movie to book and book to movie

I recently started reading the running man by Stephen king. having seen the movie a few times, I was familiar with the premise of the story, however, while remaining somewhat true to the essence, I was surprised to see how markedly different the story in the book is, on a great number of large issues, compared to the story in the movie.

but this isn't ruining the book for me by a longshot. in fact, im enjoying marking the differences as I go along. (I felt the same way with forrest gump)

(the story in the book seems totally legitimate, if not even better, as a movie, so it makes me wonder why it was changed)

has anyone else experienced that?


by contrast, is the converse true also? is it likely that someone who enjoyed a particular book would enjoy a movie that although remained relatively faithful to some essence of the story, nevertheless changed a great number of things? can we not watch a movie with that same sort of open mind? or do we get easily disappointed (and why) when the two don't jibe and would be happier with high fidelity to the source material?

maybe as another part of the conversation---i came to the jack reacher novels after watching the movie with tom cruise cast as jack reacher. liked the movie, like the books---but the reacher in the books is like 6'4" and 240lbs. jack reacher fans rightly criticized tom cruise's being in the role. i think i would have felt likewise had i read many of the books first. likewise, i didn't like willam defoe cast as john clark in tom Clancy's clear and present danger---just a bad fit. in the running man book, ben Richards is 6'2" and ~160lbs---clearly not Arnold Schwarzenegger--so i wonder how fans of the book felt about that casting.

I would think the greater difference between a novel and the film adaptation one has already viewed, the greater the enjoyment of that book. Few people want to re-trace the exact steps they've already walked. In the case of The Running Man, which is immensely different from the film "adaptation," that would probably be moreso. I rarely read books of movies I've watched, the Layer Cake novel probably being the only one I can recently remember. So, I couldn't really comment on the experience.

As to watching movies of novels I've read, I do what I would advise others to do. Firstly, I keep in mind that succeeding as an adaptation and succeeding as a film are two separate things; neither are necessarily contingent on the other. Also, I remind myself my particular vision of what a cinematic re-production of the novel I read is not necessarily the one that has to appear on the screen. The filmmaker is free to make his or her legitimate cinematic vision of the novel, and should do so.

I agree with what Pike Bishop said. The book and the movie are separate and should be judged on their own merits even though they are based on the same plot.

I think I've said this before, but I don't like seeing a movie before reading the book. It interferes with my personal construction of the characters in my mind as I interact with the author's vision. After reading, I may or may not object to a director's vision of the same book, but it certainly doesn't have to be identical with the one I concocted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bounty

I recently started reading the running man by Stephen king. having seen the movie a few times, I was familiar with the premise of the story, however, while remaining somewhat true to the essence, I was surprised to see how markedly different the story in the book is, on a great number of large issues, compared to the story in the movie.

but this isn't ruining the book for me by a longshot. in fact, im enjoying marking the differences as I go along. (I felt the same way with forrest gump)

(the story in the book seems totally legitimate, if not even better, as a movie, so it makes me wonder why it was changed)

has anyone else experienced that?


by contrast, is the converse true also? is it likely that someone who enjoyed a particular book would enjoy a movie that although remained relatively faithful to some essence of the story, nevertheless changed a great number of things? can we not watch a movie with that same sort of open mind? or do we get easily disappointed (and why) when the two don't jibe and would be happier with high fidelity to the source material?

maybe as another part of the conversation---i came to the jack reacher novels after watching the movie with tom cruise cast as jack reacher. liked the movie, like the books---but the reacher in the books is like 6'4" and 240lbs. jack reacher fans rightly criticized tom cruise's being in the role. i think i would have felt likewise had i read many of the books first. likewise, i didn't like willam defoe cast as john clark in tom Clancy's clear and present danger---just a bad fit. in the running man book, ben Richards is 6'2" and ~160lbs---clearly not Arnold Schwarzenegger--so i wonder how fans of the book felt about that casting.

---

Well, the question is not the fidelity to the original (or fidelity to what), for example, Apocalypse Now is a masterpiece, a great adaptation of Heart of Darkness, despite the great differences, you still have a feeling of civilization vs.barbarie, the unexplained darkness of humankind, etc. However, the adaptation of Watchman is in many aspects too faithful to the comic book in many aspects. I feel the director is obviously a fan of comic books, his language is very close to that. And that is his failure: he is so much a fan that he didn't add anything to Watchman, he basically repeated it (with a smaller story). His problem was not the difference in the final, it was the extreme similarity to what the comic book narrative did. The movie credits were great, they should print it in the next edition of Whatman, it is something that understood the series.

I do not mind watching any in any particular order (albeit, novels adaptations of movies are usually meh), I care little about plot details to have any change of spoilers, but it is no damage to notice if the changes are made for a bad reason (like the love story of an elf and a dwarf by Peter Jackson).

Maybe my opinion is a bit purist, but I find if you put a title on your film that is the same as the novel you adapted from and not a different title 'inspired by' then you at least have a kind of obligation not to stray too far from the message your base had.

