It's hard to take a book to screen and pull it off. Very few directors can do it. Kubrick was great at it but he did take liberties with the original work. Fincher is another great director at adapting books. Outside of Kubrick he might be the best at it.
Maximum Overdrive..
- Thread starter matt8568
- Start date
I don't know that it's that hard.
http://www.paperbackswap.com/Books-Made-Movies/tag/8969/
This is one single google search that brought up nearly 400. Granted a lot of the movies weren't great, but I'd argue that a lot of those books weren't great either. And, of course, there are many, many more.
This argument usually gets brought up by "book people" that often get offended by the movies on some personal level.
I've always viewed them as two entities that each have their pluses/minuses. For example, a book will describe the scene in detail telling you the thoughts and feelings of a character, but it's up to you to imagine what that character or scene looks like. Movies are just the opposite. You are presented with the visual and you must imagine the abstract.
I guess I should have been more specific. It's hard to take good books and make good movies out of them. I view them the same way as you; separate entities. I'm a film guy. I prefer film to books. When I do read the book before the film I tend to be disappointed with the film. I learned this years ago and since then I always watch the movie first. It actually enhances the book for me. It's weird. The martian for example. I've wanted to read this book for a year now but I knew Scott was adapting it to the screen. It's setting on my shelf and I'll read it after I watch the film.
Peter Jackson took the lord of the rings and kept all the best parts while improving on the shaky aspects
I approve any movie where a soda machine kills people.
The books are WAY better and I think the movies are incredible. He did make a couple of grievous changes tho.
That's a good way to sum it up.
The Jaws-movie ending is a perfect example of that... we just had to see that critter get blown up! IMHO, that ending was about the shark, while the book's ending is about Brody.
'Maximum Overdrive' is pure schlock, but that's what makes it good. It's incredibly silly, but I loved the premise that Earth passed through the tail of a comet and all the machines on the planet came alive to try and kill us. I also like the idea at the end that an alien spacecraft was destroyed shortly after Earth passed through the tail of the comet indicating that the machines were likely brought to life by the aliens and intended to eradicate the human population and that the aliens were going to possibly invade us afterwards, letting the machines do the dirty work for them.
Although the movie was written and directed by my all-time favorite author, Stephen King, it definitely could've done with a wash or two by a seasoned script doctor and could've been better in the hands of proven director like Tobe Hooper, Wes Craven, or Joe Dante.
Although the movie was written and directed by my all-time favorite author, Stephen King, it definitely could've done with a wash or two by a seasoned script doctor and could've been better in the hands of proven director like Tobe Hooper, Wes Craven, or Joe Dante.
the stupidity of that explanation ruins the movie. what blew up the alien spacecraft? ah, a Russian "weather" satellite. why didnt that machine come to life and reject human control exactly?
King's short story (like so many others of his) didnt bother with trying to logically explain why mechanical things came to life and wanted to kill all people. Hollywood's attempt to come up with one of their own is so awful probably Emilio Estevez wrote it.
One of my favorite horror movies. Definitely a classic. I don't even really like AC/DC but having the movie set to their entire album was awesome. Definitely an element of "cheese" to it, but that's what makes it great.