- This topic has 14 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It’s Friday!! And I’m drunk and it’a only 8.30pm and just watched some Babylon 5 on DVD and me and the wifey were chatting about films, life the universe and everything and we wondered how many Sci Fi films had NOT been butchered by Hollywood!!? (Sad huh 🙂 )
Which Sci Fi Films do YOU think were better than the books!? Most of us agree that Hollywood film producers are scumbags and scum sucking bottom dwellers for the way that they ruin and butcher the tallents of authors and storywriters to get big box-office receipts, but there are some exceptions.
I can name (actually I’m too druck – wifey can name) three:
Blade Runner (much better than that crappy robots bonking electric sheep stuff)
Harry Potter That English author woman is such a waffler
and Solaris (Russian AND Hollywood Version). By the way the auther of the book Solaris called the director of the Russian film (supposedly one of the world top ten sci fi films of all time) a Pillock!!!Wadda you think – any others?
Harry Potter definitely. The first two books imo stink. But the ambiance of the sets and the actors turned it into a much more enjoyable film in 2 hours than reading through those first two books.
Stargate was a much better film than book imo. The book was so cluttered with side plots it was like reading 10 pilots.
Jurassic Park (The original) The book was fantastic, but so much was left to the imagination. The movie blew me away.
Great topic! Well I really liked Lems’s Solaris, loved the Russian movie, haven’t seen the Hollywood remake.
What about the Kubrick ones (one might argue that these are not strictly Hollywood Hollywood)?
I actually much preferred Kubrick’s The Shining to King’s.
As for 2001 a Space Odyssey, well doesn’t exactly count, since the movie was based on Clark’s short story The Sentinel, but I will say that I much preferred the movie to Clark’s novel that came out after the movie — I felt the book tried to explain too much. I prefer to draw my own conclusions.
And as for Clockwork Orange, well I won’t argue which is better, I like both in a way — though I truly wish the violence wasn’t so sickeningly explicit in the film (find it too disturbing to watch all the way through now).
The Player was an excellent adaptation of a book.
I wasn’t keen on the story that Logan’s Run was based on, but really liked the movie. Yeah, I know plenty of people think it was terrible.
Oh, I actually preferred the Omen movies to the books.
Boys From Brazil and The Stepford Wives (both Ira Levin novels) were admirably remade I think — not as good as the originals though.
I can think of lots of films that improved on the source novels, but not many that were done by Hollywood.
And what about all the crap Hollywood remakes of movies and TV shows? Too many to list.
I thought The Shining, although a damn fine book was bested by the film. The film had a much better ending while the book got terribly soppy. I also thought the maze replacing the topiary was a brilliant move.
I also found the Lord of The Rings films better than the books. I hated the books *ducks behind protective shield*
I found the books terribly linear with very little in the way of subplots. I also found the books took the easy way out too often.The hobbits run into trouble, Bombadill appears and rescues them.
The hobbits run into trouble again, Bombadill appears again and rescues them
The hobbits run into trouble. Gandalf appears and rescues them.
Frodo runs into trouble, accidentally triggers an elf defense system.They never got out of trouble themselves. I thought the film made them far more proactive. The film changed the elf defence system so it was actively triggered and they worked the sub plot in so that you know where Gandalf has gone and how he comes to turn up in the nick of time.
I also didn’t like the style of the books. Too much description. Tolkien would describe a scene right down to every blade of grass. I prefer an author to leave at least something to the imagination of the reader.
*runs away and hides*
You hated the LOTR books! 😯 Well I’m sure they would generally appeal far more to boys.
I actually MUCH preferred the novels to the movies (though I loved the old Bakshi animated movie version). I was particularly enamoured with Frodo’s long and wearying journey. The book was often plodding, but then there were these magical interludes, I really felt that he got the pace just right to make one feel like you were also going through the same trials and tribulations as well as the excitement and adventure. “The road goes ever on.”
The movies I found a little too frenetic with the editing… Action scene quick cut to more action. It’s the quieter, more peaceful parts of the journey that appealed to me the most. Even more so with a wonderful novel that I was introduced to as a child called The Wind in The Willows — that was made into a fairly recent movie with Eric Idle and Terry Jones of Python fame BTW.
