When the movie/show is better than the book

[Rob King]

I thought the Watchmen movie was a more cohesive whole than the Watchmen graphic novel, what with the different ending and everything.

*throws coat over Rob* come on man, we gotta get you out of here before they eat you alive. Let's go go go

Oh god! Were those gunshots??

 

[SpecialKO]

I thought the Watchmen movie was a more cohesive whole than the Watchmen graphic novel, what with the different ending and everything.

*throws coat over Rob* come on man, we gotta get you out of here before they eat you alive. Let's go go go

Quick, let's take [strike:142lvi0r]Shego's[/strike:142lvi0r] someone's conveniently placed van!

 

[fade]

Well I don't take offense. It was certainly more continuous with all the pirate parts and the Under the Hood excerpts removed. Outside of that though, it can't be too much more cohesive, since it's kind of a scene by scene transcription.

 

[MindDetective]

I agree on LotR, The Princess Bride, and the Bourne trilogy. I would also add The Postman, which was not a very good book, in my opinion.

 

[figmentPez]

I would also add The Postman, which was not a very good book, in my opinion.

Are you crazy? The novel was much much better than the movie. Not that the movie was horrible, but there was so much more depth to the novel. There were so many huge chunks of the novel taken out for the movie, it changed the whole focus.

 

[MindDetective]

I would also add The Postman, which was not a very good book, in my opinion.

Are you crazy? The novel was much much better than the movie. Not that the movie was horrible, but there was so much more depth to the novel. There were so many huge chunks of the novel taken out for the movie, it changed the whole focus.

As far as I could tell, the movie only had two minor points in common with the book at all. It was an awful translation of the book, yes, but that wasn't the original question. The movie was better by many strides, I think.

 

[Calleja]

If anyone says "I, Robot", be prepared to be my nemesis.

 

[HCGLNS]

I found Iron Man and The DaVinci Code to both be better movies than their books.

 

[Calleja]

I don't think Iron Man qualifies since it wasn't based on any "book", or even comic-strip arc... just the character from them.

 

[Gill Kaiser]

If anyone says "I, Robot", be prepared to be my nemesis.

It wouldn't really even make sense if they did, though, because "I, Robot" was a collection of multiple stories and had absolutely nothing to do with the plot of that celluloid travesty. I can't see how anyone could compare them.

 

[Rob King]

Well I don't take offense. It was certainly more continuous with all the pirate parts and the Under the Hood excerpts removed. Outside of that though, it can't be too much more cohesive, since it's kind of a scene by scene transcription.

[spoiler:2j8zwech]In the comic, the alien attack wasn't nearly as tied into the plot as the Manhattan-bombs were in the movie.

In the novel, Vedit had to invent that extra, new, out-of-nowhere element to be the outside force that he could unify earth against. He made an alien, but it could have been interplanetary nuclear bombs, meteor strikes, crab people, mole men, Captain Crunch, or any number of other things as easily as an alien.

In the movie, however, that outside force (Manhattan) was there from the beginning, unwittingly contributing to it, eventually being screwed over by it, and ultimately conspiring with it.

It just fit better into the whole story.[/spoiler:2j8zwech]

 

[Calleja]

I kinda agree with Rob there, although it's still not quite enough for me to call the movie BETTER. I still loved it to pieces, though.

 

[HCGLNS]

The travesty that was the 1980's onward with Iron Man, makes the movie infinitely better.

And though this might disturb some, I find Charly better than Flowers for Algernon.

 

[Calleja]

WHAT?!!?!

