Friday OT #2 - It Was the Worst of Times

[Angie]

Thanks to @Sigmapolis for this thread idea!

What movies are better than the origin book?

I really, really liked the book of The Princess Bride - but the movie just may be better. What are yours?

 

[houjix]

Jurassic Park. The book was good, but as with most Crichton books, the technical mumbo jumbo can weigh down the story. While Mr. DNA in the film probably goes a bit to far the other way, the rest of the changes I thought were for the better.

 

[matclone]

The Wizard of Oz comes to mind. L. Frank Baum probably didn't know Bert Lahr, Judy Garland, Margaret Hamilton, or the Over the Rainbow song.

 

[Pat]

Fight Club. Which is weird, because the movie sticks very closely to the novel, but somehow - dunno, maybe the addition of Norton, Pitt, Bonham-Carter, Loaf, and Fincher - the movie is just vastly superior.

 

[Cyclonscin]

Does Band of Brothers count?

The book is great, and much more educational, but the show was expertly done.

 

[cytor]

I'm gonna struggle with this one. I read a lot of books and the movie versions never hold up.

 

[Angie]

Fight Club. Which is weird, because the movie sticks very closely to the novel, but somehow - dunno, maybe the addition of Norton, Pitt, Bonham-Carter, Loaf, and Fincher - the movie is just vastly superior.

I debated that one. I absolutely love Chuck Palahniuk, but the ending of the movie was better than his.

 

[Mr Janny]

Heart of Darkness

When I found out that Apocalypse Now was based on a book, I immediately set out to read it. But my God is it a slog. And then I somehow convinced myself that it couldn't be that bad, and maybe I just needed to read it again, a few years later, so I went back to it, and it didn't improve the second time around.

 

[ImJustKCClone]

Jaws. The book was good, don't get me wrong. But the intensity of the John Williams' musical score and Spielberg's direction were just so much better.

And the changes they made to Hooper's character arc were an improvement, IMO. There was no affair with Ellen Brody, and he survives the attack on the shark cage at the end of the film.

 

[Mr Janny]

Jaws. The book was good, don't get me wrong. But the intensity of the John Williams' musical score and Spielberg's direction were just so much better.

And the changes they made to Hooper's character arc were an improvement, IMO. There was no affair with Ellen Brody, and he survives the attack on the shark cage at the end of the film.

Not just the affair, but the unnecessarily graphic depiction of the affair... and Ellen Brody's even more graphic fantasies about the affair.

I remember reading it and thinking "Can we please go back to the shark?"

 

[ImJustKCClone]

Heart of Darkness

When I found out that Apocalypse Now was based on a book, I immediately set out to read it. But my God is it a slog. And then I somehow convinced myself that it couldn't be that bad, and maybe I just needed to read it again, a few years later, so I went back to it, and it didn't improve the second time around.

That was an assignment back in high school. I remember very little about the book, except to say I have probably never taken longer to read a book. Now, if I don't like a book, I stop reading it. Back then, I HAD to finish it.

 

[dahliaclone]

Shawshank and No Country For Old Men

 

[Mr Janny]

Starship Troopers

When I was young and stupid, and didn't understand satire, I thought this was the other way around. But Paul Verhoeven pulled an incredibly slick trick with the source material, which takes itself pretty seriously, to the point of being criticized as military/fascist propaganda, by heavily leaning into it, until it becomes ridiculous. I sort of doubt Heinlein would have appreciated it.

 

[Entropy]

I'd argue that the Godfather movie is better than the book. It removes a whole bunch of side stories that aren't all that interesting, including a whole section on surgery of female anatomy.

 

[GMackey32]

Shawshank. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

 

[Mr Janny]

I'd argue that the Godfather movie is better than the book. It removes a whole bunch of side stories that aren't all that interesting, including a whole section on surgery of female anatomy.

Agreed. The entire Lucy Mancini story arc was strange and unnecessary.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Jurassic Park. The book was good, but as with most Crichton books, the technical mumbo jumbo can weigh down the story. While Mr. DNA in the film probably goes a bit to far the other way, the rest of the changes I thought were for the better.

