Scorsese’s film was not based on Edwin Torres’ novel. It was instead based on a spoken word monologue by Joe Frank which he performed on NPR. But Joseph Minion, who wrote the script, did not credit Frank and Frank had to sue for payment.
Arthur Halley’s novel Airport was hundreds of pages of extensive detail of the inner workings of an airport, spiced up with extramarital affairs by two of the major characters, a nervous breakdown by a third, and a rather long section with a protest by angry neighbors. The movie mercifully concentrated on a desperate man with a bomb and the effort to land the plane.
I remember being so sad the day I finished the LOTR. My mom was worried about me because I couldn’t explain why I was in tears over finishing a book. Thankfully I had Bored of the Rings nearby- I have no idea why, given the time when there was not anything like today’s media - and a stupid parody was enough to pull me out of the depths of my despair over not being able to live in the Shire any more.
If we include TV series Game of Thrones was better than the book.
I strongly disagree with that, much as I liked the series.
I’ve always preferred the movies based on Tom Clancy’s novels to his books, mostly because I just don’t like his writing style which is really more of a personal quirk on my part than anything else.
Ever tried to read Forrest Gump or One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest?? I have no idea how they distilled the movies they did from those books.
There’s no way I will find that out one way or another because I’m not going to read the books. The names in the TV series can be annoying enough, at least the ones that are supposed to vaguely echo an Olde English version of a real name. But the ones that are pronounced like a real name are usually spylled wyth randym lyttyrs changyd, and sometimes nouns other than names gyt thys exotyc trytment too. I don’t think I could stand it through an entire book.
I agree with you about Forrest Gump, but I loved One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. It was classic Beat. The narrative was disjointed and stream of consciousness, because the narrator was suffering from schizophrenia. Now I loved the film, too, but I think the book went into great detail, especially with what made Randall tick.
I feel the same way about the movie and the book with another work I see mentioned in this kind of thread, A Clockwork Orange. Now Kubrick’s movie was fine. I don’t have a complaint with it, but it changed a few things from the book and left a few important things out (and not just the original ending). Malcolm McDowell played Alex very differently from how Alex came off in the book. Book Alex was not as charming or as good-looking as he was in the movie. The movie Alex seduced two consenting grown women with his patter; the book Alex raped two ten-year-olds after getting them drunk.
Also, except for his love of music (gone into more detail in the novel), book Alex was not as intelligent as he was portrayed in the movie. Book Alex had problems with analogy and abstract thought, which is one of the reasons he kept finding himself in those fucked-up criminal situations and the equally fucked-up rehabilitation situations. Book Alex couldn’t see six inches in front of his face. Book Alex was your typical dumbfuck delinquent with a genetic wrinkle that allowed him to appreciate Beethoven and other great composers. Malcolm McDowell’s Alex was just a liiiiiiittle too smart and glib.
It was that very stupidity in the book, apparent in the agonizing of Alex trying to make sense of youth, predestination, and his own limited place in the grand scheme of things according to his own dim lights, that produced some of the best prose and best insights that I’ve ever come across in a modern novel–once I got past the nadsat slang. Reading Alex’s thoughts actually helped me come to grips with some of the things I had to face growing up.
To be fair, most of that could never be put on screen, and I think Kubrick did his best with what he had, especially as he probably did not have access to the book’s final chapter, but the book was extremely compelling. And Burgess didn’t even like it. Huh . . . just goes to show . . .
The Scarlet Pimpernel. I’ve seen at least 3 adaptations of the book and enjoyed every one. The book is terrible. I never finished it because it infuriated me. All the big action scenes were told in flashback instead of in the middle of the action. Drove me crazy, so I threw it against a wall.
I’ll go wit the 1964 film Fail-Safe. The book was excellent but the performances of the actors - especially Henry Fonda made it a masterpiece … along with the scene of the ambassador’s phone melting.
I’ve given Fleming’s Bond books and short stories several chances, but have nearly universally found the film adaptations more enjoyable and entertaining than the source material.
Les Miserables with Fredric March and Charles Laughton from the book by Victor Hugo.
The book reminds me of a “required reading” classic that is inflicted on schoolchildren. An acquired taste.
Sigh: I’ll admit it - I liked the Classic Comics version.
I read the book before I saw the movie, and was fascinated by the depiction of the American interpreter’s thought processes, something the movie never could have delved into. But yeah - the film was even better. It’s aged very well, too.
I second that sigh. Classics Illustrated were directly responsible for my reading three or four H.G. Wells novels as well as Shelley’s Frankenstein while I was still in grade school.
Die Hard is supposed to be much better than Roderick Throp’s Nothing Lasts Forever I have not read it because a few people advised me here on the Dope that it would be a waste of my time.
The book is shit. I read it after seeing the movie, which was great. I couldn’t believe what a piece of shit the book was. I’m not talking about its subject matter or its narrator being a real-life scumbag. I mean Jordan Belfort is bad at writing. Really bad. The whole narrative just feels very unprofessionally delivered and amateurish.
The Jason Bourne movies are way, way, way better than the books that they are loosely based on.
The Four Feathers (most any version) is much better than A.E.W. Mason’s novel.
Not the most recent, which was somehow turned into a anti-war film. :rolleyes: