Movie better than the Book

[Shryke]

Yeah, I've always gotten the feeling after watching some of his other stuff, that PJ may have been the best and worst thing to happen to those movies.

[paran]

Bourne movies were far better than the books (geez, somebody die already!).
Starship Troopers book and movie were very different, but the movie entertained me far more, very satirical.

[C.T. Phipps]

The Starship Troopers movie was far better than the Book.

But, for some reason, they called it "Aliens."

[BrainFireBob]

[quote name='niamhson Red'Toole' post='1341656' date='May 4 2008, 08.30']That's my big one gripe with PJ and why I want to murder him slice by slice with a blunt and rusty axe every full moon in a dark corner.[/quote]

<3's niamh. <3's niamh muchly. I need to dull an axe.

Agreed on Aliens.

Anything based on a King short story.

Any movie that turns a rookie soldier who gets scragged in chapter 1 into a love interest and major movie character can not be considered as having more than a passing resemblance to the original- although I think Heinlein would have gotten a kick out of it.

Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeran.

Anything by Benchley. Yes, I include The Beast.

I'm pitching in the first Conan movie.

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

[quote name='BrainFireBob' post='1352966' date='May 13 2008, 11.14']I'm pitching in the first Conan movie.[/quote]
No.

[Exa Inova]

[quote name='Sir Thursday' post='1351915' date='May 12 2008, 16.23']It's a TV series rather than a film, but [i]Dexter[/i] owns the books on which it it based.


Sir Thursday[/quote]
[url="http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/tv_shows/dexter/"]I agree[/url]. The same for the series with Hugh Laurie.

[Calibandar]

EHK

[quote]Back to LotR, I really don't think there's a question that the Fellowship film is FAR superior to the book[/quote]

Disagreed, I think Fellowship the book is a more interesting opening chapter of the saga than Fellowship the film. I say this noting that Fellowship is the finest of the 3 films, and the one I'm most likely to watch again because I feel it nicely captures Tolkien's atmosphere.

[quote]The Council was dramatic rather than tedious.[/quote]

I was quite annoyed by the fact that the film shows the Council of Elrond to be nothing more than a bar room brawl. Lots of shouting and aggresiveness, a lack of reasoning, Gandalf losing control, Elrond looking on in total panic and astonishment . A much diminished bunch of characters once again. You keep thinking either of the two great leaders who have lived for thousands of years will assert themselves, but of course, this is Jackson, so they do no such thing.

Contrary to the book, where the Council of Elrond is actually a council. People bring forth their arguments, Elrond describes the Battle with Sauron of the Last Alliance of Elves and Men ( a favorite part of many Tolkien fans), he goes into the history of the Rings of Power, speaks of the history of Gondor, and of why a Fellowship must be formed that must operate in secret towards Sauron's lair. Most readers expect the Allies to use the Ring for their own to defeat Sauron, but Tolkien surprises by having them destroy it instead, as none can wield it. A decision is come to in the end.

Obviously the film cannot translate the book's Council chapter like that as the council chapter is long on discourse and worldbuilding. You call this tedious, I loved it all. So the film must move much quicker, and I have no problem with that. But again, the way PJ chooses to portray those characters that Tolkien invented and wrote about, feels like the glove that just won't fit.

[quote]Sauroman becomes an actual character instead of a faceless menace that gets referenced a few times[/quote]

And a one-dimensional one at that. PJ completely removes Saruman's ulterior motivation. In the books, Saruman tries to double cross [b]both [/b]Sauron as well as the Allies. In the films, he is Sauron's puppet, which is again explictly confirmed in The Two Towers. He has [i]no [/i]designs of his own, he only wants to serve Sauron, find the Ring for Sauron and build armies, "for Sauron". I felt this really took away from his menace. All we see is him bowing to the Red Eye.

[quote]Boromir is vastly improved[/quote]

Book Boromir and film Boromir are actually so similar that it's hard for one to be an improvement over the other. Sean Bean was also very well cast. Essentially both Boromirs have the same character/mindset, which is quite different from some of the other adapted characters.

