DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Cool Chris on April 10, 2017, 11:59:25 AM
-
(Rita Hayworth and) Shawshank Redemption Stephen King/Frank Darabont. One of the best movies from the 90s that holds up well today. All from a short story that isn't even one of King's better works. Darabont took the core of the story and gave it so much heard and depth. And then managed to do it again with The Green Mile.
The Godfather Mario Puzo/Francis Coppola. One of the best movies of all time that trimmed a bunch of the secondary character fat from the novel and made the film more concise and focused.
-
I thought the Hunger Games films were very good adaptations. They stayed very true to the novels, and any deviations seemed very logical. But those books were all very recent and probably written with an eye toward film, so that may have played into it.
I think the three Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings films were very good adaptations of the books as well, even though they deviated at times in very material ways from the source material. The artistic and practical choices Jackson and his team made for the film adaptions to me not only made logical sense, but also just worked very well to make good movies.
-
I think the three Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings films were very good adaptations of the books as well, even though they deviated at times in very material ways from the source material. The artistic and practical choices Jackson and his team made for the film adaptions to me not only made logical sense, but also just worked very well to make good movies.
I would essentially agree, but there's one thing still I can't get over with: that they didn't include one of the most iconic, important and very much cinematographic moments of the battle for Gondor, the Nazgul Witchking entering the gates of Gondor and finding Gandalf atop Shadowfax to face him.
It's beautifully written in the book, and would have really translated perfectly on screen. The gate that was never breached by any kind of enemy comes down, torn by Grond, the battering ram. Every soldier loses hope, they all run away in fear, and the Witchking enters the gate... and there's Gandalf on top of Shadowfax standing alone before the Nazgul, telling him to piss off. And in that moment of absolute despair, Rohan finally arrives.
In the film they instead chose to botch it by showing random CGI creatures breaching the gate, and the very brief confrontation between Gandalf and the Witchking is delegated to a cut scene. I'm still annoyed at that.
On the other hand, the first of many examples of scenes masterfully done is Gandalf with the Barlog. I perfectly knew what was going to happen, and yet I was hoping that Gandalf would have made it.
-
Gonna nominate Fight Club.
I think the movie is a lot better than the novel. Even Chuck Palahniuk thinks so.
However - conversely - Choke - also by Chuck Palahniuk - the movie is crap.
-
I think the three Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings films were very good adaptations of the books as well, even though they deviated at times in very material ways from the source material. The artistic and practical choices Jackson and his team made for the film adaptions to me not only made logical sense, but also just worked very well to make good movies.
I would essentially agree, but there's one thing still I can't get over with: that they didn't include one of the most iconic, important and very much cinematographic moments of the battle for Gondor, the Nazgul Witchking entering the gates of Gondor and finding Gandalf atop Shadowfax to face him.
It's beautifully written in the book, and would have really translated perfectly on screen. The gate that was never breached by any kind of enemy comes down, torn by Grond, the battering ram. Every soldier loses hope, they all run away in fear, and the Witchking enters the gate... and there's Gandalf on top of Shadowfax standing alone before the Nazgul, telling him to piss off. And in that moment of absolute despair, Rohan finally arrives.
In the film they instead chose to botch it by showing random CGI creatures breaching the gate, and the very brief confrontation between Gandalf and the Witchking is delegated to a cut scene. I'm still annoyed at that.
On the other hand, the first of many examples of scenes masterfully done is Gandalf with the Barlog. I perfectly knew what was going to happen, and yet I was hoping that Gandalf would have made it.
It's been awhile since I've watched the movies. Was that added in the extended version? I could swear that I remember seeing it in the movie, but I'm not sure which version.
-
I think the three Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings films were very good adaptations of the books as well, even though they deviated at times in very material ways from the source material. The artistic and practical choices Jackson and his team made for the film adaptions to me not only made logical sense, but also just worked very well to make good movies.
I would essentially agree, but there's one thing still I can't get over with: that they didn't include one of the most iconic, important and very much cinematographic moments of the battle for Gondor, the Nazgul Witchking entering the gates of Gondor and finding Gandalf atop Shadowfax to face him.
It's beautifully written in the book, and would have really translated perfectly on screen. The gate that was never breached by any kind of enemy comes down, torn by Grond, the battering ram. Every soldier loses hope, they all run away in fear, and the Witchking enters the gate... and there's Gandalf on top of Shadowfax standing alone before the Nazgul, telling him to piss off. And in that moment of absolute despair, Rohan finally arrives.
In the film they instead chose to botch it by showing random CGI creatures breaching the gate, and the very brief confrontation between Gandalf and the Witchking is delegated to a cut scene. I'm still annoyed at that.
On the other hand, the first of many examples of scenes masterfully done is Gandalf with the Barlog. I perfectly knew what was going to happen, and yet I was hoping that Gandalf would have made it.
