Jump to content

Anybody else think movie adaptations suck?


southernjim
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jan 11 2009, 09:19 PM)
QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Jan 11 2009, 06:56 PM)
QUOTE (Prince Sphinc-Tor @ Jan 11 2009, 06:01 PM)
QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jan 11 2009, 05:30 PM)
Does anyone read anything besides Horror and Sci-Fi/Fantasy?  confused13.gif

I read posts on TRF.

 

I also read history, and non-fiction, A Bridge Too Far was a good movie although if they made an exact movie on that book, it would have been 150 hours long.

laugh.gif Very true! Remember that Cornelius Ryan also wrote The Longest Day so if you liked Bridge you should read that one, too.

 

GR, I think that most members here do. It seems that Rush attracts the sci-fi/fantasy crowd. I've read some sci-fi and a couple of books that would qualify as modern-day fantasy but I'm by no means an aficianado.

Yeah, I've read some, too... especially in my teens. I was a big Tolkien head, and I... I... I played D&D. blush4.gif

 

Me too...I still...have my...monstermanualplayershandbookanddungeonmastersguide. blush4.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Jan 11 2009, 06:56 PM)
QUOTE (Prince Sphinc-Tor @ Jan 11 2009, 06:01 PM)
QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jan 11 2009, 05:30 PM)
Does anyone read anything besides Horror and Sci-Fi/Fantasy?  confused13.gif

I read posts on TRF.

 

I also read history, and non-fiction, A Bridge Too Far was a good movie although if they made an exact movie on that book, it would have been 150 hours long.

laugh.gif Very true! Remember that Cornelius Ryan also wrote The Longest Day so if you liked Bridge you should read that one, too.

 

I probably should as I have not yet.

 

Steven A. Ambrose had a string of some good books on WWII and I read most of them although they did become somewhat repetitious with some oral accounts appearing in several of the books. But for all intents and purposes they were very good.

 

He also wrote a great book on The Corp of Discover AKA Lewis and Clark expedition called Undaunted Courage.

 

I also just finished Artie Langes autobiography (you can see him in my signature on the left) Too Fat To Fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jan 10 2009, 06:17 PM)
I'm actually surprised at the number of films I can say were GOOD adaptations!

For years, the word on every movie was "the book was much better," but then I saw several films which were VERY FAITHFUL to the book, such as "The Accidental Tourist," "Snow Falling on Cedars," "House of Sand and Fog," "The DaVinci Code," and others.

I just finished "Snow Falling On Cedars" back in september... I'd love to see the movie smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Cygnalschick @ Jan 12 2009, 12:09 AM)
QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jan 10 2009, 06:17 PM)
I'm actually surprised at the number of films I can say were GOOD adaptations! 

For years, the word on every movie was "the book was much better," but then I saw several films which were VERY FAITHFUL to the book, such as "The Accidental Tourist," "Snow Falling on Cedars," "House of Sand and Fog," "The DaVinci Code," and others.

I just finished "Snow Falling On Cedars" back in september... I'd love to see the movie smile.gif

The book was better. tongue.gif

 

No, seriously, it was. But I'll still use it as an example of how movies can remain faithful to the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think LOTR is the only good book adaptation to come out lately I'm sure there are old movies that did a good job staying true to books.

 

Hopefully Zach Snyder (who is a genius director) doesn't screw up Watchmen. I have high hopes for that movie.

 

Also, the new tv series Legend of the Seeker (which follows the Sword of Truth Series) while entertaining, is doing a horrible job of following the story of the books. It is bad enough that Sam Raimi had to ruin Spiderman, why did he have to ruin my favorite books.

 

QUOTE
Have you seen the Sci Fi Channels's Dune miniseries? It's fantastic!Please check it out and you won't be disappointed as it's very
faithful to the book.

 

Not only have I seen it I actually bought it for 5 dollars at a random gas station in Indiana on my way home from Florida. And you are right it is very faithful to the books.

