Agreed. I was sad to see Adams on this list because I love his books, but I did have to agree with this person's assessment of them in relation to the movie version.
@@quietman208 A bit of a running joke at that. Wikipedia has this to say: The novels are described as "a trilogy in five parts", having been described as a trilogy on the release of the third book, and then a "trilogy in four parts" on the release of the fourth book. The US edition of the fifth book was originally released with the legend "The fifth book in the increasingly inaccurately named Hitchhiker's Trilogy" on the cover. Subsequent re-releases of the other novels bore the legend "The [first, second, third, fourth] book in the increasingly inaccurately named Hitchhiker's Trilogy". In addition, the blurb on the fifth book describes it as "the book that gives a whole new meaning to the word 'trilogy'". I'm torn between whether that's explaining the joke thus making it unfunny or giving context to bring you into the joke, but I suppose it can't hurt if you weren't feeling the joke to begin with.
I see you've been alerted to your misinterpretation of Pride and Prejudice already. If you only remember the novel from compulsory high school reading, I can't really blame you, though. The misapprehension that Pride and Prejudice (the novel) is supposed to be a rom-com is about as common as the belief that Romeo and Juliet is a play about true love. While Pride and Prejudice did provide us with a very popular rom-com premise (the couple that starts out seemingly hating each other), the original story is not SUPPOSED to be about two people having great chemistry and following their hearts. It's about a woman who, once she gets over her stubborn first impression of a man, finds the best possible match in the ruthless marriage market: a rich man she can love (who's probably more in love with her than she is with him).
So right, lots of Austen hate comes from misrepresentation in film adaptations-- when people read the books they don't get what they signed up for. Also, I think they both change each other! Darcy and Elizabeth both realize they can be a snob and learn to questions their judgements about people. And that change comes from what they learn from each other. That's really my favorite thing about the romance part of most of Austen's books-- the way two people can help one another grow.
I kind of digressed, but my point was specifically about the amount of romance. While Darcy fell in love pretty much on second sight, P&P is not really Darcy's story - and Lizzy doesn't fall in love with him for a really long time. In case Cold Crash Pictures reads this comment, let me elaborate: what's SUPPOSED to make that first proposal scene kind-of romantic is not the sexual tension we see in the 2005 movie, but the comedy-of-errors element of Lizzy genuinely believing they hated each other until that point. Another thing that makes P&P (kind of) romantic is how Austen evened out the power dynamics: Darcy is way above Lizzy socially and economically, but because he quickly falls in love with her and she does not, he's pretty much at her mercy for most of the book, and one might argue even after, because Lizzy's love seems a bit more rational and practical than Darcy's. That being said, I don't hate the 2005 reinterpretation. In fact, I'm gonna go rewatch it right now XD
@@RPG_Angie The 90s BBC mini series is still the best adaptation exactly because of those things you pointed out. Lizzy is portrayed as looking at the whole thing like it's terribly unlikely and nothing she's banking on for 90% of the time. Darcy is always the one boggled by his own feelings.
@@ERPP8 The original radio series (at least, first and second season) are infinitely better than their novelisations, and the TV series at least keeps most of the original jokes, and I prefer that visual version of The Book.
@@SexiestPenguin Okay, but I'm not gonna lie, their spin on it nearly had me rolling on the floor. The freaking sentient 'rakes' just... Chef's kiss imo. That movie had me CACKLING from start to finish, and the story was just SO good. I personally prefer it over the book. But maybe that's because I don't tend to be fond of anything I'm FORCED to read.
@@hillsgordon2480 OMG, who FORCED you to read Hitchhikers?! I mean, hopefully it was a friend who said, "Dude, you have to read this, it's amazing!" My experience was VERY different. I was a child when the radio series first started, and I taped it off the radio and memorized it, performing it at school. My favorite version of the story is still that radio series, but when the books came out, I devoured them and loved them. I even got a couple signed by Douglas Adams! I love that my 18-year-old son loves the books too! The BBC TV series was so low budget that it's kind of hard to watch, but I liked that it had a lot of the original radio cast in it. The movie, on the other hand, depresses me. I love Sam Rockwell, and his Zaphod is the only character he ever played that I hated his interpretation. Even Alan Rickman's Marvin irks me as being underwhelming in his potential. The tacked-on "happy" ending doesn't work for me. I can only suppose that the people who love this movie are much younger than me and were probably children when they saw it, like I was a child with the radio series. So it's one of those things where our age difference is probably the main reason for our different experiences.
This comment section is downright sad, I feel like most here completely missed the part where you boldly explain how this is just your opinion. And even though I don't agree with all of it, the opinions are expressed so well that you can be damn sure I'll respect them. Great video man.
Solarstar10 of course one can argue that you missed the section in the video where he states his welcoming of other view points critiquing his critique? And that’s why the comments of others are sad to you.
Not really, I downvoted too. I understood the intro but I thought his arguments were bad. He rated the books as if they were written in the 21st century without acknowleding their cultural relevance at all. He looked at on how they made him feel emotional or on how much "action" there was in it - which is not at all why you would read these books. So I thought these films/books are bad examples after all, since the books (today, I guess you can't really judge how they were read back then) have a completely different purpose than the films.
I'm sorry you didn't like P&P. I read it at 15 and it changed my whole attitude about relationships, societal norms and expectations, and how people can use self-awareness and introspection to change themselves for the better. It also has a lot of wit and offers a satirical perspective towards the pompous, the narcissists, and the arrogant who still are way too prevalent today.
"I am a rational creature, I am a rational creature..." I repeat to myself while trying to repress these violent urges from hearing my dearest Jane being treated in such an ungentlemanlike manner.
AHHHHHHH, I am so with you on almost all of this list, but I VEHEMENTLY disagree on Pride and Prejudice. I LOVE THAT BOOK!!! LOVE. As in, read almost every year. The movie was good as a stand-alone work, and I wouldn't necessarily say the book was BETTER (since they're good in different ways for different reasons), but there were a lot of things that the movie either changed or totally ignored that were key buildups in the book, and so having read the book the payoffs in the movie felt cheaper and less poignant. But to say that the book is BORING?? I just... I can't even... understand how someone (at least someone intelligent, which you clearly are) would think that lol. Do you hate period novels in general, or just P&P in particular? This actually makes me want to re-read it haha
Thank you for your comments. I couldn't believe he went so far as to say it "sucked." For about five years, I also read it once a year and have recently been thinking of reading it again. My life is much better for having had this book...and others by Austen...in it.
@@helenstrub YES. Thank you for pointing that out. My thesis was about the picture of society in P&P and Emma. Austen was ahead of her times in her critique and ridicule of those manners and also eg. laws (inheritance).
The second you said "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" I was just like "Oh no, he didn't!" But it's okay. I accept that you're opinion differs from mine. Of course mine is better :-)
To be honest, I almost decided to delete this video after I made it. I've re-read most of the books on the list and I thoroughly enjoyed ALL of them on the second read. When I watch "The Hitchhiker's Guide," I always enjoy it, but there's SOOO much content from the books that I wish they could've incorporated. Granted, they never got to make a sequel, which is a damn shame....
imaginareality look at you. With the tolerance and everything. Cheers to you. There are precious few people like you left. Be fruitful and multiply. In one way or another. like your comment for example. Nicely done.
@@sanitized4protection Yeah that's kind of my point. No offence man but try applying your reading comprehension skills before stating the obvious. You're preaching to the choir.🙄
Pride and Prejudice and you pick the 2005 movie? If you want to judge literature and screen versions, go for the BBC miniseries. The movie is ok, it was my introduction to Jane Austen, so I can't really complain about it and it has some really good scenes. Plus the ost is good. But overall, it's not enough, too many scenes were changed to really make it good. The miniseries is waaaay better. In my opinion it's a bit too rushed in the end, but overall, it's a really good adaptation. Like other said, PP isn't primarily a romance, it's a commentary and portrayal of Austen's society. In this way, it's an amazing study. The romance is just sort of by-product that helps Austen show the society.
I love pride and prejudice, and reread the book almost every year but I cannot stand the BBC version. It is very faithful to the book but I personally feel that's the issue with it. Film and literature are inherently different mediums and should be treated differently. I feel that 2005 version gets that better than the bbc version did.
Pride and prejudice is a fantastic social satire with my personal favorite romance of all time. An adaptation of it that I love is The Lizzie Bennet Diaries. It captures so much of what I love about the story and does something great with Lydia's character.
I agree, while there are things about it that do work (like the score) I feel like Deborah Moggach's screenplay fundamentally misunderstands the source material (particularly the characterisations and the family dynamics in the Bennett household) and the aesthetics of the film feel too glum for the actual tone of the novel.
I've been reading Moby Dick, and I enjoy the seqways to an extent, but REALLY got bogged down when Ishmael was talking about writing his book on whales.
There are quite a number of flaws with the 2005 Pride and Prejudice movie. Firstly, the Grottiness of the Bennett household is horrible. Secondly, the casting. Knightly is a reasonable actor - however, as the text and dialogue makes clear, Elizabeth is NOT the prettiest Bennett - Knightly outshines her cast. Thirdly, the characterization. Mrs Bennett Isn't a reasonable woman worried about the date of her daughters - She's a Neurotic Harridan who is described by Jane Austen as "invariably silly", in the LAST Chapter of the book. Similarly with Darcy who is transformed from the Arrogant prig in the novel into a shy introvert! Finally we get to the greatest abomination in the 2005 Movie - the ending. Lest we forget, the Bennett family has been brought to the brink of ruin because the youngest daughter runs out in the Early morning to meet (& elope with) the object of her affection. Yet in the Movie, this is Exactly how Elizabeth and Darcy get together. Does anyone really believe that Elizabeth would EVER do that?. The 2005 movie may have been called, "Pride and Prejudice"; it may have named it's characters as they are called in the Novel. However, one would be surprised if the Director or the Screenwriter had ever Read the Novel!
Thank you! I'm like, does he not realize all the petty fluffy stuff in the book was PART OF THE COMEDY? It's like when I listen to my mom and sister arguing about something completely ridiculous and I'm the only one who knows it's ridiculous. Hilarious 😂
+MarcusDrall, I totally agree. The Count of Monte Cristo is a timeless masterpiece. I enjoyed all the details, the narrative and the characters. Sorry, but there´s no chance that Guy Pierce can resemble the elegance and the eccentricity of the Count in the novel. I enjoyed every page of that book and it is still one of my favourites books, if not my favourite.
In my youth, books like Count of Monte Cristo and Three Musketeers inspired imagination. This generation of Comic book readers luck any imagination and want instant satisfaction.
@@use6less I loved the books and also loved the Depardieu version. It's full of adaptational license: they changed many, many things. In France, at the time when it was released, it was quite fashionable for "intellectuals" to talk about this made-for-TV adaptation with nothing but disdain. But I like it. I wouldn't say it's better than the books, though. It's different, with a few major alterations but the heart of the story remains the same. They only made Monte Cristo a little more human.
Clearly you don't get Jane Austen (and neither does the film adaptation) if you think Pride and Prejudice is a romance. Maybe you shouldv'e read it _before_ seeing the film. It's a tongue-in-cheek character study; it's comical and is a great commentary on the absurd social structure of the time, amongst the well-to-do upstairs folk, that is. The "romance" is a by-product and makes for some interesting conflict. But I suppose if Hollywood is to make a film which will sell it had better be classifiable and probably pretty schmaltzy. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is way closer, and understandably so, to the sentiment of the book. Also, standing in front of a bunch of movies while you criticize literature is fairly comical too. Thanks for the laugh.
This is an interesting interpretation that I haven't heard before. I'd be more than happy to go back and give it another read with this interpretation in mind.
coldcrashpictures I have to agree with Erik. While Jane Austen has written some lovely romance plots, her very first sentence makes clear what this book is really about: the crazy meat market that was marriage in the regency era. Mrs. Benett is a caricature of the thoughts and worries of the time: daughters need to be married (because they can't do anything else) and every man walking through the door is first and foremost a potential suitor, especially when he's rich. Elizabeth insists on marrying for love - a crazy idea - and she has little respect for the all-important social ranks - which gets her in trouble but ultimately wins over Darcy. While the 2005 movie is pretty, it dropped a lot of the interesting aspects of the story. I also thought Keira Knightley in the role bitchy rather than witty and the whole movie seems to lacks subtlety. Half the fun of the 1995 version is to watch people trying very hard not to say what they think. Ehle and Firth act their little hearts out while they bow and curtsey and go on about the weather and the health of their families. You may say that's boring, I say it's not a Hollywood romance and was never meant to be one. There is a reason the 1940s version is classed as a comedy.
*But does that make it more enjoyable?* Because that's what he appears to be basing his criticism on. Also, Austen leaves VERY little room for interpretation in her characterizations. She's pedantic, and she upholds Elizabeth as a heroine even though she makes a series of really shitty choices in the book. The one redeeming factor of her character could be the love of Mr. Darcy, but the book goes to no pains to build any chemistry for the two of them, so the romantic love isn't even believable. tl;dr, I've read the book SO MANY TIMES and in the end, Elizabeth just kind of marries the rich guy who just so happens to not be a total asshole. What about that is revolutionary? Where is the daring social commentary? THE 2005 MOVIE, however, built tension where there needed to be tension and chemistry where there was none otherwise. It's an unpopular opinion but it's based on what I feel (I LOVE the movie) and what I know (I've read the book too many times)
Před 5 lety+23
Jaws, Life of Pi, Cloud Atlas, Forrest Gump, Psycho, Children of Men, Jackie Brown (Rum Punch), The Godfather, Kubrick's The Shining (though the book has it's own great aspects), Die Hard (Nothing Lasts Forever), Fight Club...so many more I can't think of at the moment.
