Books To Film

[Natalie]

There's probably a ton of threads about this, but I thought I would get it started again. What are your favorite books made to a film - so I guess vice versa.

My all - time favorite is The Notebook. I think they created a beatiful movie out of an amazing book. The casting was right on target too.

Another one I'm looking forward to is Shopgirl - the Steve Martin book. The movie comes out this weekend (well select theatres) - so can't wait to see how the movie will turn out.

[Rosalind]

I had plenty of gripes with the LOTR films, but over all, I think they did a good job. 'Fellowship' especially managed to capture a lot of the feel of the books while still making a high quality movie. The second two weren't quite as satisfactory. Then again, I'm notoriously nit picky about books made into movies. In general, I think that page to screen conversions are disaster waiting to happen, and a good seventy five percent of those already made are disasters completed. And every time I say this, my friends roll their eyes and say "Come on, not again!" ;)

High hopes: The most recent Chronicles of Narnia movie coming out looks promising. Please, please don't screw it up, guys!

[Mark F.]

I don't believe there's an interest in telling a story that has already been told by an other author unless the new author really makes it his own. The Firm, Mystic River and Return of the King are perfect examples of pointless adaptations, it's the same thing, not a thing changes, as a viewer you feel like you're reading the book over again, and usually you get the feeling that half of it is missing. I'd rather read these novels anyday.

What makes an adaptation interesting is when an author retells a story through his own point of view, exploring other themes that the original work may have left out. By doing this he makes it his own work, not just a translation from text to screen language (after all films and novels are two different manifestations of the art of storytelling, they just use different languages). A couple of my favorite adaptations are Apocalypse Now (Heart of Darkness by Conrad) and Ran (King Lear by Shakespeare). Other good ones include Throne of Blood (Macbeath by Shakespeare), 2001 : A Space Odessy (novel by Arthur C. Clarke) Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by P K Dick).

[Vampire Kari]

Interview with the Vampire by Anne Rice. A really amazing book and movie!

And The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux. :)

[Aurora Ariel]

I love the film version of Picnic At Hanging Rock(1975), which I first watched a few years ago.This is a Peter Weir film which was shot in Australia.
All of the story locations are set in Victoria, Australia.The mysterious story was written by Joan Lindsay and originally published in 1967.The film is very atmospheric and captured in an expressionistic way.I found it to be beautifully poetical.I really enjoyed this errie adaptation.I found the cinematography to be breathtaking and sweeping effectively into the mood of the narrative.See below for more details and information on both the book and film:

http://www.hangingrock.info/picnic/weir/weir.html

More recently, I have seen both The Notebook and, a little earlier, I Capture The Castle.I really liked these films, and was deeply impressed by the performances.These were two of the better film adaptations I have seen over the last few years.Have you also seen one of these?Or read the books?
I would recommend one of the following above, even if you think that the books happen to be superior.

[Aurora Ariel]

I just wanted to add, that I also loved the film Interview with the Vampire(1994).I've actually been meaning to read the book, by Anne Rice, for years;as I liked the film so much!For Gothic-styled stories of horror, such as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, I would suggest reading the book first.The Hollywood versions of her most famous book lack alot of depth and take her story down a more simplistic path.It detracts from alot of what Shelley originally had to say, which is much more complex than your average Hollywood shock and terror(including a comical monster in some cases) adaptation.I find the book to be much more interesting, thrilling; and provoking one's thoughts further.

[samercury]

I'm not a big fan of books turned into films- I usually get very disappointed even though I know that they're going to make a bad job of it-. My favorite was LoTR- The Fellowship of the Ring movie- and even that was by a small margin- (and even though I can never remember the characters' names.) ;) Whenever I'm watching a book to film movie with someone, they're always telling me to stop complaining about it or get out >_<.... but I can't help it....

[B-Mental]

I don't believe there's an interest in telling a story that has already been told by an other author unless the new author really makes it his own. The Firm, Mystic River and Return of the King are perfect examples of pointless adaptations, it's the same thing, not a thing changes, as a viewer you feel like you're reading the book over again, and usually you get the feeling that half of it is missing. I'd rather read these novels anyday.

What makes an adaptation interesting is when an author retells a story through his own point of view, exploring other themes that the original work may have left out. By doing this he makes it his own work, not just a translation from text to screen language (after all films and novels are two different manifestations of the art of storytelling, they just use different languages). A couple of my favorite adaptations are Apocalypse Now (Heart of Darkness by Conrad) and Ran (King Lear by Shakespeare). Other good ones include Throne of Blood (Macbeath by Shakespeare), 2001 : A Space Odessy (novel by Arthur C. Clarke) Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by P K Dick).

I don't know how to explain this, but I think that if you make a movie based on the book and call it by the same name, you bet your bippy you better maintain the integrity of the story line/ plot/ character interactions/ etc.

When you get to some overused theme like Dracula with 50-60 previous interpretations, you'd better get creative and 'make it your own'.

