PDA

View Full Version : Something annoying...


Archer81
04-08-2012, 11:02 PM
Has been bugging me lately. Being that its offseason, I am posting this here. Its when books are turned into movies, and the movie is not at all in line with the book. Why make the movie? Clearly you liked the book enough to option it out to become a movie...so why create an abortion of a flick?

It just annoys the **** out of me. Right up there with AIDS babies and the its good mood food guy in the arbys commercials.

:Broncos:

That One Guy
04-08-2012, 11:17 PM
Has been bugging me lately. Being that its offseason, I am posting this here. Its when books are turned into movies, and the movie is not at all in line with the book. Why make the movie? Clearly you liked the book enough to option it out to become a movie...so why create an abortion of a flick?

It just annoys the **** out of me. Right up there with AIDS babies and the its good mood food guy in the arbys commercials.

:Broncos:

For the same reason Mario stopped saving the Princess and, instead, races cars or fights to the death against other characters.

It's all about the brand and the publicity.

Heyneck
04-08-2012, 11:17 PM
Some people just don't read... Hollywood knows this... they exploit it by finding kick ass stories and just adapt them to the silver screen. Not a lot of original stories now days. It's all based on a books or remakes.

I guess what some say it's true... we just stopped dreaming!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jbxX1v_9WzQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

DHallblows
04-08-2012, 11:17 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BkQ31IWxFYo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Swedish Extrovert
04-08-2012, 11:18 PM
A lot of times I see the movie before I read the book. Movies tend to leave out a lot of things the books has in and that pisses me off...

Some particularly bad adaptations, IMO were A Clockwork Orange (still a good film) and The Golden Compass. I'm upset that the Golden Compass was so bad that they won't be coming out with an adaptation of the Subtle Knife.

theAPAOps5
04-08-2012, 11:38 PM
Has been bugging me lately. Being that its offseason, I am posting this here. Its when books are turned into movies, and the movie is not at all in line with the book. Why make the movie? Clearly you liked the book enough to option it out to become a movie...so why create an abortion of a flick?

It just annoys the **** out of me. Right up there with AIDS babies and the its good mood food guy in the arbys commercials.

:Broncos:

Good Mood Food guy is crazy annoying, like throat punch annoying.

Heyneck
04-08-2012, 11:38 PM
A lot of times I see the movie before I read the book. Movies tend to leave out a lot of things the books has in and that pisses me off...

Some particularly bad adaptations, IMO were A Clockwork Orange (still a good film) and The Golden Compass. I'm upset that the Golden Compass was so bad that they won't be coming out with an adaptation of the Subtle Knife.

Yup... the Jurassic Park books are great! Even if the first movie was great, it pales no comparison to the book. Michael Crichton's work gets no justice. His 2 dino books are great.

Also his book Sphere was a very weak adaptation... so was Timeline. I am still waiting for Prey.

And I am with you on the Golden compass. That was my favorite book trilogy. Even over the Lord of the Rings... (prefer The Hobbit anyway). But yeahh.... the Golden Compass was butchered... especially with Nicole Kidman as Ms Coulter... and the actress for the Lyra role was a total miss. And Iorek Byrnison was a total downer. In the book he was a total badass.

To bad we wont get to see Will Perry and The Subtle Knife. That is one heck of a book so is The Amber Spyglass. Damn... want to read them again!

Archer81
04-08-2012, 11:38 PM
I read alot of genre's. One of them would be the Percy Jackson series of books. Book 1 he goes from Manhattan, to north NJ, to St Louis, Denver, Las Vegas and finally LA. Movie has him going to Memphis. Has characters missing, or they added characters from later books. Persephone is in Hades in the fall and winter. She is on earth in spring and summer. Movie takes place in June, movie has her in Hades...even if that was not in the book, has none of these ****ing morons ever had a semester of greek mythology? Has the wrong mythological monsters in it. The camp looks like its in the Catskills, not on the north shore of Long Island. For ****'s sake Chiron's horse half is the wrong ****ing color.

Come to think of it though...maybe its Chris Colombus. He did the same type of things with the first two Harry Potters...stupid bastard. Read the books before you decide to adapt them. Won't kill you.

:Broncos:

Archer81
04-08-2012, 11:40 PM
Yup... the Jurassic Park books are great! Even if the first movie was great, it pales no comparison to the book. Michael Crichton's work gets no justice. His 2 dino books are great.

Also his book Sphere was a very weak adaptation... so was Timeline. I am still waiting for Prey.

And I am with you on the Golden compass. That was my favorite book trilogy. Even over the Lord of the Rings... (prefer The Hobbit anyway). But yeahh.... the Golden Compass was butchered... especially with Nicole Kidman as Ms Coulter... and the actress for the Lyra role was a total miss. And Iorek Byrnison was a total downer. In the book he was a total badass.

To bad we wont get to see Will Perry and The Subtle Knife. That is one heck of a book so is The Amber Spyglass. Damn... want to read them again!


I read the Congo before I saw the movie. I was not impressed with the movie. I dont think it was even called the Congo...or maybe the book isnt. Either way...

:Broncos:

Heyneck
04-08-2012, 11:43 PM
I read the Congo before I saw the movie. I was not impressed with the movie. I dont think it was even called the Congo...or maybe the book isnt. Either way...

