Movies that are better than the things they are based on Page 3

  • mal 19 Nov 2017 21:22:12 29,326 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 20 years ago
    I think pretty much all of Crichton-based script films are a given, starting from The Andromeda Strain which is a little slow, but is still a sci-fi classic. The only one I'm not sure of is 'Congo' which was a pretty dreadful book even before it left the confines of the primate research lab, but the film is a fucking slog too, so I'm not sure which is worse.
  • elstoof 19 Nov 2017 21:26:52 28,125 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Is that the one where the gorillas have laser eyes
  • Rogueywon 19 Nov 2017 21:31:25 12,387 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    There's also the evil bastard twin to this thread; movie novelisations that are better than the movie they're based on. While most novelisations are cheap, trashy cash-ins, you get the odd one that isn't. With a decent author with proper access to scripts and staff, you occasionally get a novelisation which is better than the film.

    Alien 3 is a good example. With a bit more depth of characterisation, better pacing, a few plot-holes plugged and - most critically - no horribly awful CGI, Alan Dean Foster's novelisation gives a glimpse of the (much better) film that might have been without the assorted production fuckups that plagued it.
  • anephric 19 Nov 2017 21:35:48 5,274 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    Speaking of Crichton, the film of Rising Sun is no great shakes (I have a certain soft spot) but it's ten times better than its source.

    Crichton objected to Wesley Snipes being cast because reasons and in no way was he a racist shit, who'd written a pretty racist polemic in the first place.

    The film is slightly less racist.


    Slightly.
  • mal 19 Nov 2017 21:37:13 29,326 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 20 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    Is that the one where the gorillas have laser eyes
    Something along those lines I think, but having read the book and seen bits of the film, I think the sheer shitness cause me to block any of the actual details from my memory.
  • Rogueywon 19 Nov 2017 21:37:50 12,387 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Oh, and back to the original topic... I thought of a couple more: Patriot Games and Clear & Present Danger.

    Though staying with the Clancy theme, I think I'd take the Hunt for Red October novel over the movie (though both are excellent).
  • Rodney 19 Nov 2017 21:42:46 5,029 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Gravity. Film would have been boring if it obeyed the actual laws of gravity and didnt include George Cluney's charming ghost.
  • Fake_Blood 19 Nov 2017 21:47:22 11,093 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    There is only one law of gravity user Rodney, and I think the film actually got that one right.
  • anephric 19 Nov 2017 21:51:04 5,274 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    Rogueywon wrote:Though staying with the Clancy theme, I think I'd take the Hunt for Red October novel over the movie (though both are excellent).
    Ramius is a lot more interesting in the film. And the dialogue is a hell of a lot better.
  • mal 19 Nov 2017 21:57:32 29,326 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 20 years ago
    Fake_Blood wrote:
    There is only one law of gravity user Rodney, and I think the film actually got that one right.
    To be fair, the one thing about Gravity is that it's all about the lack of gravity until the end, which we all know is a hypoxic dream anyway.
  • Rodney 19 Nov 2017 22:02:51 5,029 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    I can't remember much about it, but the bit when Cluney drifts away from Bullock, even though there is no force acting on him, was a bit jarring at the time.

    And jumping from one orbit to another with a jet pack seemed to take a few liberties with orbital mechanics.

    It was a bett film for it though because if it was realistic it would have all been over within 10 minutes.
  • Fake_Blood 19 Nov 2017 22:23:21 11,093 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I think the level of science in sci-fi is alright these days. Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian, at least they try I guess. Anyone remember Armageddon?
  • Rogueywon 19 Nov 2017 22:25:45 12,387 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    @Fake_Blood I try not to. Got dragged to the cinema to watch that over my fervent protestations. One of the worst films I've ever seen.

    Ok... now here's a really controversial one. I'm genuinely not sure whether I come down on the book or film side of this one. But it's one that gets people very agitated indeed.

    Starship Troopers.
  • Mola_Ram 19 Nov 2017 22:35:04 26,187 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I agree about Starship Troopers. But it's also one of those things that I think is questionable as an adaptation, because of how it (intentionally) subverts the point of the source material.
  • Rogueywon 19 Nov 2017 22:38:31 12,387 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    @Mola_Ram Yeah.

    I kinda like the book, because it was so far ahead of its time in terms of the technology. It wasn't quite the first to do powered armour (that would be The Night Land), but still... without Starship Troopers, no Warhammer 40K and no Halo. Also... can anybody honestly claim they haven't had a moment in the darkest reaches of night when they haven't thought that restricting the vote might be a good idea? The early hours of 24 June 2016 for example?

    But I also like the film for the way it pricks the military ethos and, indeed, does so subtly enough that almost none of the critics realised what it was doing at the time.
  • mal 19 Nov 2017 22:41:39 29,326 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 20 years ago
    It's interesting, but given how polemic the book is, I think if Verhoven disagreed with it's politics, he was within his rights to take the mickey the way he did. You could argue it was cheeky of him to name it after the book still, but given the design of that boss monster, I think if you'd missed his point up till then, it was pretty clear exactly where Verhoven's tongue was through the whole thing.
  • Deleted user 19 November 2017 23:00:37
    Never read the book but I remember being 16 in the cinema and being completely gobsmacked it wasn't an 18.

    Which iirc they rectified for the home release.
  • Fake_Blood 19 Nov 2017 23:16:52 11,093 posts
    Seen 39 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Once read that Verhoeven and the rest of the team got naked when they filmed the shower scene in ST. Couldn’t do that in 2017 right?
  • mal 20 Nov 2017 00:30:36 29,326 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 20 years ago
    Sin City a patch on the comic? Fuck off!
  • mal 20 Nov 2017 00:37:02 29,326 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 20 years ago
    Funny, I've never been able to get into the film.
  • Mola_Ram 20 Nov 2017 01:03:25 26,187 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    mal wrote:
    It's interesting, but given how polemic the book is, I think if Verhoven disagreed with it's politics, he was within his rights to take the mickey the way he did. You could argue it was cheeky of him to name it after the book still, but given the design of that boss monster, I think if you'd missed his point up till then, it was pretty clear exactly where Verhoven's tongue was through the whole thing.
    Oh he had every right to do that. Just like Kubrick had the right to take The Shining book and make a great film that had very little to do with said book. Or how the producers of World War Z or Under the Skin (or whatever) had the right to ignore basically everything about the source material except for the title, and make whatever they wanted.

    Which is nothing to do with how good they are as movies, of course. But I guess there's the question of whether something can really be called an "adaptation" if it's just going to do its own completely unrelated thing.
  • Malek86 20 Nov 2017 07:00:00 12,331 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    It's one thing to make something different from the book due to length or dramatic reasons, but it makes me wonder why they would pick up a director that specifically dislikes the source material.
  • Tonka 20 Nov 2017 07:23:32 31,979 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    Bladerunner 2049
  • Decks 20 Nov 2017 08:11:34 31,013 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I think you're confused about the theme of the thread.
  • dominalien 20 Nov 2017 09:39:22 10,703 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    RandolphCarter wrote:
    Ender's Game.
    Ah, no.
  • dominalien 20 Nov 2017 09:39:58 10,703 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    RandolphCarter wrote:
    Pirates of the Caribbean.
    Here, I'm torn. Monkey Island is good, too. I'd say they're on par.

    Edit: unless you mean the ride at Disneyland, in which case it's much better. We're talking about the first film, right? Because the other two, maybe even three, are worse than smallpox.

    Edited by dominalien at 09:41:11 20-11-2017
Sign in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.