As for Faramir, well he is portrayed so weakly that it becomes understandable that Denethor would dislike him. But of course even that notion is floored when we actually meet film Denethor, who cannot even stop eating so he can finish a sentence and pretty much does everything wrong whenever he is on screen. No, not a fearsome Steward who lead the people of Gondor in the war against Sauron, say rather the bungling idiot that everyone is happy to see go up in flames. Of course let's make Gandalf a murderer in the process as well, after all he has already cowered meekly before the Witch King, let's now show him of being able to at least kill a madman.

Another thing is how Jackson wants to convey the lure of the Ring. To him, wearing the Ring is pretty much the same as being around it. In the books, Aragorn is able to withstand it's lure. Frodo carries it, and Aragorn is on the right path. But the ring is powerful and lesser men succumb to it's draw. In the book, this is Boromir, and later on, Denethor. But Faramir, we are told is more like Aragorn and in the vein of the greater Numenoreans. There is a great difference between wearing the Ring as Frodo does, or being in the vicinity of it. Some cannot wear the Ring, like the resilient Frod can, but they can at least keep their distance.

Of course, in the film all 4 hopelessly fall for the Ring's lure. Aragorn tells Frodo at Amon Hen that he must [b]abandon [/b]Frodo because he cannot withstand the lure of the Ring, again a massive departure from his Tolkien character. Denethor, Boromir as well as Faramir cannot resist it either. There is again, no strength or power, only succumbing.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote]Obviously the film cannot translate the book's Council chapter like that as the council chapter is long on discourse and worldbuilding. You call this tedious, I loved it all.[/quote]

Eh...that's a charitable way of saying that they expended page upon page of dialog to say very little. By the 6th rendition of 'how and why I came to Rivendell' any sane man or dwarf would've been going postal, capping elves left and right. Simply put, everything that was said in that overly long sequence could have been done more concisely and realistically (again, people do not talk like that) in a fraction of the pages while still conveying the entirety of the world-building information that Tolkien's version offered. There was no need for every character to recite his life story previous to meeting up at the Council. People with marauding armies at the gates or with the fate of all that is good and decent hanging in the balance usually don't go in for super-exposition show and tell.

The book scene dragged endlessly, went off on largely irrelevant tangents, lacked any real tension that you might expect from one man destined to take the other's throne, a pair of races who are apathetic towards eachother at best, and some elder do-gooders deciding that the best possible weapon of mankind (and dwarf/elf) is to be destroyed instead of used against the enemy. There was a bit too much quite acceptance of their 'wisdom' after the situation had been explained. The righteous indignation that film Boromir displayed in the scene was sorely lacking. (though even the screen version could have used more of it. Worthless elves had to be put in their place. And Aragorn.) It was also important to establish the elf/dwarf enmity early for those unfamiliar, which that scene did effectively. Further Frodo's ultimate acceptance of the task breaking the shouting match was a MUCH more effective scene than how it occurred in the book where his words (if I remember correctly) came out of nowhere and broke only silence, it didn't settle shouting matches and arguments.


[b]Saruman:[/b]

I do agree that Saruman's self-interested ambiguity would have been a welcome addition. And it wouldn't have been difficult or time consuming to establish. If given the option, I certainly would have put it in. Still, I don't see how its absence significantly impacted his effectiveness as a villain. He was still a threat, suitably menacing, much more present and active than in the books, and well played by Christopher Lee. Whether he was self-interested or a mere servant doesn't detract much from the threat he posed.

[b]Boromir: [/b]

I actually found them to be quite different. Really there are clips of dialog where Boromir appears quite cowardly and pathetic. He whined...alot. About Moria. About the door. He didn't have the reaction that any reasonable person in his position would have to Aragorn. The book sincerely needed a 'Gondor has no king. Gondor needs no king' line or sentiment. There was no righteous indignation that while his people suffered and died holding off the hordes of Mordor, these immortal pricks a thousand miles away were deciding on the fate of the one weapon that could save them. Film Boromir is a proud and strong figure who succumbs to temptation, both out of weakness and a desire to save his people. Book Boromir begins boastful, but eventually is revealed to be weak and cowardly...one begins to question how he could ever be the favored son or cast any sort of long shadow over Faramir. Film Boromir was as strong and resourceful as any of the other Fellowship, joined in their comradery, particularly with Aragorn, established hints of what appeared to be a fatherly affection with the hobbits (might need the extended version for that), and responded heroically (and ON SCREEN!) after his moment of weakness.

