Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

bret easton ellis books vs movies

  • 08-03-2008 10:56pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,820 ✭✭✭


    it has been widely accepted that the books written by bret easton ellis (the rules of attraction, american psycho, less than zero etc) are better than the movie adaptations of his books. can anyone give any reasons why, in their opinion, this is? and on a second note,it has been announced recently that there is to be a movie adaptation of his latest and most out there book "lunar park" does anyone have ANY ideas how this movie could break the easton ellis curse?


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 329 ✭✭Angus MacGyver


    I think particularly with American Psycho that the book was so graphic that it couldnt be replicated on film (thats to say no studio would touch it). While the film narration tried to show what a mentalist he was i think they could have pushed a bit more.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,841 ✭✭✭Running Bing


    I think particularly with American Psycho that the book was so graphic that it couldnt be replicated on film (thats to say no studio would touch it). While the film narration tried to show what a mentalist he was i think they could have pushed a bit more.

    For me American Psycho was a sublime book and film.


    The film captured the tone, satire and black humour of the book perfectly for me. Bale did an incredible job as Bateman, Harrons direction was right on the money and the supporting cast was spot on.


    Also captured the surreal, dream like feeling of the book.

    Havent read or seen any of the others but I definately thought American psycho the film was on par with the book.


    I thought that is the way the majority felt, but if you are looking for a reason why the books are held in higher regard I would say thats the way it is for 99% of adaptations. Even the with the godfather I find a lot of people who still think the book is better! The only film I can think of that is universally seen as better than the book is fight club.

    Personally I think the reason for this is the people who love reading and read all the time are naturally gonna say the book is better and the people who never read but decide to read a book are more likely to say the book is better because of all the effort they put in. That might be well wide of the mark but its just my personal opinion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,080 ✭✭✭✭Tusky


    I actually enjoyed the film of American Psycho more than the book. While the book had some great gory scenes that were unfortunately left out of the film, I felt it was overlong. I thought it would have made a great short novel (250 odd pages) but its about 400 pages and seems to repeat itself a lot. Both are great though.

    I also really enjoyed The Rules of Attraction although the book is probably better. Films rarely live up to books.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,788 ✭✭✭ztoical


    Babybing wrote: »
    For me American Psycho was a sublime book and film.

    The film captured the tone, satire and black humour of the book perfectly for me. Bale did an incredible job as Bateman, Harrons direction was right on the money and the supporting cast was spot on.


    + 1 American Psycho is one of my fav books that I've read and reread so many times I've lost count and I thought the film did capture the book. The thing about American Psycho [and alot of Ellis other books] is that people who haven't read the book hear something about it and judge on that - with American Psycho people heard about the violent side/extreme graphic nature of it and went to see the film because of that but anyone whose read the book knows the focus isn't on how violent Bateman is but on his whole state of mind and how he is is just as focused on how good his business card looks or more importantly how much it cost as he is on killing people - the books focus is on materialistic things and how empty their lives actually are
    - page after page of the book spent describing a piece of clothing and constant confusion among the characters as to who is who as no one really knows each other even thou they all work together and travel within the same social circles. The book moves from Bateman describing the buttons on someones suit to his thoughts on gutting some women without missing a beat, Bateman admits to torturing and killing people to his friends and no one notices and of course the end of the book leaves it very open as to wither any of violence had actually taken place or it it was all in his head. I actually found the scenes were he was describing what people where wearing or what they were eating far more disturbing then any of the extremely violent scenes

    I thought Mary Harron did a great job as it would have been so easy to focus on the more graphic and sensational scenes in the book but I think they captured the true feeling of the book and Bale is spot on as Patrick Bateman. His voice even sounds like the voice I heard in my head when reading the book.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    American Psycho is one of my favourite films so naturally I looked up the book. To me the book read kind of like an extended edition of the film. I can see why much was left out
    the rat tube and cheese scene was particularly nasty
    , also the long descriptive sections of songs/clothing would probably bother most cinema audiences. The book is near perfect for what it is, but to do a complete film adaptation would make for one of the longest films ever (not to mention one of the most expensive!)

    Rules Of Attraction: Loved the film, a good friend intends to loan me the book soon. I'm told the book is better overall so heres hoping.

    Lunar Park is one of the best pieces of literature Ive had the pleasure to read. Never before have I been so gripped by a book.To be honest there is so much going on in it I cant see any film recreating it without dropping certain plot strands, which would be a shame. We'll have to see how this one pans out.
    For the completist, Lunar Park is available on audio CD narrated by none other than James Van Der Beek! :eek: (now theres an Easton Ellis reference)


    On a side note, I once had to do a presentation on a film for college. I did American Psycho. After two weeks of studying the film intensely I came in dressed like Bateman, walked talked and acted like him... Oh how my class mates were scared. None so more than my house mates who one night returned from the local night club at half three in the morning to find me in the living room wearing a suit watching American Psycho, drinking J&B. I also left numerous people disturbing voicemails in the middle of the night.

    ....no wonder no one came to my birthday...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,820 ✭✭✭grames_bond


    ztoical wrote: »
    +
    -constant confusion among the characters as to who is who as no one really knows each other even thou they all work together and travel within the same social circles. Bateman admits to torturing and killing people to his friends and no one notices
    .

    i agree, and the same way that in the book characters names change
    tim....price....brice, and the more noticable paul allen/paul owen
    which doesnt happen in the movie
    Galvasean wrote: »
    For the completist, Lunar Park is available on audio CD narrated by none other than James Van Der Beek! :eek: (now theres an Easton Ellis reference)...

    another easton ellis refernce the director of rules of attraction, roger avery, has the exclusive rights to ellis' other novel glamorama (ellis LOVED the movie
    adaptation of rules) now as long as he doesnt go down for manslaughter thatll be great!


