A film adaptation of a novel

[Desert Rose]

Hello everyone nice to meet u all :) ,,,,

What do u think of a film adaptation of a novel ? do u think movies & novels

r the same thing or do they have different sense ? which one of them can

deliver the meaning in such good way ? ( i guess the novels :rolleyes:)

share ur thoughts & interact with me please . :wave:

Thank u all :)

[novelsryou]

No movie could ever do any novel justice especially where getting into the head of the characters is concerned. A movie might be visually interesting but a good author can also create the same thing and once you've built a scene in your head from the authors words the movie could be very disappointing.

[jgweed]

If one expects a movie to resemble a novel, given the differences in ways of expression, one is always disappointed. It is far better to appreciate each for what it is and is not, and to consider them much like musical variations on a theme. Death in Venice or The Shining are cinematic adaptions of novels, for example;does whether they accurately portray the novels upon which they are "based" detract from either as independently enjoyable works of art?

[JBI]

In a sort of rule of a thumb, the better the novel, the worse the adaption. There are exceptions, but enduring films seem to be either liberal adaptations, or original screenplays.

[Jozanny]

One, no matter how faithful the adaptation, films involve community, even the independents. Novels may involve agents and editors and publishing houses, depending on how lucky you are, but the primary responsibility of the story on the page falls to the writer. It is a one act dynamic transferred to a reader.

Film is not. Even today, films are designed for mass audiences. The two genres may have things in common, but the only major one is the narrative, and films can do more to manipulate that than any one writer, but films cannot do The Great Gatsby either. One form is not always transferable to the other, but neither is mutually exclusive of the other.

[novelsryou]

One, no matter how faithful the adaptation, films involve community, even the independents. Novels may involve agents and editors and publishing houses, depending on how lucky you are, but the primary responsibility of the story on the page falls to the writer. It is a one act dynamic transferred to a reader.

Film is not. Even today, films are designed for mass audiences. The two genres may have things in common, but the only major one is the narrative, and films can do more to manipulate that than any one writer, but films cannot do The Great Gatsby either. One form is not always transferable to the other, but neither is mutually exclusive of the other.

The Great Gatsby is the first one that came to mind when I read the thread. Visually, the Robert Redford film was very good but the story fell way short.

[LitNetIsGreat]

As they are two different mediums I think it is wise to treat them as such. Comparisons from adaptations of the book to film version are not usually a good idea and a quite pointless exercise really. I can only think of The Talented Mr Ripley which I was more pleased with than the novel. I thought this was an extremely good film, beautifully shot and Minghella’s finest achievement.

[i3aby]

As they are two different mediums I think it is wise to treat them as such.

I agree, it is easy to compare them and judge that the novels are better but with movies they have to drop some of the story to fit it into a couple of hours of film footage. When I see film versions of novels I treat them as differant stories with a very similar plotline because it is impossible for a film to get inside a characters head clearly, so they often effect you differantly.

[Emil Miller]

The Great Gatsby is the first one that came to mind when I read the thread. Visually, the Robert Redford film was very good but the story fell way short.

It seems fairly obvious that a film cannot really compete with the novel it is adapted from, but there have been some very good adaptations nonetheless.
In England we have had wonderful versions of Oliver Twist and Great Expectations directed by the late great David Lean. And a brilliant film of Graham Greene's novel Brighton Rock.
Lolita, a very much underated film of Kubrick's, I found to be more enjoyable than the novel where much of the writing is unnecessarily protracted.
The Great Gatsby has been filmed four times in all and each has failed because those who have read it identify with the characters more personally than those in other novels; it's that kind of book, you just know that the film isn't going to feel right.
The first attempt was about 1926 shortly after the book was published and from what I read about it, it wasn't very good, but I have seen the other versions and the best is undoubtedly the 1974 adaptation by Jack Clayton, although Robert Redford and Mia Farrow were unsuited to their parts.
All of which goes to show that some novels adapt to the screen more readily
than others.

[Akeldama]

Perhaps the worst, most cringe-worthy thing to ever hear is someone saying, "Why read the book when you can go see the movie?", or "Books are too boring, if they're any good they'll make a movie out it," and so on and so forth.

[MorpheusSandman]

Film and literature are two different mediums. Film being a primarily visual medium and literature being... well, not. Translating literature to film is difficult because film certainly has limitations of where it can go, and translating words to images is almost as tenuous as translating words to music. But I do think there are examples where films succeed as films better than literature succeeds as literature (Grapes of Wrath and 2001: A Space Odyssey come immediately to mind). Comparing them directly is as pointless as comparing music to sculpture. Yes, they share the ability to carry a narrative, but how they achieve this (and what makes them work well) is completely different.