I also appreciated Tolkien’s powers of description. I suppose one reason why I have difficulty enjoying the cinematic version (or other films based on books) is that I’ve already imagined the world so vividly that the movie version jars with my reality of it.
Sometimes, in reverse, the same thing happens when I’ve seen the film or show first and then read the book. The Francis Urquhart saga for instance — bloody wonderful BBC miniseries’s.
On a side-note, I was impressed with Hollywood when they had the rather eccentric Peter Jackson helm the project. Think of his Bad Taste or Brain Dead movies — lol. His Heavenly Creatures with Kate Winslet though was truly wonderful.
I thought the original Dune (have not seen much of the new ones) was better than the book, but I have spent so much time with refugees, immigrants and defectors that reading anything which requires its own dictionary is a little tedious.
Starship Troopers and Tank Girl come to mind as better on film, possibly because of their taste of self-parody.
Then there is the question of general appeal. Kenneth Branagh and Robert DeNiro’s Frankenstein I would say was more appealing than the novel, but only because that penny-a-word 19th century style is sometimes a bit much even if you like that sort of thing. I don’t think it necessarily makes it better overall, but not worse. (Besides, anything with John Cleese in it is bound to be at least as good as the source material! 😉 )
(But I was surprised to find that someone was able to make reading the middle-English Beowulf more appealing than a movie version by attempting to put Christopher Lambert in a sci-fi version of it. Does he have to say “I cannot die” in everything now? 🙄 )
Pet;D
I agree with Pet about “Dune”: David Lynch’s movie is better than the book. Dune is one of the worst written books I have ever tried to read. Full of semimystical goobledegook b.s., no character development– I couldn’t get through it (ok I was a lit major and can be a bit of a snob.)
The movie was a weird visual feast.
I’m also in total agreement. Sure Lynch’s Dune had its flaws; the rain at the end which would kill all the worms bugged me, and I wasn’t keen on the rather pretentious inner dialogue, but I still really enjoyed that flick — fun! Not exactly Lynch’s best work, but…. And the Toto score was a plus for me. I must say that I am not overly keen on the miniseries
. It seems that fans of the books like it more than the movie as a more faithful adaptation, but since I didn’t like the books very much… But if you take both the movie and miniseries really seriously, well they both have their laughable moments. When I saw the end of Children of Dune with that “faster than a speeding train” guy with the really bad case of worms (“He runs, and he runs…” (CofD)) I couldn’t help but think, “Run Forrest Run” — blame it on the Gump.Still, enjoyed the miniseries, watch the movie over and over again, and was not a fan of the books. Why haven’t they filmed Asimov’s Foundation series yet?
Actually, it goes back to a point I was making before — I probably like the movie more than the miniseries/s because I saw it first. However, this time I actually tried reading the books (never made it through the novels) before seeing the film.
”Number wrote:Why haven’t they filmed Asimov’s Foundation series yet?
Yeah, Wotupwitdat? 😕 And why hasn’t his “Immortal Bard” become an Outer Limits ep? (“The Immortal bard was a story which takes place at a University faculty party, one of the physicists explains to a literature professor that he invented a time machine, but it only works by bringing people to the present from the past. As it turns out, he had brought Shakespeare forward and enrolled him in class, but the lit professor had flunked him.)
I always thought Stephen R Donaldson’s “The Real Story” would be very cinematic if told in flashback. On the surface what the universe sees is beautiful woman who is being held captive by a gross little smuggler getting rescued by a swashbuckling space pirate, but the real story is totally different. There are hardly any characters in it, and the personalities get so deep that it always struck me as perfect for an indie film… but there’s no way Hollywood could pull it off.
They would turn it into a story about a beautiful woman who is being held captive by a gross little smuggler getting rescued by a swashbuckling space pirate. 😡
Pet;D
Reading through all your posts, I found myself to be a little out of my depth. I’d always thought I was well read…but it seems I have nothing on you guys.
