Terrific Movies, Terrible Books.

Inspired by Hypo's thread.

For me, I absolutely hate HATED the LotR Trilogy. Yeah, sue me. I just don't think Tolkein is that great of an author, and his writing style bores me to tears. But I love love love the movies. Actually, Fellowship of the Ring is my favorite movie of all time.

Also, Everything is Illuminated. The books was so bad and sooooo boring. But the movie was really clever and funny, and connected you to the characters.


I know that it's rare that a movie is better than its source, but what movies do you think are better than the books they originated from?

I never enjoyed LoTR either, I only read the first one. From what I remember, my main complaint was it spending entire chapters on describing some dull situation or event (or a millennia of backstory, hello Council of Elrond, come on down!), only for it to never be mentioned again. You could skip entire sections of that book and not miss anything.

Miriel is going to take a giant tit on both of us.

How funny, I just finished re-reading the Council Of Elrond chapter last night. I thought it was splendid. But really, it makes a lot more sense and has so much more depth if you've read The Silmarillion. I will never understand people who don't think LoTR is remarkably beautiful to read, but different strokes. Both the books and the movies are my favs.

I agree about Everything is Illuminated, I liked the movie more than the book. I liked the recent Jane Eyre movie even though I never liked the book. I think it's cause the book didn't have sexy Michael Fassbender.

Stardust was just an ok book but a really charming movie.

Howl's Moving Castle, looooove the movie. Book was meh.

You can say LotR isn't your type of novel, but I don't know how anyone could say Tolkien wasn't a great author. He was masterful with words.

How's Moving Castle was definitely better as a movie.

I can't think of many others. There are probably several movies I've seen that are based on books where I didn't read the book because they probably weren't that good.

I will say Tolkien is a good author in the sense that he has a head for great STORIES. But his writing style is exactly what made me hate the books.

His writing style is exactly what I love about him. Maybe not so much the structure of his stories. And if I weren't such a rabid fan, I would say he needed someone to help him edit down. But the actual sentences he created? Goooorgeous. Like reading poetry. I mean, The Silmarillion was the hardest book I ever read. There is no structure there. Not that I can be too pressed about it, I mean, the dude died before he finished it. But man, I struggled through it. I had to take notes to keep track of what the hell was happening. BUT, I think it's the most beautiful piece of work I've ever read. I do love me some highfalutin language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miriel

His writing style is exactly what I love about him. Maybe not so much the structure of his stories. And if I weren't such a rabid fan, I would say he needed someone to help him edit down. But the actual sentences he created? Goooorgeous. Like reading poetry. I mean, The Silmarillion was the hardest book I ever read. There is no structure there. Not that I can be too pressed about it, I mean, the dude died before he finished it. But man, I struggled through it. I had to take notes to keep track of what the hell was happening. BUT, I think it's the most beautiful piece of work I've ever read. I do love me some highfalutin language.

---

I respect that. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)

I have to agree that I definitely enjoyed the LotR films more. I really struggled to stay interested in the books. Though you can't take away what Tolkien did. Creating that many cultures and languages is truly remarkable and something that probably won't be achieved again. The films wouldn't be anywhere near as good as they are without the wealth of detail Tolkien provided.

But still, he couldn't half stop the story dead with seventeen pages on a group of them smoking pipe weed. I did enjoy reading a lot of the stories in the appendices though.

Oh, I agree that Tolkien was absolutely brilliant for coming up with such an in-depth world and detailed history of it.

Damn straight.

Also, I wasn't keen on the Stephen King short story 'The Body' but that was turned into the awesome film 'Stand By Me'. Though that may have been overshadowed by the other short story from the same book "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption". I hear that was turned into a pretty good film too.

I must also agree that the LotR movies are better than the books. The books are often very, very, very boring. I completely agree with fiery that the world and story Tolkien created was fantastically rich, but that his pacing and writing style just wears you down (and by "writing style," I mean more than just diction and individual sentences).

