Who Framed Roger Rabbit? was much better than Who Censored Roger Rabbit?
Like Forrest Gump, they just took a basic idea and some character names and built a completely different plot. Both were a huge improvement.
[QUOTE=Zoggie]
The winter story (A Winter’s Tale) was called the Breathing Method–I found it incredibly creepy, myself.
[/QUOTE]
Creepy and uplifting at the same time.
I call that an achievement!
[QUOTE=Yllaria]
Who Framed Roger Rabbit? was much better than Who Censored Roger Rabbit?
Like Forrest Gump, they just took a basic idea and some character names and built a completely different plot. Both were a huge improvement.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks; you’re right, it was Censored, not Erased.
[QUOTE=AHunter3]
Anyone recall a juvenile/Disney movie Bedknobs and Broomsticks? I had read the book, Bed-knob and Broom-stick, several years before the movie, and it was pretty damn awful. When they did the movie they had the good sense to just lift the plot-device of a bedknob that could animate the bed and make it fly, and not bother with the book’s plot to any major degree.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting. I’ve re-read the book many times and loved it each time, but I’ve always thought that the film was dreadful.
I would like to apologize to everyone in this thread. I was a complete ass and I own that. No excuses, just apologies. Thanks.
Clockwork Orange: The Glossary-less Edition vs Kubrick + Wendy Carlos.
On that note, The Short-Timers came up short next to Full Metal Jacket.
[QUOTE=Chimera]
You people realize that you’re all going to hell, don’t you???
Then I look at it and go “Tolkien loved his own words too much and the books contain far too much crap that would bore the fuck out of anyone watching a movie. Get over it.”
.
[/QUOTE]
Got to agree with you about Tolkien,long on names ,short on description.
First Blood,mediocre book ,good movie,my caveat is that the other Rambo movies were used toilet paper.
I’ll have to go with the snippets and general feel of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? being turned into one of the three best Sci-Fi movies of the early 80s, Blade Runner. (The other two were Aliens and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.) The book was interesting, but odd. It didn’t seem to have much of a real story, but it had really cool parts and a wicked cool feel. The movie got the feel down even better than the book, and focused on one small part of the book’s narrative (while adding quite a bit of new material).
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Apt Pupil, OTOH – the movie kind of disappoints.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t that the film where they had to change the ending drastically when they suddenly found out the guy was a Nazi?
Not sure what you mean. They did change the ending somewhat, but who’s “they” that found out the guy was a Nazi?
I’ll probably go to hell for this, but I thought the movie version of The Count of Monte Cristo was much better than the book. The book spent way too much time talking about sums of money and how much everything cost. The movie did a good job of catching how all-consuming the desire for revenge was while leaving out a lot of the sub-plots that really didn’t add anything but a need for flow-charting the characters.
[QUOTE=Atrael]
I’ll probably go to hell for this, but I thought the movie version of The Count of Monte Cristo was much better than the book.
[/QUOTE]
That’s going to depend: Which version of the movie are you talking about?
This one is only partially true: Invasion of the Body Snatchers, by Jack Finney. The movie’s been filmed three times (with a fourth on the way). The book is a very effective, paranoid little thriller – up until the ending, which takes you right out of the story:
All the pods suddenly defy gravity, float up into the sky and depart our planet. I’m not making this up.
Almost any other ending would be an improvement on that, and the three movies I’ve seen all had somewhat different endings (different from the book, and different from each other).
It has to be Fahrenheit 451.
[QUOTE=Lunar Saltlick]
I read P.D. James’ Children of Men when it was first published and thought it very weak. From what I’ve heard and read, the film must have been a significant improvement.
[/QUOTE]
I watched this a couple of days ago. Reading the book’s plot summary on wikipedia, it’s vastly different, mostly much less detail-oriented, which was IMO the film’s strength. The characters are completely different, as well as the film’s focus. The WP entry on the film calls it a ‘loose adaptation’ of the book.