Hitchhiker's, really? The funniest thing about that series is the writing style. You can't really translate the best parts into movie form. You say it's on here because it condensed the series down into one movie, but most of the content of the movie is taken only from the first book.
I can't agree about pride and prejudice. I really, really disliked that version. Compared to the 1995 version, I found it very lacking in nuance and detail and, I might add, it was decidedly less historically accurate, something that will greatly detract from my enjoyment of a movie. And it used faaar too many cliches for my taste. The proposal in the rain, Darcy going to see Elizabeth half dressed (as was she), etc. Sorry, but I just couldn't get into it. Though I did like seeing the interpretation of Mr. Collins and the soundtrack was gorgeous. But Colin Firth's Darcy is just so much more believable to me. Oh, one thing I will say for the book: Bingley is fantastic. I liked him in the movie, but in the book, I love the guy. He's so hilariously adorable.
Lol. I just said EXACTLY this (pretty much, used my own words) before I read your comment. Happily I didn't watch the full movie - saw it on CZcams and thought I'd give it a go. Skimmed thru quite a bit, laughed a lot at how BAD it was in places and rolled my eyes a LOT
I agree with everything - mostly interview with a vampire - except pride and prejudice! I could start ranting now, but I think its a matter of preference. Sometimes books of this era are hard to read through because they don't satisfy our instant need for gratification, that we have developed. They tend to linger on thoughts and emotions and really milk them. I have begun to appreciate that but I can see how it can be annoying as well (it happened to me when reading lord of the rings, when tolkien spends way too much time on details, but i did love the hobbit)
Mitchel Anhalt nothing is wrong with it. Just as I said, books of that period linger for pages on emotions and thoughts - there's less actual action. For a movie this is condensed into what actually happened, so it's closer to what we are used to nowadays :)
It's funny, actually, my grandmother introduced me to Charlotte Brontë at age nine and I put off reading Austen until my twenties because I thought Austen would be as dense as Brontë. Little did I know that Austen's works were easy summer reads in comparison! That's not to say I don't love Brontë, I absolutely do, it's just that Austen is a little more obvious in the points she's trying to make than Brontë and her works are, typically, shorter.
Emma is a bit easier to read I disliked Jane Austen till I read Emma because it eases you into the time period and gives you the idea Jane was trying to say something about the society she lived in at the time its not just a vapid romance
Mitchel Anhalt Movies & mini series at least five that are straight adaptions and at least another 6 that places the characters and story in different time periods and/or cultures.
OMG! The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?!? RAGE QUIT!! The movie was rather boring and not at all representative of the book it is named after, imo. The BBC miniseries was much better, if you can suffer through the awful special effects.
+Pixxel Wizzard I agree. The BBC miniseries was great, the movie was a rather dull rendition and while I might argue whether the miniseries was better than the book, there's no arguing about the book being better than the movie - for people with an attention span longer than that of the smart phone generation that is.
+Pixxel Wizzard I highly enjoyed the movie... it was after written by Douglas Adams as a final compilation of the books that just like the narrator said, were meant to bring the best elements from each. If I had one complaint, it was the absence of the Resteraunt At The End Of The Universe and the inclusion of the John Malkovich scenes.
+Jeff Turner British humour performed by American actors for an American audience, reviewed by an American youtuber. However improved the greater story might have been by condensing the finer points of the books, the British cultural subtlety is lost in translation. Not so with the miniseries, but then again, the movie has a better reception in the US, rather than overseas in Europe, where people are more exposed to the culture of British humour. I would claim that the movie would in most reviews be preferred by American reviewers, and butchered by European reviewers, on account of the cultural differences in perception of humour.
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was a terrible, terrible movie. quote: "Getting through all 5 books can feel like a bit of a chore". Yes, but that's because the series gets worse with each book. The first one is still pretty good, which is what the movie is an adaptation of, not of the whole series. Instead of this, I'd put "The Shining" on this list.
I feel like putting Wrath of Kahn is kind of cheating. It's inspired by Moby Dick, along with a multitude of other things. It takes tropes from Moby Dick but ultimately, it's not a clear enough translation to consider one an adaptation of another
You mention a lot of movies that are better than the book, however, worse than the tv series. You should really look up Pride and Prejudice (1995) The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (1981) The Count of Monte Cristo (1998) These are some of my favorite series/mini series.
The 1998 version is horrible and poorly written, the script is extremely poorly prepared and poorly written. The Soviet version, The Prisoner of Château d'If (Uznik zamka If) is superior. The end of this version is better. Even the workplace romance of director Georgi Yungvald-Khilkevich with actress Nadira Mirzayeva that played Haydee is more interesting than the cliché romance in the film.The relationship between Georgi Yungvald-Khilkeviche and Nadira Mirzayeva shows that Alexandre Dumas was right about the end of the book. czcams.com/video/MoEW96r4fnc/video.html Garad Deparidue looks like a buffoon and does not resemble edmond in the novel, Edmond from the livor and the Soviet version is a mix of woland (master and margarita) and Raskonilkov (Crime and Punishiment). A sober man who is above society and shows the crimes of the elites, but ends up regretting it. And the Soviet ersion does not end in a forced way. The director himself divorces his wife to marry the actress who played Haydee. Eternal love does not exist.
Aaaa dude really? Pride and Prejudice starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen? Their performance wasn't even to the knees to the one of Colin Firth, Jennifer Ehle and rest of that group.
I love your stuff, but please be advised 'wan' and 'wane' are not interchangeable. Wan means pale or dissolute. Wane means to diminish. Sorry, but you do it a lot.
Oh, good. I worried I'd been pronouncing it wrong all this time. I suppose I could have looked it up in a dictionary. *promptly does so to double check* Yup, I'm good!
They're called 'comedy of manners." a comedy that satirizes behavior in a particular social group, especially the upper classes. These are challenging if you don't understand the mores and pretensions of the historic era.
Pride and prejudice man?!?l! In the movie the girls were running around like 3 year-olds, no historical accuracy and love as it is an emotion, which is well depicted in the book, it also affects their actions, why on Earth would be any action in the movie itself, too? But the book shows the underlysing world inside those peoples minds that put those actions into move. And if you wanna see a good movie, than the BBX version that relies heavily on the book yet the actors do a great job playing out the characters that were so wittily portrayed...oh man...
Honestly, "Starship Troopers" is worthwhile in both forms. As you mentioned, the movie satirized what the book put forth earnestly, but the *why* of the rationale of the book is just as interesting. Heinlein's underlying theory was that someone enlisting in public service (it wasn't exclusively military in nature - Rico simply looked down on those that didn't opt for military) would curb self-serving politicians by codifying "Service above Self". Realistically, that would *never* work for the reasons shown in the movie, including the one woman who was doing her stint explicitly to qualify for a career as a politician, but the idea itself is interesting. And I'm not sure if this was Heinlein's intent, but when I read the book (after having seen the movie), I thought the situation with the asteroid hitting Buenos Aires was kind of ambiguous in regards to whether it was legitimate or legitimate propaganda.
honestly i think the military did it to pump up the numbers and give society an enemy to fight. its just weird how an insect species that shits hot fire out its ass doesnt have 99% accuracy of hitting targets in orbit on their own planet, but can somehow navigate an asteroid out of their star system into ours and account for all the shit in space.
They weren't really an insect species, they just looked like insects to us. They were an alien species. For all we know their planet had tiny little bipedal mammals, and they thought we looked like bugs.
If you think the horrendously miscast Keira Knightley movie version of P&P is better than the book, you lack cultural and contextual understanding of the book. Although as an American who has no exposure to the culture on which it is based, that much is hardly surprising. Edit to add: the scene you've chosen to represent as an improvement over the source material because it gives you chills is as ridiculous in a film set in that time period as a wristwatch in a film about George Washington would be. Such behaviour would literally never have happened in polite society at the time and for a director to make the scene look like that, with implied sexual tension, shows that he/she didn't understand the book either.
+Éadaoin Ishii (Kazeshimasou) Indeed. As much as I think it can't be made, I deeply enjoyed the BBC series, mini series made a good twenty years ago now. Much as it's diverges, I feel it so wonderfully traps the spirit of the writing.
+Éadaoin Ishii (Kazeshimasou) Further to your excellent points; I despise the 2005 film version of P&P. Lousy pacing IMHO, wastes time on style (eg, staring into a mirror, on a swing (IIRC)) whilst it's condensing a book into a film, chemistry between leads is poor. I also don't need it pointed out to me that Jane Bennet is shy, in fact, the whole "she's shy" line makes me cringe, cuts out too much of the actual story. Much prefer the book.
for real. im so tired of people hating on period novels/classics because they think its too "pomp". thats the time its set in. the language, mannerisms, and writing style are all bound to be different. theres gonna be flowery language and parts you think may go on too long. i think the main reason people love to hate on books like pride and prejudice or emma or sense and sensibility or (insert classic here) is because nowadays people are so obsessed with action only and are used to skipping all the development that books from that time had. they were slower for sure but it felt natural that darcy and elizabeth endes up together because of the character development and story progression. they didnt just flance at eachother one day and fall in love the next. thats the problem. most popular books/movies in contrast these days seem so terribly underdeveloped and lacking in comparisson. we should take a note from those novels. not comdence them down to an easily digestable movoe that loses its substance and (like the first commenter said) sense of what time period its actually in.
+Éadaoin Ishii (Kazeshimasou) umm.. I'm pretty sure that the opening statements were meant as a disclaimer. That is to say, he is aware that he is being subjective about the subject. He's giving his opinions. Some of which someone will agree with, and some will disagree with. For those of you who actually do like the book, and enjoy scify.. please try to check out Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Written by a friend of a friend. It is worthy of a single read at least.. and more funny if you've read the original P&P.
Not only because I'm a fan of Keira Knightly (even had an Austen name), I thought she was good in this movie and cast well. As for the proposal scene, there's something wrong with this guy (ADHD). He got it backward. He doesn't even compare the book to ALL the movie versions. Austen 'cut the fat' when she wrote the scene, what the movie did was cut the meat. He probably preferred the Gilligan's Island version of Hamlet.
Ahh. Was just thinking how much I like this guy and his videos, but this one hit a speedhump. He's smart, smart, smart, but he doesn't seem to get British culture at all. And he doesn't seem to get that it's *his* blindspot, not the Brits'.
Agree. Very poor knowledge of English literature. You don't need to come here to understand us. That said, his videos are great and show a sharp and intelligent mind so I will keep watching.
On Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, you make an unfair comparison. Or, should I say, a completely incorrect comparison. The movie wasn't based on all 5 books, it was very clearly just using the 1st book. I agree the later books in the series lose a lot of the original's charm. But compare the movie to the actual book it was based on, the 1st one, and the movie just pales in comparison. Partially because much of the writing defies actual visualization, and a lot of the humor gets lost in doing so. It wasn't a bad movie, but certainly didn't do the book full justice. But more importantly, your complaint seems to stem on the book's sequels, which is *NOT* what the movie was based on. So it's, uh, erroneous. If they made movie sequels to HGthG, they'd probably suffer just as the books did.
There's a difference between something that is *based on* something vs something that is *adapted from* something. E.g. "The Lion King" is based on the story of "Hamlet". The 1996 "Hamlet" film starring Kenneth Branaugh is adapted from William Shakespeare's stageplay "Hamlet".
On Pride and Prejudice, as a fan of the novel and of the BBC miniseries with Jennifer Ehle, I did not see the movie. Simply put, I feel that the movie can not hold a candle to the list of..... insightful and biting commentary of Austen's time. I appreciate there's differences and there is always going to be debate over classics, especially this one. The point of this is that people will argue and continue to argue over this, which is good news from my point of view. It means it's still worth talking about and just maybe, still relevant. As for Starship Troopers. You're wrong, completely, utterly and profoundly wrong. Yes, you can say some of Heinlein's work are obviously political, Starship Troopers mirrors the time it was written, a deep fear of the Reds/Communists, a pervasive feeling of survival against all odds. It needs to be said that these are political models are taken to some extreme lengths. The example given in the book that the difference between the two relates to numbers, is superficial. The depth of the philosophy behind is wonderfully presented. What it means that each cap trooper is a net loss to the Federation as the Bugs can just dial up the next half a dozen hatcheries, just to be sure. You're also forgetting about Stranger in a Strange Land, a book all about how to grok your neighbour. Guess who the author is and when it published? There's plenty to be said for this as well on Starship Troopers. There's alnost nothing to be said against it, in my mind. Assuming you're able to give the book credit and look beyond the obvious military themes, technology and thoughts. Heinlein's Federation is not fascist, not in spirit. Sure, the clues are not really touched on in great depth, but they are there. The book is ultimately about responsibility, responsibility of the state to look after it's people, all its people not just its citizens. It also asks that we accept that the state, as an entity has the right to ask that those who shape it's future, its citizens, have worked and acted in the interest of the state. Verhoeven couldn't even reach the end of Starship Troopers and you think he's got a good idea of the nature of the book?
+There Be Game I agree with you sir.. that being said, don't take any one man's OPINION too seriously in life. Each of us is thrilled by different things. I LOVE Fritz Lang's Metropolis.... I don't know anyone else who does. I liked Prometheus... I don't know anyone else who does. There will be things right and wrong with any novel.. and you will NEVER get a novel directly translated to film... it's simply not possible. So the entire subject matter of this VLOG post is inherently inflammatory. Just be glad there are others who share your opinion. Peace.
