Jump to content

Dune - Denis Villeneuve to direct!

womblingfree

By womblingfree,
in Film, TV & Radio

 Share

Recommended Posts

scottcr

scottcr

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ZOK said:


The films are TERRIBLE compared with the books, they remove all the nuance of the writing and leave you with the A to B to C of the story, and characters are like different people entirely, eg Galadriel.
 

However, you only really notice this if they are very fresh in your mind. On their own merit they are good movies.


I read the books for the third time just last year. Still think the films are as good as they could be.

3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
milko

milko

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Exidor said:

The Under the Skin film basically takes the blurb off the back of the novel and spins a brand new story out of it.  It's a good film but it's nothing like a faithful adaptation.

 

I think I got carried away and forgot the 'without being radically altered' part of the brief. Strike that from the list! They're both great but different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ZOK

ZOK

Posted
Posted

I did years ago, it’s a pretty good book…no idea why I had it but at the same time I also read that one MC did about a corporate executive at a computer company who gets falsely accused of sexually harassing a colleague, Michael Douglas was in the film with Demi Moore I think.

 

The book is pretty good, and the film is hilarious and everyone should watch it for its 90s technology shenanigans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davros sock drawer

Davros sock drawer

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, One Eye said:

Has anyone actually ever read Jurassic Park? I’m willing to bet that’s an adaptation better than the source (no I will never actually read it to confirm this). 


Yes, I have. It’s got a better ending than the film but overall it’s worse because you can’t see dinosaurs.

 

The LotR films are shite, with a weird daytime telly look about them. They’re  such a prosaic take on the books, lacking any atmosphere. I’ve banged on about this before but the Bakshi version of the chase to Riverrun is far creepier than Jackson’s take, and captures the feeling I had reading the books.

 

 

Obviously in all other respects it’s an absolutely terrible adaptation :)

 

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ZOK

ZOK

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, One Eye said:

Disclosure? They really don’t (shouldn’t?) make them like that anymore. 
 

Scratches a real specific kind of 90s thriller itch that film. 


Yes that is the one. It’s got some hilarious VR file management going on iirc, but it sounds really good in the book!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Festoon

Festoon

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, One Eye said:

Has anyone actually ever read Jurassic Park? I’m willing to bet that’s an adaptation better than the source (no I will never actually read it to confirm this). 

 

I really enjoyed it actually and it has the added benefit of using a graph to explain the dino population problem which is quite clever, I thought, as you might have spotted the problem earlier if you weren't shite at statistics like me.

 

I can't remember if the frog DNA was an important thing in the film.

 

Oh and the bit that appears at the start of The Lost World is from the Jurassic Park novel - the girl on the beach bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stopharage

Stopharage

Posted
Posted

One of my first posts on here was criticising Contact for which I got pelters. Was a cracking film but I enjoyed the novel more. Zemeckis’ film wasn’t what I got from Sagan’s novel; that’s on me I guess. 
 

Princess Bride, The Prestige and Children of Men are superb films and arguably better than the source material. 

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strafe

Strafe

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, One Eye said:

Has anyone actually ever read Jurassic Park? I’m willing to bet that’s an adaptation better than the source (no I will never actually read it to confirm this). 


The book is better. The character of John Hammond is a way more believable filthy industrialist than the loveable grandpa he is in the films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wiper

Wiper

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, milko said:

And American Psycho!

 

This and Starship Troopers are both brilliant film adaptations, but that's specifically because they've been adapted by people of far greater wit than the original authors, who use their lens to critique and utterly change the nature of the work. If you're after 'straight' adaptations then they, well, they ain't great.

 

(but then, the vast majority of book to film adaptations benefit from heavy adaptation. The strengths of the two media are so different that unless a book has been written almost as screenplay in the first place, then it will suffer if it's simply 'transferred to the screen'. Which is why I find complaints about films not being true to their source material to be generally wanting, as the most slavishly faithful films will tend to be a complete waste of the medium. If you want a 'true' version of a book, read the book!)

 

Of course, I unironically love Lynch's Dune (and also love the novel), so what do I know!

6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stevie

Stevie

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, jonamok said:


Why? Is Nothing Lasts Forever a cracking book then?


I misread your post. I thought you were talking about Dune. I didn’t report you for trolling that was just a joke, but you should report me for trolling now because I made such a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ZOK

ZOK

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Wiper said:

 

This and Starship Troopers are both brilliant film adaptations, but that's specifically because they've been adapted by people of far greater wit than the original authors, who use their lens to critique and utterly change the nature of the work.


