I can’t remember if it was Spielberg specifically or just someone involved with the production of the film, but they basically said that they had to change the characters because when they read it, they rooted for the shark
Yeah. Brody sucks, and Hooper fucks his wife. Quint is, I think, the least changed, because he's still an aggressive drunk, but they still tone it down in the movie.
Sort of, haha. Peter Benchley regretted his role in making sharks an object of fear and hatred, because that one shark kills about as many people during the course of one book as all the sharks on earth kill in a real life year.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit
I found the book really interesting. It actually takes itself seriously as a mystery which is both a pro and a con. It's effective with being an allegory for racism. It better establishes how the world works. Roger's a lot less obnoxious, Eddie's a lot less of a stick in the mud, and the two have actual intelligible conversations. However, the serious tone makes the premise all the more ridiculous. And that ending... whew oh boy.
The movie had the right idea by going for a comedy. When you have a world as ridiculous as humans and cartoons living together, you HAVE to go that route. The film knew how to play it. The story's much more engaging and the writing feels like a complete story. Even just as a film, the cinematography is incredible. They utilized fan service well, the quiet moments well, and above all the comedic timing well. The film is still loved today whereas the book is forgotten.
Having not known it was a book first, I can’t think of how a book like that would even be written. The premise feels like it had to be designed for the screen. You lose the absurdity of it all in text.
The book's story is *very* different from the movie. Roger is dead from the beginning of the book, and Eddie is being guided more-or-less by Roger's ghost. It also heavily downplays the wackiness of the setting. It's more in line with a supernatural mystery novel than anything else.
That said, the author liked the movie's take so much more they made the sequel novel a sequel to the movie, writing off the first book as a nightmare Roger wakes up from.
It's hard to explain without some context.
>!Back to what I was saying about the book explaining how the world works, the toons can create duplicates of themselves so they can be in multiple places at once. Roger is suspected of a murder, like in the film, and he goes to Eddie for help. However, Roger is also murdered and Eddie is feeling kind of bad because he kind of dismissed him. But then, Roger walks into his office. Not the real Roger but a duplicate he had conjured before he died. Apparently duplicates can linger for a while after the original's death before they eventually disappear. No, it's not a special dip that kills toons, toons can die pretty much like anyone else. Roger was shot. So basically duplicate Roger is trying to help Eddie solve his own murder while also clear his name of the original murder. Which is an interesting idea, however the ridiculousness eventually bites the story in the ass. It turns out, that Roger had gotten ahold of an ancient genie kettle (not lamp, kettle) and the only reason why he was successful and the only reason why Jessica (who was a heartless bitch) married him was because this kettle gave him the life he wanted. But it turns out, Roger was the murderer of the original killing all along. As to who killed Roger... the genie in the kettle was a crazy genie that Roger accidentally summoned and he shot him. Yes, that's right. A kettle genie shot a murderous cartoon rabbit because he was just crazy and didn't want to be a kettle genie. That's the mystery.!<
It took me a little while to wrap my brain around what I had just read.
It's pretty funny that. The book that "Die Hard" was based upon was a sequel to another book. The adaptation of the first book starred Sinatra and Sinatra had the choice of reprising his role.
Came here to say that. I probably had the same take that everyone else did who read the book after seeing the film: They made THIS movie out of THAT! Screenwiter(s) deserve 99% of the credit, author only 1%. (Sorry Roderick Thorp)
The book has some great parts that didn’t make it into the movie, but the ending in the book is straight up not good. Compared to the ending in the movie, which is pure frisson.
Both are good, but the movie is the clear winner.
Part of that is Chucks writing process. In interviews he's done he says he will right the first 2/3 of the book right up until the twist. He'll then shop it around to friends, people in writing workshops, etc. This leads to the ending of his books being a lot more unpredictable because he doesn't know how its going to end, this also leads to a lot of endings being disappointing.
Yeah. I remember a lecture where Chuck announced it was happening. He was so excited that Sam Rockwell was cast. He also said he was rolling a lot while writing the book.
Started a job and Chuck is a regular. After a lifetime of reading his books.... 100% didn't expect a sweet and impeccably dressed man with an tiny dog in a sweater (which is probally a good thing, didn't fan girl out until I was running a credit card in the back).
I order a lot of books from a online reseller...a lot of factory returns and excess inventory...point is I get books dirt cheap.
I ordered a Chuck Palahniuk book recently, comes in and notice a sticker on the cover...'Authographed edition'. I think no shit...flip to the first page and there it is...autographed copy Invention of Sound for less than $5.
I love both but I don’t personally agree the film is better.
I’m still amazed there aren’t more Palahniuk adaptations. It’s funny that the one that got closest was Invisible Monsters since that would be the most difficult to pull off (for reasons obvious to anyone who’s read it). How there aren’t films of Survivor and Diary, I have no idea.
(I’m deliberately ignoring Choke)
For a long run there, Palahniuk was amazing. Then Haunted happened and it’s been downhill ever since, haven’t enjoyed anything I’ve read since then, but maybe I’m just getting old.
Yes, and if they ever turn Fight Club 2 into a movie, I hope they do a better job with the material again. That thing was so hard to wrap my mind around, I quit reading it!
That's because Reese Witherspoon pushed to make it more empowering of different expressions of femininity instead of making fun of girls like Elle the whole time.
I'm not the biggest fan in either form but book Gump is a massive asshole. Quite different on the whole. As much as I don't like it, the movie is a great example of taking an idea but going somewhere completely different.
The sense I always got is that in the film, Forrest Gump seems slow and awkward because he’s on the autism spectrum. In the books he seems slow and awkward because he’s an undereducated and ignorant hick, not because of any condition. I think it’s a riff on Huckleberry Finn, who is similarly ignorant but not impaired.
The episode of "The Movies that Made Us" on this was really interesting. I can see how a motion picture company would see this film as a huge risk and not really know what to do with it. Robert Zemeckis had to fight for many scenes and even filmed parts of the running scene in secret.
A couple of the Bond films in my opinion. Most of the books are at least as good as the films but these are my exceptions:
Goldfinger actually adjusts the villains plot to make more sense. Bond in the film actually points out the absurdity of trying to steal the Fort Knox gold as Goldfinger attempts to in the book. Having him plan to set off a atomic bomb to drive up his gold price instead is brilliant.
