|
Nail Rat posted:What's the body count in Fight Club though? To the best of my knowledge, it's just Bob, who is shot by police. He also specifies that the buildings they're blowing up are all empty, because security and maintenance were all members of Project Mayhem. oh, poo poo, I accidentally wrote that that flipped around and didn't notice. He's an explicit murderer in the book, not the movie. Gonna edit that, my bad.
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
David D. Davidson posted:EDIT: She's even wearing heels for Christ's sake. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
On the topic of The Godfather book vs movie, personally I think they're equally good, and there's different parts throughout both(and the flashback portions of Part II) that are done better in a different version than the other, and I feel they compliment and enrich each other as experiences And yes there are some weird sex scenes in the novel, and there's the infamous "vagina" subplot, but the former are usually fairly short and ignorable if you don't like them(I have a feeling Puzo mostly included them because that kind of thing was basically expected in books of that nature in the 60's), and the latter actually is pretty interesting once you get past the surface weirdness of it
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 08:54
|
|
|
David D. Davidson posted:I mean things like this:  
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Snyder also completely hosed up the way it's cut. In the comic it cuts back and forth in a way so it seems like the journalist is describing the fight while in the movie it seems like it's cut randomly: Yeah look at that dumb bullshit, wearing heels and doing made up ninja death touch nonsense. It’s impressive these stills from the movie look so much like drawings though
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
Tart Kitty posted:Fight Club is a difficult movie to analyze through a modern lens. It's more-or-less a blueprint for current toxic masculinity. what does this mean? i'm not really following. do you mind elaborating?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 07:10
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:what does this mean? i'm not really following. do you mind elaborating? If you take project mayhem at face value it's basically prototypical mgtow. "a generation of men raised by women" I.e. equating women with weakness and spiritual malaise. They try to find meaning through outbursts of violence in a completely masculine setting. In modern parlance the narrator would be a cuck or soy boy. See the last shot of the film where he and Marla are nearly indistinguishable vs. earlier in that scene Tyler is wearing a jacket with porno covers printed all over it. Narrator and Tyler were the Chad/virgin dichotomy before the contemporary meme
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 11:27
|
|
|
it's a blueprint and it's predicative, but it does end with him metaphorically killing the self-destructive part of his personality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
Jenny Agutter posted:If you take project mayhem at face value it's basically prototypical mgtow. "a generation of men raised by women" I.e. equating women with weakness and spiritual malaise. They try to find meaning through outbursts of violence in a completely masculine setting. In modern parlance the narrator would be a cuck or soy boy. See the last shot of the film where he and Marla are nearly indistinguishable vs. earlier in that scene Tyler is wearing a jacket with porno covers printed all over it. Narrator and Tyler were the Chad/virgin dichotomy before the contemporary meme
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think it's worth remembering that homosociality isn't new. Username/post combo
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 06:17
|
|
|
That's weird. I genuinely thought it was commonly believed that the Jurassic Park book was better than the movie. It's interesting to see people disagree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
Narzack posted:That's weird. I genuinely thought it was commonly believed that the Jurassic Park book was better than the movie. It's interesting to see people disagree. The main area the book does better is when it goes into more detail or covers things the movie couldn't do for various reasons
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 14:08
|
|
|
Simplex posted:I don't think I could disagree more about Jurassic Park the movie being better than the book, as I have real problems with the characterization of John Hammond in the movie. The general thrust of the story in both versions is the same, corporate neglect and malfeasance result in a bunch of people dying. Hammond is a dangerous and irresponsible idiot in both versions, and effectively the main villain. I read the book long before I ever saw the movie, and from my memory book Hammond is definitely villainous, but not especially charismatic or memorable. I think Hammond as genuine (but misguided) dreamer and and entertainer is more interesting than Hammond as just a malicious, empty suit. I don't think the lack of an explicit comeuppance for him (being killed, going to jail, etc) should be equated with the movie absolving him of guilt. General Dog fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Aug 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Narzack posted:That's weird. I genuinely thought it was commonly believed that the Jurassic Park book was better than the movie. It's interesting to see people disagree. Crichton occasionally had fascinating ideas but his prose is unbelievably terrible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
