Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Folks, let's he honest: If grey were a middle aged minimum wage worker living in a trailer park, he'd be a creepy stalker with like 48 restraining orders on him.

But, young, handsome and most of all RICH and he's a romantic lead.

As for a movie and book i know....(You honestly didn't think I read or watched 50 shades, did you?)

I'm going to say that maybe "a clockwork orange" fits into this, depending on your POV.

The novel had an ending unlike the book, the book left out the last chapter.

Ok if you saw the movie you know how it ended, and that was the end of the second to last chapter in the book.

The last chapter in the book went a few years past that and gave the story a different ending.

Some people hate the book ending so they would say that the movie was better.I'm a bit more ambivalent on which was better.

I understand something similar happened with The Warriors. I’m still not sure whether or not I want to read the novel. It might take some of the fun out of the film.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Jurassic Park. I did not think so at the time, but on a later reread I found the book to be full of anti-science and unlikeable characters. The film is a bit schmaltzy, but tightly written and well-executed. Most readers would likely disagree with me.

I think Jurassic Park was one of the few cases where "dumbing down" a book down made it a far better movie. The book is Crichton going full grumpy old man about the Evils of Science, using Ian Malcolm as a sock puppet to bore the audience about chaos theory, touchscreen computers or whatever he read about most recently. The movies correctly figured that a Science Is Bad message wouldn't really work in a movie about wicked awesome dinosaurs being resurrected through the power of science.

What's truly soul-destroying is that the movie of Battlefield Earth is STILL better than the book.......

 Elemental wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Jurassic Park. I did not think so at the time, but on a later reread I found the book to be full of anti-science and unlikeable characters. The film is a bit schmaltzy, but tightly written and well-executed. Most readers would likely disagree with me.

I think Jurassic Park was one of the few cases where "dumbing down" a book down made it a far better movie. The book is Crichton going full grumpy old man about the Evils of Science, using Ian Malcolm as a sock puppet to bore the audience about chaos theory, touchscreen computers or whatever he read about most recently. The movies correctly figured that a Science Is Bad message wouldn't really work in a movie about wicked awesome dinosaurs being resurrected through the power of science.

Yeah, read that one for a college class that (among other things) explored the evolution of the Frankenstein story. And I remember commenting how OTT ranty and preachy that book gets in the last third or so.

The 50 Shades talk reminds me of Hunger Games. The set and costume design for starters is phenomenal and really brings life to the world in ways the books don't fully accomplish (which, on a tangent is also something the early Harry Potter films deserve a ton of credit for). From a story structure removing the first person narrative lets you see more of the world of the elites and gives the supporting cast more to do. In the books, Katniss is a bit omniscient in the sense that she is often able to guess complex series of events that side characters MUST have done to reach scenarios that the movie is able to just show happening. Also, the first film doesn't end with werewolf/zombie hybrids made from the corpses of the other contestants, which was... pretty weird.

On the subject of removing insight into the female lead's mind; Hunger Games is a weird one. Katniss is infinitely more likable in the films, because in the books she mostly thinks about how much she hates everyone and wishes they'd stop being nice to her. On one hand, it makes her far easier to relate to, but it also removes some of the underlying satire about reality TV culture and hero worship.

I read Crichton's "the andromeda strain" and loved it, I really liked the movie and quit watching the remake about 1/4 the way in.

I did have some issues with the movie, one of which why change the epileptic character into a woman? Was it to imply the 'weak link' in the science team was a woman? Seemed kinda sexist. Also the movie never talked about the birds being unaffected by andromeda.

 Elemental wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Jurassic Park. I did not think so at the time, but on a later reread I found the book to be full of anti-science and unlikeable characters. The film is a bit schmaltzy, but tightly written and well-executed. Most readers would likely disagree with me.

I think Jurassic Park was one of the few cases where "dumbing down" a book down made it a far better movie. The book is Crichton going full grumpy old man about the Evils of Science, using Ian Malcolm as a sock puppet to bore the audience about chaos theory, touchscreen computers or whatever he read about most recently. The movies correctly figured that a Science Is Bad message wouldn't really work in a movie about wicked awesome dinosaurs being resurrected through the power of science.

I have read somewhere that the movie is actually closer to Crichton's original vision but his publisher told him to make the book much more dark and serious so he added some gore, deaths and preaching.

I guess it's plausible, however Crichton's later books are SUPER preachy and I can't believe it was his publisher who just told to write all that.

It's certainly possible. Crichton did write the first draft of the screenplay, which apparently stripped out a lot of the darker bits, although the final draft was written by someone else and changed things around some more.

 Matt Swain wrote:
Folks, let's he honest: If grey were a middle aged minimum wage worker living in a trailer park, he'd be a creepy stalker with like 48 restraining orders on him.

But, young, handsome and most of all RICH and he's a romantic lead.

Funny, I really like how a Facebook meme I saw explained it.

"Fifty Shades of Gray is only romantic because the man's a billionaire. If he lived in a trailer park, it'd be an episode of Criminal Minds."

 Matt Swain wrote:
I read Crichton's "the andromeda strain" and loved it, I really liked the movie and quit watching the remake about 1/4 the way in.

I did have some issues with the movie, one of which why change the epileptic character into a woman? Was it to imply the 'weak link' in the science team was a woman? Seemed kinda sexist. Also the movie never talked about the birds being unaffected by andromeda.