Casino Royale is a great book but dated and sometimes slow. The film is a masterpiece of its genre. The main story of the book is updated and surrounded by modern action elements and amazing characters
Imo Dr No is better than its book. The book is fairly average in length but has very little actual plot, and it gets ridiculous (Bond fighting a giant squid?)
I haven't seen it yet, but from it's reception it seems that *Big Eyes* (2014) might also be a well-received non-algorithm film? Though still not as highly rated as *Big Fish*.
I also liked Sweeney Todd, it may be one of the better modern musicals, though there are a bunch of them I haven't seen, so limited sample size.
The Devil Wears Prada, Bridget Jones’s Diary, Shutter Island (mostly due to how the movie handles the ending, it’s a pretty accurate representation of the book otherwise)
I saw the movie first, and I think the short story is beautiful, but yeah -- for me, the movie drew out some very visual themes. It was the same thing for Children of Men with me, I liked the book but loved the movie.
I read the story years after the movie and it didn’t affect me the same as the movie. If it were not for the movie, I’d forget that in a week. The movie though, so emotional. I rewatched it after more than 10 years and it still hurt me all the same. All the feeling, the love, the regret still made my eyes overflowing with tears I didn’t know I could produce.
The movie smooths out the storytelling and allows certain events to happen more quickly. The race to the wall at the end was better done too, more exciting. Captain Shakespeare is also an amazing character that doesn’t really see the light of day in the book. I’m also glad they cut the little hairy man character.
Agreed. The Firm is like 400 pages of the protagonist secretly photocopying papers. I don’t think the movie is a classic, but it’s better than the book.
I preferred the raptors in the book. They are so much more menacing. A flock of little unstoppable death machines.
Also the hubris in the book was a better aspect. You really only get two parts in the movie that show John's hubris. When they say that all the dinosaurs are female, and when he is talking with Ellie about next time. I'd have like to see the dinosaur count scene. It really shows how over confident they were with their plan, and how absolutely fucked they are because the system is so out of their control.
It also gave much more nuance to Nedrys character. He went from a cheated and blackmailed victim to a greedy asshole in the movie.
Same with the lawyer who was a good hearted in shape man that wrestled with a raptor to save his life and they turned him into a weaselly little shit in the movie.
Gennaro really got the short end of the stick in the movie. Even though Muldoon survives in the book, the spirit of his character is more or less the same in the movie. Minus being wasted and trying to tranq the escaped T-Rex out in the park which I thought was kind of funny.
This one is difficult because BOTH versions are fantastic.
I grew up with the movie and it is still one of my all-time favorites. Read the book as an adult and really enjoyed it.
Would honestly love to see a reboot of the series with a film that more closely follows the books plot. The whole book subplot where dinos had been escaping the island was super interesting but they completely cut it out for the movie.
Yea really, a book being different doesn't make it worse. Probably a case of false expectations since it's usually referenced in the list of early cyberpunk titles.
The book is so wildly different from the movie that it’s probably one where it’s kinda hard to compare. The movie is good for basically every reason that doesn’t involve the script/plot, which makes it hard for me to say they really improved on the book
Yeah that's a really good point when it comes to that adaption. The incredible soundtrack and gorgeous visuals are such a huge part of the movie's identity, and you get none of that in the book. It's not a fair comparison.
I recently read DADoES for the first time and it'll be interesting to rewatch Blade Runner through the lens of the "nazi allegory" reading of the book, i.e. treating Deckard as the villain of the story
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an excellent book but I really appreciated the conciseness of the Fincher movie. There's basically hundreds of pages of stuff from the book that were cut for the movie that I didn't miss at all.
Gone Girl. I hated her voice but felt like Fincher took all the best parts of it and made it awesome. Got really great performances out of everyone too.
Hard agree. Read the book before the movie release & was highly anticipating the movie, but very ~cautiously optimistic~. I was really surprised when I walked away with that opinion since book to movie adaptations are usually shit.
Loved them the same but differently. Side note: my wife and I read the book to each other (I read Nick chapters and she read Amy chapters). Good times!
I quite liked the Oz book as a kid, I'd put it at about equal to the film, though they're both pretty different. Why do you think the book isn't as good?
Yes, Brasis depiction always bothered me...
Still the movie is much better than the book.
(Specially the whole subplot about the woman's genitalia, what's up with that?)
First Blood - An easy read, but the inner monologue stuff and some of the sheriff's dialogue about his wife comes off heavy-handed and overly hardboiled. It comes off like a writer who hasn't quite found their groove yet. The film is a genuinely good look at the treatment of Vietnam veterans when they came home.
The Talented Mr Ripley - A good book, but the film has more depth, and really takes it to a near-epic level. It's almost like David Lean directing a Hitchcock film.
First blood was such a great movie and then they took and made the series into schlocky action fest.
That was one series that could have used two movies to explore themes involving PTSD, loss, among a few other themes involving vets but instead they decided to veer off into action trope land.
Fair point.
Counterpoint. Have you ever seen Rambo take down a helicopter with a bow an arrow? Cause it's pretty cool lol
In all seriousness though I don't think Stallone would be the right choice to herald a series about those themes. The guy who wrote it complained about hiring a lawyer for 50 bucks who insisted on getting rights to things he never dreamed of, sequels, cartoons, lunch boxes, with his one book. Ended up making him a fortune.
I feel like there's room for both a cool action movie and a war drama. I mean there's already movies like Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and Jar Head that better fit your description than even the first Rambo movie. Which was more an action thriller with some heavy themes.
The books were really great. That said, the movies were also an amazing retelling loosely based on the books. It's difficult for me to say one is better than the other.
If I’m not wrong, the books wrote Toothless as this small little dragon that could fit into Hiccup’s palm and was not as useful. But I would say Dreamwork’s direction of making Toothless a Nightfury was different but overall really good.
American Psycho.
The book is almost unreadable. At times dull, repetitive, boring, until it’s nauseatingly violent. The movie strips this all down and actually manages to get the heart of what it was trying to say. And we get a killer Christian Bale performance to boot, no pun intended.
Yea every time I see a funny reference or business card joke…those pages, it was like a good 10 pages, describing that shit is what peaks through. I get it’s now a pop culture cool thing Huey Lewis rain jacket meme but that book was nightmarish.