Edited by AnalogKid15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the positive side of film adaptations, I recall that someone did a decent job with Mario Puzo's "The Godfather".

 

 

wink.gif

 

 

And the story of the kid who gives everything away and ends up in Alaska was better than the book, I thought (Into the Wild?).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (goose @ Jan 19 2009, 04:01 AM)
On the positive side of film adaptations, I recall that someone did a decent job with Mario Puzo's "The Godfather".


wink.gif


The Hannibal Lecter series was also given very faithful film adaptations. (Didn't read or see the last.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jan 19 2009, 07:56 AM)
QUOTE (goose @ Jan 19 2009, 04:01 AM)
On the positive side of film adaptations, I recall that someone did a decent job with Mario Puzo's "The Godfather".


wink.gif


The Hannibal Lecter series was also given very faithful film adaptations. (Didn't read or see the last.)

When I first saw Hopkins as Hannibal I thought he was too old for the part and i totally didn't see him as Lector, but he made the part his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 19 2009, 02:46 PM)
QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jan 19 2009, 07:56 AM)
QUOTE (goose @ Jan 19 2009, 04:01 AM)
On the positive side of film adaptations, I recall that someone did a decent job with Mario Puzo's "The Godfather".


wink.gif


The Hannibal Lecter series was also given very faithful film adaptations. (Didn't read or see the last.)

When I first saw Hopkins as Hannibal I thought he was too old for the part and i totally didn't see him as Lector, but he made the part his own.

Nope, they wrecked the ending on the second one. Completely re-wrote it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Mara @ Jan 19 2009, 07:44 PM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 19 2009, 02:46 PM)
QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jan 19 2009, 07:56 AM)
QUOTE (goose @ Jan 19 2009, 04:01 AM)
On the positive side of film adaptations, I recall that someone did a decent job with Mario Puzo's "The Godfather".


wink.gif


The Hannibal Lecter series was also given very faithful film adaptations. (Didn't read or see the last.)

When I first saw Hopkins as Hannibal I thought he was too old for the part and i totally didn't see him as Lector, but he made the part his own.

Nope, they wrecked the ending on the second one. Completely re-wrote it.

In their eagerness to get the bucks rolling for the film version of Hannibal the studio people practically camped outside Harris's door until he was finished the manuscript and then they went and changed it anyway.

 

I've still not read Harris's Hannibal prequel yet though I have the book. So obviously I've not seen the film either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 19 2009, 07:49 PM)
QUOTE (Mara @ Jan 19 2009, 07:44 PM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 19 2009, 02:46 PM)
QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jan 19 2009, 07:56 AM)
QUOTE (goose @ Jan 19 2009, 04:01 AM)
On the positive side of film adaptations, I recall that someone did a decent job with Mario Puzo's "The Godfather".


wink.gif


The Hannibal Lecter series was also given very faithful film adaptations. (Didn't read or see the last.)

When I first saw Hopkins as Hannibal I thought he was too old for the part and i totally didn't see him as Lector, but he made the part his own.

Nope, they wrecked the ending on the second one. Completely re-wrote it.

In their eagerness to get the bucks rolling for the film version of Hannibal the studio people practically camped outside Harris's door until he was finished the manuscript and then they went and changed it anyway.

 

I've still not read Harris's Hannibal prequel yet though I have the book. So obviously I've not seen the film either...

Is that Red Dragon you refer to? I've seen all three films but have read none of the books. Would they be worth reading - meaning is there anything in the story or style that is compelling enough to merit the time I'd invest, seeing as I've seen the films?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (goose @ Jan 19 2009, 09:35 PM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 19 2009, 07:49 PM)
QUOTE (Mara @ Jan 19 2009, 07:44 PM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 19 2009, 02:46 PM)
QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jan 19 2009, 07:56 AM)
QUOTE (goose @ Jan 19 2009, 04:01 AM)
On the positive side of film adaptations, I recall that someone did a decent job with Mario Puzo's "The Godfather".


wink.gif


The Hannibal Lecter series was also given very faithful film adaptations. (Didn't read or see the last.)

