Reply to Topic
Nope, no confusion, he bites the dust...as does Hammond. What's funny is that Malcolm returns in Crichton's second book, because most of those who read it were doing so because they enjoyed the movie, and not because they read the first book. Must have been odd for Crichton to have to revive a character he obviously killed in the first book.
The Best Movies From Books
Originally posted by Kielle
was 2001 a book? wow, you learn something new every day.
and the jack nicholson shining was stupid, i think ive mentioned that before. Steven Weber one was better, much better adaptation.
was 2001 a book? wow, you learn something new every day.
and the jack nicholson shining was stupid, i think ive mentioned that before. Steven Weber one was better, much better adaptation.
Good thread.
Very few books come close to reaching the standard of its written source. When reading I project the book as a movie in my own head. I visualise the actors, the camera shots, how the dialogue is spoken. Maybe this is just me. But there is always a sense of disappointment after watching the movie version because it doesn't agree with my vision.
There is nothing worse than a director who changes massive chunks of material from its source. Jurassic Park has already been discussed. I can see Spielberg's side of the debate. To adapt Crichton's novel exactly as it was would have garnered an automatic R rating. It was much too violent. But there are too many Jurassic Park the book fans (it was a bestseller) who left the theatre disappointed. Thankfully I saw the movie before reading the book and loved it. However upon reading Jurassic Park, I felt letdown. The film could have been so much more. The Lost World - ditto. Book was far better than film.
[ By the way Dr Malcolm did die in Jurassic Park but Crichton said at the start of The Lost World that he was only declared dead ]
Another novel that has been adapted poorly for the screen is To Kill A Mockingbird. The film itself works but as an adaptation of a novel loved by millions, including me, it fell quite a bit short of the mark. The director's love wasn't present or at least it didn't come across in the film.
The only film that comes to mind that improved on its source material is American Psycho. That book is one tough read. Chapters alternate between album reviews to yuppie behaviour to the most deplorable descriptions of sado-masochism and violence ever written. Still, I liked the book, it was an original. And yet, the film version was the stronger of the two. It was much more subtle with its violence and more successful because of it.
Last Point. The book that I would dearly love to see translated to the screen is "The Catcher in the Rye". I know it's unlikely in our lifetime because of its author's reluctance but I think it would make a great watch if done right. What are your opinions on this great novel's adaptation?
Very few books come close to reaching the standard of its written source. When reading I project the book as a movie in my own head. I visualise the actors, the camera shots, how the dialogue is spoken. Maybe this is just me. But there is always a sense of disappointment after watching the movie version because it doesn't agree with my vision.
There is nothing worse than a director who changes massive chunks of material from its source. Jurassic Park has already been discussed. I can see Spielberg's side of the debate. To adapt Crichton's novel exactly as it was would have garnered an automatic R rating. It was much too violent. But there are too many Jurassic Park the book fans (it was a bestseller) who left the theatre disappointed. Thankfully I saw the movie before reading the book and loved it. However upon reading Jurassic Park, I felt letdown. The film could have been so much more. The Lost World - ditto. Book was far better than film.
[ By the way Dr Malcolm did die in Jurassic Park but Crichton said at the start of The Lost World that he was only declared dead ]
Another novel that has been adapted poorly for the screen is To Kill A Mockingbird. The film itself works but as an adaptation of a novel loved by millions, including me, it fell quite a bit short of the mark. The director's love wasn't present or at least it didn't come across in the film.
The only film that comes to mind that improved on its source material is American Psycho. That book is one tough read. Chapters alternate between album reviews to yuppie behaviour to the most deplorable descriptions of sado-masochism and violence ever written. Still, I liked the book, it was an original. And yet, the film version was the stronger of the two. It was much more subtle with its violence and more successful because of it.
Last Point. The book that I would dearly love to see translated to the screen is "The Catcher in the Rye". I know it's unlikely in our lifetime because of its author's reluctance but I think it would make a great watch if done right. What are your opinions on this great novel's adaptation?
__________________
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.
my list would be:
These are the ones that popped into my head.There are much more but no time on my hands.
- The Godfather (Mario Puzo)
- One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest (Ken Kesey)
- A Clockwork Orange (Anthony Burgess)
- 2001:A Space Oddysey (Arthur.C.Clark)
- All the President's Men (Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein)
These are the ones that popped into my head.There are much more but no time on my hands.
__________________
Sometimes you wake up. Sometimes the fall kills you. And sometimes when you fall, you fly.
Sometimes you wake up. Sometimes the fall kills you. And sometimes when you fall, you fly.
and many of Stanley Kubrick's film........
Jurassic park is one of the works movies made from a book.
The book was a million times better, the movie didn't exactly suck either, so that just goes to show you how good the book was.
You may have read the book after seeing the movie so that may have clouded your judgement. Personally I read the book first and was disappointed in how much the movie changed the plot.
The book was a million times better, the movie didn't exactly suck either, so that just goes to show you how good the book was.
You may have read the book after seeing the movie so that may have clouded your judgement. Personally I read the book first and was disappointed in how much the movie changed the plot.
__________________
Chris Beasley
CB Swords - Get LOTR replica swords.
Coupon Codes - Get deals on Amazon, Dell, Gateway, and more.
Chris Beasley
CB Swords - Get LOTR replica swords.
Coupon Codes - Get deals on Amazon, Dell, Gateway, and more.
Since no one else mentioned it, I think Mystic River deserves mention here. Also loved the film version of The Outsiders.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Only counting the movies from books I've read, but The Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me.
Also, the Hunger Games, this may be a bit controversial, but I honestly thought the movies so far are slightly better than the books, mostly because she spends waay too much thinking about the love triangle.
EDIT: Oh, and I also liked The Fellowship of the Ring more in movie than book, **** the police. I am yet to read the other two, although The Hobbit is my fav (Which I thought the first one was a pretty good adaptation, and the second was okay but still prefer the book.)
Also, the Hunger Games, this may be a bit controversial, but I honestly thought the movies so far are slightly better than the books, mostly because she spends waay too much thinking about the love triangle.
EDIT: Oh, and I also liked The Fellowship of the Ring more in movie than book, **** the police. I am yet to read the other two, although The Hobbit is my fav (Which I thought the first one was a pretty good adaptation, and the second was okay but still prefer the book.)
X
Favorite Movies
Girl With The Dragon Tatoo? Maybe not the best but its great. Have tbh, know im not supposed to but I prefer the 'Hollywood' version. Both are sick though!