But dispite my pitiful lack of experience in this matter, I shall indeed forge ahead – elf-like, in my knowledge of certain destruction.Right-oh, on with it then:
The lord of the rings movies: wonderful. visually brilliant, not to mention true enough to the original book, yet original in its own way. I love how you’re able to immerse yourself into it, as you are in the books, without the tedious discriptiveness of tolkien’s writing. However, i cant actually say i liked either better than the other. the movies to me were simply an extention of the books. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that i read the books after i saw the movies? Probably.Harry Potter: I have no idea how you could enjoy the movies more than the books. As much as i love the movies in their own right, they don’t come anywhere near the brilliance of the books themselves. And as for the waffling – you’ve got to remember that the series is seven books long. Some things won’t be resolved until the last book. Issues that were brought up in the first book are certainly going to thread themselves throughout the rest to get to their resolution in the last, hence the apparent waffling. You’ve also got to remember the intended audience are quite young. J.K. Rowling (im a terrible speller if you hadn’t noticed – although ignore it if you hadn’t) is I think unique in her ability to really put the reader into the mind of an 11 year old boy. Then in each progressive book, Harry gets older, as does the writing style.
Um… I think i’ve ranted enough about this.
besides, it’s not a thread to debate the pros and cons of harry potter. lolAs for everything else.. I can’t say I’ve read a lot of sci-fi books that have been turned into movies. In actuality, i cant say ive read a lot of sci-fi books at all.
”Number wrote:…They would turn it into a story about a beautiful woman who is being held captive by a gross little smuggler getting rescued by a swashbuckling space pirate. 😡
Pet;D
Yep, Pirates of the Carribean style or if you throw in some space herpes and castrati then more like The Ice Pirates. Both rated ARRRRRRRRRRRRR! 😉 (not an original joke).
Hi Jennicide. You make me want to see The Lord of the Rings movies again (nicely described), and reevaluate them. Well, really I only saw FOTR, and I did only watch it on a crummy VCD that I rented in the Philippines the day after the movie offically opened there on screen — the kind where someone used a digital camera in the cinema. The poor picture and sound quality (blue and muffled), the heads popping up in front of the screen, and the noise of the audience would have, no doubt, detracted somewhat from my enjoyment. 🙄
I used to read a lot of sci-fi and fantasy books and then mostly stopped. Speaking of fantasy like Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings, some very enjoyable fantasy books you might like are Mary Stewart’s Arthurian trilogy (The Crystal Cave etc.) and Bradley’s The Mists of Avalon. I’m entranced by the whole mythology of King Arthur. By the way, have you seen Excalibur by the director of ZardoZ? Excalibur, now there, I thought, was a good fantasy movie loosely based on Le Mort D’Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory, as well as other Arthurian texts (some Mary Stewart in there too).
Right now I have several The Prisoner books to read (came out after the series) — they’re most entertaining and even enlightening for this Village person. 😀
Has anyone here read and seen Battlefield Earth? Might be one of those things you have to be a Scientologist to fully appreciate — I’m not one.
Actually I’m doing a unit this semester at uni called Medieval in the Modern World. We’re studying LOTR, Mists of Avalon, Sword in the Stone, and a bunch of others including Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grail. And last semester for history we studied medieval literature devoted to the Arthurian Legend. I too am fascinated by Arthuriana, and basically anything medieval. It’s all so very interesting, and I’m glad i’ve inspired you to see the LOTR movies again. It’s definately worth it, especially if you can get your hands on the extended versions – they may be a hell of a lot longer, but it’s worth the time and effort. And (I’m assuming you’re from the ‘land of the free’ when i say this) if you’re brave enough, and haven’t already had the pleasure, it’s always worth a look at Monty Python. While i would imagine it might be a little difficult to understand the englishness of it all – for anyone with any sense of the REAL middle ages and the king arthur legend, it’s certainly a hoot and a half!