+There Be Game As I have neither seen nor read Pride and Prejudice, I cannot comment on it. What I can comment on however is Starship Troopers, a very good book and a wonderful film. I would still say there are some differences between those two, since Heinlein did not seem to be satirizing the military regime and I must admit I found his point of view to be interesting. Not serving in the military wasn't problematic in his world, there were few limitations to your status, although you couldn't vote (or be voted? I hope I am not mixing that up). The military is said to teach you morals, responsibility as you already mentioned and not about any excluding ideology. Everybody could serve, noone was rejected or discriminated against and they had allies that even were nonhuman. It made sense to me when I read it and I really liked it. Not because of the sci-fi, but because of its world, described by a rather simpleminded soldier (at least he comes across as one to me). The film on the other hand was hilarious and so much fun. Obviously satirical, cynical and that blatant "patriotic" stuff they put in there, wonderful. I had fun all the way through. Book and film just do not have that much in common in my eyes, setting aside. And I dont actually want to compare them, since the film is a loose adaptation who changes a lot and is in a completely different genre. As you said they are far too different to be compared. As an adaptation it sucked, but as a film it was a blast to me^^ Comparing them would be as fruitful as comparing "Pride & Prejudice" to "Pride & Prejudice & Zombies".
hey now, one can compare those two. seriously though, I've poo poo'd SST the movie in this thread, but I would like it clear that this is only as a contrast to the book. I too enjoyed the movie. I was disappointed by what they left out, having read the book, but I had fun all the way through it.
+czechmate Luckily enough for me I watched the movie before reading the book, so it seemed like completely different stories and I can still enjoy both without thinking of the other^^
You really stretched to make The Wrath of Khan seem like it was based off of Moby Dick, didn't you? Starship Troopers is as faithful to the novel just as the Revenant is as faithful to the novel. Both are their own story with the same name tacked on.
Your comparison of "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" is not done fairly. All that should be compared is the first book (the one titled "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy") to the movie (also titled "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy"). It's not even a close contest - the book is so much better than the movie that I feel sorry for anyone who only saw the movie and never read the book, so has no real idea of how funny Douglas Adams was given that the movie cut out most of the humour from the book.
@@drjulia6860 to be fair the TV remake reuses a lot of the principal cast from the radio show (though the actor who plays Ford is recast with a close facsimile, as well as Trillian being replaced with an American actress) so a lot of the original chemistry was retained. Recasting Arthur Dent and the voice of The Book was always going to be awkward as the roles were very much written for those actors, so the film was always going to need to be changed quite a bit. Maybe if Douglas Adams had lived longer the film may have been more consistently funny while remaining it's own thing seperate from the original version but equally it could have kept the project in development hell for even longer as the big studios inundated him with requests to make the film more marketable.
I wonder how many non-Austen book readers realize that nobody actually kisses at the end of any of the books lol Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just that it is a very different expectation than we have of light romantic stories today.
I calmly and objectively submit that the 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is the gold standard and any piffle starring Keira Knightley is not fit to hold its coat.
The 1995 version is my favorite, but the 1980 version, while lacking in film quality, is also an excellent adaptation. Its tone is closer to the book in many ways and is well worth watching. The Knightley version, as you correctly point out, is abysmally bad.
I weirdly agree with your Pride and Prejudice pick. Not that I dislike the original book, but I feel like people are only viciously angry about the 2005 movie because it leaves and alters things. And it's like, what the hell else is an adaptation supposed to do? People say it wastes time on style, but capturing the beauty of the era through cinema is the right way to interpret the beauty of the language in the book. So I'll always like it. Also, I've yet to read Starship Troopers, but I've always known it was significantly different than its book inspiration. Really fascinating to hear the differences between the two.
You can change and alter the book when making your adaptation without making it into something it satiring. when you hit that point, then you know you miss the point of the book completely
What's funny is you think your pretentious look down your nose at people you think as lesser than you opinion is worth anything other than the paper I wipe my ass with. Spoilers: It isn't, and if i could i would wipe my ass with your face to get the point across.
The Count of monte-cristo is not a Disney story and worse than the author of the video, he doesn't know that there were no more swordfights in Europe. It looked more like a generic comedy movie. I was reading about the Soviet view that the director left his wife to marry the actress who played Haydee and the audience is eager to get out of reality and believe that feelings never change. mainly women. Remembering that the real Anna Karenina, Anna stepanovna Pirogova, was abandoned by her husband by a young German woman and therefore committed suicide. Alexandre Dumas does not need to write a story with a forced ending. czcams.com/video/MoEW96r4fnc/video.html
So. Obviously I'm a little late for the party but I couldn't pass by without leaving my 2cents. I enjoy your blog very much and share many of your opinions but on this we have to agree to disagree. I could leave it at that but I will try and advocate not only one but two of my favorite books: I agree with many of the former comments that your view on P&P is skewed and I ask myself: why? Is it because your knowledge of the historical setting is too little? Or is it maybe because you are a man? Because the central theme of the book is the dependence of women to men. I mean, it is there, in the very first sentence of the book! Without father, brother, husband they will literally be forced out of their home and all female characters in this book know this and try to secure their future and the future of their families. Of course there is romance but the romance is on the back burner and is used to drive the point home: what are you as a woman willing to accept to secure a future? Are you going to be Charlotte? Or are you going to be Elisabeth and risk it all? That said, I hate the movie. I hate it with a passion because the movie takes all this and throws it out of a window to concentrate on the romance and the f***ing male lead saving the day. And I hate it because the director can't be bothered and put a bonnet on Keira Knightlys head or give her an decent haircut. Ugh! Don't let me get started on the men and their pathetic attempt at Regency male attire! This whole thing is the perfect example for Hollywood taking an european classic and using it without understanding it. Please, do yourself a favor and watch the BBC Miniseries of P&P. Then drop me a line and we can discuss the whole thing again. Now, the next one: The count of Monte Christo. I've never read it in english so I have no clue how the translation handles Dumas' peculiar style of writing. In german and french it flows and captures your imagination because the descriptions give life to the Restauration Paris and the tumultuous Politics of the time. Again, is it because the historical circumstances are missing? That said I do understand if it's just not your type of tea and there is nothing wrong with this. But saying the movie is better because it concentrates on one Aspekt and cuts everything superfluous out seems plain lazy to me. And if we have to pic a Count of Monte Christo Movie then it would be the one with Richard Chamberlain! ;-) I would love to read from you! Greetings from Germany!
Soviet version: czcams.com/video/MoEW96r4fnc/video.html The Soviet version is the best. The 1975 version is average. Eternal love does not exist, Edmond loved Haydee. As the Soviet version shows this well. The proof that eternal love does not exist the director of the film who was married divorces his wife to marry the actress who played Haydee. The 1975 film was forced. The film does not have the genreic style of adventure like the 1975 version and without duels with a sword, but only a short story of dark revenge.
Omg I love how you put the hands thingy scene from Pride and Prejudice! I replay that bit again and again and again and so many P&P fans are shook Mr Darcy's hand clench too :O
@coldcrashpictures Your comparison of Hitchhikers, was quite unfair as you compared 5 books to 1 movie. Yes, books 3, 4, & 5 were not as good as book one, but the movie didn't cover those books. Just because the 5 books get bound together as a collection doesn't mean you compare all 5 books to a movie that poorly covered one of those books. Remind me not to watch any review that might cover the Lord of the Rings, I'd hate to have you tell me that the Fellowship of the Rings movie wasn't as good as the whole trilogy in print format.
finding your channel has been the best part of my day! binging your videos and blown away by how articulate, funny, and educated you are! thanks for being an ally!
+coldcrashpictures There is an issue I have with the final choice of Starship Troopers. Heinlein's ideal in how the government state in Starship Troopers worked, was not mandatory military involvement, but mandatory civil service in some form of government position. This included clerks, teaching, maintenance of utilities, or politics. Also, the screen writer for the movie honestly mentioned that he never fully read the book, just the first few pages. They are indeed their own stories, and quite exclusive, but I'm not sure you got the jist of the book's ideals entirely. Heinlein focussed on both how societies can work, and how they can fail. It is by no means one of his greater works, and it is not as entertaining as, let's say, Moon is a harsh mistress; nor as thought provoking and controversial as Stranger in a strange land. Yet there is parts of it that you have to reconsider and reread. Heinlein may not have been happy with the state of government and where it was headed, but I wouldn't put him under a fascist or fully militaristic way of thinking. Most of the book actually was written in a way that placed war in a very negative light.(granted his later novels like Cat who walks through walls is where you see Heinlein just go into dementia). Still agree that Starship Troopers the movie is a hilarious satire, but I wouldn't write off the book entirely because of perceptions of why or what you think the writer intended.
he's so wrong about the count of monte christo. the movie lacks all the intelligence that made the book so great. the point is not that he takes his revenge but how he does it he uses there own weaknesses against them to makes them destroy themselves.
Starship Troopers would have been so much cooler if Verhoeven had invested some money in representing the armored fighting powered suits, featured in the novel. Still loved the movie anyway.
An ante-script kudo: I love your channel; you do a fantastic job. Which is why when I hear you say, "there are no subjective measurements," it makes me perk up. One that springs immediately to mind is the measurement of time between two individuals moving at separate velocities. As one approaches the speed of light, the observer measures the passage of time differently from that of an observer not moving the same way. Hence, subjective measurement. Keep up the great work, though!
Agreed on absolutely everything except Hitchhiker's Guide. Douglas Adams' work is amazing and a treat to read. Anne Rice's work, however, is an utter slog to get through.
I'll agree that the 2005 P&P was one of the best film adaptations of classical literature to date. But the book remains a masterpiece. It's somehow held up in relateable wit and societal commentary over the past 200 years with no signs of stopping.
I hate to add to the hate. Truly, I do. But when you come after the Pride and Prejudice novel and commend the movie, we are going to have a problem. And I know I know I know it’s opinion, but also it’s kinda not? It’s okay for Pride and Prejudice to not be your thing, but to say that the movie is better just proves that you don’t understand it at all. The book is about psychology. It’s about how characters learn to grow and not rely on first impressions. It’s about a guy who gets called on his rich bullshit and a girl who gets called on being judgmental. The amazing thing about the book is that you can see Elizabeth and Darcy change through their thoughts and emotions. You can see the deep theme that first impressions are no accurate, especially when both parties rely on both pride and prejudice. The movie has none of that. The movie is a dumb romance that relies on its scenery and acting to tell us they are in love instead of explaining it. I recently read an annotated version of the book and looking at how deep their motivations lie truly shows how wonderfully constructed it is. To say that a typical period piece movie is better than that is an insult.
+Pixxel Wizzard I haven't read the book. I often find myself disapointed by King's writing, while I love most of his film adaptations. I just think his stuff works better as a visual experience.... Great movie though. Highly underrated by the public and exactly what a horror film should be... not about the monsters... or the death.. about the humans and how they remain human in the face of the horror.. that is what entertains me. That's why Walking Dead simply holds no more interest for me. They just can't do it as well as the comics the show is based off of.
+Pixxel Wizzard Yeah, I didn't notice it was a steven king work when I decided to watch it on netflix a few months ago. So, I was shocked when it had a good ending and found out it was s. king. Usually his movies start with an interesting plot/premise and then... I mean, it's worse than M. Night twists. I don't know what word/phrase is appropriate. But this movie actually stayed good and didn't make you hate it when the ending destroyed everything leading up to it and ruin the entire thing in hindsight. The Mist is his best movie that I can think of...er... of which I can recall.
+Mason DeRoss The movie's ending was very different and far better than the story's, which is one of the reasons I suggested it should be on this list.
czechmate The quality of the Walking Dead has been on an increasingly downward spiral ever since they fired Frank Darabont and Gale Ann Hurd has been free to use the series as a vehicle for her pro feminist and gay agendas.
I get what you're saying about Hitchhiker. The movie was much more tenable than the book. For one, the Trillian character may have been more edgy and bad ass in the novel but she was much more realistic in the movie without necessarily sacrificing the edginess. In the novel I don't think she cared at all that her homeworld had been blown up. Cool, yes, but not very realistic.
Absolutely love Pride & Prejudice. It has one of my favourite movie moments of all time. In the church, when she looks to him, he looks up and BOOM cut. So quick, so intense, love it. And everybody I know dislikes Hitchhiker's Guide the movie, but I also think it's great! Personally my number 1 pick for this topic would be Gone Girl. Great book, amazing movie.
The only case I have found where the movie was better than its source material is Jaws. The book by Benchley is mostly about Brody's wife having an affair with the marine biologist. Spielberg removed that plot altogether and made the story a great creature feature. If you want to read a better version of Jaws in novel form try The Trench by Steven Alten.
I know some people will disagree, but I think Bram Stoker´s Dracula movie was way better than the novel. The Novel is written in form of a diary or notes in first person, which I found really annoying and continuously cut the pace of the novel. I find that the movie got the original message of novel right and in a better and romantic way. Considering they had a very low budget, Ford Coppola pulled a very good movie with good performances.
I'm a huge reader and "the book was better" is one of my favorite lines, so seeing your views was interesting. I don't agree with all of your choices (ahem, HG2G, ahem), but am right there with you on Starship Troopers. I saw the movie before reading the book, and one of my friends went on a rant about how they ruined one of his favorites books. I finally got around to reading the book, and hated it, for pretty much the reasons you listed. I would like to add one of my favorite examples of movies that were better than the books: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Don't bother with the book. It is written as if the subject is serious. The movie, however, takes a ridiculous topic and makes a ridiculous and fun movie. It's not perfect, but it's so much better than the dour slog-fest that was the book.
