The Movie Was Better

??
Maybe it's because I'm an unabashed Sci-Fi fan, but excepting Blade Runner, the films lack Dick's artistry.
I've read basically everything he's done that I can get a hand on, but I just think that the stuff of his that gets adapted tends to end up a cut above. He had a lot of great ideas and meh execution in his extremely extensive bibliography but give it to a good director and they can work wonders.
 
The 2000 Ah! My Goddess! film is a very entertaining addition to the franchise and, as a single story arc, an honest improvement over some of the more boring manga arcs and the general TV adaptation.

The fact that part of the fan base gets worked up into a "tizzy" over the revelation that Belldandy had a rather sordid* mentor-student relationship in her past before meeting Keiichi, that revealed her to be less than perfect in her behavior, and subsequently had it wiped from her memory out of compassion for her fragile emotional state, just reinforces the strength of the plot as a departure from the norm.

*By the very mild standards of the franchise anyway.
 
Last edited:
I found The Foreigner, featuring Jackie Chan and Pierce Brosnan, to be superior to the book its based on. The film cut out unnecessary characters and filler while accounting for modern technology and politics.
 
The Princess Bride movie was vastly better than the original novel and I find the 13th Warrior(I personally liked it gross period inaccuracies and all) to be more enjoyable than Eaters of the Dead.
 
Bleh, I sorta disagree. The book itself was pretty awful, if enjoyable. The movie itself was just a side grade on both of those accounts. Awful and squicky, but for different reasons, and entertaining for different reasons.
Try rereading the book and stopping every chapter to think about what happened.
 
Try rereading the book and stopping every chapter to think about what happened.
Yes. Because I definitely want to ponder long and deep upon how the MC would wax soliloquy about masterbation, or creepily stalking his one time acquaintance.

I get what you putting out, it's clever in how it handles puzzles and mysteries, and it's enjoyable for that reason, but it's also got a lot of awful shit.

I say the movie is a side grade, because the book's awfulness and brilliance balance out into a vaguely enjoyable experience, and the movie is vaguely enjoyable by dint of being bland but entertaining.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Because I definitely want to ponder long and deep upon how the MC would wax soliloquy about masterbation, or creepily stalking his one time acquaintance.

I get what you putting out, it's clever in how it handles puzzles and mysteries, and it's enjoyable for that reason, but it's also got a lot of awful shit.

I say the movie is a side grade, because the book's awfulness and brilliance balance out into a vaguely enjoyable experience, and the movie is vaguely enjoyable by dint of being bland but entertaining.
It is neither clever nor enjoyable for its """mysteries and puzzles,""" as they are either seen coming from a mile away or completely impossible to solve for the reader. On top of that, the solution often boils down to 'hey, remember that thing? You know, from this specific time period? Okay, you win!'

The section where the mc goes on about masterbation is a funny thing to bring up, because the entire story is just one big wankfest over how cool the protagonist is, and how cool the stuff he likes is. It's also casually racist, sexist and transphobic. So, uh... yeah, the milquetoast hollywood blockbuster variant is better.
 
Last edited:
Ready Player One the movie at least had some nice visuals. Ready Player One the book has no redeeming features whatsoever.
 
In the same vein of my previous post, the two Ranma 1/2 films: Big Trouble in Nekoron, China (1991) and Nihao My Concubine (1992) are both pretty good next to the manga--not because their masterpieces of cinema (they're just...entertaining enough, and pretty well animated), but because Rumiko Takashi by then had pretty easily slipped into the long lulls of mediocrity and aimless filler you see with a lot of serialized manga. The two films basically served as condensed versions of the typical formula ("Oh no! Ayane's been kidnapped! Again! Better have her fiance and he dozen-odd women who pine for him and their own would-be suitors go rescue her!") and load up on the physical comedy and fantasy kung-fu action who has been the franchise's strong point over "Will they, won't they?")
 
The 90's X-Men Cartoon is better than the 90's X-men run of the same time. I think that is just because it went all in on the soap opera and melodrama aspect that was always with X-men even while the mainline x-men books went more into the action direction. Also it did get to cheat and just steal stories from 30 years of x-men past but it isn't like the comic books don't rehash old story lines at times.
 
Jurassic Park the movie was IMO a far better, tighter piece than the novel.

The Lost World is the other way round, though.
The first movie and the first book are both great in their own regards, I wouldn't say one is necessarily better than the other.

I disagree about the Lost World though as I feel the movie is better than the book.
 
Almost every Bond movie is an improvement over anything that Fleming actually wrote.

I think that Gankutsuou is the definitive version of The Count of Monte Christo.
I have not read all the Bond books but the ones I have read are made a lot more interesting if you read it as from the POV of a sociopath kinda like American Psycho.
 
??
Maybe it's because I'm an unabashed Sci-Fi fan, but excepting Blade Runner, the films lack Dick's artistry.

I'd say that is quite debatable.

The adaption of A Scanner Darkly simply works in a way the book doesn't, even if it lacks the list of people Dick knew who burned out on drugs (including himself)
 
Zack Snyder's 300 is a visually interesting and nicely delivered mess of a story and blatant propaganda. But the book is much worse in all aspects, some of the best moments in the movie are either original addition or Snyder seeing potential Miller missed.

Infinity Gauntlet is awful ego stroking borefest about heroes being helpless against an overpowered biggest Nice Guy in galaxy who wins all the time only to grab stupidity ball at the very end. Infinity War movie is a mess of two tonally different stories mashed together but tied with overwhelming presence of a beatable but mighty visionary villain challenging and tearing apart mot only heroes but very themes of their stories.
 
The Dark Tower film is better than the book. It keeps shit simple and focuses on the sci fi western aspects of the book a lot better.
 
Captain America: Civil War is a far better story than the Civil War crossover it is adapting from the comics.

Similarly, Logan is a very, very, very loose adaptation of Old Man Logan apparently (even though Logan but old and bitter and the world is shittier is really all it takes from that story) and Logan is goddamn fantastic, while OML is a shitty edgelord mini whose only real positives are a strong sense of style and being the basis for the MC of the Old Man Logan ongoing which was also really damn good.
 
Somehow I don't think it would be hard to make a better story than the comic marvel civil war given how it apparently butchered the various characters involved if not to the scale Frank Miller did to batman and everyone else in All star batman and robin or his dark knight series from what I have repeatedly heard.
 
Jaws. Apart from ratcheting up the tension by keeping Sheider, Dreyfuss and Shaw's characters at sea while hunting for the shark (unlike in the book, where they return home every day) the movie also dispenses with a bunch of soap opera blather between various characters to keep the running time lean. Also Dreyfuss' character Hooper survives, whereas in the book it's just Chief Brody, and given Dreyfuss' performance it's a nice change.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top