The name of the rose. The movies…fine, I guess. The books at least 300 pages too long and frequently segues into long-winded discussion of the political minutiae of the warring monastic orders during the reign of Pope John XXII.
If you want to read about the time period you’ll be annoyed by the murder mystery shoehorned into your dry long winded historical fiction. If you wanted a murder mystery set in a historical setting then you’ll be annoyed by the history lesson being shoved down your throat like a dehydrated fig newton.
I really liked the book. I thought it was clever to use the murder mystery to explore the world of the abbey. The minutiae was the point of the book for me.
Stuart Little was the weirdest book you could possibly read, the movie managed to make it actually make sense while both were meh.
Ready player one, though to be fair I didn’t finish either version. I feel like percentage-wise I made it further through the movie, but only because the movie is less than 2 hours long. I made it to the 2nd chapter of the 2nd part and couldn’t take the masturbatory prose any more. There’s no self insertion on one side of the scale, Mary sue-ing in the middle, and ready player one sits on the far side of the scale.
Yeah, the book felt like I was being beaten over the head with pop culture references…but then you open up VR Chat…
I feel like there was value in the predictions RPO was making, particularly at the time it came out, just before Facebook became Meta and basically made it their playbook. If the world ever gets so shitty that the friction of putting on a VR headset actually becomes preferable to doing literally anything else, I think it’s a pretty believable future.
I read the whole book twice. Its bad. The first time was fun because I was just looking for the pop-culture references, but thats the only kinda good thing the book has. The second time I focused more on the story and the characters and its just bad. There are no likeable characters, but you are supposed to like the main protagonist who is an antisocial creep. The setting makes no sense and the plot is just there to move to another place to show off more references stacked onto each other
I was going to say, Ready Player One is not a great movie, but it does at least have Spielberg at the helm, and while late-career Spielberg is a shadow of his former self, the movie is directed competently and interesting enough visually.
Not least of all because you can actually see and enjoy all the various IP in action, rather than just have them name dropped like in the book. When there’s a sea of interesting or recognizable things on screen, that does a lot to help distract from how terrible the plot is.
But even at its worst, the movie is a tolerable popcorn flick. Turn your brain off and enjoy some pop culture references, then forget it all an hour later.
Because the book is just terrible. It’s an absolute slog, a lot of the dialogue is embarrassing, the prose is uninspired, it’s overloaded with explanations of UIs and unnecessary, long winded ramblings about the various pop culture references. The movie at least has the benefit of just putting a thing on the screen, the book has to describe all of this shit, and it’s tediously done.
Which is to say nothing of just how terrible the plot is in general but more than enough people have gone off about that. Twilight for nerdy boys is the best description I’ve ever heard of it.
The movie is so much better than the book because it drops a lot of cringe that the book has.
Hunt for Red October. The book is great and for it’s time had done amazing insight into modern naval warfare but the movie irons out a bunch of this which are a bit lame.
The Akula that kills itself with its own torpedo simply blows up because it abused its engine and another sunk when the titular sub rams into it.
The titular sub is later returned to the USSR.
The movie changes those and a few other things for a more exciting and satisfying outcome.
Jaws doesn’t quite fit the prompt but although it’s a good movie, the book is essentially a sub-par beach read. And there was no USS Indianapolis monologue in the book.
maybe shrek? i never cared for the book though its not bad
I’ve started reading Jumper by NameDoesNotMatter. I would like to formally apologise about all the harsh things I’ve ever spoken about that film.
Fine, the cast is unlikeable and the action scenes are just fisticuffs in the air, but my god, in comparison to the teenage dreck that is the book, it’s a masterpiece. At least they tried to build a credible back story for the main character.
In the book, he literally thinks everyone is out to sexually assault him (and somehow they seem to want to), he solves his problems by throwing money at it, instead of any actual creativity, and the author desperately tries to portray him as a mature-for-his-age adult, despite the fact that his first reaction to anything is crying followed by petty revenge.
I’m just flicking through the pages, pausing at any plot bits, and then flicking on.
I don’t know about worse, but the Eragon books and movie are equally terrible.