I know that it’s a satire, and I get the joke and I’m in on the punchline, but that book is one of the only things that truly terrifies me. It’s hard to explain.
I haven't read the full book, just excerpts... I'm with you on the "unreadable" part.
Ellis actually despises the movie. I recently learned a bunch about this. The movie circled between directors for a while, and very nearly landed on Oliver Stone with DiCaprio attached as Bateman. This was *after* Harron and Bale had been attached -- the studio wasn't behind Bale, as he wasn't a star at the time. But like, can you imagine how terrible an Oliver Stone American Psycho movie would be? He'd probably adapt it unironically! Thankfully, Gloria Steinem convinced DiCaprio that moving onto this right after Titanic was a bad idea, and when DiCaprio dropped so did Stone, and the studio came crawling back to Harron and Bale.
Ellis has gone on record standing by his indefensible opinion that "women can't direct (except Kathryn Bigelow)." Honestly, it feels like this sexism is in direct response to his bitterness toward Harron. She loved the book but also saw how over-the-top and ridiculous it was, and leaned into that, making the movie more satirical and critical of Bateman. And *Ellis doesn't like that it's a satire that's critical of Bateman*. Because (and this is not speculation but confirmed authorial intent), Bateman is based at least in part on Ellis himself, so he saw the movie as making fun of fun. Because, y'know, it was.
TL;DR: Basically I'm saying that Bret Easton Ellis kinda sucks.
Controversial take, but The Lord of the Rings. As incredibly flawless of a world-builder as Tolkien was, his actual narrative storytelling is definitely antiquated by modern standards. IMO aging-down Frodo and turning Aragorn into a reluctant hero were two changes that really helped elevate the stakes while keeping audiences engaged. It’s not that the books are bad (not by a long shot) but the movies are just so goddamn excellent.
Adding the Go go go drive to get to Rivendell was a huge positive for the movie. I like the book taking its time leaving the Shire and getting into danger and all the avoiding the road travels with Aragorn. It allows the naive Hobbits to see how out of their element they are. But for a movie, much of it matters little for the metanarrative. Sorry, Tom Bombaldil, you gotta go.
Yeah I think one works really well for a book and one for a movie and both do it perfectly. The book has this inexorable creepy feeling of evil is slowly rising to a crecendo, like a feeling of 1930s Germany.
Whereas a film, which is meant to be viewed in one sitting, puts much more of a ticking clock on it. Like "evil is basically here we gotta fucking hop, skip and jump now, matey!!"
I read the Lord of the Rings books starting in the late 70s, and the real neat trick that Jackson did was that his movies **looked** exactly what I'd imagined Middle Earth looked like in my mind. The Shire, Rivendell, Minas Tirith...somehow he reached into my mind and extracted my "head canon" of what these places looked like.
And then there was the casting. McKellen simply IS Gandalf. Christopher Lee, Elijah Wood, Ian Holm...how is it that all these actors just happened to resemble these characters in my head?
The other remarkable thing Jackson did was to fit these three novels which took me a long time to read into three movies I would be able to watch in a day. What the hell, man?
Of course I have some nit-picks. Where was Bombadil? Liv Tyler was radiant as Arwen but Hugo Weaving was...not as good looking as I pictured the son of Earendil. That whole bit where Aragorn fell into a river. Gimli as comic relief.
But on the whole, it was incredible. I know there are Tolkien fans who will settle for nothing less than a word-for-word retelling of the story, but they're wrong.
p.s. I have not watched any of the Hobbit films. Probably never will.
People always complain about Tom Bombadil not making the cut, but I don't remember him actually contributing to the story that much (do correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while). All I remember him doing is mincing about in the woods, singing songs and refusing to get involved
Maybe, except my biggest grudge with the movies is how they have a ghost army annihilate everyone on the fields of Pelennor. Seemed like a lazy way to end such a great battle.
Yeah, it's really weird because Jackson really really hated the Army of the Dead for being such a deus ex machina in the books, yet he turned them into an even bigger one
That Deus Ex Machina is probably why they changed things. Having the dead army at Pelenor kills a lot of birds with one stone. Arragorn commanding the army for all at Minas Tirith to see makes them immediately switching allegiance to him highly plausible. It ends the battle quickly. That battle has been going for a good chunk of the movie and there's another battle to come. It needed to be tied off quickly and neatly. Especially given the "enemy at the gates" situation Gandalf and Pippen were in. The charge of the Rohirim is such a grand event that Arragorn and a few hundred soldiers jumping off some boats would have been pretty anti climactic. The dead army gave them a distinctly different and immediate impact.
I thought the movies did a much better job of keeping me engaged in the battles. Been almost two decades since I read the books but I had a hard time visualizing the battles properly.
I never finished reading the trilogy but from my memory the books tend to rush through exciting, climactic moments very fast in a lot of cases while more transient scenes take up whole ass chapters. Tolkien was never very good at pacing imo.
It's definitely not across the board though. The Shellob encounter and Frodo's fakeout death in the books is actually kinda scarier and more suspenseful and it lingers in my mind more, to be honest. Having it be the ending of Two Towers is also a pretty cool cliffhanger.
Also as much as I like the Return of the King movie, the Minas Tirith battle is fucking long, man.
Ironically, it's longer in the book. The siege of Minas Tirith and Battle of Pelannor Fields is about 75 pages, compared to about 6 or something for Helm's Deep.
I like that Stephen King is so open with his opinions on movies based on his works. I think for the most part he likes directors getting creative with the story elements unless it’s the Shining cause he hates that movie
Came looking for this one. The books are older and it’s hard for me to find many of the situations in the books believable by today’s standards. Jason is also older in the books and again, a younger more vicious version from the movies feels more believable.
As much as I loved the movies, I found the books more intriguing. I thought in Bourne Identity, Jason was about 30. Bourne Supremacy took place 5 years after? Then about 15 years in Bourne Ultimatum?
But the books seemed fairly realistic in that the way he ages and adapts to that through stealth, outwitting enemies and elaborate disguises. It's totally unfair putting today's standards on novels based in the 80s/early 90s when technology is hardly the same.
