When Movie Better Than The Book
P.J. Gladnick
Usually a movie based on a novel tends to be a letdown. However, there are
a few cases when the movie is actually superior to the book it's based on.
Two cases that come to mind are "Dr. Strangelove" and "The Loved One." Both
of these movies are also superb comedies. Any other cases of the movie
being superior to the book?
LGreen1540
Subject: When Movie Better Than The Book
"P.J. Gladnick" <pjg...@gate.net> says:
:Usually a movie based on a novel tends to be a letdown. However, there
In my opinion, the film "The First Wives Club" was much better than the
book.
Chris Scott
Most people feel the movie "Jaws" is superior to Peter Benchley's book of
the same name.
Chris
In article <01bc828a$d4262a60$035ae3c7@default>, "P.J. Gladnick"
Ray Cochener
P.J. Gladnick wrote:
>
> Usually a movie based on a novel tends to be a letdown. However, there are
> a few cases when the movie is actually superior to the book it's based on.
> Two cases that come to mind are "Dr. Strangelove" and "The Loved One." Both
> being superior to the book?
ET, but the book was based upon the movie...
Jeff S Miholer
How about the cheap little "from the film" paperbacks Hollywood cranks out
after the films? Are "most films" better than "most books" or is the
eldest sister generally superior?
Ray Cochener (silv...@feist.com) wrote:
--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Oddlife
Personally, I thought "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" was better
than the movie "Blade Runner." (I liked the movie too, but any adaptation
of Philip K. Dick is bound to fall short of its source material.)
I liked "Silence of the Lambs" the movie more than I did Harris' novel.
Dunno why. Probably cuz of the performances by Foster and Hopkins.
- Paul
Horrigan
"The Bridges of Madison County" is an obvious example. It was a sexy,
sweet haunting movie--- but a repulsively smarmy book.
"The Godfather" was one of the greatest movies ever. The book fell far
short of that standard.
So was "Blade Runner." The book was better than the "Gosfather" book, but
it too was much less memeorable than the film.
--Tim Horrigan <horr...@aol.com>
BetterDuck
Better as a movie....
Voodoo Dawn (John Russo)
Dracula (Tod Browning, Coppola)
The Hellbound Heart = Hellraiser (Clive Barker)
Wise Guy = Goodfellas (Scorsese)
An American Tragedy = The Brentwood Homicidal Massacre (Mayhugh)
to see my newest, most vile, and utterly repulsive film
_The Brentwood Homicidal Massacre_ 16mm (3min)
check out...
P.J. Gladnick
Chris Scott <csc...@best.com> wrote in article
<cscott-2706...@cscott.vip.best.com>...
> Most people feel the movie "Jaws" is superior to Peter Benchley's book of
> the same name.
>
> Chris
"Jaws?" Hey, maybe my "Jaws" satire, "Gums" (see below) has a chance to
make it to the big screen. I see it as a definite Leslie Nielsen vehicle.
------------------------------------------------------
The great fish moved silently in the night water, propelled by short
sweeps of its tail......
"Herby, take your slimy hands off me!" said the girl.
"I thought maybe we could have some fun."
"Forget it, creep," she said. "I'm going for a swim."
"Aw gee!" grumbled Herby as he began working on his third six-pack of
beer.
The girl swam out from the shore. The fish detected vibrations in the
water and swam closer to the source. It made one pass by the girl, turned
around, and, with its mouth open, moved in for the kill. The girl screamed
hilariously and then it was all over.
"The last I saw of her was when she went swimming," explained Herby to
Sheriff Bailey and his deputy the following morning.
Bailey and the deputy combed the beach for half an hour until the deputy
discovered the body.
"Sheriff, over here! Look at that contorted face! It...it looks almost
like she was laughing."
Bailey examined the body. "
"She was laughing," he said. "As a matter of fact she died laughing."
"What do you mean?" asked the deputy.
"This girl was obviously attacked by a killer perch, " explained Bailey.
"They don't have much in the way of teeth but their gums are extremely
ticklish. Anyone bitten by a killer perch dies laughing."
