![6424171[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/FZTkU4p.jpg "6424171[1].jpg")
itt times you found a movie superior to the book, or just differences you enjoyed or hated.
Jurassic Park. I read the book over six hours yesterday. Grant likes kids in the book, which makes sense given their love of dinosaurs, but I enjoy seeing him try to escape them and then learn to love the kids in the film. Malcolm was a bit of a joke in the film, but in the book he frequently goes on wild rants that are given far too much space, which makes me suspect the authors sympathy. In the book, Hammond too is a much more boring character, essentially boiling down to a greedy, cruel old man who doesn't learn. Movie-Hammond is a lovable but deluded character that comes to learn his mistakes.
>>8173561
the book is a million times better than the movie you stupid fuck. malcolm and Hammond both die. epic.
>>8173575
Personally I thought Wu's death was better in the book. Malcolm and Hammond's death were both feckless, and I think almost too forced. Malcolm's death as the final rebuke, and Hammond's as the victim of his own hubris. Wu died to his own creation, which could fall into the same category, but it was done much more brutally and, despite it being built up to, I was surprised when it happened.
>>8173575
Malcom didn't die in the book you insufferable mong. Fucking kill yourself.
>>8173614
there was way more action and crazy shit going down in the book than the movie. the chick running from the raptors on the roof was great
>>8173623
yes he did
blows the book out of the water, but apparently Dahl hated it.
>>8173637
And who exactly is the main character in the sequel, retard?
>>8173652
Ian malcolm. he magically got resurrected. mad controversy about that too back in the day. also lost world is one of the worst books I've ever read.
>>8173652
That book is 1000x better than its movie.
Makes some disturbing and prescient predictions about the Internet.
>malcolm says the Internet will homogenize culture and reduce the quality and variety of information
>dinosaurs in book die off because of a "behavioral collapse" i.e. the engineered generation of dinosaurs have no parents to learn from and have lost their culture
>put 2 and 2 together
>>8173660
>"okay I was completely wrong, BUT..."
Nah, kill yourself
>>8173630
Yeah, that was right after Wu bit it. The way they suddenly realise that the raptors are distract Ellie as much as she is them was a rush of adrenaline that didn't stop until the guy (I think it was the vet Harding) slammed the roof-door shut.
Ah, "crazy shit happening" is actually one of my complaints. The T-Rex especially, in the book, acts more like a monster than an animal. He seems out to get Grant and the kids for no other reason but that he's evil. There's even that scene where he's kill a duckbill, is sleeping, but then decides to go after them in the tiny raft, even going ahead to stand at the bottom of a water-fall.
>>8173665
lol stfu
>>8173668
it was a horror novel mate
>>8173688
But that's wrong
>>8173561
You might say the TV show was shit, but those novels, /lit/, holy fuck those novels.
>>8173668
>T-Rex . . . acts more like a monster than an animal
That's the point of Jurassic Park. The dinosaurs are not animals in that they are not products of nature. The dinosaurs are abominations.
>>8173660
Yeah, Lost World was terrible. The movie had sincere effort, but the book is just a cash-in with zero substance.
The Godfather The Shining and Thank You for Smoking are all better movies than book.
>>8175544
Except they all function perfectly and it's even a point before Wu dies of how their reproduction means he truly reproduced them. Except the T-Rex. His behavior is an exception. Except except. Except I fucking hate hating to write obvious shit to people with no brains who type only to contradict.
>>8175566
Most Stephen King movies are better than his books
>>8175551
>reddit comment from a trip
standard.
>>8176682
Just filter them all
>>8176680
I'd say the opposite. There are a few exceptions (the shining, carrie, and misery are fantastic) but other than that there's something about his writing that makes for a really awful movie. Not to mention in the 3 examples I brought up, the screenwriters made severe changes to his stories in order to make them great
![latest[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/16oDjFX.jpg "latest[1].jpg")
>>8176680
>>8176703
I like Dolores Claiborne as a movie a lot as well, but that one's almost wholly actor-driven. Storm of the Century is another great one, but it was only ever a screen-play.
It's a shame the "repressed memories" part of Dolores Claiborne is horribly outdated pop-psychology.
>>8176695
Butters will return.