When I first saw Hopkins as Hannibal I thought he was too old for the part and i totally didn't see him as Lector, but he made the part his own.

Nope, they wrecked the ending on the second one. Completely re-wrote it.

In their eagerness to get the bucks rolling for the film version of Hannibal the studio people practically camped outside Harris's door until he was finished the manuscript and then they went and changed it anyway.

 

I've still not read Harris's Hannibal prequel yet though I have the book. So obviously I've not seen the film either...

Is that Red Dragon you refer to? I've seen all three films but have read none of the books. Would they be worth reading - meaning is there anything in the story or style that is compelling enough to merit the time I'd invest, seeing as I've seen the films?

Red Dragon is the first book in the Hannibal series and it's the best, not only that it's one of the best suspense novels of all time. Get it ASAP. The Lambs is almost as good but it won't be as effective if you know the plot through the film, but it's still worth reading, it's probably the weakest of the main three novels though. Hannibal is great too, much better than the film, with a better ending, reads more like sophisticated horror novel than a thriller.

 

So get all those and try not to see Anthony Hopkins in your head as Hannibal, he looks nothing like him going off Harris's descriptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (goose @ Jan 19 2009, 09:35 PM)
I've seen all three films but have read none of the books. Would they be worth reading - meaning is there anything in the story or style that is compelling enough to merit the time I'd invest, seeing as I've seen the films?

Hey, I'm a fan of the books, but I'd tell you not to bother. If you've seen the films, that's enough. This was my point all along: the films are very close to the novels.

 

And not to knock him too badly, but Harris isn't some kind of stellar writer... so no, you wouldn't be missing any "style" by skipping his books. It's all about story with him, and if you already know the stories from the movies, why bother reading him? My opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 20 2009, 03:39 AM)
Red Dragon is the first book in the Hannibal series and it's the best, not only that it's one of the best suspense novels of all time. Get it ASAP. The Lambs is almost as good but it won't be as effective if you know the plot through the film, but it's still worth reading, it's probably the weakest of the main three novels though. Hannibal is great too, much better than the film, with a better ending, reads more like sophisticated horror novel than a thriller.

So get all those and try not to see Anthony Hopkins in your head as Hannibal, he looks nothing like him going off Harris's descriptions.

"Hannibal," both the book and the film, sucked in my opinion, and I know I'm not alone among Lecter fans. You liked the ending of the book??? Personally, I joined the crowd of readers who protested: "Clarice wouldn't do that!"

 

"Red Dragon" and "Silence of the Lambs" were the best ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jan 20 2009, 06:36 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 20 2009, 03:39 AM)
Red Dragon is the first book in the Hannibal series and it's the best, not only that it's one of the best suspense novels of all time. Get it ASAP. The Lambs is almost as good but it won't be as effective if you know the plot through the film, but it's still worth reading, it's probably the weakest of the main three novels though. Hannibal is great too, much better than the film, with a better ending, reads more like sophisticated horror novel than a thriller.

So get all those and try not to see Anthony Hopkins in your head as Hannibal, he looks nothing like him going off Harris's descriptions.

"Hannibal," both the book and the film, sucked in my opinion, and I know I'm not alone among Lecter fans. You liked the ending of the book??? Personally, I joined the crowd of readers who protested: "Clarice wouldn't do that!"

 

"Red Dragon" and "Silence of the Lambs" were the best ones.

No, I didn't think Clarice would have done what Harris had her do. Or if she did, Harris did a poor job of developing her character to where that ending would've been believable.

It pretty much put the blocks to any more sequels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jan 20 2009, 06:30 AM)
QUOTE (goose @ Jan 19 2009, 09:35 PM)
I've seen all three films but have read none of the books.  Would they be worth reading - meaning is there anything in the story or style that is compelling enough to merit the time I'd invest, seeing as I've seen the films?

Hey, I'm a fan of the books, but I'd tell you not to bother. If you've seen the films, that's enough. This was my point all along: the films are very close to the novels.

