Boogie Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 I think Psycho, Jaws, 300, A History of Violence, and Fletch beg to differ. There's no way that the movie of HOV was better than the comic -in wich we know the reason why they're chasing Tom- In comparison the movie Sucked ASS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 There's no way that the movie of HOV was better than the comic -in wich we know the reason why they're chasing Tom- In comparison the movie Sucked ASS They... tell you... in the movie. William Hurt and his scrotal chinbeard spelled the whole thing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boogie Posted March 1, 2010 Author Share Posted March 1, 2010 You sure you read the same comic that I?? (since im lazy in gonna just copy it from Wiki...) The film is loosely based on the original graphic novel. Much of the story of the graphic novel is a lengthy flashback detailing Tom's falling out with the mob. While the film is completely sequential and makes a brief and vague allusion to the trouble Tom caused as mob member, the graphic novel details at length a heist perpetrated by Tom against the mob. Olson opted to focus on Tom's struggles against his past and his relationship with his family, largely to the exclusion of the details of his falling out with his brother and the Mob. The most profound alterations of the original novel's plot concern the character of Richie and his fate. In the comic book, he and Tom are childhood friends; while in the film they are brothers (they were not brothers in Olson's original screenplay; Cronenberg changed them to brothers to give their relationship more resonance). In the novel, Richie is captured by mobsters and mutilated after the incident that sends Tom on the lam: Richie's limbs are cut off and his eye taken out, yet he is still kept alive to be suspended from the ceiling in a harness and tortured for years. During the dramatic climax of the graphic novel Tom comes face to face with Richie, and Tom suffocates him in an act of euthanasia. In the film, Richie is depicted as Tom's brother; he is a mob boss who tries to have Tom killed. However, Tom ultimately overcomes Riche's henchmen, and subsequently kills his brother The comic concludes with Tom violently defeating the mobsters that haunted him, whereas the film ends with Tom's silent return to his family; a change that drastically shifts the tone of the film towards a more familial focus. The comic: more violent and more inteligent is way better than the boring ass drama of the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Yeah yeah, I know the original ending. Maybe I'm just getting over-exposed, but sometimes I'm cool with them going with the less brutal angle. Everything doesn't have to be Oldboy for me and the ending to the comic just felt... overdone. It was a comic book ending, the movie feels like a real life ending and I guess I just appreciated it more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Okay, moving these posts, actually using my mod abilities for once: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycaon Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 I liked the Princess Bride movie more than I did the book. Not that I disliked the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boogie Posted March 1, 2010 Author Share Posted March 1, 2010 Besides the ending, the original flashback scene where we see Richie and Tom stealing from the mob when they're kids in the core of the story. I think i wouldve do it different if they asked me to adapt this.. BTW I agree that the 300 movie was far superior than the comic... Frank Miller and his goddamn writing doesnt does it for me anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycaon Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 I've also heard that Blade Runner was better as a movie than the book it was based on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 I've also heard that Blade Runner was better as a movie than the book it was based on. Blade Runner was much more in-depth than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. It was really a case of taking a very simple story and adding a lot of detail and complexity, sometimes it doesn't work, but I'd say Blade Runner did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genroh Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Soloman Kane based on Robert E. Howard's(the guy who wrote Conan) The Savage Tales of Soloman Kane. Reason for edit: Fixed HTML, boy I'm just full of moddishness today! - Baytor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the division of joy Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 The Godfather was far far superior to the book, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 The Godfather was far far superior to the book, in my opinion. From what I've heard about Mario Puzo's writing, that's no major feat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the division of joy Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 From what I've heard about Mario Puzo's writing, that's no major feat. You still get idiots who insist the book is better than the film, just to sound up themselves. The book is one of the worst things I've laid eyes upon in terms of structure and direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aartemys Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 10 Movies That Were Better Than The Books Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Okay. Saying The Shining is a good movie is one thing, it's at least well put together and well-acted even if it misses the point entirely. But saying it's better? That reviewer is a fucking idiot. Further enforced by this quote: "Stephen King famously trashed this Stanley Kubrick adaptation, but he shouldn’t have. Kubrick took a perfectly spooky ghost story and created a horror movie game changer. It’s an oft-copied, sinister, and hypnotic tale of one man’s descent into madness." makes me believe that the reviewer has never even read the book. It's not a ghost story, nor is it about one man's descent into madness. Fucking hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.