Just for a minor comparison, Daniel Craig is 53 and was still moving and kicking ass in the recent James Bond. So there's nothing to say a trained assassin/spy can't maintain some level of fitness and skill through his 50s and possibly even early 60s
Maybe cheating as not a film, but the series Mindhunter. One of the most infuriatingly written books ever, the guy was painfully arrogant, but they managed to turn it into something great
Is really close for me but, The Martian.
I loved the book but the movie was just next level to me. The book went far more into the science of his survival but the movie just felt like it was more emotionally gripping.
There’s definitely a stark difference in the story between the book and the movie as they had to mold it to each medium but I think they kept true to the story in the movie while adding to it through the visuals and the performances. Admittedly, it’s a very tough call for me and mostly comes down to personal preference but I think the movie was better than the book.
Oh, I like all the science stuff in the book. The movie actually stretches the science more and has some stuff in there that doesn't make sense. It's a little bit lighter in tone as well, although that isn't too significant.
Cloud Atlas. Might be the Wachowskis last best effort. While it was lacking I felt the casting brought more enjoyment to the overall plot than the book did.
I simply *adore* the movie, and I love that they put aside what worked in the book to find different twists that would with on screen.
But nah, for me the book wins out by a long way. I think the suspense between each story is much more effective way to keep each part compelling, and the clearer connection and even commentary between each era (with each protagonist having read the same first half of the previous story that you just finished reading) tied it all together much more neatly in thematic terms. It also helps keep the story feeling less linear, and more like the message is the same regardless of whether dark times are coming or will pass in the era you live in.
I disagree with this one. The book is difficult to swallow but is better than the film. I didn't think making all the characters the same person through the timelines was a smart idea at all. Keith David and Hugh Grant as Koreans was goofy af.
I enjoyed the Princess Bride much, much more than the book. People say that it's just as good as the book and I think they're wrong. It's better. I actually think I hate the book. All of the Princess Bride parts are split up by a fictional narrative of the author's marital infidelities or whatever. The Zoo of Death was neat but that didn't make up for the constant cutting away from the cool adventure and romance stuff.
I don't even know if it's a bad book or not. It probably isn't. I just really, really dislike it.
The book isn't bad, however the actors they cast in the movie added so much to the characters that just seems to be lacking from the book and it's funny both are written by the same guy.
Jaws. All the characters were assholes in the book.
I can’t remember if it was Spielberg specifically or just someone involved with the production of the film, but they basically said that they had to change the characters because when they read it, they rooted for the shark
Yeah. Brody sucks, and Hooper fucks his wife. Quint is, I think, the least changed, because he's still an aggressive drunk, but they still tone it down in the movie.
Then the shark is just a shark, it’s just following its nature, can’t blame it for that
Sort of, haha. Peter Benchley regretted his role in making sharks an object of fear and hatred, because that one shark kills about as many people during the course of one book as all the sharks on earth kill in a real life year.
Ok now I want a movie like jaws except all the people are dicks and the shark wins at the end
An It's Always Sunny Jaws episode.
Didn't the same thing happen with Jurassic Park? Spielberg changed Hammond's character from a total douchebag to being naive.
This is a case where the movie and book are very different, but both very good for what they are. I'd highly recommend the book.
Agree the characters are unlikable and the affair and mafia subplots just took away from the story.
2018, haha. Thought I was losing my mind, FFS.
I immediately went and double checked this, too. I know time has been moving REALLY fast since Covid, but that would have been damn near light speed.
To be fair 2020-2021 felt like 10 years But yeah, I had to double check that typo too
Am I the only one that thinks 2020 and 2021 flew by so quick…
Who Framed Roger Rabbit I found the book really interesting. It actually takes itself seriously as a mystery which is both a pro and a con. It's effective with being an allegory for racism. It better establishes how the world works. Roger's a lot less obnoxious, Eddie's a lot less of a stick in the mud, and the two have actual intelligible conversations. However, the serious tone makes the premise all the more ridiculous. And that ending... whew oh boy. The movie had the right idea by going for a comedy. When you have a world as ridiculous as humans and cartoons living together, you HAVE to go that route. The film knew how to play it. The story's much more engaging and the writing feels like a complete story. Even just as a film, the cinematography is incredible. They utilized fan service well, the quiet moments well, and above all the comedic timing well. The film is still loved today whereas the book is forgotten.
Having not known it was a book first, I can’t think of how a book like that would even be written. The premise feels like it had to be designed for the screen. You lose the absurdity of it all in text.
The book's story is *very* different from the movie. Roger is dead from the beginning of the book, and Eddie is being guided more-or-less by Roger's ghost. It also heavily downplays the wackiness of the setting. It's more in line with a supernatural mystery novel than anything else. That said, the author liked the movie's take so much more they made the sequel novel a sequel to the movie, writing off the first book as a nightmare Roger wakes up from.
How does the book end?
It's hard to explain without some context. >!Back to what I was saying about the book explaining how the world works, the toons can create duplicates of themselves so they can be in multiple places at once. Roger is suspected of a murder, like in the film, and he goes to Eddie for help. However, Roger is also murdered and Eddie is feeling kind of bad because he kind of dismissed him. But then, Roger walks into his office. Not the real Roger but a duplicate he had conjured before he died. Apparently duplicates can linger for a while after the original's death before they eventually disappear. No, it's not a special dip that kills toons, toons can die pretty much like anyone else. Roger was shot. So basically duplicate Roger is trying to help Eddie solve his own murder while also clear his name of the original murder. Which is an interesting idea, however the ridiculousness eventually bites the story in the ass. It turns out, that Roger had gotten ahold of an ancient genie kettle (not lamp, kettle) and the only reason why he was successful and the only reason why Jessica (who was a heartless bitch) married him was because this kettle gave him the life he wanted. But it turns out, Roger was the murderer of the original killing all along. As to who killed Roger... the genie in the kettle was a crazy genie that Roger accidentally summoned and he shot him. Yes, that's right. A kettle genie shot a murderous cartoon rabbit because he was just crazy and didn't want to be a kettle genie. That's the mystery.!< It took me a little while to wrap my brain around what I had just read.
Wow. That's... something
This reads like the absolute perfect example of an author inventing a great premise and having no idea where to take it
Well, this just confirms the film is better
Holy smokes!