:Broncos:

Yup another good book gone to waste... yup it was also named Congo.

Archer81
04-08-2012, 11:47 PM
Yup another good book gone to waste... yup it was also named Congo.


I Am Legend is another one. The book is quite good. Last human on a planet ravaged by vampires who are terrified of the sole remaining human, not Zombie/mutants.

And LOTR irked me a bit too. Sauruman and Wormtongue dont just fade away like they do in the movie. That was BS. My brother did not believe me about what the Hobbits come home to until I showed him the book.

:Broncos:

Shananahan
04-09-2012, 12:03 AM
Some particularly bad adaptations, IMO were A Clockwork Orange (still a good film
Kubrick is a pretty silly guy to nitpick about when it comes to book-to-film adaptations, though.

And I am with you on the Golden compass. That was my favorite book trilogy. Even over the Lord of the Rings...
Whaaaat the fuuuukk? First time I've ever seen the two compared, much less weighed in such a way. Somebody else who has read both needs to weigh in, as I didn't know the Golden Compass thing existed until the movie I didn't watch.

Shananahan
04-09-2012, 12:05 AM
Isn't the Golden Compass thing some religious propaganda thing or something?

I honestly have no idea, but just remember having absolutely no need to see that movie when it came out.

Shananahan
04-09-2012, 12:09 AM
One of the best 'trilogies' I've read in print that hasn't fully been realized onscreen is James Jones' WWII bit. I think this is probably because Whistle is pretty goddamn depressing following the first two, but who knows.

Doggcow
04-09-2012, 12:14 AM
I worked at Arby's when I was going to college.

Shananahan
04-09-2012, 12:18 AM
One of the best 'trilogies' I've read in print that hasn't fully been realized onscreen is James Jones' WWII bit. I think this is probably because Whistle is pretty goddamn depressing following the first two, but who knows.
Entire thing is awesome in retrospect, though. Forget all that romance on the beach in From Here to Eternity, it's a fairly blunt read. The Thin Red Line is one of my favorite adaptations for this reason, since Malick's style goes well with the multitude of characters in the story.

Thinking about all this stuff again, I will reiterate, as I did in the book thread, how awesome The Naked and the Dead is.

Houshyamama
04-09-2012, 12:21 AM
I thought Fight Club was one of the truest adaptations in cinema history, that's how you do it.

Shananahan
04-09-2012, 12:33 AM
You want a great adaptation? Go to the books that are written for it; they're either movies or being peddled into movies.

No Country for Old Men is a book I read after I saw the movie, and it's kinda amazing how well that all happened. The book is better than the movie, but the source material made it possible.

Heyneck
04-09-2012, 12:53 AM
Isn't the Golden Compass thing some religious propaganda thing or something?

I honestly have no idea, but just remember having absolutely no need to see that movie when it came out.

Some people view it that way. The full story does have that certain flare. But it's a great written story. If you haven't I fully recommend them! You wont put them down once you start if you are into that sort of material. The movie just butchered the book. It has such a deep world and how it functions that the movie never grasps that. Plus the 2nd and 3rd book are just bad ass. They have the best character in my opinion... but Lyra is very kick ass herself too.

So you just know... the author is not a religious nut job. This collection falls under his work called Dark Matter.

*found this interesting

Northern Lights (a.k.a The Golden Compass) was highly acclaimed and won prestigious book awards, including the Carnegie Medal and the Guardian Fiction Prize in England, and was named a Horn Book Fanfare Honor Book, a Bulletin Blue Ribbon Book, Publishers Weekly Book of the Year, and Booklist Editors Choice - Top of the List.

Some critics have asserted that the trilogy and movie adaptation present a negative portrayal of the Church and religion,[2][3][dead link] while others have argued that Pullman's works should be included in religious education courses.[4] Peter Hitchens views the His Dark Materials series as a direct rebuttal of C. S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia series.[5] Literary critic Alan Jacobs (of Wheaton College) argues that in his recasting of Lewis's Narnia series, Pullman replaces a theist world-view with a Rousseauist one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Lights_%28novel%29

Shananahan
04-09-2012, 01:04 AM
You sold me. I'm never reading them.

Heyneck
04-09-2012, 01:10 AM
Kubrick is a pretty silly guy to nitpick about when it comes to book-to-film adaptations, though.


Whaaaat the fuuuukk? First time I've ever seen the two compared, much less weighed in such a way. Somebody else who has read both needs to weigh in, as I didn't know the Golden Compass thing existed until the movie I didn't watch.

Well they are totally different... but in the way that they are fantasy books that fallow the journey of certain individuals through 3 books for the greater good does compare. They are fully imagined and developed universes until the most minor detail.

Lord of the Rings is just awesome... but the Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass just hit home. It was a fantasy story that include all type of creatures and epic fights. Also the the 3 main objects (the name of each book) are probably one of the most awesome creative devices in literature (in my opinion). I mean... the subtle knife can open a window in plain air to many different worlds/dimensions, it can cut to almost anything... but the coolest part is how it all adds up and how it chooses it's carrier.

The journey is epic and it's author, Philip Pullman is just sublime. He is just not just that know very well over the states. I still thank my 8th grade teacher for introducing me to this trilogy. It was her favorite too... she also made us read the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. That should tell you something for what it's worth.

Once you start reading about Dust, Daemons, and Armored warrior talking polar bears... you wont stop. And that is just the first book... the things that fallow are just... epic.

Fedaykin
04-09-2012, 01:11 AM
On the other hand, sometimes adaptations are awesome despite having nothing to do with the book.

See: Starship Troopers

On that one, I would love to see the reaction of people who buy the book after seeing the movie.

ol#7
04-09-2012, 01:15 AM
You sold me. I'm never reading them.

You weren't going to read them anyway. Reading is hard.

If you want an example of a book that ruins the movie, the Natural sucks as a book. Depressing as hell. Can't believe it was made into a movie. I read the book after seeing the movie and the book ruins the movie for me.

Also the guy that wrote Forrest Gump wrote a depressing sequel where he loses everything. Why some authors feel the need to destroy a beloved character is beyond me.

Taco John
04-09-2012, 01:25 AM
When this happens, you have to blame the person who held the rights on the story and allowed it to happen.

Shananahan
04-09-2012, 01:28 AM
You weren't going to read them anyway. Reading is hard.
Implication....... Go!

If you want an example of a book that ruins the movie, the Natural sucks as a book. Depressing as hell. Can't believe it was made into a movie. I read the book after seeing the movie and the book ruins the movie for me.
You have it backward, and you completely missed the point of the novel. The movie butchered the entire idea of the book by casting Redford and making him the hero. In the book the guy wastes everything and it ends with him walking away in shame, while the movie has him walking away a winner and more. It's a perfect film for this thread, but not for your reasons.

Shananahan
04-09-2012, 01:32 AM
I mean.... holy shiit, ol#7, are you that oblivious to abstract concepts to actually think the film version of The Natural is better than the book?

Shananahan
04-09-2012, 01:33 AM
This just in: the best screen-to-screen adaptation of The Natural is the first season of Eastbound and Down.

ol#7
04-09-2012, 01:36 AM
Implication....... Go!

Just busting your ball lance.

You have it backward, and you completely missed the point of the novel. The movie butchered the entire idea of the book by casting Redford and making him the hero. In the book the guy wastes everything and it ends with him walking away in shame, while the movie has him walking away a winner and more. It's a perfect film for this thread, but not for your reasons.

No, I understand the point of the thread. I only brought it up because I will bet most people that have seen the movie have no idea that it is an adaptation. I didn't. I read it years after seeing the movie. I had loved the movie. The book now ruins the movie for me and tells a completely different story. It is the same in that the two stories diverge drastically from one another. Had I read the book first, I would have watched the movie with a WTF is this, that never happened attitude.

Also, the one thing that irks me about LOTR is that they make men responsible for not destroying the ring, when it was the damn elves who were too weak. I am sure that was meant to be a politically correct statment about the weakness of man, but I thought it was a stupid thing to change.

Overall I have laways thought that LOTR and Harry Potter both work well as book/movie and complement one another. Can't really think of any other successful examples.

ol#7
04-09-2012, 01:39 AM
I mean.... holy shiit, ol#7, are you that oblivious to abstract concepts to actually think the film version of The Natural is better than the book?

Yes.

The book is weak. It is depressing and not well told IMO.

I prefer the Greek view that theater should be cathartic. When the good guy loses and you go home, your left to kick the dog.

ol#7
04-09-2012, 01:41 AM
This just in: the best screen-to-screen adaptation of The Natural is the first season of Eastbound and Down.

I'm Billy F@#%'in Powers.

Don't see the connection, but awesome anyway.

Taco John
04-09-2012, 01:41 AM
You sold me. I'm never reading them.

Same.

I'vge added them to the bucket list. Thought I think another Dumas novel is next up once I get through Martin. I like that renissance(sp?) era fiction....

Shananahan
04-09-2012, 01:42 AM
The book now ruins the movie for me and tells a completely different story.
Great example of why this is a silly thread.

I get it, mostly, but artistic endeavors are normally best lest to be judged on their own merits, if you view them as such.

Taco John
04-09-2012, 01:43 AM
Yes.

The book is weak. It is depressing and not well told IMO.

I prefer the Greek view that theater should be cathartic. When the good guy loses and you go home, your left to kick the dog.

Tell that to Hector of Troy...

Shananahan
04-09-2012, 01:44 AM
I'm Billy F@#%'in Powers.

Don't see the connection, but awesome anyway.
This post makes me think that you neither watched the first season nor read the book.

ol#7
04-09-2012, 01:44 AM
Tell that to Hector of Troy...

That is only depressing if you were rooting for the Trojans.

ol#7
04-09-2012, 01:47 AM
This post makes me think that you neither watched the first season nor read the book.

Watched the first two seasons and read the Natural. Why must you attempt to defame my character in such a way? Season 3 isn't on apple tv yet.

How him flaming out via excess is the same as the book version of the Natural where he fails (after trying not to) AND is disgraced, isn't a clear connection to me. Also, I never laughed reading the Natural.

Taco John
04-09-2012, 01:51 AM
That is only depressing if you were rooting for the Trojans.

*gasp*

You could not possibly favor Agammenon. Next you'll be telling us that you were rooting for the Cobra Kai! ;)

Shananahan
04-09-2012, 01:53 AM
How him flaming out via excess is the same as the book version of the Natural where he fails (after trying not to) AND is disgraced, isn't a clear connection to me. Also, I never laughed reading the Natural.
You got his name wrong, for starters. But seriously, I see a lot of parallels. Granted, each story takes its own line, but still.

