Movie better than the Book

[Maid of Tarth]

[quote name='Astra' post='1343054' date='May 5 2008, 11.15']Frankly speaking there is not much of the book in the movie besides a fact there is a war with bugs. You might like the book...[/quote]That movie was just so awful.....I have a long enough reading list as it is, without bringing up a book that will call back to that atrocity. I suppose that is an author's worst nightmare when it comes to adaptions- that people will hate the film so much that they don't pick up the book because of it. :(

[AutumnEvenings]

I agree with [b]Shawshank[/b].

I'd also like to submit [b]Gone With the Wind[/b], as controversial as it is nowadays.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

[quote]The movies were just bare plot, and they neglected all of what made Tolkien "Tolkien." Miss the fucking point, indeed.[/quote]

Thirded (or fourthed or whatever). Movies were excellent, some of the best ever, but they missed pretty much everything about the books so much that I just look at them as an alternate telling of the same story. The books are scholarly and deep, the movies are pulp for the masses.

Edit

Oh yeah, and the casting for the hobbits, Legolas, Arwen, Wormtongue, and Galadriel were horrible.

[Lady Blackfish]

I thought Cate Blanchett was great for Galadriel, but her temptation of the ring scene was :ack:

[Mathis]

[quote name='Tormund Midgetsbane' post='1343418' date='May 6 2008, 00.12']Oh yeah, and the casting for the hobbits, Legolas, Arwen, Wormtongue, and Galadriel were horrible.[/quote]


What's your objection with Wormtongue?

[Zahir al Daoud]

For the record, I liked the LOTR movies. I prefer the books overall, but very much enjoyed the movies.

[u]The Hunt for Red October[/u] is roughly twenty times better than the novel upon which it is based. At least. Not that such would be much of an achievement, but the movie is in fact a good flick.

[u]Silence of the Lambs[/u] is a very good book, but on a visceral level the story of Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter works better in the film.

[u]Bram Stoker's Dracula[/u] is in many ways superior to the novel, not least because it pulls out all the stops.

[u]The Shawshank Redemption[/u] is indeed a better film than story, which is saying something.

[u]Candyman[/u] is another one. The original movie is really excellent, even more powerful than the short story.

[u]The Lion, the Witch and Wardrobe[/u] is a more satisfying re-telling of the children's book.

[u]Death on the Nile[/u] and [u]Five Little Pigs[/u] as well as [u]Peril at End House[/u] and [u]Poirot's Christmas[/u] (all with David Suchet) are much, much superior to Agatha Christie's novels.

[Anatole Kuragin]

Cate Blanchett was wonderful, Legolas was by far the worst.

And yeah, the books are immensely better than the movies.
[b]
Last of the Mohicans

Master and Commander

Bourne series
[/b]

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Mathis' post='1343509' date='May 5 2008, 17.22']What's your objection with Wormtongue?[/quote]
I can see objecting to his make-up and wardrobe, maybe even to the way PJ wanted him portrayed as well. But objecting to Brad Dourif is insanity.

[Anatole Kuragin]

[quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1343573' date='May 5 2008, 19.05']I can see objecting to his make-up and wardrobe, maybe even to the way PJ wanted him portrayed as well. But objecting to Brad Dourif is insanity.[/quote]

Yeah, PJ's molestation of the character was the problem, not the actor.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

[quote]I thought Cate Blanchett was great for Galadriel, but her temptation of the ring scene was :ack:[/quote]

Galadriel is supposed to be one of the two most beautiful creatures in the entire world. Cate Blanchett isn't even the prettiest person in Cate Blanchett's house. Shes super-ugly.

[quote]What's your objection with Wormtongue?[/quote]

He's supposed to be a man of Rohan. Somehow he doesn't look like any one else in the whole country.

Oh yeah and Gollum was bad, at least if you read the books. He's supposed to be very old, and crafty and [i]creepy[/i]. He was more like a cartoon character. The Gollum of the old "The Hobbit" cartoon was far more accurate.

[Anatole Kuragin]

[quote name='Tormund Midgetsbane' post='1343577' date='May 5 2008, 19.06']Galadriel is supposed to be one of the two most beautiful creatures in the entire world. Cate Blanchett isn't even the prettiest person in Cate Blanchett's house. Shes super-ugly.[/quote]

Cate Blanchett is super-ugly? How do you say this without your fingertips burning off?

