Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #41
I agree, this movie has some incredible special effects. For me it's just through and through a masterpiece.
-
-
Starwars.
-
"people give DBS shit all the time but he's really a good guy and i'm glad he's my friend" -no one
March 2009
17,012 Posts
2001: A Space Odyssey was on par with the book it was based on, but 2010: Odyssey 2 was better than the book.
Edited:
well the book and film of 2001 came out at the same time but whatever
-
I know no one will agree, but I liked Lord of the Rings much better while watching it. The books included too much ''folklore'' elements, I really didn't like that.
-
star wars wasnt a book i dont think.
Edited:
actually i think everyone would agree. the books are amazing no doubt but the movies are a masterpiece
-
I too liked the movie over the book, but I find the gore in the book is much better, the way it describes the part where the little lizards with euphoric poison, when bitten they are just in a state of euphoria while the lizards eat him... Fucked up. I just pictured this dude enjoying himself watching a bunch of lizards pull his intestines outI'll elaborate:
The book is just... odd. It's full of even more pseudo-scientific broken paleontology than the film, based off old 90s theories that have since been proven wrong or, more commonly, just disappeared and forgotten. Two cases in point:
climbing trees (yes, some very small theropods may have been able to do this but for some reason Crichton decided that in the book he would have medium-sized herbivores do this)
swimming T-Rex
I'm sure there are more but I haven't read the book in a few years.
Neither makes sense.
Also, Hammond is cast as some really evil, non-caring, machiavel capitalist character and it just comes across as really 2D. The misguided and optimistic Hammond of the film is a much more complex and interesting character.
Oh yeah and Robert Muldoon, the game keeper from the film, runs around the visitors' centre and shoots raptors with a fucking rocket launcher. It defies explanation.
That said, I think The Lost World is a far better book than it is a film and the storylines of the two differ quite hugely.
-
Funny how a movie released 18 years ago looks better than some of the highest budget movies utilizing CGI today, especially considering how easy and commonplace is it compared to back then.
-
Eyes Wide Shut
-
Yeah, Star Wars was a book too, and if I remember correctly it came out before the movie. It was pretty much just a screenplay-into-a-book thing if I remember correctly, since George Lucas had pretty much everything in his head from Day 1.
-
A series of unfortunate events.
-
The Shining
-
Actually...I'll elaborate:
The book is just... odd. It's full of even more pseudo-scientific broken paleontology than the film, based off old 90s theories that have since been proven wrong or, more commonly, just disappeared and forgotten. Two cases in point:
climbing trees (yes, some very small theropods may have been able to do this but for some reason Crichton decided that in the book he would have medium-sized herbivores do this)
swimming T-Rex
I'm sure there are more but I haven't read the book in a few years.
Neither makes sense.
Also, Hammond is cast as some really evil, non-caring, machiavel capitalist character and it just comes across as really 2D. The misguided and optimistic Hammond of the film is a much more complex and interesting character.
Oh yeah and Robert Muldoon, the game keeper from the film, runs around the visitors' centre and shoots raptors with a fucking rocket launcher. It defies explanation.
That said, I think The Lost World is a far better book than it is a film and the storylines of the two differ quite hugely.
There was old concept art for the movies where it showed, from underneath a Tour Boat, a T-Rex balancing on the bottom of the river with its head near the surface like a Crocodile
-
The rocket launcher bit was explained (I think). The launchers themselves were used to launch heavy duty tranquilizers into things like the T-Rex. I don't remember where they got the rockets.
-
ah did not know that well thanks for the info
-
am i the only one that hated that movie with all my soul?
-
Yes
-
Nope. I didn't really care for it. Course I never read the book/had it read to me.
-
V for Vendetta. Both are good, but the movie is just better.
-
From what I have heard, I consider myself lucky only to have seen the final cut.
-
right here bro.
-
ah yes, I will never forget the Lawyer and Muldoon blowing up a Raptor with a rocket launcher in vivid detail. :buddy:I'll elaborate:
The book is just... odd. It's full of even more pseudo-scientific broken paleontology than the film, based off old 90s theories that have since been proven wrong or, more commonly, just disappeared and forgotten. Two cases in point:
climbing trees (yes, some very small theropods may have been able to do this but for some reason Crichton decided that in the book he would have medium-sized herbivores do this)
swimming T-Rex
I'm sure there are more but I haven't read the book in a few years.
Neither makes sense.
Also, Hammond is cast as some really evil, non-caring, machiavel capitalist character and it just comes across as really 2D. The misguided and optimistic Hammond of the film is a much more complex and interesting character.
Oh yeah and Robert Muldoon, the game keeper from the film, runs around the visitors' centre and shoots raptors with a fucking rocket launcher. It defies explanation.
That said, I think The Lost World is a far better book than it is a film and the storylines of the two differ quite hugely.
-
the lawyer was a badass in the book. He gets attacked by a raptor and just picks it up and throws it off.
-
I liked the book, but I also agree. I think that a lot of people have seen the movie multiple times before reading the book, and some things are so different you tend to prefer what you saw first. To me Forrest in the book at points seemed like a real jerk, while in the movie he was never angry or rude for no good reason. A lot of the plot lines were changed or removed in the transition to film as well, so it's like you are reading a completely different story than the one you watched.
-
Ah no, the book is better than the film, because it is basically the film but with more gruesome detail, more plot points, more characters and some great sequences that aren't in the film (getting divebombed by pteradactyls).
Edited:
I don't think the T-Rex was swimming, it was standing on the bottom of the pool.
-
It could just be the fact that I saw the movie before reading the book, and am a huge fan of the film.
-
A year ago I would've agreed with you, but recently I learned that the American version of A Clockwork Orange, which is what the movie was based off of, was missing the last chapter that wrapped everything up. Going back and re-reading it with the final chapter changed a lot of it for me.
-
It's to bad they combined him and that guide into one character who gets owned.
-
I... I didn't even know half the movies listed here started as books.
-
I saw the thread title and came in to post this :)
-
hey i m just watching that right nowI imagine this will be a very short thread but post films that are better than their wordy counterpart. Allow me to get started.
it's pretty awesome
-
I saw Fight Club this year for the first time. It was incredible. A hell of a lot deeper than I thought it would be.
-
:ssh:
-
The biggest problem however is that the movie does in no way explain title and it does not contain that 21st chapter the book had.
-
In a prefatory note to A Clockwork Orange: A Play with Music, Burgess wrote that the title was a metaphor for "...an organic entity, full of juice and sweetness and agreeable odour, being turned into an automaton."
-
Harry Potter
I don't see why everyone thinks the book is writing made gold.
It was boring, I couldn't give a rats arse what happened to the characters and it lacked any sort of common sense.
"WE HAVE TO PLAY CHESS HARRY TO GET TO THE STONE!"
"Screw that"
*blows the chess pieces to ash with a spell*
"Well, that was impressive! one of us might have almost died!"
So technically, both were crap but the movie wasn't boring.
-
I bet you didn't even know Metro 2033 was a book either.I... I didn't even know half the movies listed here started as books.
-
Odd cases ? Most movies based on books are better than the books.
-
This one.
Waaay better then Stephen King's original book
-
:raise:
-
I... I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. :geno:
Agree x 3
Dumb x 1
Disagree x 13
Informative x 1
Funny x 1