Kenny is a prodigy who achieves greatness only to fall into obscurity for years, much like Roy Hobbs. Both return, eventually and via a love interest, to begin to fulfill their promise. It's not exactly the same story, but I think there are roots there.

Shananahan
04-09-2012, 01:57 AM
Eastbound and Down, to me, is like the greatest adaptation of The Natural you're ever going to get. They take the guy, and they totally abort all facets of his character, likability and mental faculties. Then they make you fall in love with him and watch him tear himself and his promise and future to bits.

Just because the guys behind the show are smart enough to make it funny doesn't make it any less of an homage.

ol#7
04-09-2012, 01:59 AM
You got his name wrong, for starters. But seriously, I see a lot of parallels. Granted, each story takes its own line, but still.

Kenny is a prodigy who achieves greatness only to fall into obscurity for years, much like Roy Hobbs. Both return, eventually and via a love interest, to begin to fulfill their promise. It's not exactly the same story, but I think there are roots there.

Headslap, your right. F@#$'in Kenny Powers bringing the heat. No Donkey show for me.

I got the book a few years after the movie came out, it had Redford on the cover. I think that is in part what I had trouble with, they were clearly trying to cash in on the movie tie in and the novel told a completely different story

ol#7
04-09-2012, 02:03 AM
http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Theta_Perfoliatum_Kinsterptious/Alternate/The%20Doctors/Fourth%20Doctor/billy-zabka-everett.jpg*gasp*

You could not possibly favor Agammenon. Next you'll be telling us that you were rooting for the Cobra Kai! ;)

Billy Zabka is the man! Sweep the leg Johnny!

Also, Ralph Macchio was a pansy that Mr. Miagi probably took advantage of.

Miss I.
04-09-2012, 04:43 AM
Okay, here's my take:
1. I have not seen the Arby's commericals (they do not have Arby's in England or Europe or good beef or well anything) mood dude so I can't say much, except when I was in CO in November I did buy all the Arby's bronco glasses which were spiffy (yes, I said spiffy, bite me).
2. General Rule: Short stories usually adapt better because books are too long to adapt accurately into a 2 hour time frame. Miniseries usually work better to adapt a lot of material (I've always preferred the A&E Pride and Prejudice to the Keira Knightly Crapfest, though both get most of the intent right...Besides Colin Firth is the only Mr. Darcy that matters). Stephen Kings books have generally adpated better as miniseries than films partly because of how much material he has in them. The few exceptions, Misery, Carrie and The Shining (By the way Stephen King HATES Kubricks' film because it does alter his characters quite a bit, but frankly I find the Kubrick film to be much scarier than the miniseries and I prefer the less soft and cuddely version in the film to the book which is more plodding in my opinion, still good, but I prefer Jack Nicholson as a raging lunatic).
3. A few decent novel adaptations: Silence of the lambs is pretty close to the source material and well done. Mary Poppins is good, though it varies from the book. Despite not really like Daniel Day Lewis in general, I love Last of the Mohicans as a movie much better than the book which was dull as hell. Psycho is a good novel, but the original movie improves it a bit while altering it some, at least partly because Anthony Perkins is exceptional (the remake sucks donkey balls IMHO largely because Vince Vaughn was terribly miscast).

v2micca
04-09-2012, 04:49 AM
And LOTR irked me a bit too. Sauruman and Wormtongue dont just fade away like they do in the movie. That was BS. My brother did not believe me about what the Hobbits come home to until I showed him the book.

:Broncos:


Yeah, for the most part I enjoyed the LOTR movies. However, hated the interpretations of both Farimir and Denethor. Farimir is almost a completely different character in the movies, and Denethor is reduced from a complex, flawed individual to a one-note villain.

delany
04-09-2012, 05:39 AM
Yeah, for the most part I enjoyed the LOTR movies. However, hated the interpretations of both Farimir and Denethor. Farimir is almost a completely different character in the movies, and Denethor is reduced from a complex, flawed individual to a one-note villain.

Hey, at least they made the film. Tom Bombadil got screwed completely.

errand
04-09-2012, 06:42 AM
Jim Gaffigan said it best...

"You know what's really annoying? Talking about a movie you've seen and having people say "Oh, well the book's much better...."

"So I say, well you know what I like about the movie?...... No reading"

McDman
04-09-2012, 07:09 AM
Yup... the Jurassic Park books are great! Even if the first movie was great, it pales no comparison to the book. Michael Crichton's work gets no justice. His 2 dino books are great.

Also his book Sphere was a very weak adaptation... so was Timeline. I am still waiting for Prey.

And I am with you on the Golden compass. That was my favorite book trilogy. Even over the Lord of the Rings... (prefer The Hobbit anyway). But yeahh.... the Golden Compass was butchered... especially with Nicole Kidman as Ms Coulter... and the actress for the Lyra role was a total miss. And Iorek Byrnison was a total downer. In the book he was a total badass.

To bad we wont get to see Will Perry and The Subtle Knife. That is one heck of a book so is The Amber Spyglass. Damn... want to read them again!

Timeline was such a good book and such a disaster of a movie.

