>Book: Target is the Museum of Natural History (an entirely different symbol that underscores just what nihilism is aiming at). Marla saves The Narrator by making him conscious of himself (i.e. traditional archetypal role for a female love interest). The bombs fail to go off (it's an anti-climax). The Narrator tries to kill himself but fails and ends up in the psych ward. In the end, he's lost his mind and he sees what he did as an achievement; Project Mayhem still lives (i.e. the violent impulse is eternal and it's part of a forever war).
>Movie: The target is credit card companies (i.e. instead of the true nature of nihilism we get a mission the audience sympathizes with and cheers on). The Narrator goes on a heroic rescue mission to save the damsel in distress. He sacrifices himself by shooting himself in the head to kill Durden and save Marla. He embraces her, starts making out with her (even though he just shot himself in the mouth, kek), The Pixies blare, and the bombs go off in the background. There are no consequences and all irony is lost.
P.S. Most morons miss the use of irony in the story as well, for example: >the violence of the Fight Club is ironic: the characters destroy their bodies in an attempt to reclaim them >they don't catch that the Fight Club develops into a cult (i.e. Project Mayhem) and its adherents merely sublimated their personal emptiness/lack of agency into a destructive nihilism that's the same thing (only reactionary)
Basically, the story is about cultural malaise from a masculine perspective (represented by consumerism and illusory social connections that result in the destruction of the personal identity of the individual and, on a larger scale, a social stratification devoid of meaning or real value) and the turn to nihilism that results from it. The differences between the endings of the book/film change the moral and, as stated before, the movie ends up becoming what it was criticizing.
i think the author said he preferred the ending, and it's true, the ending is better. but idr him saying he preferred the movie better.
https://i.imgur.com/TS7baOf.jpeg
Name a single book to movie adaptation where the movie was better than the book.
a lot of stephen king examples of this because he's kind of ass as a writer. he comes up with good concepts but fricks up the execution and can never write a good ending. he sells a lot of paperbacks because the text on the back cover makes it sound like a cool read, then you get halfway through and he fricks it up. still, he comes up with cool concepts so they make for good adaptations.
True about King, I love his books but you get anxiety when there's only like 10 pages left and only room enough for a deus ex machina . I recently read The Body because I love Stand By Me and although it was equally as good, the final confrontation with Ace falls so flat in the story, I should have known.
True about King, I love his books but you get anxiety when there's only like 10 pages left and only room enough for a deus ex machina . I recently read The Body because I love Stand By Me and although it was equally as good, the final confrontation with Ace falls so flat in the story, I should have known.
I love a lot of King's books but you're right that a lot of the endings are total shit. He develops characters perhaps better than anyone but when it comes to actually wrapping everything up, he generally falls flat. I did think 11/22/63 and The Dark Tower both had great endings.
I have and I liked the movie better. Maybe it was because I saw the movie first, but while reading I just kept think, “fricking get on with it” it kinda dragged at a few parts. The super long history of the hotel was a slog.
In 2005, I fricked Mike C on the train tracks behind a Ross Dress for Less. Man, his ass could grip. Real tight, not a hair on it, and a sphincter you could only dream of. I had fun at first. But he was so weirdly macho about it. He kept saying things like "thats right b***h, am I gonna make you nut?" and "fricking gay I bet you can't wait to bust in my fat hairy man ass hahaha homosexual". I just ignored him and kept railing. He continued unironically calling me his b***h and a gay as he had several hands free prostate orgasms spilling seminal fluids onto the train tracks, getting more angry and dominant after each one. "Yea i bet you like dudes. You look like a pussy" he'd say "I cant even feel your limpdick b***h." I just kept clapping, wondering wtf is up with him. After about 20 minutes of railing Mike's boypussy, drenched in sweat and his cream, I finally got a nut off despite his constant berating and degrading comments. He immediately hopped off, laid flat on his back and bent his legs over his head so the cum dripped out of his butthole directly into his mouth. "The frick you looking at? You like this gay boy?" He kept saying. After he got every last drop. He cackled like a rooster and punched me in the face as hard as he could. He nearly broke his hand, but I was fine. "Fricking gay" he said as he limped off into the sunset, shaking his wrist. That was the first and last time I fricked Mike C on the train tracks behind the Ross Dress for Less
Yes, in 8th grade. Jack has an actual character arc instead of being an epic crazy moron. That being said, the visuals are top tier but to me, the miniseries is more tense.
Is it a spider? I remember it being one of the creepiest, perhaps the only scary, part of the novel because it was undefined what exactly was lurking with him there. A kid died there, yeah, but besides that I draw a blank.
I don't remember anything else making me as anxious besides that part.
I can imagine how much this burns Kings ass.
Some hot shit director comes in and basically usurps the writing credit from you, just from the fact everyone knows the movie and forgot the book exists.
And Kubrick essentially made Clark re-write a lot of stuff so it suited what Kubrick wanted it to be. KEK. They literally had constant meetings where Kubrick would read chapter and be like "Nah, change this."
anything written by stephen king is better on screen.
anything.
ideally when he has nothing to do with the screen project, and even more ideally when he actively opposes the screen project
Dark Tower? I never read it nor watched it, but I know they nigged the MC despite being relevant to a plot point.
Yeah the books started out decently but fell off really hard really fast. And yes one of the characters they had was some black woman from the 60's black rights movement and the gunslinger was described to basically look like Clint Eastwood in the dirty harry age and they had stupid arguments about race here and there. But they chose Idris Elba instead.
He's so bad at writing it's insane. All his early short stories read as a coke fueled "and then this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened" and all he's improved on is hiding it.
If Stephen King started writing in 2010 instead of the 70s he would never get famous
He's so bad at writing it's insane. All his early short stories read as a coke fueled "and then this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened" and all he's improved on is hiding it.
If Stephen King started writing in 2010 instead of the 70s he would never get famous
He's great at coming up with concepts, which is why his books sell so well and why they work so well as movies.
>Jurassic Park
Hell no the book was way darker and better.
[...]
Jurassic Park (the movie) is SHIT.
Jurassic Park is the worst book I've ever read. It's literally Crichton self insert saying "science and technology bad" in reddit tier monologues. There's also Lex, who behave like a kid half the age she's supposed to be. The ending is a gem apart, where they randomly decide to enter the nest of raptors to count the eggs (????) when the whole island will be carpet bombed. To be fair, the first part before they enter the island is nice, but that's it. I actually still expecting someone to adapt it faithfully so more people could stop with this meme and realize how shit it was.
>Muldoon gets no screen time
More Muldoon would've been good, but the way he went out in the film was very memorable, even if it makes his character out to be stupidly careless under the stress of the situation. It reinforces what grant did to the fat turkey kid at the start, so it works. >Nedrys death is comic relief
Was it though? Or is it just because he was so fat? Nobody in the cinema was laughing when that happened iirc
Nedry dying isn't comic relief, he's an idiot who tries to treat a dinosaur like wild dog and he gets fricked up. Just because we don't see it happen, or his corpse afterwards, doesn't make the fat guy dying a comedy beat.
