tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7177193073415704349.post3581398645222088981..comments2024-02-20T10:12:20.623+00:00Comments on The Blog That Time Forgot: 6 Deleted Scenes That Prove The Book Isn't Always BetterTaranaichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02176999342965850175noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7177193073415704349.post-31808483067029562382011-07-04T22:09:16.757+01:002011-07-04T22:09:16.757+01:00good cal with psycho, though i do love the book. n...<i>good cal with psycho, though i do love the book. never read planet of the apes and i am inclined to agree about stephen king,i like him but i do think he's waaay overrated.</i><br /><br />I agree, Mario. I tend to enjoy his short stories FAR more than his giant novels, mostly because there isn't all that pointless padding. King is hardly alone in that regard, though. I haven't read <i>The Exorcist</i>, so I can't comment on it.<br /><br /><i>As we know, things like Bombadil were due to Tolkien setting out to write a light-hearted sequel to The Hobbit, reusing some of his earlier written stuff, and ending up with something much bigger several years later.<br /><br />But some stuff that feels out of place (given the necessary shifts in tone between the Shire and the outside world) doesn't even begin to approach the head-scratchers in the movies introduced by changes. </i><br /><br />All very true. I really have to do a post on Bombadil one of these days: I DO think there could've been a way to include him in a way that doesn't have the audience tearing their hair out, but it would have to be done in a fairly careful way.<br /><br /><i>Starship Troopers is an awesome movie, because IT IS a parody of war. The problem is: it is an insult to a great novel. It would be better invent another title and another characters in order to tell the same story. </i><br /><br />Indeed. People give Starship Troopers a lot of stick, but - again, while not perfect - it's actually a fairly nuanced little film.<br /><br /><i>Jurassic Park. Fine up until the end, when they go back to the island with grenade launchers to blow up the raptor nests.<br /><br />The T-Rex taking on a helicopter gunship was quite fun though. </i><br /><br />Excellent call. While I think Nedry was much more interesting in the book (though Wayne Knight did a great job) and Wu had a bigger role, I think too much of the book focused on Crichton's "scientific fad of the week" (Chaos Theory) and too many of the characters were redundant duplicates of past books (Hammond was just like every single one of his corrupt, selfish big-business park owners). Again, the film isn't perfect, but I can happily say I think the film is more successful in its medium than the book was in its.<br /><br /><i>Starship Troopers *ducks and runs* </i><br /><br />Oh, you!<br /><br /><i>Actually, I'd include Starship Troopers here too. I don't think it's pro-Fascist but I also don't think it's very interesting.<br /><br />It's like a lot of Golden Age SF: Conceptual literature. Like Conceptual Art (Modern Art), it's all about the idea and not the craft (plot, characters etc). This category includes Verne, Wells and Dick; so it isn't a bad category to be in. However, while they may be interesting and sometimes of historical importance, I don't personally think it makes the work "better" than a more craft-based approach. Movies tend to go for the craft unless it's an experimental art film (which are rarely adaptations). </i><br /><br />Very interesting thoughts here. I'm still undecided when it comes to ST, book and film: both have a lot of great elements, but both are also let down by some bad decisions. And, of course, the fact that the film essentially inverts the book doesn't help.<br /><br /><br /><i> Jaws (much better), Sleepy Hollow (not necessarily better, but more interesting). Da Vinci Code too, since it's better to sit through two hours of mindless entertainment with good actors than reading a big novel that doesn't come anywhere near close to be classified as "literature".</i><br /><br />I may hate Dan Brown's work, but I still have to (reluctantly) consider it classified as "literature." With all the ranting I go on about with people who insist on there being a difference between "pulp" and "literature," I can't very well back down on that score, now can I?<br /><br />(Which Sleepy Hollow are we talking about, btw?)Taranaichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02176999342965850175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7177193073415704349.post-62809803031317602642011-07-04T17:35:19.790+01:002011-07-04T17:35:19.790+01:00Jaws (much better), Sleepy Hollow (not necessarily...Jaws (much better), Sleepy Hollow (not necessarily better, but more interesting). Da Vinci Code too, since it's better to sit through two hours of mindless entertainment with good actors than reading a big novel that doesn't come anywhere near close to be classified as "literature".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7177193073415704349.post-88608989893395328652011-07-04T13:30:38.698+01:002011-07-04T13:30:38.698+01:00"has anyone here seen a movie they have found..."has anyone here seen a movie they have found to be better than the book?"<br /><br />Actually, I'd include Starship Troopers here too. I don't think it's pro-Fascist but I also don't think it's very interesting.<br /><br />It's like a lot of Golden Age SF: Conceptual literature. Like Conceptual Art (Modern Art), it's all about the idea and not the craft (plot, characters etc). This category includes Verne, Wells and Dick; so it isn't a bad category to be in. However, while they may be interesting and sometimes of historical importance, I don't personally think it makes the work "better" than a more craft-based approach. Movies tend to go for the craft unless it's an experimental art film (which are rarely adaptations).Adamhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:AdamBMorgannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7177193073415704349.post-7523292210269161202011-07-02T14:02:03.263+01:002011-07-02T14:02:03.263+01:00"has anyone here seen a movie they have found..."has anyone here seen a movie they have found to be better than the book?"