No movie could ever do any novel justiceThat's a rather ridiculous statement. About as bad as Roger Ebert saying video games can't be art because they don't make great movies.


In a sort of rule of a thumb, the better the novel, the worse the adaption. There are exceptionsLike David Lean's Great Expectations.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Perhaps the worst, most cringe-worthy thing to ever hear is someone saying, "Why read the book when you can go see the movie?", or "Books are too boring, if they're any good they'll make a movie out it," and so on and so forth.

Ha yes, or as someone told me recently (sorry if you have heard it) "What is the point in reading? If it is any good they will make a film from it".

[book_jones]

It seems like movies based on books, even famous, critically acclaimed ones, usually miss the point. To Kill A Mockingbird is a good movie, but it misses the real point of the book entirely. The old All The King's Men couldn't be farther from the book. Sometimes they're real good though, but I usually don't read a book and watch the movie. I usually pick one or the other.

[PabloQ]

The downside of a film interpretation of a great novel is just that -- it's interpretation. Someone else has read the same work that you have and interpreted for you on the screen. If that interpretation does not delight you in the same way the original work did, you'll be disappointed.
If the interpretation to the screen is well-done, I find them to be helpful in putting faces on characters, to help get a view for the setting, or some other visual that brings some clarity to the written word. That, though, can be dangerous because you'll be working once again with the interpretation of someone else's casting decision or set location.
So I try to divorce them. Let the novel stand on its own. Let the film stand on its own. If you can't divorce them, stick with the novel. It's the horse's mouth.

[DeadAsDreams]

Sometimes I enjoy novel to movie adaptations, but other times you get crap like I am Legend. Seriously who read the storline of that book and thought I can do better?

[JBI]

It all depends again. A great adaptation: The Godfather. A great adaptation from a great book, The Leopard (Il Gattopardo).

[carlin08]

The film version of _Cold Mountain_ is excellent. And let's not forget the amazing job the Cohen brothers did with Cormac McCarthy's novel, _No Country for Old Men_. This is, arguably, the best adaptation of a book I've ever seen. (Of course, I'm no movie critic).

Also, I thoroughly enjoyed the most recent film adaptation of _Pride and Prejudice_ (with Keira Knightly), and I found _Girl Interrupted_ to be quite interesting even though it does not remain as faithful to the text.

I like to think about the changes directors make and the reasons why they make them. And as the rest of you have said, film and literature are separate mediums with separate standards and conventions. The entire process of "show don't tell" is executed differently in each medium, which can have positive and negative effects on the final product.

[Desert Rose]

No movie could ever do any novel justice especially where getting into the head of the characters is concerned. A movie might be visually interesting but a good author can also create the same thing and once you've built a scene in your head from the authors words the movie could be very disappointing.

I do agree with u . the movie might limit ur imagination of the novel whether the setting or the characters . it wont be exciting if the movie resemble ur thoughts & it would be disappointing as well .

Thank u all 4 passing :)

[mortalterror]

Most of the successful films people have already mentioned have one thing in common. They were all adapted by great directors: Kubrick, David Lean, Coppola, Ford, Scorsese, The Coen Brothers. Beethoven said when he put Schiller's verse to music that what was necessary for a good adaptation was to be as good or a better artist in your own medium as the original was in theirs.

I would also like to interject that the average reading level for film and television is probably lower than it is in literature because we don't teach people how to read and enjoy movies through grade school. They aren't exposed to the best of the medium and often have no frame of reference. It's a more passive medium for the simple reason that it's audience hasn't been taught how to actively interpret and engage with what they see and hear. I've seen a few cine-illiterates on this board, boasting about how they don't watch movies or own televisions. Imagine, being so backward and uninformed about the dominant art form of the twentieth century. They are like those dinosaurs who won't learn to use the internet. There's probably a reason they don't enjoy the film as much as the book. Most likely, they don't understand what they are seeing.

[JBI]

True, but the so called "movie canon" is less structured than the literary canon. You really need to know people - or study film/read about film - to know which movies are "greats" and which are not. Lets be honest, box office results in cinema are like best-seller lists. Chances are (though less likely with movies) that if the movie is selling extremely well, it is mediocre. Besides that though, distribution of so called "good films" is rather limited in comparison with books, as independent movies aren't shown everywhere unless they achieve a status, but even then.