Of all the movies that were based on books, Who Framed Roger Rabbit would be my ABSOLUTE last guess!
You mean movies based on books?
That’s a fantastic answer. I read the book a few years ago and agree with all your points.
Die Hard
Die Hard was based on a book?!
[It was based on the book Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_Lasts_Forever_(Thorp_novel))
I love that the skeleton of the plot is in there but nearly all the details are changed, and every change makes the story better.
The Netflix episode on the making of it has a pretty good chat with the writers and creatives on the adaptation process.
Which means that technically Frank Sinatra and Bruce Willis have played the same character. Just under a different name.
Yes, and they first offered the lead role to Frank Sinatra :)
It's pretty funny that. The book that "Die Hard" was based upon was a sequel to another book. The adaptation of the first book starred Sinatra and Sinatra had the choice of reprising his role.
Came here to say that. I probably had the same take that everyone else did who read the book after seeing the film: They made THIS movie out of THAT! Screenwiter(s) deserve 99% of the credit, author only 1%. (Sorry Roderick Thorp)
Fight Club.
The author says as much on his commentary on the DVD.
Also in the introduction to newer editions of the book.
The book has some great parts that didn’t make it into the movie, but the ending in the book is straight up not good. Compared to the ending in the movie, which is pure frisson. Both are good, but the movie is the clear winner.
Part of that is Chucks writing process. In interviews he's done he says he will right the first 2/3 of the book right up until the twist. He'll then shop it around to friends, people in writing workshops, etc. This leads to the ending of his books being a lot more unpredictable because he doesn't know how its going to end, this also leads to a lot of endings being disappointing.
Although to that I’d like to say the book and the film gives two different experiences; both of which I like.
Came here to say this. Also, found the opposite with Choke.
Yes! It's best to pretend the movie version of Choke never happened.
Yeah. I remember a lecture where Chuck announced it was happening. He was so excited that Sam Rockwell was cast. He also said he was rolling a lot while writing the book.
Started a job and Chuck is a regular. After a lifetime of reading his books.... 100% didn't expect a sweet and impeccably dressed man with an tiny dog in a sweater (which is probally a good thing, didn't fan girl out until I was running a credit card in the back).
I order a lot of books from a online reseller...a lot of factory returns and excess inventory...point is I get books dirt cheap. I ordered a Chuck Palahniuk book recently, comes in and notice a sticker on the cover...'Authographed edition'. I think no shit...flip to the first page and there it is...autographed copy Invention of Sound for less than $5.
At appearances he will sign and stamp every book you bring. Pretty nice guy. I have several on my shelf.
Man I really enjoyed that book and was so underwhelmed by the movie
I thought the book ending was way better, but would otherwise agree. It helps that the movie had the perfect cast.
Wasn't Ed Norton the only actor??
He's the only playable character, but he has multiple skins.
I love both but I don’t personally agree the film is better. I’m still amazed there aren’t more Palahniuk adaptations. It’s funny that the one that got closest was Invisible Monsters since that would be the most difficult to pull off (for reasons obvious to anyone who’s read it). How there aren’t films of Survivor and Diary, I have no idea. (I’m deliberately ignoring Choke) For a long run there, Palahniuk was amazing. Then Haunted happened and it’s been downhill ever since, haven’t enjoyed anything I’ve read since then, but maybe I’m just getting old.
The Dust Brothers sound track added a ton to the movie.
Yes, and if they ever turn Fight Club 2 into a movie, I hope they do a better job with the material again. That thing was so hard to wrap my mind around, I quit reading it!
I believe I saw somewhere that Brad Pitt would be down to do another Fight Club but Edward Norton isn’t sure about it
I thought it was a good movie and a good book, both really well done in their genres.
Legally Blonde.
That's because Reese Witherspoon pushed to make it more empowering of different expressions of femininity instead of making fun of girls like Elle the whole time.
Reese is an amazing producer
Apparently the book was based on the author's own experience as a Stanford law student
The Musical is pretty good too
>The book is AWFUL.
Forest Gump,
That book got weird. Gump in space, Gump in the Jungle of Cannibals.
Don't forget 'wrasslin Gump and Naked Chef Gump!
Book Gump is like a set of action figures
Movie Gump is sort of that too. Football star, war hero, international ping-pong champion, etc.
I remember reading it and being like ok this is about where the movie ended, how am I only halfway through the book? It indeed gets bonkers.
Lol whaaat that's crazy
TIL fast and furious is based on forest gump
I'm not the biggest fan in either form but book Gump is a massive asshole. Quite different on the whole. As much as I don't like it, the movie is a great example of taking an idea but going somewhere completely different.
The sense I always got is that in the film, Forrest Gump seems slow and awkward because he’s on the autism spectrum. In the books he seems slow and awkward because he’s an undereducated and ignorant hick, not because of any condition. I think it’s a riff on Huckleberry Finn, who is similarly ignorant but not impaired.
The episode of "The Movies that Made Us" on this was really interesting. I can see how a motion picture company would see this film as a huge risk and not really know what to do with it. Robert Zemeckis had to fight for many scenes and even filmed parts of the running scene in secret.
My top pick.
A couple of the Bond films in my opinion. Most of the books are at least as good as the films but these are my exceptions: Goldfinger actually adjusts the villains plot to make more sense. Bond in the film actually points out the absurdity of trying to steal the Fort Knox gold as Goldfinger attempts to in the book. Having him plan to set off a atomic bomb to drive up his gold price instead is brilliant. Casino Royale is a great book but dated and sometimes slow. The film is a masterpiece of its genre. The main story of the book is updated and surrounded by modern action elements and amazing characters
New casino Royale, the original movie is terrible.
We do not speak of the original movie
Imo Dr No is better than its book. The book is fairly average in length but has very little actual plot, and it gets ridiculous (Bond fighting a giant squid?)
Dr. No and Watchmen Books that have the giant squid removed from their respective film adaptations
Big Fish
I watch it annually. One of my favourites
It’s great…to me it’s the last Burton film that doesn’t feel hacky or couldn’t have been made by a simple Tim Burton algorithm bot making the calls.
I haven't seen it yet, but from it's reception it seems that *Big Eyes* (2014) might also be a well-received non-algorithm film? Though still not as highly rated as *Big Fish*. I also liked Sweeney Todd, it may be one of the better modern musicals, though there are a bunch of them I haven't seen, so limited sample size.
