Name a MOVIE that was BETTER than the BOOK!

Ten Commandments and Jesus Christ Superstar. The book sucked.......

EDIT: This was meant as a joke. All you religious freaks that are offended, dont start flaming me....
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory[/QUOTE]


technically, the book is titled Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which is the name of the new movie...

just pointing that out, although I agree the original movie was awesome.
 
Lord of the Rings and the Shining I would disagree with.. but they're debatable

But the Godfather.. you are out of your gourd. Although a great movie, Mario Puzo's novel absolutely thrashes it in terms of characterization and development.
 
I'd have to say Fight club. Don't get me wrong I loved the book, it's just that everything in the movie was done so well. Take the score for example, so much of the mood of the movie was set by that. The supersaturated colors and high contrast of the film realy add to the mood as well.
 
[quote name='varsitygamer']technically, the book is titled Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which is the name of the new movie...

just pointing that out, although I agree the original movie was awesome.[/QUOTE]

I know, but I specified WW so that no one would think I was referring to the new movie. Which I still haven't seen. :cry:
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']But the Godfather.. you are out of your gourd. Although a great movie, Mario Puzo's novel absolutely thrashes it in terms of characterization and development.[/QUOTE]

You can't compare novels with film, as they are two different mediums. You can say which told the story better, and I think the film did it better.
 
The Hoods (the novel) adapted into Once Upon a Time in America (the film), which was incredible.
 
[quote name='Brak']You can't compare novels with film, as they are two different mediums. You can say which told the story better, and I think the film did it better.[/QUOTE]

So you just said Godfather the movie was better than the novel.. then said you can't compare novels with film..... then you compare novels and films... how does that work again?
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']So you just said Godfather the movie was better than the novel.. then said you can't compare novels with film..... then you compare novels and films... how does that work again?[/QUOTE]

You read, right?

Here, I'll quote the key point that you apparently didn't read or filter through your neurons, cool-ass.

[quote name='"Brak"']You can say which told the story better, and I think the film did it better.[/quote]

Nice try at a triumphant post, however.

I'll elaborate a little more, as well, so you don't bother to respond. Books, by nature, and if the author has talent, have the upper hand of explaining everything by means of a narrator -- whether it be a character or the actual book's "voice". I character can explain how they feel, whereas in film, an actor has to do this on the outside with, surprise, acting -- which, in my opinion (and this is all opinion, thanks for attempting to tell me my opinion is wrong), is a better catalyst for story telling.
 
Gotta agree with Brak cause the mediums are too different to compair the two. Although you may like one more than the other but youll never get more detail than a book or something more applealing to the senses than a movie.
 
The Shawshank Redemption.

The movie fared a bit better than the short story from "Different Seasons"

(The book also spawned the movies Apt Pupil and Stand by Me)
 
[quote name='Brak']You read, right?

Here, I'll quote the key point that you apparently didn't read or filter through your neurons, cool-ass.



Nice try at a triumphant post, however.

I'll elaborate a little more, as well, so you don't bother to respond. Books, by nature, and if the author has talent, have the upper hand of explaining everything by means of a narrator -- whether it be a character or the actual book's "voice". I character can explain how they feel, whereas in film, an actor has to do this on the outside with, surprise, acting -- which, in my opinion (and this is all opinion, thanks for attempting to tell me my opinion is wrong), is a better catalyst for story telling.[/QUOTE]

Ok, lets try this in really easy terms.. If you compare the way the story is presented, you are comparing between the mediums. Pure and simple.

Acting and pretty pictures do tell a story better, you are correct. But that only applies to the portion of the population unable to truly comprehend a novel.

Oh and just for the record, many movies also have a narrator.. just to further invalidate your high-school synopsis there.
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']Oh and just for the record, many movies also have a narrator.. just to further invalidate your high-school synopsis there.[/QUOTE]

Many is a dual-meaing for "all" now? That's pretty cool. And, again, you flex your talents of not reading -- the book, itself, is a narrator of a story. You are reading a complete narration of events. NO FILM HAS THAT -- film relies on sensory. Visuals, sounds (voices), etc. "A cat trots through a dark alleyway." That's what you'd read in a novel, from the book (a narrator in itself) or maybe a character narrator within the book. In a film, that is what you see. Understand? Probably not.

And, I'll explain it again, since you missed it... again. Film and novels are two entirely different mediums -- you can't compare them on their own. However, you can compare a film to a novel, in which tells the story better or which was better executed. Not to mention you can judge which has the better story, as well, as there have been novels that are hunks of shit that have been adapted into very good screenplays.
 
