LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

"The movie was okay, but the book..."

Malerik said:
Most of Michael Crichton's last few books. Loved the guy's earlier stuff, but began to write everything like it was a built in movie deal.
Click to expand...

Crichton.. ugh.. I stopped reading him when he wrote that book about how global warming was a myth. You're right though, some of his earlier stuff was quite cinematic.
 
*Twisted* said:
Crichton.. ugh.. I stopped reading him when he wrote that book about how global warming was a myth. You're right though, some of his earlier stuff was quite cinematic.
Click to expand...

To give the man credit, he did some film directing in his younger days so he had the cinematic touch to him (Westworld is still an enjoyable film) but after the Jurassic Park books everything felt like it was tailor written to be sold to a studio instead of feeling like a book with cinematic qualities.

And to be fair to State of Fear, when I was in college I was friends with a couple people who where meteorology majors who backed Crichton in pointing out to me that as far as scientific evidence goes, there is very little to actually prove Global Warming. The world is millions of years old and we've only been on it for what, somewhere in the thousands, and only accurately monitoring weather patterns for 200 at the most. To say we're effecting the climate that much is at best an educated guess spiced with natural human egotism that we have that power.
 
Last edited:
Oh valid point. As I said, I enjoyed his books, until he decided global warming was a myth. Westworld was indeed a good movie. Never post while intoxicated.. Your point about people not being around long enough to effect environmental change is well taken, but then again, there is the whole CO2 thing too.
 
Last edited:
The original 1925 Lon Chaney Phantom of the Opera. Closest to the actual book, but much more coherent than the book itself.

As much as I love the book, it's a mess from thematic point of view. The book can't decide whether it wants to be a memoir, mystery, horror story, romance, history...it's basically all over the place.
 
Has anyone watch or read Confession of a Shopaholic?
I personally did not put any expectation when I watch the movie, so I think it was OK.

Lots of Kinsella's fans was disapointed to the fact thay they shot it in USA. But I dont really mind that.
I can even forgive the film maker for making Suze, (one of the character who is very stylish in the book) has a very bad taste of fashion.

The only thing that made me upset was because they made Derek Smeath (the bank manager) as antagonist. Because he's one of my most favourite character on the book :mad:

It's fat chance the guys watch/read it. But well :eek:
 
Malerik said:
The original 1925 Lon Chaney Phantom of the Opera. Closest to the actual book, but much more coherent than the book itself.

As much as I love the book, it's a mess from thematic point of view. The book can't decide whether it wants to be a memoir, mystery, horror story, romance, history...it's basically all over the place.
Click to expand...

the 1925 POTO is one of my favorite movies, and book is a favorite as well. I agree the that movie is slightly more coherent though. I just wish they could have left the ending the way it was in the book, and done away with that pointless chase. Over all though, I think the movie's strongest point above all else is Chaney's performance (and when did he ever give a bad one?). The effects that he pioneered on that film alone are astounding even by today's standards. Now with Stan Winston gone and Jim Henson's creature shop hanging on by a thread (and to Disney no less) I wonder how long it will be before all the traditional effects are thrown away in favor of total CGI. It's coming soon and it will be a sad day when it happens.
 
"No Country For Old Men" and "Into The Wild" ---I think the books were better than the movies.
 
Kirk Douglas 's version of Ulysses. I love Greek Mythology, most books on mythology but that book. James Joyce... too much for me to get thru. :confused:
 
"Hart's War" was a fantastic read, whereas the movie was cursed with Colin Farrell and Bruce Willis...shame
 
*Twisted* said:
I haven't seen About a Boy, or read High Fidelity, but I enjoyed the book and the movie respectively. He's a great writer! High Fidelity seemed like it was written for film. Which in retrospect you see periodically.

How often have you read a book and thought, wow that was too much like a movie?
Click to expand...

High Fidelity the book was brilliant, and I honestly didn't expect the movie to work as well as it did. In fact it's hard to say which was better. Right now I'd say the movie is my slight fave...

Now as for "About A Boy", the movie was I think a tad better than the book. The same could be said for the original UK version of "Fever Pitch" (Colin Firth etc), but the yank version (Jimmy Fallon) was execrable.
 
This was brought up in another thread, but it reminded me I should put it here.

A Clockwork Orange - the movie is weird and bizarre, yet way more accessible than the book.
 
I agree about LOTR - I found the films far more accessible. Trying to find the actual narrative in the novels was like looking for a nun on here.

The Devil Wears Prada is definitely better as a film; the book was just very...bland.

Crichton always wrote in a cinematic style; short on description and heavy on dialogue (which is the same style as many of his contemporaries, to be honest). He liked to provoke controversy and he always backed up his points with reams of peer reviewed evidence. He wasn't saying anything new in State of Fear, but he was saying something not half as exciting as "oh no, we're killing the planet!"

Jeremy Irons' version of Lolita was almost as good as the novel. Almost...
 
Malerik said:
I'd agree with the Shining, but I'm not a big King fan to begin with.
Click to expand...

Honestly it's almost not even fair to compare the two. The film and the book are essentially two completely different stories told in completely different ways. Personally, I think they both stand individually on their own merits. I will say though, the book is so internal and so dependent on intangible plot devices I don't see how there could be a decent direct adaptation.
 
glasspenguin said:
Honestly it's almost not even fair to compare the two. The film and the book are essentially two completely different stories told in completely different ways. Personally, I think they both stand individually on their own merits. I will say though, the book is so internal and so dependent on intangible plot devices I don't see how there could be a decent direct adaptation.
Click to expand...

I completely agree! In the book the main character in reality, was the hotel of course and in the movie (even though he did a great job) Jack Nicholson was way over the top and took away from that. That being said, Nicholson put The Shining on the map, without him, the film would not have become iconic.

Don't hate me Grishom fans but any film made out of a John Grishom book is way better. The books are so bland....total snooze fests!

And oy vey at Michael Crichton's book State of Fear. Too bad he's not still alive, he could've celebrated with the rest of the nuts on Carbon Belch Day.
 
ok, I'm new to the thread, and I'm ancient

But I have to say that my most obvious choice is The Godfather. The book 'was' a hit but the movie was/is a cinematic masterpiece that even the sequels were brilliant. The book was just a nice 'page turner'.

The other choice is another 'biggie' back in the day, Gone With the Wind. The book was also a big hit, but is much too much fluff and idealized south. But the movie is in another dimension and has great staying power after all these years.
 
oh and another one from my generation. The Graduate, brilliant movie; changed the face of American movie making but the book was written in 63..went back and read it...boring.
 
agedmac said:
ok, I'm new to the thread, and I'm ancient

But I have to say that my most obvious choice is The Godfather. The book 'was' a hit but the movie was/is a cinematic masterpiece that even the sequels were brilliant. The book was just a nice 'page turner'.

The other choice is another 'biggie' back in the day, Gone With the Wind. The book was also a big hit, but is much too much fluff and idealized south. But the movie is in another dimension and has great staying power after all these years.
Click to expand...

I think the brilliance of the Godfather is that the film saga it beget became so much richer because of liberties those working on it were granted. I loved the novel and read it before I ever saw the film. When I watched the first film I was somewhat angry because of what was cut concerning Vito's life and rise to power. However, when I watched the second film and saw all of that material for the novel worked in to parallel Micheal's fall from power it became even richer and more brilliant. Honestly, I think that's what the 3rd film was missing. The first two were so much about the similarities and difference between the generations of the Corleone family, but the third film just didn't have that direct connection. I couldn't even feel for Michael as strongly given how much weaker of figure he became as opposed to his father.

That being said, I will defend the third film because it is a good movie in it's own right. It's only looked down upon because it pales in comparison with its predecessors.

... Ok, well, Sophia Coppola is annoying as hell, but come on! It's a 3 hour movie and she only really has about 45 minutes of total screen time.
 
Totally agree about TPB, great freaking movie.

Couple of others-

Road to Perdition (Tom Hanks and Paul Newman were outstand)
Stand By Me/The Body- movie was better. (Music, actors all added so much more)
I think its a toss up with Killer Angels/Gettysburg (KA was a great book- but movie showed the scope of the battle)
Black Hawk Down (Got a ture sense of the violence and the bravery our men showed)
We were Soldiers (Ditto, and Mel was amazing)


Just a few I thought of.
 
Last edited:
i had read the books "the davinci code" and "P.S.-I Love You"... and after i watched the respective movies.. I was utterly disappointed. so now if i have to watch a novel adaptation.. i would prefer not to read the book first..
 
MultipleOrgasmDonor said:
i had read the books "the davinci code" and "P.S.-I Love You"... and after i watched the respective movies.. I was utterly disappointed. so now if i have to watch a novel adaptation.. i would prefer not to read the book first..
Click to expand...

In most cases this is how I feel as well- I don't even mind if I know the general story in advance of reading the book because so much is always edited there's more than enough to keep me interested.

As mentioned above the only notable exception to this rule for me was the Godfather Trilogy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Crankbait88
Throw caution to the wind
Replies
3
Views
495
NightBirdNYC
NightBirdNYC
caroldemar
HELLO....love this site BUT
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Olderwiserstillhorny
O
N
Squirting aftermath...
8 9 10
Replies
249
Views
17K
sammyIammy
S
6
What are your fantasies?
4 5 6
Replies
134
Views
7K
MerWilh
M
6
What are your fantasies?
2 3
Replies
65
Views
4K
bikesnbooks
B
Back
Top