[MorpheusSandman]

Most of the successful films people have already mentioned have one thing in common. They were all adapted by great directors: Kubrick, David Lean, Coppola, Ford, Scorsese, The Coen Brothers. Beethoven said when he put Schiller's verse to music that what was necessary for a good adaptation was to be as good or a better artist in your own medium as the original was in theirs.Absolutely. :thumbs_up


True, but the so called "movie canon" is less structured than the literary canon. You really need to know people - or study film/read about film - to know which movies are "greats" and which are not. Lets be honest, box office results in cinema are like best-seller lists. Chances are (though less likely with movies) that if the movie is selling extremely well, it is mediocre. Besides that though, distribution of so called "good films" is rather limited in comparison with books, as independent movies aren't shown everywhere unless they achieve a status, but even then.Hmmm, this is an interesting thought. Initially, I'm inclined to disagree. I mean, if you look at most any legitimate film lists (AFI, Sight and Sound, Theyshootpictures, etc.) you'll notice that the films that show up near the top are pretty consistent throughout. Then again, film hasn't had hundreds/thousands of years for works to become a part of the canon granite like many literary works have. But I don't think it's hard to imagine that many of the films that continually top these lists will eventually become the Homers, Shakespeares, Tolstoys, etc. of the medium.

Although, I do disagree about needing to know people to know what works are great. This is no different than in literature where those who only enjoy reading like most enjoy movies don't care about "the canon". Most readers will enjoy Steven King or JK Rowling like most moviegoers will enjoy Michael Bay or M. Night Shyamalan. Those with any serious interest in either art form will quickly discover the canon and what is considered great. They'll learn how the mediums have progressed and evolved.

The best-seller stigma (or standard of measure) is also a misnomer. There are likely as many great films that were box-office successes, just like there are art-house films that are as dreadful as anything Paul WS Anderson has directed.

[novelsryou]

I expected more from Sean Penn's Into the Wild. Was I wrong?

[clumsy angelle]

I think film adaptations of novels are fine although some productions don't usually give justice to the works of some authors. Inasmuch as the novel helps spread a beautiful story to the world, the limited time in a film makes it hard to preserve the beauty of a story. Well, I believe that books are for the more patient one while movies are for those who don't usually findinterest in reading...

[MorpheusSandman]

I expected more from Sean Penn's Into the Wild. Was I wrong?After the glowing reviews I don't think you were. It seemed to me like Penn trying to be Terrence Malick and only half way getting there.

[Emil Miller]

I think film adaptations of novels are fine although some productions don't usually give justice to the works of some authors. Inasmuch as the novel helps spread a beautiful story to the world, the limited time in a film makes it hard to preserve the beauty of a story. Well, I believe that books are for the more patient one while movies are for those who don't usually findinterest in reading...

I think you are right but it is worth remembering that there are probably quite a few people who had little interest in reading and who subsequently took to it after seeing a good film adaptation.
As a boy, I can remember seeing Treasure Island and then going on to read the book.

[kelby_lake]

I like movies as just being a visual version of the book, where I can enjoy the story but quickly and easily. And A Streetcar Named Desire was made into a very good film :)

[Hank Stamper]

if I have really enjoyed a book then I probably wont watch the film

I have seen films first and then read the book afterwards tho, but that is annoying because you can't read the book without casting the characters in your head as they were in the film.. The Beach being a good example. Leonardo di Caprio was in my head even though the dude in the book is nothing like Leonardo di Caprio.

[Scheherazade]

if I have really enjoyed a book then I probably wont watch the film Same here!
I have seen films first and then read the book afterwards tho, but that is annoying because you can't read the book without casting the characters in your head as they were in the film.. The Beach being a good example. Leonardo di Caprio was in my head even though the dude in the book is nothing like Leonardo di Caprio.I felt exactly the same way after watching the movie and then reading the book... Sometime one wonders about the casting people!

[Emil Miller]

I like movies as just being a visual version of the book, where I can enjoy the story but quickly and easily. And A Streetcar Named Desire was made into a very good film :)

I agree, A Streetcar Named Desire was a very good film, the cast and overall production were excellent and I thought Marlon Brando's performance was sensational.
Tennessee Williams has not always been well-served by Hollywood but Streetcar and The Glass Menagerie are two of the better examples of films adapted from his work.

[kelby_lake]

Cat on A Hot Tin Roof is good even though it was heavily bowdlerised.
Haven't seen the 1987 menagerie version and really want to :(

[JBI]

Yes! Elizabeth Taylor in Hot Tin Roof was fantastic, despite the plot modification - though we must note that theater converts to the screen far more easily then other genres. Plays were written to be watched, and as a result, they, if they are well written works, turn into great movies.

[WICKES]

David Lean's Oliver Twist and Great Expectations were v. good. I guess you could stretch it and call 'Lawrence of Arabia' (for my money the best film EVER made) an adaptation of 'The Seven Pillars Of Wisdom'.

I really would love to see a good film version of the Illiad, Odyssey and Aeneid (if only Ray Harryhausen could do the special effects :idea:). They could have been written for the movies!

C S Lewis' Out Of The Silent Planet would make a good film as would The Hobbit.

