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), 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Harry Potter, the movies are at least wizards do wizard stuff even if the world is pretty boring to me. The books on the other hand, are just straight up strange and mean. Reading them as kid they just sucked, I have no clue why they are so popular outside of the movies.
An absurd amount of marketing, mainly. Very easy to shove YA/childrens books down kids throats, they don't have a lot of natural exposure to literature. Fuck, eragorn was the best example of the YA industry pushing a bad series (they even tried a movie series), I remember loaning it from my school library and being legitimately confused as to why it was becoming popular. I ended up finding a weird romance+fantasy series at the time that I largely consider as not being actually good, but remember finding it way more engaging. Maybe it's better now that kids are largely terminally online.
It's really my biggest gripe with it. There's better fantasy, better wizard centric fantasy, and better YA books out there. It's not great by any means, and I'm not surprised that I dropped the series without finishing it as a kid because I was reading much better stuff by the time the last few books came out.
Honestly I kind of liked the eragon books though if asked I couldn't say why.
The attempted movie adaptation was horrible though
same. It was long enough ago that I have no real recollection of why but I thought they were good. I even saw the movies. I guess kids aren't very picky
There was more than one movie? I thought they gave up after the first
Guess you're right. I remember seeing one in theater, which I thought was the second one, but looking it up now that was 2006 (god how was that 18 years ago lmao) and they never made the second one. 100 million budget, made 250 million at the box office, I guess that's considered a flop. (Edit: yeah I guess it was a flop in the US box office, the majority of that was worldwide)
Eragon is likeable despite not being very good. Probably its greatest strength is just how sincere and inoffensive it is. You can really feel that the author was just a kid writing some fantasy stories. I think there's value in that.
I'd guess it's because it captured the demand for english-language isekai at a mid reading level, and snowballed with hype around new releases, which quickly got rolled into the movie franchise as well. For 15 years there was a new release almost every year, between the books and the movies, so you couldn't really avoid hearing buzz about it. If it was just one book without regular injections of hype into the public consciousness, it'd probably be largely forgotten.
Kids don't care so much about prose and they're usually too naive to pick up on political subtexts, at least consciously. As a kid I liked them for the escapist fantasy and the simple narrative.
Totally agree, I guess just had better fiction when I was kid, I’m gen z and easier access to manga started becoming a thing as I grew up, webtoon also happened.
This is a show and not a movie, but definitely The Magicians. The show is pretty incredible, and more or less abandons everything wrong with the original. The books mostly spend way too many pages following all the MC's petty grievances, and he's like a massive incel.
Oh, interesting! I may have to give the series a shot, then - I pretty much hate-read the books, hoping at first that he would get better and then later hoping that someone would just fucking kill him lol
Yessss, that's exactly how I felt! I only even forced myself to finish it so I'd feel qualified to write a terrible review lol
https://www.avclub.com/fight-club-china-censor-chuck-palahniuk-david-fincher-1848433608
The film's problem was casting Brad Pitt as Durden and changing the ending so that he's successful. The movie made him attractice and charismatic. The book makes it clear the narrator is completely unhinged and fixated on his hatred of women and femininity.
The book is very clearly a story about straight men not being ok. "straight guys would rather punch each other naked Ina basement instead of go to therapy." The movie doesn't translate that well, so it reads more like a criticism of 90s work culture. Which is fair, but it often misses what Palahniuk intended.
To also be fair though Palahniuk seems to like the movie, but really despises young straight men admiring Durden as some antihero. He elaborates that feeling in the comic sequels.
Damn, I missed the (which was already bad) caveat in the title. Yes, the film is great.
I do wonder how many people got hoodwinked by the film and then went to read the book only to be hit with an entire textbook of lectures from a libertarian.
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.
Hunt for Red October though film wasn't bad at all, but the book was mediocre, boring and offputting.
I was a huge Tom Clancy fan as a teen. Thank fucking God I grew out of that shit, or otherwise I'd be a massive chud. The worst fucking part of his books is the way he writes women and relationships, every woman needs to be rescued, and they have no personality of their own.
i read rainbow six because i played the game, and while i enjoyed it, even me as a 13 year old boy was kind of disturbed by how 20% of the book is lurid descriptions of the beauty and efficiency of our weapons. long descriptions of how the troopers are super competent, long descriptions of the precision and mastery of the snipers, how the guns are well oiled and wonderful tools, etc. real psycho stuff. also the bad guys are environmentalists planning to kill everyone on the planet with a engineered virus lol
I recently had a thought about HfRO book - it's allegedly a mandatory reading in Annapolis naval academy (or so the publisher claimed), so if the average level of their readings is like that, no wonder that US Navy officers are having fuckups like all the 7th fleet navigation accidents or that they can't even defeat nor scare country without a navy.
essentially they first hired baldwin, who was not a leading man but had already done some big movies, and it was going to be more of a traditional vehicle for baldwin.
then they hired sean connery, a genuine movie star, and he wanted them to expand on his character and make the soviets more interesting and human as a result. they had too or wanted to take advantage of connery's star power and the result is a much better 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