With respect to Magneto and Count Dooku, Boromir and Theodin (post exorcism) were easily the best things in the film series. Loved the casting, the actors, and how they were written and portrayed.

[b]Faramir:[/b]

I'm a bit mixed. He was probably the most relatible, ordinary human character in the film series. A genuinely good character, but less 'larger than life' than any other major character in the cast and with his share of insecurities. But the thing is, those insecurities are understandable given his situation and I think the film version once more does a better job of giving us honest human emotions and reactions.

Denethor is rather massacred. No excuses there.

[b]The Ring:[/b]

If almost all of the most prominent characters in the book are able to resist the ring, than its hardly that dangerous. If we don't depict them as at least very seriously tempted, it hardly works as the plot device its supposed to be. Faramir's reaction is effective in showing the power of the ring and his own eventual triumph over adversity. This is the man who lived in his brother's shadow, seeking both his father's approval and recognition along with the ability to save his people, to redeem his brother's memory, all piled upon the ring's supernatural lure...instant denouncement doesn't exactly fit the context no matter the makeup of Faramir's character. Overcoming what he faced after significant struggle showed more strength than his reaction in the book. Such temptations of other characters also help to emphasize how special Frodo and probably Sam are in their ability to carry and endure it for so long.

[Shryke]

We've had this discussion before, but Faramir or Aragorn instantly resisting the Ring is crap. It might work ok in a book, but in a movie, where character backgrounds are more limited, it would rob the Ring of it's power.

"How powerful can this thing be if Faramir just tosses it aside like it's a DVD of the Eragon movie?"

The movie conveys the lure of the Ring far more successfully. EVERYONE is tempted by it. Even Gandalf. The difference is, people like Aragorn or Gandalf, while they feel the lure of it, are strong enough to resist it. They feel it, but they never give in. Faramir feels it, gives in for a time, but ultimately overcomes it. Boramir gives in and never truly recovers (although he feels shame for it and attempts to make up for it by saving Merry and Pippin)

This even extends to the Council of Elrond, which does a good job in the movie of showing both the divisiveness of the peoples of Middle-Earth and of the power of the Ring to lure them into conflict.


Saruman would have been better with that whole "trying to betray Sauron" thing, but it still worked without it. And far better then it did in the book. And Christopher Lee, or course, hit it out of the park.

And Denethor ..... well, we all know what a fucking travesty he was.

[ztemhead]

[quote name='Charles Phipps' post='1352951' date='May 13 2008, 02.37']The Starship Troopers movie was far better than the Book.

But, for some reason, they called it "Aliens."[/quote]

I don't understand this comment. Are you saying [b]Aliens [/b]had a similar plot to Heinlein's [b]Starship Troopers[/b]?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote]I don't understand this comment. Are you saying Aliens had a similar plot to Heinlein's Starship Troopers?[/quote]

Well if you disregard the whole plot, social commentary, pseudo-fascism, power-armor, every identifiable character, the existence of an actual war with real armies, the protagonist, nukes, governments...it still has aliens and big guns...so...ummm...close enough?

[BrainFireBob]

EHK:

All I'm hearing is constant reiteration of a desire for action, and this idea that if you're not competing, you're a chump.

It's a mythic world, with mythic heroes.

Shortly, you forget Isildur. Isildur was the greatest hero of the Numenoreans, a mightier man and hero than any since. [i]And he failed[/i]. With respect to Aragorn and Faramir, refusing the ring reflects their self-knowledge. Elrond mentions this: the great heroes of old are gone. The implication with respect to the history of the Last Alliance is that Isildur was the last, and he failed in his pride. For Boromir and Denethor, it is their hubris that makes them think they can control the ring. And in all mythic stories, hubris comes before- and drives- their fall.