Hardly “the land of the free”, though I do sometimes get discounts and rebates. 😉 I’m from Vancouver, Canada where our national currencies are the Loonie and the even wackier Canadian Tire money. “I’d buy that for a dollar,” too bad the Canadian dollar won’t get you much (that’s why we supplement it with Canadian Tire money (Canadian Tire is a large hardware store that gives you 10 cent vouchers with every purchase). At this board I mostly reside in The Village (Prisoner forum) where nothing is free either: “I am not a number, I am a free man” Ha, ha, ha indeed. But I very sillily digress…. 😳 😉 “Camelot, it is a silly place…”
Not only am I brave enough to watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail, I’ve been Brave Sir Robin brave enough to watch it many times, which would really make me a total coward, I know… 😆 I’m a huge Python fan, from the series to all the movies. I’ve probably seen The Meaning of Life more than any other (a personal fave), but Life of Brian and Holy Grail; great stuff. Also I love the Python people in almost anything — always a plus. And Terry Gilliam (the animator from Python) is a favourite director of mine: Brazil, awesome film (some cuts (versions) are better than others). Oh, something you should really watch if you like Python and historical comedies is Black Adder! The first Black Adder series takes place during the Middle Ages. For more Black Adder info visit this thread: CLICK HERE
Sounds like a very interesting course! Wish I could audit your class.
And I’ll look out for the extended LOTR versions — I almost always prefer the longer cuts — thanks for the info. Considering my former viewing conditions, I should not have jumped to any conclusions regarding LOTR.
Getting back to Dune for a second, the director’s cut is better.
I think that the Harry Potter movies are great, but no where near as good as the books.
The Two Towers was complete and utter rubbish. They really trashed that movie. But then again, nothing, and I mean nothing, can compare to JRR. He is the god of all fantasy. It’s that simple. 😆
I liked the old Dune movie much better than the book.
My worst sci-fi Hollywood mess up was Contact. Carl Sagans book is AWESOME!!! Really thought provoking and interesting while being fantastically entertaining at the same time. The movie was rubbish. The book contact could never have been made into a movie, too much would be left out. It would have been better as a miniseries or a tv series.
Logan wrote:By the way, have you seen Excalibur by the director of ZardoZ? Excalibur, now there, I thought, was a good fantasy movie loosely based on Le Mort D’Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory, as well as other Arthurian texts (some Mary Stewart in there too).
There’s nothing like watching Gabriel Byrne in a full suit of armor make love to a woman to make one wonder how it could have been done…. yee-ouch!
I thought that heavy Wagner score really nailed that one down and enhanced the story for me, (though I don’t approve of his politics….)
(BTW: Did any of you other medieval buffs see the series the two actors who played “Arthur” and “Gueneviere” had after that, Covington Cross, I think it was…. Yet another show cancelled simply because I expressed an interest in it. :roll:)
I now return you to your originally scheduled thread… 😛
Pet;D
EDIT:
Logan wrote:Oh, something you should really watch if you like Python and historical comedies is Black Adder! The first Black Adder series takes place during the Middle Ages. For more Black Adder info visit this thread: CLICK HERE
OMG! I just remembered I had this!!!
I can actually say quite certainly that the series was better than the 1951 book! 😀 I mean, this is hardly the type of witty writing one expects of a Blackadder:
Chapter One
THE MONTH OF MAY
LONG after it was all over, when he was an old man and a famous man-no less a personage than an Admiral of Her Majesty’s Navy-Tom Cathro wrote in a letter to a friend:
“I have seen much, I have done much; I have adventured in foreign lands and upon the high seas; I have been within a sight of death and wrestled with fear itself. But in all my long days of travel and travail I have known no such terror as gripped me in the heart long ago-long ago when I was a boy; and I encountered for the first time, face to face, the monstrous figure we knew as Blackadder. . . .”
Thus he wrote; and so the tale is told: pieced together in this first part from the fragments of old diaries and letters and other scraps of writing which have come into my hands, and from gossip and hearsay in the village where Tom lived, and where his descendants still live-the village that was the headquarters of the dreaded Loblolly Boys, where the honest folk barred up their doors as the Moonshine went stealthily by-where to this day, they say, on stormy cloud-wracked nights, the great crooked evil figure of Blackadder himself can still be glimpsed on the headland, his arms flung up to the sky, his white face twisted in an eternal rage. . . .
It began, Tom used to say, on an afternoon in May of the year 1803, which ever afterwards was known to him and his friend Harry de Rohan as the Terrible Year.
Where are the insults? Where are the novelty breasts and the turnip that looks like a thingy? Where is the cunning plan?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.