[Fenny]

[quote name='Anatole Kuragin' post='1343578' date='May 6 2008, 02.08']Cate Blanchett is super-ugly? How do you say this without your fingertips burning off?[/quote]

I think there are inevitably problems with the portrayal of extraordinary beauty on film or stage; tastes are so different. When Helen removes her veil, there's always someone in the audience who's thinking, "What an ugly cow!"

[Anatole Kuragin]

[quote name='Fenny' post='1343581' date='May 5 2008, 19.12']I think there's always a problem with trying to portray extraordinary beauty on film or stage; tastes are so different. When Helen removes her veil, there's always someone in the audience who's thinking, "What an ugly cow!"[/quote]

You're right, her beauty is just too much for some.

[Lady Blackfish]

Yeah, clearly a taste thing. I have a handful of guy friends who go gaga over her, and personally I find her sufficiently attractive. I would not complain if I looked like her, even if she has "quirks" to her face (which I think work for the role as they amount to her looking rather elfin). Those quirks are probably relative to a standardized face one is used to seeing, but really she's far from lacking attractive features period, IMO.

[Mossman]

[quote name='blackwater' post='1340444' date='May 3 2008, 00.39']Sphere was bad movie , but the book was even worse.
Every movie based on Crichton's book was better, with exeption of Timeline.[/quote]

No. [i]Congo[/i] was the shittiest movie ever. The book totally kicked its ass.


I'll second the votes for [i]Forrest Gump[/i], [i]The Princess Bride[/i] and [i]Shawshank[/i].

Also, [i]Stand by Me[/i] was better than the story The Body.


[quote name='Anatole Kuragin' post='1343578' date='May 5 2008, 20.08']Cate Blanchett is super-ugly? How do you say this without your fingertips burning off?[/quote]

I wouldn't call her ugly, but she certainly isn't pretty. She looks vaguely like a horse.

[S John]

[quote name='Mossman' post='1343644' date='May 5 2008, 22.01']I wouldn't call her ugly, but she certainly isn't pretty. She looks vaguely like a horse.[/quote]

I think she's pretty, just not my cup of tea I guess. I don;t see the horse connection though.

[Aemon Stark]

[quote name='Tormund Midgetsbane' post='1343577' date='May 5 2008, 21.06']He's supposed to be a man of Rohan. Somehow he doesn't look like any one else in the whole country.[/quote]

That would be a problem with the makeup, not Brad Dourif, who is awesome.

[quote]Oh yeah and Gollum was bad, at least if you read the books. He's supposed to be very old, and crafty and [i]creepy[/i]. He was more like a cartoon character. The Gollum of the old "The Hobbit" cartoon was far more accurate.[/quote]

I don't agree with this at all, particularly with respect to the silly Rankin-Bass cartoon. "The grrreatest adventuuure..."

Gollum is not supposed to look very old; in fact, it's not supposed to be at all obvious that he was ever a hobbit named Smeagol. Creepy, yes, but above all pitiable, and I thought Jackson (and, more accurately, Andy Serkis) captured him perfectly.

[EHK for Darwin]

I see the thread has shifted into a bit of a Tolkien orgy. Lets be honest guys, if written today, his works would not stand up well. At least not with the best of the genre. And not just because all the conventions and cliches he pretty much invented have already been done to death. He writes a good speech, but overall bad dialog. Most of his characters do not grow or develop. Half of them don't have much of a personality worth noting. His characterizations are, quite simply, rather weak. The first film did much better in this regard. Though there were some notable problems (comic relief dwarf, captain obvious, super sinister wormtongue, Denethor, and Aragon's lack of actual presence as commander)

Obviously his plotting and pacing needs work. Long, pointless diversions in fellowship that should have been edited. 16 year delays between the story actually starting. Key turning points and action taking place off screen and being retold in later exposition. We excuse it now because he's Tolkien and its LotR. But if someone wrote that shit today we'd be merciless. The poems. The singing. All the other needless, distracting shit. Tell me that wouldn't be mocked today in a new book?