In fact, it is a testament to Boromir that despite his failing, he still was able to die a hero's death.

If it's not a weapon that can work, it's not the one weapon that can save you. Apparently, you missed that part.

Boromir also is spouting off the fears of his people- it is meant to show, by contrast with Aragorn, how far the mighty Gondor has fallen, that one of its mightiest men and leaders of men fears the Elves of Lothlorien, when he should embrace them as allies. Aragorn, by contrast, is a throwback to the old Numenoreans- he displays what Men were once, as the charge of the singing Rohirrim at Pelennor shows the vitality of the fathers of men, of whom they are the last representatives.

[Shryke]

And how are you gonna fit that into a movie?

[BrainFireBob]

He did pretty well with the rest of Fellowship.

But by changing the characters in the first film in fairly minor ways (completing inverting Aragorn, for one), he necessitated some of the truly stupid shit he did in the later films.

When the Elves showed up at Helm's Deep I was furious, it began feeling more like a McKiernan "how it should have happened because it's way MOTHERFUCKING COOLER" version.

Point was, for the first time ever, Men were by their damn lonesome, and would fall or triumph on their own strength and merits.

And the damned ghosts? Seriously.

Not to mention I sometimes feel like the only person on the planet who sat in Return of the King thinking "but, there aren't enough Orcs!"

And creating the Orc general out of whole cloth? That bothered. The "new captain" was the old one coming back, the Witch King.

[Lord of Oop North]

[quote name='BrainFireBob' post='1352966' date='May 13 2008, 04.14']I'm pitching in the first Conan movie.[/quote]
[quote]No.[/quote]
Crom, grant me one request. Grant me REVENGE!

:fence:

[Shryke]

The Movie is not the Book. Things have to change to accommodate the medium. And some things should change because they were boring as shit in the book.

[BrainFireBob]

Boring because it wasn't going motherfucking crazy with swords?

I'm sorry, but describing background that's essential to the story as boring is nothing more than a subjective criticism.

Fact is, the lore could have been told in flashback- such as the one moved to the opening of Fellowship, which was the actual tale of Elrond from the Council. That would have been gripping and exciting for those who lacked visualizing such things when told of them.

The first Conan film was fun pulp. James Earl Jones, c'mon! The Robert Howard books were . . .worse, in my estimation.

Could also nme things like Streetcar, where neither the book nor the film was that splendiferous. Doesn't mean the film's not better.

[CelticBrennus]

What you have to love about Conan the Barbarian is that it came light years closer to recreating the feel of a true ancient Epic then any other movie, including LOTR.

[Shryke]

[quote name='BrainFireBob' post='1353696' date='May 13 2008, 15.19']Boring because it wasn't going motherfucking crazy with swords?

I'm sorry, but describing background that's essential to the story as boring is nothing more than a subjective criticism.

Fact is, the lore could have been told in flashback- such as the one moved to the opening of Fellowship, which was the actual tale of Elrond from the Council. That would have been gripping and exciting for those who lacked visualizing such things when told of them.[/quote]

Why the emphasis on "OMG SWORDS!!!". It display a rather insulting characterization of those who don't like LOTR.

The most prominent example of cutting useless shit was Tom Bombadil. There's many others.

All that background would drag down the movie. The movies convey the amount of information necessary to make the story work. And then slightly alter some characters to make them fit the "Drama" motif of the vast majority of fiction written in the past like 100 years.

Tolkien wrote in a ... mythic style that involved flat, boring characters. That shit doesn't work on screen. Or even in books really.

Changing characters like Boromir and Faramir and Aragorn around makes them work better, as they feel like actual people.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1353762' date='May 13 2008, 15.52']I have come to the conclusion that while I may be literate and have a repectable IQ, I am very weak in my convictions.

When I read EHK's post I find myself agreeing with everything. And then when I read Calibander's I also agree with everything. And then EHK posts again and I'm back with him.

I stand for nothing.[/quote]

Didn't I tell you to stand up for yourself you spineless little bastard?