Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2020 7:23:04 GMT
Fight Club--the story is fine, but that film is one of my 10s
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2020 7:24:41 GMT
Blade Runner. World War Z. (I never read the book and I remember a big furore at the time about how unfaithful the adaptation was but I remember quite enjoying the film). Howl's Moving Castle. A.I. Artificial Intelligence Good call on Howl's Moving Castle. The movie is indeed better.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Aug 18, 2020 8:40:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Aug 18, 2020 9:06:52 GMT
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. The book ends with Alex getting a redemption; the movie ends with him back to where he started. However, I felt this change made the story better, even though I'm not a pessimist in the slightest. Why do you think it's unfaithful? It's almost a shot-for-shot recreation of the panels. There were a few changes that the film that were significant and better. Like the changes of the ending in A Clockwork Orange, the ending of Watchmen shows a bomb, instead of a squid, destroying much of New York and Dr. Manhatten being blamed. And the added emotional impact in the film made a HUGE DIFFERENCE because in the book, it was like none of the main characters, except Rorschach, cared. They made Dan Dreiberg a more human character and had the right reaction after seeing millions of people die and then see his friend die in front of him. He rightfully beat the crap out of Ozymandias and called him out on his BS.
Sorry about the two extra spoiler boxes. I was writing this on my iPad and I couldn't properly hide the spoilers for Watchmen in the box properly. It doesn't make sense to blame Dr. Manhattan - he's an American superhero. If a guy named Captain Moscow blew up New York, I doubt the US would become friends with the Soviets in 5 minutes.
And "rightfully beat the crap out of Ozymandias and called him out on his BS" is part of why it's not as good as the comic in my eyes. The comic is ambiguous and doesn't tell the audience what to think. Are Ozy's actions pure evil or for the greater good? It's a rorschach test. But the movie thinks the audience is stupid and talks down to them. Meh. That does remind me that I liked V For Vendetta as a (very different) adaptation.
|
|
|
Post by alpha128 on Aug 18, 2020 11:46:19 GMT
I think the film Soylent Green is much better then the novel it was based on, Make Room, Make Room. When I first saw the film Logan's Run I liked it so much I read the novel. Then, after reading the novel, I hated the film adaptation. The Logan's Run book is so much better than the movie. The second book, Logan's World is excellent too. I agree about Soylent Green, but I was completely lost in the book Logan's Run.
I didn't find the book hard to follow at all.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 18, 2020 11:59:07 GMT
There are actually two versions of the book with different endings. Kubrick's film was faithful to the one he was aware of when he made the film. According to Burgess, the ending where Alex is ultimately shown to have been 'cured' of his violent impulses was published only in the UK edition. His US publishers inclined towards the ending we--and Kubrick--knew, and Burgess reluctantly acquiesced. Supposedly he tried to talk Kubrick into the UK ending for the film, but Kubrick had already pretty fully mapped out his film and stuck with the US ending. Although, from a philosophical angle, I think Burgess' original ending is more truthful, it's probably readily arguable that the 'shock' ending of the US version makes for a memorable film finale far greater than the UK ending would have supplied.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 18, 2020 12:26:49 GMT
There are actually two versions of the book with different endings. Kubrick's film was faithful to the one he was aware of when he made the film. According to Burgess, the ending where Alex is ultimately shown to have been 'cured' of his violent impulses was published only in the UK edition. His US publishers inclined towards the ending we--and Kubrick--knew, and Burgess reluctantly acquiesced. Supposedly he tried to talk Kubrick into the UK ending for the film, but Kubrick had already pretty fully mapped out his film and stuck with the US ending. Although, from a philosophical angle, I think Burgess' original ending is more truthful, it's probably readily arguable that the 'shock' ending of the US version makes for a memorable film finale far greater than the UK ending would have supplied. Hmm, I prefer Kubrick's deeply cynical version. I don't really buy the idea of state sanctioned brainwashing turning evil people into good people.
|
|
angel
Sophomore
@angel
Posts: 275
Likes: 142
|
Post by angel on Aug 18, 2020 12:38:20 GMT
Fight Club--the story is fine, but that film is one of my 10s I've often seen Fight Club cited whenever this question comes up but I seem to remember the film being pretty faithful to the book but I'll admit, it's been a while since I read it, so maybe my memory is a little hazy.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 18, 2020 12:44:24 GMT
Fight Club--the story is fine, but that film is one of my 10s I've often seen Fight Club cited whenever this question comes up but I seem to remember the film being pretty faithful to the book but I'll admit, it's been a while since I read it, so maybe my memory is a little hazy. The film is much different and much better, Chuck Palahniuk even says the film is superior to his book.
