Originally posted by FragileKidA: I think one glaring choice is One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. I think that the book is very mediocre and I think that the film is leaps and bounds better than the book. I also consider Nest to be my favorite and best film of all time, so maybe I am a bit slanted.
Either way, I found the book to be clunky, tedious and in some parts, flat out boring. I was constantly enamored and enveloped in the film and I am like this every single time I see it. It’s like watching it all over again, I still laugh as hard and almost cry in the right spots. All of it is entertaining and amazing, whereas the book isn’t at all.
I wouldn't call it glaring, but I see where you're coming from FKA. I found the book to be solid, but not spectacular. I think the movie is golden all the way around.
Posts: 3130 | Location: FoCo | Registered: 07 January 2005
That's because they changed his characters around. I mean, Chief Bromden is the lead character and the narrator of the novel. It delves more into the Chief's past and his perspective. McMurphy is a central character in the novel, but the Chief is even more central, so the movie switched it to the White perspective again. Now, that's not a dis, and it's not racist. I love the movie. I believe it probably is a better movie than the book would have been. But, I believe the book is a better book than the movie would be, mainly because it's about the Chief and not McMurphy, and because of that, it's far more unique in American literature.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12874 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
Originally posted by mark f: That's because they changed his characters around. I mean, Chief Bromden is the lead character and the narrator of the novel. It delves more into the Chief's past and his perspective. McMurphy is a central character in the novel, but the Chief is even more central, so the movie switched it to the White perspective again. Now, that's not a dis, and it's not racist. I love the movie. I believe it probably is a better movie than the book would have been. But, I believe the book is a better book than the movie would be, mainly because it's about the Chief and not McMurphy, and because of that, it's far more unique in American literature.
Dang, you are one brilliantly intelligent man.
----- I go to sleep and think you're next to me.
Posts: 5752 | Location: Texas | Registered: 27 December 2005
I know this is sacrilege, but I think LOTR was a better film than book. I found the book(s) overlong and bloated. I think Peter Jackson did a great job of streamlining the story, while keeping the Middle Earth "mythos" intact.
I would say Jackson completely butchered LotR. Some good eye candy in the film but otherwise it fell ludicrously short of the novels.
yeah sometimes a book will show more then the movie. I think it depends on what you enjoy more. A good book or a good movie. I own the mars attacks movie book and I read parts in the book that wasn't in the movie. So I just use my imagination to picture the mayhem of the martians. LOL.
it seems like it's far too often that the book outshines the movie made from it. fight club i think though is a great exception. but for the most part i think a combination of crappy directors, crappy actors and stories that just don't translate well to film prevent much good from happening.
totally agreed. i feel a lot of movies being made from books are just a cheap attempt to make a buck or two and arent properly developed. there's of course exceptions like Fight Club, The Outsiders or Ghost World (some of my personal favorites). I recently read that Memory Keeper's Daughter has been turned into a movie. We'll see how that one goes.
The Outsiders is probably one of my favorite books and movies ever. Memory Keeper's Daughter I think will be good, judging by the trailer. It's on this weekend so might as well find out.
I go more for the classics. They all seemed to transfer well. Jane Eyre (all of them), The Scarlet Letter, Gone with the wind, etc.
I did like The Memory Keeper's Daughter and had no idea it was going to be a movie. Well, its a TV movie. Sunday night at 9 on Lifetime. I'll probably check it.
I will go on the record as saying that Breakfast of Champions is a better book than a movie (what a surprise ). It is just too difficult to adapt a Vonnegut novel into film, Breakfast of Champions the movie is decent (Bruce Willis), but the book blows it away.
Posts: 592 | Location: kentucky | Registered: 02 October 2007
I did like The Memory Keeper's Daughter and had no idea it was going to be a movie. Well, its a TV movie. Sunday night at 9 on Lifetime. I'll probably check it.
Originally posted by mymindsblank: I will go on the record as saying that Breakfast of Champions is a better book than a movie (what a surprise ). It is just too difficult to adapt a Vonnegut novel into film, Breakfast of Champions the movie is decent (Bruce Willis), but the book blows it away.
yes yes i realized so heh. what'd you think of it peachy? i mean assuming you watched it heh. i really loved how they did it. some things changed, but nothing drastic. overall i give it a thumbs up
). It is just too difficult to adapt a Vonnegut novel into film, Breakfast of Champions the movie is decent (Bruce Willis), but the book blows it away.