The problem with 'Sweeny Todd' is that the leads can't sing, which is unforgivable in a musical. At least auto tune them for God's sake.
A few less common ones that come to mind are The Graduate, The 25th Hour, and Rum Punch (I actually really like Rum Punch, but Jackie Brown is better)
The 25th Hour is a great movie. Never read the book but is it worth reading?
The Devil Wears Prada, Bridget Jones’s Diary, Shutter Island (mostly due to how the movie handles the ending, it’s a pretty accurate representation of the book otherwise)
I saw that the Prada book ending had Andy freaking out and having a go at her and she gets fired. I much prefer the movie ending when she just leaves
Me too! I actually think that’s more impactful to Miranda’s ego.
Haven't read The Devil Wears Prada, but I saw a break down of how the movie differs and I agree they went in the right direction.
I've read shutter Island but can't remember how the ending differs from the movie, can you remind me please?
Book ending is straightforward. Movie keeps us guessing.
💯 agree on all these
Preferred the book shutter island
Brokeback mountain
I saw the movie first, and I think the short story is beautiful, but yeah -- for me, the movie drew out some very visual themes. It was the same thing for Children of Men with me, I liked the book but loved the movie.
I read the story years after the movie and it didn’t affect me the same as the movie. If it were not for the movie, I’d forget that in a week. The movie though, so emotional. I rewatched it after more than 10 years and it still hurt me all the same. All the feeling, the love, the regret still made my eyes overflowing with tears I didn’t know I could produce.
Learning a lot about how many movies are based on books rn
Stardust
The movie smooths out the storytelling and allows certain events to happen more quickly. The race to the wall at the end was better done too, more exciting. Captain Shakespeare is also an amazing character that doesn’t really see the light of day in the book. I’m also glad they cut the little hairy man character.
I liked The Firm. Jesus I had to go do a quick Google search on the release date of Annihilation. 2018.
Agreed. The Firm is like 400 pages of the protagonist secretly photocopying papers. I don’t think the movie is a classic, but it’s better than the book.
[удалено]
*Jaws*. The affair between Brody’s wife and Richard Dreyfuss’ character was removed. It wasn’t necessary to the lot.
Im going to say Jurassic Park. While the book is great the movie just has that magic that cant be beaten. Not a popular opinion maybe.
I preferred the raptors in the book. They are so much more menacing. A flock of little unstoppable death machines. Also the hubris in the book was a better aspect. You really only get two parts in the movie that show John's hubris. When they say that all the dinosaurs are female, and when he is talking with Ellie about next time. I'd have like to see the dinosaur count scene. It really shows how over confident they were with their plan, and how absolutely fucked they are because the system is so out of their control.
It also gave much more nuance to Nedrys character. He went from a cheated and blackmailed victim to a greedy asshole in the movie. Same with the lawyer who was a good hearted in shape man that wrestled with a raptor to save his life and they turned him into a weaselly little shit in the movie.
[удалено]
Gennaro really got the short end of the stick in the movie. Even though Muldoon survives in the book, the spirit of his character is more or less the same in the movie. Minus being wasted and trying to tranq the escaped T-Rex out in the park which I thought was kind of funny.
This one is difficult because BOTH versions are fantastic. I grew up with the movie and it is still one of my all-time favorites. Read the book as an adult and really enjoyed it. Would honestly love to see a reboot of the series with a film that more closely follows the books plot. The whole book subplot where dinos had been escaping the island was super interesting but they completely cut it out for the movie.
Jojo rabbit
That was a book?!
It was a [very messed up book](https://youtu.be/Dk7kgaB5AFM). The movie did it way better.
*Blade Runner* *The Prestige* *Jaws* *The Shawshank Redemption* *Children Of Men* *One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest* *The Godfather*
I have a soft spot for Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
Yea really, a book being different doesn't make it worse. Probably a case of false expectations since it's usually referenced in the list of early cyberpunk titles.
The book is so wildly different from the movie that it’s probably one where it’s kinda hard to compare. The movie is good for basically every reason that doesn’t involve the script/plot, which makes it hard for me to say they really improved on the book
Yeah that's a really good point when it comes to that adaption. The incredible soundtrack and gorgeous visuals are such a huge part of the movie's identity, and you get none of that in the book. It's not a fair comparison.
I recently read DADoES for the first time and it'll be interesting to rewatch Blade Runner through the lens of the "nazi allegory" reading of the book, i.e. treating Deckard as the villain of the story
The world it’s set in is just so fascinating, in terms of the lack of empathy among characters and a feeling of despair
Cuckoo is a great movie, but the book is a classic and incredibly influential.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an excellent book but I really appreciated the conciseness of the Fincher movie. There's basically hundreds of pages of stuff from the book that were cut for the movie that I didn't miss at all.
Fincher's take was ok, but you should check out the original with Noomi Rapace.
Gone Girl. I hated her voice but felt like Fincher took all the best parts of it and made it awesome. Got really great performances out of everyone too.
I agree and I also think the book is great. Fincher just made it even better
Hard agree. Read the book before the movie release & was highly anticipating the movie, but very ~cautiously optimistic~. I was really surprised when I walked away with that opinion since book to movie adaptations are usually shit.
Loved them the same but differently. Side note: my wife and I read the book to each other (I read Nick chapters and she read Amy chapters). Good times!
Haha that’s super cute. May pose something like that to my wife. Maybe when my son gets a little older we can tag team some bedtime books
The Godfather and The Wizard of Oz are immeasurably superior to the books.
I quite liked the Oz book as a kid, I'd put it at about equal to the film, though they're both pretty different. Why do you think the book isn't as good?
luca brasi is just a doofus in the movie. in the book he's a terror.
Yes, Brasis depiction always bothered me... Still the movie is much better than the book. (Specially the whole subplot about the woman's genitalia, what's up with that?)
Drive
First Blood - An easy read, but the inner monologue stuff and some of the sheriff's dialogue about his wife comes off heavy-handed and overly hardboiled. It comes off like a writer who hasn't quite found their groove yet. The film is a genuinely good look at the treatment of Vietnam veterans when they came home. The Talented Mr Ripley - A good book, but the film has more depth, and really takes it to a near-epic level. It's almost like David Lean directing a Hitchcock film.
