[Meerax]

Any movie (or generally any artistic creation) can change the audience. But Snakes on a Plane might not hit the same as say The Wages of Fear.

Wikis for those not familiar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wages_of_Fear https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_on_a_Plane

[newaccount7g]

Snakes on Plane genuinely changed people’s lives more than Wages of Fear because it showed people the potential of making dumb jokes big. Wages of Fear was basically the same moralizing people get every day. Movies have a self referential quality that makes them more intellectually engaging than mere novels.

[Ludleth19]

>Movies have a self referential quality that makes them more intellectually engaging than mere novels.

This was written by someone who hasn't seriously engaged in reading novels lol

Novels have been doing this sort of thing on a pretty deep level since basically their inception, and in more modern contexts no movie could replicate something like Pale Fire or Gravity's Rainbow for example. Self-referentiality is also a pretty boring trick after awhile, self-awareness and referentiality are very juvenile creative traits that often (not always) are seeking some sort of pat on the back for the mere act of referentiality itself.

These things should be starting points, not the focus of an entire work unless there's a broader point to be made. Fredric Jameson has written a great deal about this sort of thing, it's basically the default position of culture in a lot of ways now, there's nothing inherently exciting about it.

This isn't to say one medium is superior to the other or anything, I just find it to be a very weird critique of "mere" novels when self-referentiality goes way deeper there, the only things I can really think of that come close are 8 1/2 or maybe some of Charlie Kaufman's work like Adaptation.

[Waterluvian]

Snakes on a Plane is, allegorically, a retelling of The Odyssey. (Drugs recommended)

[pstuart]

Wages of Fear now added to my "one of these days" list. Thank you!

[gumby]

In general you're better off reading the book when the film is just an adaptation, as the book can give more context, inner dialogue etc than a film can, simply due to the medium.

There are of course exceptions. Famously, Palahniuk has said the Fight Club film captured his intent better than his novel did. I also think film of The English Patient, which covers only a tiny section of what I consider a forgettable novel, is quite good, but even if you disagree I think almost anyone would say the film is better. And of course plenty of films aren't novel adaptations.

Regardless, if you're looking for a "story that could change my life" you're likely to get much more from the text than the adaptation. The strengths and weaknesses of the two media are just too different.

[wfleming]

Sorcerer (1977) directed by William Friedkin (known for The Exorcist and The French Connection) is adapted from the same novel and is also great.

[jncfhnb]

These two films are completely dissimilar in their ambitions and the distinction between them has nothing to do with the merits of “a classic”

[puppymaster]

Snakes on the plane is a classic and I will fight anyone who says otherwise!

[late2part]

Look at Mr. Movie Critic here - next you'll tell me there's no moral lesson in Pulp Fiction?