Confess! Which films did you like better than the book?

[lazarus]

The only one I can think of right now is Fight Club. Fantastic book, but the film was a whole different level to me. I think the concept just works better on film.

The only thing I like better in the book is the absolute ending, with the narrator in an asylum. Fantastic ending.

[veganwitch]

1. I could not get excited about fight club, the book

but i love the movie.

Also, i love la confidential but my dad said the book is impossible.

[xcentrik]

10. The Godfather

Trash transormed into art. No better example exists, to my knowledge.

[THUNDER HANDS]

2. Lord of the Rings

I liked Return of the King much better than the book version. Especially the ending.

Personally, I was shocked at how poorly Tolkien wrote the end to ROTK. Especially the part with Gollum and Frodo at Mt. Doom.

[ryharrin]

4. Me too.

I read the books when I was in high school, and the movies made everything so much more clear to me.

[Selwynn]

44. Man, that's brutally messed up.

[terrya]

3. "The Manchurian Candidate"

The novel by Richard Condon was good, but the film was much better. John Frankenheimer, the director, George Axelrod, who wrote the screenplay and the cast all made the film into a classic.

[GOPisEvil]

6. I'll go with that. The casting of Angela Lansbury was top notch!

She IS Mrs. Iselin! :scared:

[Guaranteed]

5. The Talented Mr. Ripley

The movie was REALLY well made (while very disturbing), but the book just wasn't written well, I thought. It was still alright, though.

[Zuni]

7. Jaws

the film was awesome!

[soothsayer]

20. me too!

[mitchum]

8. "High Fidelity" and "The Ice Storm"

both of the novels were full of self indulgent, dumbed-down "high-mindedness", but the movies were fantastic

And, of course, "The Godfather"

[kodi]

35. nice pick. ang lee captured the times visually better moody's prose did

.

[RandomKoolzip]

9. Catch 22, The World According to Garp, Helter Skelter....

All of them far better than the books they were based on.

[ameriphile]

11. The Last Temptation of Christ

:)

[eileen_d]

12. Once Were Warriors

About Maori people in New Zealand -- I did like the book, but the movie blew me away. If you haven't seen it, DO.

I think the book "The Color Purple" is better than the movie, but I still love the movie, almost as if they were different works. I especially love the score to that movie (by Quincy Jones).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. I haven't read the book of Once Were Warriors, but

I highly recommend this hard-to-watch but emotionally riveting account of domestic violence within a Maori family. (They wouldn't have to be Maori for the story to work--but that's the background.)

[geniph]

21. That movie

has one of the best endings ever. It's beautiful, just phenomenal.

[SOteric]

14. Blade Runner

Book sucked. Movie kicked ass.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

34. Hell yeah

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

[woofless]

53. While I LOVE Blade Runner

I must disagree. Dick's "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?" Is a much fuller story, particulary Deckard's motivation. He needs the money he will get in order to buy and android pet. Perhaps there was not enough time to follow the book more closely. Ridley Scott made a phenomenal picture and the imagery sticks with me, but I miss the story.

Woof

[LynneSin]

15. No stealing my "CONFESS" trademarked threads

You find your own word to use!!!

:cry:

[lazarus]

16. bwahaha

I confess I stole it. :evilgrin:

[LynneSin]

19. Here's what I do to people who steal my trademark

[lazarus]

29. Damn, Lynne

You know how to turn a guy on, don't you?

:evilgrin:

[PVnRT]

17. Definitely Fight Club

Can't think of anything else right now...

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

18. I LOVED the book

"The French Lieutenant's Woman" and didn't think a movie could be successfully done. But I thought the movie pulled it off. The actors, the music, the sets, the two stories were all wonderful.

[geniph]

22. Silence of the Lambs

It's a good book, but I thought the movie was great. The first book Harris wrote with those characters, Red Dragon, is far superior to either movie version, and Hannibal is pretty predictable in either version.

The other one, surprisingly enough, is To Kill A Mockingbird. Harper Lee was intimately involved in production of the movie, and it shows. The casting was irreproachable.

[Jack_Dawson]

23. THE SHINING

The only movie better than the book.

[Whitacre D_WI]

24. Good God, I'm gonna get flamed for this...

DUNE.

