Book ----> Film

Moderators: Jason, Toothy, Tonyblack

Book ----> Film

Postby Bouncy Castle » Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:29 pm

I know that most books are way better than any movie that is made of them, but I've just finished reading a book that would make a lot more sense if it was actually a movie - The Haunting of James Hastings.

Mind you, this write-up doesn't seem to think so!

http://totalscifionline.com/reviews/523 ... s-hastings

Can any of you think of any books that would have been better as movies?
Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them.

The rest of us are a bit crap.
User avatar
Bouncy Castle
Member
 
Posts: 12048
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:08 pm
Location: London

Postby michelanCello » Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:26 pm

Well, not would-have-been, but is:
Forrest Gump! (I didn't like the book at all, but the movie is one of my favorites)
Listen.
User avatar
michelanCello
Member
 
Posts: 8753
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:08 pm
Location: Budapest, Hungary (and yes, I'm sure it's Budapest, not Bucharest)

Postby BatrickPatrick » Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:39 pm

I can't think of any would-have-been's either, but I think Twilight was a better movie than book (didn't make it a good movie though >.>)

I liked the movie of Fight Club more than I liked the book, though that could have been because the book doesn't have Helena Bonham Carter in it ;) and because I'd seen the movie first so there wasn't really any suspense.

I agree about Forest Gump, though I've only flicked through the book I don't think I'd like it as much as the movie.

I think the only other movies that I liked more than the book would be Cold Mountain, Trainspotting (read the book first) and Atonement.
Fus Ro Dah!
User avatar
BatrickPatrick
Member
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:45 pm
Location: Sweet Transsexual, land of night...

Postby raisindot » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:15 pm

I can think of a few.

"The Godfather" was much, much, better than Mario Puzo's potboiler novel.

"Jaws" the movie was ten times better than the book, even if it looks incredibly dated today.

"The Silence of the Lambs" I would also say is better than the book (it's better than all three of the Hannibal Lecter books put together).

"Gone with the Wind" is a much better movie than the horribly dated book upon which it was based.

J-I-B
raisindot
Member
 
Posts: 3219
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:28 pm
Location: Boston, MA USA

Postby Dotsie » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:46 pm

The Princess Bride. Read the book, which had some slightly confusing chapters that were much better done in the film, as the Grandfather/Grandson scenes.
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
User avatar
Dotsie
Member
 
Posts: 9413
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:07 am

Postby michelanCello » Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:24 pm

raisindot wrote:"The Godfather" was much, much, better than Mario Puzo's potboiler novel.


Got to disagree here. I'm a huge Godfather fan, and I think they made a really good movie out of a really good book/story.

raisindot wrote:"Gone with the Wind" is a much better movie than the horribly dated book upon which it was based.


And not to mention the sequels... :roll: I didn't like it at all (neither the movie, nor the book)... a friend of mine admires Scarlett, but I think she's just a spoiled rich girl, who doesn't care about anyone but herself... She deserved to be left by the captain (although I don't understand how he could marry her...)
Listen.
User avatar
michelanCello
Member
 
Posts: 8753
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:08 pm
Location: Budapest, Hungary (and yes, I'm sure it's Budapest, not Bucharest)

Postby Penfold » Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:55 am

I'm probably going to get jumped on for this but I always found the majority of movies based on Stephen King's novels more enjoyable than the books themselves ("It", being a notable exception). :wink:
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.
10
User avatar
Penfold
Member
 
Posts: 7227
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:59 am
Location: Worthing

Postby fords » Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:18 am

I'd agree with that actually Penfold. Carrie and The Shining in particular worked better as films I thought.
User avatar
fords
Member
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:01 am
Location: East Lothian, Scotland

Postby Tonyblack » Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:26 am

fords wrote:I'd agree with that actually Penfold. Carrie and The Shining in particular worked better as films I thought.
And Stand By Me and Shawshank Redemption. :wink:
"Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to."
User avatar
Tonyblack
Moderator
 
Posts: 29018
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:29 pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Postby chris.ph » Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:42 pm

cujo :D
measuring intelligence by exam results is like measuring digestion by turd length
User avatar
chris.ph
Member
 
Posts: 8678
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:52 am
Location: swansea south wales

Postby Sjoerd3000 » Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:23 pm

and the green mile
A poster outside one shop urged people to Dig For Victory, as if it were some kind of turnip.
User avatar
Sjoerd3000
Member
 
Posts: 8797
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:23 pm
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands

Postby Danny B » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:09 pm

I'd put forward The Warriors as an example of a film adaptation that's far superior to the novel, by Sol Yurick, it's based on.

I've also got my wife talking over my shoulder and saying the same thing about The Wanderers, but I disagree with her on that one since I think the novel, by Richard Price, is far better.

EDIT TO GET BACK ON TOPIC:- Having just read the first entry properly, I'd say that everything James Patterson has written would fall into the category of "Would make a better film, than a book." I enjoyed the two Alex Cross films (Kiss the Girls and Along Came a Spider), but I find his books to be very bland and lacking in tension.
Carpe carpio*

* Correction - Carpio diem
User avatar
Danny B
Member
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:55 am
Location: Northumberland, UK

Postby poohcarrot » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:15 pm

Because in the book Warriors they're all about 11 years old. :roll:
"Disliking Carrot would be like kicking a puppy."
"You kicked a puppy," Lobsang said accusingly.
User avatar
poohcarrot
Member
 
Posts: 10425
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:11 pm
Location: NOT The land of the risen Son!!

Postby Dotsie » Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:04 am

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the LOTR trilogy was much better as films :shock: Yeah, Jan'll get me, but I just found the books a bit dry with too many wierd bits, and an ending that I thought would never happen. The second book in particular was improved.

I'm not saying that the books were bad. I just wouldn't be tempted to read them again.
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
User avatar
Dotsie
Member
 
Posts: 9413
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:07 am

Postby michelanCello » Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 am

Tonyblack wrote:
fords wrote:I'd agree with that actually Penfold. Carrie and The Shining in particular worked better as films I thought.
And Stand By Me and Shawshank Redemption. :wink:


Shawshank's my favorite... :wink:
Listen.
User avatar
michelanCello
Member
 
Posts: 8753
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:08 pm
Location: Budapest, Hungary (and yes, I'm sure it's Budapest, not Bucharest)

Next

Return to Non-Discworld books

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest