#2 - The remake of The Thomas Crown Affair was much better than the original.
I liked “The 13th warrior” (Book Title: The Eaters of the Dead) better than the novel.
Of course, some of the writing style was part of that.
Another rule:
Whatever movie wins the Best Picture Oscar in a given year was by no means that year’s actual best picture.
This probably works for performances, as well – a given year’s Best Actor was probably not that given year’s best actor.
Obviously, there are exceptions, but it’s a handy rule of thumb.
For #4, I would definitely say WAYNE’S WORLD! EXCELLENT!
#1 exceptions Sommersby is a lot better than the book it is based on, The Wife of Martin Guerre. Inventing the Abbotts is better than the short story it’s based on. Night of the Twisters is better than the YA book it’s based on.
#3 I’ll admit to being one of those people who think **Toy Story 2 **is much better than the orginal. Nowhere is better than Doom Generation because…you feel less suicidal after watching it. yeah, that’s it.
Sorry I can’t add more to disprove the rules.
Which version of TV show/movie are you talking about? The 1970 movie version with Adam West coming right out of the 1965-68 series? Or the series of movies by Richard Burton featuring Beetlejuice, Val Kilmer and the guy from ER in the title role? Besides, the concept of the Dark Knight was never depicted any better than the Detective comics series. The first animated series shown on Fox during the 80’s-early 90’s comes close.
That’d be TIM Burton.
(BTW, for 4, I have to agree with Buffy. (The Scoobies are better than Luke Perry and Giles is miles above Marrick.) MASH, the movie was better than the early part of the series, and the latter half is hardly based on the movie.)
#3 I can’t beLIEVE no one’s mentioned Young Guns 2. It was WAY better than the first!
gotta agree with Aliens
As with others, I agree that Aliens is better than Alien, and The Shawshank Redemption is better than Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.
I think anyone who has seen them will agree that Buffy the series is defintely better than Buffy the movie. I don’t really like the series, but the movie was just plain awful.
Almost all Star Trek movies are better than the first (actually, only Star Trek V seems worse.)
A lot of Bonds are better than Dr.No, and I think T2 is better than The Terminator, but many will disagree on that.
But what defines a sequel? If it was planned (i.e., Star Wars and Indiana Jones) does that count?
I also think The Mummy Returns was better than The Mummy, the new Apes movie is better, and I have hopes that the new X-Men and Matrix movies will be better.
I have to disagree with SmackFu about The Thomas Crown Affair. The 1968 version was far better, if only for the lack of the obviously tacked-on happy ending. Add to that the quality of the acting and it’s a no-brainer; Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway are legends, Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo just look good.
The 1982 version of The Thing was far better than the 1951 version, even though I felt Kurt Russell’s performance detracted somewhat from it.
I would like to propose a modified version of rule 3 which says that 90% of the time the first movie in a series is the best. 90% of the remaining 10% of the time (i.e., 9% of the time), the second movie in the series is the best. Now, if this can be extended, there should be some rare cases where the third or later movie in a series is the best. Can anyone think of some examples?
"Man goes in the cage . . . Chief goes in the cage . . . cage goes behind the curtain . . . Chief goes in the man . . . "
**
Seagal’s body of work can be shown to violate #3: Under Siege 2: Dark Territory was superior to Under Siege. Bogosian does the slow burn. Katherine Heigl has tight jeans. Once again, Steve’s just a cook.
Of course, both of these are versions of Beowulf
…I’m still trying to wrap my brain around the concept of Richard Burton playing Batman…
I liked both The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption better than the Stephen King stories upon which they were based.
Terminator 2 was definately better than the first one.
BOTHPlanet of the Apes were awful. But the remake was awfuller to a spectacular degree.
The X-Files Movie was better than the TV series, IMO. (Especially the episodes from the last couple seasons. Blech.)
- Except for novelizations of previously released movies, the book is better than the movie. (i.e. If the book came first, it will trump the movie).
EXCEPTION—Blatty’s plodding, self-conscious novel ‘The Exorcist’ was far surpassed by Friedkin’s film of the same name–he somehow managed to turn it into a social satire without sacrificing horror or humor…
Actually, there is a decent movie with Steven Seagal in it, and it has Kurt “It’s all in the reflexes” Russell, too. Give up? It was Executive Decision, another movie which will probably be banned from network TV for the next 12 months.
I prefer The Ahnold in The Running Man to the Steven King (writing as Richard Bachman) novel, even though they were both pretty good.
I’d wager that Nadia of the Mysterious Seas is better than Atlantis: The Lost Empire,but getting Disney to admit they ripped Nadia off is like trying to get blood from a turnip.
Army of Darkness rocks! It was head-and-shoulders above Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn.
Quoth RealityChuck:
Which novelization? His book Fantastic Voyage II isn’t a sequel; it’s another novelization, the way he wanted to write it.
My apologies if anyone else has pointed this out already, but the author’s introduction to The Princess Bride is as fictional as the rest of the book. The “William Goldman” of the introduction bears little resemblance to the real William Goldman, except for his career. The rest is pretty much all made up.