I don’t think it was deliberate sexism (if at all), I think it was more that Crichton was trying to capture the “chain of events” of real disasters; it’s very rarely a single feth up that causes a major incident and there’s a lot of dramatic tension in us as the audience knowing that the characters are doing the wrong things because they’re missing a vital piece of information. The “absence” part of her epilepsy is a great narrative way to explain why they don’t immediately know the results of the trials. Also at the time (probably even now too, to a lesser extent), it is the kind of medical condition people might try and hide because of discrimination.

Not movies but both Umbrella Academy and The Boys are miles better than the comics they're based on.

The UA comic is totally ADD/hyperactive and feels like picking up a random issue of the X-Men or Doom Patrol only without the history and background so you don't really care about the characters. The show does a great job fleshing out everyone.

The Boys comic is just awful. There's a good story in there somewhere but buried under juvenile humor and gross out sex and violence. I think it was when the Legion of Substitute Heroes were reimagined as kids with Downs Syndrome and then raped that I gave up. The TV series has its excesses but does a much better job of making at least some characters likeable.

Unpopular opinion from me but, every single book of Michael Chrichton's that I've read, the movie was better.

I find that I just do not like his style of writing, or something. . . and looking at his filmography, I keep seeing bunches of movies that I enjoyed, but hated reading the books:

Jurassic Park, Timelines, 13th Warrior, Congo, etc.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Unpopular opinion from me but, every single book of Michael Chrichton's that I've read, the movie was better.

Sphere was the one were they really messed up the movie

Timelines was a bad movie, might be better than the book but they got so many historical facts wrong in the movie that made a very bad movie


for Jurassic Park, there is the problem that I really like the way the book got around the typical horror/disaster movie cliches which I really missed in the movie

 kodos wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Unpopular opinion from me but, every single book of Michael Chrichton's that I've read, the movie was better.

Sphere was the one were they really messed up the movie

Timelines was a bad movie, might be better than the book but they got so many historical facts wrong in the movie that made a very bad movie


for Jurassic Park, there is the problem that I really like the way the book got around the typical horror/disaster movie cliches which I really missed in the movie

Jurassic Park and The Lost World were both better than their respective films. I haven't seen or read Congo or The 13th Warrior in years, so I can't speak to either.

My argument for Jurassic Park the novel being better is centered around the book being more nuanced, more detailed, and having actual horror elements to it. The film has a couple of jump scares, but that's it.

Ehh... But the characters are better in the first JP movie. The characters are probably better in the lost world book though.

Characters drive the stories.

 kodos wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Unpopular opinion from me but, every single book of Michael Chrichton's that I've read, the movie was better.

Sphere was the one were they really messed up the movie

Timelines was a bad movie, might be better than the book but they got so many historical facts wrong in the movie that made a very bad movie


for Jurassic Park, there is the problem that I really like the way the book got around the typical horror/disaster movie cliches which I really missed in the movie

Really enjoyed the Timelines book, the film was pretty dire.

I love Crichton but haven't read the Sphere (thought the film for that was entertaining enough but ran out of steam), will have to give it a go.

Neither version of the Lost World does it for me. Even the book reads like "The Quest for More Money". Granted, its probably better than the film, but the film is just terrible.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Not movies but both Umbrella Academy and The Boys are miles better than the comics they're based on.

The UA comic is totally ADD/hyperactive and feels like picking up a random issue of the X-Men or Doom Patrol only without the history and background so you don't really care about the characters. The show does a great job fleshing out everyone.

The Boys comic is just awful. There's a good story in there somewhere but buried under juvenile humor and gross out sex and violence. I think it was when the Legion of Substitute Heroes were reimagined as kids with Downs Syndrome and then raped that I gave up. The TV series has its excesses but does a much better job of making at least some characters likeable.

Man, The Boys especially. I actually kind of liked the idea of a special-ops team to combat supes and how the supes were portrayed as immoral childish scumbags, but the rape and gross-out stuff was far too much.

Seems like the show tones it down drastically. The focus on the Seven as opposed to miscellaneous other players kind of helps flesh out the individual members too. Props especially to the guy playing Homelander, for managing to get the immature side while still being quite charismatic.

Millar and Ennis are both excellent writers whose work benefits greatly from a filter. The early days of the MCU was basically Millar, but without all the casual racism and homophobia.

 LunarSol wrote:
Neither version of the Lost World does it for me. Even the book reads like "The Quest for More Money". Granted, its probably better than the film, but the film is just terrible.

I'd say the film is okay, though fails to live up to its predecessor. It does feature a great performance by Pete Postlethwaite (then again, when doesn't he give a good performance?), so it has that going for it.

 LunarSol wrote:
Millar and Ennis are both excellent writers whose work benefits greatly from a filter. The early days of the MCU was basically Millar, but without all the casual racism and homophobia.

I agree. Millar does get a bad rap, especially after stuff like Holy Terror and All-Star Batman & Robin. The Dark Knight Returns is practically mandatory reading for a Batman fan however, and his Daredevil run is considered one of the best.
Ennis is good with grittiness, but with a filter as you say. Punisher MAX comes to mind. Preacher was kind of off-putting in its edginess, but it was reined in enough to kind of end up part of the charm. The Boys had no filter, and this is what we ended up with.