"How horrible!"
"Yes. And now it's our duty to find and destroy the killer perch before
panic sets in on our beaches."
The next morning Bailey set off on his hunt for the killer perch aboard
the Seahog, a fishing boat piloted by a crusty old fisherman named Squint.
Accompanying them was Matt Hopper, a young marine biologist and an expert
on killer perch.
"What's that contraption?" asked Bailey, pointing towards a screen wire
cage.
"It's a perch cage," replied Hopper. "I use it to protect myself while
photographing them underwater."
For the next few hours, the three men on the Seahog chummed the water with
Sugar Frosted Flakes in an effort to attract the killer perch. During this
period, Hopper filled Bailey in on vital killer perch facts. Finally, in
the middle of the afternoon, Squint yelled from the bow.
"PERCH AHOY!"
"Wow, look at the size of that perch!" Exclaimed Hopper. "It must be at
least five inches long!"
Hopper quickly put on his scuba gear as Bailey and Squint lowered the
perch cage into the water. Once the cage was in place, Hopper jumped in
with his camera and submerged.
Again and again the killer perch rammed the cage. A determined killer
perch is not easily deterred. Eventually it managed to squeeze through the
wire mesh and bite Hopper on the bellybutton. Hopper started chuckling,
then laughing uproariously, and then he was silent.
Squint and Bailey saw what happened to Hopper. In a rage, Squint grabbed
his harpoon. The killer perch approached the boat and, with a grunt,
Squint hurled the harpoon at it. The harpoon missed but the line it was
attached to wrapped around Squint's leg and made him lurch sideways. His
right hand dipped momentarily into the water. Instantly, the killer perch
struck, biting Squint on the pinky.
"Hee! Hee! Hee!" giggled Squint. "Ho! Ho! Ho! Ha! Ha! HOO! HOO! HOO!"
He went into an uncontrollable convulsion and fell against the gearstick.
The boat lunged forward and seconds later struck some rocks just below the
surface.
Bailey looked on in horror as the boat sunk, leaving him swimming
helplessly to face the killer perch. He spotted the deadly beast moving
rapidly towards him twenty feet away, fifteen feet.....ten feet.....five
feet. Bailey closed his eyes to meet his inevitable fate.
Seconds went by but nothing happened. He opened his eyes and saw the
killer perch floating lifelessly next to him. Bailey searched his mind for
an explanation. Suddenly he remembered something Hopper told him about
killer perch. They're highly diabetic. Of course, that was it! The killer
perch ate the Sugar Frosted Flakes and died from an overdose of sugar.
Bailey swam back to shore laughing to himself.
P.J. Gladnick
Nate Briggs <nt...@earthhlink.net> wrote in article
<01bc8332$6cd2f7a0$0c181d26@ELN/ntic>...
> The all-time championship example of this phenomenon is BLADE RUNNER.
>
> The team that put this film together took an undistinguished and
sometimes
> incoherent novel and fashioned it into a marvelous vision - with a lot of
> very interesting intellectual landscapes underneath.
>
> I always watch this film with an immense sense of pleasure - and I hope
the
> forlorn author (Phillip K. Dick?) of the launching pad from which Ridley
> Scott took off is suitably grateful for such royal treatment.
>
> -- Nate Briggs
>
You're right. "Blade Runner" was a TERRIFIC movie. Not so much for the plot
or character but for the whole aura. I saw it in a movie theater in
Hollywood, CA. When I walked out of the theater I felt like I was right
back in the movie. Crumbling neighborhoods, people speaking all kinds of
foreign languages, strange food. It might have been about the future but it
felt like the present. L.A. is currently further along the path of "Blade
Runner." Not with me though.
Jeff S Miholer
I know, but if anyone plans to draw any conclusions from this thread,
factors besides book vs. movie ought to be considered. Perhaps the first
person with the vision genrates the best work, be he screenwriter,
producer, or novelist. The question needs to be examined by looking at
more than one variable.
P.J. Gladnick (pjg...@gate.net) wrote:
: Jeff S Miholer <mih...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote in article
: <5p0ijm$n...@pith.uoregon.edu>...
