Book ----> Film

Welcome to the Sir Terry Pratchett Forums
Register here for the Sir Terry Pratchett forum and message boards.
Sign up

superfurryandy

Lance-Corporal
Apr 29, 2009
252
2,275
Ena's Feld
#21
I usually find that Stephen King's books don't translate onto screen that well, notable exceptions being Shawshank, The Shining, Stand By Me and Misery, but even then I wouldn't say they're better as such - even in the case of Shawshank the 'happy ending' they tagged on in the film still irks me.

At uni we had huge, but friendly, arguments over ' Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' and 'Blade Runner' - I much prefer the latter.
 

Dotsie

Sergeant-at-Arms
Jul 28, 2008
9,069
2,850
#23
It was the travesties with the LOTR rings plot that made it better though, cutting out some frankly wierd characters and bigging up others - the strong female characters came across much better in the films, and weren't really given a proportionate amount of time in the books, which were clearly all about the boys.
 

Jan Van Quirm

Sergeant-at-Arms
Nov 7, 2008
8,524
2,800
Dunheved, Kernow
www.janhawke.me.uk
#24
I take Arwen rescuing Frodo very personally since I RP Glorfindel an awful lot (he's the arch enemy of the head ringwraith who poops his pants whenever he sees my shininess and bloody greatsword) :p

Aside from the gooey bit where Aragorn falls off a cliff before Helm's Deep and the bit where she's 'sick' supposedly they made pretty good use of an appendix to the LotR which went into Arwen backstory a bit more - in the book she's just a tying the ends off for the legacy of the Elves to the Kings of Westernesse (her father's twin was their 1st king) :rolleyes: :laugh:

I think they very rightly cropped some way boring bits out of it (Tom Bombadil is a total waste of space except for the lorists and poetry junkies) and some of the additional action/fight sequences were great. The one bit I can't forgive is axing the Scouring of the Shire - no wonder Christopher Lee blew his top and went all flouncy on Peter Jackson. :eek: They could easily have cut the Pelennor (or Elrond bringing Aragorn his sword which was also a waste of valuable time as it didn't happen) and had the Hobbits kicking ass back home for 10 minutes or so - talk about saccharine pills! :rolleyes: :twisted:
 

Penfold

Sergeant-at-Arms
Dec 29, 2009
9,051
3,050
Worthing
www.lenbrookphotography.com
#26
DaveC said:
The one bit I can't forgive is axing the Scouring of the Shire - no wonder Christopher Lee blew his top and went all flouncy on Peter Jackson.
I agree, especially as they teased it in the Galadriel scene in Fellowship. :x
100% agree on this as I had been looking forward to the Scouring of the Shire. :(

BTW, does anyone know how the proposed film of 'The Hobbit' is going to be extended to two films as I thought there would be barely enough material for one (longish) movie?
 

Jan Van Quirm

Sergeant-at-Arms
Nov 7, 2008
8,524
2,800
Dunheved, Kernow
www.janhawke.me.uk
#28
Re the Mirror of Galadriel scene - this is why Christopher Lee went Librarian-shit because they did film it or planned to and he was looking forward to appearing in the final part of the Trilogy. It's also why they're having to rebuild Hobbiton out in NZ for The Hobbit as they torched parts of it for the scene in Lothlorien that did survive in Fellowship.

It was a pure production decision to take the Scouring out and also why PJ and Newline also fell out briefly as the screenplay (that won an Oscar and was written by Jackson and his wife Fran Walsh) did include the true ending as it was a crucial part of the story but also spoiled the happily ever after ending which for Frodo and Bilbo was completley wrong (they went on the white ship to 'find peace' (i.e. die) in Elfland basically).

With the Hobbit the plan is to split it to have the 1st part ending with Bilbo and the Dwarfs in Mirkwood somewhere I would imagine and then in Part 2 splice the 'missing' part of the action in the actual book
SPOILER said:
where Gandalf leaves them at the western side of Mirkwood and then follows him down to southern Mirkwood to Dol Guldur for the face off with the 'Necromancer' (really Sauron). There'll be another huge battle scene, possibly featuring wizard fire down there which wasn't covered in the book, as Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel join forces, besiege and then kick the nasssty Necromancer out of the castle. However, because of Saruman giving them duff info, they foul it up and in fact bring total war (as per LotR) closer by doing so, as Sauron promptly heads off to Mordor etc etc...
The rest of the book of the Hobbit also has another big battle and Smaug etc which would of course quite easily make a single but very, very long film. :p

The 'new' bit is v. interesting indeed as Tolkien yet again only outlined the Dol Guldur section and skimmed it in LotR (where Gandalf gives Frodo the history of the Ring in terms of Bilbo's taking it off Gollum) so Fran Walsh almost had a free hand with dramatising a really meaty bit of lore that's not too well known outside of Tolkien study circles. :laugh:
 
#29
Jan Van Quirm said:
this is why Christopher Lee went Librarian-shit because they did film it or planned to and he was looking forward to appearing in the final part of the Trilogy. It's also why they're having to rebuild Hobbiton out in NZ for The Hobbit as they torched parts of it for the scene in Lothlorien that did survive in Fellowship.
T least he did get to appear in the Extended editions and have asemi-satisfying demise. They are the only versions of the the trilogy that I will watch. They're awesome! :laugh:
 

Courtjezter

Lance-Constable
Jun 17, 2010
31
1,650
England
#32
Stephen King books are hit and miss depending on who is adapting and directing. If its Frank Darabont, who directed Shawshank, Green Mile and The Mist(best non-hollywood ending in a Hollywood film ever. Fact!) It is good and better than the book, although i got more emotional with the Green Mile book. Anything else is generally a bit rubbish. Notable exceptions being Stand By Me and The Shining.

Some of the made for TV adaptions have been quite good though, but don't have the budget to realise Kings vision. So both It and The Stand started off very well, but fell apart when they couldnt realise Kings endings.

Sorry i am a bit of a King geek outside of Terry's world.

I also agree with Forrest Gump being better than the book.
 

high eight

Lance-Corporal
Dec 28, 2009
398
2,275
66
The Back of Beyond
#33
raisindot said:
"The Silence of the Lambs" I would also say is better than the book (it's better than all three of the Hannibal Lecter books put together).
Personally I think that the best Hannibal Lecter film is Manhunter with Brian Cox as the liver-eating one.
 

User Menu

Newsletter