McDman
04-09-2012, 07:12 AM
No, I understand the point of the thread. I only brought it up because I will bet most people that have seen the movie have no idea that it is an adaptation. I didn't. I read it years after seeing the movie. I had loved the movie. The book now ruins the movie for me and tells a completely different story. It is the same in that the two stories diverge drastically from one another. Had I read the book first, I would have watched the movie with a WTF is this, that never happened attitude.

Also, the one thing that irks me about LOTR is that they make men responsible for not destroying the ring, when it was the damn elves who were too weak. I am sure that was meant to be a politically correct statment about the weakness of man, but I thought it was a stupid thing to change.

Overall I have laways thought that LOTR and Harry Potter both work well as book/movie and complement one another. Can't really think of any other successful examples.

No. It was Isildur who had the ring and did not destroy it on Mount Doom. In the books the men were the weakest of the races. That is why the 9 Kings who received the rings were corrupted and the Elves and Dwarves were not.

Play2win
04-09-2012, 07:13 AM
Uhm... because it would take at least 10 hours of movie time for any decently written novel. At least...

Play2win
04-09-2012, 07:16 AM
I always thought The Hobbit was a little children's story tale (easy reading), compared to the epic that was LOTR.

Rohirrim
04-09-2012, 07:26 AM
*gasp*

You could not possibly favor Agammenon. Next you'll be telling us that you were rooting for the Cobra Kai! ;)

People would have been even less favorable to Agamemnon if the movie makers had included the scene where he sacrifices his daughter to the gods before setting sail for Troy. ;D

bendog
04-09-2012, 07:27 AM
Wicked.

jonny1
04-09-2012, 07:28 AM
And LOTR irked me a bit too. Sauruman and Wormtongue dont just fade away like they do in the movie. That was BS. My brother did not believe me about what the Hobbits come home to until I showed him the book.

:Broncos:

Saurman was killed by Wormtongue in the move, knife in the back.

Interesting tidbit: If you watched the appendices to the movies, Peter Jackson talks about that scene, said he was telling Christopher Lee how to react and die to the knife in his back, and Lee said, "That's not how it would sound."

Lee was with the British version of the Green Berets/Navy Seals in WWII, so he KNEW what a knife in the back would be like, so Jackson wisely differed to Lee's 'experience.'

delany
04-09-2012, 07:30 AM
*gasp*

You could not possibly favor Agammenon. Next you'll be telling us that you were rooting for the Cobra Kai! ;)

Personally, I think Agammenon is an idiot. Worst takes ever. Poor reasoning and logic skills.


Wait. What?

Rohirrim
04-09-2012, 07:30 AM
Hey, at least they made the film. Tom Bombadil got screwed completely.

Yep. And what's with Arwen's whole "Her fate is tied to the Ring's" bull****? Also, in the books, Aragorn has no doubts about his role in anything. From the start he is gung-ho to kick some ass and get his throne. Not to mention the entire "Saruman in the Shire" section is deleted. I guess you can only do so much in a movie. Even three movies.

crowebomber
04-09-2012, 07:41 AM
Okay, here's my take:
1. I have not seen the Arby's commericals (they do not have Arby's in England or Europe or good beef or well anything) mood dude so I can't say much, except when I was in CO in November I did buy all the Arby's bronco glasses which were spiffy (yes, I said spiffy, bite me).
2. General Rule: Short stories usually adapt better because books are too long to adapt accurately into a 2 hour time frame. Miniseries usually work better to adapt a lot of material (I've always preferred the A&E Pride and Prejudice to the Keira Knightly Crapfest, though both get most of the intent right...Besides Colin Firth is the only Mr. Darcy that matters). Stephen Kings books have generally adpated better as miniseries than films partly because of how much material he has in them. The few exceptions, Misery, Carrie and The Shining (By the way Stephen King HATES Kubricks' film because it does alter his characters quite a bit, but frankly I find the Kubrick film to be much scarier than the miniseries and I prefer the less soft and cuddely version in the film to the book which is more plodding in my opinion, still good, but I prefer Jack Nicholson as a raging lunatic).
3. A few decent novel adaptations: Silence of the lambs is pretty close to the source material and well done. Mary Poppins is good, though it varies from the book. Despite not really like Daniel Day Lewis in general, I love Last of the Mohicans as a movie much better than the book which was dull as hell. Psycho is a good novel, but the original movie improves it a bit while altering it some, at least partly because Anthony Perkins is exceptional (the remake sucks donkey balls IMHO largely because Vince Vaughn was terribly miscast).

I think Stephen King stories translate so well because he writes very visually for shock factor which can be depicted on the screen quite naturally. And a couple of the best short story adaptations were Stephen King novellas with Shawshank Redemption and Stand by Me.

Play2win
04-09-2012, 07:46 AM
I think Stephen King stories translate so well because he writes very visually for shock factor which can be depicted on the screen quite naturally. And a couple of the best short story adaptations were Stephen King novellas with Shawshank Redemption and Stand by Me.

Short stories are a good length for an entire 2-3 hour movie.

v2micca
04-09-2012, 07:50 AM
No. It was Isildur who had the ring and did not destroy it on Mount Doom. In the books the men were the weakest of the races. That is why the 9 Kings who received the rings were corrupted and the Elves and Dwarves were not.

Yes and no. Yes, in the book, Isildur was the one who initially ended up with he ring. But it was not on the slopes of Mount Doom and Elrond did not drag him to the heart of the Mountain and tell him to destroy the ring.