<br /><br />Starship Troopers *ducks and runs*Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14624614486574035692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7177193073415704349.post-88700274292071186502011-07-02T13:01:49.526+01:002011-07-02T13:01:49.526+01:00has anyone here seen a movie they have found to be...<i>has anyone here seen a movie they have found to be better than the book?</i><br /><br /><i>Jurassic Park</i>. Fine up until the end, when they go back to the island with grenade launchers to blow up the raptor nests.<br /><br />The T-Rex taking on a helicopter gunship was quite fun though.thekelvingreenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01928260185408072124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7177193073415704349.post-22511528889892122762011-07-02T12:53:22.597+01:002011-07-02T12:53:22.597+01:00Starship Troopers is an awesome movie, because IT ...Starship Troopers is an awesome movie, because IT IS a parody of war. The problem is: it is an insult to a great novel. It would be better invent another title and another characters in order to tell the same story.Kikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15070254713050025760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7177193073415704349.post-48471820061366614752011-07-02T04:38:26.553+01:002011-07-02T04:38:26.553+01:00As we know, things like Bombadil were due to Tolki...As we know, things like Bombadil were due to Tolkien setting out to write a light-hearted sequel to <i>The Hobbit</i>, reusing some of his earlier written stuff, and ending up with something much bigger several years later. <br /><br />But some stuff that feels out of place (given the necessary shifts in tone between the Shire and the outside world) doesn't even begin to approach the head-scratchers in the movies introduced by changes.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05315348028756856231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7177193073415704349.post-21216660897608167182011-07-02T01:50:25.973+01:002011-07-02T01:50:25.973+01:00good cal with psycho, though i do love the book. n...good cal with psycho, though i do love the book. never read planet of the apes and i am inclined to agree about stephen king,i like him but i do think he's waaay overrated.I have the original cut of the exorcist actually tied with the novel,believe it or not. the pace was quickened without losing much the theme,some of the subplots were a little much in the book, though i enjoy the books exorcism sequence and climax more in the novel. that second headspin in the movie felt gimmicky too. the original cut had a more ambigous ending that left the viewer (well me anyway) cold , which I felt made a more effective horror story, the extended ending inspired by the book , though very good and made the extended flick and novel' transcend'( got i hate usinng that term) the genre,making it possibly a better film but less effective as ahorror story to me. I bring it up because so many prefer the books to me movies and i agree 95% of the time,its fun to ask the opposite. and yeah the exorcist (original cut) is #3 in my top ten right after jaws and rocky. cheers Al!-marioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7177193073415704349.post-7130622775300502442011-07-02T01:31:54.385+01:002011-07-02T01:31:54.385+01:00That's hardcore. I can only think of one: I do...<i>That's hardcore. I can only think of one: I don't ever have to see them again. </i><br /><br />Despite my frequent public decrying, I did find there was a lot to like about the films: I just don't think they're the Greatest Cinematic Masterworks In The History Of Humanity.<br /><br /><i>If some Internet wag isn't ragging on Tom Bombadil, he's ragging on the Scouring of the Shire and, in the process, showing how little he understands The Lord of the Rings. </i><br /><br />Either that, or the singing, or talking about how the book's "always describing the landscape." Leading me to wonder if I've read the same book as these folk.<br /><br /><i>while I agree with you entirely, this is cracked we're talking about. shouldnt be taken seriously at all.probably in their perspective the digital equivalent of a 'kick me' sign.</i><br /><br />I love Cracked, but hey, the Call of the Nerd is too powerful to ignore. The problem with some of their articles is when it's too subtle, and you can't really tell if they're joking or not. Much like the "Sauron was just misunderstood" article a while back.<br /><br /><i>has anyone here seen a movie they have found to be better than the book? I can think of 3 in my opinion only of course: the godfather. one flew over the cuckoos nest and trainspotting.-Mario </i><br /><br />Personally, I much preferred the film versions of <i>Psycho, Ben-Hur, Planet of the Apes,</i> and most of the good Stephen King adaptations.Taranaichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02176999342965850175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7177193073415704349.post-20857671856539105112011-07-01T23:59:54.382+01:002011-07-01T23:59:54.382+01:00@ james :while I agree with you entirely, this is ...@ james :while I agree with you entirely, this is cracked we're talking about. shouldnt be taken seriously at all.probably in their perspective the digital equivalent of a 'kick me' sign. but I am curious to ask an open question: has anyone here seen a movie they have found to be better than the book? I can think of 3 in my opinion only of course: the godfather. one flew over the cuckoos nest and trainspotting.-MarioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7177193073415704349.post-25771582696462922692011-07-01T23:45:19.191+01:002011-07-01T23:45:19.191+01:00If some Internet wag isn't ragging on Tom Bomb...If some Internet wag isn't ragging on Tom Bombadil, he's ragging on the Scouring of the Shire and, in the process, showing how little he understands <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7177193073415704349.post-50087532689674132022011-07-01T22:58:31.733+01:002011-07-01T22:58:31.733+01:00"The 20 Best Things about Jackson's Lord ..."The 20 Best Things about Jackson's Lord of the Rings Films."<br /><br />That's hardcore. I can only think of one: I don't ever have to see them again.Michael Halilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00813965292738048095noreply@blogger.com