TV/Movies Megathread

[celedhring]

Personally I prefer the Expanse show to the books, but I've only read the first 2.

[grumbler]

Personally I prefer the Expanse show to the books, but I've only read the first 2.

I'd certainly agree that the story is one that lends itself even better to TV than to books, and I liked what I saw of the show more than I liked what I read of the books (but stopped reading the books after #6, because they went beyond my ability to suspend disbelief).  My problem with the series was that the showrunners decided to make the bad guys do crimes against humanity (like rescuing a bunch of Earthers just so they could space them "hahaha suckers trusted us") just to show us how bad they were.  The books at least imbued the baddies with a patina of justification for their nasty actions.

[viper37]

of all sci-fi tv shows or movies where a book existed before filming, is there a single instance where you thought the book was worst?

No, I am sure that there are multiple instances.

you're sure, but you don't name any.  I figured as such.

[viper37]

Personally I prefer the Expanse show to the books, but I've only read the first 2.

The people I know who read the books prefer them to the show.  Just like in 99% of the cases, it seems, where people always think the book is superior, instead of accepting that the two mediums have very different realities.

I haven't read them myself, nor Starship troopers.  Then again, the sci-fi section at my local library has always been extremely limited and I had to cheat my way into the College library to borrow some good books under a friend's name, before we had this wonderful thing called the internet

[viper37]

Batman vs Superman.

They tried really hard to do something interesting for the first 2 hours, but they completely missed the mark anyway.  They had an interesting concept of power corrupts, absolute power corruptd absolutely, abuse of power and xenophobia, but ultimately, it failed.  The acting is very good, but the actors aren't exactly given anything to do, except maybe Ben Affleck, since it's mostly a Batman film for the first 2 hours.

Then it the last hour it becomes full retard
[spoiler]with one big stupid fight that serves as pretext to destroy some building - while it was the exact criticism Batman laid at Superman at the beginning, that he fought the bad guys in the city, disregarding civilian life and he's just doing the same[/spoiler]

Aquaman has a silly inconsequential cameo, Wonder Woman seems lost for 2/3 of the movie and Superman exists only to save the damsel in distress.
2/5 because they at least put a genuine effort for 2hrs.


Aquaman
Finally finished it, after a month.  That was bad.  I mean, awful bad, not so-bad-it's-good. 
Totally unoriginal scenario filled with cliches.  I like Momoa as an actor, he was excellent in SG Atlantis and Frontier, but here, meh.  And I now understand why Johnny Depp went crazy about Amber Heard.

So, all in all, because of Heard's costume, mainly , 1/5.

[Eddie Teach]

Isn't she literally crazy?

[grumbler]

of all sci-fi tv shows or movies where a book existed before filming, is there a single instance where you thought the book was worst?

No, I am sure that there are multiple instances.

you're sure, but you don't name any.  I figured as such.

I answered your question.  If you really, secretly, wanted to ask a different question, you should have done so.  You still can do so, if your entire object here is communication rather than trolling.

[crazy canuck]

of all sci-fi tv shows or movies where a book existed before filming, is there a single instance where you thought the book was worst?

No, I am sure that there are multiple instances.

you're sure, but you don't name any.  I figured as such.

I answered your question.  If you really, secretly, wanted to ask a different question, you should have done so.  You still can do so, if your entire object here is communication rather than trolling.

Grumbler, failing the communicate cooperatively is getting old, even for you.

[celedhring]

Personally I prefer the Expanse show to the books, but I've only read the first 2.

The people I know who read the books prefer them to the show.  Just like in 99% of the cases, it seems, where people always think the book is superior, instead of accepting that the two mediums have very different realities.

I haven't read them myself, nor Starship troopers.  Then again, the sci-fi section at my local library has always been extremely limited and I had to cheat my way into the College library to borrow some good books under a friend's name, before we had this wonderful thing called the internet

Again, I've only read the first two, but the characters felt more fleshed out and the plot made more sense (and I think incuding the Earth political scene from the get-go is a good decision). Ultimately, and I agree with grumbler here, I think the story itself makes more sense as a TV show than as a book. The books quite often read as a script, they are all based around dialogue interspeded with to-the-point descriptions of what happens off-screen.

[celedhring]

The issue with thinking of "movies/shows that are better than the books" is that often it is the result of a poor book with a great concept that a talented filmmaker makes better use of  (the classic example is Psycho), and I don't read bad books if there's a reputedly better TV/movie show out there.

If you push me I'd say "Do androids dream of electric sheep" but that would be quite unfair given that Dick's short story and Blade Runner tell completely different stories.

[Sheilbh]

The issue with thinking of "movies/shows that are better than the books" is that often it is the result of a poor book with a great concept that a talented filmmaker makes better use of  (the classic example is Psycho), and I don't read bad books if there's a reputedly better TV/movie show out there.

If you push me I'd say "Do androids dream of electric sheep" but that would be quite unfair given that Dick's short story and Blade Runner tell completely different stories.

And there's loads of adaptations that are great and books that are great because they're doing their own thing. For example Jane Austen's Emma and Clueless - which I will go to my grave arguing is the best Jane Austen adaptation ever.

The one that springs to mind as better than the book is the Godfather. Which is an okay but kind of trashy novel.

Edit: Other one who just comes to mind as equal/great versions of a story are Le Carre. Obviously the novels are great but some first rate adaptations - especially The Spy Who Came in From the Cold and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. I also absolutely love the film version of The Constant Gardener.

[celedhring]

And there's loads of adaptations that are great and books that are great because they're doing their own thing. For example Jane Austen's Emma and Clueless - which I will go to my grave arguing is the best Jane Austen adaptation ever.

Yeah, the other frontrunners are well-made but boringly academic, which is the problem when adapting a great book.

My other favorite "adapt a classic with modern day teenagers" is Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing, even though Brannagh's will always always be my favorite version of that play.

[Sheilbh]

My other favorite "adapt a classic with modern day teenagers" is Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing, even though Brannagh's will always always be my favorite version of that play.

I mean there was a real spate of them in the late 90s/early 00s. I love 10 Things I Hate About You and Cruel Intentions too.

But I think Clueless is the best of these

[Valmy]

Clueless was a very early/mid 90s movie though. I guess it kicked off the trend.

[Sheilbh]

Clueless was a very early/mid 90s movie though. I guess it kicked off the trend.

Yeah - I think it and Romeo + Juliet (which I also love) really kickstarted the trend of teen movies that are adaptations of "classic" literature.