>>8176682
Let's be honest here: Crichton is the most redditt fiction next to George R.R. Martin
>>8176771
Not really what I meant. I meant he is complaining about a lack of "substance". Not only that, he's complaining about it in regard to a Jurassic Park sequel. This nigga going into a shoestore and asking for a hot pastrami.
>>8176703
1408
The Mist
It/The Stand if you want to count television
Shawshank Redemption
The Green Mile
Stand by Me
Cujo
Are all better than their books. Stephen King is an ideas guy who won't stop writing whole books. His material's best experienced through adaption instead of his incompetent and long-winded prose.
>>8176846
>Stephen King is an ideas guy who won't stop writing whole books. His material's best experienced through adaption instead of his incompetent and long-winded prose.
Couldn't agree more. It's what I've always said.
>>8173561
Stephen King and Michael Crichton are America
>>8176846
>The Stand
I felt this really didn't work outside of the written format, largely because it was much easier to depict the mute character's thoughts and actions and nobody wants to hear a retarded character talk for a whole movie.
But I have some real problems with the book, too. It could have been a nicely dark book about people pulling together after an apocalyptic plague, but no, King panicked and put a magic evil guy in the end because that's his comfort zone.
>>8177062
>King panicked and put a magic evil guy in the end because that's his comfort zone.
Don't re-fuel my hatred for King. It had just simmered out.
>>8176846
>incompetent and long-winded prose
I completely agree. I think that while his books are rarely outside of the mediocre-bad range, the movie adaptations also rarely fall outside of this range. I would argue that the only reason his books are usually better than their movie counterparts is that the movies are usually exceptionally bad.
>>8175537
Are you a 28-38 year old female?
![tumblr_mobw9s6VJg1r4g3wco1_540[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KKATnCB.jpg "tumblr_mobw9s6VJg1r4g3wco1_540[1].jpg")
>>8177259
it's the end of my interest....
For me, The Innocents is better than The Turn of the Screw.
On the other hand, The Haunting is a shit movie when comapred to The Haunting of Hill House.
>>8173575
The film is a million times better than the novel, what? Chrichton's characters are always shit written, Spielberg and Koepp actually improved it. And realized that the initial plan of making the movie child focused was more interesting and appropriate than "adult focused" like it turned out.
Nobody wants to see fucking Muldoon shoot dinosaurs with a god damn rocket launcher and a child that will not shut the fuck up.
Maybe its because i was younger when i read it the first time, but i felt the book was better than the movies. Sure, it was less flashy and more childish, but the sense of wonder Tolkein put into it really makes it for me.
American Psycho the movie was definitely better than the book. The book was pretty good to begin with, but it started getting incredibly monotonous (yes that was the whole point, I know, but it still dragged on)
Christian Bale's portrayal of Patrick Bateman was very well done
>>8178642
>Nobody wants to see fucking Muldoon shoot dinosaurs with a god damn rocket launcher and a child that will not shut the fuck up.
I sort of enjoyed the Rocket Launching Shenanigans starring Muldoon, being drunk and admitting he missed. However, Lex continually, again and again, alerting the dinosaurs to their presence with her incessant yammering what unbearable. Why didn't they just tape over her mouth? I would have.
>>8176795
"Substance" in this context is what passes for it with Crichton, which is basically pulp thrill plus "really makes you think...." The Lost World had neither, literally a smart twelve year old fanboy with a Sonic bust in his room would have written a much better sequel.
>Crichton
>"I am SCARED by SCIENCE"
>>8178755
This is the opposite of the op
>>8178786
This. That book took forever for me to read, I couldn't get motivation to slog through it, I know the point if it but it doesn't make it better or more interesting
>>8176846
His prose isn't long-winded, merely repetitious. He'll make a point then hammer it home for another three sentences. It's completely insufferable.
>>8180855
>He'll make a point then hammer it home for another three sentences.
ye it's long-winded
>>8180887
pet me :3
>>8180888
Fuck off, tripfags are ruining this board
>>8180901
>>8180878
No, it isn't. George RR Martin is long-winded. King is repetitious. There is a large difference between the pair, though paired they are by middling prose.
Rosemary's Baby, surely
I'm still amazed how Polanski managed to make a quite decent movie out of this shit novel
The novel and movie script were written and released simultaneously. I think it was largely assumed that people would see the movie first, then read the book. The book basically tells you some of the meaning behind what you saw on screen.
The book has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