It's fricking awful anon. You have no idea. It's nerd porn and trivia, that's it. The whole thing is 'Remember this thing?' and if you do, you clap. If you don't, you act like you do while learning more stupid bs trivia. I couldn't get more than half way through it. I kept being told it gets better, it doesn't, it gets worse.
Yes, there's whole chapters that recite War games and Monty python and the holy grail, word for word.
And the characters brag about knowing the most surface level shit like Ghostbusters 2, the shining, blade runner ultimate cut and the three amigos.
It was maximum pseud. The author was trying to look smart by throwing every fricking reference they could. When they started talking about something you knew, it was clear that they had a very surface level understanding, or straight up just wrong about it.
Even 16 year old me was pissed off after reading it.
The only thing the book has going for it is the cheap novelty of the concept and a conventional yet strong plot/pace with the Easter Egg quest structure of the story. That's it. Every single character is one dimensional and the prose revolves entirely around just listing items/characters/settings from 80s pop culture. Action scenes and descriptions both read the exact same, just the author pulling a bunch of shit off of Wikipedia.
The sequel obviously lost both the novelty and the pacey structure and, as a result, everything bad about it is laid entirely bare. It's one of the worst things I've ever read. Not even Spielberg at the top of his game could salvage something as absolutely worthless as Ready Player Two
You clearly haven't read Jurassic Park. Its really edgy and generic like a 13 year old boy wrote it, It has Jon Hammon going around machine gunning dinos and Muldoon hopping around with an RPG blowing up raptors like he is Master Chief.
It really isn't. Bateman's narration and monologues are tastefully restrained in the movie but they're pretty much all you get in the book and it gets extremely irritating and uninteresting really fast. There are only a couple standalone scenes that I would say the book did better, like Bateman's save the world shpiel being a lot longer and more unhinged.
The character works better as a reserved icy man of few words, like in the movie. He's a real chatty Cathy in the book, or at least his internal monologue is. He also comes across as much less in control of himself than in the film, which sours the idea of his external placidity as the film depicts, making Film Bateman a more compelling character.
Bad take tbh
The whole point of Bateman in both the book and the film is that, while he's undoubtedly a psychopath to a degree (you decide whether he ever actually kills people or not), he's also ultimately the same as everyone else in his circle. They're all dumb, vapid yuppies who believe they're much smarter and hotter than they actually are. It's the whole point, and it's why (in both the film and the book) they so frequently go on these pseudointellectual tangents about media, or famine in Africa, or antisemitic remarks. They're all meant to be irritating midwits. Patrick Bateman just happens to be a irritating midwit who specifically thinks he's a super cool psycho killer. If Patrick was genuinely this calm, collected, and restrained personality as you claim he is in the film, then that would be missing the point. The film doesn't do that.
On a related note, one of my favourite jokes in the book (and one of the few major bits the film doesn't adapt) is that everyone on Patrick's friend group is fricking one of the other guy's girlfriends, but they're all too dumb to notice they're being cucked in turn. Patrick's cheating on his fiance Evelyn with Van Patten's girl and thinks he's getting away with it, but he's then completely clueless to the fact (obvious even through his POV narration) that Evelyn is cheating on him with Bryce. Again, this is something that establishes that none of these people are anywhere near as clever as they think they are.
I do think the movie is a much more effective version of the book, thoughbeit. The novel goes far too overboard in the repetition of certain scenes and the mindless listing of clothing in its mission to emphasise the vapidity of Wall Street yuppie life, as well as desensitising you to all the fricked-up psycho acts, and the film smartly cuts that down to an absolute minimum.
It's really close to the movie actually but more of it. There are a few good scenes they cut out like Patrick getting into an argument with a girl in the middle of sex. Some were dumb such as ninja shanking a kid and then pretending to be a doctor so he can watch him die.
i think for those stories specifically the act of seeing the effects of violence is more effective than reading them. For the road that moment is deff more haunting seeing the victims rather than reading about it.
I think the passenger and blood meridian fully utilize the strength of text and would be movies bogged down in violence or Monologues on screen
anything written by stephen king is better on screen.
anything.
ideally when he has nothing to do with the screen project, and even more ideally when he actively opposes the screen project
Gunslinger is a kino ass book and that movie was unbearable. Actually last movie I bothered going to a theatre to see and that was for McConaughey as Flagg cuz I like both very much.
anything written by stephen king is better on screen.
anything.
ideally when he has nothing to do with the screen project, and even more ideally when he actively opposes the screen project
Anything that Stephen King wrote that turned into a movie
Lawnmower man and Langoliers are cases where King adaptation were really strange but honestly still more entertaining than the book in their own ways. I'm sure some of them are worse than the books. Especially the one that King himself produced.
Having watchman the movie change Ozy's explosion cover from Aliens to Dr Manhattan going rogue was a stroke of genius. The Alien thing was super weird considering the whole leitmotif of Watchmen is framing superheroes on a realistic scenario
You realize that the books are 100 years old and remained known as some of the greatest literature of all time back in the 70s and 80s. Sure the Movies are GOAT but the books were just as GOAT
The "American Psycho" book is leagues better than the movie, it's just that the movie is the best possible portrayal of the book, which still doesn't equal it; but it's pretty impressive.
I like reading novels that got made into movies so I have a long list of ones that are better. Outside of the ones that have been mentioned here already (The Shining and Christine in particular) the ones that come to mind immediately are Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Onions Green, The Howling, and Coraline.
Yeah I was surprised reading the novel that the “not allowed word is people!” part isn’t in it. That’s the best part of the movie. In the book the food is barely mentioned and plankton based and is more concerned with the logistical/political problems of overpopulation.
I haven't seen the series/movie (?) but the book is for the most part realistic until they meet the bear and for a good portion of the story you don't really understand if it's some hypertrofic polar bear or some supernatural creature. Toward the end it becomes full supernatural, even if it can be argued that the surviving "protagonist" actually goes mad and becomes an unreliable narrator.
>Toward the end it becomes full supernatural, even if it can be argued that the surviving "protagonist" actually goes mad and becomes an unreliable narrator.
Oh thats exactly how the show ends too. idk everyone else I talked to said the show was a faithful adaption, only that one anon shitting on the book.
The book is respectful towards the crew. The only exception is Hickey, and the show changes that by introducing the idea that the psycho "Hickey" on the Terror is just an identity thief who hopped aboard before the ships left port
wait really? I was hoping the book would have less supernatural stuff in it. Are you telling more there is more historical "authenticity" in the show?
There is more explicitly supernatural stuff in the book but, for whatever it's worth to you, it's done a lot better than in the show. Tuunbaq is actually an interesting and creepy threat in the book, but the show half-assed it and made it much lamer
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Also, basically any John Huston adaptation (The Maltese Falcon, The Man Who Would Be King, Treasure of the Sierra Madre)
I still need to track down a copy of Huston's adaptation of The Dead
Apparently it's incredibly faithful to Joyce's original short story and pretty much on the same level, but I want to compare for myself
Jurassic Park, easily. I liked the book a lot too, but Crichtons characters have a tendency to break into lecture or wax philosophical in situations where there are much more pressing issues. Don't get me wrong I find it all very interesting but theres a time and a place, and the movie did nearly everything better.