The film was enjoyable I think. It's not oscar worthy obviously, but enjoyable (and honestly, the last challenge in the movie is a lot more meaningful than reciting Monty Python and the Holy Grail verbatim). You should watch Quinton Reviews video on the book.
I read the Count of Monte Cristo Abridged (about 600-800 pages still) for school last year and it is my favorite book that any of my honors English classes have made me read. Probably my favorite book period, actually.
I was hoping Starship Troopers would be on this list. I would also include Inkheart, which trimmed a lot of fat from the book and took a lot of focus away from Meggie, who was something of a main character in the book, but didn't do anything until the climax.
STARSHIP TROOPERS??? Are you F**KING KIDDING ME??? Well, this is definitely YOUR opinion, because in MY opinion, that movie was one of the BIGGEST crimes against it's literary source ever in history. The book inspired me, the movie gagged me and sickened me to the core, mainly because it was one of my FAVORITE books and I could not WAIT for it to come out and when it finally did, the ONLY resemblance it had was the names of the characters. The movie was a travesty.
I can understand the part about the action and "trimming the fat" in The Count of Montecristo, since I struggled reading through quite a few parts myself. But I can't forgive the filmmakers essential changes in the resolution, which affect the story's outlook on life, love, justice and revenge. I remember feeling cheated after the movie ended, and thinking that if they wanted to do something so different they should have written another script.
Star Ship Troopers was a great and fun movie, but cannot compare to the book. It's the only piece of Literature that I know of that can make pacifist hippies want to join the army :-) Next thing you're gonna tell us that the Road, the novel, had too negative of an ending.
@@CayeDaws I wouldn't call it propaganda exactly, but it definitely does promote a certain point of view and morality. Now it's a very enjoyable book, well written and I would recommend reading it, even if I personally identify more politically with Verhoeven, but part of why I would recommend it is for the different point of view.
I've watched several of your videos, and while I agree and disagree with some of your points. I thoroughly enjoy listening to you make them in a well thought out concise way. You sir, have earned a subscriber.
+Paul Tenorio I re-read "The Count of Monte Cristo" last month and it's MUCH better than I remember it. I should probbly go back and re-read "Starship Troopers," too.
I’d also include “Jaws” and “The Godfather” in this list. If you want to make it a top 10, as humans are wont to do, maybe include “Fight Club” and “The Shawshank Redemption.”
Jaws was WAY better as a movie. Practically everyone in the book was an unsympathetic douchenozzle. Reading the book I was quite pissed the the shark didn't just eat them all.
I saw Starship Troopers again just the other day. Awesome! It was fun to see this video essay in that context. You are, of course, wrong about P&P. Yes, the visuals are superb. I rewatch it every year, just for that scene at the Netherfield ball, but the novel...its cruelty never comes across in the film.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (from Who Censored Roger Rabbit). The rather thin book nevertheless outstays the welcome for the basic gag of living 'toons, and has an utterly preposterous conclusion. The film does everything much better, even aside from the animation-buff delights like putting Daffy and Donald Duck in a scene together.
I disagree, since the movie just takes a bit of the novel's ideas, but then expands on visuals and metaphors. I personally really like the movie, for what it is, a movie, and the book, for being a great book. In this case you compare two extremely different things and never understate Dick. That is Philip K. Dick.... or his dick.
I agree with most of your points here. I'm baffled, though, that anyone could watch Starship Troopers and not understand that it's satire. It's so blatantly obvious. I will admit, though, that I absolutely love the book, it's my favourite Heinlein novel, and I read it almost every year. (Not like it takes long to read.) I view the two things as completely different stories, that just happen to have the same name and similar themes and characters. That way, I can enjoy each on it's own merits.
When it comes to Pride and Prejudice my recommendation is that you listen to the audiobook. It brings the story to life for the modern reader and emphasizes the humor and relatability.
With you up to the point of Starship Troopers, which I really must disagree with. The movie was plodding, plot-hole-y military schmaltz, stitched together in haphazard form but with the addition of pretty Hollywood-ized "teenagers" (gotta love inappropriate Dawson casting). Oh, and boobs. Because what would a Verhoeven movie be without gratuitous nudity? Also, no powered armor. And no explanation of how exactly these ground-clogging bugs managed to harness and fling an asteroid across interstellar distances to whack Earth. (Which, to be fair to Verhoeven, didn't exist in the novel either, but you could rationalize it as taking place offscreen and that the bugs had something resembling high-tech just offscreen. The movie, not so much.) Heinlein's got his flaws as a writer, I'll freely admit -- and you've highlighted at least a few in this vlog. But the novel was still vastly superior to Verhoeven's schlockfest. (Although at least the movie gave me a decent point of reference when I'm trying to tell people about Edge of Tomorrow -- "It's like Groundhog Day meets Starship Troopers -- but actually good! And there's powered armor.")
+Mark DeVries Well, it isn't really a stretch in the book, since the books "bugs" were actually a high-tech civilization, more advanced than humans at the time they met. The movie bugs were just... bugs. In any case, since the "franchise" was stuck on the movie as an afterthought - apparently, Voerhoeven never read the book, and only got the ST rights rather late in production. Basically, he only managed to change the names, really. It's kind of weird comparing it to a book that was never even an inspiration to the movie...
To your point about the bugs ability to fling an asteroid to earth being unexplained, maybe that's the point, that it was impossible for them to do it, being on the other side of the Galaxy, maybe it's suggesting the government made it up and the asteroid was just a rouge one with no connection to the bugs and the military just said that it was. So they could drum up hate towards the bugs and bring more people into the army to thin the weak out through the mass deaths stemming from using infantry against armies of 7 foot bugs, to further the fascist regimes ideology. Also at the start there's the propaganda piece about earth having planter my defences that destroy asteroids yet it didn't get shot down, so that shows they might of let it through intentionally.
+At The Phrygian Lion I guess I'll have to disagree on the no explanation. More like implied explanation, if you can recall the line 'dumb races don't build starships.' So if we can take it that the Bugs do have actual starships, then it's not that hard to get an asteroid, tow it to the right place and point and let go, then things get interesting and math heavy. Mass has a whole quality all of its own, with a little bit of speed, relatively speaking.
+Mark DeVries Well the genderless bathrooms and shower rooms were actually a pretty important social statement. and what better way to shove it into a bunch of scify fan's brains than with a good boob shot. but yeah.. I can't forgive Verhoeven for turning the "marines" (can't even in good conscience capitolize that) into a high school football team; removing every interesting tech that Heinlein had envisioned; and removing the slave species skinnies, from the movie. The fact that Heinlein was even talking about rail guns (moon is a harsh mistress), and human augmenting battle armor in 1959, is important to anyone who loves scify. One should know where one's roots come from.. when some idiot spouts out about how someone stole some idea from another story, and are completely oblivious to the fact that someone like Bradberry was writting about it 60 years before the movie producer was even born... well it just makes me sad.
Okay I actually agree with you about Pride and Prejudice! And that scene where he touches her hand and then the close-up shot of him flexing his hand as he walks away is brilliant. It's such a small scene but it conveys so much emotion just in that hand movement. And you need that because it's the Regency era so Darcy's not going to be talking about how much he likes Elizabeth or flirting with her. The director needed to SHOW US Darcy's feelings and that one close-up of his hand demonstrates what he feels for her perfectly.
Starship Troopers a bad novel? ...it was prophetic in the evolution of warfare. And unless you've been in the military there's a host of things from the book you wouldn't notice. Additionally, Isreal is a modern country with a decently free media, compulsory military service and it manages to stand while surrounded by enemies. Fascism is bad but militarism does not equal fascism. You also completely misrepresent the character of Heinlein by not mentioning the quintessential 60s novel Stranger in a Strange Land which came out barely 2 years after Starship Troopers.
JayneCobb88 Also, in the novels, it was federal service that was required to become enfranchised. Heinlein had stated unequivocally that military service was not the only method, just the most common and accessible (as other methods, such as being a teacher or whatever were highly sought after).
I liked "Starship Troopers" the movie but I also liked Heinlen's book. Let's not make the mistake that one has a whole lot to do with the other. "Starship Troopers" the movie is as much an adaptation of the book as "The Bourne Identity" is an adaptation of Ludlum's novel. The movies took the barest plot details and wrote completely different stories.
I know this video was uploaded 3 years ago but I've been binge watching your videos on random and I CANT SEEM TO ALTER MY ATTRNTION TO YOUR EYES ITS SUPER NICE WITH THAT THING WHERE YOU SQUINTS AND IT FORMS A CREASE? Might sound a bit weird but still, that's some good eyes
I'm sorry, but Verhoven completely fucked over Heinleins classic novel and the movie is a complete pile of Horsepucky that deserves the same fate as The Star Wars Holiday Special and Verhoven deserves 10 lashes in Public Square for it.
P&P and HHGttG both got shafted. Regarding Pride & Prejudice: The film lost much of its potential humor by having Elizabeth look pensive and giggle every scene rather than say the witty thing that Austen wrote in the book. Much of the humor in the book comes from the narrator's observations, and we need Elizabeth, as our protagonist, to supply it. Regarding Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: They cut out literally half of the jokes. What I mean by that is that they provided the set ups & then cut out the punch lines. Throughout the film I was thinking, "What the hell! Where's the rest of the joke?" Neither film was able to capture the books' humor. Both novels have miniseries that are vastly superior to the movie remakes.
Jane Austen is an author who is all about sly sarcasm and comedic takedowns of her society. If you're there solely for the feelings or romance... you're missing the point of most of her writing--with the exception of Persuasion which was where Austen dipped her toes into early Romanticism.
"Getting through all five books of the trilogy" is just such a great, and true phrase.
Agreed. I was sad to see Adams on this list because I love his books, but I did have to agree with this person's assessment of them in relation to the movie version.
😂😂😂
i never read the books or read the movie. anyone care to explain? how can 5 books be a trilogy lol
@@quietman208 A joke, dude.
@@quietman208 A bit of a running joke at that.
Wikipedia has this to say:
The novels are described as "a trilogy in five parts", having been described as a trilogy on the release of the third book, and then a "trilogy in four parts" on the release of the fourth book. The US edition of the fifth book was originally released with the legend "The fifth book in the increasingly inaccurately named Hitchhiker's Trilogy" on the cover. Subsequent re-releases of the other novels bore the legend "The [first, second, third, fourth] book in the increasingly inaccurately named Hitchhiker's Trilogy". In addition, the blurb on the fifth book describes it as "the book that gives a whole new meaning to the word 'trilogy'".
I'm torn between whether that's explaining the joke thus making it unfunny or giving context to bring you into the joke, but I suppose it can't hurt if you weren't feeling the joke to begin with.
I see you've been alerted to your misinterpretation of Pride and Prejudice already. If you only remember the novel from compulsory high school reading, I can't really blame you, though. The misapprehension that Pride and Prejudice (the novel) is supposed to be a rom-com is about as common as the belief that Romeo and Juliet is a play about true love. While Pride and Prejudice did provide us with a very popular rom-com premise (the couple that starts out seemingly hating each other), the original story is not SUPPOSED to be about two people having great chemistry and following their hearts. It's about a woman who, once she gets over her stubborn first impression of a man, finds the best possible match in the ruthless marriage market: a rich man she can love (who's probably more in love with her than she is with him).
So right, lots of Austen hate comes from misrepresentation in film adaptations-- when people read the books they don't get what they signed up for.
Also, I think they both change each other! Darcy and Elizabeth both realize they can be a snob and learn to questions their judgements about people. And that change comes from what they learn from each other. That's really my favorite thing about the romance part of most of Austen's books-- the way two people can help one another grow.
I kind of digressed, but my point was specifically about the amount of romance. While Darcy fell in love pretty much on second sight, P&P is not really Darcy's story - and Lizzy doesn't fall in love with him for a really long time. In case Cold Crash Pictures reads this comment, let me elaborate: what's SUPPOSED to make that first proposal scene kind-of romantic is not the sexual tension we see in the 2005 movie, but the comedy-of-errors element of Lizzy genuinely believing they hated each other until that point. Another thing that makes P&P (kind of) romantic is how Austen evened out the power dynamics: Darcy is way above Lizzy socially and economically, but because he quickly falls in love with her and she does not, he's pretty much at her mercy for most of the book, and one might argue even after, because Lizzy's love seems a bit more rational and practical than Darcy's.
That being said, I don't hate the 2005 reinterpretation. In fact, I'm gonna go rewatch it right now XD
@@RPG_Angie Insightful comment.
@@RPG_Angie The 90s BBC mini series is still the best adaptation exactly because of those things you pointed out. Lizzy is portrayed as looking at the whole thing like it's terribly unlikely and nothing she's banking on for 90% of the time. Darcy is always the one boggled by his own feelings.
Care to elaborate on the part about Romeo and Juliet not being about true love?
The only reason I started reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was because I loved the movie so much, but the books were infinitely better.
100% disagree. The books are super tedious and the humor gets very repetitive.
@@ERPP8 The original radio series (at least, first and second season) are infinitely better than their novelisations, and the TV series at least keeps most of the original jokes, and I prefer that visual version of The Book.
I have to agree. I LOVE the books, and re-read them all over again once every few years.
C'mon. The movie used the step-on-a-rake gag.
@@SexiestPenguin Okay, but I'm not gonna lie, their spin on it nearly had me rolling on the floor. The freaking sentient 'rakes' just... Chef's kiss imo. That movie had me CACKLING from start to finish, and the story was just SO good. I personally prefer it over the book. But maybe that's because I don't tend to be fond of anything I'm FORCED to read.