Sometimes it doesn't work. British TV made P G Wodehouse's Jeeves books into TV shows with Stephen Fry. It as a v. good attempt but they just didn't transfer well to the screen. I don't think someone like D H Lawrence would work v. well either.

I'd like to see some of Hermann Hesse's novels made into films.

[Emil Miller]

Cat on A Hot Tin Roof is good even though it was heavily bowdlerised.
Haven't seen the 1987 menagerie version and really want to :(

I didn't know it had been remade, so I was referring to the 1950 version with Jayne Wyman, who gave a particularly touching perfomance, and Kirk Douglas who was totally convincing in his role.The rest of the cast were good and Tennessee Williams also had a hand in wriiting the screenplay.


David Lean's Oliver Twist and Great Expectations were v. good. I guess you could stretch it and call 'Lawrence of Arabia' (for my money the best film EVER made) an adaptation of 'The Seven Pillars Of Wisdom'.

I really would love to see a good film version of the Illiad, Odyssey and Aeneid (if only Ray Harryhausen could do the special effects :idea:). They could have been written for the movies!

C S Lewis' Out Of The Silent Planet would make a good film as would The Hobbit.

Sometimes it doesn't work. British TV made P G Wodehouse's Jeeves books into TV shows with Stephen Fry. It as a v. good attempt but they just didn't transfer well to the screen. I don't think someone like D H Lawrence would work v. well either.

I'd like to see some of Hermann Hesse's novels made into films.

Co-incidentally, I was talking to a film projectionist recently who is about to retire after forty-five years in the business and he said that of all the films he's shown, Lawrence of Arabia was his favourite.
The Odyssey has been filmed but I think it was one of those international co-productions which failed to make its mark as is so often the case with such films.
The Jeeves and Wooster series was very well done but it was let down because Stephen Fry came across as too supercilious; something Jeeves would never have been. An earlier series made in the sixties, starring Ian Carmichael and Denis Price, was more faithful to Wodehouse's characters.
I don't know if you are referring to TV productions but there have been some well-received films of D H Lawrence such as Women in Love (1969) and Sons and Lovers (1960) although I haven't seen either of them.

[kelby_lake]

Is the 1950 one on DVD?

[Emil Miller]

Is the 1950 one on DVD?

Not according to my records, but since all kinds of films from the past are now being transferred to DVD, it may well appear in due course.

[MorpheusSandman]

I guess you could stretch it and call 'Lawrence of Arabia' (for my money the best film EVER made) an adaptation of 'The Seven Pillars Of Wisdom'.The only problem with Lawrence is that it loses about 2/3 + of its effectiveness when not seen in the theaters - which represents big problems to those like myself born long after the film was made and don't own theater-like home theaters.

[Janine]

I think I did see "Lawrence of Arabia" in the theater, but now I own the DVD and fully enjoy it. The 'Extra Features' are great, too. Yes, epics like Lean's films would be more stunning on the big screen, but with the advance of better home viewing (LCD with or without HD, etc), it still is a stunning film. I just saw "Ryan's Daughter" and loved it. The vistas of beach scenes in western coastal Ireland are amazing....they take your breath away. It is a long film, but I am actually looking forward to my second viewing; that scenery is so beautiful.

I am a huge fan of D.H. Lawrence and recently came across a book all about the film versions of his novels. I own about 5 or 6 of the 10 the book talks about. They sometimes depart from Lawrence's original work; but inspite of that fact they capture enough of the sense of place and time and the intricate characters in Lawrence's novels, that I have enjoyed them (separately) from his novels. I have watched many of them repeated times. I just saw the newer version of "The Rainbow" filmed for BBC TV and it was extraordinary. I was only disappointed that some scenes were cut. I know this since I watched most of the episodes on Youtube. I wish I could download the ones I need to fill in the blanks. Still - all in all - the film was pretty wonderful and well done.

I can't wait to read the book.

[mangueken]

I'm usually unimpressed with the film versions of books but there are some exceptions out there. Blade Runner to me is much better than the original, Coppola's version of Strokers Dracula (the change he made by placing the love story between Dracula and Mina instead of between Mina and Jonathon made the story much more interesting). I also think Apocalypse Now is a great version of Heart of Darkness. It might be rare, but there are some good film versions of books.

[Michigan J Frog]

I watched Emma yesterday.

It was nice.

[Janine]

"Passage to India" and "Bridge Over the River Kwai" were also fine David Lean productions. I know the first was from the novel; I read that before seeing the film and thought the film followed it closely. I don't know about the second. Was "River Kwai" adapted from a book?

Michigan J Frog, which version of Emma did you watch? I really don't care too much for the Paldrow film. I liked the A&E film much better.