Yes, I liked the David Lynch film. No, I couldn't get more than 150 pages into the book.

"Lynch's worst film."
"Horrible movie."
"Didn't even come close."

"Great book!"
"My favorite!"

Eh. Whatever. Liked the movie, couldn't get halfway through the book.

Flame away.

[0rganism]

27. Did you see the SciFi channel Dune miniseries?

I found that it was quite decent, and they covered the other books in the primary trilogy -- with liberties, of course. While the Lynch film had some stirring moments and conveyed the storyline surprisingly well, the SciFi channel's take was superior IMHO. The sloppy blue-screen for the worm-riding is a thrill killer for the movie.

But I do like Lynch's Dune, I have a soft spot for any films that feature Patrick Stewart before STNG.

[regnaD kciN]

39. The obvious back wall of the soundstage on the exterior scenes...

...was a thrill killer for the miniseries, IMHO.

[Dogmudgeon]

56. You're not alone

The book for me was a snooze.

The movie, I enjoyed.

I never liked Tolkien's stuff, either, which leaves many of my fannish friends scratching their heads. (Like JRRT, I have a longstanding interest in constructed languages and have been influenced by gnostic Christian thought).

On the other hand, the medieval fantasy genre gives me the hives. Elves, vorpal swords, agentive compound gerunds ("deathslayer", "windrunner", "beastmaster"), monarchism ... it's definitely an acquired taste.

I guess I should get the disks from my brother -- a major Rings fan -- and watch the movies.

--bkl

[NoPasaran]

25. Starship Troopers

flame away

[0rganism]

28. Nah, book was better.

Where was the power armor, man! How can you make Starship Troopers without the power armor? That was what made the mobile infantry effective!

I did like the way Verhoeven (sp?) treats the jingoistic messages from the book, tho. That was clever.

But you'd think, after doing Robocop, if anyone would know how to handle power armor in a movie it would be Verhoeven.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

37. movie was crap

lack of powered armor was unforgivable.

[amazona]

26. Fight Club, agreed but...

...I think you should put a spoiler warning or something before telling the ending of a book or movie.

I didn't care for the ending of the book, Fight Club. I don't feel Paluhniuk really reached his stride and zapped us with a killer ending until Lullaby. But I really like Lullaby. It would be hard to do that one as a movie as good as a book, for probably obvious reasons. Imagine a disease that you catch through your ears.

[IronLionZion]

30. Lord of the Rings

well maybe that's because I tried reading the books when I was really young

[DS1]

31. aww MAN! I was gonna read that book

:(

[lazarus]

36. seriously?

I'm sorry, I'd edit it now if I could, I just figured any mention of Fight Club at this point was spoiled.

[kodi]

32. "who'll stop the rain" from robert stone's "dog soldiers"

nick nolte and tuesday weld were great, and the soundtrack was awesome.

only years later did i find out that the hicks character ended up like neal cassidy did.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

33. Blade Runner

was better than the PK Dick novel it was based on.

[sistersofmercy]

38. Interview with a Vampire

[blondeatlast]

47. True enough.

None of the movie's based on her novels since are worth much. QoD just reeked, IMHO.

[southerngirlwriter]

40. it's only happened once...

A Time to Kill.

[Touchdown]

41. Jurassic Park.

The movie was pure spectacle and visceral thrills. The book was a pendantic exercise in "and now they are going to do this".

I got into an argument about Starship Troopers on that "hate the movie thread", and said the book was a bit over joyous in it's jingoism, and fascist. Got flamed by some fan boys for not knowing much of what I remember about reading it (I was in the Army, in the 80s when I read it), so I picked it up again last Friday for $6. 150 pages into it. The verdict?....FASCIST!

[lazarus]

42. Interesting

I'm a long way from being a fanboy, and would have to say it's as far from fascist as a book could be.

What elements of fascism are represented in the novel, in your opinion?

[Touchdown]

43. You want a list?

Nothing, except the society and how the government works (you can't vote, or hold office, unless you serve this Federation, either in the military, or in support of it) in this world jumps out at you. It's all very subtle.

The idea, even if it's far into the future, that being a soldier is somehow a higher calling, which takes much more stamina, care, character, and intestinal fortitude, than any other human endeavor, is just more than a bit over the top. It's downright propagandistic. The casual reference (at least a s far as I'm reading it) to administrative punishment (Flogging), and that it happens all the time, as "just a part of life", is just a part of life that I see as barbaric, but a nonetheless natural extension of a government made up entirely of battle hardened and myopic ex-military folks, without (conveniently) the cooler heads of the intellectual community, or just plain non-military types to put the brakes on. Classroom indoctrination (Society and moral values class can only be taught by a veteran), the silly idea that only Boot Camp can teach you to be responsible, public hangings, nuclear proliferation, entrapment, references to government "critricism" laws? I realize this may be a "Red Scare" book because it was first published in 1958, but this Federation is a bloodthirsty society, and this book is pure propaganda. I'm sure I'll see into more of these, since the next chapter is the Klendathu invasion.

Now, I have heard references that Heinlein was just building a world around Johnny's personal diary here. I've also heard that he (at least at one point in his life) had a distaste for the way society was turning soft, violent, and relativistic, and this book was a criticism of that, and a manifesto for a better, more perfect society. Heinlein doesn't go far enough in exploring the ramifications or outcomes for this limited democracy of only veterans. He actually paints a rosy picture of a society that is at peace and prosperous, kind of like Leni Rivenshtall's "Trumph of the Will" or a Georgian waxing romantic about the good South that never was. Verhoeven's movie stands this ideology on it's head, and shows us the natural extension, and logical conclusion of just how out of hand a warmongering government like this can get.

In defending the movie, I'm not saying it's brilliant, or even a good film, but it does put Heinlein's rather loonie ideology in it's proper perspective. Just as Heinlein buried his little manifesto underneath a young adult's adventure story, Verhoeven lays his social satire and stinging commentary about Heinlein just underneath this mindless teenage shoot-em-up.

Fascism creeps up on you, and is always in disguise. It's in the subtelties, not the blatant fanfare that you recognize it.

[lazarus]

45. hmm

Well, he even said, repeatedly, that being a soldier was only a very very small part of Federal service.

Verhoeven didn't have a clue what Heinlein was talking about in the book, IMO, and just heard "Hey, it's fascist" and decided to hit Costuming Central for a bunch of pseudo SS uniforms and move from there.

One thing you may have missed is that this particular government was simply another permutation of the democratic franchise, no more or less silly than any other that's been tried.

In a way, he's got a point. Why shouldn't one have to demonstrate that one has, for at least a brief period, thought about something larger than oneself to be able to vote?

Think of the restrictions on the franchise we've seen in this country. First it was wealthy white male landowners, and that was it. Now, it's basically anybody that can walk over the age of 18. Why 18? Why not 16? Why not 21? Seems rather arbitrary, doesn't it?

This book was written during a period when Heinlein was experimenting with various forms of government. He's also the author who said that benevolent dictatorships are the best form of government; the trick is finding a benevolent dictator.

As for the corporal punishment and death penalty, I disagree with him on the death penalty, but I do see validity in his arguments for it. I'm still torn on the issue of corporal punishment, however, as what we're doing now is apparently not working a bit. I'm open to discussion, although I do think it's a bit barbarous.

But the key to keep in mind during the entire book is that the MI (and, by extension, the rest of the military) is a very very tiny bit of the Federal Service. Not only that, but they CAN'T TURN YOU DOWN if you want to enlist. They have to find something for you to do for two years, after which you have your vote.

Note also that you can't vote while in the service, something a lot of people miss.

EIther way, I've found that claiming Starship Troopers is fascist is a simple criticism that is usually not backed up very well. Part of the problem is a misunderstanding of what fascism is. Try checking on that, first.

[Touchdown]

50. I didn't miss any of that.

Yet, I still contend that it's quite irresponsible to place such an obvious call for societal overhaul inside a teenager's adventure story.

Upon finishing the book, 2 things come clear to me. That Heinlein, through his characters, shows serious disdain for those that don't "sacrifice" themselves in Federal Service, and that, for whatever references he put to the military "being only one small part" of Federal Service, he clearly sends the message that the military, and the MI in particular are the absolute highest calling a human can aspire to. The contempt for "civilians" and even those who serve the Feds in some other way, shows through much more than just those couple of "yeah, buts" at the beginning of the book.

