|
Post by Sir Woodrow on Apr 13, 2015 2:25:53 GMT -5
I too will say The Godfather. It's a good book, almost goes beat to beat with the movie (with a little bit of Godfather II). But the movie does not feature a story arc with Sonny's mistress and her enormous vagina... Seriously. Another movie better than the book is Paddington Bear, which coincidentally also leaves out a sub plot about a dude's mistress & her enormous vagina
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Walsh is Insane. on Apr 13, 2015 11:17:49 GMT -5
I too will say The Godfather. It's a good book, almost goes beat to beat with the movie (with a little bit of Godfather II). But the movie does not feature a story arc with Sonny's mistress and her enormous vagina... Seriously. Another movie better than the book is Paddington Bear, which coincidentally also leaves out a sub plot about a dude's mistress & her enormous vagina I can believe it
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Apr 13, 2015 19:30:20 GMT -5
Because the entire point of Veidt is that he's this amazing guy that just willingly murders millions to save billions. In the movie, he played him as a suspicious weasel. That is not Veidt at all. That narrative still exists in the film though, just without the squid monster. I have to disagree. In the books Viedt is good without rules, pure and extreme and Rorchach is a code without a moral compass pure and extreme to the other end of the spectrum. If you read the books you got to decide who's view you leaned more towards each had a very dark side but very understandable and relatable reasons. In the movie as Ron Swanson said Viedt was a super-villain, nothing left for the viewer to interpret. I've always said he was a Lex Luther who succeeded in the movie and Rorchach was the Batman who was brought down by the world's complacency to evil. Zach Snyder made a pure Superhero movie and Alan Moore made a deconstruction of Superheros book. I don't think it would have mattered who was cast as Veidt because Snyder was just to stupid to see him as anything more than a one note character. I mean he removed Viedt's tribute to RamsesII costume, and made it a tribute to the much hated Batnipple suit, because he knew comic nerds raged about it. In the book his parents immigrated from Germany in 1938 BEFORE WW2 in the movie they wanted to say he was descended from Nazi's, that's why he gave away his wealth and traveled the world when in the book it was a much more character defining reasons. They took a man who wanted to achieve what the most revered great men of the world tried and made him a Batnippled Nazi. They overplayed every bad characteristic of Viedt and downplayed or just erased every bad thing about Rorchach to make him the hero and the moral compass.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Apr 13, 2015 21:51:03 GMT -5
The best part about Watchmen was the opening credits.
I understand the need to make Manhattan the villain, and I get how people thought the big squid thing came out of nowhere or was stupid and that it wouldn't translate to film, but I think it undermines the story quite a bit. The premisethat the Russians would treat them the same just doesn't come off logically to me. The Russians saw Manhattan as the villain American already, I doubt the narrative of his portrayal would have anything close to the desired effect. I forsee the Russians either not believing the American propaganda, or them being angry at the US for their super weapon's crimes. "God is real, and he's American" is a huge moment in the story, it's not goign to brush asid so quickly. The entire pointof the squid alien was that it was an outside force, an entity that no country could have known or could have predicted. Making Manhattan the villain would come off as the Americans being poorly equipped to deal with their own weapon, that they'r ethe failures. the Soviet's probably would have been defiant in using it as a rallying cry.
I also agree with the Veidt characterization, it's just missing someting.
I don't know, I thought Watchmen was OK, but sittin in the theater and watching it I just came out of it thinking something was off. The graphic novel was extremely carefully crafted so that everything in it contributed to the story in one way or the other, from all the little side things like Black Freighter serving to tell Ozy's story to the faux-ads mock-ups giving him characterization to the composition of the panels. It's not a story you can match in any othe rmedium, because those things don't work inany other medium. Snyder gave a good plot summary and made it pretty, but I just don't think you could ever truly make it work and have it match that level of care. I just ended up whelmed by the entire thing, it's a movie I always forget about until someone else mentions it.
|
|
|
Post by Super Duper Dragunov on Apr 14, 2015 8:09:57 GMT -5
Forrest Gump The Mist I only flipped through Silence of the Lambs, but it seemed very hokey. Both De Palma and Demme took the source material and eliminated most of the theatrics and gave their movies a more realistic approach. Forrest Gump and The Mist are the two I thought of immediately. Forrest Gump was a god awful shitty book. The fact they made something so good out of it is nothing short of amazing. The Mist was my favorite short story growing up, 13 year old me read it and wanted to make it into a film when I got older. I was beaten to that, but it was done justice.
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Apr 15, 2015 1:04:21 GMT -5
Not a movie but the musical Wicked blows the book out of the water.
I saw the musical first and loved it, bought the book shortly after and for the most part, found it very dull. It started off boring, got good once Elphaba entered the academy then once she left it slowly slipped down to boring again.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Apr 15, 2015 7:36:31 GMT -5
Fight Club: don't mistake me, it was a good read. The film simply did a better job telling the amazing story
I liked The Watchmen just fine. No qualms at all
Now this one will ruffle some feathers:
The first arc of The Walking Dead translated better on tv. I read that first arc in the compendium but have not gotten much further. I like the show and the deviations from source
|
|
|
Post by 'Foretold' Joker on Apr 15, 2015 7:46:13 GMT -5
Jaws, The Shining & The Godfather for me. Forrest Gump The Mist I only flipped through Silence of the Lambs, but it seemed very hokey. Both De Palma and Demme took the source material and eliminated most of the theatrics and gave their movies a more realistic approach. Forrest Gump and The Mist are the two I thought of immediately. Forrest Gump was a god awful shitty book. The fact they made something so good out of it is nothing short of amazing. The Mist was my favorite short story growing up, 13 year old me read it and wanted to make it into a film when I got older. I was beaten to that, but it was done justice. The Mist is a terrible and flawed film on its own, it doesn't need any book comparisons.
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Apr 15, 2015 12:06:06 GMT -5
Jaws, The Shining & The Godfather for me. Forrest Gump and The Mist are the two I thought of immediately. Forrest Gump was a god awful shitty book. The fact they made something so good out of it is nothing short of amazing. The Mist was my favorite short story growing up, 13 year old me read it and wanted to make it into a film when I got older. I was beaten to that, but it was done justice. The Mist is a terrible and flawed film on its own, it doesn't need any book comparisons. Nah, The Mist is great.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2015 12:16:14 GMT -5
The Thing From Another World
|
|