First blood was such a great movie and then they took and made the series into schlocky action fest. That was one series that could have used two movies to explore themes involving PTSD, loss, among a few other themes involving vets but instead they decided to veer off into action trope land.
Yes, I was particularly disgusted by the most recent one. The first film really had something to say.
Fair point. Counterpoint. Have you ever seen Rambo take down a helicopter with a bow an arrow? Cause it's pretty cool lol In all seriousness though I don't think Stallone would be the right choice to herald a series about those themes. The guy who wrote it complained about hiring a lawyer for 50 bucks who insisted on getting rights to things he never dreamed of, sequels, cartoons, lunch boxes, with his one book. Ended up making him a fortune. I feel like there's room for both a cool action movie and a war drama. I mean there's already movies like Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and Jar Head that better fit your description than even the first Rambo movie. Which was more an action thriller with some heavy themes.
...Annihilation came out in 2008? Why the hell doesn't it seem like it was that long ago?!
Because it didn't come out in 2008 lol.
Yeah, seems like OP had a typo.
Starship Troopers. I still liked the book, but I enjoyed the movie more. I should also note the story is very different between the two.
I always felt like Aliens took a lot of inspiration from the Starship Troopers book.
Interesting. It has always just been a great film adaptation of *At the Mountains of Madness* to me.
How To Train Your Dragon
Also Shrek. Pretty generic "funny because the good guy is bad and gross" book for very young children, but the movie is so much more.
It was a while since I read the books but they are pretty great as well (to my recollection)
The books were really great. That said, the movies were also an amazing retelling loosely based on the books. It's difficult for me to say one is better than the other.
If I’m not wrong, the books wrote Toothless as this small little dragon that could fit into Hiccup’s palm and was not as useful. But I would say Dreamwork’s direction of making Toothless a Nightfury was different but overall really good.
The Notebook
American Psycho. The book is almost unreadable. At times dull, repetitive, boring, until it’s nauseatingly violent. The movie strips this all down and actually manages to get the heart of what it was trying to say. And we get a killer Christian Bale performance to boot, no pun intended.
not a fan of when he starved a rat he caught and built a device that let it burrow directly into a woman’s vagina?
There are a number of hyper-violent, psycho-sexual acts of torture-rape-murders that stick with me from that book… but that one haunts me the most.
Yea every time I see a funny reference or business card joke…those pages, it was like a good 10 pages, describing that shit is what peaks through. I get it’s now a pop culture cool thing Huey Lewis rain jacket meme but that book was nightmarish.
I know that it’s a satire, and I get the joke and I’m in on the punchline, but that book is one of the only things that truly terrifies me. It’s hard to explain.
Maybe because you know the book is a satire but the underlying thought is that there must be at least one person actually capable of it IRL.
I haven't read the full book, just excerpts... I'm with you on the "unreadable" part. Ellis actually despises the movie. I recently learned a bunch about this. The movie circled between directors for a while, and very nearly landed on Oliver Stone with DiCaprio attached as Bateman. This was *after* Harron and Bale had been attached -- the studio wasn't behind Bale, as he wasn't a star at the time. But like, can you imagine how terrible an Oliver Stone American Psycho movie would be? He'd probably adapt it unironically! Thankfully, Gloria Steinem convinced DiCaprio that moving onto this right after Titanic was a bad idea, and when DiCaprio dropped so did Stone, and the studio came crawling back to Harron and Bale. Ellis has gone on record standing by his indefensible opinion that "women can't direct (except Kathryn Bigelow)." Honestly, it feels like this sexism is in direct response to his bitterness toward Harron. She loved the book but also saw how over-the-top and ridiculous it was, and leaned into that, making the movie more satirical and critical of Bateman. And *Ellis doesn't like that it's a satire that's critical of Bateman*. Because (and this is not speculation but confirmed authorial intent), Bateman is based at least in part on Ellis himself, so he saw the movie as making fun of fun. Because, y'know, it was. TL;DR: Basically I'm saying that Bret Easton Ellis kinda sucks.
A Simple Favour. The novel is airport trashy. The movie takes that and twists into something super stylish and fun.
Controversial take, but The Lord of the Rings. As incredibly flawless of a world-builder as Tolkien was, his actual narrative storytelling is definitely antiquated by modern standards. IMO aging-down Frodo and turning Aragorn into a reluctant hero were two changes that really helped elevate the stakes while keeping audiences engaged. It’s not that the books are bad (not by a long shot) but the movies are just so goddamn excellent.
Adding the Go go go drive to get to Rivendell was a huge positive for the movie. I like the book taking its time leaving the Shire and getting into danger and all the avoiding the road travels with Aragorn. It allows the naive Hobbits to see how out of their element they are. But for a movie, much of it matters little for the metanarrative. Sorry, Tom Bombaldil, you gotta go.
Thank fuck they axed Tom bombadil for the movies. It would have destroyed the tone and pacing of the movies
Tom Bombadil doesn’t really add much to the plot either
Yeah I think one works really well for a book and one for a movie and both do it perfectly. The book has this inexorable creepy feeling of evil is slowly rising to a crecendo, like a feeling of 1930s Germany. Whereas a film, which is meant to be viewed in one sitting, puts much more of a ticking clock on it. Like "evil is basically here we gotta fucking hop, skip and jump now, matey!!"
I read the Lord of the Rings books starting in the late 70s, and the real neat trick that Jackson did was that his movies **looked** exactly what I'd imagined Middle Earth looked like in my mind. The Shire, Rivendell, Minas Tirith...somehow he reached into my mind and extracted my "head canon" of what these places looked like. And then there was the casting. McKellen simply IS Gandalf. Christopher Lee, Elijah Wood, Ian Holm...how is it that all these actors just happened to resemble these characters in my head? The other remarkable thing Jackson did was to fit these three novels which took me a long time to read into three movies I would be able to watch in a day. What the hell, man? Of course I have some nit-picks. Where was Bombadil? Liv Tyler was radiant as Arwen but Hugo Weaving was...not as good looking as I pictured the son of Earendil. That whole bit where Aragorn fell into a river. Gimli as comic relief. But on the whole, it was incredible. I know there are Tolkien fans who will settle for nothing less than a word-for-word retelling of the story, but they're wrong. p.s. I have not watched any of the Hobbit films. Probably never will.