"One thing you may have missed is that this particular government was simply another permutation of the democratic franchise, no
more or less silly than any other that's been tried.---- In a way, he's got a point. Why shouldn't one have to demonstrate that one has, for at least a brief period, thought about something
larger than oneself to be able to vote?----Think of the restrictions on the franchise we've seen in this country. First it was wealthy white male landowners, and that was it. Now,
it's basically anybody that can walk over the age of 18. Why 18? Why not 16? Why not 21? Seems rather arbitrary, doesn't it?"

And in a time (1958) when there is so much social upheaval, with the civil rights movement going, poll taxes, literacy tests, etc...that in a time when most liberals, and social activists are trying to open up the franchises more and more to an eventual goal of universal suffrage, it's awfully telling that RAH would advocate regressing to a limited franchise again, don't you think? Whatever noble his ideas (and I can see that serving something bigger than you are is worthy, but franchise should not be a reward for it, since it cheapens the service you give in the first place), it's still an aristocracy, and that's something we need to move away from, not toward.

RAH may have a point, but it's still not one to take seriously. Take Johnny's "transformation" from rich boy to MI. He is stripped of his identity, forced to work all hours (because a thinking soldier is a dangerous one...look all the way back to Roman days), to form with others a cohesive unit, and eventually becomes a mindless drone, or automaton...which is really what any Boot Camp's real purpose is. In effect, a soldier in MI becomes unquestioning, and servile, much like the "bred" for battle arachnids that he's suppose to be fighting against. Strange that he juxtaposes in the hero's fighting the "communist" arachnids, and "preserving our society" when Johnny is under command (and in control by...his superiors can switch off his power suit at any time. Restricting even his freedom to survive) of a violent authoritarian government that he's not allowed to vote in either. Only the letters from his teacher give him any education on "responsibility to society", but his teacher knows him. Who else in his unit is as privileged to recieve this extra training? The tunnelvision of unswerving adherance to any chain of command is not an attribute we should using as a litmus test for enfranchisement.

I got the parts of franchise being only for veterans, not for active military.

OK, I'll take your fascist, and concede that...but I will give you back jingoist, nationalist, militaristic, hopelessly romantic, warmongering, hypocritical and quite a bit authoritarian in exchange. But...it is a fantasy book after all.;-)

One thing about the movie now...I do wish those armored suits were in it.

EDIT: One thing about Paul Verhoeven. He grew up in occupied Holland. His village was plundered by the Nazis, they had to scrape for food, and even the liberators (I think British) bombed his town as well. I think Verhoeven knows fascism when he sees it. He's certainly got more experience in that respect han RAH had. I wouldn't be so dismissive on the evaluations of his character. Listen to his audio commentaries in ST, Soldier of Orange and Total Recall...you'll get to know him a bit better.

[Dogmudgeon]

54. Judging Heinlein

It's been a few years (like 30) since I read Starship Troopers, but I saw the movie in 1998 and thought Verhoeven's version was excellent. His version was satiric on many levels, not the least of which was to mock his own well-criticized custom of making "pornoviolent" movies. Each work stands on its own, and I like to think RAH would have enjoyed Verhoeven's version even while wincing at the liberties he took.

The fascist-or-not argument about Heinlein is much too simple, IMO. I think a far better case could be made that Heinlein was of two minds (or more) about most political subjects. His political experience began with him volunteering for Upton Sinclair's run for Governor of California -- the End Poverty In California campaign. He was always highly critical of the government, but also worshipful of it. He made scathing criticisms about the military (which rejected him as 4-F) but worshiped it as well. He respected women and thought that they could hold their own against men -- and most of his male protagonists were sexist in a way that was probably even over-the-top in 1950. The "contradictions" of his ideologies come through in nearly every book I've read of his where politics is a part of the story. Farnham's Freehold is probably the most extreme example since it involves prejudices about black people, women, and Islam -- his own, included.

I've learned to not try to figure this out, especially as my own political thinking has changed. Most people who give politics and society any thought will eventually (usually quickly) deal with their own split ideas. I think Heinlein articulated this very well.

It might be more productive to try to "tease out" the conflicts and splits in the ideologies he presents in any given book. Robert Heinlein was a complex man who presented philosophies that ranged from disgusting to vulgar to mundane to noble. Perhaps that is the "buried treasure" of his work.

