IMHO, the films “Carrie” and “Misery” were much better than the books.
Of course there is a lot of King material that proves the rule: It, The Langoliers, Silver Bullet, Cujo, The Stand, 'Salems Lot, The Shining, Christine, etc.
Yes, I know lots of those were TV mini-series. But I think they should still be counted.
I immediately thought of this when Seagal was mentioned… however, Steve didn’t star in this (he died in the first quarter of the movie, and played a very minor character), even though his participation in the movie was highly touted.
However, I think Executive Decision was Seagal’s best acting performance. His depressurization in that connection tube was so realistic.
Billy Baroo wrote:
You apparently saw the Martian versions of these movies. The Under Seige I saw had Tommy Jones stealing the show, and featured the goddamndest knife fight I’ve ever seen, and Erika Eleniak. Under Siege II has that really pathetic macho scene in which the guy huffs pepper spray.
I may be the only person in the Western World who liked “The Razor’s Edge” starring Bill Murray, but I thought it had much more depth than Somerset Maugham’s two-dimensional “golly gee” characterizations in the original novel. I don’t know who did the screenplay, but they managed to cut out most of the irrelevant actions and characters without losing any of the important stuff.
Executive Decision…hmmm…I have to say, Seagal wasn’t too bad in that. Perhaps he’d have more success and less tendency to overact if he stuck to supporting roles.
Chronos:
The novelization is Fantastic Voyage, of course. Asimov wrote it before the movie came out, based on the script. It’s been in print ever since, until recently with the original movie-poster cover. Even for the first version, Asimov insisted on changing things, because he thought the script inconsistent. As a result, the escaping scientists end up hauling the sub with them along the optic nerve, so it won’t expand inside the head of the guy they’ve just been operating on.
Years later, Asimov wrote Fantastic Voyage II: Destination Brain, which is a rewrite rather than a sequel, with the story considerably changed, and a mor interesting sub.
Yes, but is it better than the first film of the book - The Return of Martin Guerre? 
Chronos: Here it is:
CalMeacham,
I’m not sure what point you were trying to make in giving the link to the Amazon page on Fantastic Voyage. The reviewers there are clueless. They praise an acceptable novel as if it were the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Well, I was trying to prove that the novelization of the movie actually existed, and that it was not the fevered mis-rememberings of my addled brain. I didn’t post because of the reviews at all.
And don’t say such nasty things about the Amazon.com reviewers. Two of them gave my book really good reviews! (And I’d hate to think it’s because people who browse Amazon are easily amused.)
Movies better than the book:
Christine (The King book was awful, the movie was acceptable and had an ending that was an order of magnitude better). Same goes for 'Salem’s Lot (which was a poorly-written, if entertaining book, but a scary as hell movie).
Sequels better than the original:
Anyone who thinks Last Crusade was better than Raiders is insane. Sorry. See your doctor. He has pills that can fix that.
Star Trek II is an easy one. Actually, several of the Star Trek films have been better than the original. Generally, the even-numbered sequels are far superior to the odd, for some reason.
I would add Gremlins II to the list (MUCH better than the original).
Remakes better than the original:
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the 70’s version was terrifying while the 50’s one was too campy).
The Fly ('86 version was frightening and tragic. 50’s version was a silly monster movie.)
General rule for series: A series will always end with at least two bad movies. I’ll use Jurassic Park as an example: First, Jurassic Park was made, and it was a good movie. Because it was good, many people went to see it, it made a lot of money, and Hollywood decided to make another one. Lost World sucked, but people didn’t know that at first. They said to themselves, “Well, Jurassic Park was good, so this one probably will be too”, and a lot of people went to see it. Again, Hollywood made a lot of money, so they decided to try it again. They made Jurassic Park 3, but this time, people knew in advance what to expect, so it didn’t do so well. Hollywood finally gets the message, and stops making more (hopefully).
This is rather a degenerate example, with only three movies, but the same thing can happen at any point in a series. Once a series gets long enough (Star Trek, 007, etc.), it can accquire some inertia, and take more than two bad movies to die off, but it’ll always take at least two. I have a feeling that this model can be extended to explain the alternation of the Star Trek movies, but that needs more work.
I liked the first Toy Starry more than two.
But I agree that Forest Gump books weren’t great, especially Gump and Co., But the first was messed up when they started with Forest and space exploration.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by psiekier *
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.
On that note, let me say that I liked Kimba the White Lion better than The Lion King.
Whoa, all of a sudden people are getting back to this damned Forest Gump lovefest again. I hated the movie, it was all smarmy and looooong. But the book was just pure fluff, and funny. In the same vein as “Bill the Galactic Hero” or similar.
As far as the Fly, Body Snatchers, Planet of the Apes, and Thomas Crown goes: 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 1st. No contest. I can’t believe people actually liked the new version of Apes better. What, is it something in the water?
Also, the Evil Dead trilogy is slightly hard to pin down. Was Evil Dead 2 really a sequel, or more of a remake? It has elements of both, but I have always viewed it as something like the same movie. Sam Raimi saying “Look, I made a horror movie, but that horror movie is also a great comedy with hands chopped off! Bruce, cut off your hand. Excellent.”
er… wanted to say something else. Think, think, think. Oh yeah, wasn’t Dr. Strangelove a satire of that cheesy movie Red Alert or whatever, recently redone with Hooper himself (Oh Chief!)?
Now, for some movies that are better than the book:
Lawrence of Arabia is one of my favorite movies, but the real Lawrence always stymies me about 1/3 of the way through.
Dracula with Bela Lugosi is pretty hot. But I didn’t really care for the book that much. Likewise Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein was way funnier than that damned gothic prose Mary Shelly was always throwing around. 
I hve heard that Gone With the Wind is basically identical in both book and movie form, but I think that the visuals probably put it over the top. Could be wrong, though.
Final note: What the hell is the deal with calling Star Trek movies films? Come on.
I think that’s all…
Tenebras