Iconic Movies that Disappoint.

[Chasing Embers]

I think for "The Shining", it helps to have read the book.

Exactly.

 

[ssjones]

The Stand is one of my favorite King books (the re-issue is better than the original). And the recent TV series was also very good (this has been done on TV about 3 times).

 

[ssjones]

Citizen Kane was one I could not get into.

Yep, same here. I tried twice.

 

[ssjones]

If to understand a movie you must read the book, then that movie is a failure.

Well, I said "helps", not required but I agree with your statement.

 

[Chasing Embers]

Have you ever watched cult-status movies and been left wondered what all the fuss was about?

I finally got around to watching the six LOTR movies. I want that time back.

 

[Alejo R.]

Well, I said "helps", not required but I agree with your statement.

I completely agree that if you read the book, the movie gives a completely different meaning. It greatly improves the experience. But the film must be a work in itself and not need the book.

 

[Alejo R.]

I finally got around to watching the six LOTR movies. I want that time back.

First three, cool movies.
Last three, a theft

 

[Chasing Embers]

First three, cool movies.
Last three, a theft

All of them neared putting me to sleep. Just couldn't get invested in them.

 

[Gimlet]

I remember not enjoying Casablanca. I watched it in high school in a history in film class so it was a long time ago and I might feel differently if I watched it now.

Many a good film and a good book has been ruined by over-analysis in the classroom. I remember reading Thomas hardy books in school for English O' level and the tutors were so fixated on finding political meanings that weren't there that they forgot to read the story. Many a youngster has had their appreciation of classical literature ruined for life by over-zealous teachers.
The one exception was an English teacher in High School who played us in class the radio play of Dylan Thomas's Under Milk Wood. She didn't over-analyse the meaning, Just played the recording and let it work on our imagination, then asked us what we took from it, rather than telling us what we were supposed to find in it.

In fact, saying that, some of the best dramatisations of great books I've encountered were were on the radio not the screen. I remember when I was a kid in the '70's listening to a radio production of Hardy's the Woodlanders with my Dad. It was a straight recitation by actors reading the dialogue and a narrator reading the rest. No music, no fancy effects and the production didn't try to guild the lily and change the story to make it "relevant" they just read it straight and did it very well. I was probably about ten years old and would have struggled with the original text at that age but I found the radio play utterly transfixing. I've been a firm Hardy fan ever since. But I've never seen a film adaptation of his books that I liked.

 

[Alejo R.]

All of them neared putting me to sleep. Just couldn't get invested in them.

Yes, fantasy stories and science fiction work with a kind of tuning. If it strikes a chord in you, it can be the most fascinating thing, if it doesn't it can be the biggest nonsense.

 

[Gimlet]

Two others for me are Easy Rider and Apocalypse Now. Never again.

 

[Kobold]

Two others for me are Easy Rider and Apocalypse Now. Never again.

There are scenes I like in apocalypse now but as a whole I didn’t like it. Probably my favorite thing about apocalypse now is how it was referenced in Seinfeld.

 

[Kobold]

Many a good film and a good book has been ruined by over-analysis in the classroom. I remember reading Thomas hardy books in school for English O' level and the tutors were so fixated on finding political meanings that weren't there that they forgot to read the story. Many a youngster has had their appreciation of classical literature ruined for life by over-zealous teachers.
The one exception was an English teacher in High School who played us in class the radio play of Dylan Thomas's Under Milk Wood. She didn't over-analyse the meaning, Just played the recording and let it work on our imagination, then asked us what we took from it, rather than telling us what we were supposed to find in it.

In fact, saying that, some of the best dramatisations of great books I've encountered were were on the radio not the screen. I remember when I was a kid in the '70's listening to a radio production of Hardy's the Woodlanders with my Dad. It was a straight recitation by actors reading the dialogue and a narrator reading the rest. No music, no fancy effects and the production didn't try to gild the lily and change the story to make it "relevant" they just read it straight and did it very well. I was probably about ten years old and would have struggled with the original text at that age but I found the radio play utterly transfixing. I've been a firm Hardy fan ever since. But I've never seen a film adaptation of his books that I liked.

That same class way over analyzed Wizard of Oz. So much so I still cannot find any of the theories online. I remember that teacher saying the movie was analogy about prohibition?! That the oz meant ounces! Maybe he was drunk teaching that day. I still don’t understand.