Of course he excelled in the depth and detail of the world he created. Noone since has gone so far as to invent entire languages for their world. Or established such a large and comprehensive mythology. Really discussing and investigating the background of Middle Earth is more interesting than reading the three books themselves. Kind of damning praise, but true.


As for Starship Troopers, both book and film are COMPLETELY separate entities, both brilliant in their own way IMO. I think the book goes without saying, but the film has been catching some flack. Forget the book when you watch that. They have the title, a war, and bugs. That is all the two have in common. They are exploring different themes, sending completely different messages, totally different characters and largely different plots.

The thing to remember is that the film is pure satire. It satires the action film. Satires ultrapatriotism. Satires fascism. It manages to be subtle and club you over the head with it all at once. Alot of people criticize the wooden acting, super beautiful stars, and horrible military tactics, but this is all part of the point. (well, maybe not the wooden acting).

There's something completely subversive about a cast of underwear models more at home on Dawson's Creek than a gritty war drama charging guns blazing into absolute slaughter, oozing militarism and jingoism as they massacre (or get massacred) everything in sight in a frenzied orgy of body parts and alien (or human) blood. This is utopia. There's world peace (internally anyway), world government, pretty people everywhere, and they're all eager to kill and die in the billions for king and fucking country. The 40's-ish propaganda reels are classic. The jingo militarism of the cast is amusing coming from such pretty boys. And the action, while a bit repetitive, is usually graphic and pretty kickass throughout. This has the same edge and cynicism as Robocop and is downright hilarious. It succeeds as rather blunt social commentary, sci-fi action flick, and comedy. I'd fall short of calling the film brilliant, but its getting there.

[Fenny]

[quote]His characterizations are, quite simply, rather weak. The first film did much better in this regard.[/quote]

No - he simply isn't using characters in accordance with modern taste. It seems to me that Tolkien was perfectly aware he was writing archetypes. Realistic psychology is not the point, except perhaps with the hobbits. To me, it felt that Jackson trivialized Aragorn, Arwen etc. by trying to make them conform to the expectations of the current cinema audience and dumping various twentieth century-style anxieties and complexes on characters who aren't intended to support them, or function in that way. LotR draws on classical and Germanic epic. That genre normally isn't compatible with a George Eliot-esque eye for the detail of character.

[Calibandar]

[quote]Last of the Mohicans[/quote]

Now there is a fine example of a film that was tremendous and much better than the rather unreadable book.

EHK

We've discussed Tolkien before and we are certainly at completely different ends of the spectrum here. You think the films are better than the books. I think the books are markedly better ( and much more mature) than the movies. And I still quite like the movies.

I note that judging the films as an adaptation of the books does not interest you, and that you scoff at that approach. You seem to take the films just as film, rather than what I'm doing which is judging the films in two ways, first as adaptations of the book of the same name, which the film owes it's entire story to, and second just as a film.

When I judge it just as a film, I find myself much milder. Clearly even then there are some inexcusable weak sections in the film that have nothing to do with Tolkien's books, they're just awful. At the same time I find them enjoyable to watch and they have a lot going for them as well. But I find the films get much worse when you look at certain decisions and how poor they are, and then compare them to the decisions already taken by JRRT. Then it becomes downright baffling.

[quote]I see the thread has shifted into a bit of a Tolkien orgy. Lets be honest guys, if written today, his works would not stand up well[/quote]

If Tolkien were writing today, he would most likely not be producing this kind of work no. But, he wasn't, he was writing back in the day, and fortunately so. I disagree that it does not hold up to modern works, it's just different. I think it surpasses most of them, and this is coming from someone who generally does not have much time for older literature.

[quote]Most of his characters do not grow or develop[/quote]

There is a difference between Tolkien's style of characters, who change or act because of [b]external [/b]events , or PJ's sort of characters, who are more in the modern day style of insecure and heavily flawed, weak characters who change [b]internally[/b].

Tolkien's characters go through an enormous amount of external events, but deep down most of them remain the same person. PJ's characters have an internal character arc, which is a totally different choice of writing.

Take Aragorn.