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Aug 18, 2020 13:04:11 GMT
The Dark Of The Sun by Wilbur Smith. The book is still far better than the film but the film is still enjoyable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2020 13:05:08 GMT
There are actually two versions of the book with different endings. Kubrick's film was faithful to the one he was aware of when he made the film. According to Burgess, the ending where Alex is ultimately shown to have been 'cured' of his violent impulses was published only in the UK edition. His US publishers inclined towards the ending we--and Kubrick--knew, and Burgess reluctantly acquiesced. Supposedly he tried to talk Kubrick into the UK ending for the film, but Kubrick had already pretty fully mapped out his film and stuck with the US ending. Although, from a philosophical angle, I think Burgess' original ending is more truthful, it's probably readily arguable that the 'shock' ending of the US version makes for a memorable film finale far greater than the UK ending would have supplied. The thing is, that book was based on actual failed experiments done on psychiatric patients back in the 40's-50's-60's. There was a huge call for reform in the 70's because of the abuses, which led to the state hospitals closing in the 80's. At this time, we have no effective treatment or "cure" for sociopaths.
|
|
angel
Sophomore
@angel
Posts: 275
Likes: 142
|
Post by angel on Aug 18, 2020 14:25:46 GMT
I've often seen Fight Club cited whenever this question comes up but I seem to remember the film being pretty faithful to the book but I'll admit, it's been a while since I read it, so maybe my memory is a little hazy. The film is much different and much better, Chuck Palahniuk even says the film is superior to his book. Oh, I definitely remember the film being superior to the book, but the question was - was it unfaithful? I first read the book after I saw the film and I seem to remember it reading like a cheap and lazy novelisation of the film. Thematically they were similar and even the twists were the same, but like I said, it was while ago, maybe it's time to revisit both which in the case of the film is never a bad thing!
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 18, 2020 17:02:52 GMT
According to Burgess, the ending where Alex is ultimately shown to have been 'cured' of his violent impulses was published only in the UK edition. His US publishers inclined towards the ending we--and Kubrick--knew, and Burgess reluctantly acquiesced. Supposedly he tried to talk Kubrick into the UK ending for the film, but Kubrick had already pretty fully mapped out his film and stuck with the US ending. Although, from a philosophical angle, I think Burgess' original ending is more truthful, it's probably readily arguable that the 'shock' ending of the US version makes for a memorable film finale far greater than the UK ending would have supplied. Hmm, I prefer Kubrick's deeply cynical version. I don't really buy the idea of state sanctioned brainwashing turning evil people into good people. I prefer the ending for the film version too. But I got the feeling that the UK ending was less about that type of state sponsored mind control causing the decline of Alex's addiction to ultraviolence than the simple processes of age and maturity bringing that about. Burgess seemed to me to be saying that the youthful Alex could never have survived the simple entropies of growing up and growing older on the wild energies of youth, no matter what other outside pressures may have been brought to bear on him.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 18, 2020 17:46:36 GMT
I prefer the ending for the film version too. But I got the feeling that the UK ending was less about that type of state sponsored mind control causing the decline of Alex's addiction to ultraviolence than the simple processes of age and maturity bringing that about. Burgess seemed to me to be saying that the youthful Alex could never have survived the simple entropies of growing up and growing older on the wild energies of youth, no matter what other outside pressures may have been brought to bear on him. Oh, that totally makes sense!
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 18, 2020 17:51:34 GMT
I prefer the ending for the film version too. But I got the feeling that the UK ending was less about that type of state sponsored mind control causing the decline of Alex's addiction to ultraviolence than the simple processes of age and maturity bringing that about. Burgess seemed to me to be saying that the youthful Alex could never have survived the simple entropies of growing up and growing older on the wild energies of youth, no matter what other outside pressures may have been brought to bear on him. Oh, that totally makes sense! And in its way, it's an even sadder ending than the notion of Alex simply having that part of his brain burned away by sanctioned lobotomizing: Time will accomplish the destruction of the madness of youth just as surely and completely, in its own manner, and more utterly unavoidably.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Aug 18, 2020 17:57:02 GMT
The movie that many people consider the embodiment, the archetype, of what later was called film noir, namely Billy Wilder’s Double Indemnity (1944), is a vast improvement over James M. Cain’s hastily written (for money) lured thriller. Cain was another novelist who admitted freely that the film was better. Wilder and Philip Marlowe creator Raymond Chandler refashioned the story and characters and wrote the script.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 19, 2020 5:41:52 GMT
There were a few changes that the film that were significant and better. Like the changes of the ending in A Clockwork Orange, the ending of Watchmen shows a bomb, instead of a squid, destroying much of New York and Dr. Manhatten being blamed. And the added emotional impact in the film made a HUGE DIFFERENCE because in the book, it was like none of the main characters, except Rorschach, cared. They made Dan Dreiberg a more human character and had the right reaction after seeing millions of people die and then see his friend die in front of him. He rightfully beat the crap out of Ozymandias and called him out on his BS.