The fact is, in the books, no one really knew what happened to the ring after the war with Sauron. Only Isildur and a handful of his closest men knew of it, and most of them took the secret to the grave with them. Gandalf was only able to piece it together from a handful of old private writings.

In the book, the council of Elrond is the first time anyone had even conceived of destroying the ring. It was a completely brand new concept to all involved. That is the main reason that Sauron didn't have Mount Doom under 24 hour surveillance. No one, not even the Elves had ever considered the idea before.

bendog
04-09-2012, 08:02 AM
Cold Mountain was a good book and good movie. Not exactly the same, but still good. Normally, good books, like the Lincoln Lawyer, don't make good movies if the plot is faithful to the book ... because movies have more going on in them than books. I thought of cold mountain because I started his latest this morning.

McDman
04-09-2012, 08:05 AM
Yes and no. Yes, in the book, Isildur was the one who initially ended up with he ring. But it was not on the slopes of Mount Doom and Elrond did not drag him to the heart of the Mountain and tell him to destroy the ring.

The fact is, in the books, no one really knew what happened to the ring after the war with Sauron. Only Isildur and a handful of his closest men knew of it, and most of them took the secret to the grave with them. Gandalf was only able to piece it together from a handful of old private writings.

In the book, the council of Elrond is the first time anyone had even conceived of destroying the ring. It was a completely brand new concept to all involved. That is the main reason that Sauron didn't have Mount Doom under 24 hour surveillance. No one, not even the Elves had ever considered the idea before.

Maybe it was not on Mt. Doom but I know Elrond told him to destroy it after the battle. So did another elf whose name slips me now.

McDman
04-09-2012, 08:27 AM
Yes and no. Yes, in the book, Isildur was the one who initially ended up with he ring. But it was not on the slopes of Mount Doom and Elrond did not drag him to the heart of the Mountain and tell him to destroy the ring.

The fact is, in the books, no one really knew what happened to the ring after the war with Sauron. Only Isildur and a handful of his closest men knew of it, and most of them took the secret to the grave with them. Gandalf was only able to piece it together from a handful of old private writings.

In the book, the council of Elrond is the first time anyone had even conceived of destroying the ring. It was a completely brand new concept to all involved. That is the main reason that Sauron didn't have Mount Doom under 24 hour surveillance. No one, not even the Elves had ever considered the idea before.

It was Cirdan who urged him to destroy it. Nonetheless, it was an Elf.

It goes back to my original point that even in the books it was stated several times men were the weakest of the races and corrupted easier.

R8R H8R
04-09-2012, 09:13 AM
I think Stephen King stories translate so well because he writes very visually for shock factor which can be depicted on the screen quite naturally. And a couple of the best short story adaptations were Stephen King novellas with Shawshank Redemption and Stand by Me.

I thought Carrie is one of those rare instances that the movie was better than the book. However, The Dead Zone is excellent in either form, IMO.

The Stand is one of my favorite books of all time, but I give the mini series a pass because I'm not sure that book can ever be translated well onto the screen.

Any movie version of Salem's Lot has sucked, IMO. But while I never read "It", the movie scared the **** out of me, particullarly the 1st half. I have always hated clowns.

McDman
04-09-2012, 09:16 AM
I thought Carrie is one of those rare instances that the movie was better than the book. However, The Dead Zone is excellent in either form, IMO.

The Stand is one of my favorite books of all time, but I give the mini series a pass because I'm not sure that book can ever be translated well onto the screen.

Any movie version of Salem's Lot has sucked, IMO. But while I never read "It", the movie scared the **** out of me, particullarly the 1st half. I have always hated clowns.

"It" was such a fantastic book. Not a huge fan of the ending but that seems to be King's biggest problem with most of his book.s

Crushaholic
04-09-2012, 09:28 AM
As Taco said, the book author allows the screenwriter to make changes. Therefore, the blame should be placed on the author...

Chris
04-09-2012, 10:11 AM
Yup... the Jurassic Park books are great! Even if the first movie was great, it pales no comparison to the book. Michael Crichton's work gets no justice. His 2 dino books are great.

Also his book Sphere was a very weak adaptation... so was Timeline. I am still waiting for Prey.

And I am with you on the Golden compass. That was my favorite book trilogy. Even over the Lord of the Rings... (prefer The Hobbit anyway). But yeahh.... the Golden Compass was butchered... especially with Nicole Kidman as Ms Coulter... and the actress for the Lyra role was a total miss. And Iorek Byrnison was a total downer. In the book he was a total badass.

To bad we wont get to see Will Perry and The Subtle Knife. That is one heck of a book so is The Amber Spyglass. Damn... want to read them again!

Agree on Timeline. I enjoyed Sphere but didn't read the book (I was also a kid when I saw it). Crichton almost always wrote his books like movies to be movies, perhaps more so than Tom Wolfe.

Miss I.
04-09-2012, 10:31 AM
I think Stephen King stories translate so well because he writes very visually for shock factor which can be depicted on the screen quite naturally. And a couple of the best short story adaptations were Stephen King novellas with Shawshank Redemption and Stand by Me.

Key is his short stories translate well, not all of his novels have been made well. In fact quite a lot of them are terrible. Children of the Corn, that stupid one with all the machinery coming to life, cujo, firestarter, cat's eye, pet cemetary, silver bullet, all very bad movies at least I wasn''t impressed by the films.