2001 was released after the movie because Clarke wrote it alongside Kubrick making the movie, they created the story together.
I think the novel is better because it tells you what's going on and isn't purely visually symbolic Rob Ager-bait.
>I think the novel is better because it tells you what's going on and isn't purely visually symbolic Rob Ager-bait.
That's what makes the movie good. The sequel (2010) kinda sucked in that regard, because it did try to explain everything.
I guess the nice thing about that collaboration in particular is that they were conceived together and complement each other. Each plays to the strengths of its medium, although Kubrick is a bigger fish in a much smaller pond.
I am a zoomer. I watched the movie and it was shit, the only good scenes were the ones with Baldwin IV or Salahuddin, all other scenes are skippable with few exceptions. Zoomers like Baldwin because being Christian/masculine is a counter culture now due to the degeneracy and weakness taught to us by previous generations
nope, it left out a very kino element: the moving hedge animals.
]very importnat on a couple of levels and would have been super-kino if done right on film
The actual novel is too fragmented to truly be enjoyable. The movie creates a far more interesting, alien world with its sci fi Esque landscape and bawdy stories.
True Grit
Fight Club
All of Kubrick's adaptations, which were a majority of his work.
These.
Naked lunch is at least watchable while the book is unreadable
I think the film is better but both make sense once you understand Burroughs is a half-bright trust fund frick-up and that the basic plot elements of both in fact reflect events in his imbecile life (manslaughter, flight from prosecution, drug abuse to salve his conscience).
Blade Runner was better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
(But that doesn't count it's just loosely based on it.)
Alice in Wonderland sounds like it's just a dream the author had
There is no way any of you read with some of these takes. The movies just straight up ignore major themes in the books so how can they be better than the original work?
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.
And possible 'Adaptation'. Was so good it made me want to read the book, but then I thought about what the book's actually about and I never even opened it since.
All Kubrick adaptations, with the exception of e-girlta (still very good though). The Shining is a hundred times better than the book, it's not even a contest.
>The Legend of Prince Valiant is an animated television series based on the Prince Valiant comic strip created by Hal Foster. Set in the time of King Arthur, it is a family-oriented adventure show about an exiled prince who goes on a quest to become one of the Knights of the Round Table.[4] He begins his quest after having a dream about Camelot and its idealistic New Order. This television series originally aired on The Family Channel for a total run of 65 episodes.
>Like the original comic strip, the series begins with the fall of Thule, the fictional kingdom to which Prince Valiant is heir. Valiant, his parents, and a group of survivors from the castle are exiled by the ruthless conqueror Cynan to a hostile marsh across the sea. The young prince, deeply saddened by this defeat and vengeful towards Cynan, attempts to make the best of his new life but craves some greater purpose. He finds this purpose when he has a series of dreams about a kingdom called Camelot, King Arthur, Merlin, and the Knights of the Round Table. Valiant becomes enraptured with Camelot's New Order, which is founded on the ideas that might does not make right and that truth, justice, honor and friendship should be the guiding forces in people's dealings with each other. Against the wishes of his father, Valiant leaves the exiles' settlement in search of Camelot so that he may serve King Arthur as a Knight of the Round Table.
full playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgkKj2n1LjA_iQFGmUKMx3WQPsDw1GZ6-
I'm assuming since american pyscho hasn't been mentioned, I'm missing something or just outright moronic?
the books great, but the movies something else
I loved that book, and the movie is great, so it's hard to pick.
There's a couple more like that I can think of. This year I read The Exorcist and The Ring, and both are arguably as good as the movies but it's close (though neither in either form are as good as American Psycho).
Books suck (especially fiction books) and I'm tired of pretending otherwise. I get that it was the only way to tell a story to a mass audience for a long time, but let's get real here. Shit is boring as frick.
Who Framed Rodger Rabbit is a good one. The book is edgy with gratuitous violence. And it ends with Eddie fricking everything up, everyone else dead and then he finds a cartoon lamp and he rubs it and says "I wished I solved the case and we can all move on" and the Genie is like, case closed, now gtfo with your life. Everyone is still dead. Fin.
Hmm I dunno, it's a great movie, but the book has everything it has and more, the only thing it's missing is Bardem's performance. But at the same time, the book drags on a lot longer at the end along the lines of Tommy Lee Jones's musings which are wrapped up in a couple minutes or so, in the book they go on for pages.
Not actually gonna say "better," would have to re-read and re-watch them closer together to make a proper judgement. But I reckon Watership Down is a great supplement to the book.
this. A good book is far more worthwhile than any audiovisual slop. Film is the midwit's medium. Garbage. hence why i reject any and all attempts to make film into "art" and only watch big release blockbusters because that's all film amounts to and is for.
There are two intro scenes making one of them redundant. One with Regis trying to help a kid who got attacked by a raptor and then one about a little girl that gets attacked by a compy. Either one of these is fine, but the book does both in great detail. The movie, pretty much sums up the dino attack in a pretty gripping way.
Book Hammond is also a fraud. It makes him to be much more the malicious shit head typical villain, than a dotting do-gooder just trying to make something fun.
I mean that's sort of the entire point of the book no?
Jurassic Park went to shit because in the end, the person in charge was a cheap fraud
Had it been built by someone actually decent it wouldn't have gone to shit, but it did
The disagree about the two intros in the book. They are setting up two different things. The first has to do with the strange goings-on on the island, when the injured worker is brought into the doctor's clinic. The second has to do with the fact that some of the dinos have been getting off the island and coming to the mainland (an element that is left out of the movie, probably for simplicity's sake, though it works well in the book as it raises the stakes).
Also, the two introductions circle back together, because at the end of the introductory part, it goes back to the doctor who discovers a dinosaur eating a newborn in the clinic.
But I think there's more to it than that. Fiction and movies are both sort of like forms of hypnosis in which, if successful, the reader/viewers attention becomes exclusively focused on the story, to the exclusion of the reality around them. With movies the hypnosis is easier to achieve because the viewer is presented with images and sounds, which mimic reality. Also the movie is only dependent on the motor of the film projector to keep playing, while with fiction the motor is the reader's mind.
The point is, fiction requires a more thorough hypnotic induction compared to film, and that is what those multiple introductory scenes in Jurassic Park are all about. Crichton is introducing a character in a setting with a problem (The doctor, the clinic, the rain), and then doing it again, and again, and each time he's taking the readers consciousness and placing it inside the consciousness of the new POV character. The effect is that when he finally gets to the main characters, the reader's mind is already very much primed for this process of consciousness-merging, which results in a very deep sense of immersion throughout the rest of the book.
People often talk about how workmanlike Crichton's prose is, but it's actually very carefully crafted.
First Blood. The novel is just pointless misery porn while the movie is genuinely profound and a great piece of art that treated it's veteran main character with dignity. Until the sequels.
Inherent Vice. The book is brilliant but dense and often confusing. The film adaptation tells the story well while retaining the stylistic confusion and kudzu plot of the novel.