However, I do not mean to rag on Tolkien's contribution to fiction. As a fantasy book buff myself, I will readily concede that Tolkien basically invented the genre as we know it today. Even if I don't think the books measure up individually against some other fantasy greats, Tolkien is still richly deserving of most of the credit he is given.

Yeah, chalk another one up to LotR, I wasn't able to get past the second book. I can't think of any others at the moment though.

I can agree about Howls moving castle, but as for LoTR, does Tom Bombadil ring any bells?

i liked howls moving castle better as a book
not to say i didn't like the movie

i liked the da vinci code movie. couldn't stomach the first chapter of the book, so bad.

im also pretty sure the twilight movies are better than the books. but i haven't read more than 3 chapters of twilight either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krissy

i liked the da vinci code movie. couldn't stomach the first chapter of the book, so bad.

---

The Da Vinci Code movie was nothing special, but it was certainly better than the book. Among other things, it toned down some of the more obnoxious craziness.

yeah i don't think i'll ever watch it again, but i mean i watched it once and didn't feel like walking out of the theater, which is how i felt with the book.

Almost every Stephen King movie is better than his book. He's not a strong writer, but the plots obviously make some pretty amazing films. I also preferred A Clockwork Orange film to the book.

I like the Pride & Prejudice movie better than the book. Austen is a great author, but I'm not a proper lady and I require more sauce.

I hear Forest Gump is a horrid book.

Diary of Anne Frank is much better as a movie. I felt like the book was written by a teenager.

I also hated LoTR which confused me greatly because I loved The Hobbit and couldnt understand how someone who had written something so amazing couldve lost it all. I also prefered the Pride and Prejudice movie over the book.

The Bourne Supremacy. I never read the Bourne Identity, but jesus was Supremacy slow and plodding. The book was just so damned long winded, I ceased to be amused be it rather quickly. This one is debatable though, seeing as how everything in the movie series by this point had nothing to do with the books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shlup

I like the Pride & Prejudice movie better than the book. Austen is a great author, but I'm not a proper lady and I require more sauce.

---

I think the two are equal. Pride & Prejudice is one of my fav books ever, and the 2005 movie version is PERFECTION. I can watch that movie over and over and over. A few weeks over I even made Tony sit through it. Best movie ever! :love:

For everybody who says they hated Lord of the Rings, when was the last time you read it? I first tried to read it immediately after I read the Hobbit in the 6th grade and I thought it was terrible. I was all, "Tolkien, wtf is this crap?!"

But I was too young to have the reading comprehension for it.

It wasn't until High School that I really fell in love with it, and re-reading it now, I'm picking up on stuff I never noticed before. I'm sure if I keep re-reading it every few years like Christopher Lee does, it'll just keep getting better and better. I absolutely hated The Great Gatsby when I read it in High School, I thought it was one of the worst books I'd ever been forced to read. I re-read it earlier this year and it wasn't half bad at all. I think LotR is one of those books you have to be ready for, and have the time for. It's a slow read for sure. But it's slow and steady and beautiful. You gotta take your time with it. If you're looking for a page turner, it's probably not your kind of book.

Apocalypse Now > Heart of Darkness.

I can't believe no ones mentioned this yet but I preferred Jesus Christ Superstar over the Bible.

I'm not doubting the penmanship of the many authors of the Bible one bit but I just feel it takes itself too seriously. The ending is also a bit far fetched for my liking.

The genius of Jesus Christ Superstar is that it takes all the good stuff from The Bible (the emo fella with the thorny head, the madman attempting to kill his son, the magic, whoring, the murders, plots, filicide, patricide, fratricide, and not forgetting the sandals) but it ADDS Tanks. Every film should have tanks, I cannot stress this enough. They add drama.

It's riveting stufff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike

Apocalypse Now > Heart of Darkness.

---

this

I never read the book, but it is often pointed out that the author of Fight Club thinks the movie version was better than his book. I have seen most people agree with this assessment over the years.

The original book that I Am Legend is based on is mediocre and relatively boring. However the film I Am Legend is amazing. The original book was also set in Ireland which completely changed obviously for the movie.