@@hillsgordon2480 OMG, who FORCED you to read Hitchhikers?! I mean, hopefully it was a friend who said, "Dude, you have to read this, it's amazing!" My experience was VERY different. I was a child when the radio series first started, and I taped it off the radio and memorized it, performing it at school. My favorite version of the story is still that radio series, but when the books came out, I devoured them and loved them. I even got a couple signed by Douglas Adams! I love that my 18-year-old son loves the books too! The BBC TV series was so low budget that it's kind of hard to watch, but I liked that it had a lot of the original radio cast in it. The movie, on the other hand, depresses me. I love Sam Rockwell, and his Zaphod is the only character he ever played that I hated his interpretation. Even Alan Rickman's Marvin irks me as being underwhelming in his potential. The tacked-on "happy" ending doesn't work for me. I can only suppose that the people who love this movie are much younger than me and were probably children when they saw it, like I was a child with the radio series. So it's one of those things where our age difference is probably the main reason for our different experiences.
This comment section is downright sad, I feel like most here completely missed the part where you boldly explain how this is just your opinion. And even though I don't agree with all of it, the opinions are expressed so well that you can be damn sure I'll respect them. Great video man.
Maybe they didn't understand the intro xD
Half the people didn't even watch the video, they just seen the thumbnail and were triggered
Thanks, man. I appreciate this sentiment a LOT.
Solarstar10 of course one can argue that you missed the section in the video where he states his welcoming of other view points critiquing his critique? And that’s why the comments of others are sad to you.
Not really, I downvoted too. I understood the intro but I thought his arguments were bad. He rated the books as if they were written in the 21st century without acknowleding their cultural relevance at all. He looked at on how they made him feel emotional or on how much "action" there was in it - which is not at all why you would read these books. So I thought these films/books are bad examples after all, since the books (today, I guess you can't really judge how they were read back then) have a completely different purpose than the films.
I have never wanted to raid somebody's bookcase as much as yours right now...
@ryukenb2k you are disgusting
@@carinasacher2532 youre disgusting. You pig
@Ddhfacetyy What happenedddd in this comment thread???
@Ddhfacetyy So much drama in a 5 year old comment!
Giovanna Vignoni this comment thread was more interesting than any book I’ve read recently
I'm sorry you didn't like P&P. I read it at 15 and it changed my whole attitude about relationships, societal norms and expectations, and how people can use self-awareness and introspection to change themselves for the better. It also has a lot of wit and offers a satirical perspective towards the pompous, the narcissists, and the arrogant who still are way too prevalent today.
"I am a rational creature, I am a rational creature..." I repeat to myself while trying to repress these violent urges from hearing my dearest Jane being treated in such an ungentlemanlike manner.
R/niceguys
LOL.
AHHHHHHH, I am so with you on almost all of this list, but I VEHEMENTLY disagree on Pride and Prejudice. I LOVE THAT BOOK!!! LOVE. As in, read almost every year. The movie was good as a stand-alone work, and I wouldn't necessarily say the book was BETTER (since they're good in different ways for different reasons), but there were a lot of things that the movie either changed or totally ignored that were key buildups in the book, and so having read the book the payoffs in the movie felt cheaper and less poignant. But to say that the book is BORING?? I just... I can't even... understand how someone (at least someone intelligent, which you clearly are) would think that lol. Do you hate period novels in general, or just P&P in particular? This actually makes me want to re-read it haha
I just don't think he understood the book. It was not written as a "romance" but as a satire on manners of the time.
Thank you for your comments. I couldn't believe he went so far as to say it "sucked." For about five years, I also read it once a year and have recently been thinking of reading it again. My life is much better for having had this book...and others by Austen...in it.
helenstrub false that movie is god sent
@Poppy Action Poppy: Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Great comment.
@@helenstrub YES. Thank you for pointing that out. My thesis was about the picture of society in P&P and Emma. Austen was ahead of her times in her critique and ridicule of those manners and also eg. laws (inheritance).
The second you said "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" I was just like "Oh no, he didn't!"
But it's okay. I accept that you're opinion differs from mine. Of course mine is better :-)
To be honest, I almost decided to delete this video after I made it. I've re-read most of the books on the list and I thoroughly enjoyed ALL of them on the second read. When I watch "The Hitchhiker's Guide," I always enjoy it, but there's SOOO much content from the books that I wish they could've incorporated. Granted, they never got to make a sequel, which is a damn shame....
coldcrashpictures see, all you needed was a second read. And look at all these idiots online judging you for having an opinion. Good grief.
imaginareality look at you. With the tolerance and everything. Cheers to you. There are precious few people like you left. Be fruitful and multiply. In one way or another. like your comment for example. Nicely done.
@@ladymaiden2308 Other people have opinions too.
@@sanitized4protection
Yeah that's kind of my point.
No offence man but try applying your reading comprehension skills before stating the obvious.
You're preaching to the choir.🙄
Pride and Prejudice and you pick the 2005 movie? If you want to judge literature and screen versions, go for the BBC miniseries. The movie is ok, it was my introduction to Jane Austen, so I can't really complain about it and it has some really good scenes. Plus the ost is good. But overall, it's not enough, too many scenes were changed to really make it good. The miniseries is waaaay better. In my opinion it's a bit too rushed in the end, but overall, it's a really good adaptation.
Like other said, PP isn't primarily a romance, it's a commentary and portrayal of Austen's society. In this way, it's an amazing study. The romance is just sort of by-product that helps Austen show the society.
I love pride and prejudice, and reread the book almost every year but I cannot stand the BBC version. It is very faithful to the book but I personally feel that's the issue with it. Film and literature are inherently different mediums and should be treated differently. I feel that 2005 version gets that better than the bbc version did.
Pride and prejudice is a fantastic social satire with my personal favorite romance of all time. An adaptation of it that I love is The Lizzie Bennet Diaries. It captures so much of what I love about the story and does something great with Lydia's character.
I agree, while there are things about it that do work (like the score) I feel like Deborah Moggach's screenplay fundamentally misunderstands the source material (particularly the characterisations and the family dynamics in the Bennett household) and the aesthetics of the film feel too glum for the actual tone of the novel.
"Now, don't get me wrong, Moby Dick is a great book - especially if you enjoy chapter long Segways on how to remove the head of a whale."
*twitch*
+Lucky Egg I honestly wasn't being sarcastic. I found that shit fascinating.
I've been reading Moby Dick, and I enjoy the seqways to an extent, but REALLY got bogged down when Ishmael was talking about writing his book on whales.
+coldcrashpictures Which is interesting, because I found the etiquette and long-winded speeches of Pride and Prejudice fascinating. ;)
+coldcrashpictures Um... I kinda feel enormous pity for anyone who wasn't completely blown away by the book. The movie was just okay...
+Lucky Egg SEGUE, NOT SEGWAY
Pride and Prejudice is a brilliant comedy book, but the 2005 film??? Why ??????? The 1995 mini series is most definitely the best adaptation
The 1980 adaptation has some really awesome acting, too, even if the photography is very BBC basic of that time.
There are quite a number of flaws with the 2005 Pride and Prejudice movie.
Firstly, the Grottiness of the Bennett household is horrible.
Secondly, the casting. Knightly is a reasonable actor - however, as the text and dialogue makes clear, Elizabeth is NOT the prettiest Bennett - Knightly outshines her cast.
Thirdly, the characterization. Mrs Bennett Isn't a reasonable woman worried about the date of her daughters - She's a Neurotic Harridan who is described by Jane Austen as "invariably silly", in the LAST Chapter of the book.
Similarly with Darcy who is transformed from the Arrogant prig in the novel into a shy introvert!
Finally we get to the greatest abomination in the 2005 Movie - the ending. Lest we forget, the Bennett family has been brought to the brink of ruin because the youngest daughter runs out in the Early morning to meet (& elope with) the object of her affection. Yet in the Movie, this is Exactly how Elizabeth and Darcy get together. Does anyone really believe that Elizabeth would EVER do that?.
The 2005 movie may have been called, "Pride and Prejudice"; it may have named it's characters as they are called in the Novel. However, one would be surprised if the Director or the Screenwriter had ever Read the Novel!
IT IS. LOVE THAT SERIES. SO. MUCH.
Thank you! I'm like, does he not realize all the petty fluffy stuff in the book was PART OF THE COMEDY? It's like when I listen to my mom and sister arguing about something completely ridiculous and I'm the only one who knows it's ridiculous. Hilarious 😂
I loved the Count of Monte Cristo in book form, the movie seemed too short for what the book offered.
+MarcusDrall, I totally agree. The Count of Monte Cristo is a timeless masterpiece. I enjoyed all the details, the narrative and the characters. Sorry, but there´s no chance that Guy Pierce can resemble the elegance and the eccentricity of the Count in the novel. I enjoyed every page of that book and it is still one of my favourites books, if not my favourite.
In my youth, books like Count of Monte Cristo and Three Musketeers inspired imagination. This generation of Comic book readers luck any imagination and want instant satisfaction.
MarcusDrall LOVE THE BOOK! The movie doesn’t even compare. Especially when it comes to the essence of what the author is trying to say b
I could go for a burger my friend had told me about it but I didn’t get to check it out. Thanks for the reminder
@@use6less I loved the books and also loved the Depardieu version. It's full of adaptational license: they changed many, many things. In France, at the time when it was released, it was quite fashionable for "intellectuals" to talk about this made-for-TV adaptation with nothing but disdain. But I like it. I wouldn't say it's better than the books, though. It's different, with a few major alterations but the heart of the story remains the same. They only made Monte Cristo a little more human.
Clearly you don't get Jane Austen (and neither does the film adaptation) if you think Pride and Prejudice is a romance. Maybe you shouldv'e read it _before_ seeing the film. It's a tongue-in-cheek character study; it's comical and is a great commentary on the absurd social structure of the time, amongst the well-to-do upstairs folk, that is. The "romance" is a by-product and makes for some interesting conflict.
But I suppose if Hollywood is to make a film which will sell it had better be classifiable and probably pretty schmaltzy. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is way closer, and understandably so, to the sentiment of the book.
Also, standing in front of a bunch of movies while you criticize literature is fairly comical too. Thanks for the laugh.
This is an interesting interpretation that I haven't heard before. I'd be more than happy to go back and give it another read with this interpretation in mind.
This is mainly a movie related channel and he's discussing movies, where else would he be standing?
coldcrashpictures I have to agree with Erik. While Jane Austen has written some lovely romance plots, her very first sentence makes clear what this book is really about: the crazy meat market that was marriage in the regency era. Mrs. Benett is a caricature of the thoughts and worries of the time: daughters need to be married (because they can't do anything else) and every man walking through the door is first and foremost a potential suitor, especially when he's rich. Elizabeth insists on marrying for love - a crazy idea - and she has little respect for the all-important social ranks - which gets her in trouble but ultimately wins over Darcy. While the 2005 movie is pretty, it dropped a lot of the interesting aspects of the story. I also thought Keira Knightley in the role bitchy rather than witty and the whole movie seems to lacks subtlety. Half the fun of the 1995 version is to watch people trying very hard not to say what they think. Ehle and Firth act their little hearts out while they bow and curtsey and go on about the weather and the health of their families. You may say that's boring, I say it's not a Hollywood romance and was never meant to be one. There is a reason the 1940s version is classed as a comedy.
Well Erik is a passive aggressive dick
*But does that make it more enjoyable?* Because that's what he appears to be basing his criticism on.
Also, Austen leaves VERY little room for interpretation in her characterizations. She's pedantic, and she upholds Elizabeth as a heroine even though she makes a series of really shitty choices in the book. The one redeeming factor of her character could be the love of Mr. Darcy, but the book goes to no pains to build any chemistry for the two of them, so the romantic love isn't even believable. tl;dr, I've read the book SO MANY TIMES and in the end, Elizabeth just kind of marries the rich guy who just so happens to not be a total asshole. What about that is revolutionary? Where is the daring social commentary?
THE 2005 MOVIE, however, built tension where there needed to be tension and chemistry where there was none otherwise. It's an unpopular opinion but it's based on what I feel (I LOVE the movie) and what I know (I've read the book too many times)
Jaws, Life of Pi, Cloud Atlas, Forrest Gump, Psycho, Children of Men, Jackie Brown (Rum Punch), The Godfather, Kubrick's The Shining (though the book has it's own great aspects), Die Hard (Nothing Lasts Forever), Fight Club...so many more I can't think of at the moment.
Life of Pi the book was so much better. The film was just pretty and dramatic. The book was actually meaningful.
@@dragongirl7978 so true
Get shorty, Rising Sun, silence of the Lambs
Hitchhiker's, really?
The funniest thing about that series is the writing style. You can't really translate the best parts into movie form.
You say it's on here because it condensed the series down into one movie, but most of the content of the movie is taken only from the first book.
Nope! I was already on the fence with Pride and Prejudice, but you've committed the irredeemable blasphemy with Hitchikers' Guide to the Galaxy. :)
I can't agree about pride and prejudice. I really, really disliked that version. Compared to the 1995 version, I found it very lacking in nuance and detail and, I might add, it was decidedly less historically accurate, something that will greatly detract from my enjoyment of a movie. And it used faaar too many cliches for my taste. The proposal in the rain, Darcy going to see Elizabeth half dressed (as was she), etc. Sorry, but I just couldn't get into it. Though I did like seeing the interpretation of Mr. Collins and the soundtrack was gorgeous. But Colin Firth's Darcy is just so much more believable to me. Oh, one thing I will say for the book: Bingley is fantastic. I liked him in the movie, but in the book, I love the guy. He's so hilariously adorable.
Lol. I just said EXACTLY this (pretty much, used my own words) before I read your comment.