[quote name='peteloaf']I'd have to say Fight club. Don't get me wrong I loved the book, it's just that everything in the movie was done so well. Take the score for example, so much of the mood of the movie was set by that. The supersaturated colors and high contrast of the film realy add to the mood as well.[/QUOTE]

and i think Chuck Palahniuk would agree with you. i read somewhere, and it might be in the dvd insert of the 2 disc edition, that he said after watching the movie that the book was somewhat "inadequate", or something like that.
 
[quote name='Brak']Many is a dual-meaing for "all" now? That's pretty cool. And, again, you flex your talents of not reading -- the book, itself, is a narrator of a story. You are reading a complete narration of events. NO FILM HAS THAT -- film relies on sensory. Visuals, sounds (voices), etc.

And, I'll explain it again, since you missed it... again. Film and novels are two entirely different mediums -- you can't compare them on their own. However, you can compare a film to a novel, in which tells the story better or which was better executed. Not to mention you can judge which has the better story, as well, as there have been novels that are hunks of shit that have been adapted into very good screenplays.[/QUOTE]

Ah, but if we can compare each individual aspect the movie and the novel share, then we have in full compared the complete pieces of work. e.g. If we can say the book had better characterization, better pacing, better plot development, better storyline, better thought and better dialogue.. then we can reliably say the novel was the better of the two pieces of work.

And again, you say we cannot compare them on their own.. yet your first post in this thread simply said the Godfather was a better movie than a novel.
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']Ah, but if we can compare each individual aspect the movie and the novel share, then we have in full compared the complete pieces of work. e.g. If we can say the book had better characterization, better pacing, better plot development, better storyline, better thought and better dialogue.. then we can reliably say the novel was the better of the two pieces of work.

And again, you say we cannot compare them on their own.. yet your first post in this thread simply said the Godfather was a better movie than a novel.[/QUOTE]

You're incredible. I'm not even going to bother addressing this. Instead, I'll let a quote of myself that you quoted address it:

[quote name='Brak']Film and novels are two entirely different mediums -- you can't compare them on their own. However, you can compare a film to a novel, in which tells the story better or which was better executed.[/quote]

YOU CANNOT COMPARE THE TWO INDIVIDUAL MEDIUMS -- FILM/BOOK. RATHER, ONE CAN COMPARE A SPECIFIC FILM AND A SPECIFIC BOOK! I WAS ADDRESSING THE AGE-OLD, ELITIST MYTH THAT THE BOOK IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN THE FILM.

Learn to fucking read, then learn to fucking argue.
 
[quote name='Brak']You're incredible. I'm not even going to bother addressing this. Instead, I'll let a quote of myself that you quoted address it:



YOU CANNOT COMPARE THE TWO INDIVIDUAL MEDIUMS. RATHER, ONE CAN COMPARE A SPECIFIC FILM AND A SPECIFIC BOOK! I WAS ADDRESSING THE AGE-OLD, ELITIST MYTH THAT THE BOOK IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN THE FILM.

Learn to fucking read, then learn to fucking argue.[/QUOTE]

You seem to be getting a little upset.. to young to be able to maturely discuss quite yet?

I do not understand why you would even consider discussing comparing mediums in whole since it was never brought up at any earlier time in the thread.

I suppose it would be easier to comprehend your posts if they followed a sensible order instead of randomly throwing in unconnected thoughts.
 
I know one thing - a movie will always have better visuals... unless the book has pictures in it... but those better be some really cool shit.
 
Getting back on topic...

I'd say both Silence of the Lambs and High Fidelity were better movies than the novels that spawned them.
 
No, no. All Caps doesn't convey anger. And neither does fragrant name calling, as they were justified. With the all caps, I was trying to get you to actually read my post, instead of reading what you wanted to read, as you were arguing with what you, the idiot-ass, thought I was saying, which you did a good job of swatting away when realizing you were wrong... and stupid.

[quote name='Cornfedwb']I do not understand why you would even consider discussing comparing mediums in whole since it was never brought up at any earlier time in the thread.[/quote]

Ah. My mistake that you're not able to comprehend written word? Interesting. Way to try and push it back on me.

[quote name='Brak']You can't compare novels with film, as they are two different mediums. You can say which told the story better, and I think the film did it better.[/quote]

I said that you can't compare novels with film, as they are two different mediums. But you can say which told the story better, and I said that I thought The Godfather film told it better than the novel. How are these two detatched ideas? Or are you just pushing the fact that you look like a fucking joker back on me?

