Films/TV Shows that were better than the books.

[Antlion]

8 hours ago, BFTD said:

It really doesn't get said often enough.

That was Sonny, wasn't it? He had a massive wang and his bit on the side struggled to cope with it  

IIRC, Benchley's Jaws spends a lot of time on real estate and loan sharks, and Brody's wife bangs Hooper.

BiB - marvellous. I’ve heard of Hooper affair; I’m sure I read they left that out when they decided to make a thriller and didn’t want soapy drama bogging it down.

[KnightswoodBear]

On 22/01/2022 at 23:38, BFTD said:

It really doesn't get said often enough.

That was Sonny, wasn't it? He had a massive wang and his bit on the side struggled to cope with it  

IIRC, Benchley's Jaws spends a lot of time on real estate and loan sharks, and Brody's wife bangs Hooper.

The Jaws book is utterly dull.

[Detournement]

American Psycho is a good film but the book was an incredibly prescient satire on yuppies and consumer culture. 

The Shining novel is pulp nonsense. The Shining film is one of the greatest films ever made by one of the greatest artists of the 20th century. 

No Country For Old Men is probably better on screen than the book but McCarthy originally wrote it as a screenplay then adapted it to a novel. 

[BFTD]

1 hour ago, Detournement said:

The Shining novel is pulp nonsense. The Shining film is one of the greatest films ever made by one of the greatest artists of the 20th century. 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Chuck Norris v Communism is better than Corbyn’s last manifesto. 

[19QOS19]

Some c**t is guaranteed to mention The Shining on this thread, and they need a good shake, frankly.

I was quoting you and going to say "No one who has read the book can seriously say the film is better".

Then:-

The Shining novel is pulp nonsense. The Shining film is one of the greatest films ever made by one of the greatest artists of the 20th century. 

Wow. The novel is a man spiralling into madness. The film is a madman going further in to madness. The film is a fine film but it's in no way scary and the novel was terrifying. The scariest 'scene' in the novel was the garden hedges and it was completely missed in the film.

I love Nicholson's work and think Kubrick is an outstanding directer. The film is brilliant but when you compare it to the novel it doesn't come close to how good it was.

[Detournement]

7 hours ago, 19QOS19 said:

 

 

I was quoting you and going to say "No one who has read the book can seriously say the film is better".

Then:-



Wow. The novel is a man spiralling into madness. The film is a madman going further in to madness. The film is a fine film but it's in no way scary and the novel was terrifying. The scariest 'scene' in the novel was the garden hedges and it was completely missed in the film.

I love Nicholson's work and think Kubrick is an outstanding directer. The film is brilliant but when you compare it to the novel it doesn't come close to how good it was.

 

King's criticism of the film is why it's better than the novel for me. As you say in the film Jack Torrance is already an abusive sadist and Wendy and Danny are already deeply tramautised. Jack going on the rampage from the Gold Room scene onward is the result of Wendy realising he is sexually abusing Danny and the consequences of that on both. He uses the conventions of a horror movie to the a story of sexual and domestic abuse. 

In the novel a character sets his own hand on fire to fight evil bushes. Can you imagine how bad that would look on film? Every single shot of the Shining is interesting and has had a huge amount of thought and craft put into it. King wrote 400 off pages of the novel in less than 6 months. 

[Antlion]

On 29/01/2022 at 23:08, 19QOS19 said:

 

 

Wow. The novel is a man spiralling into madness. The film is a madman going further in to madness. The film is a fine film but it's in no way scary and the novel was terrifying. The scariest 'scene' in the novel was the garden hedges and it was completely missed in the film.

 

King’s book-scares generally don’t translate well to film. Visually, they just look cheesy and OTT. I don’t think King quite realises that what works on a page doesn’t necessarily work on film. Hedge monsters aren’t scary when you see them in CGI, a man wielding a roque mallet is just funny, and a fire hose leaping at the screen with snake’s teeth is fairground-ride stuff when you actually see it. See his TV miniseries version of The Shining, in which he did indeed try and bring the living garden hedges to the screen, with hilarious results. I can only imagine how much funnier a late 70s attempt at stop motion hedge animals menacing the Torrances would have looked.

[scottsdad]

Rarely seen film 2010, the sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey. The film was alright, but without the written elements in the story it was never really explained why these things were happening. 

At the end, once Jupiter turns into a second sun, the aliens sent the humans a message. In the novel it was cold and chilling - "All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there." In the film they added "Use them together. Use them in peace" which really undermined the whole coldness of the book. 

 

[BFTD]

10 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

Rarely seen film 2010, the sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey. The film was alright, but without the written elements in the story it was never really explained why these things were happening. 

At the end, once Jupiter turns into a second sun, the aliens sent the humans a message. In the novel it was cold and chilling - "All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there." In the film they added "Use them together. Use them in peace" which really undermined the whole coldness of the book. 

I'd forgotten about that part of the book. Good film though; much better than you'd expect. Also Helen Mirren.

I never got around to reading 2061. Without being too spoilerific, did mankind, in fact, land on Europa?

[coprolite]

5 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

Rarely seen film 2010, the sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey. The film was alright, but without the written elements in the story it was never really explained why these things were happening. 

At the end, once Jupiter turns into a second sun, the aliens sent the humans a message. In the novel it was cold and chilling - "All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there." In the film they added "Use them together. Use them in peace" which really undermined the whole coldness of the book. 

 

I still say "piece of pie" when something's easy. Most people don't get the reference and assume i'm a moron. 

I was thinking of 2001 as a nomination for this thread. The book is decent but the freudian shit about the diving incident was pointless and dull. The book's more literal exposition of the events of the end isn't as good as the expressionist approach that Kubric takes.  I read the book first though so might still be a bit puzzled by the end otherwise. 

I'll also nominate The Third Man. I'm a huge fan of Graham Greene, but he wrote the book as a storyboard/script for the film and it all just feels more film-shaped.  The film is an absolute masterpiece. All other Greene books better their films (that i've seen), even Dickie's Brighton Rock. 

[scottsdad]

9 minutes ago, BFTD said:

I'd forgotten about that part of the book. Good film though; much better than you'd expect. Also Helen Mirren.

I never got around to reading 2061. Without being too spoilerific, did mankind, in fact, land on Europa?

2061 is about Halley's Comet mostly, but they do (crash) land on Europa. It isn't all that bad a book, to be honest.

3001: The Final Odyssey is possibly the worst book I have ever read. 

[DA Baracus]

42 minutes ago, AnthonySummers said:

I have a question.. Ain't TV or Films are just only want to earn money. Do they worry about truth? Unless it is documentary.

Reboot.

[Lofarl]

The shining sequel Dr Sleep.  Books ok.  Films fucking brilliant.

[madmitch]

On 20/01/2022 at 08:53, scottsdad said:

The Hunt for Red October. The book was far, far too long and the last third was quite boring. 

For me it was the book over the film. I really liked reading about the submarine tactics which doesn't come across in the film. As for casting Sean Connery as a Russian submarine commander. Just naw.