ITT: movies that were true to the books
i need to watch it again
She didnt chop his leg off
>>68014603
she never did iirc.
It was always that she just broke it with the fucking wooded board.
Pet Semetary counts I think
>>68014632
In the book she chopped it off with an axe, she also cut off his thumb with an electric knife
American Psycho
Somebody also told me The Green Mile was the same
>>68014746
American Psycho book is much more intense than the movie.
No scene in the movie where he runs around a room with a girl's head planted on his dick
>>68014690
Nooooooo. Not even close. They misses the scarest parts of the book even.
i let the details they changed in misery slide because they took a lot of dialogue straight from the book, which imo films should do more often
>>68014746
>green mile
this
>>68014711
oh. well I think the movie at least made that scene better then. The wood shit was fucking intense.
Unless both happened in the book.
>>68014746
>>68014779
yeah the book is really different. the narrative is deeper and more detailed in the book, the film didn't even capture half of the details the book had
>>68014864
shit, i never knew american psycho was a book. gotta get my hands on that one
>>68014809
like?
>>68014539
>>68014746
Neither of these. Misery didn't even have the lawnmower part.
>>68014779
Obviously the book is more detailed but they basically got the entire fucking book in a 95 minute movie
>>68014864
I disagree
>>68014960
I disagree
>>68014912
you're gonna love it if you like detailed gore. I thought it was funny because of how unexpectedly brutal some chapters are
and the satire is really good
>>68014539
The Road
Other than a few parts from the book (eating a fetus) it's probably the best book to movie adaptation I've ever seen outside of say The Fellowship of the Ring (extended).
Pic unrelated
>>68014912
Mehh... it's whatever. You've seen the movie? Congratulations you've basically just did an audio version of the book (despite what fags ITT are saying about the book being SOO different)
>>68014539
>>68014632
>>68014841
>movies that were true to the book
>clearly didn't read the book
>>68014929
Well when the cat dies and his family is on vacation he has to trek through the woods to bury the cat and there are ghosts watching him. He sees their eyes and hears them more clearly on the way back. The movie makes it seem like the place is right within walking distance but in the book it is an all day trip through the woods and each hour gets more and more intense. The second time when he is going to bury his son it is worse, and I would have loved to have seen more elaboration on to that as well as his spiral into madness. Instead we just got some dude jumping out of the water and saying boo lol. But as I was saying the whole spiral into madness and his interaction with the spirits was a complete miss. They never really got into Jeds experiences with the grave yard either when his buddy died at war and the father buried him in the cemetery and came back. Idk, just a few things they missed out on but I seem to notice that in King adaptations they often miss out on parts from the books that could be amazing, especially It. Maybe they felt it would be too disturbing or it was a budget thing but I do see the difficulty in turning a 400 page book into a movie.
>>68015168
>>68015007
>>68015168
I know /tv/ doesn't read much but saying American Psycho book isn't 1000x better than the movie is pretty dumb
>>68014841
Jesus Christ retard, stop talking out your ass, in the book she chops it off with an axe before cauterizing it with a blow torch.
>>68015384
>1000x
The book is like 20% better.
Only thing extra was killing the kid at the zoo and microwaving the jellyfish.
>>68015858
Confirmed for simpleton
>>68015919
>muhh pages of designer names
>muhh 3 chapters of Whitney Houston breakdowns (which was hilarious admittedly)
But for real, the book is by no means a must read. You've seen the movie you've read the book
![watchmen-theatrical-poster-big[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fIpBAnt.jpg "watchmen-theatrical-poster-big[1].jpg")
>>68014539
>>68016035
nonsense
>>68014603
/thread
![mockingbird-film[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/JGTuKGt.jpg "mockingbird-film[1].jpg")
Sin City
>>68014603
>She didnt chop his leg off
I know what I'm reading tonight.