Fight Club
Jurassic Park
Jaws
Stand By Me
The Godfather
almost anything Kubrick adapted (still love the books)
Planet of the Apes
No Country for Old Men
>better book
The Lost World
DUNE
IT
>tied (for me)
Misery
One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest
The Shining
A Clockwork Orange
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Bond movies. I've only read one of them: Dr No, and although I enjoyed the book, I think the movie, overall, was better. It's not as clear-cut of an example as many other entries in this thread, but the Bond movies/books are certainly up for debate.
Most of them take a title from one book and plot (or part of the plot) from another so it gets rather confusing. Definitely a few that fit this thread though
I've read the Iliad.
I've watched the Troy movie with Brad Pitt. Prefer it, book is just hyping up the Hector v Achilles duel and when the finally fight the chapter is called "death of hector", then it ends before you get the wooden horse.
I think I fricked up by reading a"classic" translation that was a bit over 100 years old. The double layers of old time language on old tomey language made things very tedious.
Fun story about Rambo: When the book was optioned as a potential movie, the author had to scrape together money to hire an entertainment lawyer to negotiate the terms. The author was confused as to why the lawyer included a percentage of any future cartoons, toys, lunchboxes, etc. as part of his deal, seeing as the book is a dark, moody piece where Rambo dies at the end. Then it became a Stallone vehicle and the rest is history.
christine
Fight club. The author said it himself.
bump
>Book: Target is the Museum of Natural History (an entirely different symbol that underscores just what nihilism is aiming at). Marla saves The Narrator by making him conscious of himself (i.e. traditional archetypal role for a female love interest). The bombs fail to go off (it's an anti-climax). The Narrator tries to kill himself but fails and ends up in the psych ward. In the end, he's lost his mind and he sees what he did as an achievement; Project Mayhem still lives (i.e. the violent impulse is eternal and it's part of a forever war).
>Movie: The target is credit card companies (i.e. instead of the true nature of nihilism we get a mission the audience sympathizes with and cheers on). The Narrator goes on a heroic rescue mission to save the damsel in distress. He sacrifices himself by shooting himself in the head to kill Durden and save Marla. He embraces her, starts making out with her (even though he just shot himself in the mouth, kek), The Pixies blare, and the bombs go off in the background. There are no consequences and all irony is lost.
P.S. Most morons miss the use of irony in the story as well, for example:
>the violence of the Fight Club is ironic: the characters destroy their bodies in an attempt to reclaim them
>they don't catch that the Fight Club develops into a cult (i.e. Project Mayhem) and its adherents merely sublimated their personal emptiness/lack of agency into a destructive nihilism that's the same thing (only reactionary)
Basically, the story is about cultural malaise from a masculine perspective (represented by consumerism and illusory social connections that result in the destruction of the personal identity of the individual and, on a larger scale, a social stratification devoid of meaning or real value) and the turn to nihilism that results from it. The differences between the endings of the book/film change the moral and, as stated before, the movie ends up becoming what it was criticizing.
Great post. I agree
If you look at those comparisons and think the book is better you are a raging homosexual
>homosexual
get redpilled on homosexuals:
https://rumble.com/v4uomzo-aids-the-judgement-of-god-full-documentary.html
>The bombs go off
>There are no consequences
You cannot be this moronic
you probably think starship troopers ends up becoming what it was criticizing
I disagree but I love the movie. I wish they kept how disfigured the Narrator gets
i think the author said he preferred the ending, and it's true, the ending is better. but idr him saying he preferred the movie better.
a lot of stephen king examples of this because he's kind of ass as a writer. he comes up with good concepts but fricks up the execution and can never write a good ending. he sells a lot of paperbacks because the text on the back cover makes it sound like a cool read, then you get halfway through and he fricks it up. still, he comes up with cool concepts so they make for good adaptations.
True about King, I love his books but you get anxiety when there's only like 10 pages left and only room enough for a deus ex machina . I recently read The Body because I love Stand By Me and although it was equally as good, the final confrontation with Ace falls so flat in the story, I should have known.
I love a lot of King's books but you're right that a lot of the endings are total shit. He develops characters perhaps better than anyone but when it comes to actually wrapping everything up, he generally falls flat. I did think 11/22/63 and The Dark Tower both had great endings.
why should i trust the opinion of an author whose book got outshone by it's movie adaptation?
his books are incredible, you should read Rant, I would kill for an adaptation of that
The car crash scene alone is one of my favourite scenes in a movie ever
pretty much everything scorsese touched
Frick you,
Silence is a book masterpiece.
The Silence movie is fricking McDonalds trash compared to Shusaku Endo's book.
Who's read the shining
I have and I liked the movie better. Maybe it was because I saw the movie first, but while reading I just kept think, “fricking get on with it” it kinda dragged at a few parts. The super long history of the hotel was a slog.
I have, and it has the same problems all King books have....too fricking long, boring, and reads as if it were written by a dork...which it was.
Me.
The book is better.
Lmao. NO Mikey C movie comes close to his books
In 2005, I fricked Mike C on the train tracks behind a Ross Dress for Less. Man, his ass could grip. Real tight, not a hair on it, and a sphincter you could only dream of. I had fun at first. But he was so weirdly macho about it. He kept saying things like "thats right b***h, am I gonna make you nut?" and "fricking gay I bet you can't wait to bust in my fat hairy man ass hahaha homosexual". I just ignored him and kept railing. He continued unironically calling me his b***h and a gay as he had several hands free prostate orgasms spilling seminal fluids onto the train tracks, getting more angry and dominant after each one. "Yea i bet you like dudes. You look like a pussy" he'd say "I cant even feel your limpdick b***h." I just kept clapping, wondering wtf is up with him. After about 20 minutes of railing Mike's boypussy, drenched in sweat and his cream, I finally got a nut off despite his constant berating and degrading comments. He immediately hopped off, laid flat on his back and bent his legs over his head so the cum dripped out of his butthole directly into his mouth. "The frick you looking at? You like this gay boy?" He kept saying. After he got every last drop. He cackled like a rooster and punched me in the face as hard as he could. He nearly broke his hand, but I was fine. "Fricking gay" he said as he limped off into the sunset, shaking his wrist. That was the first and last time I fricked Mike C on the train tracks behind the Ross Dress for Less
roflmfao
Yes, in 8th grade. Jack has an actual character arc instead of being an epic crazy moron. That being said, the visuals are top tier but to me, the miniseries is more tense.
Shut up King.
The movie is not spooky. It's just "I'm going crazy!!" for 2 hours
>actually thinks the mini series is better
Luckily there's a faithful TV movie adaptation of it, to compare.
Kubrick's movie wins cause he went frickin nutso with his own ideas.
The dead spider kid in the snow tunnel is fire.
Scene is proof that movies cannot be as scary.
The snow tunnel could never be done in movies.
Is it a spider? I remember it being one of the creepiest, perhaps the only scary, part of the novel because it was undefined what exactly was lurking with him there. A kid died there, yeah, but besides that I draw a blank.
I don't remember anything else making me as anxious besides that part.
The hedge animals coming alive was really unnerving for me. Definitely couldn't be done in a movie, certainly not back then.
I can imagine how much this burns Kings ass.
Some hot shit director comes in and basically usurps the writing credit from you, just from the fact everyone knows the movie and forgot the book exists.