Happily I didn't watch the full movie - saw it on CZcams and thought I'd give it a go. Skimmed thru quite a bit, laughed a lot at how BAD it was in places and rolled my eyes a LOT
I agree with everything - mostly interview with a vampire - except pride and prejudice! I could start ranting now, but I think its a matter of preference. Sometimes books of this era are hard to read through because they don't satisfy our instant need for gratification, that we have developed. They tend to linger on thoughts and emotions and really milk them. I have begun to appreciate that but I can see how it can be annoying as well (it happened to me when reading lord of the rings, when tolkien spends way too much time on details, but i did love the hobbit)
littlepanimausi What's wrong with Pride and Prejudice. I haven't seen the film or read the book so don't spoil the book for me.
Mitchel Anhalt nothing is wrong with it. Just as I said, books of that period linger for pages on emotions and thoughts - there's less actual action. For a movie this is condensed into what actually happened, so it's closer to what we are used to nowadays :)
littlepanimausi Gotcha.
It's funny, actually, my grandmother introduced me to Charlotte Brontë at age nine and I put off reading Austen until my twenties because I thought Austen would be as dense as Brontë. Little did I know that Austen's works were easy summer reads in comparison! That's not to say I don't love Brontë, I absolutely do, it's just that Austen is a little more obvious in the points she's trying to make than Brontë and her works are, typically, shorter.
Emma is a bit easier to read I disliked Jane Austen till I read Emma because it eases you into the time period and gives you the idea Jane was trying to say something about the society she lived in at the time its not just a vapid romance
Aw man, you didn't even pick the GOOD Pride & Prejudice!
1995?
DemonmachinE How many adaptions were there?
Mitchel Anhalt Movies & mini series at least five that are straight adaptions and at least another 6 that places the characters and story in different time periods and/or cultures.
The 2005 version was incredible.
The 2005 version is so good though.
OMG! The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?!? RAGE QUIT!! The movie was rather boring and not at all representative of the book it is named after, imo. The BBC miniseries was much better, if you can suffer through the awful special effects.
+Pixxel Wizzard I agree. The BBC miniseries was great, the movie was a rather dull rendition and while I might argue whether the miniseries was better than the book, there's no arguing about the book being better than the movie - for people with an attention span longer than that of the smart phone generation that is.
+Pixxel Wizzard I highly enjoyed the movie... it was after written by Douglas Adams as a final compilation of the books that just like the narrator said, were meant to bring the best elements from each. If I had one complaint, it was the absence of the Resteraunt At The End Of The Universe and the inclusion of the John Malkovich scenes.
+Jeff Turner British humour performed by American actors for an American audience, reviewed by an American youtuber. However improved the greater story might have been by condensing the finer points of the books, the British cultural subtlety is lost in translation. Not so with the miniseries, but then again, the movie has a better reception in the US, rather than overseas in Europe, where people are more exposed to the culture of British humour. I would claim that the movie would in most reviews be preferred by American reviewers, and butchered by European reviewers, on account of the cultural differences in perception of humour.
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was a terrible, terrible movie.
quote: "Getting through all 5 books can feel like a bit of a chore".
Yes, but that's because the series gets worse with each book. The first one is still pretty good, which is what the movie is an adaptation of, not of the whole series.
Instead of this, I'd put "The Shining" on this list.
+Dennis E I agree 100%
I feel like putting Wrath of Kahn is kind of cheating. It's inspired by Moby Dick, along with a multitude of other things.
It takes tropes from Moby Dick but ultimately, it's not a clear enough translation to consider one an adaptation of another
You mention a lot of movies that are better than the book, however, worse than the tv series. You should really look up
Pride and Prejudice (1995)
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (1981)
The Count of Monte Cristo (1998)
These are some of my favorite series/mini series.
The 1998 version is horrible and poorly written, the script is extremely poorly prepared and poorly written. The Soviet version, The Prisoner of Château d'If (Uznik zamka If) is superior. The end of this version is better. Even the workplace romance of director Georgi Yungvald-Khilkevich with actress Nadira Mirzayeva that played Haydee is more interesting than the cliché romance in the film.The relationship between Georgi Yungvald-Khilkeviche and Nadira Mirzayeva shows that Alexandre Dumas was right about the end of the book.
czcams.com/video/MoEW96r4fnc/video.html
Garad Deparidue looks like a buffoon and does not resemble edmond in the novel, Edmond from the livor and the Soviet version is a mix of woland (master and margarita) and Raskonilkov (Crime and Punishiment). A sober man who is above society and shows the crimes of the elites, but ends up regretting it.
And the Soviet ersion does not end in a forced way. The director himself divorces his wife to marry the actress who played Haydee. Eternal love does not exist.
Aaaa dude really? Pride and Prejudice starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen? Their performance wasn't even to the knees to the one of Colin Firth, Jennifer Ehle and rest of that group.
What about the 1940 version with Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson? Definitive.
I love your stuff, but please be advised 'wan' and 'wane' are not interchangeable. Wan means pale or dissolute. Wane means to diminish. Sorry, but you do it a lot.
Oh, good. I worried I'd been pronouncing it wrong all this time. I suppose I could have looked it up in a dictionary. *promptly does so to double check* Yup, I'm good!
They're called 'comedy of manners."
a comedy that satirizes behavior in a particular social group, especially the upper classes. These are challenging if you don't understand the mores and pretensions of the historic era.
Pride and prejudice man?!?l! In the movie the girls were running around like 3 year-olds, no historical accuracy and love as it is an emotion, which is well depicted in the book, it also affects their actions, why on Earth would be any action in the movie itself, too? But the book shows the underlysing world inside those peoples minds that put those actions into move. And if you wanna see a good movie, than the BBX version that relies heavily on the book yet the actors do a great job playing out the characters that were so wittily portrayed...oh man...
It’s just his opinion bro
-The Mist
-Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption
-The Green Mile
Honestly, "Starship Troopers" is worthwhile in both forms.
As you mentioned, the movie satirized what the book put forth earnestly, but the *why* of the rationale of the book is just as interesting. Heinlein's underlying theory was that someone enlisting in public service (it wasn't exclusively military in nature - Rico simply looked down on those that didn't opt for military) would curb self-serving politicians by codifying "Service above Self".
Realistically, that would *never* work for the reasons shown in the movie, including the one woman who was doing her stint explicitly to qualify for a career as a politician, but the idea itself is interesting.
And I'm not sure if this was Heinlein's intent, but when I read the book (after having seen the movie), I thought the situation with the asteroid hitting Buenos Aires was kind of ambiguous in regards to whether it was legitimate or legitimate propaganda.
honestly i think the military did it to pump up the numbers and give society an enemy to fight. its just weird how an insect species that shits hot fire out its ass doesnt have 99% accuracy of hitting targets in orbit on their own planet, but can somehow navigate an asteroid out of their star system into ours and account for all the shit in space.
They weren't really an insect species, they just looked like insects to us. They were an alien species. For all we know their planet had tiny little bipedal mammals, and they thought we looked like bugs.
With Hitchhiker's everyone has a preferred medium. The radio show is my favourite .
If you think the horrendously miscast Keira Knightley movie version of P&P is better than the book, you lack cultural and contextual understanding of the book. Although as an American who has no exposure to the culture on which it is based, that much is hardly surprising. Edit to add: the scene you've chosen to represent as an improvement over the source material because it gives you chills is as ridiculous in a film set in that time period as a wristwatch in a film about George Washington would be. Such behaviour would literally never have happened in polite society at the time and for a director to make the scene look like that, with implied sexual tension, shows that he/she didn't understand the book either.
+Éadaoin Ishii (Kazeshimasou) Indeed. As much as I think it can't be made, I deeply enjoyed the BBC series, mini series made a good twenty years ago now. Much as it's diverges, I feel it so wonderfully traps the spirit of the writing.
+Éadaoin Ishii (Kazeshimasou) Further to your excellent points; I despise the 2005 film version of P&P. Lousy pacing IMHO, wastes time on style (eg, staring into a mirror, on a swing (IIRC)) whilst it's condensing a book into a film, chemistry between leads is poor. I also don't need it pointed out to me that Jane Bennet is shy, in fact, the whole "she's shy" line makes me cringe, cuts out too much of the actual story. Much prefer the book.
for real. im so tired of people hating on period novels/classics because they think its too "pomp". thats the time its set in. the language, mannerisms, and writing style are all bound to be different. theres gonna be flowery language and parts you think may go on too long. i think the main reason people love to hate on books like pride and prejudice or emma or sense and sensibility or (insert classic here) is because nowadays people are so obsessed with action only and are used to skipping all the development that books from that time had. they were slower for sure but it felt natural that darcy and elizabeth endes up together because of the character development and story progression. they didnt just flance at eachother one day and fall in love the next. thats the problem. most popular books/movies in contrast these days seem so terribly underdeveloped and lacking in comparisson. we should take a note from those novels. not comdence them down to an easily digestable movoe that loses its substance and (like the first commenter said) sense of what time period its actually in.
+Éadaoin Ishii (Kazeshimasou)
umm.. I'm pretty sure that the opening statements were meant as a disclaimer. That is to say, he is aware that he is being subjective about the subject. He's giving his opinions. Some of which someone will agree with, and some will disagree with.
For those of you who actually do like the book, and enjoy scify.. please try to check out Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Written by a friend of a friend. It is worthy of a single read at least.. and more funny if you've read the original P&P.
Not only because I'm a fan of Keira Knightly (even had an Austen name), I thought she was good in this movie and cast well. As for the proposal scene, there's something wrong with this guy (ADHD). He got it backward. He doesn't even compare the book to ALL the movie versions. Austen 'cut the fat' when she wrote the scene, what the movie did was cut the meat. He probably preferred the Gilligan's Island version of Hamlet.
Ahh. Was just thinking how much I like this guy and his videos, but this one hit a speedhump. He's smart, smart, smart, but he doesn't seem to get British culture at all. And he doesn't seem to get that it's *his* blindspot, not the Brits'.
+Shadow in a Cave That may very well be. I've never been to England (would love to, though).
Agree. Very poor knowledge of English literature. You don't need to come here to understand us. That said, his videos are great and show a sharp and intelligent mind so I will keep watching.
On Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, you make an unfair comparison. Or, should I say, a completely incorrect comparison.
The movie wasn't based on all 5 books, it was very clearly just using the 1st book.
I agree the later books in the series lose a lot of the original's charm. But compare the movie to the actual book it was based on, the 1st one, and the movie just pales in comparison. Partially because much of the writing defies actual visualization, and a lot of the humor gets lost in doing so. It wasn't a bad movie, but certainly didn't do the book full justice.
But more importantly, your complaint seems to stem on the book's sequels, which is *NOT* what the movie was based on. So it's, uh, erroneous. If they made movie sequels to HGthG, they'd probably suffer just as the books did.
Pride and prejudice is an amazing book.
There's a difference between something that is *based on* something vs something that is *adapted from* something. E.g. "The Lion King" is based on the story of "Hamlet". The 1996 "Hamlet" film starring Kenneth Branaugh is adapted from William Shakespeare's stageplay "Hamlet".
I find Hamlet very boring, but I sure appreciated Branagh's powerful acting and the awesomely long takes in the film. If felt like a play.
On Pride and Prejudice, as a fan of the novel and of the BBC miniseries with Jennifer Ehle, I did not see the movie. Simply put, I feel that the movie can not hold a candle to the list of..... insightful and biting commentary of Austen's time.
I appreciate there's differences and there is always going to be debate over classics, especially this one. The point of this is that people will argue and continue to argue over this, which is good news from my point of view. It means it's still worth talking about and just maybe, still relevant.
As for Starship Troopers. You're wrong, completely, utterly and profoundly wrong.
Yes, you can say some of Heinlein's work are obviously political, Starship Troopers mirrors the time it was written, a deep fear of the Reds/Communists, a pervasive feeling of survival against all odds. It needs to be said that these are political models are taken to some extreme lengths. The example given in the book that the difference between the two relates to numbers, is superficial. The depth of the philosophy behind is wonderfully presented. What it means that each cap trooper is a net loss to the Federation as the Bugs can just dial up the next half a dozen hatcheries, just to be sure.
You're also forgetting about Stranger in a Strange Land, a book all about how to grok your neighbour. Guess who the author is and when it published?
There's plenty to be said for this as well on Starship Troopers. There's alnost nothing to be said against it, in my mind. Assuming you're able to give the book credit and look beyond the obvious military themes, technology and thoughts. Heinlein's Federation is not fascist, not in spirit. Sure, the clues are not really touched on in great depth, but they are there. The book is ultimately about responsibility, responsibility of the state to look after it's people, all its people not just its citizens. It also asks that we accept that the state, as an entity has the right to ask that those who shape it's future, its citizens, have worked and acted in the interest of the state.
Verhoeven couldn't even reach the end of Starship Troopers and you think he's got a good idea of the nature of the book?
+There Be Game I agree with you sir.. that being said, don't take any one man's OPINION too seriously in life. Each of us is thrilled by different things. I LOVE Fritz Lang's Metropolis.... I don't know anyone else who does. I liked Prometheus... I don't know anyone else who does.
There will be things right and wrong with any novel.. and you will NEVER get a novel directly translated to film... it's simply not possible. So the entire subject matter of this VLOG post is inherently inflammatory.
Just be glad there are others who share your opinion. Peace.
+There Be Game As I have neither seen nor read Pride and Prejudice, I cannot comment on it.
What I can comment on however is Starship Troopers, a very good book and a wonderful film.
