Books that become movies.

[Rollo]

I've been really enjoying this idea lately, reading a book first then right afterwards watching the movie and comparing the two. I just finished it up with Fight Club, well done on both accounts :D I'm in the middle of Memory Keeper's Daughter right now so we'll see how that pans out this weekend when I see the movie. Anybody got any favorites of this type to share/recommend?

[Rubeskies]

There seem to be two schools of thought when it comes to making a movie out of a book.

1.) Stick exactly to the book and don't change anything. The movie version of Fight Club is an example of this. It is exactly like the book except for a few deleted scenes. More recently, the movie version of Atonement followed Fight Club's example. Both adaptations were exactly the same as the book.

2.) The Director does a complete interpretation of the book and changes lots of things and makes it his own. I just watched the movie version of "The Name of the Rose" after reading it and was amazed at how different it was. Although the director did preface the movie by calling it a "Palimpsest of Umberto Eco's Novel." A palimpsest is a piece of parchment that has had its original writing erased and has new writing written on top of it. But the old writing isn't completely erased, you can still vaguely tell what was there. An apt metaphor for a movie adaptation.

An example of this from my childhood is "Mrs. Frisbee and the Rats of Nihm."

An example of a movie that straddles these two ideas is the movie version of "Catch-22." While generally sticking to the book, tons of scenes and characters were cut and a few characters were combined into composites. I loved the movie though.


I guess I don't really have a preference. I've scene both good and bad adaptations using both styles. One thing I noticed though is that, having just read Atonement, seeing the movie in the same week made the movie a tad bit boring. I knew exactly what was going to happen, and unlike Fight Club, there were very few wow factors. The only scene that was really impressive was the battlefield scene on the coast that was transformed into a death carnival.

[Jez]

If I really loved the book, I tend to favor the first type of adaptation Rubeskies describes, and then hate the second. I especially hate the second kind of adaptation if I disliked the movie on its own, even with the comparisons to the book. A good example, for me, where I hated the adaptation would be the recent movie The Golden Compass. I thought it was terribly done on its own, and an abomination if compared to the book.

On very, very rare occasions I like the movie better than the book. The Princess Bride, while a book I very much enjoyed, makes an even more enjoyable movie, I think. I'm hoping the movie adaptation of William Gibson's Neuromancer will be better than the book, which I didn't bother to finish.

I'll have to think on this more. Good topic :good:

[veva]

Try reading the novels of post-modern literature and then see the films.....the directors should have realized before that this wasn't the right way.... I have nothing against these movies but still the book is somehow better.... try Lolita and Perfume and you'll understand. ....:p

[Jez]

I haven't seen a Lolita movie yet (though I do like Jeremy Irons as Humbert), but I did like the movie version of Perfume. I think it translated the book well, if not perfectly, and was nicely sensory. I don't know how the movie would stand on its own, but as a companion to the book I liked it. The actor they picked to play the lead was perfect for how I pictured him.

[margaine]

In general, I am not very picky about movies varying from the books on which they are based. If it's a good movie, if it works anyway, then it's all good. :good:

For example, I have enjoyed all the Harry Potter movies as of now. I'm not bothered by the ways in which they've varied from the books because I enjoy them anyway for what they are.

Although, in many instances I saw the movie first - like The English Patient. I saw the movie first and read the book after loving the movie. The book actually makes a lot more sense and works better and is very interesting, but I still love the movie in its own right. I'm not sure how I would have felt if I'd read the book first.

Contact is another movie that I saw and liked before reading the book. The book is much smarter and more complex, but I still like the movie anyway, even though it simplifies a lot of things.

I'm trying to think of a movie, based on a book, that I've expressly disliked, and I can't think of one. I'm sure there's some pretty bad adaptations out there, but probably those movies are just bad overall, and there'd be lots to dislike about them aside from the fact that they poorly represent the book on which they're based.

I'm not sure if I have examples of a movie I like more than the book, though. ;) But The English Patient is pretty close. Sembene Ousmane's movies (Xala, Black Girl) are kinda better than the stories and books of the same titles, but it's kind of different because he wrote the stories/books as well as wrote and the directed the films. I think he's a better director than he is a writer.

[SomewhereInBetween]

I've been really enjoying this idea lately, reading a book first then right afterwards watching the movie and comparing the two. I just finished it up with Fight Club, well done on both accounts :D I'm in the middle of Memory Keeper's Daughter right now so we'll see how that pans out this weekend when I see the movie. Anybody got any favorites of this type to share/recommend?

i'm so excited to see this movie. It's on tonight (saturday) at 9 actually. i really hope that it is an accurate portrayal of the book (although my hopes are high from what i've seen from previews)

[Rollo]

Yea the movie ended up being pretty good. It was quite a fine line though between the two schools of though Rubeskies mentioned. While not much was drastically changed, there were certain elements that I wish had been left untouched.

