criterionforum.org

don't bad books make good movies because books are less adaptable in general? I mean, short stories seem to allow filmmakers more leniency in expanding characters' motives and fleshing out mise-en-scene then full-length books. I guess *bad* books are as effective as *good* short stories and thus can make equally good films.

(Deleted erroneous paragraph)

My picks however are The Godfather, which IMO lacks the immense subtlety and grace of the movies, being instead a stubling piece of trash that I had trouble reading page 1 of.

Gone with the Wind similarly is a piece of horrible writing much more palatable as a movie, still both are definitely overcooked and melodramatic. But only one is a masterpiece of its kind.

And by god yes Touch of Evil is a B-movie classic. Its my favourite Orson Welles picture; I watch it more than Kane.

Ben Cheshire wrote:Okay, Short Cuts is not a book, its an adaptation of several (Great) short stories. Anthony Burgess is sort of regarded as a great writer, and A Clockwork Orange is a terrific and clever book, so not sure what you're smoking there. Naked Lunch too is well respected, if more disjointed and wacky than the movie.

If you re-read the original post, you'll see he's not making any such claim - this piece about poor books making great movies is in addition to the existing analysis of Short Cuts, Naked Lunch and A Clockwork Orange.

But given that the original discussion was five years ago, it's probably safe to assume the thesis has long been completed and submitted.

Gives sparkling new meaning to "a day late and a dollar short."

the guy is probably in graduate school now.

I vote for Jaws and Grapes of Wrath as well, and maybe Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (not sure about this one though). The King books are great picks.

Additionally, Fight Club (the movie was actually more realistic and understandable), Stalker and Solyaris.

Not sure if something like There Will Be Blood, loosely based on Sinclair's book, counts.

aox wrote:Not sure if something like There Will Be Blood, loosely based on Sinclair's book, counts.

You expect me to believe you've read Oil! from cover to cover?

aox -- are you asserting that Grapes of Wrath and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas are bad books?

I see what you mean. I misread OP's post, and didn't even notice it was five years old. Sorry guys.

I guess I'm the only person who thinks Jaws the novel is superior to Jaws the movie. It's been a lot of years since I've read the former or seen the latter, and maybe the novel is poor for all I remember. But I've always been irked that Spielberg just shit-canned the whole Hooper and Brody's wife storyline, which I remember as the most interesting part of the novel. Without that as at least a subplot in the film, all you're left with is three not very interesting guys with no interrelationship (or character development) in a boat chasing a shark for an hour. Ho-hum.

It is a chase movie, like Duel. Who wants to watch an hour of wife storyline! :p

fiddlesticks wrote:I guess I'm the only person who thinks Jaws the novel is superior to Jaws the movie. It's been a lot of years since I've read the former or seen the latter, and maybe the novel is poor for all I remember. But I've always been irked that Spielberg just shit-canned the whole Hooper and Brody's wife storyline, which I remember as the most interesting part of the novel. Without that as at least a subplot in the film, all you're left with is three not very interesting guys with no interrelationship (or character development) in a boat chasing a shark for an hour. Ho-hum.

Robert Shaw isn't interesting?

Mr_sausage wrote:Robert Shaw isn't interesting?

Well, he (Quint) doesn't interest me, at least. To me, he's a really just a cartoon figure, all tics and accent and no underlying character. (I don't recall that he's any more interesting in the book, which, as I say, I read many years ago.)

Matt wrote:

aox wrote:Not sure if something like There Will Be Blood, loosely based on Sinclair's book, counts.

You expect me to believe you've read Oil! from cover to cover?

I started it immediately after seeing the film and quit about 150 pages in. so, no. I didn't enjoy what I read.

Michael Kerpan wrote:aox -- are you asserting that Grapes of Wrath and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas are bad books?

Not at all. Both are classic. I just like the films more. I guess this would fit better in "Great books, even more enjoyable films" thread. My apologies.

fiddlesticks wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:Robert Shaw isn't interesting?

Well, he (Quint) doesn't interest me, at least. To me, he's a really just a cartoon figure, all tics and accent and no underlying character. (I don't recall that he's any more interesting in the book, which, as I say, I read many years ago.)

I suppose next I'll be hearing that Tommy Udo bores you.

aox wrote:

Matt wrote:

aox wrote:Not sure if something like There Will Be Blood, loosely based on Sinclair's book, counts.

You expect me to believe you've read Oil! from cover to cover?

I started it immediately after seeing the film and quit about 150 pages in. so, no. I didn't enjoy what I read.

Don't sweat it. I think that's about where Paul Thomas Anderson quit reading, too.

Winston Graham's MARNIE » Alfred Hitchcock's MARNIE
Ayn Rand's THE FOUNTAINHEAD » King Vidor's THE FOUNTAINHEAD
Lloyd C. Douglas's MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION » John M. Stahl's (and Douglas Sirk's) MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION

(Yes, to be honest, I've not tried to read Douglas since adolescence (some time ago), and then it was THE ROBE. But it was quite clear then that he was a dreadful writer, as well as conceptually alienating.)

> = greater than
< = less than

Matt wrote:

aox wrote:

Matt wrote:You expect me to believe you've read Oil! from cover to cover?

I started it immediately after seeing the film and quit about 150 pages in. so, no. I didn't enjoy what I read.

Don't sweat it. I think that's about where Paul Thomas Anderson quit reading, too.

=D>

Matt wrote:> = greater than
< = less than

Yes. Apologies for lack of clarity. I was using "»", as a arrow, to indicate "becomes" or "to."

George Kaplan wrote:

Matt wrote:> = greater than
< = less than

Yes. Apologies for lack of clarity. I was using "»", as a arrow, to indicate "becomes" or "to."

Here's how I make arrows ==>
;~}

Goldfinger. One of the most poorly plotted of the novels (and one of the most offensive) streamlined and greatly improved by the movie.

Just wanted to say I did an entire post on this idea:

http://nighthawknews.wordpress.com/2008 ... le-novels/

I single out Jane Austen, but there are others as well (including Jaws). But I stick to books I find to be terrible, so I don't include The Godfather, which is readable, even if far inferior to the film. After trying to plow through Spartacus, I think it needs to be added.

nighthawk4486 wrote:Just wanted to say I did an entire post on this idea:

http://nighthawknews.wordpress.com/2008 ... le-novels/

I single out Jane Austen, but there are others as well (including Jaws). But I stick to books I find to be terrible, so I don't include The Godfather, which is readable, even if far inferior to the film. After trying to plow through Spartacus, I think it needs to be added.

To each his own, I guess (still recovering from apopleptic fit) but to include Tolkien's gumbo prose and Steinbeck's stodgy earnestness and hold Austen up for insult is gobdropping mindsmackingly...(be polite)..."idiosyncratic."

Gotta go find my nitro pills...

nighthawk4486 wrote:I single out Jane Austen

I single out Jane Austen too -- as my favorite novelist of all time. I pity you, nighthawk. ;~{

Steinbeck ... "stodgy"????