Book v. Movie: Best & Worst YA Adaptations: Best: Bridge to Terabithia

Not exactally. In the books the army isn't described as being a single all sweeping tide of death. I got more of the feeling that they just destroyed enough Orc's to even the odds and then left in the books, not that they simply slaughtered everything or such. Also, the Rohirrim bought Gondor the time to live to see the Army of the Dead. And finally, without Rohan Gondor would have had about no army when the battle at the Black Gates came.

-P!-

 

I may be wrong on this but I don't believe the Army of the Dead killed any orcs in the book,instead they used fear to scare and confuse the orcs, and then the combined forces of Rohan and Gondor finished them off.

 

That could very well be it. I admit it's been far longer than it should be since I last read them.

-P!-

 

The book is undoubtebly better but the movies have their charm

 

In the books, all the Army of the Dead did was help take over the corsair ships. Then they disappeared.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

I got the impression they would have managed to hold off long enough, as the dead arrived not long after the two Rohan charges.

See? The movie really does botch things rather badly.

In the book it's like a day or two later if I recall.

Yet Rohan would have been at almost full strength had they waited- instead of a mostly defeated Gondor and barely victorious Rohan, you'd have almost no Gondor and almost all of Rohan.

No, you'd have had Mordor picking off the nations of man one by one. Power in numbers and all.

-P!-

 

Next: "The Firm"

The book by John Grisham v. the movie directed by Sydney Pollack and starring Tom Cruise (1993).

Grisham can tell a story, but he can't do much in the way of characterization. So his books are readable but dull. I have read "The Firm", and it was full unlikelinesses. A major tax firm in a small city in the South? With one lawyer?

The movie changes a good deal, all for the good, IMO. A rare case where the movie improves upon the book.

 

I'd have to agree with you here. The Firm was very good, both as a book as well as a movie, but I thought that the movie did slightly improve upon the book. Overall, they did a good job with the movie version. Now, if only other Grisham novel-movie adaptations *coughRunawayJurycough* were that good.

 

I agree. I enjoyed the novel but this was the rare instance where the movie actually fleshed out both the story and the characters a bit more. Probably the best movie adaptation of a Grisham novel to date, although that's not saying much since the rest of them were pretty bad, IMO.

 

Grisham books are quick, satisfying and not too deep reads and seem to be written so that they can easily translate to film. Ill have to go with the film on this one, although I really didnt care for either.

 

The film benefitted from a full on paranoic performance from Cruise and a fabulous score from Dave Grusin, his best to date, even surpassing his great work on The Graduate.

That said, the book really didn't stick with me. And neither has much of the movie.

I think the movie was better, but neither were blockbuster or anything.

 

Next:

"Dune" by Frank Herbert v. "Dune" directed by David Lynch and starring Kyle McLachlan (1984)

Sometimes it's better to leave it up to your imagination. The movie has moments of beauty and effectiveness, but structurally, it's a mess, the acting is either wooden or florid, and the special effects are bargain basement. The word is that the producer, Dino DiLaurentis forced the director to cut it drastically, and it looks it. (Lynch eventually took his name off the movie).

In this case, the book.

 

This one is not even a contest, even from one like myself who enjoyed the film. Book all the way.

 

Never seen the 80's version, but has anyone else seen the miniseries on the SciFi channel?

 

The book, and its not even close. The sci-fi miniseries was good, but the novel is amazing.

 

^
Agreed.

 

David Lynch has got nothing on Frank Herbert. I have rarely seen such a mess of an adaptation as Lynch's Dune. It suggests to me that he didn't even truly understand the point of the series (which, granted, can't fully be grasped in simply reading Book1).

Sci-Fi Miniseries came closer, but still can't quite get it. I thought Children of Dune comes closer, but for either, nothing can quite match the beauty that is Frank Herbert's original story.

 

Next: "The Bourne Supremacy": Movie starring Matt Damon (2004) v. novel by Robert Ludlum.

I find Ludlum just about unreadable; the movie, on the other hand, was highly watchable, and the changes in the plot were good ones.

The movie wins this one.

 

I haven't read the book, but the film was amazing. I can't wait for the Bourne Ultimatum.

 

I agree with you almost all the way. My only major disappointment was that the girlfriend died - she had been my favorite character in the books and the first movie, and having her killed felt unnecessary. I wouldn?t call either the book or the movie a great work, but the movie at least succeeded in being quite entertaining.

 

Haven't read or seen Supremacy, but I have read and seen Identity and I found the book to be about fifty billion times better than the film.

The movie dumbs the plot down incredibly and takes out all the real drama. Of course, the book is massive, so this is not entirely the fault of the film.

But the book is a great work, in my opinion. The film is boring and idiotic.

But again, talking about Identity, not Supremacy.

 

The main thing that seemed to have been changed around more in Identity was the themes and general style. Bourne Identity, I found to be a very dramatic and at times clumsy book to read. The movie is a little more chaotic, and to the point. The plot, I enjoyed much more.

I haven't read Supremacy, but the movie was the perfect sequel to the first movie.