I would still say there are some differences between those two, since Heinlein did not seem to be satirizing the military regime and I must admit I found his point of view to be interesting. Not serving in the military wasn't problematic in his world, there were few limitations to your status, although you couldn't vote (or be voted? I hope I am not mixing that up).
The military is said to teach you morals, responsibility as you already mentioned and not about any excluding ideology. Everybody could serve, noone was rejected or discriminated against and they had allies that even were nonhuman. It made sense to me when I read it and I really liked it. Not because of the sci-fi, but because of its world, described by a rather simpleminded soldier (at least he comes across as one to me).
The film on the other hand was hilarious and so much fun. Obviously satirical, cynical and that blatant "patriotic" stuff they put in there, wonderful. I had fun all the way through. Book and film just do not have that much in common in my eyes, setting aside. And I dont actually want to compare them, since the film is a loose adaptation who changes a lot and is in a completely different genre.
As you said they are far too different to be compared. As an adaptation it sucked, but as a film it was a blast to me^^
Comparing them would be as fruitful as comparing "Pride & Prejudice" to "Pride & Prejudice & Zombies".
hey now, one can compare those two.
seriously though, I've poo poo'd SST the movie in this thread, but I would like it clear that this is only as a contrast to the book. I too enjoyed the movie. I was disappointed by what they left out, having read the book, but I had fun all the way through it.
+czechmate Luckily enough for me I watched the movie before reading the book, so it seemed like completely different stories and I can still enjoy both without thinking of the other^^
There Be Game: I only wish, I had followed your good example and skipped the 2005 soap opera version ... The memories will haunt me forever!
You really stretched to make The Wrath of Khan seem like it was based off of Moby Dick, didn't you? Starship Troopers is as faithful to the novel just as the Revenant is as faithful to the novel. Both are their own story with the same name tacked on.
Starship Troopers isnt trying to be faithful to the book. It's a lampoon of the book.
Also, anything is better than actual fascist propaganda
Your comparison of "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" is not done fairly. All that should be compared is the first book (the one titled "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy") to the movie (also titled "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy").
It's not even a close contest - the book is so much better than the movie that I feel sorry for anyone who only saw the movie and never read the book, so has no real idea of how funny Douglas Adams was given that the movie cut out most of the humour from the book.
Also the TV series in the 1980s was better.
@@drjulia6860 to be fair the TV remake reuses a lot of the principal cast from the radio show (though the actor who plays Ford is recast with a close facsimile, as well as Trillian being replaced with an American actress) so a lot of the original chemistry was retained.
Recasting Arthur Dent and the voice of The Book was always going to be awkward as the roles were very much written for those actors, so the film was always going to need to be changed quite a bit.
Maybe if Douglas Adams had lived longer the film may have been more consistently funny while remaining it's own thing seperate from the original version but equally it could have kept the project in development hell for even longer as the big studios inundated him with requests to make the film more marketable.
I wonder how many non-Austen book readers realize that nobody actually kisses at the end of any of the books lol
Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just that it is a very different expectation than we have of light romantic stories today.
I - LOVED - THE BOOK - The Count of Monte Cristo. One of my most favorite reading during my teenage years.
Just saying.
Holy hell, what Starship Troopers did you read?
I have Darcy’s proposal from the book memorized,, I can and will say it at any given time
I calmly and objectively submit that the 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is the gold standard and any piffle starring Keira Knightley is not fit to hold its coat.
The 1995 version is my favorite, but the 1980 version, while lacking in film quality, is also an excellent adaptation. Its tone is closer to the book in many ways and is well worth watching. The Knightley version, as you correctly point out, is abysmally bad.
I weirdly agree with your Pride and Prejudice pick. Not that I dislike the original book, but I feel like people are only viciously angry about the 2005 movie because it leaves and alters things. And it's like, what the hell else is an adaptation supposed to do? People say it wastes time on style, but capturing the beauty of the era through cinema is the right way to interpret the beauty of the language in the book. So I'll always like it.
Also, I've yet to read Starship Troopers, but I've always known it was significantly different than its book inspiration. Really fascinating to hear the differences between the two.
+Becky A - Read the book. He could not be more wrong about it if he tried. I have yet to read a book by Heinlein that was not good.
You can change and alter the book when making your adaptation without making it into something it satiring. when you hit that point, then you know you miss the point of the book completely
I'm a pooping unicorn Verhooven understood the point of the book. He just so happened to live through what its ideas can propagate.
What's funny about this list is that it could just as easily been titled "Books that were too long and/or complicated for me to comprehend"
I'd have to dig out my copy but from memory 'Starship Troopers' the book is thinner than the DVD case.
What's funny is you think your pretentious look down your nose at people you think as lesser than you opinion is worth anything other than the paper I wipe my ass with.
Spoilers: It isn't, and if i could i would wipe my ass with your face to get the point across.
The Count of monte-cristo is not a Disney story and worse than the author of the video, he doesn't know that there were no more swordfights in Europe. It looked more like a generic comedy movie.
I was reading about the Soviet view that the director left his wife to marry the actress who played Haydee and the audience is eager to get out of reality and believe that feelings never change. mainly women.
Remembering that the real Anna Karenina, Anna stepanovna Pirogova, was abandoned by her husband by a young German woman and therefore committed suicide.
Alexandre Dumas does not need to write a story with a forced ending.
czcams.com/video/MoEW96r4fnc/video.html
So. Obviously I'm a little late for the party but I couldn't pass by without leaving my 2cents. I enjoy your blog very much and share many of your opinions but on this we have to agree to disagree. I could leave it at that but I will try and advocate not only one but two of my favorite books:
I agree with many of the former comments that your view on P&P is skewed and I ask myself: why? Is it because your knowledge of the historical setting is too little? Or is it maybe because you are a man?
Because the central theme of the book is the dependence of women to men. I mean, it is there, in the very first sentence of the book! Without father, brother, husband they will literally be forced out of their home and all female characters in this book know this and try to secure their future and the future of their families.
Of course there is romance but the romance is on the back burner and is used to drive the point home: what are you as a woman willing to accept to secure a future? Are you going to be Charlotte? Or are you going to be Elisabeth and risk it all?
That said, I hate the movie. I hate it with a passion because the movie takes all this and throws it out of a window to concentrate on the romance and the f***ing male lead saving the day. And I hate it because the director can't be bothered and put a bonnet on Keira Knightlys head or give her an decent haircut. Ugh! Don't let me get started on the men and their pathetic attempt at Regency male attire! This whole thing is the perfect example for Hollywood taking an european classic and using it without understanding it.
Please, do yourself a favor and watch the BBC Miniseries of P&P. Then drop me a line and we can discuss the whole thing again.
Now, the next one: The count of Monte Christo. I've never read it in english so I have no clue how the translation handles Dumas' peculiar style of writing. In german and french it flows and captures your imagination because the descriptions give life to the Restauration Paris and the tumultuous Politics of the time. Again, is it because the historical circumstances are missing?
That said I do understand if it's just not your type of tea and there is nothing wrong with this. But saying the movie is better because it concentrates on one Aspekt and cuts everything superfluous out seems plain lazy to me. And if we have to pic a Count of Monte Christo Movie then it would be the one with Richard Chamberlain! ;-)
I would love to read from you!
Greetings from Germany!
Thank you so much. This was so cogently constructed and I thank you.
Soviet version:
czcams.com/video/MoEW96r4fnc/video.html
The Soviet version is the best.
The 1975 version is average.
Eternal love does not exist, Edmond loved Haydee. As the Soviet version shows this well.
The proof that eternal love does not exist the director of the film who was married divorces his wife to marry the actress who played Haydee. The 1975 film was forced.
The film does not have the genreic style of adventure like the 1975 version and without duels with a sword, but only a short story of dark revenge.
Omg I love how you put the hands thingy scene from Pride and Prejudice! I replay that bit again and again and again and so many P&P fans are shook Mr Darcy's hand clench too :O
Apparently you didn't read "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies," pure literary genius I tells ya.
... or The Count of Monte Cristo. Or Moby Dick, Or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, All excellent books... THGTTG the movie is just sad.
@coldcrashpictures
Your comparison of Hitchhikers, was quite unfair as you compared 5 books to 1 movie. Yes, books 3, 4, & 5 were not as good as book one, but the movie didn't cover those books.
Just because the 5 books get bound together as a collection doesn't mean you compare all 5 books to a movie that poorly covered one of those books.
Remind me not to watch any review that might cover the Lord of the Rings, I'd hate to have you tell me that the Fellowship of the Rings movie wasn't as good as the whole trilogy in print format.
Sorry, but the Hitchhikers Guide trough the Galaxy was a terrible Movie. In my opinion, the book was way better than the movie.
U are kidding the Hitchhikers guide TO the galaxy is great!
The TV version was better than the film. The only good thing was Alan Rickman as Marvin. The film Zaphod was awful.
finding your channel has been the best part of my day! binging your videos and blown away by how articulate, funny, and educated you are! thanks for being an ally!
Thanks for the praise! Glad you enjoy!
"You're welcome to disagree with me but you'd be wrong."
I am so gonna use this forever!!!!!
+coldcrashpictures
There is an issue I have with the final choice of Starship Troopers. Heinlein's ideal in how the government state in Starship Troopers worked, was not mandatory military involvement, but mandatory civil service in some form of government position. This included clerks, teaching, maintenance of utilities, or politics. Also, the screen writer for the movie honestly mentioned that he never fully read the book, just the first few pages.
They are indeed their own stories, and quite exclusive, but I'm not sure you got the jist of the book's ideals entirely. Heinlein focussed on both how societies can work, and how they can fail. It is by no means one of his greater works, and it is not as entertaining as, let's say, Moon is a harsh mistress; nor as thought provoking and controversial as Stranger in a strange land. Yet there is parts of it that you have to reconsider and reread. Heinlein may not have been happy with the state of government and where it was headed, but I wouldn't put him under a fascist or fully militaristic way of thinking. Most of the book actually was written in a way that placed war in a very negative light.(granted his later novels like Cat who walks through walls is where you see Heinlein just go into dementia).
Still agree that Starship Troopers the movie is a hilarious satire, but I wouldn't write off the book entirely because of perceptions of why or what you think the writer intended.
he's so wrong about the count of monte christo. the movie lacks all the intelligence that made the book so great. the point is not that he takes his revenge but how he does it he uses there own weaknesses against them to makes them destroy themselves.
Starship Troopers would have been so much cooler if Verhoeven had invested some money in representing the armored fighting powered suits, featured in the novel. Still loved the movie anyway.
An ante-script kudo: I love your channel; you do a fantastic job. Which is why when I hear you say, "there are no subjective measurements," it makes me perk up. One that springs immediately to mind is the measurement of time between two individuals moving at separate velocities. As one approaches the speed of light, the observer measures the passage of time differently from that of an observer not moving the same way. Hence, subjective measurement. Keep up the great work, though!
Hitchhikers movie better than the book? Ok your a little insane
Agreed on absolutely everything except Hitchhiker's Guide. Douglas Adams' work is amazing and a treat to read.
Anne Rice's work, however, is an utter slog to get through.
Fight Club. I love Chuck Palahniuk's books, but the film adaptation of Fight Club far outdoes the novel.
I'll agree that the 2005 P&P was one of the best film adaptations of classical literature to date. But the book remains a masterpiece. It's somehow held up in relateable wit and societal commentary over the past 200 years with no signs of stopping.
I hate to add to the hate. Truly, I do. But when you come after the Pride and Prejudice novel and commend the movie, we are going to have a problem. And I know I know I know it’s opinion, but also it’s kinda not? It’s okay for Pride and Prejudice to not be your thing, but to say that the movie is better just proves that you don’t understand it at all. The book is about psychology. It’s about how characters learn to grow and not rely on first impressions. It’s about a guy who gets called on his rich bullshit and a girl who gets called on being judgmental. The amazing thing about the book is that you can see Elizabeth and Darcy change through their thoughts and emotions. You can see the deep theme that first impressions are no accurate, especially when both parties rely on both pride and prejudice. The movie has none of that. The movie is a dumb romance that relies on its scenery and acting to tell us they are in love instead of explaining it. I recently read an annotated version of the book and looking at how deep their motivations lie truly shows how wonderfully constructed it is. To say that a typical period piece movie is better than that is an insult.
Stephen King's "The Myst" should have been on here. Movie blew it away.
+Pixxel Wizzard I haven't read the book. I often find myself disapointed by King's writing, while I love most of his film adaptations. I just think his stuff works better as a visual experience....
Great movie though. Highly underrated by the public and exactly what a horror film should be... not about the monsters... or the death.. about the humans and how they remain human in the face of the horror.. that is what entertains me. That's why Walking Dead simply holds no more interest for me. They just can't do it as well as the comics the show is based off of.
+Pixxel Wizzard I agree It was a great film. Frank Darabont did a fantastic job on that film.
+Pixxel Wizzard Yeah, I didn't notice it was a steven king work when I decided to watch it on netflix a few months ago. So, I was shocked when it had a good ending and found out it was s. king. Usually his movies start with an interesting plot/premise and then... I mean, it's worse than M. Night twists. I don't know what word/phrase is appropriate. But this movie actually stayed good and didn't make you hate it when the ending destroyed everything leading up to it and ruin the entire thing in hindsight. The Mist is his best movie that I can think of...er... of which I can recall.
+Mason DeRoss The movie's ending was very different and far better than the story's, which is one of the reasons I suggested it should be on this list.
czechmate The quality of the Walking Dead has been on an increasingly downward spiral ever since they fired Frank Darabont and Gale Ann Hurd has been free to use the series as a vehicle for her pro feminist and gay agendas.
