Movies that are actually BETTER than their source material.

Mister K

This is our story.
Apr 25, 2011
1,703
0
0
Most of the time, movie versions of books, comics and games are, ahem, at the very least bad. But there are exceptions to this. Tell me your opinion on this matter.

I think that Stephen King's Green Mile had an amazing screen version. When I read Green Mile, I though that it was OK, but nothing special. But acting of Tom Hanks, Michael Clarke Duncan and other actors turnd this book into amazing story that made me cry.

Also, While I don't think that Watchmen movie was much better than the comic, I do think that Ozymandiases plan to unite USA and USSR was better in the movie (some stupid allien attack vs framing Dr. Manhattan).
 

Boris Goodenough

New member
Jul 15, 2009
1,428
0
0
VMK said:
Also, While I don't think that Watchmen movie was much better than the comic, I do think that Ozymandiases plan to unite USA and USSR was better in the movie (some stupid allien attack vs framing Dr. Manhattan).
I have it the opposite way regarding that.
If Dr. Manhattan wanted to attack the planet, there was nothing they could do about it at least they would stand a chance against an imaginary enemy like aliens.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
17,361
1,552
118
I'm not saying Blade Runner is better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?... but the movie nails a lot of stuff the book never paid much attention to in the first place. Namely the character of Roy Batty. He's a secondary enemy in the book and has none of Rutger Hauer's chilly Ubermentsch awesomeness. No climactic fight either. Also the movie makes it a point to question Deckard's humanity whereas the book more or less skims over it. The book also has two protagonists and whenever the story isn't focusing on Deckard it loses momemtum. It's not bad by any means, but kudos to the screenwriters for improving a lot of stuff.

By all accounts The Thing is incredibly better than its source material, a "hard sci-fi" novel by John Campbell called Who Goes There?
 

Uhura

This ain't no hula!
Aug 30, 2012
418
0
0
Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is far superior to King's original novel. The book wasn't scary at all and I almost sprained my eye from all the eye rolling I did when I was reading it. In comparison, the movie has an unsettling and genuinely creepy/scary feel to it and the cinematography is gorgeous.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
17,361
1,552
118
On the subject of The Shining, Kubrick had a penchant for turning subpar literature into awesome film. The Short Timers (basis for Full Metal Jacket) is nowhere near as good as the movie (which was flawed enough). Same with the Red Alert novel that served as plot reference to Dr. Strangelove - some crap red scare bestseller nobody would give a fuck for these days was transformed into first-rate satire.

Hitchcock used to do the same - buy the rights to crap pulp fiction for nickles and dimes and spin box office hits and movie classics because of his cinematic genius.
 

Mister K

This is our story.
Apr 25, 2011
1,703
0
0
Boris Goodenough said:
VMK said:
Also, While I don't think that Watchmen movie was much better than the comic, I do think that Ozymandiases plan to unite USA and USSR was better in the movie (some stupid allien attack vs framing Dr. Manhattan).
I have it the opposite way regarding that.
If Dr. Manhattan wanted to attack the planet, there was nothing they could do about it at least they would stand a chance against an imaginary enemy like aliens.
Maybe you are right, but I find the idea of some puppet (ok, anatomically correct and professionally made puppet) being able to decieve two Super States kind of unlikely. But Manhattan is real, and nobody can say that he won't return to Earth (well, those who know the truth can say that he will not, but other humans on the planet can't). This means that everyone on the planet is (if we were to use only knowledge of everyone except for Owl and co.) living in the state of fear of Manhattan, which (may) lead to collaboration between USSR and USA in, for example, research to negate his powers, which in the end (once again, may) lead to forgetting old quarels entirely for at least a few years. Bad peace is better than good war, right?

But that's just me ranting out my theory. I can't say that I'm right.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
I'm going to say the LOTR movies. I know there are many arguments over what the movies did wrong and what was cut out compared to the books, but I feel the movies did a much better job of telling the same story as the books without making me want to fall asleep several times a chapter like the books did.

Johnny Novgorod said:
I'm not saying Blade Runner is better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?... but the movie nails a lot of stuff the book never paid much attention to in the first place. Namely the character of Roy Batty. He's a secondary enemy in the book and has none of Rutger Hauer's chilly Ubermentsch awesomeness. No climactic fight either. Also the movie makes it a point to question Deckard's humanity whereas the book more or less skims over it. The book also has two protagonists and whenever the story isn't focusing on Deckard it loses momemtum. It's not bad by any means, but kudos to the screenwriters for improving a lot of stuff.
Very much so. As said, it's not really that one's better than the other, but both work very well on their own and tackle some of the same material in different ways. That's more you can say for many book to movie adaptations. Either they do it worse, or they do it well but require a firm knowledge of the source material to really "get."
 

shootthebandit

New member
May 20, 2009
3,867
0
0
Harry potter by a long shot. I couldnt really get into the books and the overall story isnt great and a bit of an x-men rip-off (school for gifted kids, one half want to save humans the others want to wipe them out). However the atmosphere created by the movies is superb, the acting is really good, the locations (a lot of them in scotland and northern england) are beautiful and the special effects are spectacular. They are just 6 movies with brilliant cinematography and good acting with an average story line
 

shootthebandit

New member
May 20, 2009
3,867
0
0
Pluvia said:
Catching Fire (The Hunger Games).

Badly written book, fantastic film.

Hopefully the 3rd one (which is just a terrible book) will get similar treatment and will be amazing.

shootthebandit said:
Harry potter by a long shot. I couldnt really get into the books and the overall story isnt great and a bit of an x-men rip-off (school for gifted kids, one half want to save humans the others want to wipe them out). However the atmosphere created by the movies is superb, the acting is really good, the locations (a lot of them in scotland and northern england) are beautiful and the special effects are spectacular. They are just 6 movies with brilliant cinematography and good acting with an average story line
There's 8 movies, and they're just plot hole after plot hole. The books on the other hand manage to avoid this.