--bkl

[Touchdown]

60. Thanks. Good insight.

I also bought, and just started (someone told me) his most popular book...Stranger in a Strange Land (is it his best like they say?). I'm willing to give him just one more shot. I'll keep your words in mind when I'm reading it.

[Lisa]

57. seconded on the Dutch background ...

I was going to mention this, but Touchdown already has it covered. I worked in Holland for a few months, long enough ago that I got to meet many people who remembered wartime vividly. When telling me about what it was like to be occupied (by the Nazis and then by the Allied forces), they were quite brutally honest about the dangers of fascism and how it can creep into the military way of thinking. The ex-Resistance fighter who was my landlord said that before the war, he had been quite conservative in his feelings about how serving in the military made you a better person and was absolutely sure that it should be mandatory for all males. His son was a conscientious objector and had many disputes with him about this. Eventually he became proud of his son's stance against violence, and decided that he himself had not fought the Germans only to impose a different totalitarian view on someone else.

His wife told me about how the family dog had been run over by a jeep full of drunken Canadian soldiers. (I'm Canadian.) She said gently, "I hope I'm not sounding ungrateful for the Liberation, but I cried, and they only laughed at me, and when I went home my father said that nothing would be done about it because after all, they were in the army ..."

Although there are other Heinlein books (e.g. "Space Cadet") where he appears to be struggling with the military sacrifice/machismo myth (and I mean that in the cultural rather than derogatory sense) -- as Touchdown says, there are perspectives you get from being under military occupation which authors who haven't been through it may not (or may not be willing to) express.

[Touchdown]

59. Just me "bugging" you again...

You mentioned...

"As for the corporal punishment and death penalty, I disagree with him on the death penalty, but I do see validity in his arguments for it. I'm still torn on the issue of corporal punishment, however, as what we're doing now is apparently not working a bit. I'm open to discussion, although I do think it's a bit barbarous."

I have found, on this board, and quite a few others over the last 5 or so years, that this movie, whether deserved or not, gets an awful lot of attention, and causes quite a bit of debate. One thing I have observed from people who "get it" (the underlying satire...not the mindless teeny gore fest), and hate it, have read the book, and somehow came away sympathetic to Heinlein's polemics in it. They ( I presume I can include you as well) felt a bit (or moreso) insulted that Verhoeven had a vastly different interpretation of Heinlein's point of view than they had, and thus trash the movie because he wasn't "faithful" to the original message, not for once pondering whether that "message" deserved to be faithful to in the first place, or resent being challenged as to why they agree with Heinlein's politics, even in part, and don't wish to re-evaluate their previous approval of the author, and give credence to the man who made "Showgirls". Something to ponder.

Keep in mind, this is entirely a vision of the film makers. This is the story they wanted to tell. It in no way "ruins the book" as many aspersions have been cast on other works. Heinlein's Starship Troopers is still sitting there, on the shelf, with the same words, story, and punditry in it that it had since 1958.

[Terwilliger]

52. ACK!

the book was FAR superior to the movie...far FAR

The movie plot ended for the sake of convenience...the book plot was much more real and MUCH more interesting

[Touchdown]

58. Ack!

Which movie are you talking about? Troopers or Jurassic Park?

Ps: You can't be talking about Troopers, since it doesn't have an ending either.

[blondeatlast]

46. MASH.

Catch 22 was about equal.

Seabiscuit.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

48. The Bicentennial Man (nt)

[populistmom]

49. The Color Purple

It was so moving, that although the book was good, the film sends me into tears when I watch it everytime.

[Forkboy]

51. Jaws

great movie,sucky book.

[Lisa]

55. "Armadillo" -- "Texasville" -- and a lot of the "Inspector Morse" series

The protagonist in the first book comes off as a bit of a twit, but James Frain makes him seem a lot more likeable onscreen. And there are some very funny bits in the film version of "Texasville" (Larry McMurtry's sequel to "The Last Picture Show") that just don't come off as well in the book, in my opinion.

And I can't read Colin Dexter without picturing John Thaw ... kind of the opposite of most mysteries with me, since I'd rather read Ruth Rendell or Arthur Conan Doyle than watch most of the screen adaptations.

[Skittles]

61. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST

YES INDEED