?si=ZzmbnLLvyCEDApOI
a clockwork orange
the godfather
2001 a space odyssey
2001 definitely but I think Clockwork is a great little book as well, I’d rank them pretty even
2001 was written and released concurrently with the movie, it’s not an adaptation.
And Kubrick essentially made Clark re-write a lot of stuff so it suited what Kubrick wanted it to be. KEK. They literally had constant meetings where Kubrick would read chapter and be like "Nah, change this."
It was a collaboration. They intended for you to watch to see what happened and read to understand why.
except the gay last chapter where he settles down and decides being an honest fellow is actually good
Black Hawk Down came as close as anything to being pretty much a perfect adaptation
Plague Dogs
Eyes Wide Shut
Fullmetal Jacket
Ritual
All of them, Books are fricking stupid
"He went to the shops and bought some bread"
"Whoa, That's way more interesting than watching King Kong fight Godzilla" - Some fricking autistic idiot
t. Bottom G
Into The Wild
Anything that Stephen King wrote that turned into a movie
Dark Tower? I never read it nor watched it, but I know they nigged the MC despite being relevant to a plot point.
Yeah the books started out decently but fell off really hard really fast. And yes one of the characters they had was some black woman from the 60's black rights movement and the gunslinger was described to basically look like Clint Eastwood in the dirty harry age and they had stupid arguments about race here and there. But they chose Idris Elba instead.
He's so bad at writing it's insane. All his early short stories read as a coke fueled "and then this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened" and all he's improved on is hiding it.
If Stephen King started writing in 2010 instead of the 70s he would never get famous
Not ANYTHING. But definitely most.
He's great at coming up with concepts, which is why his books sell so well and why they work so well as movies.
Marvel Cinematic Universe
Jurassic Park, Congo, Jaws
>Congo
You're probably moronic
Jurassic Park (the movie) is SHIT.
Never read Congo but I refuse to believe it's worse than the movie
Jurassic Park is the worst book I've ever read. It's literally Crichton self insert saying "science and technology bad" in reddit tier monologues. There's also Lex, who behave like a kid half the age she's supposed to be. The ending is a gem apart, where they randomly decide to enter the nest of raptors to count the eggs (????) when the whole island will be carpet bombed. To be fair, the first part before they enter the island is nice, but that's it. I actually still expecting someone to adapt it faithfully so more people could stop with this meme and realize how shit it was.
Movie is still worse.
troof but nobody will say it
>Muldoon gets no screen time
>Nedrys death is comic relief
>No T Rex river scene
>Muldoon gets no screen time
More Muldoon would've been good, but the way he went out in the film was very memorable, even if it makes his character out to be stupidly careless under the stress of the situation. It reinforces what grant did to the fat turkey kid at the start, so it works.
>Nedrys death is comic relief
Was it though? Or is it just because he was so fat? Nobody in the cinema was laughing when that happened iirc
Nedry dying isn't comic relief, he's an idiot who tries to treat a dinosaur like wild dog and he gets fricked up. Just because we don't see it happen, or his corpse afterwards, doesn't make the fat guy dying a comedy beat.
the movie is over rated but its still better than the book and better than all of its own sequels
>It's literally Crichton self insert saying "science and technology bad" in reddit tier monologues
Spot on, I fricking hated it. Grant was awful in the books.
Ready player one.
Holy frick the book must be bad.
It's fricking awful anon. You have no idea. It's nerd porn and trivia, that's it. The whole thing is 'Remember this thing?' and if you do, you clap. If you don't, you act like you do while learning more stupid bs trivia. I couldn't get more than half way through it. I kept being told it gets better, it doesn't, it gets worse.
Yes, there's whole chapters that recite War games and Monty python and the holy grail, word for word.
And the characters brag about knowing the most surface level shit like Ghostbusters 2, the shining, blade runner ultimate cut and the three amigos.
>average Cinemaphile poster
>I memorized every Bill Hicks stand up routine
Jesus
It was maximum pseud. The author was trying to look smart by throwing every fricking reference they could. When they started talking about something you knew, it was clear that they had a very surface level understanding, or straight up just wrong about it.
Even 16 year old me was pissed off after reading it.
The only thing the book has going for it is the cheap novelty of the concept and a conventional yet strong plot/pace with the Easter Egg quest structure of the story. That's it. Every single character is one dimensional and the prose revolves entirely around just listing items/characters/settings from 80s pop culture. Action scenes and descriptions both read the exact same, just the author pulling a bunch of shit off of Wikipedia.
The sequel obviously lost both the novelty and the pacey structure and, as a result, everything bad about it is laid entirely bare. It's one of the worst things I've ever read. Not even Spielberg at the top of his game could salvage something as absolutely worthless as Ready Player Two
Jurassic Park, Jaws, Shawshank, Christine
>Jurassic Park
no
You are wrong.
You clearly haven't read Jurassic Park. Its really edgy and generic like a 13 year old boy wrote it, It has Jon Hammon going around machine gunning dinos and Muldoon hopping around with an RPG blowing up raptors like he is Master Chief.
>Jurassic Park
>Jurassic Park
Hell no the book was way darker and better.
>Jurassic Park
>No killing raptors with rpgs
>Gennaro not being a chad
sorry but now, the book was better
I havent read American Psycho but I cant imagine the book being any better
It really isn't. Bateman's narration and monologues are tastefully restrained in the movie but they're pretty much all you get in the book and it gets extremely irritating and uninteresting really fast. There are only a couple standalone scenes that I would say the book did better, like Bateman's save the world shpiel being a lot longer and more unhinged.
The character works better as a reserved icy man of few words, like in the movie. He's a real chatty Cathy in the book, or at least his internal monologue is. He also comes across as much less in control of himself than in the film, which sours the idea of his external placidity as the film depicts, making Film Bateman a more compelling character.
Bad take tbh
The whole point of Bateman in both the book and the film is that, while he's undoubtedly a psychopath to a degree (you decide whether he ever actually kills people or not), he's also ultimately the same as everyone else in his circle. They're all dumb, vapid yuppies who believe they're much smarter and hotter than they actually are. It's the whole point, and it's why (in both the film and the book) they so frequently go on these pseudointellectual tangents about media, or famine in Africa, or antisemitic remarks. They're all meant to be irritating midwits. Patrick Bateman just happens to be a irritating midwit who specifically thinks he's a super cool psycho killer. If Patrick was genuinely this calm, collected, and restrained personality as you claim he is in the film, then that would be missing the point. The film doesn't do that.
On a related note, one of my favourite jokes in the book (and one of the few major bits the film doesn't adapt) is that everyone on Patrick's friend group is fricking one of the other guy's girlfriends, but they're all too dumb to notice they're being cucked in turn. Patrick's cheating on his fiance Evelyn with Van Patten's girl and thinks he's getting away with it, but he's then completely clueless to the fact (obvious even through his POV narration) that Evelyn is cheating on him with Bryce. Again, this is something that establishes that none of these people are anywhere near as clever as they think they are.
I do think the movie is a much more effective version of the book, thoughbeit. The novel goes far too overboard in the repetition of certain scenes and the mindless listing of clothing in its mission to emphasise the vapidity of Wall Street yuppie life, as well as desensitising you to all the fricked-up psycho acts, and the film smartly cuts that down to an absolute minimum.
