The official online community of New York Times best-selling author Ted Dekker.

What do you think about Thr3e's movie?

Wasn't THAT good, on my opinion, if you compare it with the book.
But it's SO MUCH BETTER than House's movie.
What do YOU think?

Tags: dekker, jessica, kevin, samantha, slater, ted, thr3e, three

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JuaniBPS on October 4, 2009 at 8:20pm: what the? i don't care what was ted's intention, i care about the book, what I 've read, because it is what he wrote. House was better made? Arguments, please! Where did you see that ending? What happened with half the book? One hour and twenty minutes are not enough for House, they should have done it longer, maybe 20 minutes, and do it RIGHT. you can't say it's superior just because you liked it. you've gotta be objective. Even officer Lawdale, the second man, that never appeared. The ONLY thing that was added and i actually enjoyed was Randy's past. The rest.. Jack and Leslie's kiss was cut off, you realize it is supernatural in minute 15, and in the book you do after you've read 200 pages.. it wasn't a good adaptation, you've GOT to realize.

Warrior 4 Jesus said:
For one, House was better made. Yes, there were differences, some were chosen by the powers that be but others were Ted Dekker's original intention for the book. You didn't know that? Neither is a great movie but House is definitely superior.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Warrior 4 Jesus on October 4, 2009 at 8:47pm: It was better filmed, slightly better acted, the music was better, the script was less convoluted.
House the book was okay but nothing special. I enjoyed some elements of the book better and some parts of the movie. No one can be truly objective. I'm not saying House is better just because I enjoyed it more but for the above reasons. House was a decent book made into a decent movie, Thr3e was a brilliant book made into a mediocre movie (I didn't feel any tension, whereas House wasn't as dark or violent as the book but felt very intense). Yes, I wish some parts were included and it were longer but the ending was one of the parts I really enjoyed more than the book.
I'm not sure you understand the process of making a book into a movie. Changes have to be made. Unfortunately some changes Ted couldn't make and others he made because that's the way he first intended it (Ted himself has said these things).; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by JuaniBPS on October 4, 2009 at 9:09pm: sorry, but i really don't care about the music or how it was filmed, i mean, both were filmed equally, the thing is House's wasn't a good adaptation.
i think you're the one who doesn't understand how to make a good movie based on a good book. they took the characters, the place and 20% of the plot! that wasn't House, as we all know it.
you enjoyed the ending? i can't say i'm surprised because you're not the only one who said that, but WHY? I respect your opinion but c'mon, the book's end was far better than the movie's... everything happened in their heads? c'mon. where was Susan's chat? ... it was a quick way of ending it... i think they were on a rush.

Warrior 4 Jesus said:
It was better filmed, slightly better acted, the music was better, the script was less convoluted.
House the book was okay but nothing special. I enjoyed some elements of the book better and some parts of the movie. No one can be truly objective. I'm not saying House is better just because I enjoyed it more but for the above reasons. House was a decent book made into a decent movie, Thr3e was a brilliant book made into a mediocre movie (I didn't feel any tension, whereas House wasn't as dark or violent as the book but felt very intense). Yes, I wish some parts were included and it were longer but the ending was one of the parts I really enjoyed more than the book.
I'm not sure you understand the process of making a book into a movie. Changes have to be made. Unfortunately some changes Ted couldn't make and others he made because that's the way he first intended it (Ted himself has said these things).; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Warrior 4 Jesus on October 4, 2009 at 9:20pm: The house was a metaphor of the darkness of their souls, the war was over their souls, everything that happened in the movie was in their souls. I enjoyed the added psychological/spiritual factor. The house was a metaphor for their souls in both the book and movie but the movie just made it more clear (without being preachy). I found the book's ending to be a little lame (admittedly I enjoyed some parts of the book that weren't in the movie, but I've already said that).
I never said House was a perfect movie, so stop trying to defend Thr3e. It's a book, it doesn't need to be defended. I have my opinion, you have yours. Please, let's leave it at that.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by JuaniBPS on October 4, 2009 at 10:35pm: hahahah i don't see this as an argument, it's more like a polite discussion of our different points of view. (actually, it's the MAIN IDEA of 'The Circles')
and let me correct you there, books SHOULD be discussed, it's fun, sharing opinions, likes and dislikes. always with respect and arguments, of course. I'm defending Three because it's a good movie, after all, it has the esencial. House doesn't. The house being a metaphor is clear, but it doesn't matter, everything happened in their souls but they LIVED it. they didn't die and came back, that's ridiculous!
I respect my opinion, i'm just justifying why i think you're wrong.

Warrior 4 Jesus said:
The house was a metaphor of the darkness of their souls, the war was over their souls, everything that happened in the movie was in their souls. I enjoyed the added psychological/spiritual factor. The house was a metaphor for their souls in both the book and movie but the movie just made it more clear (without being preachy). I found the book's ending to be a little lame (admittedly I enjoyed some parts of the book that weren't in the movie, but I've already said that).
I never said House was a perfect movie, so stop trying to defend Thr3e. It's a book, it doesn't need to be defended. I have my opinion, you have yours. Please, let's leave it at that.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Warrior 4 Jesus on October 4, 2009 at 11:51pm: Discussion is good, as is debate, it just seems you think that if anyone criticises the movie, that it's a personal attack on you. I'm glad you don't think that. I love discussion. As for the characters, they didn't die but were close to death, at the brink of death (both physical and spiritual).; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kristen Brown on October 6, 2009 at 3:53pm: I really liked both books (Three and House) but was very disappointed with both of the movie adaptations. I just didnt think they were all that well made, maybe it was because they didnt have a very big budget. Plus, I do realize that when you turn a book into a movie, some small things will have to change to make it fit into a movie but I dont like when major things are changed. Ted Dekker's books are so amazing, I just think his work deserves better, ya know? Like when Lord of the Rings was turned into a movie-it was wonderfully done! But again they had a big budget and great director and great actors.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Daniel Willers on October 20, 2009 at 12:08pm: i havnt seen house yet as i havnt gten hold of it yet. but i think Th3e the movie failed to meet the "point of the story for me. the book was so great, and a powerfull story, and when i saw the movie i was let down a lot.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Patch on December 11, 2009 at 2:23pm: I'd say that te boo was much better then the movie. For some reason "The Boy" wasn't that great in the movie.; ▶ Reply to This