How can ANYTHING be better than Flowers For Algernon!? :waah:

 

[Norris]

Ok, fairness time: I have not read the book I am about mention. But I have read ABOUT the major plot elements on wikipedia....and I gotta say:

The Warriors, which was so deeply altered so as to have completely new main characters and a VASTLY different set-up. But here are two big examples of what I mean:
[spoiler:3j7aa7zz]You know the love interest girl? Who defects from another gang? Yeah. The Dominators (the main characters) gang rape her and just leave her in the subway in the book. Also, the scene where Ajax (James Remar) aggressively hits on then kinda threatens to rape an undercover cop who arrests his ass? In the book that apparently three gang members. Who try to gang rape an older woman and get arrested for it. Also, none of the characters in the book are over the age of 18 which makes the repeated gang raping more troubling than it was.[/spoiler:3j7aa7zz]

 

[Jay]

The Shawshank Redemption

 

[CynicismKills]

The travesty that was the 1980's onward with Iron Man, makes the movie infinitely better.

And though this might disturb some, I find Charly better than Flowers for Algernon.

The problem is sometimes they do some amazing stuff with Iron Man, like Extremis (which would make a fucking awesome movie).

Then they go and do something like Ultimate Iron Man. :bush:

 

[Frank]

The travesty that was the 1980's onward with Iron Man, makes the movie infinitely better.

And though this might disturb some, I find Charly better than Flowers for Algernon.

The problem is sometimes they do some amazing stuff with Iron Man, like Extremis (which would make a fucking awesome movie).

Then they go and do something like Ultimate Iron Man. :bush:

HIS SKIN IS HIS BRAIN!

 

[fade]

If anyone says "I, Robot", be prepared to be my nemesis.

It wouldn't really even make sense if they did, though, because "I, Robot" was a collection of multiple stories and had absolutely nothing to do with the plot of that celluloid travesty. I can't see how anyone could compare them.

On that note, I'm surprised no one has said "The Iron Giant", which had only slightly more in common with the book. I'm exaggerating, but the book is very different.

 

[rabbitgod]

I just watched Iron Giant this morning.

I should read the book. I should just read more probably.

 

Well I don't take offense. It was certainly more continuous with all the pirate parts and the Under the Hood excerpts removed. Outside of that though, it can't be too much more cohesive, since it's kind of a scene by scene transcription.

[spoiler:rdesxxsw]In the comic, the alien attack wasn't nearly as tied into the plot as the Manhattan-bombs were in the movie.

In the novel, Vedit had to invent that extra, new, out-of-nowhere element to be the outside force that he could unify earth against. He made an alien, but it could have been interplanetary nuclear bombs, meteor strikes, crab people, mole men, Captain Crunch, or any number of other things as easily as an alien.

In the movie, however, that outside force (Manhattan) was there from the beginning, unwittingly contributing to it, eventually being screwed over by it, and ultimately conspiring with it.

It just fit better into the whole story.[/spoiler:rdesxxsw]

*cracks his knuckles* If I don't respond to this, I'm going to go mad.

[spoiler:rdesxxsw]First of all, it wasn't a scene-by-scene transcription. For evidence of THAT, you've got Sin City, which is nearly a literal cut and paste job of the comic. However, there were huge chunks of dialogue removed from Watchmen, major plot changes, little changes that made other things make no sense (Laurie doesn't smoke, yet she still hits the flame thrower; a LOT of her fight for independence is removed).

The reason for the alien, rather than something home-brewed is because it's something that was so unfathomably out there that no one on Earth could even concieve it. They saw it as pure alien, therefore dangerous. Dr. Manhattan, on the other hand, was powerful, to be sure, but he was still human. And American. So, a giant threat like that, the blame would go to the U.S., not an unearthly source that the whole WORLD could unite against. Veidt had to create something that wasn't just a threat to the Earth, but something that we couldn't even percieve as something from Earth. So he created a giant fucking squid that caused people to die if they were in New York at the time and just looked at it. It send out brainwaves that drove people insane. That's near Lovecraftian threat, in the sense that you CAN'T understand it. And what's the best way to make someone fear something? By making it something that they don't understand. In Dr. Manhattan, they can somewhat understand him because he was human, he still looks relatively human.

The threat was tied into the book, but it was done nowhere near as blatant. You had the between-issues articles about missing artists, TV news reports about experimental teleportation devices, genetic experimentation (like Bubastis, who now serves NO purpose in the movie other than "Lookit the cool kitty!"). The reason that it's a fear of an outsider/intergalactic threat is that it's also regarding the Russians threatening to invade, which was a very clear threat back then and the propoganda made them out to be as foriegn as possible. Communism was an "alien" idea, one that Americans couldn't percieve, since they had the freedom to do whatever they wanted with their money. The whole idea behind Veidt's plan is that no one saw it coming, couldn't have possibly seen it coming and even the reader doesn't see it coming, unless they're paying close attention.[/spoiler:rdesxxsw]

 

[Chad Sexington]

Well I don't take offense. It was certainly more continuous with all the pirate parts and the Under the Hood excerpts removed. Outside of that though, it can't be too much more cohesive, since it's kind of a scene by scene transcription.

[spoiler:2l6uyddd]In the comic, the alien attack wasn't nearly as tied into the plot as the Manhattan-bombs were in the movie.

In the novel, Vedit had to invent that extra, new, out-of-nowhere element to be the outside force that he could unify earth against. He made an alien, but it could have been interplanetary nuclear bombs, meteor strikes, crab people, mole men, Captain Crunch, or any number of other things as easily as an alien.

In the movie, however, that outside force (Manhattan) was there from the beginning, unwittingly contributing to it, eventually being screwed over by it, and ultimately conspiring with it.

It just fit better into the whole story.[/spoiler:2l6uyddd]

*cracks his knuckles* If I don't respond to this, I'm going to go mad.

[spoiler:2l6uyddd]First of all, it wasn't a scene-by-scene transcription. For evidence of THAT, you've got Sin City, which is nearly a literal cut and paste job of the comic. However, there were huge chunks of dialogue removed from Watchmen, major plot changes, little changes that made other things make no sense (Laurie doesn't smoke, yet she still hits the flame thrower; a LOT of her fight for independence is removed).

The reason for the alien, rather than something home-brewed is because it's something that was so unfathomably out there that no one on Earth could even concieve it. They saw it as pure alien, therefore dangerous. Dr. Manhattan, on the other hand, was powerful, to be sure, but he was still human. And American. So, a giant threat like that, the blame would go to the U.S., not an unearthly source that the whole WORLD could unite against. Veidt had to create something that wasn't just a threat to the Earth, but something that we couldn't even percieve as something from Earth. So he created a giant fucking squid that caused people to die if they were in New York at the time and just looked at it. It send out brainwaves that drove people insane. That's near Lovecraftian threat, in the sense that you CAN'T understand it. And what's the best way to make someone fear something? By making it something that they don't understand. In Dr. Manhattan, they can somewhat understand him because he was human, he still looks relatively human.

The threat was tied into the book, but it was done nowhere near as blatant. You had the between-issues articles about missing artists, TV news reports about experimental teleportation devices, genetic experimentation (like Bubastis, who now serves NO purpose in the movie other than "Lookit the cool kitty!"). The reason that it's a fear of an outsider/intergalactic threat is that it's also regarding the Russians threatening to invade, which was a very clear threat back then and the propoganda made them out to be as foriegn as possible. Communism was an "alien" idea, one that Americans couldn't percieve, since they had the freedom to do whatever they wanted with their money. The whole idea behind Veidt's plan is that no one saw it coming, couldn't have possibly seen it coming and even the reader doesn't see it coming, unless they're paying close attention.[/spoiler:2l6uyddd]

I often don't agree with you; but this. Exactly this. Thank you. I miss the squid (but still really enjoyed the movie).

 

I thought the movie was okay, at best. I do understand what they were trying to accomplish. And some of the things that they did get right from the comic, they got them REALLY right. Unfortunately, the things that they got wrong from the comic, they got them REALLY wrong.

As an adaptation, it was putrid garbage.

 

[Chad Sexington]

I thought the movie was okay, at best. I do understand what they were trying to accomplish. And some of the things that they did get right from the comic, they got them REALLY right. Unfortunately, the things that they got wrong from the comic, they got them REALLY wrong.

As an adaptation, it was putrid garbage.

Putrid garbage? That seems extreme. Yeah, see I don't often agree with you...