[SomewhereInBetween]

Yea certain elements I wish had stayed the same but overall I thought it was very well done and I left (eh, continued to sit there?) with the same feeling as they book gave me.

[leksi]

At first I was excited when Along Came a Spider (James Patterson) was made into a movie.. But when I went to see it, I was completely disappointed. It was so cheapily and cheesily made. :( What a bummer. It's definitely my most disappointing book to movie encounter.

[JCL]

Generally, I've been disappointed with movie adaptations of books I've read, but not always. I really enjoyed "Bonfire of the Vanities," but the movie was absolutely awful.

On the other hand, Peter Jackson did an amazing job with the "Lord of the Rings." He managed something I'd always thought would be impossible. I think with the advent of CGI, though, it made a huge difference in the finished product.

[Brendan]

No Country for Old Men was a phenomenal movie. I'm assuming the book was likewise, though I've never read it, but I've read other McCarthy and he's brilliant. Either way, they apparently stuck very closely to the book, and the result was astounding, for me and for many. Ugh, gives me the shivers.

An example of a movie being, in my opinion, much better than the book, is 2001: A Space Odyssey. Not that it was a bad book, but it wasn't Clarke's best. That would be Childhood's End. Whereas, in my opinion 2001: A Space Odyssey is the greatest movie ever made.

[Rakthor]

Whereas, in my opinion [I]2001: A Space Odyssey is the greatest movie ever made.

Ah! My brethren! I always hear people badmouthing 2001. It's pretty rare for me to hear someone talking about it in a positive manner. But I'm glad to find a kindred spirit on the board.

[SomewhereInBetween]

Does anyone have a favorite film adaptation of one of their favorite books? I don't often watch war films but I read Gen Omar Bradly's memoirs and saw the film Patton and I really really enjoyed comparing the two.

[AjaxLeRoy]

I thought 1984 was a wonderful adaptation of the book. I thought it captured its essences as perfectly as a movie could. I read the book before watching the movie and I think that's the best way to do it. It gives the movie the sense of severity that it deserves. Unfortunately, the DVD is out of print. I've seen it priced at close to $200 for a brand new sealed copy!

Fear And Loathing... is another great cinematical adaptation of its book. However, in this case, I recommend watching the movie first before reading the book. Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro do such a phenominal job of giving life to the characters.

[M.Avery]

I suppose that I prefer movie adaptations that are closer to the original work. Still, the audience has to factor in the difficulties of fitting a hundred or so page book into under two hours of film. There are also details that cannot be expressed visually. One also has to take the director’s and the writers’ points of view.

I saw “The Lord of the Rings” long before I ever finished the series. My father had tried to read the books to me aloud when I was seven or so, like he had done with The Hobbit. Because I was so young, we barely got through the beginning chapters. The movies sparked my interest in the books by that time I was at a high enough reading level to get through them and to enjoy it in the process. It was like discovering new dimensions of the story. The movie did affect the way I visualized the characters, though, and I could only see Frodo’s with Elijah Wood’s face.

[Rollo]

Does anyone have a favorite film adaptation of one of their favorite books? I don't often watch war films but I read Gen Omar Bradly's memoirs and saw the film Patton and I really really enjoyed comparing the two.

I haven't see it yet because it doesn't premier until this Saturday at 9 on lifetime but they made The Tenth Circle By Jodi Picoult into a movie. I really enjoyed the book and the preview looks pretty good. I cant wait to watch it.

[intellectualammo]

There is a recent movie that was recommended "P.S. I Love You" and so I looked into it, and found that it was an adaptation of a novel by Celelia Ahern with the selfsame title. I thought I'd give it a read first, then perhaps watch the movie. I did that with the Harry Potter series, read one book at a time, then watched the movie based upon each book afterwards.

I'd rather read the original works first, then perhaps watch the film adaptations.

[a_n]

Personally I'm not sure if I mind if film adaptations steer off course. The way I look at it is this: the book already exists. It might be nice to replicate it as closely as possible, but hardly necessary. If you are a capable filmmaker, why not chart your own course? A Clockwork Orange comes to mind as an adaptation that manages to be exceptional while veering off the path set by Anthony Burgess. I think that the ending of the film is superior, in fact.

Like the people who answered this earlier, I am also a 2001 (the movie) fan.

[SomewhereInBetween]

I haven't see it yet because it doesn't premier until this Saturday at 9 on lifetime but they made The Tenth Circle By Jodi Picoult into a movie. I really enjoyed the book and the preview looks pretty good. I cant wait to watch it.

I saw that the other night - pretty lame - not true to the book at all. Well I mean it was but I thought there were some important themes missing.