It's really close to the movie actually but more of it. There are a few good scenes they cut out like Patrick getting into an argument with a girl in the middle of sex. Some were dumb such as ninja shanking a kid and then pretending to be a doctor so he can watch him die.
there are a lot. People are just unaware a book existed in the first place.
Shawshank redemption, forest gump, even jurassic park was a book lmao
Thank You For Smoking
Nah, the only good thing about this movie is Eckhart. Him having kid was such an unnecessary addition
the road is a better film than novel and i'd argue NCFOM comes close too
McCarthy clearly wrote a lot of stuff for screenplay adaptation, which lessens my opinion of him tbh.
i think for those stories specifically the act of seeing the effects of violence is more effective than reading them. For the road that moment is deff more haunting seeing the victims rather than reading about it.
I think the passenger and blood meridian fully utilize the strength of text and would be movies bogged down in violence or Monologues on screen
anything written by stephen king is better on screen.
anything.
ideally when he has nothing to do with the screen project, and even more ideally when he actively opposes the screen project
Count of Montecristo
Hey you.
Yes, you.
Frick you.
The book is world class kino if you have the patience to read it all
>if you have the patience
ahhh... i'll stick to my thrillers, thanks
it's most engaging book ive ever read
watched 4 adaptations, i guess richard chamberlain version is okay
The Thing
The shining. The mist. Almost any stephen king book because they suck.
Gunslinger is a kino ass book and that movie was unbearable. Actually last movie I bothered going to a theatre to see and that was for McConaughey as Flagg cuz I like both very much.
yerp
Stephen King gets mogged by adaptations on a regular basis.
Does that include Lawnmower Man?
Lawnmower man and Langoliers are cases where King adaptation were really strange but honestly still more entertaining than the book in their own ways. I'm sure some of them are worse than the books. Especially the one that King himself produced.
Langoliers movie is hilarious
Yes.
Catch 22 (2019)
I liked the movie more than the series and the book more than both.
Having watchman the movie change Ozy's explosion cover from Aliens to Dr Manhattan going rogue was a stroke of genius. The Alien thing was super weird considering the whole leitmotif of Watchmen is framing superheroes on a realistic scenario
It's moronic and ruins the entire plot, if you don't get it go watch Marvel and Snyder movies.
Apocalypse Now
Generation Kill
Alice In Wonderland
>Alice In Wonderland
Good pick as long as you mean the 50s animation
Of course, the Burton versions suck, and if there are any others they're irrelevant
the 88 version is weird but good
>Alice In Wonderland
Which adaptation?
There's a very good 60' or 70's British version.
1951
Not a book but
not a movie*
whoops. I should sleep.
Silence of the Lambs
Lord of the Rings trilogy
American Psycho
The Green Mile
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
>Lord of the Rings trilogy
they hated him because he spoke the truth
>Lord of the Rings trilogy
>Lord of the Rings trilogy
I actually do really believe this also, but I'm a little ashamed of it.
You realize that the books are 100 years old and remained known as some of the greatest literature of all time back in the 70s and 80s. Sure the Movies are GOAT but the books were just as GOAT
The "American Psycho" book is leagues better than the movie, it's just that the movie is the best possible portrayal of the book, which still doesn't equal it; but it's pretty impressive.
I like reading novels that got made into movies so I have a long list of ones that are better. Outside of the ones that have been mentioned here already (The Shining and Christine in particular) the ones that come to mind immediately are Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Onions Green, The Howling, and Coraline.
Onions Green, fricking autocorrect
You can't say that word but what a great film
Yeah I was surprised reading the novel that the “not allowed word is people!” part isn’t in it. That’s the best part of the movie. In the book the food is barely mentioned and plankton based and is more concerned with the logistical/political problems of overpopulation.
Lost World Jurassic Park
i mean holes is just a direct adapation, the movie doesnt do anything better or worse, it simply just is the book
FRICK no
that book is beautiful
I'm still pissed the movie didn't have the balls to make Stanley fat. It actually takes a lot away from his progression as a character.
Lord of the Rings
Master and Commander
the firm
Ghost World: the movie is so much better than the comics.
All of them. Reading is shit. Take your ass to Cinemaphile with the other gays.
/thread
This, the book is edgelord trash shitting all over irl dead people
wait really? I was hoping the book would have less supernatural stuff in it. Are you telling more there is more historical "authenticity" in the show?
I haven't seen the series/movie (?) but the book is for the most part realistic until they meet the bear and for a good portion of the story you don't really understand if it's some hypertrofic polar bear or some supernatural creature. Toward the end it becomes full supernatural, even if it can be argued that the surviving "protagonist" actually goes mad and becomes an unreliable narrator.
>Toward the end it becomes full supernatural, even if it can be argued that the surviving "protagonist" actually goes mad and becomes an unreliable narrator.
Oh thats exactly how the show ends too. idk everyone else I talked to said the show was a faithful adaption, only that one anon shitting on the book.
The book is respectful towards the crew. The only exception is Hickey, and the show changes that by introducing the idea that the psycho "Hickey" on the Terror is just an identity thief who hopped aboard before the ships left port
There is more explicitly supernatural stuff in the book but, for whatever it's worth to you, it's done a lot better than in the show. Tuunbaq is actually an interesting and creepy threat in the book, but the show half-assed it and made it much lamer
If you have a decent imagination It's pretty much impossible. An okay book is better than a good movie.
Good books are rare but the best ones are just inherently better than movies. No film will ever be as good as War and Peace or crime and Punishment
>No film will ever be as good as War and Peace or Crime and Punishment
BREAKING NEWS!!!
WHAT A REVELATION!!!
Pretty much any adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. No offense, the books/shorts are alright, but they're not exactly God's gift to mankind.
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Also, basically any John Huston adaptation (The Maltese Falcon, The Man Who Would Be King, Treasure of the Sierra Madre)
Obligatory
Wiseblood deserves an honorable mention too
I still need to track down a copy of Huston's adaptation of The Dead
Apparently it's incredibly faithful to Joyce's original short story and pretty much on the same level, but I want to compare for myself
Rebecca
The Social Network
Kubrick's The Shining.
Jurassic Park, easily. I liked the book a lot too, but Crichtons characters have a tendency to break into lecture or wax philosophical in situations where there are much more pressing issues. Don't get me wrong I find it all very interesting but theres a time and a place, and the movie did nearly everything better.
They made books out of lord of the rings?
psycho
forrest gump
godfather
2001
full metal jacket
5 insanely good examples.
Kubrick made most of his adaptations better than the books with the exception of movies like e-girlta
2001 was released after the movie because Clarke wrote it alongside Kubrick making the movie, they created the story together.
I think the novel is better because it tells you what's going on and isn't purely visually symbolic Rob Ager-bait.
>I think the novel is better because it tells you what's going on and isn't purely visually symbolic Rob Ager-bait.
That's what makes the movie good. The sequel (2010) kinda sucked in that regard, because it did try to explain everything.
I guess the nice thing about that collaboration in particular is that they were conceived together and complement each other. Each plays to the strengths of its medium, although Kubrick is a bigger fish in a much smaller pond.