Sorry about the two extra spoiler boxes. I was writing this on my iPad and I couldn't properly hide the spoilers for Watchmen in the box properly. It doesn't make sense to blame Dr. Manhattan - he's an American superhero. If a guy named Captain Moscow blew up New York, I doubt the US would become friends with the Soviets in 5 minutes.
And "rightfully beat the crap out of Ozymandias and called him out on his BS" is part of why it's not as good as the comic in my eyes. The comic is ambiguous and doesn't tell the audience what to think. Are Ozy's actions pure evil or for the greater good? It's a rorschach test. But the movie thinks the audience is stupid and talks down to them. Meh. That does remind me that I liked V For Vendetta as a (very different) adaptation. Just because the movie itself may make a judgment, that doesn't change what my thoughts on the situation are. I don't hold this against the movie at all. The question is still being asked and I don't have to agree with the opinion of the movie in order to get something out of it. Movies never tell me what to think, some movies just think that is what they are doing. Ozy's actions are a bit of both imo, though I wouldn't use the phrase "pure evil" because I find that phrase to be silly. I don't know what people mean when they say "pure" evil. His actions are both evil and for the greater good. Big difference though - I haven't read the graphic novel. What I am getting at is that I don't have the context of the novel to make a comparison.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Aug 19, 2020 6:01:43 GMT
It doesn't make sense to blame Dr. Manhattan - he's an American superhero. If a guy named Captain Moscow blew up New York, I doubt the US would become friends with the Soviets in 5 minutes.
And "rightfully beat the crap out of Ozymandias and called him out on his BS" is part of why it's not as good as the comic in my eyes. The comic is ambiguous and doesn't tell the audience what to think. Are Ozy's actions pure evil or for the greater good? It's a rorschach test. But the movie thinks the audience is stupid and talks down to them. Meh. That does remind me that I liked V For Vendetta as a (very different) adaptation. Just because the movie itself may make a judgment, that doesn't change what my thoughts on the situation are. I don't hold this against the movie at all. The question is still being asked and I don't have to agree with the opinion of the movie in order to get something out of it. Movies never tell me what to think, some movies just think that is what they are doing. Big difference though - I haven't read the graphic novel. It's not like the movie informed my opinion (though it evidently did for her - and in 99 out of 100 cases, someone who thinks the movie is better saw the movie first), I just don't appreciate the condescension. Nor do I think a question is still being asked when the most sympathetic character is turned into a mouthpiece for the filmmaker to explain his answer, while the maybe/maybe not villain is portrayed as campy and evil as possible.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 19, 2020 6:05:00 GMT
Just because the movie itself may make a judgment, that doesn't change what my thoughts on the situation are. I don't hold this against the movie at all. The question is still being asked and I don't have to agree with the opinion of the movie in order to get something out of it. Movies never tell me what to think, some movies just think that is what they are doing. Big difference though - I haven't read the graphic novel. It's not like the movie informed my opinion (though it evidently did for her - and in 99 out of 100 cases, someone who thinks the movie is better saw the movie first), I just don't appreciate the condescension. Nor do I think a question is still being asked when the most sympathetic character is turned into a mouthpiece for the filmmaker to explain his answer, while the maybe/maybe not villain is portrayed as campy and evil as possible. I don't see it that way, though I definitely understand where you are coming from. I think I watch movies in general a different way than you. I think that is why we get into so many arguments.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 19, 2020 6:10:54 GMT
Just because the movie itself may make a judgment, that doesn't change what my thoughts on the situation are. I don't hold this against the movie at all. The question is still being asked and I don't have to agree with the opinion of the movie in order to get something out of it. Movies never tell me what to think, some movies just think that is what they are doing. Big difference though - I haven't read the graphic novel. It's not like the movie informed my opinion (though it evidently did for her - and in 99 out of 100 cases, someone who thinks the movie is better saw the movie first), I just don't appreciate the condescension. Nor do I think a question is still being asked when the most sympathetic character is turned into a mouthpiece for the filmmaker to explain his answer, while the maybe/maybe not villain is portrayed as campy and evil as possible. The book ending does sound better btw.
|
|