Quoting myself about the improvements Spielberg and David Koepp made to the characters and stories relative to the (enjoyable) Crichton novel, which has unlikable characters and a meandering story...

I've read the book 2-3 times now throughout my life. I have to say I prefer the film.

It is rare that I would say something like that, but the film is much more tightly plotted (mostly for completely excising that anticlimactic hunt for the raptor nest that goes nowhere) and for improving (most) of the characters/cutting unneeded ones. Just to go through a small list of them...

Grant doesn't have much of an arc in the book. The film, he goes from "I hate kids" to protecting Tim and Lex with his life (shielding them with his body before Rexy takes out the raptor) and, through implication before the sequels come around and screw it up, his readiness to have a family with Ellie.

Book Ellie was more dynamic -- but a small difference.

Book Malcolm is pompous without the suave charm that Goldblum brought to the part without losing any of the philosophical depth. The film also made the wise decision to keep him alive.

Book Hammond is a generic corporate *******. Movie Hammond is an allegory of Walt Disney and what can go wrong when dreamers dream too big -- the perfect foil to Goldblum's Malcolm. He has depth. You sympathize with him wanting to do something wonderful and his plight when it fails.

Muldoon in the book is a drunk *******. Movie Muldoon is the one character besides Malcolm who seems to appreciate the danger but takes it seriously, unlike Malcolm with his snide comments.

Gennaro in the book is one too many characters. Film Gennaro is an appropriate composite.

Nedry in the book is a greedy *******. Nedry in the film is a funny greedy *******. Wayne Knight was some inspired casting for that role. His few scenes with Attenborough are great.

So yeah -- even after being terrified as a child, I think the film is better.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Heart of Darkness

When I found out that Apocalypse Now was based on a book, I immediately set out to read it. But my God is it a slog. And then I somehow convinced myself that it couldn't be that bad, and maybe I just needed to read it again, a few years later, so I went back to it, and it didn't improve the second time around.

While talking about war movies based on literature...

The Seven Pillars of Wisdom (the autobiography of T.E. Lawrence) is a great read. Its 1962 adaptation by David Lean, Lawrence of Arabia, is one of the great films ever made and my all-time favorite.

Gone with the Wind the novel is a slog that goes on forever and, oh boy, if you think the film was "problematic" for obvious reasons, one should multiply that by a factor of ten or 20 (or more!) for the novel. The film is still long and has uncomfortable moments, but compared to the book it "fixes" these. Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable's performances are ones for the ages, and the effects, story, and soundtrack all hold up.

Starship Troopers

When I was young and stupid, and didn't understand satire, I thought this was the other way around. But Paul Verhoeven pulled an incredibly slick trick with the source material, which takes itself pretty seriously, to the point of being criticized as military/fascist propaganda, by heavily leaning into it, until it becomes ridiculous. I sort of doubt Heinlein would have appreciated it.

I like both the novel and the film equally. They're hard to compare because Verhoeven doesn't even pretend to honor the source material. Which is fine and great -- the film that eventually emerged, like many of his works, is a fun bit of violent mayhem but also one of the most intelligent satires of all time.

If you read through Heinlein's other works, he had a very strong appreciation for irony. I think he would have seen it the way we do: "This isn't my book. But that's okay. What's here stands on its own."

Another one like that is Blade Runner. It is only vaguely reminiscent of the **** novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, but it takes its unique setting and essential ideas and tightens it to perfection. There are a lot of novels and short stories by Phillip K. **** that could fall into the same category. Total Recall is a much better film (and yes, the one with Arnold Schwarzenegger) than We Can Remember It for You Wholesale.

 

[CtownCyclone]

Shawshank and No Country For Old Men

Shawshank is one of the few Stephen King stories where the movie is better. Usually films based on his books are trainwrecks.

 

[BuffettClone]

Shawshank is one of the few Stephen King stories where the movie is better. Usually films based on his books are trainwrecks.

I would probably throw Stand By Me in the same category too