The acting, from the adults (and the trio come the 3rd film I guess), is fantastic, but cinematography and acting doesn't make up for all the plot holes, events that just straight up don't make any sense, and bad directing in a lot of scenes.
I really didnt like the hunger games movie. I havent read the books so I cant comment but I really did not enjoy that film. I can see what it was trying to achieve but I just didnt like it

I agree with you partially on harry potter. They do have a few plot holes but the atmosphere that they created is brilliant. Im not really into the story that much but like I said I like watching the harry potter movies just because they are a really pretty piece of cinema. I tried to sit down and read the books but i just couldnt get into them
 

The Wykydtron

"Emotions are very important!"
Sep 23, 2010
5,458
0
0
I have to say the Kickass film was better than the comic, the film included Nic Cage being basically Batman without a moral compass for one. The comics were more grim too, the film ends with the main character getting the girl because lol Hollywood, whereas in the comic she tells him explosively rejects him and taunts him by getting a massive fuck off black guy as a boyfriend instead, just as an example.

I guess i'm not such a fan of grim stuff as I thought. I've turned down a lot of stuff this year on account of being needlessly grim.

In a similar vein, I thought the Attack on Titan anime was much better than the manga both in quality and story. The sound design is amazing too. Honestly the way the manga paces the first few issues is just bizarre, I had to check around to see if somehow the scannalators had fucked up their order it was that out of place.

Basically, the events of Episode 5 happens then they flash back to show Episodes 2 through 4 in the manga before going on with the timeline. ????????????

And it turns out that the whole 3D Maneuver thing looks a whole lot better in motion.

Also the Watamote anime was better than the manga. I'm a freaking sucker for character focused stories and Watamote could have the alternate, alternate title of The Inner Monologue of Tomoki Kuroki. The manga just used her as the device for the jokes and punchlines but the anime escalated it into a proper character story. Not to say the jokes at her expense are any less mean.
 

Fdzzaigl

New member
Mar 31, 2010
822
0
0
The Swedish films on Stieg Larssons "Millennium" series.

With all due respect to the (dead) author, half of each book in the trilogy was a boring mess. This accounted to about 250 pages of boredom in each book in my opinion.

The films managed to focus more on the useful information and the parts that actually carried the attention of the readers.
 

soren7550

Overly Proud New Yorker
Dec 18, 2008
5,477
0
0
The Wykydtron said:
I have to say the Kickass film was better than the comic, the film included Nic Cage being basically Batman without a moral compass for one. The comics were more grim too, the film ends with the main character getting the girl because lol Hollywood, whereas in the comic she tells him explosively rejects him and taunts him by getting a massive fuck off black guy as a boyfriend instead, just as an example.
I have to disagree with you there. It was better how the comic did several things. The fact that Big Daddy wasn't a cop out for revenge, but rather just some dork who didn't want his daughter to become a vapid slut was nice and fresh, as was Kick Ass not getting the girl. Also, Red Mist's betrayal didn't make a whole lot of sense in the film.



In a similar vein, I thought the Attack on Titan anime was much better than the manga both in quality and story. The sound design is amazing too. Honestly the way the manga paces the first few issues is just bizarre, I had to check around to see if somehow the scannalators had fucked up their order it was that out of place.

Basically, the events of Episode 5 happens then they flash back to show Episodes 2 through 4 in the manga before going on with the timeline. ????????????

And it turns out that the whole 3D Maneuver thing looks a whole lot better in motion.
Now that, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Having their basic training shown after everyone dies didn't make a whole lot of sense, and also made it so that you're not going to care much when people you don't know anything about die. Then there's the fact that (for me at least) hearing the people scream in absolute horror before they die horribly made it more terrifying.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
The Two Towers Extended Edition I enjoy much more than the book, for one scene: Faramir and Boromir's past. That one moment put into the Extended Edition gave Faramir so much more depth than he ever got in the book. I know that people were mad that he wasn't the pure, incorruptible Faramir who immediately rejected the One Ring, but I felt that was kinda boring. He just goes "Fear not! For I don't want it!" in the book.

In the movie, there is some real tension as to whether he will suffer his brother's same fate, or if Faramir can be the man of Gondor to aspire to. I enjoy a character overcoming a problem rather than being immune to it.

Starship Troopers the movie is nothing like the book. Therefore it's hard to be "better", but it still stands up to me as one of the best War Movie satires ever produced.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,363
1,670
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Tropicaz said:
Sticking with King, I preferred the Mist's flim adaptation, especially the ending.
I could not agree more with this. I thought the movie ended perfectly, and after reading the book I was disappointed to find that the book's ending wasn't nearly as interesting or poignant.
 

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
StriderShinryu said:
I'm going to say the LOTR movies. I know there are many arguments over what the movies did wrong and what was cut out compared to the books, but I feel the movies did a much better job of telling the same story as the books without making me want to fall asleep several times a chapter like the books did.
Have to agree with that, I read the books when I was 9 and I have no idea how. I tried to read them again recently and no. Just no. The movies are the far more definitive version. The cuts are minor and don't change the story too much beyond a few small line characters being removed. The Hobbit book on the other hand is still very readable. Given it's my favourite book, and the first book I read, the second film angered me no end; it would've been fine had Legolas not hogged most of the screen time, but no Peter Jackson had to give him a tongue bath.

They cut a load of scenes and replaced them with Legolas! Bloody Legolas! Cutting scenes from LotR made sense because the films were long enough as they were, and the scenes they did cut had no relation to the plot (like Tom Bombadill). I thought they were going to
kill Smaug at the end of the second film for a second, boy was I ready to rage.