The book was SO much better
The movie was just pure cheesy cringe.
share🙄
share
MovieChat Forums > The Running Man (1987) Discussion > The book was SO much better
All books are better than the film. I enjoyed this and still do. Yes, it has lots of cheesy 80's action parts, but it's still a fun action Arnold flick. It's also better than the more modern copy The Hunger Games.
shareI agree with the TC. I read most of the book and it would make a good serious dramatic movie. I am a fan of Arnold though this movie was never a favorite of mine. Also I'd beg to differ, howsgamer. Most books are better than the movies but not Forrest Gump. Forrest Gump is probably one of the silliest badly written books I ever read. Makes the movie look like a historical documentary by comparison. I enjoy the book but only in a so bad it's good way. I love Forrest Gump the movie but the book is not very good.
shareGreenGoblinsOck8 is, I think, right: most books are better than their films, but on occasion, that's not the case. I personally prefer Stardust the film to the original book. The Godfather is a superlative film, and a great book, but the first two films are better. The Maltese Falcon is another one, as is the other big, bad Bogie noir - The Big Sleep.
Plenty of examples right there; there are others, I'm sure.
And the original book which was written by Robert Sheckly and named "The Prize of Peril" is even better than the Steven King book. King admitted that he practically plagiarized Sheckly's work. I believe that he said that he wanted to write his own version of Sheckly's work.
shareI LIKE BOTH...THE MOVIE IS PART OF ME THOUGH...RUNNING MAN FOREVER!
shareI like the movie, but totally agree. I love the short story.
share