Quote: Matthew Stott @ March 21 2011, 1:19 PM GMTI like his full length novels a lot. I enjoyed Do Androids, but it's almost completely different to the film.
I like some of his full length novels (The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch for example), but some of them read like he was banging them in between taking LSD and looking out of the window to see if the CIA had arrived yet.
Quote: chipolata @ March 21 2011, 8:55 AM GMTDisagree. Mario Puzo was a great populist writer and the Godfather was compulsive reading. The Sicilian was also great fun but made a bad film.
Your opinions became void to me the moment you claimed Exam was the greatest movie ever.
Quote: chipolata @ March 21 2011, 1:25 PM GMTI like some of his full length novels (The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch for example), but some of them read like he was banging them in between taking LSD and looking out of the window to see if the CIA had arrived yet.
I've read a few of those, like Valis; bonkers but for some reason I read and enoyed them.
Yes as prose they are quite good, Bond is quite a tragic and unpleasant figure.
Hmm how about The Ipcress File as a better film than a book. The film is an utter and complete stonker.
Quote: Griff @ March 21 2011, 1:59 PM GMTI didn't mention plot in my assessment of Fleming. I merely noted that his prose style is widely admired. Also you have picked one of the few half-decent Bond films there (Roald Dahl also is a fantastic writer), rather than some utter guff like Moonraker, Never Say Never Again, A View To A Kill or Quantum Of Solace.
The film does have the most idiotic scene ever. Where the bad guys see Bond has a PPK on the xray. And go "a ha! It must be Bond only he uses a PPK"
For flips sake.
i What spy in the world uses something that's such a dead give away
ii Why would he use a gun so shit he's the only person to use it.
Also surely a helicopter with a giant magnet is a wholly impractical way of dealing with baddies?
That and a Billion Dollar Brain are great films. Micheal Caine at the hight of his powers before he started doing any old drivel (including Batman films)
excpet maybe for Zulu.
Quote: Kenneth @ March 21 2011, 10:37 AM GMTSome people would say ... was better as a film than a book. Likewise The Princess Bride.
I would not.
Quote: Blenkinsop @ March 21 2011, 9:59 AM GMTI was more than delighted with what they did. I think it was because they took on such an enormous project in terms of scope and budget, that in doing so it allowed them to be faithful to the books almost to the letter. So I guess that for me LotR is the exception that proves the rule.
To be honest I am not sure they were any more faithful than Bakshi's version, though Alan Lee's designs were impressive.
Quote: chipolata @ March 21 2011, 12:07 PM GMTI'm not a huge fan of the film Blade Runner, but it is better than Dick's novel Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?
That might not be a bad call.
Quote: Timbo @ March 21 2011, 4:29 PM GMTTo be honest I am not sure they were any more faithful than Bakshi's version, though Alan Lee's designs were impressive.
Don't agree Timbo. I thought Jackson did a mighty fine job with such a massive remit and what was junked (either not included or left on the cutting room floor) wasn't too detrimental to the overall story. For me even the book's detail on all the battle scenes became a bit wearing and I was quite tempted to skim through them, although I didn't.
Old JRR delighted in getting all the detail just so, and possibly was a wee bit too hung-up on some of the finer points of accuracy for my personal taste.
This lad from the US of A does a hatchet job on the Bakshi version and I have to say that I'm more or less in agreement with his views here.
'The Talented Mr Ripley' and 'The Shawshank Redemption' were two books that transferred beautifully to film as they weren't messed about with. That said, I still felt the suspense more reading off the page.
'Dr. Zhivago' is hard going to read - overwritten with lots of incidental characters that don't do much for the story. The film cut out a lot of the drivel and made more sense of the main plot/s.
Quote: Baumski @ March 21 2011, 4:52 PM GMT'The Talented Mr Ripley' and 'The Shawshank Redemption' were two books that transferred beautifully to film as they weren't messed about with. That said, I still felt the suspense more reading off the page.
Shawshank film is a lovely simple minded slice of popcorn nonsense
The book is hard, brutal and compactly brilliant.
I am going to get some stick for this, but I would suggest Master and Commander.
Quote: Blenkinsop @ March 21 2011, 4:40 PM GMTDon't agree Timbo. I thought Jackson did a mighty fine job with such a massive remit and what was junked (either not included or left on the cutting room floor) wasn't too detrimental to the overall story. For me even the book's detail on all the battle scenes became a bit wearing and I was quite tempted to skim through them, although I didn't.
I am afraid I felt in Jackson's films there was significant extraneous material that added nothing (for instance that nonsense with Aragorn before Helm's Deep or the elf contingent at the same battle), and I thought that proportionally the battle scenes occupied more space on screen and were more tedious to sit through than in the book. Some of the action sequences could, to my taste, have been trimmed down in favour of suspense, characterisation and plot. The dialogue was also dumbed down, with added Hollywood zingers ("No-one tosses a dwarf").
Both film and book of LOTR are somewhat over rated. Book moves at a snails pace, is full of bad poetry and lacks any meaningful tension.
Film is a bunch of CGI battles and some interstions. Not much more than Attack of the Clones with swords and walking trees.
They're fun but not much more.
The Hobbit now that's a crackerjack.
I tried to read some Ludlums years ago and thought they were rubbish, so The Bourne trilogy of movies are way better than the books.
Quote: sootyj @ March 21 2011, 6:23 PM GMTBoth film and book of LOTR are somewhat over rated. Book moves at a snails pace, is full of bad poetry and lacks any meaningful tension.
Film is a bunch of CGI battles and some interstions. Not much more than Attack of the Clones with swords and walking trees.
You're talking out of your arse, Sooty. The LOTR are pure cinematic gold. And Peter Jackson knows how to spin a yarn and use the medium of film.
Quote: Griff @ March 21 2011, 6:29 PM GMTI hate those films.
Bloody Nora, Griff. They're precision engineered excitement.
Quote: sootyj @ March 21 2011, 6:23 PM GMTThe Hobbit now that's a crackerjack.
Timbo:
Love that Dwarf quote 
Have never picked up on it before. Shades of "To the Greenwood men and stuff yourselves" and "Tonight we will feast with my father in Nott-ing-ham"
Agree that overall the battle stuff was far too often and prevalent; but then so it was also in the book. I nearly threw in the towel on my first read with the denseness of it all.
Sooty:
Agree that the Hobbit a cracking yarn and looking forward to what Jackson will make of it. Incidentally it's just started shooting this very day with a release for part one in 2012 sometime