My favorite King films are Shawshank and Stand by Me, followed by the Shining, Carrie, It and Creepshow.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-09-2012, 10:42 AM
Key is his short stories translate well, not all of his novels have been made well. In fact quite a lot of them are terrible. Children of the Corn, that stupid one with all the machinery coming to life, cujo, firestarter, cat's eye, pet cemetary, silver bullet, all very bad movies at least I wasn''t impressed by the films.

My favorite King films are Shawshank and Stand by Me, followed by the Shining, Carrie, It and Creepshow.

Its pretty hard to adapt non cinematic novels into screenplays because so much needs to be cut, and often times exciting and/or important scenes within books do not create "set pieces," and arent all that cinematic.

And, of course, the reason so many are made is content with pre-existing audiences generally have higher floors.

Beantown Bronco
04-09-2012, 10:45 AM
Rumor has it, Domcasual will only see movies that are based on Nicholas Sparks novels.

Archer81
04-09-2012, 10:56 AM
My brother reads Nicholas Sparks. And I'm the gay one...

And while true that its usually on the author when movies warp the content of the book, but it depends on how exactly the contract they sign to option the property is written and worded. It just bugs me. I understand that a true movie adaptation for a book would be 4-7 hours long and things need to be cut out. But that does not mean getting characters wrong, omitting important ones or adding locations or events that do not happen. That's just lazy.

:Broncos:

errand
04-09-2012, 11:00 AM
http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Theta_Perfoliatum_Kinsterptious/Alternate/The%20Doctors/Fourth%20Doctor/billy-zabka-everett.jpg

Billy Zabka is the man! Sweep the leg Johnny!

Also, Ralph Macchio was a pansy that Mr. Miagi probably took advantage of.


Billy also played the same bully/jerk role in "One of the Guys".....Joyce Hyser had a nice rack. And Macchio was a puss....but so was Jayden Smith.

Miss I.
04-09-2012, 11:04 AM
My brother reads Nicholas Sparks. And I'm the gay one...

And while true that its usually on the author when movies warp the content of the book, but it depends on how exactly the contract they sign to option the property is written and worded. It just bugs me. I understand that a true movie adaptation for a book would be 4-7 hours long and things need to be cut out. But that does not mean getting characters wrong, omitting important ones or adding locations or events that do not happen. That's just lazy.

:Broncos:

hmm, I think I may have to watch the Notebook now...that James Marsden is hotttttt...yummy. ;D oh wait, um it's a very touching and special movie.

Miss I.
04-09-2012, 11:06 AM
Billy also played the same bully/jerk role in "One of the Guys".....Joyce Hyser had a nice rack. And Macchio was a puss....but so was Jayden Smith.

she kind of looks like Ralph Macchio...coincidence?

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/j/Joyce%20Hyser.jpg

errand
04-09-2012, 11:07 AM
hmm, I think I may have to watch the Notebook now...that James Marsden is hotttttt...yummy. ;D oh wait, um it's a very touching and special movie.

I thought the main character was Ryan Gosling (Fracture, and All Good Things)......

Miss I.
04-09-2012, 11:13 AM
I thought the main character was Ryan Gosling (Fracture, and All Good Things)......

He is. James Marsden is the fiancee she dumps. Personally I think he's hotter. Much like Patrick Dempsey was the hotter dumped fiancee in Sweet Home Alabama...maybe I should watch both and have a hot dumped dudes marathon ;D

errand
04-09-2012, 11:15 AM
she kind of looks like Ralph Macchio...coincidence?

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/j/Joyce%20Hyser.jpg

She's the Man was a better girl disguised as a guy movie, and Amanda Bynes is attractive....but then again being a guy I prefer to see nice boobs if I have watch a so-so movie.....;D

Miss I.
04-09-2012, 11:17 AM
She's the Man was a better girl disguised as a guy movie, and Amanda Bynes is attractive....but then again being a guy I prefer to see nice boobs if I have watch a so-so movie.....;D

hmm, I liked Just One of the Guys. Never seen She's the Man, but not a big of fan of Amanda Bynes so that's probably why.

errand
04-09-2012, 11:20 AM
He is. James Marsden is the fiancee she dumps. Personally I think he's hotter. Much like Patrick Dempsey was the hotter dumped fiancee in Sweet Home Alabama...maybe I should watch both and have a hot dumped dudes marathon ;D

My daughters and you have same taste in leading men....they both loved Marsden as Corny Collins.....

errand
04-09-2012, 11:23 AM
hmm, I liked Just One of the Guys. Never seen She's the Man, but not a big of fan of Amanda Bynes so that's probably why.

Having two daughters I kind of have to watch movies like that.....but Amanda is pretty funny in it. My daughters liked that Channing guy who plays her love interest in it.

Miss I.
04-09-2012, 11:29 AM
Having two daughters I kind of have to watch movies like that.....but Amanda is pretty funny in it. My daughters liked that Channing guy who plays her love interest in it.

He's too blonde. This is also why I am not much of a fan of Ryan Gosling. He's decent actor with insane abs, but he's blonde. Blah. I lean towards the dark haired 90% of the time with the occasional brunette or red head. Patrick Dempsey, Gerard Butler, Eric decker, Clive Owen, Karl Urban are deeply yummy...and my favorite as Sir well knows is Henry Cavill...I think I would sign away my soul for that one...he's perfect, absolutely perfect (though I am sure he's a jackass like most actors, vain, stupid, arrogant, lol).

SonOfLe-loLang
04-09-2012, 11:30 AM
she kind of looks like Ralph Macchio...coincidence?

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/j/Joyce%20Hyser.jpg

I once was on a bathroom line next to her...was talking to her for a good 10 min before i realized who she was. Then promptly flipped out. I get starstruck by actress/actors from my youth. Justine Bateman? Check.

Miss I.
04-09-2012, 11:33 AM
I once was on a bathroom line next to her...was talking to her for a good 10 min before i realized who she was. Then promptly flipped out. I get starstruck by actress/actors from my youth. Justine Bateman? Check.

I get it. I get starstruck all the time. One time I was at Old Tucson when they were filming Young Guns II and like Keifer Sutherland and half the rest of the cast walked by me and I just sort of stood there and then about 30 seconds later I started bellowing like the dorky teenager I was for my friend, "Oh my Gawd, it's Keifer, Beth, it's Keifer!" He kept walking, but he was laughing.

And then well, I saw Russell Crowe in Austin Texas and I just stood awkwardly off to the side while my friend talked to him. He was very nice, but I was completely freaked out and could not make eye contact. Very embarrassing, though I supposed I didn't yell, oh my gawd it's russell crowe.

myMind
04-09-2012, 11:37 AM
I Am Legend is another one. The book is quite good. Last human on a planet ravaged by vampires who are terrified of the sole remaining human, not Zombie/mutants.

And LOTR irked me a bit too. Sauruman and Wormtongue dont just fade away like they do in the movie. That was BS. My brother did not believe me about what the Hobbits come home to until I showed him the book.

:Broncos:

LoTR is one of the best adaptations ever made IMO, would you have rather have them add another half hour to RotK? Leaving out the scouring of the shire is a minimal faux pax.

I also hated the I Am Legend adaptation. It pisses me off when they completely change a character just to make a blockbuster vehicle for a superstar. I mean, the character was an older, burley, bearded german fellow...not Will Smith.

Archer81
04-09-2012, 12:26 PM
LoTR is one of the best adaptations ever made IMO, would you have rather have them add another half hour to RotK? Leaving out the scouring of the shire is a minimal faux pax.

I also hated the I Am Legend adaptation. It pisses me off when they completely change a character just to make a blockbuster vehicle for a superstar. I mean, the character was an older, burley, bearded german fellow...not Will Smith.


I understood why they cut out the scouring of the shire. Just made little sense to me. Everywhere else on middle earth is changed forever except the Shire? Kind of weak, IMO. But I do agree that LOTR was a good book to movie translation.

I think I am a book purist. If too much of a movie based on a book is different, I am incapable of fully enjoying the flick. That was not the case when I was younger.

:Broncos:

Miss I.
04-09-2012, 12:38 PM
I get it. Am not as much a fan of true blood now that I've read the books. Granted the book aren't great but I hate how stupid sookie is becoming on the show and tho I love Alexander skaarsgard they are ruining Eric

Archer81
04-09-2012, 12:45 PM
I get it. Am not as much a fan of true blood now that I've read the books. Granted the book aren't great but I hate how stupid sookie is becoming on the show and tho I love Alexander skaarsgard they are ruining Eric


I agree about True Blood. Ah, Eric.


:Broncos:

extralife
04-09-2012, 12:51 PM
Yes.

The book is weak. It is depressing and not well told IMO.

I prefer the Greek view that theater should be cathartic. When the good guy loses and you go home, your left to kick the dog.

you realize that every extant piece of greek drama is horribly depressing (in modern terms), right? I don't think you know what cathartic means.

Miss I.
04-09-2012, 12:52 PM
I agree about True Blood. Ah, Eric.


:Broncos:

He be the only blonde I want to shag. He's so beautiful

bendog
04-09-2012, 12:55 PM
I'm not sure Denathor could translate to the screen. Tolkien used the character to explore the effects of evil (plagerism) but it was really more. Remember Tolkien wrote much of this, and had the whole thing outlined, in the late 30s and the inital WWII debacle of Britain. Denathor was initially a strong man and steward of the failing Gondor. He used the plantir (intelligence) and saw the overwhelming superiority of the enemy, then his favored son, who was morally flawed, was killed and succeeded by the more abled Farimer, who hangs out with a band of guys sort of like Royal Commandos, and who is then wounded and taken as mortally wounded ....

All that drives Denathor nuts.

The book can go into that detail, but it's a story in itself. The movie was pretty cool in that the Nazgul did sort of look like Stukas.

errand
04-09-2012, 01:34 PM
I once was on a bathroom line next to her...was talking to her for a good 10 min before i realized who she was. Then promptly flipped out. I get starstruck by actress/actors from my youth. Justine Bateman? Check.

Should have asked her to show you her boobs...lol

SonOfLe-loLang
04-09-2012, 03:44 PM
Should have asked her to show you her boobs...lol

Where do you get off havin tits!

SonOfLe-loLang
04-09-2012, 03:45 PM
Where do you get off havin boobies!

ha! I had no clue it automatically changed the T word to boobies.