Granted the author was quite young when he started the series (15) to when the first book got published (18, first self published then republished by an established publisher a couple years later). He’s came out with a new series recently, but I don’t know how much better it is.
And while I’m not saying the books are anything great, they’re still a far cry from the movie imo.
I’m a bit sick of its narratives around sexuality and state, apart from that I really liked the books, but HATED the movie.
I just re-read them last year. What narrative are you talking about? Is it to do with Eragon not understanding that he’s a teenager and he shouldn’t hit on the elf princess who is literally 80 years older than him?
Arya is not a viable partner for him for at least another five to ten years, IMHO actually for like 20-30 years. Eragon is still a displaced peasant with power not seen for millenia and Arya is a monarch of a superhumanity, who was stuffed with knowledge and experience since birth while having a very different mind. Eragon might not even fully understand yet how relationships work and how truly different elves are.
Roran’s martial masculinity and Katrina’s clicheed submission, Sloan’s power trip etc.
I think the whole point was that Eragon wasn’t right for Arya, I thought that was quite refreshing and a pretty important message for adolescents. It’s a pretty big deal, imo that they don’t end up together at the end, and eragon has to get over it. I think thats an original part of an overall cliche but enjoyable book. I do agree with roram and Katrina’s plot though.
Been a long time since I read them. What were the narratives around sexuakity and state?
Roran and Katrina have this weird martial ‘A man needs to protecc’ and tradwife dynamic.
Eragon is somewhat a minor while try-harding to flirt with Arya who is superhuman even to Eragon as a Rider. It is not out of character, but it really confused me when I read it as a teen.
Nasuada is a glorified dictator. Islanzadi, Hrothgar, Orik and Arya are glorified superhuman dictators. Human civilians have no agency and the great magic system even further cements that (Dwarfs have gods, Elves have the forest and their magic, while human magic doesn’t seem to aggregate to create a check on rulers).
I’m not gonna go claiming that the Eragon books deserve a prize, but I loved them as a kid, and comparing them as equals to that movie is bordering on insanity.
The movie was good because it dropped all pretentiousness about where he was stealing his plot from.
Eragon was my first foray into proper swords and sorcery fantasy after Harry Potter.
Are the books really that bad in your opinion? By no means do they reinvent the wheel, but I enjoyed the magic system and enjoyed the aspect of Dragon + Rider and that relationship we see between the two.
I haven’t read much other Fantasy besides LotR and Stormlight Archive, but I enjoy the Inheritance Cycle.
Take my opinion with a slight grain of salt because it’s been at least a decade since I read the book and a half of the series that I got through, but from what I recall the books just didn’t really have much to them - flat characters, awkward dialogue, and the actual prose itself was pretty bad. It was also boring enough that I just didn’t care about anything that was happening, and I’d read enough good fantasy by the time I read Eragon that its flaws were hard to look past - I know the dude was a teenager when he wrote it, but that doesn’t make the work magically better. Not trying to shit on anybody’s parade, but it just really wasn’t my thing.
I enjoyed the magic system at first, but it kept expanding and expanding to basically undo its own limitations. I remember being disappointed with the last book, but being especially disappointed by how it ended. It felt like a very forced attempt to have the same bittersweet ending Tolkien gave us in Lord of the Rings, but unlike in that, it felt completely unearned and illogical.
The books end that bad. The first couple were pretty good, but the ending was awful and ruined the whole series.
My partner hateread Where The Crawdads Sing, but we haven’t seen the film, so probably that.
I haven’t read the book but enjoyed the movie. 🤷
I found the movie a bit sappy. A weaker version of To Kill a Mockingbird. What I couldn’t get over was the nonsensical geography and impossibly frequent bus service.
Babylon AD (the book is called Babylon Babies). I thought it was bad editing that made the end of the movie confusing. No. Turns out they took the actual ending of the book, toned it the fuck down and filmed it.
Not sure they could have filmed the part where the hyper-evolved babies take their comatose mother’s consciousness, stuff it in an experimental space station and launch it towards the galaxy at 10% of light speed.
the Sookie Stackhouse novels vs. True Blood. the show got dumb but the books go off in so many more ridiculous directions. I quit watching the show after 3 seasons because the repetitive sex/violence juxtaposition got to be boring, but I still have to recognize that the show writers at least had restraint. also, Charlaine Harris writes like my foot
In the book, I remember that sookie says that someone “had her engine running like the pace car at the indie 500”or something like it.
My mom was into True Blood for a little bit when it first came out, probably because she was trying to fill a Buffy-shaped hole in her entertainment and TB was close enough, lol. She bought me the first novel for Christmas one year and I very quickly donated it, it was so fucking bad. She asked me if she could borrow it, got mad when I told her I’d donated it already, and then sad when I told her it would ruin her enjoyment of the show by being complete and utter trash xD
I think you could make a credible argument that some of the Harry Potter books are worse than the movies. The best example that comes to mind is making fun of Hermione for wanting to free slaves, and the other characters claiming being slaves is in their nature or something. If you had only watched the movies instead, you’d get to see the slaves are miserable, most of the good team characters don’t own slaves, and Harry Potter tricks a slave owner into freeing their slave.
In the later books Harry gets a slave and doesn’t free him but its ok because the slave is rude.
Kreacher really wants to be a good slave, he just wants to be a good slave for the bad guys. So it’s okay to abuse him, see?
Jk rolling made some really strange decisions. Some of it really makes you wonder if maybe she was being a little too honest or just too unaware to see the implications.
I know that I was almost an adult when Harry Potter came out, but I really tried to get into them as everyone else loved them, but the writing was flat af.
and Harry Potter tricks a slave owner into freeing their slave.
That happens in the books too. He only does it because the slave owner is a mean slave owner, though, not because slavery is wrong.
The thing is that Rowling hadn’t really thought it through yet. Having the hero save a slave is pretty clearly heroic and good, and it’s a nice way to wrap up the Dobby story arc, but then the fans were all like “wait WHAT!? there’s slaves under Hogwarts!?” and she was forced to think it through, and it turns out JK’s pretty awful so the result of her thinking it through was to make it worse.
Ready Player One I guess. There’s a big difference between seeing a fuckload of pop culture artifacts on screen and reading multiple pages of somebody rattling off their knowledge about them. The worst part is that RP1 doesn’t even really engage with the culture it utilizes in any kind of interesting way, it’s all just surface level references that you’d learn from reading Reddit comment sections where people quote memes at each other. The movie on the other hand kind of makes it work because the pop culture artifacts aren’t dwelled on, they’re used more like an aesthetic choice, while the main focus of the movie is on its paint-by-numbers plot.
When the iron giant shows up in your story as a reference and you have him
checks notes
Choose to be a gun
This is probably the best example of the OP’s thread topic. Ready Player One book is really bad gaming nostalgia on the order of the Brick by Brick meme novel by Bob Chapman. Just absolute consumerist trash with nothing interesting to say. The movie is still bad, but better then then the book.
I can’t think of a more perfect example.
I actually really liked the book over the movie. I felt like the book did a much better job of describing the dystopian world and how the MC (can’t remember his name and too lazy to look it up) and the world at large more or less dealt with it.
Iirc the movie doesn’t even go into the history of the digital world and why the MC was obsessed with it. I get that movies and books are different but it seemed like the movie was “inspired” by the book and not based on it.
Haven’t read the book, but watched a guy discuss the differences between The Devil Wears Prada and the movie.
His contention was that there were absolutely no redeeming traits about Miranda in the book and she had somehow failed upwards with no true talent. Andy the protagonist spends the whole time rebelling against the magazine and its people.
In the movie we see Miranda to be a horrid person but we see that overlays a keen eye and talent that has led her to the top. Moreover, Andy spends effort to fit in with the magazine people and she evolves as a character.
That’s a good example. A filmmaker saw a 2D character and added a layer to save the story
I’m guessing someone with enough familiarity could say this about one of the John Green books’ movie adaptations, but I haven’t seen any (?) of the movies and haven’t read the books since I was a teen so