“Jaws” was a book that I disliked compared to the movie - even though there was this subplot in the book where Mayor Vaughn was involved with the mob. The problem with the book is that Benchley wants to overdevelop his characters when we all just want to read about the shark eating people. As iconic of a movie “Little Caesar” is, I preferred the book to the movie. Burnett describes the bitter Chicago cold in such a way that it’s almost a character in the story.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
Tommy_Udo posted:The problem with the book is that Benchley wants to overdevelop his characters when we all just want to read about the shark eating people. peter "stephen king" benchley.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
Tommy_Udo posted:“Jaws” was a book that I disliked compared to the movie - even though there was this subplot in the book where Mayor Vaughn was involved with the mob. The problem with the book is that Benchley wants to overdevelop his characters when we all just want to read about the shark eating people. I feel like the mob plotline always feels like this detail that comes as bafflingly unnecessary when people bring it up, but part of it is that I forget the story is supposed to take place a couple of hours from Brooklyn. Not that it still isn't a bit of a pointless plotline, but it's not as out of left field.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Not that it makes the movie better or worse... but the Long Island setting is something I always forget about in the movie. They shot it in Martha's Vineyard and it thusly just looks very New England-y. Even though it sort of goes against my earlier comment of overdeveloped characters, I didn't entirely mind the mob plotline. Since the mob is invested in Amity's real estate, it would make sense that they would put pressure on Vaughn to keep the beaches open. Vaughn is still driven by economics in the movie, it's just for the good of the town/his image instead of saving his own skin. Though I did think that the newspaper character, who would go on to expose Vaughn's mob connections, was a waste of time. Worst of all though was the love triangle between Chief Brody, Mrs. Brody, and Hooper. I'm glad that was all cut from the movie - I didn't need to see Lorraine Gary give Richard Dreyfuss a BJ. Tommy_Udo fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Aug 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
yeah as someone who lives in mass amity is very obviously martha's vineyard though i'm not sure what the new york equivalent area looks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
General Dog posted:I read the book long before I ever saw the movie, and from my memory book Hammond is definitely villainous, but not especially charismatic or memorable. He is a bit memorable in that he's an inveterate grifter but in the area of biotechnology, an Elon Musk of the organic. The anecdote about the miniature elephant in particular always stood out to me as a fascinatingly terrible thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 11:10
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:He is a bit memorable in that he's an inveterate grifter but in the area of biotechnology, an Elon Musk of the organic. The anecdote about the miniature elephant in particular always stood out to me as a fascinatingly terrible thing to do. I looked up the elephant story because I didn't remember it (I read the book when I was a kid and don't remember much) and was pretty floored. Hammond was a total sociopath.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 13:13
|
|
|
Yeah, Crichton tended to make a lot of his more driven characters kind of assholes. I liked in the book, though, that Grant loved kids because they got so excited about dinosaurs. Also, Muldoon was the best.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
Timby posted:The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal are both vastly superior to Thomas Harris' books. Hannibal is a very ridiculous book that was made because someone threatened Harris that if he didn't write it they'd just make their own movie. That being said I thought the movie in particular captured the feel of the locations very effectively.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 06:03
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Hannibal is a very ridiculous book that was made because someone threatened Harris that if he didn't write it they'd just make their own movie. That being said I thought the movie in particular captured the feel of the locations very effectively. I think you're thinking of The Lost World. Spielberg approached Crichton and told him Universal was making a JP2 movie and begged him to write a book. Hannibal was written by Harris because he was so horrified by how Lecter was seen as an almost-hero in the aftermath of Silence of the Lambs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
Incidentally silence of the lambs has a really good commentary track, its available on the criterion blu ray. Features interviews of Foster, Hopkins, Demme, I think the script writer, and an FBI consultant. More than worth a listen for any fan of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 09:13
|
|
|
Timby posted:I think you're thinking of The Lost World. Spielberg approached Crichton and told him Universal was making a JP2 movie and begged him to write a book. Hannibal was written by Harris because he was so horrified by how Lecter was seen as an almost-hero in the aftermath of Silence of the Lambs. Pretty much the only Hopkins movie I can think of where Lecter isn't a complete antihero is Red Dragon, because he doesn't actually like the protagonist. He's not even the villain at all in Hannibal! Name Change fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Sep 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 09:18
|
|
|
Timby posted:I think you're thinking of The Lost World. Spielberg approached Crichton and told him Universal was making a JP2 movie and begged him to write a book. Hannibal was written by Harris because he was so horrified by how Lecter was seen as an almost-hero in the aftermath of Silence of the Lambs. he's thinking of the prequel, hannibal rising.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 13:46
