both the old EC comics and the anthology horror film genre. But the stories themselves weren't comic adaptations. King wrote the Father's Day, Something to Tide You Over, and They're Creeping Up on You scripts specifically for the film, and the Jordy Verril and The Crate scripts were adapted from previous King short stories. The comic adaptation for Creepshow, with Berni Wrightson and Jack Kamen fittingly getting the nod to do the artwork, was itself a nice adaptation of the film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 (edited) I just watched 2001 last night for the first time in several years on Hi-Def Blue Ray at a friend's house. I think Kubrick's film interpretation is exponentially better than Arthur Clarke's original short story or his novel adapttation, although the screenplay is of course done by both of them. Damn, that film is still absolutely gorgeous. Edited November 14, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 14, 2007 Author Share Posted November 14, 2007 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 09:20 AM) I just watched 2001 last night for the first time in several years on Hi-Def Blue Ray at a friend's house. I think Kubrick's film interpretation is exponentially better than Arthur Clarke's original short story or his novel adapttation, although the screenplay is of course done by both of them. Damn, that film is still absolutely gorgeous. Related, sort of... Rendezvous with Rama is in pre-production last I checked on IMDB, directed by David Fincher, and apparently starring Morgan Freeman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 01:26 PM) You are certifiably insane. The Potter films are fun enough, and I understand the need to take certain liberties to streamline the storyline into 2 hour installments. But they don't hold a candle to the books. Amen! When I was think of movie / book combos this came to mind and I immediately said, "No way!" If you want the worst movie made from a book I would say "1984". The movie started about 4/5 of the way into the book and never made you identify or feel for the characters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 06:16 PM) Do we have fans of the book here? Which translation did you read? Because the Seamus Heaney translation is nothing short of superb--absolutely thrilling to read. A different translation I read wasn't nearly as good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Way better than any of the s***ty books Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longshot7 Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 I mentioned it up in the Films thread, but I'll repeat ---- LA Confidential is a perfect movie, and a great adaptation. Black Dahlia (by the same author) is the other way - definitely one of the worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 I was going to list 2 really horrible ones: 1984 and Brave New World. 1984 is really really bad as a movie, i felt almost unwatchable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 08:13 AM) As an avid EC horror fan who owns all of the Russ Cochran slipcase reprints and a good number of original comics, I definitely love Creepshow and the homage to both the old EC comics and the anthology horror film genre. But the stories themselves weren't comic adaptations. King wrote the Father's Day, Something to Tide You Over, and They're Creeping Up on You scripts specifically for the film, and the Jordy Verril and The Crate scripts were adapted from previous King short stories. The comic adaptation for Creepshow, with Berni Wrightson and Jack Kamen fittingly getting the nod to do the artwork, was itself a nice adaptation of the film. My Mom used to buy the Creepshow comics for me and my brother when we were waiting in line at the grocery store when we were kids. We must have gotten a few that were made directly from the movie, because the stories were all in the comics we got(plus more). On a side note, I really enjoyed those comics Oh well, I still loved both Creepshow 1 and 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 QUOTE(J-MAN @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 11:37 AM) Most people probably never heard of it but "The Eye of the Needle" comes to mind. If you are a fan - all of the Harry Potter movies are as good or better than the books - amazing how the movies capture the essence of the books. I definitely disagree with the Harry Potter mention -- the movies are good, but, as I think it was Jim that said it, they can't hold a candle to the books. As for The Eye of the Needle, I have to disagree with you there as well. I'm one of the biggest Follett fans you'll find (which is perhaps the reason why I disagree), and that's book was absolutely amazing, while the movie was just ok. On a similar note, has anyone read A Dangerous Fortune by Ken Follett? It's one of my favorite books, and I think it would make a spectacular movie, if done right. I actually think they are making a tv movie version of it or something, but I can't remember. Similarly, Pillars of the Earth would make a great movie, but they'd have to shorten it by quite a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 12:59 PM) Way better than any of the s***ty books I disagree, sir. Those books rocked my socks off, although I've never seen the movie. Edited November 15, 2007 by Felix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 The Godfather and Godfather Part II The book was really good, but the films elevated the story and characters. In my opinion, the films are closest artistic works we have that can compare to Shakespeare. The passion, the drama...amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 07:55 AM) I would say that the movie adaptation of Stephen King's "It" was close to, if not better than the book. The book was good, dont get me wrong, but there is a whole sub-plot involving It killing a small population of homosexuals in Dairy(Derry?) that was left out of the movie, probably because it really didnt fit in the scheme of the storyline(or what was considered proper at the time the movie came out). The book is so thick, and it is a long part of the book that didnt really fit with the rest. It was definitely close. For the thousand plus pages of material, and a minimal budget, the mini series did an amazing job concentrating on the main issues. After finishing the novel several years ago I honestly believed the aforementioned points (budget, made for tv) worked in its favor. Some of the material, aside from the entire homosexual angle, just wouldn't work. Such as portraying the female member of their group as a whore, or the entire "Turtle" vomiting out the universe and 'IT' chilling underneath Derry since prehistoric times part. With all the references to Stephen King in this thread, I'm surprised no one has yet to suggest the film version of Pet Sematary was better than the book. Even though I enjoyed the movie, after reading the book it's obviously several notches below. I heard they're remaking the film, so perhaps now they'll attempt to recreate the Gage/Old Man encounter; or the forest Wendigo. Edited November 15, 2007 by Flash Tizzle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.