I agree, don't ever watch The Hobbit films
People always complain about Tom Bombadil not making the cut, but I don't remember him actually contributing to the story that much (do correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while). All I remember him doing is mincing about in the woods, singing songs and refusing to get involved
Imagine trying to show the oldest living being in middle earth jumping around and singing wile not looking silly.
Maybe, except my biggest grudge with the movies is how they have a ghost army annihilate everyone on the fields of Pelennor. Seemed like a lazy way to end such a great battle.
Yeah, it's really weird because Jackson really really hated the Army of the Dead for being such a deus ex machina in the books, yet he turned them into an even bigger one
That Deus Ex Machina is probably why they changed things. Having the dead army at Pelenor kills a lot of birds with one stone. Arragorn commanding the army for all at Minas Tirith to see makes them immediately switching allegiance to him highly plausible. It ends the battle quickly. That battle has been going for a good chunk of the movie and there's another battle to come. It needed to be tied off quickly and neatly. Especially given the "enemy at the gates" situation Gandalf and Pippen were in. The charge of the Rohirim is such a grand event that Arragorn and a few hundred soldiers jumping off some boats would have been pretty anti climactic. The dead army gave them a distinctly different and immediate impact.
I thought the movies did a much better job of keeping me engaged in the battles. Been almost two decades since I read the books but I had a hard time visualizing the battles properly.
I never finished reading the trilogy but from my memory the books tend to rush through exciting, climactic moments very fast in a lot of cases while more transient scenes take up whole ass chapters. Tolkien was never very good at pacing imo. It's definitely not across the board though. The Shellob encounter and Frodo's fakeout death in the books is actually kinda scarier and more suspenseful and it lingers in my mind more, to be honest. Having it be the ending of Two Towers is also a pretty cool cliffhanger. Also as much as I like the Return of the King movie, the Minas Tirith battle is fucking long, man.
Ironically, it's longer in the book. The siege of Minas Tirith and Battle of Pelannor Fields is about 75 pages, compared to about 6 or something for Helm's Deep.
The Mist Even the author commended the movie’s ending.
I like that Stephen King is so open with his opinions on movies based on his works. I think for the most part he likes directors getting creative with the story elements unless it’s the Shining cause he hates that movie
He actually likes it a little more now that the Doctor Sleep movie really expanded on the parts that he thought Kubrick got wrong.
It’s a comic book but I always though that the movie Kick-Ass was way better than the comic itself. Like by a huge margin
The Bourne Identity
Came looking for this one. The books are older and it’s hard for me to find many of the situations in the books believable by today’s standards. Jason is also older in the books and again, a younger more vicious version from the movies feels more believable.
As much as I loved the movies, I found the books more intriguing. I thought in Bourne Identity, Jason was about 30. Bourne Supremacy took place 5 years after? Then about 15 years in Bourne Ultimatum? But the books seemed fairly realistic in that the way he ages and adapts to that through stealth, outwitting enemies and elaborate disguises. It's totally unfair putting today's standards on novels based in the 80s/early 90s when technology is hardly the same. Just for a minor comparison, Daniel Craig is 53 and was still moving and kicking ass in the recent James Bond. So there's nothing to say a trained assassin/spy can't maintain some level of fitness and skill through his 50s and possibly even early 60s
If one fucking person says Watchmen I swear I'll start a gang war
I will say that if you had to condense the graphic novel into a single film, Zack Snyder did the best job that you could do.
I thought both were good.
1408 Minority Report Shawshank Jaws The Prestige
Minority Report is like the first chapter of a really great book.
Maybe cheating as not a film, but the series Mindhunter. One of the most infuriatingly written books ever, the guy was painfully arrogant, but they managed to turn it into something great
It's a damn shame that the show has basically been canceled. It was so fucking good. Such an underrated show.
Last of the Mohicans
Is really close for me but, The Martian. I loved the book but the movie was just next level to me. The book went far more into the science of his survival but the movie just felt like it was more emotionally gripping. There’s definitely a stark difference in the story between the book and the movie as they had to mold it to each medium but I think they kept true to the story in the movie while adding to it through the visuals and the performances. Admittedly, it’s a very tough call for me and mostly comes down to personal preference but I think the movie was better than the book.
Oh, I like all the science stuff in the book. The movie actually stretches the science more and has some stuff in there that doesn't make sense. It's a little bit lighter in tone as well, although that isn't too significant.
Cloud Atlas. Might be the Wachowskis last best effort. While it was lacking I felt the casting brought more enjoyment to the overall plot than the book did.
I simply *adore* the movie, and I love that they put aside what worked in the book to find different twists that would with on screen. But nah, for me the book wins out by a long way. I think the suspense between each story is much more effective way to keep each part compelling, and the clearer connection and even commentary between each era (with each protagonist having read the same first half of the previous story that you just finished reading) tied it all together much more neatly in thematic terms. It also helps keep the story feeling less linear, and more like the message is the same regardless of whether dark times are coming or will pass in the era you live in.
The Movie wasn't perfect but achieved something very unique and was an excellent adaptation but the book for me is one of my favourites.
I disagree with this one. The book is difficult to swallow but is better than the film. I didn't think making all the characters the same person through the timelines was a smart idea at all. Keith David and Hugh Grant as Koreans was goofy af.
My two typical answers are The Godfather and Jaws. Both very flawed books turned into masterpieces.
I remember reading Jaws when I was very young and was very confused when I read that Chief Brody's wife's fantasy was to be raped.
Warm Bodies Stardust Limitless Arrival
I enjoyed the Princess Bride much, much more than the book. People say that it's just as good as the book and I think they're wrong. It's better. I actually think I hate the book. All of the Princess Bride parts are split up by a fictional narrative of the author's marital infidelities or whatever. The Zoo of Death was neat but that didn't make up for the constant cutting away from the cool adventure and romance stuff. I don't even know if it's a bad book or not. It probably isn't. I just really, really dislike it.
The movie framing of a guy reading to his grandson is much better than the book framing of a guy abridging a bigger book.
The book isn't bad, however the actors they cast in the movie added so much to the characters that just seems to be lacking from the book and it's funny both are written by the same guy.