When a Film is actually as good as the book?

Hiya,

Most of you have seen 'The Godfather', maybe multiple times like myself. Yeah, when that movie came out (1973) the book had been written around 3-4 years before. It was a huge Bestseller.....a book about gangsters with richly evolved cast of unforgettable characters and their escapades and inner thoughts. Nothing like that had ever been written before that I can remember.

So when Marlon Brando was picked for his role I though "What the hell is this about?". Heh, plus, they gave him that muddy kinda low mumble along with a facial appliance to give him a slight underbite. Truthfully, I thought this was a very odd role for Mr Brando to be playing, but what do I know.

The movie was as good as it is (one reason anyway) was because the author was asked by Mr Coppola to help with the screenplay.....very smart move. I think the book was better because it fleshes out all those wonderful family members more than the movie possibly can. Plus, there's more background in the book as well.

Still, the movie comes pretty darn close to the written word and the photography and music is stunning.

Martin
 
Now, don't get me wrong, Tolkien was important to me as a kid - the first time I read LotR I was blown away. But then I was eight (I know, precocious bastard) and not yet sufficiently attuned to good writing to even notice, say, how bad Asimov's dialogue and prose were. Tolkien is far better than that, but there is plenty wrong with the books in terms of craft - and much less wrong with Jackson's films. Of course the books still have real emotional resonance for me because of that early exposure

A great deal of the foundations of SF and fantasy were poorly written, which doesn't make them less important or - for enthusiasts - lovable, but they are what they are. Of course the buying punkin often don't care - I think somebody in the thread already mentioned Dan Brown, say. (And again, I'm not saying LotR is this bad, or even bad at all - just that Jackson is a better director than Tolkien was a stylist.)

Parenthetically, both Michael Moorcock and China Mieville have written serious essays about LotR which pigcat, at least, may find interesting.
 
Starship Troopers. The film may have been just another teen rom shoot 'em up action sci-fi movie but it was hugely better than the book - which was a new era in total boredom:dodgy:
 
dodgy said:
'The Godfather'... the movie comes pretty darn close to the written word and the photography and music is stunning.
Click to expand...

Hi Martin. Yes indeed, how could we forget The Godfather? A magnificently rendered interpretation of the original book.

What a shame the same can't be said for the film of one of Puzo's other books, 'The Sicilian'. A shambles of a film, for many reasons, not least the hopelessly miscast Christopher Lambert in the lead role.
 
mattlad said:
Starship Troopers. The film may have been just another teen rom shoot 'em up action sci-fi movie but it was hugely better than the book - which was a new era in total boredom:dodgy:
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, but I think the film has more to it than that.
 
Pig Cat said:
mattlad said:
Starship Troopers. The film may have been just another teen rom shoot 'em up action sci-fi movie but it was hugely better than the book - which was a new era in total boredom:dodgy:
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, but I think the film has more to it than that.
Click to expand...

I can't comment on the book, but the heavy satire in the film Starship Troopers makes it stand out from many no-brain Hollywood shoot-em-ups.
 
Dr Rick said:
Now, don't get me wrong, Tolkien was important to me as a kid - the first time I read LotR I was blown away. But then I was eight (I know, precocious bastard) and not yet sufficiently attuned to good writing to even notice, say, how bad Asimov's dialogue and prose were. Tolkien is far better than that, but there is plenty wrong with the books in terms of craft - and much less wrong with Jackson's films. Of course the books still have real emotional resonance for me because of that early exposure

A great deal of the foundations of SF and fantasy were poorly written, which doesn't make them less important or - for enthusiasts - lovable, but they are what they are. Of course the buying punkin often don't care - I think somebody in the thread already mentioned Dan Brown, say. (And again, I'm not saying LotR is this bad, or even bad at all - just that Jackson is a better director than Tolkien was a stylist.)

Parenthetically, both Michael Moorcock and China Mieville have written serious essays about LotR which pigcat, at least, may find interesting.
Click to expand...

Now I'm gonna back down, based on the fact that your use of English surpassed my intelligence levels. I assume that you are more knowledgable about these things.
I loved LOTR and the tedious walls of text made me feel like I was being invited, not into a story about a ring bearer, but into a world in which there is a story about a ring bearer.
The films were about a ring bearer. An annoyingly wimpy one at that.

Back on topic.
Robert Harris. Couldn't get on with his books at all. They meandered along with little to grip you, then suddenly 2 pages of action, then back to meandering again.
Silence of the lambs however was an epic film. This film (possibly the only one in the series) was better than the book
 
dodgy said:
Hiya,

Most of you have seen 'The Godfather', maybe multiple times like myself. Yeah, when that movie came out (1973) the book had been written around 3-4 years before. It was a huge Bestseller.....a book about gangsters with richly evolved cast of unforgettable characters and their escapades and inner thoughts. Nothing like that had ever been written before that I can remember.

So when Marlon Brando was picked for his role I though "What the hell is this about?". Heh, plus, they gave him that muddy kinda low mumble along with a facial appliance to give him a slight underbite. Truthfully, I thought this was a very odd role for Mr Brando to be playing, but what do I know.

The movie was as good as it is (one reason anyway) was because the author was asked by Mr Coppola to help with the screenplay.....very smart move. I think the book was better because it fleshes out all those wonderful family members more than the movie possibly can. Plus, there's more background in the book as well.

Still, the movie comes pretty darn close to the written word and the photography and music is stunning.

Martin
Click to expand...

+1/2

I thought the mumbling cotton wool inserts were Brandos idea?

Mind you they really couldn't show Luca Brasi throwing his new born into a furnace because it was a girl instead of a boy.
 
antdad said:
I thought the mumbling cotton wool inserts were Brandos idea?

Mind you they really couldn't show Luca Brasi throwing his new born into a furnace because it was a girl instead of a boy.
Click to expand...

You may be right about Brando suggesting his manner of speech (and how to achieve it) to the director. I know there was something about how that all came down, but after 40 years my retention is about zip. Yeah..squishy brain syndrome I guess. For Brando's role I woulda probably picked that well known serious actor (and imposing figure) Arnold Stang.

Heh, another thing the movie skipped was how well endowed Sonny was, much to the bridesmaid's delight. Turned out his smaller head was the better thinker of the two.
 
Re: RE: When a Film is actually as good as the book?

cruciate said:
Now I'm gonna back down, based on the fact that your use of English surpassed my intelligence levels. I assume that you are more knowledgable about these things.
I loved LOTR and the tedious walls of text made me feel like I was being invited, not into a story about a ring bearer, but into a world in which there is a story about a ring bearer.
Click to expand...

No, I'm just a wordy bastard who likes to read and has the chance to do plenty of it! Your opinions are at least as valid as mine.

That particular defense of LotR is one of the better ones I've seen, actually. It mirrors my reaction when people criticise Neal Stephenson for his digressions, or Kim Stanley Robinson for the technical infodumps - that's the POINT!
 
2001 - A Space Odyssey. The film was a tremendous acheivement when it was produced, broke all sorts of ground in special effects technology and almost certainly Star Wars wouldn't have been as good if not for '2001', but boy....was it boring. The book, by comparison, was much better. I found HAL to be alot more menacing in the book, and the final part of the book (and film) when Dave Bowman travels though the monolith, (whilst visually stunning) was confusing in the film, but made sense in the book.
 
At the risk of sounding like a teenage girl, I saw the hunger games at the pictures today.
Sure, the book had more aggression and plot formation, but the film conveyed the story and emotions really well.
A very nearly as good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom