ITT: Cases where the film is better than the book.
Gulliver's Travels (the HBO one, not the Jack Black one)
the shining
>>7444001
Inherent Vice
A perfect film adaptation would be a shot of the front cover of a book, followed by several hours of every word in the book until you were finished reading the movie.
The second you start to adapt a book to a film you have created a new thing the comparing of which is plebian fart-smelling.
But I see what you are trying to do here, buckaroo, and I will play your silly game:
Jaws.
The ending of A Clockwork Orange ruins the book making the movie better
>>7444026
Wow, the worst of /lit/ summed up in 1 post. Congrats.
>>7444001
Seven Samurai.
>>7444035
>cuts out a lot of the filler of the book to get it's point across better
Yes.
On the one hand, it's a very, very bad adaptation that completely misses the book's point. On the other hand, the movie's point is specifically to exist as a refutation and lampoon of the book's point.
So I don't know, IS it a case of the film being better than the book? It might be a truer, wiser thing than the book.
>>7444044
>flattens out the characters and aesthetics to make it appealing to dumb plebs
no
Life of Pi. The Man with the Golden Arm. Speaking of adaptations, who's excited for the Cat's Cradle series?
>>7444048
lol
The movie didn't even have a point. It wasn't a commentary/refute/lampooning of the source material. The director literally read one chapter of the book before saying, "fuck it, all I need to know is that there are space aliens."
It was just a random space script that someone said was similar to Starship Troopers and because of that they turned it into a book to film adaptation.
In any case, the book is a far more artistic work. The movie is just fun, light-hearted sci-fi that fits into the Hollywood plot mold.
>>7444071
>implying the book has depth of character
Pretense more, faggot.
Fight Club for sure. The book was just alright but the movie was great cinematography that saved an otherwise just decent story.
>>7444077
>The movie didn't even have a point. It wasn't a commentary/refute/lampooning of the source material.
It was, though. All the overblown expressions of valor, all the unquestioning obedience to the state and military, it was all so tongue and cheek you couldn't ignore it.
>>7444100
*tongue in cheek
fuck
>>7444082
>i'm a dumb reader and calls others faggot
go away
>>7444109
What depth of character is the movie missing that the book manages to capture?
my diary, desu
>>7444031
Do you even books, bro?
Saying a movie is better than a book is like saying a shoe is better than a sandwich. They arent the same.
Additionally, pic related.
>>7444100
I'm not disagreeing that the director's views of war and state-loyalty are different than that of Heinlein, but that just came as an extension of him managing the project and directing the film with a satirical taste towards facism. I guess I shouldn't have said it doesn't have a point, but I think he used his view points as a way to stylize the film rather than make a significant commentary.
The script was originally called Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine and the director didn't read the novel. I can't see how it can be called a direct refutation or lampooning. For all sakes and purposes, the book was pretty irrelevant in the director's motives.
I see your argument and we're somewhat disagreeing on semantics, but also not entirely.
>>7444100
Seconding Fight Club
>>7444077
>The director literally read one chapter of the book before saying, "fuck it, all I need to know is that there are space aliens."
Do you know anything about Verhoeven? He only read one chapter not because he was lazy but rather because he thought the book was fucking ridiculous, so he made the movie extra goofy to parody the source material and its ideas.
>>7444001
No, and the film is just a meme. Not even a cult movie, a meme
>>7444216
he did not ascribe laziness to Veerhoven you inferred that from his tone. You are both saying the same thing. "but the book is boring "
>>7444168
Torture, sex, music, girlfriend, apartment, fitness, confusion
>>7444201
>I think he used his view points as a way to stylize the film rather than make a significant commentary.
You're backpedalling. You said that the film had no point and was not a commentary on the original, which is untrue. If you feel it's an unworthy refutation, that's something else.
>I can't see how it can be called a direct refutation or lampooning.
I do. The film is very much a thing that disagrees with and makes fun of the politics of the novel. I don't think your points have any merit in disproving this, though they are true points. I don't think there's much of a point in us continuing this discussion since we're just going to argue past each other.
>>7444196
But you can have a terrible shoe and an awesome sandwich. Or a really nice shoe and a sandwich with shit on it. Now which would you prefer?
>>7444351
Meanwhile, the movie was directed and co-written by a woman for fuck's sake
>>7444351
Most of that is not "depth of character". The character remains one dimensional, just in more life-situations.
Again:
Pretense more.
Faggot.
>>7444027
You're the reason the last chapter was removed in the American release.
>>7444400
I can't imagine what it's like living in such a pleb fashion where you can't even read character.
>>7444041
What the fuck cunt. Since when is Seven Samurai adapted from a book?
>>7444026
>>7444201
>Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine
fuck, that's a way better title
>>7445858
>this happens
The vidyia adaptation of heart of darkness was better desu.
ITT: People posting shitty obvious books than can easily be adapted into a decent film.
>>7446257
Cossacks actually had a slave trader mission in the Belgian Congo though
>>7444100
Absolutely. I didn't get the hype behind Fight Club novel, but I'm glad it got Chuck Palahniuk famous enough so that I could discover him and read his works.
Survivor is by far my favourite.
You all know it's true
>>7444196
my favorite sandwich to shoe adaptation has to be the BLT, though the Reuben runs a close second. There's just something about how my cobbler transformed the succulent bacon, fresh lettuce, and explosive tomato into a perfect blend of rubber and leather. truly exquisite. the reuben is no slouch either, since the tangy flavors of the sauerkraut and thousand island makes unexpectedly satisfying contact with the pavement as i stroll down fifth avenue. marvelous, really.
>>7446561
right there with you anon. Tolkien had a great imagination but was a shit writer
>>7444026
i just realized that we are the reactionary tumblr.
same level of autism, different styles
>>7446257
Maybe if it was a movie. All the generic playing of a generic game really didn't help the case here.
>>7444026
This is completely correct though
Why are people bitching about it?
>>7444001
I'd disagree anon. I found a the book to be much funnier and despite everyone's hate to the "filler" it is a very important part of the story.
The adaptation of the book to the movie is very well done though. The moving and overlapping of sections makes the story much more watchable.
>Up in the Air
>The Lovely Bones
I honestly can't think of any others.
>>7446594
PREACH
The man can't write anything besides pointless filler. Songs, poems, and descriptions of flora make up at least 85% of those books. I love Tolkien's world but holy shit I hated the way he wrote.
>>7448901
ER Eddison did it better anyway, and came before Tolkien.