I’m pretty angry about this. I’ve read some wrong stuff on rllmuk, but this ranks amongst the very, very wrongest.

 

Starship Troopers is a great film, but it is based on a wonderful book, and Heinlein is one of the most significant writers of the genre. He is, in no uncertain terms, a giant of form, and can lay good claim to being a genius. The idea that Verhoeven is possessed of far greater wit than Heinlein is so preposterous that you should be ashamed to think it, let alone post it in public for all to see.

 

Report to your local re-education centre immediately Wiper, they are expecting you.

3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevvy Metal

Kevvy Metal

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Wiper said:

 

This and Starship Troopers are both brilliant film adaptations, but that's specifically because they've been adapted by people of far greater wit than the original authors, who use their lens to critique and utterly change the nature of the work. If you're after 'straight' adaptations then they, well, they ain't great.

 

(but then, the vast majority of book to film adaptations benefit from heavy adaptation. The strengths of the two media are so different that unless a book has been written almost as screenplay in the first place, then it will suffer if it's simply 'transferred to the screen'. Which is why I find complaints about films not being true to their source material to be generally wanting, as the most slavishly faithful films will tend to be a complete waste of the medium. If you want a 'true' version of a book, read the book!)

 

Of course, I unironically love Lynch's Dune (and also love the novel), so what do I know!

 

I completely agree with this and consider it best practise when a book is adapted for the screen. They are two very different mediums and I prefer to have two very different versions, rather than something that is trying to be completely literal to the source material, which is often a fool's erand as it will just highlight how you can not pace out a book in the run-time of a film. 

 

This is exactly why I love the LOTR films. They're actually quite consistent with the look and feel of Jackson's prior films. They feel like a comic book adatation come to life on the screen. I absolutely adore them and do not want a literal repeat of the books. That's what the books are for. 

 

See also The Shining. A classic example. 

 

whynotboth.gif

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scribblor

Scribblor

Posted
Posted
On 31/08/2021 at 18:59, monkeydog said:

 

Tbh it was so long ago I can't remember what LA Confidential was about. I didn't find the film especially engaging at the time. I do remember being disappointed after all the hype.  Maybe I'd get more out of the book or a rewatch?

Both the novel and the film are fantastic. It's not like The Black Dahlia, which is a brilliant book and a dull film. Obviously you're free to have your own tastes, but if you don't like LA Confidential I'd question whether you like any noir or neo-noir. It's absolutely up there with the best of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sir podger

sir podger

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, One Eye said:

Has anyone actually ever read Jurassic Park? I’m willing to bet that’s an adaptation better than the source (no I will never actually read it to confirm this). 

 

i read the second book, and it was way better than the film.

 

my favourite bit was 

Spoiler

two scientists hiding in a T-Rex nest staying still because the vision of a T-Rex is movement based

 

two scientists further away observing this saying to each other "oh no, they read the wrong research, how could the t-rex be the greatest hunter and predator of its time with vision based solely on movement?"

 

the t-rex ate the scientists in the nest

 

5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darwock

Darwock

Posted
Posted

I’m still avoiding visual spoilers for this as much as possible - YouTube doing it’s best to make that difficult, just showed me a thumbnail of some of the actors in makeup.

 

I really hope I’m wrong, but one of the Harkonnen’s looked like Polka Dot Man from Suicide Squad. Considering how that character was played for laughs while being very morose, it could really be hard to dissociate the two if it’s the same actor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cavalcade

cavalcade

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Dirty Harry Potter said:

 Nah... the book was even better. Crichton is pure class.

 

The book is written exceptionally well as Crichton was at the top of his game at the time. The movie is groundbreaking visually, but leans heavily on WOW DINOSAURS rather than the themes of the book which are more about small actions having cascading, unforseen consequences (indeed the chapters are introduced with snippets from chaos theory if I remember correctly). . 

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
monkeydog

monkeydog

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Scribblor said:

Both the novel and the film are fantastic. It's not like The Black Dahlia, which is a brilliant book and a dull film. Obviously you're free to have your own tastes, but if you don't like LA Confidential I'd question whether you like any noir or neo-noir. It's absolutely up there with the best of them.

 

I wouldn't say I have feeling about the genre one way or another. Maybe that is the issue for me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept