Figure you guys more often than not prefer the book over the movie but any instances where the movie was better?
On the topic, just launched a website for the purpose of aggregating the consensus on particular titles, so sign up and weigh in on a few if you're inclined. :) Maybe it can evolve into a useful resource some day.
Other urls found in this thread:
coursehero.com
bookormovie.net
twitter.com
Godfather
Forrest Gump (one of the worst books I've ever read)
The Guns of Navarone
Special mention: Band of Brothers
Ah Godfather, haven't read the book but hard to imagine it being better. I tend to hear Fight Club a lot as well.
You could say The Martian is better, but whatever.
The movie Arrival was better than the short story, I thought.
American Psycho can stand next to the book confidently imo...
I had a couple of good examples when I made a thread like this a few months ago, but now I cant remember them damn.
>American Psycho can stand next to the book confidently imo...
Heard the book was a lot more extreme.
The Wicker Man - the book came after
The Shining
Solaris
Woman in the Dunes
Nosferatu
Red Dragon
Silence of the Lambs
Pretty much every movie you didn't know was once a book
Some parts are bit more extreme, the details can also be more fine. But they achieve the same goals and to the same quality, imo.
If the movie can be better that just means the book wasn't very good in the first place. Imagine trying to make a film adaption of Proust, Moby Dick or Ulysses; they utilize the medium to it's fullest
dumb poster ^
If someone says Blade Runner I'm going to flip out.
DO NOT READ The Godfather. I read it because Part I and II are two of my favorite movies of all time. DO NOT make the same mistake. There's a whole subplot in the book about a doctor surgically tightening a woman's cunt for fucks sake.
that's hot desu
>ur dumb
Back to /tv/
no dumb ass
It really isn't, and just in case anyone thinks I made that up:
coursehero.com
Blade Runner is a million times better than the shitty novel.
Blade Runner
Bladerunner is only better in its filmic qualities, because all the plot and dialogue of that film is half-baked or not there at all.
Sorry to hear about your condition
no- don't be. I'm smarter because I can see the truth, and you can't
The Big Sleep. Shit book, decent movie.
I agree. Also the fact that Ridley Scott wanted Deckard to be a replicant.
Yeah that example is hugely endemic for how much that film is just super-slick style and superficial philosophy and thematics.
Every sci fii movie adaptation is as bad ax the book
No. Don't post shitty stuff like this again.
though I’m not big on Kubrick, I’d say most of his movies are better than the books they are based on: Barry Lyndon and A Clockwork Orange for example
>Imagine trying to do a book adaptation of Intolerance; it utilizes the medium to it’s fullest!
Which Nosferatu? Which Solaris?
The only one of Kubrick's adaptations for which this is even remotely true is The Shining and that says more about that fucking boo
it was super edgy as opposed to good, the guy who has his hand pinned to a table and choked to death in the book chucks a baby in a furnace or something
Do you actually read literature? That's like claiming writing about a painting can be as good as seeing it
I used to be retarded like this guy here but then I watched Tarr's Satantango.
Then I realized people who say shit like this don't understand neither literature nor film.
lord of the rings, I swear the books should be called lord of the filler instead
They're two different mediums. How can great prose be expressed through film?
the book was much better imo. plenty more interesting "scenes" that were left out in the movie and patrick's inner monologues were very entertaining and gave the story much more direction than DUDE CRAZY PROSTITUTE KILLER LMAO
It can't, in the same way that the tridimensional aspect of a statue or the immediacy of the totality of the painting can never be fully captured by literature, but that's exactly the point. Limitations are what makes an art what it is.
Exactly you stupid fuck
A lot of 40s and 50s crime movies fall into this category really.
Nosferatu the vampyr - it is a German surrealist movie
Solaris by Tarkovsky, I think
Another great one I had forgotten:
The little girl who lives down the lane
With jodie foster and martin sheen
The movie is great, Huston is the man. Faulkner actually wrote the screenplay for it. Somewhere in the story some guy drowns with his car or something and it is never explained why or how. Story goes that Faulkner called Chandler to get an explanation and Chandler himself didn't know either.
Anyhow, noir-detectives books are mostly pulp
>Muh smoking and drinking whiskey
>Muh rain
>Muh being a gentleman to the dames
>Muh dry and witty narration
I love noir-detectives as a filmgenre though.
Under the Vulcano by Huston is another adaption (of the Lowry novel) which is fantastic. I prefer the book but it's up there.
I don't watch movies. Movies alone are for brainlets.
Pic related. Had a better story than the book. Theatrical version is the best version.
Gofldfather is still fantastic and the films are very true to the book. But i must admit the film is better and really brings puzos work to life
Jason and the Argonauts
John Carpenter's The Thing
I'm shocked I'm the first one to mention it. Who Goes There? is very good, but Carpenter's film has a better story structure and a much better ending. Plus Who Goes There? has some silly sci-fi stuff that Carpenter wisely threw out.
I haven't been on this board for months and it looks like it has gotten far worse. If you don't understand how prose and language for the sake of itself and aesthetics doesn't translate to a different medium, I have no idea why you're even posting on a literature board
It's funny how Blade Runner/Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? stirs up such heated discussion. It seems there's no middle ground, you either love the book and hate the movie or vice versa.
Anyone who watches movies is a faggot.
I think most people love Bladerunner, but that huge support for the film makes anyone going up against that impression with a complaint, no matter how slight, rage with a fury because it's the only way to be considered.
Looks great. The story and writing in it are not good. People confuse its significance for being about its philosophy (when they don't personally understand it) instead of it being for its style. It makes idiots feel smart for having 1 philosophosiphical film that they like, but they're just confused by hear-say. That's my opinion.
bookormovie.net
Give it a vote! :)
pathetic shill. I guess the OP wasn't enough for you, huh? kill yourself you useless cunt.
>sign up
nah bro. nah
Does it still count as shilling if it's your own website?
I like them both but for different reasons. I feel the movie really kills Deckard's character; it tries to mythologise him as a gritty noir archetype whereas the book makes him into a flawed everyman. The movie obviously has a supreme visual quality that far surpasses any description Dick offered. Although, I suspect it couldn't have done it without him. They're both very different.
Seconding this. Take it as feedback.
Technically, no. But the effect is the same.
Pic related was a lot better than the book. The book tried to explain and rationalize everything, while the movie allowed you to try to form your own interpretation.
Fantastic Mr. Fox
I tried to, but it redirected me to a Google/Facebook sign in page. If you want to appeal to the people of Veeky Forums, you need to get rid of the sign in bullshit.
Sorry, can't verify unique votes otherwise which would sacrifice data integrity. Understandable grievance though.
You can sign up with a password right underneath.
I definitely agree. It was somewhat interesting to read the book afterwards to see the "real" explanation for everything, but the movie absolutely stands alone. Kubrick does well at putting the viewer into the spot of the man or ape experiencing these things, not understanding. Unlike the book spelling out every damn thing.
...
Mouchette
He’s right though. There are techniques and aesthetics employed in literature which simply can not be translated to film and vice versa. Writers like Melville, Joyce, Faulkner, etc. utilize literary techniques which could never fully translate to film. Meme Wolfe is another writer who comes to mind. You can do base plot and narrative but you’d be giving too much away based on visual clues alone.
I’m surprised there isn’t more talk about The Shining. Great movie, shit book.