Movies that were close enough to accurate for me...
Catch 22 / Fahrenheit 451 / The Godfather / LotR Trilogy (thankfully)/the list goes on.

Movies that failed...
Thin Red Line / every version of Island of Dr. Moreau / I know the list should be longer, but I try to forget the schlock!

[Jack_Aubrey]

Doctor Zhivago.

Exactly what I said when I made a thread like this many moons ago.

[becca2389]

I don't know how to explain this, but I think that if you make a movie based on the book and call it by the same name, you bet your bippy you better maintain the integrity of the story line/ plot/ character interactions/ etc.

I would disagree, but I see where you're coming from. I know loads of people who just can't enjoy at adaption at all unless it's completely faithful, so fair enough, but I sometimes find it slightly dull to watch if it's just portions of the book lifted and reproduced exactly, like Mark said above.

I'm one of these people who go for "truth of mood" (thanks to EM Forster) when it comes to a film. I like it to have the same feel to it, if you know what I mean, as I felt when I read the book, but sometimes things that happen in a book just don't translate to screen. It also keeps you on your toes if the story is slightly different, and it starts good discussions too!

But in general, I find movies disappointing in comparison to the book, an exception being Girl with a Pearl Earring that managed to just hit the same tone and feeling as the book

[el01ks]

I'm one of these people who get very annoyed if people take too many liberties with a book - I quite like seeing if adaptations fit the pictures that the book has created in my mind. I love the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice, as it takes the time to show most of what happens in the novel. Generally, I think a two hour film is just too short to have all the details you can get in a 400 page book.
It's more interesting to study a film adaptation on its own rather than doing a comparison. I studied Do Androids Dream of Electric Sleep and the two versions of Blade Runner during my degree, but chose to write about Blade Runner on its own. Although, a few weeks after watching them, I did have trouble remembering which film the differences between the normal version and the director's cut had - generally figured out that most of the cheerful extras were in the cinema version...

[Mark F.]

The main difference is that in the novel Deckard has the central role while in the film it's the main replicant (I have forgotten his name). This is what makes the film interesting to someone who already know the story having read the novel, the same existential question is explored through the other character's point of view. I would have been well bored if it was just a literal transcription.

[el01ks]

The main difference is that in the novel Deckard has the central role while in the film it's the main replicant (I have forgotten his name). This is what makes the film interesting to someone who already know the story having read the novel, the same existential question is explored through the other character's point of view. I would have been well bored if it was just a literal transcription.

If this was for my benefit, thanks, but I don't have any problems with the differences between the films and the book! When I was studying them, my problem was that the two versions of the film tended to merge in my mind...

[Natalie]

I'm not a big fan of books turned into films- I usually get very disappointed even though I know that they're going to make a bad job of it-. My favorite was LoTR- The Fellowship of the Ring movie- and even that was by a small margin- (and even though I can never remember the characters' names.) ;) Whenever I'm watching a book to film movie with someone, they're always telling me to stop complaining about it or get out >_<.... but I can't help it....

It depends for me. There are definitely some movies out there based on books that are horrible - not sure why that happens. But i do have a lot of favorite movies that come from books that are amazing, if not better than the book. I recently saw that movie Shopgirl which is based off the book Shopgirl written by Steve Martin. He was in the movie as well and directed parts of it, so it turned out to be a great movie. Not sure how it would have been if Steve Martin didn't have any role in it except for writing the storyline.

[Logos]

If Steve Martin wrote the book and had a part in directing and acting in the film, then chances are it's a good `adaptation' of the book to film format because he is translating his own work, not someone else's.

A lot of books don't `adapt' well to the screen. Usually a book is re-written to make it `work' better for the screen, in script style. Some book owners of copyright don't allow for a direct or `literal' adaptation of a book, so licence is taken with dialogue and plot of a book but it's not as `accurate' as the book because they're not allowed to make it so and they have to change the name etc.

Or an adaptation of book to film is crappy because the director and or producer messed it up :)

[starrwriter]

First of all, I don't think novels can be 100% faithfully reproduced in films because (1)they are too long for a screenplay (2)they usually involve a lot of reflection by the characters, which can't be shown visually.

But having said that, I can think of three movies off the top of my head that were BETTER than the novels they were based on: "East of Eden,", "The Graduate" and "Midnight Cowboy." In those cases the directors and script writers were better story tellers than the book authors.

Even good playwrights can be upstaged by film versions of their works. "Orpheus Descending" by Tennessee Williams was vastly inferior to the film version "The Fugitive Kind."

[Logos]

I think the A&E /BBC production of Austen's Pride and Prejudice is one of the most `faithful' adaptations of a book (the dialogue esp) to film :)

[Perspicacity]

I really hope The Chronicles of Narnia movie will be a good adaptation. The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe was such a good book, a bad movie would be disappointing.

[Mark F.]

Watch the old BBC film. I loved taht as a kid.