: > How about the cheap little "from the film" paperbacks Hollywood cranks
: out
: > after the films? Are "most films" better than "most books" or is the
: > eldest sister generally superior?
: >
: Doesn't count. I'm talking about when a movie is BASED on a book.
--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Peter McDermott
In article <33B418...@worldnet.att.net>,
BetterDuck <CMay...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Wise Guy = Goodfellas (Scorsese)
I'd add Casino to that as well. I really rate Pileggi as a
writer, but his stuff does seem to make better movies than
books.
Nate Briggs
Joan Marie Shields
P.J. Gladnick <pjg...@gate.net> wrote:
>Usually a movie based on a novel tends to be a letdown. However, there are
>a few cases when the movie is actually superior to the book it's based on.
>Two cases that come to mind are "Dr. Strangelove" and "The Loved One." Both
>being superior to the book?
"Get Shorty" - I thought the movie was better than the book.
Oh, and how about "Sense and Sensibility"? I've not read the book but I've
heard from others that the movie is much better.
joan
--
Joan Shields jshi...@uci.edu http://www.ags.uci.edu/~jshields
University of California - Irvine
School of Social Ecology Department of Environmental Analysis and Design
I do not purchase services or products from unsolicited e-mail advertisements.
P.J. Gladnick
P.J. Gladnick
Jeff S Miholer <mih...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote in article
<5p1c3e$j...@pith.uoregon.edu>...
> I know, but if anyone plans to draw any conclusions from this thread,
> factors besides book vs. movie ought to be considered. Perhaps the first
> person with the vision genrates the best work, be he screenwriter,
> producer, or novelist. The question needs to be examined by looking at
> more than one variable.
>
The point is that the movie is only very rarely better than the book it's
based on. I'm just trying to find out other people's opinions of those rare
cases when the movie is superior to the book. For example, people who
didn't read the book first tended to enjoy the movie, "The Shining." For
those people who read the book first, that movie was disappointing. That
really would be something if a movie based on a Stephen King novel was
superior to the book. Hasn't happened yet. Not even close.
ReedyB
I'm not sure if I agree with the assessment of The Loved One (but then,
I've only read the book, which I think is great).
Other movies better than the books I think might include.
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
The Godfather by Mario Puzo (if you include 1 and 2)
The Shawshank Redemption by Stephen King
That's my 2 cents.
reed
ReedyB's Guide to Movie Awards
http://members.aol.com\reedyb\oscar\
John Fletcher Flowers
Dracula, the Coppola version, certainly was NOT better than the
book. It was overacted and overdirected every step of the way.
Stoker's book was much more suspenseful than Coppola's movie.
Plus, the movie had Keannu Reeves. Enough said.
John Flowers
meac...@****.com
P.J. Gladnick wrote:
> Usually a movie based on a novel tends to be a letdown. However, there are
> a few cases when the movie is actually superior to the book it's based on.
> Two cases that come to mind are "Dr. Strangelove" and "The Loved One." Both
> of these movies are also superb comedies. Any other cases of the movie
> being superior to the book?
Nearly all of Kubrick's work, but that's a personal bias.
While there are many occasions when someone will find one much more
enjoyable or fulfilling than the other, I think it's pointless comparing a
good book with a good film based on the book.
Kubrick's Barry Lyndon is one of cinema's true masterpieces, and yet
Thackeray's original novel was an equally impressive literary work.
In other instances, the book serves only as a seed idea for a film and any
comparison between the two is pointless. It's erroneous, too, IMO, to
suggest that the film version is good IF it is faithful to the literary source.
Derek
meac...@****.com
P.J. Gladnick wrote:
> cases when the movie is superior to the book. For example, people who
> didn't read the book first tended to enjoy the movie, "The Shining." For
> those people who read the book first, that movie was disappointing. That
> really would be something if a movie based on a Stephen King novel was
> superior to the book. Hasn't happened yet. Not even close.
