Movies that are better than the novels they are based on

[Storm Raven]

Everyone has varying tastes in stuff. Just because you're more narrow-minded in your "tastes", don't ridicule those of us who are more broad-minded.

Yes, and in my opinion, your tastes in movies appear to be so whacky that it makes all of your movie opinions suspect. Battlefield Earth was such an unwatchable piece of drek that I find it hard to believe that anyone has a neutral opinion regarding it, let alone a favorable one.

 

[WizarDru]

Yes, and in my opinion, your tastes in movies appear to be so whacky that it makes all of your movie opinions suspect. Battlefield Earth was such an unwatchable piece of drek that I find it hard to believe that anyone has a neutral opinion regarding it, let alone a favorable one.

To put this in proper context, let's look at the reviews for Battlefield Earth. Tally on Rotten Tomatoes? 4%. And that's including the one positive review that says "Is it worth seeing once? Sure." And that's the only positive comment in the review. It's average, on IMDB.com is 2.6%, placing it at #29 on the bottom list. That is, of the massive number of films that IMDB.com charts, it is only 28 from the worst film rated, and of the bottom 100, it has more votes than other movie, at nearly 13,000 votes. Only Speed 2 comes close, and it's down in the 90s. It has a poorer rating than such cinematic titans as "Hercules in New York" and "Police Academy 6".

It's total gross was about $30 Million US, and it was budgeted at $73 million, not including marketing campaigns. Travolta's pay was based on box-office performance...so when it tanked, he got much-less than his standard rate.

This isn't to say you aren't entitled to like it...but by virtually every yard-stick I tend to measure such things by, it's a bad movie. I have some guilty pleasures, too...but I recognize that "Death Race 2000" and "The Sword and the Sorceror" are really bad movies. I love 'em all the same. But I'm not going to try and defend them as being oscar-worthy.

 

[Orius]

I usually regard the movie as a great example of what to do when adapting a novel to the big screen. It is faithful to the story where it can be and abandons the things that wouldn't work in the new medium. Of course, it helps that Goldman wrote the screenplay as well as the book.

That said, TPB is one of my three favorite books (along with The Hobbit and Bridge of Birds by Barry Hughart). The movie was a great fairytale, but the book added another layer to be enjoyed. For me the little asides about what was excised and why were as enjoyable as the main story- maybe because I've read novels like Les Miserables which are exactly the sort of thing he's parodying. And reading it after seeing the movie was akin to the experience Goldman supposedly had when first reading the unabridged Morganstern. Those extra levels made the book more complex, more mature and ultimately - in my case at least - more enjoyable.

I liked the bits about Morgenstern's original story in the book. Here's a story he loved hearing as a kid, he gets the book for his son, his son is bored to death, and he thinks, "What the hell?!" Then he goes back, actually reads it and finds out it's a long, boring political satire, yet his father somehow learned how to extract the fun parts into a story. So he decides to rewrite it as a cool swashbuckling romance instead of some long-winded anti-nobility rant or something (I might be remembering some of this wrong, it's been a while since I read the book).

The movie leaves that out, because it's too complex to put on screen. But it does leave in the story-in-a-story element.

 

[Karl Green]

Interesting reads so far...

Mine would be The Thirteenth Warrior based on one of the most BORRING stories I have ever forced myself to read Eaters of the Dead by Michael Criton (sp). I had just read Jurassic Park and thought wow he is good writter, lets see what else he has put out and read that also!

Anyway the movie was fun, and SOOO much better then the story

 

[Dark Jezter]

I've got another entry:

The movie Red Dragon (the one starring Edward Norton, not Manhunter starring William Peterson, which was based on the same book) is better than the original novel by Thomas Harris.

 

[Cymex666]

Most people I know who've read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" have felt that Blade Runner was better.

I completely agree. Also, I feel that the book and the movie bear little relation to one another.

 

[Ununnilium]

To put this in proper context, let's look at the reviews for Battlefield Earth. Tally on Rotten Tomatoes? 4%.

<snip similar stuff>

IMHO, gauging how good a movie is, based on reviews, doesn't work very well. Some of my favorite works have been universally panned, and there's stuff the great majority of people love that just leaves me cold.

Having said that, yeah, Battlefield Earth wasn't very good. Book was much better.

Andrew "NO .SIG MAN" "Juan" Perron, friggin...