The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Movies that are better than the book (1 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
Mary Mowder
View Profile
Inner circle
Sacramento / Elk Grove, CA
3649 Posts

Profile of Mary Mowder
I loved Steppenwolf too but I never read the book.

-Mary Mowder
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
The Shawshank Redemption.

And here are some oldies- Hitchcock's original version of "The 39 Steps" was far superior to the novel, which is now largely forgotten. And "Gone With the Wind" was much better than Margaret Mitchell's novel, which was largely a retelling and resetting of Thackeray's "Vanity Fair."

I also think that Hitchcock's "Psycho" was vastly more powerful and memorable than Robert Bloch's novel upon which it was based.

Finally- Charlton Heston was a far better Moses in "The Ten Commandments" than the one in the book. Smile
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5006 Posts

Profile of landmark
"You'll have to pry these tablets out of my cold, dead hands!"
gypsyfish
View Profile
Veteran user
371 Posts

Profile of gypsyfish
Get your stinking hands off me, you ***, dirty pharoah.
Slim King
View Profile
Eternal Order
Orlando
17612 Posts

Profile of Slim King
Blade Runner.... original cut..
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
Geoff Weber
View Profile
Inner circle
Washington DC
1360 Posts

Profile of Geoff Weber
The Thing
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
The Naked Lunch. Cronenberg's film is quite different from the Burroughs's book. While disturbing, the film is interesting and engaging. I deeply disliked the book.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Ray Tupper.
View Profile
Special user
NG16.
750 Posts

Profile of Ray Tupper.
2000BC was slightly better than "The Bible".
What do we want?
A cure for tourettes!
When do we want it?
C*nt!
wwhokie1
View Profile
Elite user
488 Posts

Profile of wwhokie1
Almost every movie that had a book written based on the movie. But I guess that is not what you meant. Books that are written after the movie are almost always bad. And the movie was probably good or they would not have written a book afterwards.
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2746 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2015, Geoff Weber wrote:
The Thing


I will argue with that. While "The Thing" (1982) was superior to "The Thing From Another World" (1951) it was NOT as effective as "Who Goes There" by John Campbell which was the story both movies were made from.
"There's no time to lose," I heard her say.
"Catch your dreams before they slip away."
"Dying all the time, lose your dreams and you could lose your mind.
Ain't life unkind?"
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2746 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2015, wwhokie1 wrote:
Almost every movie that had a book written based on the movie. But I guess that is not what you meant. Books that are written after the movie are almost always bad. And the movie was probably good or they would not have written a book afterwards.


I agree with most of this, although I did like the novelization of "Star Wars" and it gave certain scenes a little more character background (not to mention including scenes that were cut from the film.)

But one exception would be "Fantastic Voyage" by Isaac Asimov. He took the screenplay and managed to the best of his ability, to make the procedure actually work. He made changes in the storyline to take out the more obvious scientific blunders involved in the concept of miniturization and actually made a major change in the ending of the film.
"There's no time to lose," I heard her say.
"Catch your dreams before they slip away."
"Dying all the time, lose your dreams and you could lose your mind.
Ain't life unkind?"
magicfish
View Profile
Inner circle
6688 Posts

Profile of magicfish
Quote:
On Feb 13, 2015, RogerTheShrubber wrote:
In the "New to Magic?" forum's thread on The Prestige, this is an excerpt of what I posted:

"As an aside, I can think of only one movie I liked better than the book: Hunt for Red October. The book uses about 475 pages to tell a story that could have been told in 275. With almost every page I turned I was thinking to myself 'Yeah, Tom, I get it, you did your research - and you did it well. Back to the story, please'."

To that end, I was wondering if any of you have ever seen movies you enjoyed more than the book that preceded it. Most people, including me, almost always prefer the book, and posting in the Prestige thread made me wonder if anyone could name movies they found exceptions to that "rule."

Cheers,

Roger

There has never been one. Unless the book came after the movie, but no. Never. Not one.
wwhokie1
View Profile
Elite user
488 Posts

Profile of wwhokie1
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2015, ed rhodes wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2015, wwhokie1 wrote:
Almost every movie that had a book written based on the movie. But I guess that is not what you meant. Books that are written after the movie are almost always bad. And the movie was probably good or they would not have written a book afterwards.


I agree with most of this, although I did like the novelization of "Star Wars" and it gave certain scenes a little more character background (not to mention including scenes that were cut from the film.)



NPR produced a Radio Drama of Star Wars in the early 90's. Their version of Star Wars was much longer than the movie including additional scenes and backstory. Mark Hamill did the voice for Luke, and Anthony Daniels voiced C-3P0. Most other characters were voiced by different actors. They later did Radio Dramas of "Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi". Billy Dee Williams voiced Lando, and John Lithgow did Yoda. These two had far fewer additional scenes and were much shorter. Star Wars took up 6 1/2 Cds, Empire 5 cds, and Jedi only 3 cds. It was broadcast on NPR in 30 minute episodes, each CD contains two episodes.
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2746 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 13, 2015, RogerTheShrubber wrote:
In the "New to Magic?" forum's thread on The Prestige, this is an excerpt of what I posted:

"As an aside, I can think of only one movie I liked better than the book: Hunt for Red October. The book uses about 475 pages to tell a story that could have been told in 275. With almost every page I turned I was thinking to myself 'Yeah, Tom, I get it, you did your research - and you did it well. Back to the story, please'."

To that end, I was wondering if any of you have ever seen movies you enjoyed more than the book that preceded it. Most people, including me, almost always prefer the book, and posting in the Prestige thread made me wonder if anyone could name movies they found exceptions to that "rule."

Cheers,

Roger

There has never been one. Unless the book came after the movie, but no. Never. Not one.


I think the problem would be, if you really disliked the book, you are less likely to go see the movie. While I didn't read it BEFORE seeing the movie, I state again the "Who Censored Roger Rabbit" is a clumsy and difficult read with a massive deus ex. machine (sp) ending that really spoiled the story for me. "Who FRAMED Roger Rabbit" was a much better telling of the story.
"There's no time to lose," I heard her say.
"Catch your dreams before they slip away."
"Dying all the time, lose your dreams and you could lose your mind.
Ain't life unkind?"
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
565 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
Jaws.
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
I'll probably get a lot of disagreement over this one but I actually thought the Lord of the Rings trilogy was, if not better, certainly as good as the books. And I loved the books.
Slim King
View Profile
Eternal Order
Orlando
17612 Posts

Profile of Slim King
Quote:
On Feb 17, 2015, rockwall wrote:
I'll probably get a lot of disagreement over this one but I actually thought the Lord of the Rings trilogy was, if not better, certainly as good as the books. And I loved the books.

Yes .. I agree.. But the Hobbit was NOT as good as I'd anticipated ....
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
RLMASKI87
View Profile
New user
66 Posts

Profile of RLMASKI87
I couldn't Think of a movie, but I asked my wife this question and she said she prefered the film Gone With the Wind over the book.
Starrpower
View Profile
Inner circle
4070 Posts

Profile of Starrpower
I'd go with the original animated "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" if for no other reason the wonderful narration by Karloff, as well as the songs Thurl Revenscroft's singing (and the fact that Thurl Ravenscroft is an incredibly awesome name).
RLMASKI87
View Profile
New user
66 Posts

Profile of RLMASKI87
Oh yea! The original Grinch is the best. I try to forget about the Ron Howard version
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Movies that are better than the book (1 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.14 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL