er Bladerunner

Lonesome Dove: because Robert Duval is a badass.

The Shining

Can't think of anymore right now.

Clockwork Orange. C'mon.

2001: A Spac Odyssey

ITT: no one explains why

No Country for Old Men, and The Road qualify as films worthy in their own standing, I'd say.

Jaws is a better film than it is a book. I'm tempted to say the same thing about 2001/The Sentinel too.

Most of the other Bonds too.

>>465887
The Sentinel wasn't based on a book

Yes, it was over the top. Legolas surfs down an olophant's trunk. But to be fair, that's what Hollywood does.
Yes, Return of the King was too long.
Yes, the alterations to some of the characters were unforgivable. In particular, they fucked up Faramir, big time. To be fair, it seems almost unreasonable in the books that the Ring is this object that corrupts absolutely, and yet Frodo and company keep coming across people who aren't corrupted by it.

But the movies were good for one reason: The casting. Viggo Mortensen IS Aragorn in my mind now. I can't read the books without putting him in there. Same thing goes for almost every other character.

This is the best movie LOTR we're ever going to get, and it is way better than the shitty attempts that were made before.

>>465887
for no country for old men, ethan coen won an oscar for best adapted screenplay and he was embarassed, said he didnt need to do anything, also theres some quote about the coens just shining a light through the pages of the book

basically mccarthys prose is pretty cinematic - its all location and action and he rarely if ever gives you the inner workings of a characters mind, i guess that works well for films too

>>465904
>way better than the shitty attempts that were made before.

LOL U MAD?

>>465904

nigga u srs?

>>465899
No, but 2001 is based on a short story called The Sentinel, which is what I was talking about.

>>465911

god, that shit was atrocious.

i gotta say though, the guy who did the voice of gandalf in the rankin-bass "the hobbit" and "the return of the king" was awesome. that is still how i imagine gandalf sounding.

The Passion of The Christ.

The book was long, preachy, over-the-top, boring, quite silly and nonsensical at points. The film, however, was pretty good, to the point, compelling, and enjoyable.

Also blood.

>>465904

You just have to be kidding. The first was the only one that was passable.

Also, on topic: pic related

Scorsese's film of Wharton's /The Age of Innocence/ - faithful to plot, and also to atmosphere: e. g., the dinner scene in which we see the table settings and courses, recreating visually Wharton's attention to social detail.

>>465904

Jackson's LotR is a brilliant filming of Tolkien's world as depicted by artists like Alan Lee. Sadly, in terms of cuts, character changes, and plain inane insertions (one more fucking drwarf-tossing joke and I'll scream), it ultimately fails to represent the books well.

>>465928
>drwarf

See how mad it made me? SEE?

>>465914
>2001 is based on a short story called The Sentinel, which is what I was talking about.
but you referred to it as a movie

You can say what you want about Gilliams visual direction, but the actors work and the dialogue was pristinely delivered from the original text.

>>465932
>I'm tempted to say the same thing about 2001/The Sentinel too.
No he didn't, he just made it clearer which film, and which book, he was referring to. You're just being an unjust, nitpicking bastard for no reason. Maybe we should get a whistle, and whenever you see people not be 100% clear in what they mean, and expect the people they are explaining it to to have some basic understanding, you can blow your little whistle and give them a telling off.

>>465926
>take satire about 80's culture and the endgame of the American dream
>make it about Feminism instead

Yeah great job.

>>465928

i agree with you on all points, but the rules state:

>at least worthy in their own standing if not faithful adaptations

to be honest, i can't think of a single tv or cinematic treatment of fantasy that i'd consider better than the Jackson LOTRs. they are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but damn me if it's not the most serious attempt at making a true epic fantasy movie work. there might be one, but i can't think of it at the moment. the genre has been neglected and abused to an insane degree.

>>465944
Maybe I saw a different movie, how the shitting Hell was American Psycho about feminism?

>>465937
sorry for the confusion, language is my primary concern, and when it becomes muddled with intent it erodes the communicative value

as for The Sentinel, I thought he was referring to the 1977 horror flick, which is still one of my favorites

>>465944

>see a female director and two female writers
>assume it's about feminism

I read Memoirs of a Geisha when I was in high school, I avoided watching the movie because of the fact that if they chose very obviously Chinese actors for the roles, then the rest of it probably sucked too.
But when I watched it I was pleasantly surprised - the characters were as well developed as they were in the novel, and all the plot twists were still as viable.

In any case, 2001 is a non-issue.

The novel 2001 is by Arthur C. Clarke BASED ON a screenplay by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick. (Take a look at the 1st edition's cover.) The screenplay came first.

The concept for the screenplay was from The Sentinel short story by Clarke.

The Green Mile DEFINATELY!

>>465946

I was actually agreeing with you, anon: I think it's only if one knows and really likes LotR itself that Jackson's films begin to lack the depth (and other things) one appreciates in the text.

>>466011

Pushing it even further - a film that is magnitudes better than its literary source.

Barry Lyndon. 2001's twin.

Kubrick fills the screen with light and color, basing every shot on a painting. Every image in that film is perfect. It is a masterpiece.

Thackeray is just drab and inconsequential. Kubrick uses the story as a skinny little framework for the film.

Unfortunately, most people will never get to see 2001 and Barry Lyndon as they should be seen - on a big screen, in analog, with the soundtrack filling the hall. Video and the process of watching at home diminish those films.

Watchmen

Catch 22 was a responsible adaptation to the book I thought

i've never read this, but i don't see how the book could be any better than the movie

>>466196


Kind of how watching Avatar at home, those that missed it in theater just wont get the full magnitude.

>>466196

I agree. Thankfully home theatre systems are getting cheaper, so it is at least getting better than in the old days of having to do with 24" tube tvs and one crappy speaker.

>>466221

Shut the fuck up.

>>466249

2001 is to Avatar as Moby Dick is to Fishing With John Lurie.

Also Avatar = furries.

>>466245
You mean it because it sucked or the other way around?

>>465934
Hunter loved it.
Of course he had parts he hated as well. (throwing coins on ground for midget)

I liked the 80's Dune film. It may not have been the best adaptation, but it was a solid film on its own and its a good jumping point into the books.

>>466363
I thought the 80's version was a pretty good adaptation.

Compared to that horrible abortion sci-fi miniseries that they did :-/

TV Adaption but stands gloriously amongst all contenders...

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. John Le Carre and the BBC.

Alex Guiness IS George Smiley to the point that it is almost like Guiness is in a fly on the wall documentary about the Cold War. It is one of the finest performances of any role I have ever seen in my near 40 years.

Le Carre's books are well worth a read before you watch it, they are excellent understated almost quiet in some ways, Cold War thrillers.

>>466390
le Carre actually adopted Guinness' version of Smiley after watching the series. He began writing future books (Smiley's People) with Guinness' version in mind.