I enjoyed the movie Stardust more than the novel. The novel is light-hearted, but not really funny in the way that the movie is. Plus it doesn't have Captain Shakespeare in it!
Movies better than the books
- Thread starter sbk1234
- Start date
I never read Rod Serling's draft, so it must be Michael Wilson's filmed draft that's so good & better than PB's original novel.
I have to read RS's draft now that you've clued me in about that.
Regardless of who wrote the POTA (1968) draft that was filmed, it bests PB's book.
I have to go eat a McDonald's burger.
PS: 2001's Burton POTA was a lulz tornado.
Much as I love Philip K. Dick, Blade Runner is far better movie than Do Androids Dream...? is a book. Indeed, I think Androids is one of Dick's worst novels, almost as bad as his barely readable hackwork like Dr. Futurity and Vulcan's Hammer. Blade Runner, by contrast, is one of my favorite movies.
Speaking of PKD, Minority Report is an improvement over the story on which it is based, though I wouldn't call the movie a masterwork. This doesn't mean Dick's reputation as awriter is over-sold, just that his best novels and stories (with the exceptions of A Scanner Darkly and the little seen French movie Confessiones d'un Barjo--based on the mainstream Confessions of a Crap Artist) have yet to be adapted.
Speaking of PKD, Minority Report is an improvement over the story on which it is based, though I wouldn't call the movie a masterwork. This doesn't mean Dick's reputation as awriter is over-sold, just that his best novels and stories (with the exceptions of A Scanner Darkly and the little seen French movie Confessiones d'un Barjo--based on the mainstream Confessions of a Crap Artist) have yet to be adapted.
The LOTR novels bored me to tears (I gave up at about Tom Bombadil); that was years ago, so I keep meaning to try them again, but never got around to it; the movies were great.
The Shawshank Redemption is a classic; the original novella is fine.
The first two Blade movies made Blade work more as a character than the comics generally do.
The Shawshank Redemption is a classic; the original novella is fine.
The first two Blade movies made Blade work more as a character than the comics generally do.
I'm not sure how I did it, but I managed to make it past the Council of Elrond. I never knew I had such strength in me.
The novels were incredibly slow and focused far too much on details that didn't matter. If a character or place isn't going to appear anywhere, I don't give a damn about it. It's a shame too, because when the novels were good they were amazing. But, to use a video game term, there was far too much grinding.
When I re-read them, it's always a struggle to get to Bree; after that, it picks up, at least until the Council of Elrond. Once past that though, it's generally quite good and well-paced, for the most part.
I have to add another vote for The Princess Bride. The Pit of Despair is, IMO, much cooler than the Zoo of Death.
I was surprised to find I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy when I read it beginning to end just a couple years back.
And frankly, Phil Dick is more of an idea man than a successful writer, IMO. His concepts are often interesting but from the handful of things I've read by him, he's just not a strong author beyond that.
And frankly, Phil Dick is more of an idea man than a successful writer, IMO. His concepts are often interesting but from the handful of things I've read by him, he's just not a strong author beyond that.
David Lynch's Dune!...No, just kidding. 
I think I'll have to lend my vote to LotR too. I think I made it about as far as Helm's Deep before loosing interest, (though I am currently having another go and have so far, almost made it to Bree.) I've tried the Silmarillion a few times, but found it to be utterly impenetrable. The best I can do it pick a topic from the index and look up the relevant passages.
Shawshank is far and away better as a film than it was in printed form (but then it was only a short story, not a novel), which compared to other works of King adapted for the screen is quite remarkable. Most of the others are shite.
From a strictly personal taste POV I found the Bourne films to be more interesting than the novels, but I'm not sure if that counts since only the first half of the first film bares any relation to the book.
Not a popular choise, but I rather enjoyed the 'Bicentannial Man' film allot more than the book, but again, it's probably mostly down to the original being only a short story or novella.
I think I'll have to lend my vote to LotR too. I think I made it about as far as Helm's Deep before loosing interest, (though I am currently having another go and have so far, almost made it to Bree.) I've tried the Silmarillion a few times, but found it to be utterly impenetrable. The best I can do it pick a topic from the index and look up the relevant passages.
Shawshank is far and away better as a film than it was in printed form (but then it was only a short story, not a novel), which compared to other works of King adapted for the screen is quite remarkable. Most of the others are shite.