 

Okay, putrid garbage is excessive, but then, so was the gore, violence and sex. The director doesn't get subtlety at all.

Sorry, I'll reel back on the putrid garbage comment. As I said, I thought as a movie, it was okay at best. There WERE some things I liked about it. I watched it once for free thanks to work, don't regret watching it, but won't watch it again.

 

[Shegokigo]

Watchmen the movie failed 100% because it's main character plot "Comedian/Laurie" was completely butchered.

As a standalone (not taking into account that it was taken from any kind of source material) it was a good film. But even my GF, who's not "big on comics" read the novel before the movie and did nothing but shake her head as she left the theatre that night.

 

[Rob King]

I disagree. The novel might be more in-depth, but as a cohesive whole, I still argue that the film was better tied together.

To argue that [spoiler:3uq6uw6f]the alien is just that foreign that nobody could conceive of it and blah blah blah ...[/spoiler:3uq6uw6f] it's excessive. I don't disagree with you, but I don't seem to think it's as important. [spoiler:3uq6uw6f]Vedit's plan, in a line, was: "Provide an outside threat, that we can unify the earth in opposition to."[/spoiler:3uq6uw6f] Removing [spoiler:3uq6uw6f]the alien[/spoiler:3uq6uw6f] from the movie probably saved them at least a half hour of screen time trying to explain it and/or set it up.

As far as [spoiler:3uq6uw6f]Manhattan not fitting the world-threatening bill well enough, it's hard to get more threatening or removed-from-the-human-experience than a motherfucking god.[/spoiler:3uq6uw6f] He might not be as [spoiler:3uq6uw6f]foreign as the alien, but he's foreign enough, and I fear the alien would have been too much anyhow.[/spoiler:3uq6uw6f] I need heat to cook a hot-dog, but I settle on a campfire when I want to eat. I don't hang out around Los Almos waiting for testing to begin again.
This second point is not one I care about, so like the French in Alsace-Lorraine, I'll abandon it as soon as somebody raises a challenge.

I also didn't say anything about it being a photocopy-onto-celluloid, 1:1 reproduction of the book, so I'll leave that one without much acknowledgment.

 

[Chad Sexington]

I need heat to cook a hot-dog, but I settle on a campfire when I want to eat. I don't hang out around Los Almos waiting for testing to begin again.

Then your hotdogs are not hardcore enough. Come eat with me sometime, I'll show you a motherfucking BBQ.

 

[Rob King]

I need heat to cook a hot-dog, but I settle on a campfire when I want to eat. I don't hang out around Los Almos waiting for testing to begin again.

Then your hotdogs are not hardcore enough. Come eat with me sometime, I'll show you a motherfucking BBQ.

?

 

[Wasabi Poptart]

The Shining

Really? The Shining scared the hell out of me when I read it. The movie, not so much.

 

[Chad Sexington]

The Shining

Really? The Shining scared the hell out of me when I read it. The movie, not so much.

Yeah this. Mind you, I love the movie too. But the book gets inside your head so well.

 

[Philosopher B.]

Ok, fairness time: I have not read the book I am about mention. But I have read ABOUT the major plot elements on wikipedia....and I gotta say:

The Warriors, which was so deeply altered so as to have completely new main characters and a VASTLY different set-up. But here are two big examples of what I mean:
[spoiler:2iyionsp]You know the love interest girl? Who defects from another gang? Yeah. The Dominators (the main characters) gang rape her and just leave her in the subway in the book. Also, the scene where Ajax (James Remar) aggressively hits on then kinda threatens to rape an undercover cop who arrests his ass? In the book that apparently three gang members. Who try to gang rape an older woman and get arrested for it. Also, none of the characters in the book are over the age of 18 which makes the repeated gang raping more troubling than it was.[/spoiler:2iyionsp]

Despite the horrors depicted in it, I thought The Warriors was a really well-written, realistic feeling book, as well as a completely different beast from the movie with different goals. There's no denying that the movie is more of a fun romp, though.