>>68015384
No it isn't. Their both equally good in their own right. American Psycho the movie is kinda perfect in retrospect in terms of direction, casting, art direction, soundtrack and tone. Everyone argues about not being as intense as the book so therefore it's some sort of cop out, but come on, you're never gonna see Christian Bale rip out a women's lungs through her mouth . The book is a wholly different experience, while probably objectively a better work of art, it's a completely different format. Erratic and hyper kinetic like all of BEE's prose it's chaotic, hilarious and disturbing as fuck.. and has pretty much the same narrative as Mary Harron's film, which because it's shot elegantly and has a cohesive film narrative, somehow always makes it
>not as good as muh book
they're both good
>>68016120
Wow, convincing argument you have there
>>68016101
Fuck you
>>68016255
>I didn't read the book: the post
I'll leave /tv/. I swear i'll do. This has gone too far. Claiming that American psycho movie is 1/4 of what the book is. Bravo /tv/. You walking memes
>>68016296
Why would i argue with someone who thinks microwaving a jelly fish is a factor of quality?
I can't believe how retarded the ending of Dreamcatcher was in the movie version.
>Duddits is an ayy lmao
>>68016101
No.
>>68016339
Don't be a lit snob faggot. The movie captured the book.
Pretty damn close
I can give you ones that weren't
>Mfw this took a fat, steaming shit on the book
>"Lol the serial killer is just his wacky neighbour, killing for a totally different reason!"
>>68016339
You are convincing nobody by being unable to form any sort of coherent argument
>>68016101
t. Zack Snyder
>>68016397
>>68016397
>the movie captured the book
No it didn't. The movie is a comedy, the book leaves you with a feeling of emptiness for weeks, not because pat is a psycho and he kills people, but because everything that surrounds him may be just as crazy and nihilistic as he is. I'm not a lit snob. You're the one who thinks the movie is as god tier as the book just because people use an image from the movie for their childish dubs meme
>>68014746
I hate BEE but I've read most of his stuff
he was always disappointed that the movie led people to believe that none of it really happened, its meant to be entirely true
I thinkthe film is a hell of a lot better than the book
>>68016488
so?
>>68015096
>he thinks The Fellowship extended is a good adaption
>cutting
>Tom
>Bombadil
>cutting all the amazing campfire stories and songs
>cutting the barrow downs so the witch king's death is unintelligible
>>68016179
I think a dame to kill for was much more accurate. it was one story (the second), while the first was a mix of the first, third and fourth story arcs
>>68016339
Go ahead, leave, i've read it 3 times, the movie has the same narrative scope as the book. But just because the film makers didn't cover your autism spectrum for finer details like -
>a cheerio interview, running around on crack shouting anti semetic remarks, feeling a connection with bono at a U2 concert and getting a hardon, shoving a rat, cheese, and glass into the same vagina, chapter long Genesis breakdowns, mysterious taxi driver encounters, sean bateman, constant nihilistic static.
Doesn't mean you have to go getting butt flustered at the fact that the film makers didn't go for Ellis's tone. If you want something more like the way Eliis writes go watch Rules Of Attraction.
>>68016723
Ellis tone or book tone are irrelevant. The book is better, for the things you cited and more.
>>68016825
Yes, but dude, as someone who loves the book. I love the movie. It truly has aged remarkably.
>>68017008
i never said the movie was bad
>>68017024
lots of crosschatter on this discussion I think, either way. Boom. Book's good. Film's good. Book is better but Film is way up there in it's own right.
>>68014539
also The Road
>>68014746
Green Mile is pretty similar, yes.
I read the book and saw the movie.
>>68016312
>>68016383
>>68016580
>dissing watchmen
The movie was basically a shot-for-shot copy of the book. baka desu senpai
>>68014746
Movie and book are very different, movie is almost a comedy
>>68016679
It's good, but not faithful.
I'm not him but I think Fellowship was done well, in making it into an action film, versus an adventure film.
Half the book is him in the shire and going to farms. He sat on the ring for about 10 years or so I believe
>>68017363
>movie is almost a comedy
not the gut you are replying too, but so was the book. actually it had a lot of comedic elements. besides the fact the movie wasn't as gory, the erotic aspect was also more tamed and the weirder scenes wouldn't have tramslated well to the screen
Unfortunately
THE shining
>>68017807
>hedge animals
Most people forget:
Most YA books were adapted rather faithfully (regardless of if the books/movies were good)
>Divergent
>Harry Potter (last movie excluded a bit)
>Hunger Games (with the most graphic stuff REMOVED)