Film Aragorn is weak. He fears his own blood. He is disgusted and embarrassed by his own bloodline. He fears that he will fail, simply because Isildur did not destroy the Ring. He chooses to ignore the massive success the men of his line have had, and focus on weakness and frailty. He requires Arwen to comfort him and tell him that really, someday he will need to step up to the plate. Astoundingly, we hear from Elrond that he has long since actively "renounced" the Kingship of Gondor and Middle-Earth. At his departure from Rivendell, Aragorn even choses to break up with Arwen. Also, the legendary sword Anduril has not been re-forged for Aragorn, because he did not want it ( this is stated explicitly in the [i]Extended Edition[/i], Elrond offers it reforged, Aragorn flat out renounces it). This pretty much sums up his character as far as his mindset is concerned, this is what PJ wanted us to see. Interestingly, all of this is the *opposite* of book Aragorn. He does not break up with Arwen, because their romance is incredibly strong and "star-crossed", a union between Elf and Man such as Beren and Luthien. He is willing to step up to the plate and does not renounce kingship, he has only been biding his time. He willingly takes the mighty Anduril, Flame of the West. He is not embarrased by his bloodline, he is proud of it. Outside of the superficiality of character, namely that film Aragorn still has dark hair, a beard and is still a hunter and a warrior, in terms of actual [i]character[/i], PJ has created the Anti-Aragorn.

Now, because PJ gives him this "character arc" he needs to change internally. However this is a remarkable long time in coming. Even when Aragorn has gone into a full-fledged war in film two and has taken his part in it, his mindset is still that of a man who does not want power nor responsibility. He says he is there, only because of his promise to Frodo at the Council.

Now we get to film 3, the Return of the King. This is the time when readers of the book will finally get to see the Aragorn that Tolkien had from the start. Or so we thought. What happens is that Elrond has chosen to leave Rivendell on a very dangerous errand. He has gone all the way down to Rohan to deliver to Aragorn, Anduril ( rather than his sons and a whole company of Grey Riders who actually have a plot purpose to fulfill in the book, film Elrond travels all the way to Rohan and then simply turns back). Aragorn still wants to refuse. He is *still* not intending to take the crown from the mad steward Denethor and step up for mankind.

Another thing that PJ does is to suddenly downplay Gandalf's character. In order to show the ascent of Film Aragorn, he decides not to make that character stronger, but make Gandalf weaker. Gandalf goes from the decisive loremaster in the books and in the first two films, to a bumbler. At many turns do we see film Gandalf turn to Mortensen for advise. He asks Aragorn what to do, rather than initiate. In fact in this film Aragorn starts to overrule him. All this because he had to give film Aragorn his arc and his ascent had to be shown in some way. So the result is a diminished Gandalf character in film 3, because you massively changed the mindset of Aragorn. Gandalf of course, is furthermore diminished by his sudden fear of the Witch King, who he tells Pippin he cannot face ( a lie, as any book reader knows). Of course PJ is a blunt axe worker and that is not enough, no he has to go and invent a totally unexisting sequence wherein Ganfalf meets the Witch King and in which the WK breaks his power. Gandalf movie character cowers upon the floor. Film Elrond, we are told, is disgusted by mankind and thinks them very weak. Why? Well small wonder when the heir of the entire kingship and supposedly the mightiest of men, has been raised by Elrond himself and cannot decide what to do with himself?

This is all typical PJ. Do away with nobility, self-confidence and raw power. Bring in the 90's sensibilities, frailty, insecurity and stepping away from the plate.

As for poems, songs etc. No, these are far from my favorite parts of the book either, and many of them I skip, though it has to be said that as far as poetry goes, at leas Tolkien has an ear for it, and the Fall of Gil-Galad poem is exceptionally heroic.

And yes, any filmmaker who would do such an adaptation would cut things like Bombadil, the barrow downs sequence or the Scouring of the Shire. These are sections which worked poorly in the book to start with, and would from a plot perspective be wholly out of place in the films.

What does bother me is the way he makes changes that are not necessary. He does many things that have nothing to do with the change of medium and the inevitable time compression that this requires. He invents completely new sequences to fill the time with, whilst replacing existing ones from the book of the same name. He utterly changes most of the characters (something which most people don't even remark on because of a flawed recollection of who they were in the book). Theoden, Denethor, the Ents, Saruman, Elrond, Eomer, Gimli, these are far cries from the character mindsets you see in the books and I can happily detail why that is so if you need me to.