I get what you're saying about Hitchhiker. The movie was much more tenable than the book. For one, the Trillian character may have been more edgy and bad ass in the novel but she was much more realistic in the movie without necessarily sacrificing the edginess. In the novel I don't think she cared at all that her homeworld had been blown up. Cool, yes, but not very realistic.
Absolutely love Pride & Prejudice. It has one of my favourite movie moments of all time. In the church, when she looks to him, he looks up and BOOM cut. So quick, so intense, love it.
And everybody I know dislikes Hitchhiker's Guide the movie, but I also think it's great!
Personally my number 1 pick for this topic would be Gone Girl. Great book, amazing movie.
As far as I can tell, this video is not only wrong but dead wrong, egregiously.
The only case I have found where the movie was better than its source material is Jaws. The book by Benchley is mostly about Brody's wife having an affair with the marine biologist. Spielberg removed that plot altogether and made the story a great creature feature. If you want to read a better version of Jaws in novel form try The Trench by Steven Alten.
If that's what the book is about why did he call it Jaws? Shouldn't he have called it Lips?
I would say the Shining. I enjoyed the book, but Kubrick cut the fat and took it next level.
I know some people will disagree, but I think Bram Stoker´s Dracula movie was way better than the novel. The Novel is written in form of a diary or notes in first person, which I found really annoying and continuously cut the pace of the novel. I find that the movie got the original message of novel right and in a better and romantic way. Considering they had a very low budget, Ford Coppola pulled a very good movie with good performances.
damn I just found your channel but your stuff is pretty legit. Hope you're still doing these vlogs.
I'm a huge reader and "the book was better" is one of my favorite lines, so seeing your views was interesting. I don't agree with all of your choices (ahem, HG2G, ahem), but am right there with you on Starship Troopers. I saw the movie before reading the book, and one of my friends went on a rant about how they ruined one of his favorites books. I finally got around to reading the book, and hated it, for pretty much the reasons you listed.
I would like to add one of my favorite examples of movies that were better than the books: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Don't bother with the book. It is written as if the subject is serious. The movie, however, takes a ridiculous topic and makes a ridiculous and fun movie. It's not perfect, but it's so much better than the dour slog-fest that was the book.
Ready Player One. Not that the film is good, but the book is just that much worse.
The film was enjoyable I think. It's not oscar worthy obviously, but enjoyable (and honestly, the last challenge in the movie is a lot more meaningful than reciting Monty Python and the Holy Grail verbatim). You should watch Quinton Reviews video on the book.
I read the Count of Monte Cristo Abridged (about 600-800 pages still) for school last year and it is my favorite book that any of my honors English classes have made me read. Probably my favorite book period, actually.
I'm a simple woman: I see Keira Knightly, I click
I was hoping Starship Troopers would be on this list. I would also include Inkheart, which trimmed a lot of fat from the book and took a lot of focus away from Meggie, who was something of a main character in the book, but didn't do anything until the climax.
hey you do fanfictions too?
STARSHIP TROOPERS??? Are you F**KING KIDDING ME??? Well, this is definitely YOUR opinion, because in MY opinion, that movie was one of the BIGGEST crimes against it's literary source ever in history. The book inspired me, the movie gagged me and sickened me to the core, mainly because it was one of my FAVORITE books and I could not WAIT for it to come out and when it finally did, the ONLY resemblance it had was the names of the characters. The movie was a travesty.
I can understand the part about the action and "trimming the fat" in The Count of Montecristo, since I struggled reading through quite a few parts myself. But I can't forgive the filmmakers essential changes in the resolution, which affect the story's outlook on life, love, justice and revenge. I remember feeling cheated after the movie ended, and thinking that if they wanted to do something so different they should have written another script.
I love StarShip Troopers, the movie. That’s all. Just love and now that I know the subtext, I love it even more. Great list!
So in short.......... Reading is beyond you.
Star Ship Troopers was a great and fun movie, but cannot compare to the book. It's the only piece of Literature that I know of that can make pacifist hippies want to join the army :-)
Next thing you're gonna tell us that the Road, the novel, had too negative of an ending.
Making pacifists want to join the military is a bad thing actually
That makes the book sound like propaganda.
@@CayeDaws I wouldn't call it propaganda exactly, but it definitely does promote a certain point of view and morality.
Now it's a very enjoyable book, well written and I would recommend reading it, even if I personally identify more politically with Verhoeven, but part of why I would recommend it is for the different point of view.
I've watched several of your videos, and while I agree and disagree with some of your points. I thoroughly enjoy listening to you make them in a well thought out concise way. You sir, have earned a subscriber.
"Klendathu Drop" One of my favorite pieces of film score. Brilliantly epic. Also one of my favorite films. Verhoven is brilliant!
You lost me with Count of Monte Cristo and Starship Troopers!
+Paul Tenorio I re-read "The Count of Monte Cristo" last month and it's MUCH better than I remember it. I should probbly go back and re-read "Starship Troopers," too.
Uuhhhhh. I'll stick with the movie Starship Troopers over the source material: actual fascist propaganda
Is that Gilmore Girls I see on you top shelf?
Yes indeedy, good catch!
I’d also include “Jaws” and “The Godfather” in this list. If you want to make it a top 10, as humans are wont to do, maybe include “Fight Club” and “The Shawshank Redemption.”
Jaws was WAY better as a movie. Practically everyone in the book was an unsympathetic douchenozzle. Reading the book I was quite pissed the the shark didn't just eat them all.
I saw Starship Troopers again just the other day. Awesome! It was fun to see this video essay in that context. You are, of course, wrong about P&P. Yes, the visuals are superb. I rewatch it every year, just for that scene at the Netherfield ball, but the novel...its cruelty never comes across in the film.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (from Who Censored Roger Rabbit). The rather thin book nevertheless outstays the welcome for the basic gag of living 'toons, and has an utterly preposterous conclusion. The film does everything much better, even aside from the animation-buff delights like putting Daffy and Donald Duck in a scene together.
Did you understand the message behind the book? I don't think you did of you think it is just a gag or some shit
"Blade Runner" should have been on this list... it was way better than the book it was based on: "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"
+Ofir K-rad Haven't read it. Not YET.
+coldcrashpictures You should check it out. It's my personal opinion, tho :)
+Ofir K-rad Ditto. The book was great, but can't hold a candle to the movie.
+Ofir K-rad I agree 100%
I disagree, since the movie just takes a bit of the novel's ideas, but then expands on visuals and metaphors. I personally really like the movie, for what it is, a movie, and the book, for being a great book. In this case you compare two extremely different things and never understate Dick. That is Philip K. Dick.... or his dick.
I agree with most of your points here. I'm baffled, though, that anyone could watch Starship Troopers and not understand that it's satire. It's so blatantly obvious. I will admit, though, that I absolutely love the book, it's my favourite Heinlein novel, and I read it almost every year. (Not like it takes long to read.) I view the two things as completely different stories, that just happen to have the same name and similar themes and characters. That way, I can enjoy each on it's own merits.
I know this is an old video. But man that basil Poledouris score is so epic in Starship Troopers.
Enough invention in that one OST for 5 current movie scores.
When it comes to Pride and Prejudice my recommendation is that you listen to the audiobook. It brings the story to life for the modern reader and emphasizes the humor and relatability.
With you up to the point of Starship Troopers, which I really must disagree with. The movie was plodding, plot-hole-y military schmaltz, stitched together in haphazard form but with the addition of pretty Hollywood-ized "teenagers" (gotta love inappropriate Dawson casting). Oh, and boobs. Because what would a Verhoeven movie be without gratuitous nudity?
Also, no powered armor. And no explanation of how exactly these ground-clogging bugs managed to harness and fling an asteroid across interstellar distances to whack Earth. (Which, to be fair to Verhoeven, didn't exist in the novel either, but you could rationalize it as taking place offscreen and that the bugs had something resembling high-tech just offscreen. The movie, not so much.)
Heinlein's got his flaws as a writer, I'll freely admit -- and you've highlighted at least a few in this vlog. But the novel was still vastly superior to Verhoeven's schlockfest. (Although at least the movie gave me a decent point of reference when I'm trying to tell people about Edge of Tomorrow -- "It's like Groundhog Day meets Starship Troopers -- but actually good! And there's powered armor.")
+Mark DeVries Well, it isn't really a stretch in the book, since the books "bugs" were actually a high-tech civilization, more advanced than humans at the time they met. The movie bugs were just... bugs. In any case, since the "franchise" was stuck on the movie as an afterthought - apparently, Voerhoeven never read the book, and only got the ST rights rather late in production. Basically, he only managed to change the names, really. It's kind of weird comparing it to a book that was never even an inspiration to the movie...
+Mark DeVries Buenos Aries was destroyed by the bugs in the early parts of the Starship Troopers novel.
To your point about the bugs ability to fling an asteroid to earth being unexplained, maybe that's the point, that it was impossible for them to do it, being on the other side of the Galaxy, maybe it's suggesting the government made it up and the asteroid was just a rouge one with no connection to the bugs and the military just said that it was. So they could drum up hate towards the bugs and bring more people into the army to thin the weak out through the mass deaths stemming from using infantry against armies of 7 foot bugs, to further the fascist regimes ideology. Also at the start there's the propaganda piece about earth having planter my defences that destroy asteroids yet it didn't get shot down, so that shows they might of let it through intentionally.
+At The Phrygian Lion I guess I'll have to disagree on the no explanation.
More like implied explanation, if you can recall the line 'dumb races don't build starships.'
So if we can take it that the Bugs do have actual starships, then it's not that hard to get an asteroid, tow it to the right place and point and let go, then things get interesting and math heavy.
Mass has a whole quality all of its own, with a little bit of speed, relatively speaking.
+Mark DeVries Well the genderless bathrooms and shower rooms were actually a pretty important social statement. and what better way to shove it into a bunch of scify fan's brains than with a good boob shot.
but yeah.. I can't forgive Verhoeven for turning the "marines" (can't even in good conscience capitolize that) into a high school football team; removing every interesting tech that Heinlein had envisioned; and removing the slave species skinnies, from the movie. The fact that Heinlein was even talking about rail guns (moon is a harsh mistress), and human augmenting battle armor in 1959, is important to anyone who loves scify. One should know where one's roots come from.. when some idiot spouts out about how someone stole some idea from another story, and are completely oblivious to the fact that someone like Bradberry was writting about it 60 years before the movie producer was even born... well it just makes me sad.
Okay I actually agree with you about Pride and Prejudice! And that scene where he touches her hand and then the close-up shot of him flexing his hand as he walks away is brilliant. It's such a small scene but it conveys so much emotion just in that hand movement. And you need that because it's the Regency era so Darcy's not going to be talking about how much he likes Elizabeth or flirting with her. The director needed to SHOW US Darcy's feelings and that one close-up of his hand demonstrates what he feels for her perfectly.
You are always a delight to watch and listen to. Thank you
Thank you!
Starship Troopers a bad novel? ...it was prophetic in the evolution of warfare. And unless you've been in the military there's a host of things from the book you wouldn't notice. Additionally, Isreal is a modern country with a decently free media, compulsory military service and it manages to stand while surrounded by enemies. Fascism is bad but militarism does not equal fascism.
You also completely misrepresent the character of Heinlein by not mentioning the quintessential 60s novel Stranger in a Strange Land which came out barely 2 years after Starship Troopers.
+JayneCobb88 It's just his opinion... I disagree with it too.. but it's just a young man's opinion.. not realy something to get worked up about.
JayneCobb88
Also, in the novels, it was federal service that was required to become enfranchised. Heinlein had stated unequivocally that military service was not the only method, just the most common and accessible (as other methods, such as being a teacher or whatever were highly sought after).
I liked "Starship Troopers" the movie but I also liked Heinlen's book. Let's not make the mistake that one has a whole lot to do with the other. "Starship Troopers" the movie is as much an adaptation of the book as "The Bourne Identity" is an adaptation of Ludlum's novel. The movies took the barest plot details and wrote completely different stories.
Sounds to me that unlike Heinlein, Verhoeven actually lived in the real world. Heinlein had never experienced the real consequences of militarism.
I know this video was uploaded 3 years ago but I've been binge watching your videos on random and I CANT SEEM TO ALTER MY ATTRNTION TO YOUR EYES ITS SUPER NICE WITH THAT THING WHERE YOU SQUINTS AND IT FORMS A CREASE?
Might sound a bit weird but still, that's some good eyes
Interview with a Vampire only has one problem: Tom Cruise.
I'm sorry, but Verhoven completely fucked over Heinleins classic novel and the movie is a complete pile of Horsepucky that deserves the same fate as The Star Wars Holiday Special and Verhoven deserves 10 lashes in Public Square for it.
Wow,that movie is so decisive!
P&P and HHGttG both got shafted.
Regarding Pride & Prejudice: The film lost much of its potential humor by having Elizabeth look pensive and giggle every scene rather than say the witty thing that Austen wrote in the book. Much of the humor in the book comes from the narrator's observations, and we need Elizabeth, as our protagonist, to supply it.
Regarding Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: They cut out literally half of the jokes. What I mean by that is that they provided the set ups & then cut out the punch lines. Throughout the film I was thinking, "What the hell! Where's the rest of the joke?"
Neither film was able to capture the books' humor. Both novels have miniseries that are vastly superior to the movie remakes.
totally agree, Knightely's Elizabeth was a terrible rendition and made her seem childish and petulant rather than forthright and discerning
Jane Austen is an author who is all about sly sarcasm and comedic takedowns of her society. If you're there solely for the feelings or romance... you're missing the point of most of her writing--with the exception of Persuasion which was where Austen dipped her toes into early Romanticism.