  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    I must say I really liked Rules as an adaptation. It really sucked me in, and though different from the book (fantastic book) still stuck with me. I thought it captured the book very well.
    As for American Psycho.
    There was something of the soulless quality, the posturing masculinity of Bateman that was captured in American Psycho the movie really well, but by and large I would skip the movie and always go for the book on that one. I must say I inhaled Lunar Park and like the idea but cant really think how they are going to frame this book in a stable movie format. But if anyone can do it, its the guy who did Rules.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,592 ✭✭✭✭Dont be at yourself


    Rules of Attraction remains the only film that I've ever walked out of.

    Love American Psycho though.


  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Really? Walked out? Because you hated the adaptation so much? I definitely knew in watching it that it would be a point for BEE fans to argue over for years. I really liked the way they framed the mood and worked the story. My biggest problem is why did they move it to a nineties setting?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Rules of Attraction remains the only film that I've ever walked out of.

    Really, you hated it that much? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,820 ✭✭✭grames_bond


    My biggest problem is why did they move it to a nineties setting?

    yeah im the exact same, i mean they had the patrick bateman references in it
    the tie he thinks about using to hang himself was givin to him by patrick, supposedly on his 21st birthday
    i think roger avery would be great if he took on lunar park but id hope he wouldnt change it as much as he did rules (only read this if you have read the book AND seen the movie)
    in the book he is with lauren for a while, even gets her pregnant and is engaged to her, whereas in the movie they never even get together iirc
    which i found kind of annoying!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭cashback


    Read Rules of Attraction few years ago and loved it. Then saw the film a year later and hated it. Apart from that sequence with the guy travelling the world which was great.

    Started Lunar Park quite a while ago but having trouble getting into it. Keep putting it down and forgetting about it.


  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    The other good scene was set to Colours by Donovan, when Bateman and yer wan, short hair, unfortunate loss of virginity story, were both getting up for that lecture, and at the culmination the split screen turns back to a single picture. OK its been done before, but the scene was a well put together one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    The Rules film was set in the 90s for two reasons.
    1) so kids would enjoy the contemporary soundtrack
    2) to keep the budget down. Part of the reason why American Psycho's budget skyrocketed was because they insisted in making it as 80s authentic as possible. 80s Armani suits are not cheap! :cool:


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,106 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    I've read most of his books and enjoyed them, and I have to admit that I think the books are superior. American Psycho was a very good film, but it was never going to be able to compete with the book - graphic
    hell, there are passages in the book describing Bateman's habit of keeping severed vaginas in his gym locker, or an extended sequence in which he forces a section of piping up one of his female victims and then forces some sort of mutated rat to crawl up inside her
    . They were never going to be allowed to match that sort of disgustingly depraved violence on-screen, and since it's so integral to the story the book remains my preferred version.

    That being said though, both Lunar Park and Glamorama are going to need some serious directorial skill to stay on anything like equal footing with the books. Glamorama in particular employs a lot of strange tricks to make you question the narrator's sanity which won't easily translate to film -
    such as the various scenes towards the end where he talks about entire sequences of events as if they are scenes in a film, up to describing the lighting and camera work
    . And Lunar Park could easily come across as being a second-rate thriller, since the book intentionally apes the style of Stephen King's supernatural works for part of its plotline.

    I'm cautiously optimistic; hopefully the blip that was the American Psycho sequel has been left behind and directors will get back to adapting Easton-Ellis' original works rather than trying to make up crappy sequels to them...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    American Psycho2 has been stricken from the record. It no longer exists.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,921 ✭✭✭✭Pigman II


    Having just finished watching Less Than Zero this morning I can safely say that in at least two cases adaptations of his books are far superior to his own writing.

    His books are garbage.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Where did you find Less Than Zero? Im having trouble finding a copy


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,921 ✭✭✭✭Pigman II


    Amazon have it for peanuts right now.
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Less-Than-Zero-Andrew-McCarthy/dp/B0000AE798/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1205605286&sr=1-1

    It's the first such movie I've seen where Robert Downey Jr wasn't insufferable! Andrew McCarthy is his usual turd-like self however.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,820 ✭✭✭grames_bond


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Where did you find Less Than Zero? Im having trouble finding a copy

    waterstones have it, they have them all! most big book stores now have them because they have all been rereleased!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    The DVDs?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,820 ✭✭✭grames_bond


    Galvasean wrote: »
    The DVDs?

    no sorry i thaught you meant the books! (less than zero cant really be discussed here tho as the book and the movie are NOTHING alike)

    but i kno you cant get the dvd....but the audio books are in....van der beek/lunar park, what could go wrong!?


  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    They cast Van Der Beek in Lunar Park?
    But... Ellis is ould in Lunar Park. Or is he the Patrick Bateman character? Weird.
    Loved Lunar park. Will love the movie.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    No no no, Van Der Beek narrates the Lunar Park audio book. :cool:
    Must pick that up!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,820 ✭✭✭grames_bond


    They cast Van Der Beek in Lunar Park?
    But... Ellis is ould in Lunar Park. Or is he the Patrick Bateman character? Weird.
    Loved Lunar park. Will love the movie.

    rumour has it they are planning on approaching christian bale to play clayton/bateman in the lunar park movie! while it would be savage, itll never happen, they asked him to play patrick in rules of attraction but he turned it down (they also asked bret, but he said that was the tackiest stupidest idea ever)


Advertisement