Well many people would disagree with you there, especially with respect
to The Shining. A lot of King fans were disappointed because they had false
expectations regarding the film, but the comparison is pointless. The book
was immensely enjoyable for those who like Stephen King's work. The film
was immensely enjoyable for those who like Kubrick's work. Where does
the comparison have relevance.
The major flaw in your question is that it takes the least appropriate perspective;
you are questioning the relative merits of two incomparable mediums, when
in fact what your question relates to is the taste of the audiences of two
different mediums.
Derek
meac...@****.com
Paul Bowles' *The Sheltering Sky*. An exquisite, immensely satisfying read.
Bertolucci's film adaption. Cinematic giant.
What's the point of a comparison?
Derek
Horuun
I thought that "The Last Temptation of Christ" worked much better as a
movie rather than the book. Of course, the book is a translation, so who
knows? And I agree that Dracula was NOT a better movie than book. I
don't even see where you can come up with something like that.
-Brent Sprinkle
Horuun
No, I agree with that if you see the movie first you tend to like it
better, especially with The Shining. I saw the movie first and I think
it's a lot better than the book, and I'm not a huge fan of Stanley
Kubrick.
-Brent Sprinkle
Peter McDermott
In article <5p5tch$l...@ruby.hknet.com>,
meaculpa@****.com wrote:
>P.J. Gladnick wrote:
>
>> Usually a movie based on a novel tends to be a letdown. However, there are
>> a few cases when the movie is actually superior to the book it's based on.
>> Two cases that come to mind are "Dr. Strangelove" and "The Loved One." Both
>> of these movies are also superb comedies. Any other cases of the movie
>> being superior to the book?
>
>Nearly all of Kubrick's work, but that's a personal bias.
Surely not. Have you compared 'A clockwork orange' or 'Lolita'
with the film versions recently?
Kubrick *does* have great taste, and does make great films, but
I don't think either of these are better than the original
novels insofar as neither stand the test of time in the way
that the books do.
F Hebbert
P.J. Gladnick wrote:
>
> Usually a movie based on a novel tends to be a letdown. However, there are
> a few cases when the movie is actually superior to the book it's based on.
> Two cases that come to mind are "Dr. Strangelove" and "The Loved One." Both
> of these movies are also superb comedies. Any other cases of the movie
> being superior to the book?
My 12 year old daughter thinks "Romeo and Juliet" was better than the
book.
Mike Shields
In article <ECI5t...@Virginia.EDU>, jf...@Virginia.EDU (John Fletcher
Flowers) wrote:
Furthermore, Gary Oldman had a vision that was far removed from the
character. I can't totally pan this movie, as one of my acting class mates
had a part in it.
Mike
"Not too many people know that I'm famous." - Mike Shields
I need $600,000 for a film. Serious inquiries only.
Read "About this Particular MacIntosh" available online near you!!!
On the Web at: http://www.atpm.com
"You can't write this stuff. It happens in real life." - Mike Shields
If everyone on the 'net sent a dollar...
"In the future, everyone will have their own Web Page." Mike Shields
ASGTPR #54
Charlie Harris
jshi...@rigel.oac.uci.edu (Joan Marie Shields ) wrote:
>Oh, and how about "Sense and Sensibility"? I've not read the book but I've
>heard from others that the movie is much better.
Woaah! Go and read the book and *then* say that. (Tread softly, for
you tread on one of the funniest, most humane, books by one of our
funniest, most humane writers. IMHO)
-----------------------------------------
Charlie Harris - Footloose Films
cha...@harris.u-net.com
Internet Research FAQ:
http://www.purefiction.com/pages/res1.htm
-----------------------------------------
Charlie Harris
lgree...@aol.com (LGreen1540) wrote:
>Subject: When Movie Better Than The Book
>"P.J. Gladnick" <pjg...@gate.net> says:
>
>
>:Usually a movie based on a novel tends to be a letdown. However, there
>are
>:a few cases when the movie is actually superior to the book it's based
>on.
>:Two cases that come to mind are "Dr. Strangelove" and "The Loved One."