 

[PA Piper Mike]

Another movie that I want my time back: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Don't get me wrong, the style and sfx were state of the art at the time, but the storyline? Absolute snooze-fest.

 

[warren]

Authors do not have the constraints of time, moneys, technology and such that movie producers and directors face. Further, the screenwriter may finish a book and have an entirely different take than another reader. Movie doers expecting to see a mirror of a book they enjoyed are almost always going to be disappointed. Two entirely different mediums! Shouldn't be compared.

Movie then the book I've found works out best for me.

 

[Dave760]

I completely agree. And Kubrick has form in that regard. 2001 a Space Odyssey was the same. Admittedly Clarke's original book was full of enigmas and unanswered questions as well but Kubrick liked to try and be too clever for his own good. And he wrote the screen play for 2001, as he did with the Shining. As mentioned earlier, I prefer Peckinpah. He wrote a lot of his own screen plays too and I think he was better at it.

FYI. the movie was not made from the book. Clarke wrote the book as the movie was being made. (I can only imagine how frustrating that must have been, given Kubrick's constant tinkering with the story during production.) The book was actually released after the movie.

 

[Green Hill piper]

Kings books rarely mean what they mean at face value. As a constant reader I have found that he has a Very close relationship between good and bad, spirituality, morality

Should you have to read the book first? Where a film interprets a book, surely you shouldn't need the original text first as a guide. The film should stand alone.

There are many better examples of books transposed to film. In this genre, the isolation scenario where characters are trapped and besieged by malevolent forces, Peckinpah's Straw Dogs is far better. The back stories of the characters and their complex psychologies are fully explored and the film was better directed, straining with tension.

Another of Nicholson's great movies I haven't seen is One flew Over the Cuckoo's nest, and I've avoided it deliberately precisely because I have read Ken Kesey's original book and it was such a fine piece of writing that I can't imagine a film bettering it.

I had similar reservations about No Country for Old Men. But being a massive Cormac McCarthy fan I just had to. And the Coen brothers nailed it IMO. The film was near word perfect faithful to McCarthy's original. BUT, McCarthy wrote that book as a screen play - presumably to make some money. McCarthy was a literary genius who bears comparison with James Joyce and Mark twain. If you had to employ him as a screen writer you probably couldn't afford him, yet with NCFOM he had already written a screen play and done the hard work and it showed. I think it's the screen writing that's lacking in The Shining.

In my honest opinion the book is always better than the movie. A movie is just someone else's visual interpretation of the story and often times will leave the essence of the story behind for the pursuit of entertainment. I have never seen a king movie that did the book justice except for the new IT and even then a lot was lost in translation. Also on that note Peter Jackson blew my imagination away with the trilogy. But again, art is subjective so I believe that we can enjoy using our imagination first, forming our own individual concepts on what the characters look like or what the setting looks like and then look at someone else's and a lot of the times I have found that it allows you to reread the text and enjoy it more . Again just me. Also I have found that older movies have a much slower pace than this crap they are making today and rely on story and acting instead of fast paced scenes and flashing light special effects. Unfortunately people born from 2000 up are bored quickly because the brains are rotted from the Internet.

 

[Green Hill piper]

I actually read the stand this year for the first time and I agree with you. The first part was interesting but once the main villain was introduced it went downhill. The ending was predictable too. I think I’m done reading King books. They were fun when I was a teenager but now they seem too formulaic.

Actually all of his first books were in the period when he was heavy into cocaine and alcohol. That's why they are the best ones. His books as of late have been unreadable and I firmly believe he has his son writing most of them at this point. If you read enough of a author you learn the dance of their language.

 

[mso489]

All I've ever seen are the clips with Jack Nicholson, so I surmise The Shining is pretty much built on one actor in a few iconic scenes. For some, that may be enough. Speaking of horror, I recently saw The Exorcist for the first time, which was much better than I expected, though not a great film. It does induce some suspension of disbelief, which is to its credit.

 

[Green Hill piper]

All I've ever seen are the clips with Jack Nicholson, so I surmise The Shining is pretty much built on one actor in a few iconic scenes. For some, that may be enough. Speaking of horror, I recently saw The Exorcist for the first time, which was much better than I expected, though not a great film. It does induce some suspension of disbelief, which is to its credit.

The book was written based on actual events. The entity in the movie is well known in Middle Eastern teaching going back to nimrod.