Someone explain to me the King Baldwin meme... why does it always get so many replies?????
Zoomers think it’s based and can’t be arsed to watch the 4 hour movie.
I am a zoomer. I watched the movie and it was shit, the only good scenes were the ones with Baldwin IV or Salahuddin, all other scenes are skippable with few exceptions. Zoomers like Baldwin because being Christian/masculine is a counter culture now due to the degeneracy and weakness taught to us by previous generations
no
Yes! Langoliers was a decent TV series.
>Name a single book to movie adaptation where the movie was better than the book.
The Shining.
nope, it left out a very kino element: the moving hedge animals.
]very importnat on a couple of levels and would have been super-kino if done right on film
Jackie Brown
Elmore Leonard said Tarantino took one of his slippier works and made it a masterpiece, and I agree
Brade Runner
Fellini Satyricon
The actual novel is too fragmented to truly be enjoyable. The movie creates a far more interesting, alien world with its sci fi Esque landscape and bawdy stories.
Cosmopolis
The book is absolute trash
High rise is a good book but the movie is better
True Grit
Fight Club
All of Kubrick's adaptations, which were a majority of his work.
These.
I think the film is better but both make sense once you understand Burroughs is a half-bright trust fund frick-up and that the basic plot elements of both in fact reflect events in his imbecile life (manslaughter, flight from prosecution, drug abuse to salve his conscience).
>High rise is a good book but the movie is better
No way. I'll watch it myself, cause I love that novel.
Naked lunch is at least watchable while the book is unreadable
Jurassic Park
2001 a space odyssey
Kubrick the shining
Blade Runner was better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
(But that doesn't count it's just loosely based on it.)
Alice in Wonderland sounds like it's just a dream the author had
There is no way any of you read with some of these takes. The movies just straight up ignore major themes in the books so how can they be better than the original work?
>muh themes
I Hope they make Rainbow 6
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.
And possible 'Adaptation'. Was so good it made me want to read the book, but then I thought about what the book's actually about and I never even opened it since.
All Kubrick adaptations, with the exception of e-girlta (still very good though). The Shining is a hundred times better than the book, it's not even a contest.
fight club, drive, and yeah, drive was a book
All Quiet on the Western Front, the book, the first movie, and the TV movie are all individually fantastic in their own ways
The kraut movie is slop
A shitty book
Why is every Kubrick fan such a defender of The Shining when The Killing exists? Because they've only seen The Shining.
>The Legend of Prince Valiant is an animated television series based on the Prince Valiant comic strip created by Hal Foster. Set in the time of King Arthur, it is a family-oriented adventure show about an exiled prince who goes on a quest to become one of the Knights of the Round Table.[4] He begins his quest after having a dream about Camelot and its idealistic New Order. This television series originally aired on The Family Channel for a total run of 65 episodes.
>Like the original comic strip, the series begins with the fall of Thule, the fictional kingdom to which Prince Valiant is heir. Valiant, his parents, and a group of survivors from the castle are exiled by the ruthless conqueror Cynan to a hostile marsh across the sea. The young prince, deeply saddened by this defeat and vengeful towards Cynan, attempts to make the best of his new life but craves some greater purpose. He finds this purpose when he has a series of dreams about a kingdom called Camelot, King Arthur, Merlin, and the Knights of the Round Table. Valiant becomes enraptured with Camelot's New Order, which is founded on the ideas that might does not make right and that truth, justice, honor and friendship should be the guiding forces in people's dealings with each other. Against the wishes of his father, Valiant leaves the exiles' settlement in search of Camelot so that he may serve King Arthur as a Knight of the Round Table.
full playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgkKj2n1LjA_iQFGmUKMx3WQPsDw1GZ6-
The book is interesting, but I want a story about a giant shark, not a million subplots about the mafia and a guy getting cucked by his wife.
This is correct. About 280 pages and if I remember 60-80 were about the chief's wife building up to cheating on him with Hooper.
I'm assuming since american pyscho hasn't been mentioned, I'm missing something or just outright moronic?
the books great, but the movies something else
It was mentioned upthread. Also I agree.
Good answer, might also say Clear and Present Danger, and I'm a Clancy fan.
Clear and Present Danger must be a mediocre book, since the movie is good but felt like it could’ve been better.
I loved that book, and the movie is great, so it's hard to pick.
There's a couple more like that I can think of. This year I read The Exorcist and The Ring, and both are arguably as good as the movies but it's close (though neither in either form are as good as American Psycho).
Books suck (especially fiction books) and I'm tired of pretending otherwise. I get that it was the only way to tell a story to a mass audience for a long time, but let's get real here. Shit is boring as frick.
You cannot visualize an apple
I can visualize my wiener going in your ass. That doesn't make books fun to read.
passion of the christ
Kubrick upstaged King's ass with The Shining so hard that King had to go make Maximum Overdrive to prove "oh yeah well I CAN DO MOVIES TOO!!"
101 Dalmatians.
The Hunt for red October easily
Elite Squad
MASH
Jaws
The Thing
Fight Club
Drive
Die Hard
True Grit
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
A lot of books that get adapted are crap and the movie version is an improvement.
Totally forgot MASH was a book
Series mogs the frick out of the shitty Popeye movie btw
Who Framed Rodger Rabbit is a good one. The book is edgy with gratuitous violence. And it ends with Eddie fricking everything up, everyone else dead and then he finds a cartoon lamp and he rubs it and says "I wished I solved the case and we can all move on" and the Genie is like, case closed, now gtfo with your life. Everyone is still dead. Fin.
The Howling
The Nest
Rituals
John Dies At The End
I mean we can keep going.
All of them.
>200 posts
>nobody mentions the QUINTESSENTIAL example
Hmm I dunno, it's a great movie, but the book has everything it has and more, the only thing it's missing is Bardem's performance. But at the same time, the book drags on a lot longer at the end along the lines of Tommy Lee Jones's musings which are wrapped up in a couple minutes or so, in the book they go on for pages.
>n the book they go on for pages
That's what makes the book better.
Sure, it just feels disconnected from the rest of the narrative which reads more like a screenplay. It's inelegant.
The Hunger Games.
The book's prose is so dull it puts you to sleep. The writing lacks spark, imagination, it's 2 dimensional. The movie really elevates the material.
Harry Potter Half Blood Prince is better as a movie than the book.
The shining
Green Mile
Shawshank
The only one is BEING THERE.
And it is as good as the book.
Not better.
The book is rather slight, and good, but not exactly Don Quixote.
Blade Runner, Stand by me, the shining.
V for Vendetta
No it's not.
The movie didn't even have the inspector tripping acid.
Both sucked ass, but the movie was at least cheesy fun
Comics aren't books pleb
The Shining
No Country for Old Men
It's not even close
goodfellas
the book sucks ass
Ben Hur (2016)
The Prestige no doubt. The book was awful.
The Martian
There will be Blood
How the frick has nobody mentioned The Godfather yet? The book was dogshit and the movie is one of the best movies ever made.
Childrens of Men definitely, the story and characters changes are much more interesting in the movie
I've never been able to finish the book and I think I've given it three tries. Meanwhile the movie is probably one of my favorites. Good choice.
