Shirt.Woot

I like this thread, time for opinions:

As a rule, movies based on video games are almost universally terrible (although I enjoyed Mortal Kombat and a few others). When Halo eventually turns into a movie, I expect it to be in reverse order (Game>Movie>Books).

I agree that Jurassic Park, Fight Club and A Clockwork Orange are definite possibilities for movie-better-than-book, they came to my mind too. I prefer Clockwork without the happy ending, regardless of the author's opinion.

Watchmen as a movie (though certainly not better) was almost perfectly adapted from the graphic novel, and I actually may prefer the movie ending slightly.

Also, The Thing (1982, of course) was a ridiculously good movie, and now I realize that I haven't read the book and need to do that immediately.

After seeing this thread, I also intend to read the Princess Bride and Stardust, and already planned on Hitchhiker's Guide.

In book version I've heard Eragon was mediocre and haven't read Children of Men, but the movies were so bad I can't imagine the books were worse. Chronicles of Riddick (movie) was bad because it was already a sequel to a surprisingly good movie called Pitch Black.

And Lord of the Rings, really? The movies kept the plot well, but weren't even that good, aside from special effects and cinematography. Yes, the books were sometimes slow, but Tolkien's writing is about more than how many pages they spend walking (a bunch), but rather the world he created. The entire genre of modern epic fantasy is still evolving directly from Middle Earth, so much so that new fantasy settings are considered unique in how they differ.

kevlar51 wrote:Nice shirt MJ!

My votes for movies better than books:

Shawshank Redemption
Fight Club
American Psycho

Shawshank is easily my favorite movie but I gotta say that the book is definitely on par with it...

Stexe wrote:To combat this shirt, perhaps we should try to come up with the rare examples where the movie is better than the book? Or maybe the super, super rare example of where the video game was better than the book and movie?

Movie better than book: "Whale Rider" and "Life of Pi" (and yes, I *did* read Life of Pi before I saw the movie). "Life of Pi" is a more controversial choice, because many people thought the book was good; I found it uninvolving and not as profound as it was trying to be. But I think even many who admired the book would agree that the movie is better. The book on which the excellent film "Whale Rider" is based is only so-so.

This shirt is wonderful, but sadly I wont be getting it because of the color.
Maybe some day down the road they can offer various shirts in a variety of color selections for that specific shirt.
I would love that. :D

taternuggets wrote:Shawshank is easily my favorite movie but I gotta say that the book is definitely on par with it...

The book's great (all four stories in Different Seasons are amazing), I just think it's not as good as the movie, which is also my favorite by leaps and bounds. It was the first time I'd ever thought a movie was better than a book, so it gets a special mention. I wish I could give better detail on why I felt that way, but I haven't read it in 15 years or so--the only thing I distinctly remember is the Warden worked better when developed as one character (movie) vs. six or so (book).

To be honest, I thought American Psycho was a good book to (albeit disturbing in several parts), but the film version worked better for me.

darklilly101 wrote:Jurassic Park was a super dull book - action packed movie! Lord of the Rings also, except people are gonna hate on me. Seriously...hundreds of pages to talk about a long walk?

I'm an avid reader and I usually do agree that the books are better. I'm looking at you HBO, stop F'in stuff up! Also, let me say that I'm an old school D&D player and I love Tolkien and everything about the world he created and the fantasy genre. And yes the books are good. But, I'm not an English major and the books are very, very, very long and very, very dry. The movies were better. Those that disagree are either smarter than I am or it's been along time since they've read the second book. Or they just didn't like the movies, that is a valid opinion, like not liking Dr. Who or the Avengers Movie. It's an opinion, just one that I can't wrap my mind around.

Also, I'll get some hate for this, Stephen King based movies usually turn out better than the books.

It's not quite a movie, but the show Dexter is much better than the book(s).

That's an old school depiction of "movie" on this shirt. Are kids today even going to know what that thing is? :P

Here's my general rule...

The book is better than the movie, unless Stanley Kubrick directed it...

Yeah, I think we can all agree that usually while the book > the movie, anything > the game.

Orcrist42 wrote:No it wasn't, it was just more fun. The Story was better as a movie.

How about... Final Fantasy... Better as a game than a movie.

Doom 2 (too)

Seems to be that whichever came first is better in these cases. Most movies made after video games are not very good. Perhaps one can say that movies and video games and books are different mediums and cannot be copied from one to the other. Maybe some of it has to do with trying to incorporate certain elements for fan service rather than just taking the story line and telling a new version.
But what do I know, I'm half troll.

How about 'The Hunger Games'? Hated the book, the movie was mildly interesting.

No reference to McKayla yet... Mehhh:

I would say The Godfather and Field of Dreams. I've always been suspicious this is why Field of Dreams has a movie theater playing The Godfather

itoaseik wrote:Chronicles of Riddick (movie) was bad because it was already a sequel to a surprisingly good movie called Pitch Black.

I'm not really sure why this was even brought into the topic. First of all, I completely disagree with the opinion. While I really liked Pitch Black, I thought the sequel was WAY better! Now the reason I don't understand why this series was brought into the topic is because the books are based on the movie, and books of those type are never good and shouldn't even be compared to books written before the movie. Second, there are two Riddick video games, neither of which are based on either of the movies, so this series is a bad example for the topic of this thread.

theyatemypig wrote:Fight Club and the The Prestige were both better movies than books (although the books were really good).
As far as video games go, anything that Uwe Boll or Paul W. S. Anderson has directed were better as video games. I mean, seriously. Mortal Kombat? Far Cry? Garbage movies, but excellent games.

Don't forget Street Fighter.

That movie was so bad, it killed Raul Julia.

Stexe wrote:To combat this shirt, perhaps we should try to come up with the rare examples where the movie is better than the book? Or maybe the super, super rare example of where the video game was better than the book and movie?

I'll start: Golden Eye for N64 was better than the movie.

Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs was a far better movie than book.

I feel like I would like this shirt a lot more if it were just the picture.

Would have been an insta-buy but I don't like the color. =(

Stexe wrote:To combat this shirt, perhaps we should try to come up with the rare examples where the movie is better than the book? Or maybe the super, super rare example of where the video game was better than the book and movie?

I'll start: Golden Eye for N64 was better than the movie.

Fight Club the movie was better then Fight Club the book....though the book was still incredible. imho.

The movie Shawshank Redemption was better than the novella it was based on, in my opinion.

I also think Dexter was a better TV show than novel series it was based on. Same with True Blood. I think the writing done for the tv shows was better for both.

Although I have to admit that my comment is awkward and poorly written. Hah.

marilove wrote:The movie Shawshank Redemption was better than the novella it was based on, in my opinion.

I also think Dexter was a better TV show than novel series it was based on. Same with True Blood. I think the writing done for the tv shows was better for both.

itoaseik wrote:I agree that...A Clockwork Orange are definite possibilities for movie-better-than-book,

Or 2001 (which, I suppose, was a Short Story -> Movie+Book sort of deal). Clarke himself wasn't at all shy about admitting that Kubrick was the better writer. But, then, Kubrick was in a class by himself.

Come to think of it, there were quite a few films made in the '50s, '60s, and '70s that are now regarded as classics, but when you go back to the books you find that they were the most dreadful, self-indulgent tripe imaginable.

jamina1 wrote:Eragon. The book was absolutely atrocious.

WHAT?!? Did you SEE that movie???

The book was actually a decent book (get past the fact that the magic the creatures and premise was of course borrowed... LIKE EVERY BOOK WITH MAGIC) it was a really solid series.

The movie was possibly one of the biggest catastrophes of the 21st century

[quote postid="5374364" user="Stexe"]To combat this shirt, perhaps we should try to come up with the rare examples where the movie is better than the book? Or maybe the super, super rare example of where the video game was better than the book and movie?

I'd have to say "The Wizard of Oz." I found the book rambling and lacking energy.

jamina1 wrote:Eragon. The book was absolutely atrocious.

I have to disagree. The movie was most disappointing, which is probably why none of the subsequent books were ever filmed.

If I'm reading a book it better be teaching me something important. Story books to me are a grand waste of time. IMO I would rather watch the movie. My time is valuable.

Thanks, everyone! It's been really fun to read the comments today :D

Speed to First Woot: 2m 19.995s
First Sucker: kargen
Last Wooter to Woot: chrishop12
Last Purchase: 2 minutes ago
Order Pace (rank):
Bottom 42% of Shirt Woots
Top 37% of all Woots
Woots Sold: 1105


First day sales 1105
First day posts 69

bluntmad wrote:If I'm reading a book it better be teaching me something important. Story books to me are a grand waste of time. IMO I would rather watch the movie. My time is valuable.

Oh, this is the saddest thing I've read all day. Stories might not teach information (though there is a strong trend in children's books to incorporate factual information). But GOOD stories lead us to reflect upon our humanity, upon all the good and evil of which we're capable, to view universal truths in new lights, and prod us to make the noble choices in life. That's NEVER a waste of time.

Just perfect timing for my sister's birthday! Now if only I understood kid's sizes ....

Wowsers.

Flattery, yadda.



http://onehundredfreebooks.com

I wanted a refresh.

Did I find my artist?

(always look for the positive!)

It's unfair to include video games in this kind of discussion as stories are told a different way in games. Games include the element of connecting you to protagonists down to the point where you control their actions, and thus control an element of the story. The experience becomes closer to you, the player, because you're putting effort and thought into accomplishing a task to progress - not just observing. So, games can't be converted to another medium like books to movies and vice versa while carrying the same impact and depth, vis-a-vis.

A few universally hailed excellent stories told through video games that wouldn't work so well as movies or books:
-Silent Hill 2
-Heavy Rain
-The Walking Dead (Telltale)
-Persona 4
-Spec Ops: The Line