>Both
>:of these movies are also superb comedies. Any other cases of the movie
>:being superior to the book?
>
>In my opinion, the film "The First Wives Club" was much better than the
>book.
Anyone read the book of "Psycho"? Anyone got past the first ten
pages?
Gordon Michaels
Ever read "the Godfather"? Proof positive that you can make a four-star
film from a 1 1/2 star novel.
GM
Peter McDermott
In article <5pj8v5$m...@ruby.hknet.com>,
meaculpa@****.com wrote:
>> Kubrick *does* have great taste, and does make great films, but
>> I don't think either of these are better than the original
>> novels insofar as neither stand the test of time in the way
>> that the books do.
>
>I would disagree that neither Lolita or A Clockwork Orange stand the
>test of time; I think both do, magificently.
OK, on reflection I can go for Lolita, but A Clockwork Orange?
I saw it about two years ago, for the first time since it came
out on general release (must be 25 years now?) and it really
hadn't held up anything like as strong as I'd expected it to.
When it first came out, it struck me as a wonderful film,
beautifully shot, wonderfully designed -- yet now the whole
thing looked like a cheap, low-budget exploitation movie.
>But regarding a book/movie comparison I think that in these cases both
>the literary works and film works are superb -- I simply wouldn't make any
>comparison.
Oh, I thought that was your original point? That all his movies
were better than the original books?
meac...@****.com
Peter McDermott wrote:
> >Nearly all of Kubrick's work, but that's a personal bias.
> Surely not. Have you compared 'A clockwork orange' or 'Lolita'
> with the film versions recently?
> Kubrick *does* have great taste, and does make great films, but
> I don't think either of these are better than the original
> novels insofar as neither stand the test of time in the way
> that the books do.
I would disagree that neither Lolita or A Clockwork Orange stand the
test of time; I think both do, magificently.
But regarding a book/movie comparison I think that in these cases both
the literary works and film works are superb -- I simply wouldn't make any
comparison. I can enjoy both pretty much equally.
As I said in another post, I actually think the question about film versions
versus literary versions is based on a false premise and that at the best
of times any comparison is of dubious value.
Derek
meac...@****.com
Peter McDermott wrote:
> Oh, I thought that was your original point? That all his movies
> were better than the original books?
There's no need to sneak up behind me like that!
Perhaps I should have said *at least as good as*, although in a
desperate attempt at justification I might add that my *comparison*
was more in keeping with the original poster's presmise than
with my own.
I really do feel that such comparisons are generally pointless, honest.
I might add that I only recently came to this point of view -- like many
people I used to always make the comparison and remember having
a bad mood for days when Brian DePalma's Bonfire of the Vanities
came out. But I have since learnt the error of my ways. Tom Wolfe wrote
what I think is a brilliant book. De Palma made a rather lacklustre movie.
The fact that one was an adaptation of the other still does not, IMHO,
give them very much in common. (Wolfe, I believe, would like to think
nothing in common at all bar the title ... )
Derek
Leigh R Hidell
: When it first came out, it struck me as a wonderful film,
: beautifully shot, wonderfully designed -- yet now the whole
: thing looked like a cheap, low-budget exploitation movie.
I've seen A Clockwork Orange many times, & I do think
it stands the test of time. So what if it doesn't
have the "hi tech, hi budget" look of Terminator 2.
I still meet people who identify w/ Alex & refer
to this film often. How many other films can do that
after so many years? --Leigh
Dean Scoville
"From Here To eternity"
"The Godfather"
"How The Grinch Stole Christmas"
--
________________________
Dean Scoville
comi...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~comicdet
Renegade, Rebel, Paramour (or is that paranormal?) Nimrod Master (those
who are ruled know who they are)
KateM500
The subdued, haunting new film "Jane Eyre" certainly respects Charlotte
Bronte's vision of her characters. Only Jane's passion is missing from
the excellent portrayal of Jane. For Jane's absent ferver, see the
portrayal of Rochester's mad wife when she was still young and sane in the
exotic "Wide Sargassa Sea," an unforgettable prologue to the book.
KateM.