Movies that are better than the book

[Comshaw]

My turn! My turn!

The one I'll mention is "Stand by Me". While Steven King's story "The Body" is okay the director of the movie hit a perfect score (for me) with the movie. The conversation around the campfire always comes back to me "If Pluto's a dog, and Micky's a mouse, what's Goofy?" "If I could only have one thing to eat? That's easy, Cherry Pez!"

The movie gives us more of an inside view of a group of 12 year olds then King's story does.


Comshaw

 

[onehitwanda]

The movie gives us more of an inside view of a group of 12 year olds then King's story does.

For an inside view of a group of 12 year olds you need to read "It".

Yeah. I went there.

 

[calmlikeabomb]

Starship Troopers.

The book was interesting, but the movie remains one of the cleverest pieces of cinema ever filmed.

 

[SimonDoom]

Starship Troopers.

The book was interesting, but the movie remains one of the cleverest pieces of cinema ever filmed.

I still have to read that book. My understanding is that the book approaches the subject matter more seriously, which is somewhat disturbing, while the movie very obviously is satirical and tongue in cheek. I enjoyed the movie. It's one of Michael Ironside's best tough-guy roles.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Snow White!

 

[YmaOHyd]

Master and Commander isn't better than the book, but it's better than the books in the series that the movie is actually based on, largely because it cuts so much fat.

 

[alohadave]

I still have to read that book. My understanding is that the book approaches the subject matter more seriously, which is somewhat disturbing, while the movie very obviously is satirical and tongue in cheek. I enjoyed the movie. It's one of Michael Ironside's best tough-guy roles.

The book is completely different in tone than the movie. Paul Verhoven famously never read the book, and used the story to parody and satirize space nazis.

The book is militaristic, but not really fascist. It has commentary about what citizenship could mean in a world where government service is the pathway to citizenship for all.

 

[onehitwanda]

It always makes me sad when I see a thread that Em started rise up to the front page. There's always a little bit of me that just for a moment hopes she's back.

 

[SimonDoom]

Snow White!

Which movie version are you referring to?

 

[SimonDoom]

Master and Commander isn't better than the book, but it's better than the books in the series that the movie is actually based on, largely because it cuts so much fat.

One of my favorite war movies.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

My turn! My turn!

I think I can stop here, as nobody reads this shit.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Which movie version are you referring to?

The newest one, of course. It's a timeless piece of art!

 

[SimonDoom]

The newest one, of course. It's a timeless piece of art!

Ahem. I haven't seen it, but I watched the trailer and have seen enough of the CGI dwarves, or magical creatures, or whatever, to know, "That's not going to happen."

The 1937 film was easily one of the best animated movies ever, with gorgeous animation that has never quite been matched, and timeless music. I don't understand the Disney compulsion to update their cartoons with so-called live-action reboots, especially when they're not actually live action but CGI.

I mean, I know why they do it, but don't they have any scruples or sense?

 

[onehitwanda]

Ahem. I haven't seen it, but I watched the trailer and have seen enough of the CGI dwarves, or magical creatures, or whatever, to know, "That's not going to happen."

The 1937 film was easily one of the best animated movies ever, with gorgeous animation that has never quite been matched, and timeless music. I don't understand the Disney compulsion to update their cartoons with so-called live-action reboots, especially when they're not actually live action but CGI.

I mean, I know why they do it, but don't they have any scruples or sense?

I threw a slipper at the telly when I heard they'd redone "The Jungle Book" as CGI. That's practically a war crime.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Ahem. I haven't seen it, but I watched the trailer and have seen enough of the CGI dwarves, or magical creatures, or whatever, to know, "That's not going to happen."

The 1937 film was easily one of the best animated movies ever, with gorgeous animation that has never quite been matched, and timeless music. I don't understand the Disney compulsion to update their cartoons with so-called live-action reboots, especially when they're not actually live action but CGI.

I mean, I know why they do it, but don't they have any scruples or sense?

Yeah, good question. I'd say it's mostly due to two major reasons.
The first is this idea that everything, every book and movie needs to be updated so that it reflects modern Western society.