From a strictly personal taste POV I found the Bourne films to be more interesting than the novels, but I'm not sure if that counts since only the first half of the first film bares any relation to the book.
Not a popular choise, but I rather enjoyed the 'Bicentannial Man' film allot more than the book, but again, it's probably mostly down to the original being only a short story or novella.
I can seee where you're coming from but I have to disagree. At his best (and he has a good dozen novels which fit the rubric of "best"*), PKD's idiosyncratic voice--guileless, artless and unaffected--serves as a deadpan counterpoint to the insane concepts he plays around with. He also had a great handle on character.
*The Transmigration of Timothy Archer, VALIS, Ubik, Martian Time-Slip, The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, Confessions of a Crap Artist, The Man in the High Castle, Now Wait for Last Year, A Scanner Darkly, The Divine Invasion, Clans of the Alphane Moon and Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said would be my picks.
Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
2001
The Wizard of Oz: The book was OK, the film streamlined things, made the characters better with good actors and songs.
The Fellowship of the Ring film was also an improvement, although a bit choppy (for the other two, I actually like Gollum and his scenes with Frodo and Sam more in the book).
The Fellowship of the Ring film was also an improvement, although a bit choppy (for the other two, I actually like Gollum and his scenes with Frodo and Sam more in the book).
Of instances when I've both seen the movie and read the book, this was the one which came to mind first.
I thought the novel and the movie were about equal, though the casting was pretty outstanding -- I think that movie was the first place I saw both Glenn Close and John Lithgow.
True enough, but that's fudging a little, as the book and the movie were produced in parallel.
I'm also one of those who really likes the filmed Lord of the Rings trilogy, but still thinks the novels were better yet.
The TV miniseries versions of James Clavell's Shogun and James Michener's Centennial were both at least equal to the books and in some ways superior.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was much easier to consume than the book; having said that I love the book and I loved the movie perhaps in different ways.
So I was surprised to later learn that Douglas Adams had a huge hand in re-formatting the second half of the movie to make it more digestable as a stand alone film.
Good on him. Books and films need not be the same.
So I was surprised to later learn that Douglas Adams had a huge hand in re-formatting the second half of the movie to make it more digestable as a stand alone film.
Good on him. Books and films need not be the same.
David Lynch's Dune!...No, just kidding.
I will say, I liked the Sci-Fi miniseries Children of Dune better than the two novels Dune Messiah and Children of Dune. In particular, the first part of the miniseries (covering Dune Messiah) was terrific, and since the novel was something of a let-down from Dune, I'll say it was better.
Much as I love the Borg Queen
, Alice Krieg was not a good Jessica, or at least the change of actresses was too distracting. On the plus, James McAvoy was superb as Leto (if a little too old 
).It's a shame, really, that SciFi abandoned making adaptations of novels.
In 1919 Johnston McCulley wrote a pulp magazine story called "The Curse of Capistrano". It was read by actor Douglas Fairbanks. Who adapted into in a film called "The Mark Of Zorro". Zorro's black costume and signature of craving a Z with his sword originated with Fairbanks.
David Lynch's Dune!...No, just kidding.
I will say, I liked the Sci-Fi miniseries Children of Dune better than the two novels Dune Messiah and Children of Dune. In particular, the first part of the miniseries (covering Dune Messiah) was terrific, and since the novel was something of a let-down from Dune, I'll say it was better.
Much as I love the Borg Queen
It's a shame, really, that SciFi abandoned making adaptations of novels.
I agree and think that Messiah & CoD work better as a single story than separate books. As for the miniseries, parts of it were nothing short of breathtaking. The "settle accounts" sequence is a particular favourite of mine and the redesigned Navigator is as close to my inner eye's perception of the thing as I've seen in any adaption.
As for future instalments...though Miles Teg is twenty billion kinds of awesome and he and Odrade are quite possibly the only remotely likeable Dune characters since Stilgar and Chani, part of me is glad I never got to see the God Emperor worm on a DTV budget.
It could be done well on a Hollywood budget of course, but I just don't see the story being condusive to a motion picture experiance.
I suppose they could skip that book entierly and only alude to Leto's reign as a matter of ancient history, but I doubt many fans would appreciate that.
Similar threads