[quote name='Cornfedwb']I suppose it would be easier to comprehend your posts if they followed a sensible order instead of randomly throwing in unconnected thoughts.[/quote]

Again: My mistake that you're not able to comprehend written word? Interesting. Way to try and push it back on me.

I think you're really cool.
 
[quote name='SDMeslow']Getting back on topic...

I'd say both Silence of the Lambs and High Fidelity were better movies than the novels that spawned them.[/QUOTE]
I disagree on High Fidelity, but eh, tastes are personal.

I will add The Wizard of Oz to the list.
 
[quote name='elwood731']I disagree on High Fidelity, but eh, tastes are personal.[/QUOTE]

The book was set in the UK, wasn't it?
 
[quote name='Brak']No, no. All Caps doesn't convey anger. And neither does fragrant name calling, as they were justified. With the all caps, I was trying to get you to actually read my post, instead of reading what you wanted to read, as you were arguing with what you, the idiot-ass, thought I was saying, which you did a good job of swatting away when realizing you were wrong... and stupid.



Ah. My mistake that you're not able to comprehend written word? Interesting. Way to try and push it back on me.



I said that you can't compare novels with film, as they are two different mediums. But you can say which told the story better, and I said that I thought The Godfather film told it better than the novel. How are these two detatched ideas? Or are you just pushing the fact that you look like a fucking joker back on me?



Again: My mistake that you're not able to comprehend written word? Interesting. Way to try and push it back on me.

I think you're really cool.[/QUOTE]

The detached thought was suddenly throwing in a comment stating that you cannot compare the mediums as a whole.. as the idea that you could was even contemplated at any previous time in the discussion.

Your quote "You can't compare novels with film, as they are two different mediums" in response to my comment saying The Godfather was a better novel then film would not seem to imply you mean the mediums as a whole to anyone.

Oh.. and this quote.. "Books, by nature, and if the author has talent, have the upper hand of explaining everything by means of a narrator -- whether it be a character or the actual book's "voice". I character can explain how they feel, whereas in film, an actor has to do this on the outside with, surprise, acting -- which, in my opinion (and this is all opinion, thanks for attempting to tell me my opinion is wrong), is a better catalyst for story telling." Does compare the two mediums as a whole.

And thank you, I also find myself quite cool.
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']The detached thought was suddenly throwing in a comment stating that you cannot compare the mediums as a whole.. as the idea that you could was even contemplated at any previous time in the discussion.[/QUOTE]

I used that "detatched thought" as an interlude to my stance. That stance being that I don't blindly say the book or the film is automatically better -- thus not detatched.

[quote name='Cornfedwb']Your quote "You can't compare novels with film, as they are two different mediums" in response to my comment saying The Godfather was a better novel then film would not seem to imply you mean the mediums as a whole to anyone.[/QUOTE]

Read above.


[quote name='Cornfedwb']Oh.. and this quote.. "Books, by nature, and if the author has talent, have the upper hand of explaining everything by means of a narrator -- whether it be a character or the actual book's "voice". I character can explain how they feel, whereas in film, an actor has to do this on the outside with, surprise, acting -- which, in my opinion (and this is all opinion, thanks for attempting to tell me my opinion is wrong), is a better catalyst for story telling." Does compare the two mediums as a whole.[/QUOTE]

Yes. That's comparing... in terms of the apple being red and the orange being orange -- not which tastes better.

[quote name='Cornfedwb']And thank you, I also find myself quite cool.[/QUOTE]

I can tell.
 
[quote name='bostonfrontier']The Hulk[/QUOTE]

Thats BS! The comic book was better than the movie.
 
[quote name='Xevious']Thats BS! The comic book was better than the movie.[/QUOTE]

I loved the film adaptation. It's good to see that somebody else did.

I'll throw in The Punisher (2004), as well. I loved how it was adapted into a modern, urban spaghetti western. Brilliant.
 
[quote name='zenintrude']Solaris[/QUOTE]

I haven't seen either of those; the 2002 version ot the 1972 version (Solyaris). How are they?
 
Hellboy, although adapted differently from the comic book, is incredible. But I like both the comic and the film in their own rights.

They're both great. :]
 
[quote name='camoor']I enjoyed the movie "Apocalypse Now" more then the book it's based on - which is Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"[/QUOTE]

I've got HoD but I've never gotten around to reading it. I should, there's not much to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top