|
|
|
The novel IT by Stephen King is way better than the film and TV adaptations. Like, it’s not even close. The environments, the tension, the protagonists’ personalities, and sense dread are all incredibly detailed in the novel. The book constantly jumps back and forth through time where the protagonists are adults and kids, and it definitely meshes really well - it also greatly empowers that ending. Blade Runner the movie is way better than the source material IMO because that movie’s strength relies on elements not present in novels: performances, visuals, and direction. The Thing by John Carpenter completely wipes the floor with the novel and the other two film adaptations. Like Blade Runner, I feel this is primarily due to the performances, special effects, and how the direction made the two compliment and strengthen each other flawlessly. Fun fact: Blade Runner and The Thing were released on the same weekend back in 1982! And the Silence of the Lambs film adaptation is simply better thanks to Hopkins and Foster. Nuff said. tylersayten fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Sep 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Hannibal is a very ridiculous book This is a funny case because I get the sense that the Hannibal Lecter novels have always had this kind of pulp comic book-ish sensibility to them that the films (and many of the readers) had mostly downplayed or outright overlooked until it hit a climax in Hannibal and most everyone had a collective "WTF?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
No Country for Old Men is a great movie, but i felt the book was better(saw the movie first)
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:This is a funny case because I get the sense that the Hannibal Lecter novels have always had this kind of pulp comic book-ish sensibility to them that the films (and many of the readers) had mostly downplayed or outright overlooked until it hit a climax in Hannibal and most everyone had a collective "WTF?" It's all super pulpy with a comic book sensibility, yes. Silence of the Lambs is just an excellent, excellent horror movie. The Hannibal TV show had it right when they cast Lecter as essentially the Devil, as there's not a real psychiatric diagnosis he remotely resembles. The show is also a nice balance of disturbing and hilarious (serial killer kung fu battle!!!). Anyway, I stand corrected on the origins of the Hannibal book. The book is pretty entertaining, though not precisely good, and what I meant to say is that they got the book off the page and into the movie really well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:The Watchmen book is so much better than the movie. i like the watchmen movie but the comic is an undisputed superhero comic masterpiece. the movie is nowhere close to being a masterpiece
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
The one thing the Watchmen film has going for it is it really, really, REALLY makes a sincere effort to adapt the source material into a near 3-hour R-rated film even though the odds are really against it. So, yes, the film is nowhere close to being comparable to the graphic novel but it wasn't from lack of trying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
they tried and they made a suprisingly good movie but its not a masterpiece. some of the night owl/silk spectre relationship stuff is lovely. i dont think i want to do a rewatch though
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
The movie version of Wanted is far from a masterpiece but it's better than the comic it's very loosely adapted from in pretty much every way possible On a similar note the first Men In Black movie is overall better than the comics it is based on
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 09:46
|
|
|
Nobody has told the John Carter of Mars story yet? You could tell that they really wanted this adaptation to work, and to become a whole drat series. Plot points and character flaws are carefully mixed in from later books. The best example I can give of how somebody on staff gave a drat is the scene where the fellow takes himself hostage. In the original work this fellow was a fellow gladiator in the arena, which was a team event until the final round. So John Carter and this fellow fake fight until the sun goes down. Whereupon John Carter pulls the old, "hold the swordblade under your arm and pretend you were stabbed," trick. p.s. Also the movie is less racist. Another thing to note, water is wet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
There's basically no element of the John Carter movie that actually works, unfortunately, and it's waaayyy too loving long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:The movie version of Wanted is far from a masterpiece but it's better than the comic it's very loosely adapted from in pretty much every way possible Agreed - it's pretty much just "inspired by" and thus overcomes the problems of the original. As, to a lesser extent, is Kickass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
nonathlon posted:Agreed - it's pretty much just "inspired by" and thus overcomes the problems of the original. As, to a lesser extent, is Kickass. On the topic of adaptations of edgy comics, will be interesting to see how the movie version of Body Bags will turn out On another note it would be interesting to see how an adaptation of Uber would end up as well
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
Timby posted:Hannibal was written by Harris because he was so horrified by how Lecter was seen as an almost-hero in the aftermath of Silence of the Lambs. I honestly would never have have guessed that was Harris' intention with the novel. It always seemed to me that Harris fell in love with the character and/or started milking Hannibal Lecter's popularity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 00:36
|
|