It's been awhile since I've watched the movies. Was that added in the extended version? I could swear that I remember seeing it in the movie, but I'm not sure which version.
Yes. It was done a bit differently. It was at one of the inner gates. And the nazgul simply landed rather than coming through the gate. I thought it was actually very well done, for the most part.
-
The Silence of the Lambs & Jaws spring to mind. Two average books by limited hamfisted authors, yet both are outstanding movies.
-
Da Vinci Code.
Terrible book by a terrible author.
And the film captured that perfectly :biggrin:
-
Even though it's not out yet, I have super high hopes for Ready Player One.
-
Da Vinci Code.
Terrible book by a terrible author.
And the film captured that perfectly :biggrin:
:)
Same with Twilight.
-
Da Vinci Code.
Terrible book by a terrible author.
And the film captured that perfectly :biggrin:
I really enjoyed the book when it came out, instantly read all his previous books. That was way before the book became ridicously overhyped though.
The movie was a giant meh sadly.
-
Da Vinci Code.
Terrible book by a terrible author.
And the film captured that perfectly :biggrin:
But it had an amazing closing track so it can be forgiven!
-
Phillip K Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was masterfully adapted to the big screen as Blade Runner
-
Phillip K Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was masterfully adapted to the big screen as Blade Runner
Came to post this as well.
-
Are we equating good to faithful and bad to unfaithful?
Seems a bit rigid. Or are we saying good movie = good adaptation?
-
Valid question. Jurassic Park was a good movie but barely echoed to what Michael Crichton wrote in his novel before it
-
Are we equating good to faithful and bad to unfaithful?
In this context, yes.
Seems a bit rigid. Or are we saying good movie = good adaptation?
Most good adaptations are good movies. But those are separate things.
The big example (for me) is The Shining. The film is a good film, but it's not a good adaptation.
-
Phillip K Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was masterfully adapted to the big screen as Blade Runner
Came to post this as well.
I posted this in the bad adaptations actually. I think the movie captures the overall darkness perfectly but it strays from the story and leaves out some really important stuff while incorporating stuff that is not in the book. Even so, it's still a spectacular film
-
Today, Stephen King tweeted a clip to HBO's The Outsider and said it was one of the best adaptations of his work. The book was great. I can't f-ing wait!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNDKWr3Xmjk
-
Today, Stephen King tweeted a clip to HBO's The Outsider and said it was one of the best adaptations of his work. The book was great. I can't f-ing wait!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNDKWr3Xmjk
Yeah.....this looks great!!
-
The Hunt For Red October. One of just a handful of movies that are better than the book.
The Godfather is another (though the book is pretty darn good, it doesn't approach the movie.
But the best for me? Dr. Zhivago.
-
I have thoughts on this but am too tired to write them now. But I do want to say this briefly:
Today, Stephen King tweeted a clip to HBO's The Outsider and said it was one of the best adaptations of his work. The book was great. I can't f-ing wait!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNDKWr3Xmjk
Dang that did look pretty neat. Except I can't say I enjoyed the book very much. At least the last 1/3 or so.
Da Vinci Code.
Terrible book by a terrible author.
And the film captured that perfectly :biggrin:
:tup
-
Dang that did look pretty neat. Except I can't say I enjoyed the book very much. At least the last 1/3 or so.
Tend to agree. The first half of the book is really quite interesting, the second half killed that. Also are they going to use Holly in the film?
-
I don't read a ton.
The few books I've read that have been made into movies are as follows:
Several Grisham books
Eight Men Out
Da Vinci Code/Angels & Demons (both of which I really enjoyed in both book and movie form)
Maybe a couple others I can't recall...and...
Field of Dreams. This is one of my top 2-3 favorite movies of all time. I first saw it when it was released in 1989 and have seen it dozens of times since. About 10 years ago, I read Shoeless Joe. I remember thinking and saying to more than one person that I was even more impressed that whoever wrote the screenplay was able to turn such a boring book into such a great movie.
-
Eight Men Out
Dang that is a good one. That is possibly my favorite sports movie, and my favorite sports book. Any fan of baseball, or sports history (or American history, for that matter), should read it.
-
Huh, I honestly had no idea I started this thread till now, and I've posted in it a couple times recently.
I posted about this in the Controversial thread, but will add here the 1984 A Christmas Carol with George C Scott. That is a masterful telling of the story. It is faithful to the context of the original story, but also adds so much "depth of feeling" (a phrase repeated in the film). They are little bits here and there, but they help flesh out the character of Scrooge and give the story so much more life. In the film, he tells Fred he sees "the shadow of his sister in his face." He doesn't dislike Fred because he is so annoyingly happy. It's actually hard to see him because he reminds him of Fan.
-
Ghost World
The Film and Graphic Novel are both brilliant.