Oldboy was based on some comic nobody read. If you count manga as books.
If we're counting manga, then Jin-Roh
The Postman book was even longer and stupider than the film. There was a cyber-soldier sub plot that didn't fit in at all.
Anything horror by Steven King.
Why he named baldwin
Because he was bald but still won
Order of the Phoenix
American Psycho
Not actually gonna say "better," would have to re-read and re-watch them closer together to make a proper judgement. But I reckon Watership Down is a great supplement to the book.
Limitless
writing is hard guys be nice ):
Lord of the rings is impossible to read if you’re not a sperg. The movies are so much better
get an attention span, zoomzoom.
Memento. The short story it's based on is clunky and poorly written
Everything made by him
None. Books will always be superior
this. A good book is far more worthwhile than any audiovisual slop. Film is the midwit's medium. Garbage. hence why i reject any and all attempts to make film into "art" and only watch big release blockbusters because that's all film amounts to and is for.
In rare cases they're not
this was better than the book
It's got Gillian Jacobs as a stripper, of course it is
Jurassic Park
Stephen King's entire bibliography.
He is probably the most overrated """writer""" in modern times.
Lord of the Rings
Jurassic Park
There are two intro scenes making one of them redundant. One with Regis trying to help a kid who got attacked by a raptor and then one about a little girl that gets attacked by a compy. Either one of these is fine, but the book does both in great detail. The movie, pretty much sums up the dino attack in a pretty gripping way.
Book Hammond is also a fraud. It makes him to be much more the malicious shit head typical villain, than a dotting do-gooder just trying to make something fun.
I mean that's sort of the entire point of the book no?
Jurassic Park went to shit because in the end, the person in charge was a cheap fraud
Had it been built by someone actually decent it wouldn't have gone to shit, but it did
The Jurassic Park novel is far superior to the movie
The book is just some action schlock with people shooting dinos with rocket launchers.
An accurate adaptation would look like Cadillac&Dinosaurs
The book is far more science fiction and ruminates a lot more on the central concept than the movie. It also has way more based malcolm
I'll give you that, but the overall package is a far worse story
The disagree about the two intros in the book. They are setting up two different things. The first has to do with the strange goings-on on the island, when the injured worker is brought into the doctor's clinic. The second has to do with the fact that some of the dinos have been getting off the island and coming to the mainland (an element that is left out of the movie, probably for simplicity's sake, though it works well in the book as it raises the stakes).
Also, the two introductions circle back together, because at the end of the introductory part, it goes back to the doctor who discovers a dinosaur eating a newborn in the clinic.
But I think there's more to it than that. Fiction and movies are both sort of like forms of hypnosis in which, if successful, the reader/viewers attention becomes exclusively focused on the story, to the exclusion of the reality around them. With movies the hypnosis is easier to achieve because the viewer is presented with images and sounds, which mimic reality. Also the movie is only dependent on the motor of the film projector to keep playing, while with fiction the motor is the reader's mind.
The point is, fiction requires a more thorough hypnotic induction compared to film, and that is what those multiple introductory scenes in Jurassic Park are all about. Crichton is introducing a character in a setting with a problem (The doctor, the clinic, the rain), and then doing it again, and again, and each time he's taking the readers consciousness and placing it inside the consciousness of the new POV character. The effect is that when he finally gets to the main characters, the reader's mind is already very much primed for this process of consciousness-merging, which results in a very deep sense of immersion throughout the rest of the book.
People often talk about how workmanlike Crichton's prose is, but it's actually very carefully crafted.
Lord of the Rings
Jurassi Park
2001 (dunno if it counts)
Jaws
Anything based on a Stephen King novel. There are a couple exceptions, but his books almost always work better on screen.
First Blood. The novel is just pointless misery porn while the movie is genuinely profound and a great piece of art that treated it's veteran main character with dignity. Until the sequels.
The Shining, Godfather, Space Odyssey, Barry Lyndon. Actually, when I think about it, most of what Kubrick did was better than the book counterpart.
Every single one, simply by the virtue of taking up maybe 2 hours.
Harry Potter. Watching it spares you the experience of reading over 4000 pages of dullness and moronic world building.
Stardust
Passion of the Christ
Starship Troopers (the book is a snoozefest)
Ghost in the Shell
Inherent Vice. The book is brilliant but dense and often confusing. The film adaptation tells the story well while retaining the stylistic confusion and kudzu plot of the novel.
Fight Club
Jurassic Park
Jaws
Stand By Me
The Godfather
almost anything Kubrick adapted (still love the books)
Planet of the Apes
No Country for Old Men
>better book
The Lost World
DUNE
IT
>tied (for me)
Misery
One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest
The Shining
A Clockwork Orange
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
heh
Starship Troopers
Watership Down
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Bond movies. I've only read one of them: Dr No, and although I enjoyed the book, I think the movie, overall, was better. It's not as clear-cut of an example as many other entries in this thread, but the Bond movies/books are certainly up for debate.
Most of them take a title from one book and plot (or part of the plot) from another so it gets rather confusing. Definitely a few that fit this thread though
fight club
first blood
2001
planet of the apes
jurassic park
>planet of the apes
Ah, this too. (we are talking about the Charlton Heston one, right?)
The book was nothing special
2001 space odyssey
Way more lighthearted and fun than the novel and I definitely prefer the ending of the movie
Twilight series. Movies were somewhat watchable, books are terrible.
I've read the Iliad.
I've watched the Troy movie with Brad Pitt. Prefer it, book is just hyping up the Hector v Achilles duel and when the finally fight the chapter is called "death of hector", then it ends before you get the wooden horse.
Really?
Troy is ok, but the book is a masterpiece
I think I fricked up by reading a"classic" translation that was a bit over 100 years old. The double layers of old time language on old tomey language made things very tedious.
2001 A Space Odyssey the movie is waaaaay better
Any Stephen King adaptation.
God I hate that nitwit hack so fricking much.
American psycho
No
The american psycho novel belabours its point and becomes extremely tedious very quickly. The film is superior
Yes
The Godfather
Andromeda Strain
The Davinci Code
Jurassic Park
Rambo First Blood
Fun story about Rambo: When the book was optioned as a potential movie, the author had to scrape together money to hire an entertainment lawyer to negotiate the terms. The author was confused as to why the lawyer included a percentage of any future cartoons, toys, lunchboxes, etc. as part of his deal, seeing as the book is a dark, moody piece where Rambo dies at the end. Then it became a Stallone vehicle and the rest is history.
Requiem for a dream. Also, while I go back and forth about some of the things that are cut out and altered, Battle Royale.
Blade Runner of course. The book sucks ass and no amount of PKD dickriding will change that
>No goat launching Rachael
Ridley is a hack
McCabe & Mrs. Miller
Ths Godfather, The Godfather Part 2. Archive the thread. We are done.
The Warriors
They Live
Men in Black
all of them cause I don't read books
Jaws. Easy. What the frick do I win?
A Sharknado DVD set
American Psycho
First Blood
Shawshank redemption
Blade Runner is better than Do Androids dream of electric sheep