Happy Weekend, Y'all! Hope that the next few days are full of glorious creative conquests & good solid relaxation (&, if you're me, VERY intense Super Bowling).
What is one movie that, in your opinion, is superior to the book that it was adapted from & why?
1 person likes this
Lots of films don't live up to the book, but in the reverse case, I can't think of an example. I know about 10 of Hitchcock's best films were based on novels, and I'll bet a few of those surpass the books. Casablanca was a big improvement on its original source material, which was a play. Then there's East of Eden, the movie, that focused on only a small part of the novel's story, so not really comparable.
2 people like this
ADAPTATION (from THE ORCHID THIEF). Many books are just not filmic, although Hollywood is hell-bent on trying. Charlie Kaufman said the hell with it and quit trying. He wrote a movie instead. A damn good one.
Any adaptation of DRACULA. It's done all the time, and never done well. The book is very episodic and the Count isn't in the forefront most of the time. It's focused much more on the other characters and, for the middle part of the book, it reads like a medical procedural.
1 person likes this
Die Hard. Pretty much kickstarted an entire genre.
2 people like this
The Shawshank Redemption (Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption) Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Who Censored Roger Rabbit) The Shining, Doctor Zhivago, The Godfather. I'd even argue that the LOTR film adaptation is more nuanced and entertaining than its source material.
1 person likes this
Black KkKlansman. Why? Because nobody read or cared about the bio book and the original writers secured movie rights for $1
1 person likes this
Fight Club, American Psycho (the feminist take on the novel is subtle and brilliant), and Starship Troopers (a tongue and cheek revising of one of Heinlein's lesser novels to sharp effect).