A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.
The film makes substantial changes to the ending and some of the main plot though. The novel makes no mention of credit card companies, and the film ending is an atrocity.
Edit: this was supposed to be for the comment thread about Fight Club but apparently posted independently. Apologies for the confusion.
Jurassic Park the novel is superior to the film, and by a large margin. People who say this are either viewing the movie through a nostalgia filter or haven't read the book.
One thing in particular that is obnoxious about the film is the messy themes. The book critiques capitalism just as much as irresponsible scientists, which is completely lost in the movie. Movie John Hammond is practically the good guy and suffers no consequences, which is makes it feel like borderline capitalist propaganda.
No nostalgia filter here. I just recently re-read the book and rewatched the movie and…. the movie is better in my opinion.
Fair enough. It's a fun movie with an excellent cast, but the capitalist edge leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Even Dennis Nedry in the book was an overworked, disgruntled employee who was partially a victim of capitalism himself. In the movie he mostly comes off as a greedy criminal. Although they did mention his "financial problems" in the movie.
It's been years since I've read the book, maybe I need to reread it. Maybe I'm viewing the book through a nostalgia lense.
While not a book, The Boys tv show is vastly better than the original comics it’s based on.
The Shawshank Redemption - a good book (Stephen King) made into a richer and more complete movie. In my opinion, so few of King's stories were better on the screen than the original writing.
Imo also Edge of Tomorrow. All You Need Is Kill is good, but the alien is so goofy and the ending is kinda mid, and no real ending to the war. Edge of Tomorrow kinda fixed that. I also love how they handle the crew Cage first met and fight along instead of let them be fodder.
This is one of my favorite movies to catch people off guard with. Tom Cruise in a sci-fi blockbuster that actually turns out to have nuance and a brilliant time mechanic. Surface level, the box makes it look like schlock.
Starship Troopers
But mostly because it isn't really based on the book at all. Paul Verhoeven famously tried to read the book, got immediately bored and decided to make it his own thing.
Ehh I liked the book more.
The book certainly has its moments, but the movie is much more entertaining. 'The moon is a harsh mistress' is a better book imo
Both were entertaining, but the movie was more of a popcorn action flick while the book tried to explore the realities of war and a warrior led culture.
The Heinlein estate holders didn't like the movie so much, they have refused selling movie rights to any other book. So you won't see The Moon is a Harsh Mistress because of Starship Troopers.
I found the novel Jurassic Park to be superior to the movie though I enjoyed both. They were just different.
No Country For Old Men was such a masterpiece that it managed to be better than the book, which is a feat given it was written by Cormac McCarthy.
The whole bit with the hitchhiker being condensed into that woman at the pool was substantial edit and an improvement.
@memfree I am going to make angry a lot of people but here I go. The Shinning by Kubrick of course. I personally dont care for Stephen King Literary work I think in the whole context of human literature is absolute TRASH. But in the History of world Cinema Kubrick is up there in the mount Olympus of the Best of the best. The fact that Stephen king cannot understand a medium like Cinema made me choose this one even more. PLUS the fact that Stephen King Made a TV series because he didn't like Kubrick version and is ABSOLUTE FORGETTABLE TRASH is the cherry on top. Im not sure if Kubrick did the same with Eyes Wide Shut... that is debatable.
Well, if you're going to go there, then A Clockwork Orange and 2001: A Space Odyssey. One can easily complain that Anthony Burgess wrote a better book filled with imagery and politics (and a glossary!) which Kubrick failed to capture, so that one might be arguable. On the other hand, while Arthur C. Clarke wrote a good book that Kubrick largely ignored, the result was one of the most innovative films in history. The film brought space to life in a way that printed words could not. Sure, Kubrick's work can now be easily CGI-ed up, but he thought to do all of it and he did it the hard way before we had computers.
As far as Eyes Wide Shut goes... I kinda hated it because it felt like the default daydream of old men fantasizing about what they wish they'd done back when they couild still get it up. I read an article years ago about how for years Kubrick had script readers who would read hundreds of books and scripts to give him recommendations for what to make into his his next movie and they were all terrified of recommending something beneath The Master, and then he didn't like the things he did see, and this went on and on, and I feel like he was stuck with material that a concensus would find acceptable/interesting rather than anything that was more avant garde.