The second is the painfully obvious fact that there is a serious lack of creativity in present-day Hollywood. It's hard to write and direct something fresh and engaging, so we have this obsession with reboots and remakes of beloved movies and shows. But the worst part is that these new adaptations are mostly terrible, and apart from decent or bad CGI, they don't bring anything new yet they take away a lot of original magic.

 

[onehitwanda]

they don't bring anything new yet they take away a lot of original magic.

Soon enough they'll be AI generated, and the trifecta will be complete.

If you want to experience a modern version of the magic of Disney, then you need to look for it independent films like Flow:

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I threw a slipper at the telly when I heard they'd redone "The Jungle Book" as CGI. That's practically a war crime.

The Lion King, cough*

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Soon enough they'll be AI generated, and the trifecta will be complete.

If you want to experience a modern version of the magic of Disney, then you need to look for it independent films like Flow:

Eh, for real?

 

[SimonDoom]

Yeah, good question. I'd say it's mostly due to two major reasons.
The first is this idea that everything, every book and movie needs to be updated so that it reflects modern Western society.

The second is the painfully obvious fact that there is a serious lack of creativity in present-day Hollywood. It's hard to write and direct something fresh and engaging, so we have this obsession with reboots and remakes of beloved movies and shows. But the worst part is that these new adaptations are mostly terrible, and apart from decent or bad CGI, they don't bring anything new yet they take away a lot of original magic.

It's fascinating that film makers have more tools now to be more creative and inventive than ever before, a limitless ability to bring their visions to the screen, and yet mainstream movie making is less original than ever.

Some of it is about the money, but not all of it, I think. I think moviegoers would appreciate some more originality, and less dull conformity to social trends.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

It's fascinating that film makers have more tools now to be more creative and inventive than ever before, a limitless ability to bring their visions to the screen, and yet mainstream movie making is less original than ever.

Yeah, and this time we can't put the blame on AI.
It's as if moviemakers once had only Paint for Windows 1.0 to work with, but they still made amazing art and movies, and today they all have the latest version of Adobe Illustrator but they keep making crap. How in the world did Hollywood make such a steep decline in quality truly boggles the mind.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Yeah, and this time we can't put the blame on AI.
It's as if moviemakers once had only Paint for Windows 1.0 to work with, but they still made amazing art and movies, and today they all have the latest version of Adobe Illustrator but they keep making crap. How in the world did Hollywood make such a steep decline in quality truly boggles the mind.

Saw an interview with a rom com staple male lead(Can't remember who it was) who explained that without the DVD market, smaller budget, niche, art house type movies have to make all their money in theaters where before, they could count on DVD sales and rentals. Streaming doesn't pay anywhere near as much as DVD rentals, so those movies just don't get made. He said it's also why anything truly 'new' takes an act of congress to get made. All the studios want sure things.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Saw an interview with a rom com staple male lead(Can't remember who it was) who explained that without the DVD market, smaller budget, niche, art house type movies have to make all their money in theaters where before, they could count on DVD sales and rentals. Streaming doesn't pay anywhere near as much as DVD rentals, so those movies just don't get made. He said it's also why anything truly 'new' takes an act of congress to get made. All the studios want sure things.

That would explain a lot but I am not sure that's the whole truth of it.
Either way, the old maxim stands. No risk no profit - in every sense of the word.

 

[GoodGirlsDeserveFun]

I think Devil Wears Prada and Crazy Rich Asians are better as films than the books

 

[onehitwanda]

The Lion King, cough*

... I am going to stab your voodoo doll in the face.

 

[YmaOHyd]

That would explain a lot but I am not sure that's the whole truth of it.
Either way, the old maxim stands. No risk no profit - in every sense of the word.

Marketing is another problem. Big-budget movies have so much risk attached that only certain kinds of movies can justify the massive spend necessary for a $200m budget. Small movies can be made profitable with microtargeted ads online. $30-60m movies are too small to do massive wide advertising and too big for microtargeting. And the theatrical exhibition business is facing a million and one challenges.

If you want a villain that isn't audiences, blame venture capital and streaming.