 

And not to knock him too badly, but Harris isn't some kind of stellar writer... so no, you wouldn't be missing any "style" by skipping his books. It's all about story with him, and if you already know the stories from the movies, why bother reading him? My opinion.

I dunno what you mean by stellar writer, Harris is what he is, an excellent suspense author, one of the best. I didn't make any other proclamation. However I find it puzzling that you think an author has to be "some kind of stellar writer" to surpass the average hollywood film or even a celebrated one.

 

And I disagree with your opinion btw, though that won't be too much of a surprise to you.

 

So goose, do yourself a favour and get Harris! Don't listen to GR!!

 

1287.gif biggrin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upon urging by a close friend, I saw Paul Thomas Anderson's 'There Will be Blood' this past week. The film stars Daniel Day-Lewis; the actor who scared the living bejezus out of me in Gangs of New York is equally powerful and intimidating in this role....Unusual as it may seem, all planets must have aligned for Mr. DDL on Oscar Night, because he deservingly walked away with the gold statute for his work as the lead here. The 'running time' of this film is probably the project's worst enemy, and, possibly, it's only real downfall. The film clocks in somewhere around two and half hours and you definitely feel every single minute of that time passing by. It's a very slow moving film. But, this type of deliberate pacing is mostly purposeful, and it goes exceedingly far in facilitating a very dark, foreboding tone; one which builds quite naturally and consistenly, like a downward rolling snowball....of course, one with venemous, gnashing teeth. There's also an intentional, overarching quite-ness to the whole film which makes those scenes with deliberate human interaction even that more intense for their unexpected and adroit punctuation.

 

One observation that I made about halfway through this release was that because of TWBB's quite nature and slow pacing, the movie really could have benifitted by the use of 'narration' at some carefully placed intervals. The more I thought about the need for this, the more I was certain that this story couldn't have been written as an original work, something specifically written for the screen...Several cues gave indication that this was an adaptation from someone's long forgotten novel. My suspicion was later confirmed when I learned that TWBB was based on an old Upton Sinclair novel. This knowledge made me even more confident in my assertion that TWBB would have been greatly assisted by the perk of being able to peer inside the characters' minds and hear some story-pertinent thoughts....especially those of the DDL lead. I feel that more exposition was possible with all the hollow and hanging air left in between scenes, and therefore, should have been ornamented with a bit more dialogue.

 

Daniel Day-Lewis plays the character of Daniel Plainview, an aggressively driven oil investor, who, we quickly learn, is not a guy to be crossed...not ever But, this already scary character could have been made even more compelling if the audience were to be afforded a bit more of the character's backstory. The movie gets some of that backstory across to us in the vessel of the character impersonating his brother. Both, in the form of the character's tales, and in Plainview's reply and suspicion of them. But, this con-man is introduced too late in film, leaving ample room for the introduction of another device or character earlier on, with the same basic intent. Paul Dano, in the role of the Preacher, gives a performance to rival DDL's. And, the scenes shared between them are definitely the highlights of this film. I would have liked to see even more screen time for this young Dano. Aside from a few of minor grievances, the film is worth seeing. At least, in two installments, with an intermission smack dab in the middle. The final scene set in the bowling alley is a solidly poignant and revealing look at Plainview's true nature, his beliefs and internal observations, which are somewhat concealed up until this point. The Preacher's weak nature is revealed to be even more so during the finale, but still, undeserving of his fate. A fairly good movie that probably would have been better left alone and laid to rest as a novel.

 

Edited by naturalsciences101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 10 2009, 09:21 PM)
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a major standout for me of successful movie adaptations, especially considering they were for so long considered "unfilmable."

Most of the times I've read a book and then seen the movie, though, I've been anywhere from slightly disappointed to extremely disappointed.

what's really cool is if you listen to the director's commentary on the DVDs for LOTR........ Pete Jackson goes into depth in what and why he left out of the movie.......

 

He explained his omissions and the reasons he gave for those emissions made a lot of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (The Owl @ Feb 2 2009, 12:42 PM)
QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 10 2009, 09:21 PM)
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a major standout for me of successful movie adaptations, especially considering they were for so long considered "unfilmable." 

Most of the times I've read a book and then seen the movie, though, I've been anywhere from slightly disappointed to extremely disappointed.

what's really cool is if you listen to the director's commentary on the DVDs for LOTR........ Pete Jackson goes into depth in what and why he left out of the movie.......

 

He explained his omissions and the reasons he gave for those emissions made a lot of sense.

I haven't heard Jackson's commentary, but it totally made sense to me that he left out that early chapter of "Fellowship" with Tom Bombadil. I wouldn't have filmed that, either. I mean, it's only one chapter, the character never appears in the trilogy again, and nothing happens in the chapter that moves the story forward. It's just a pointless "comic relief" kind of chapter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember that my former roommates, who were huge Tolkien fans, were rather irked about the omission of Bombadil, and the re-write of the events at Helm's Deep. I told them at the time that if Jackson had stayed true to the story, each movie would have been at least *four* hours long and there would have been at least five of them. There is no way that any director could make movies of that length and number and still keep the audience interested. Jackson, while making an epic trilogy, he was running up against the clock the whole time.

 

Jackson did a great job, considering that I have tried to read Tolkien on at least two or three occasions and his over-description of things killed my interest each and every time.

 

And don;t be embarrassed about D&D. To one extent or another we're pretty much all geeks here. I still play it to this day, and I started back in 1981.

Edited by Rendclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jan 20 2009, 06:36 AM)
QUOTE (treeduck @ Jan 20 2009, 03:39 AM)
Red Dragon is the first book in the Hannibal series and it's the best, not only that it's one of the best suspense novels of all time. Get it ASAP. The Lambs is almost as good but it won't be as effective if you know the plot through the film, but it's still worth reading, it's probably the weakest of the main three novels though. Hannibal is great too, much better than the film, with a better ending, reads more like sophisticated horror novel than a thriller.

So get all those and try not to see Anthony Hopkins in your head as Hannibal, he looks nothing like him going off Harris's descriptions.

"Hannibal," both the book and the film, sucked in my opinion, and I know I'm not alone among Lecter fans. You liked the ending of the book??? Personally, I joined the crowd of readers who protested: "Clarice wouldn't do that!"

 

"Red Dragon" and "Silence of the Lambs" were the best ones.

Red Dragon was a great movie. I bought the book about two months ago and never finished it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Feb 2 2009, 02:57 PM)
QUOTE (The Owl @ Feb 2 2009, 12:42 PM)
QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 10 2009, 09:21 PM)
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a major standout for me of successful movie adaptations, especially considering they were for so long considered "unfilmable." 

Most of the times I've read a book and then seen the movie, though, I've been anywhere from slightly disappointed to extremely disappointed.

what's really cool is if you listen to the director's commentary on the DVDs for LOTR........ Pete Jackson goes into depth in what and why he left out of the movie.......

 

He explained his omissions and the reasons he gave for those emissions made a lot of sense.

I haven't heard Jackson's commentary, but it totally made sense to me that he left out that early chapter of "Fellowship" with Tom Bombadil. I wouldn't have filmed that, either. I mean, it's only one chapter, the character never appears in the trilogy again, and nothing happens in the chapter that moves the story forward. It's just a pointless "comic relief" kind of chapter.

Yeah...without a doubt the best thing Jackson could have done was to leave out Bombadil...hated the character in the books and glad there was mention of him...although I really liked the parts immediately afterward on the Barrow Downs and that was deleted, but the movies was fine without that part as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'The Legend of Bagger Vance'.

 

The movie completely missed the point of the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about how long it takes to read the average 300-500 page novel. Usually a lot more than 90 or so minutes I would expect. Then, compare your boundless imagination with the tools and effects directors actually have at their disposal. These factors seem to be the biggest reason adaptations tend to disapoint. This is why all of the movies based on Hemingway books failed. The book was always ten times better than the movie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...