2001 wasn’t based on the book. The book and movie were written in parallel.
I wasn't gonna split that hair because it was based on some of Clarke's shorter works that were optioned for the basis of the film. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(novel)
Sure, maybe it is a tad hair-splitty, but is it? Clarke was hired to write an original screenplay; it wasn’t meant to be based on another story. And the book wasn’t even meant to exist, initially. My understanding is that it does exist only because Clarke found script writing clunky and unnatural.
Although — even if the movie was based on a book — Kubrick would have done his own thing, and he wouldn’t have been wrong to take those liberties. Why faithfully remake a book? I can read a book. Give me something new.
Burgess is a TITAN of literature, Stephen King wished he was half as good as Burgess.
Having said that I don't think Kubrick made a better film but god dam his film is so good.
Soylent Green. The book (Make Room! Make Room!) is not bad but average, while the film is very good.
Have you rewatched it recently? I ask because I rewatched it a few years ago and (while I still love it) I thought that modern audiences would complain about the pacing and such.
No, I watched it only once and it was years ago 😅. I remember that I loved it, but it may have aged badly.
For me it has to be Forrest Gump.
I was really surprised this wasn't on the list. First thing I thought of too. The movie is pretty good, while the book is awful in my opinion.
The Hunt For Red October
I head heard about the book for years before I finally got around to reading it.
When I got to the part where the Soviet sub commander writes a letter to the head of the KGB telling him that the crew was going to steal the most powerful weapon in the fleet. Then I threw the book away and swore never to read a Tom Clancy book.
I only watched the movie to see if they'd keep that part, or come up with a reasonable explanation.
What's the problem with that part? That a letter is too slow for such important news, or that the thief gives himself away intentionally?
I've not read the book so I didn't know which sub commander you mean.
You can't be serious... Sean Connery playing a Russian with his thick British accent?
I'm going to keep adding:
Stalker by Tarkovsky
And I will say that every work of Tarkovsky that is based on literature with the expiation of Solaris (it's my personal take). I believe that if Tarkovsky had a better budget Solaris would be the best sci fi film of all times. Some production of that film distracts me from the geniality of Tarkovsky.
I've only seen four Tarkovsky films, but yes, he's a fabulous director. I've not read the book and don't know if an English translation would do it justice, so I'll take your word for it that the extremely good movie was better than its source.
Note that I didn't make that list of 6. I just thought the movie community might like to read the article. Y'all don't have to call me out with all things they skipped because I'd have put stuff like the Wizard of Oz and Ran on there (and then quickly ducked because no one gets away with saying a movie is better than Shakespear's original work).
Annihilation by Vandermeer/Garland. I really loved the Southern Reach trilogy but the film did a great job of capturing a book that was mostly vibe and reflection and used striking visuals to condense it and keep it powerful. Neither were perfect but I’m so glad both exist.
Maybe less popular here, and definitely a closer call, but The Martian. Damon’s performance elevated Watney, the book’s Rover drive started to drag, and dear god you could just FEEL how uninterested and inexperienced Weir was during every single scene in the book involving anyone not named Mark Watney. Those scenes were still mostly bare bones plot progression in the movie, but the script doctors and professional actors made them much more palatable.
The movie’s ending was even less plausible than the rest, with the lampshade of picking an idea that book-Watney had rejected, and the book just had more of the “I’ma science the shit out of this!” Robinson Crusoe in space competence porn, and that was cool.
So like I said, there are points in favor of both, but I think the movie was a bit better than the book.
Hard no on the Martian. They skipped out on a lot of details of the journey because of time. I agree with their choice as far as movie pacing but that chunk of the book really showed off the dangerousness of Mars.
The really, really big reason the movie isn’t better though is because of the ending. That garbage Hollywood ending with him rocket boosting back to the ship was so stupid. It couldn’t ever happen and the whole idea of the action hero ending ran contrary to the theme of the story.
Oldboy. The ending of the manga is just so unbelievably stupid.
The original Korean Oldboy is in my top movie recommendations to anyone.
Had no idea it was based on a Manga. Thank you for learning me something good today.
Under the Skin. I love the movie. It is so evocative, and some of the imagery is incredibly disturbing without depicting traditional screen violence. The book isn't bad, but it's much more straightforward and simple by comparison. I think Jonathan Glazer really elevated the material, as he does with every movie he makes.