Obviously you can take some licence in this. Merely making everything happen as it happened in your novel might be difficult, too slow or anything else, but the message should stay intact. Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility had significant plot changes too, as I recall, but the film wasn't worse for it, rather the opposite actually.
The latest BBC adaptation of Emma on the other hand I found diabolical (I know there are some who don't agree with me). In that respect Lost in Austen was a better 'adaptation', if you will, of Pride and Prejudice than Emma of its novel. Emma betrayed a total lack of understanding of the stuff Austen was mocking, so why make that adaptation?

I believe the BBC miniseries of Blandings was also very good. Not sure what plot changes had been made, but it was very Wodehouse, to my thinking at least. Same writer as Lost in Austen, so it wasn't an accident.

Indeed, it all depends whether the plot changes have been thought about and whether there is a general message in hte film that actually ties in with what the novel's message was about.

For me characters on screen also tend to interfere with novel characters. I just can't get the Timothy Spall's Earl of Emsworth out of my head, despite the novel character being described as bald and slim (I though?). Somehow Timothy Spall just fit that character like a glove despite being fat and endowed with lots of hair. That mess on his head somehow expressed the total lack of care he takes as to his appearance... Better than a bald head would ever have done... Althouh probably things depend on how good the screen character was and the Earl of Emsworth was divine :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

For me characters on screen also tend to interfere with novel characters. I just can't get the Timothy Spall's Earl of Emsworth out of my head, despite the novel character being described as bald and slim (I though?). Somehow Timothy Spall just fit that character like a glove despite being fat and endowed with lots of hair. That mess on his head somehow expressed the total lack of care he takes as to his appearance... Better than a bald head would ever have done... Althouh probably things depend on how good the screen character was and the Earl of Emsworth was divine :).

---

It can because hardest to keep your own vision of a literary character when the cinematic performance was especially strong. Against my better judgment, I have just watched the BBC version of Wolf Hall before reading the Mantel novels. Mark Rylance's interpretation of Thomas Cromwell was stunning. For better or worse, that's going to be Cromwell for me when I finally get to the books. It couldn't possibly be otherwise. I also read Little Dorrit after seeing the BBC version, so I got Claire Foy stuck in my head for that character. Imagine my dissonance (or whatever it's called) when she turned up in Wolf Hall--as Anne Boleyn! And not badly cast at all. Still...not Little Dorrit. Please no!

I read Wolf Hall before watching the BBC version. I thought the book was probably the best historical novel I've read so I was nervous about watching the adaptation. Mark Rylance, though, seemed to capture all the humour & humanity of the Cromwell of the book, and it won't do any harm to see his face when reading, rather than the fat fleshy face usually shown in the history books. (And the rest of the casting was pretty damned good as well.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Well, the question is not the fidelity to the original (or fidelity to what), for example, Apocalypse Now is a masterpiece, a great adaptation of Heart of Darkness, despite the great differences, you still have a feeling of civilization vs.barbarie, the unexplained darkness of humankind, etc.

---

I was going to mention Apocalypse Now, but as you've beat me to it I'll only say that it's the best example of classic literature being brought up to date and made relevant for a modern audience.
My other favorite movie based on a book, was Stand by Me, directed by Rob Reiner. People forget that early on, Stephen King wrote a charming little novella called 'The Body', and Stand by Me not only was true to the spirit of the book, but actually improved upon it thanks to exceptional casting.

ive really enjoyed reading that everyone, and am glad you joined in, thank you!

some of your writing has inspired these thoughts in me.

one is, I didn't know of the relationship between apocalypse now and Conrad's heart of darkness. ive not read any Conrad yet, though I have some (including that one)---ive heard he's difficult.

I find a few different situations going on in my head when I read books after ive seen the movie. one is, if I have really liked the movie and the actors in it have captured a good vision of the novel's characters, I really enjoy seeing them in my head when I read the book. I like seeing emma Watson as Hermione and Jennifer Lawrence as katniss.

I think often without the image of a movie character in my head, the novel characters remain vague and undifferentiated. sometimes that doesn't matter, and while I like to think I have a good imagination, I like clarity a movie brings to my mind's eye when I read the book.

by contrast, I think I mentioned this above---I am not seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger in my mind as I am reading the running man. and when I read lee child's jack reacher novels, I don't see tom cruise.

I believe kiki was saying something along these lines, what id call "essentially true"---that the movie works to capture the spirit or the message of the book while nevertheless going about changing all sorts of other things. the running man book is still a dystopian story about a totalitarian state that produces blood sport involving oppressed peoples and misinformation.

I wonder how hobbit purists felt about tauriel and kili. I confess a crush on tauriel...so in that case, its hard to know if im not a purist, or if im just a typical guy. i suspect both. smiles...

there is still something interesting to me though about how we can be bothered when the movie takes liberties with the book. sometimes its as if a sacrilege has occurred. itd be fascinating to do some research to see if a particular social/political/religious persuasion was more or less related to that phenomena.

You have to consider that everything is somehow an adaptation, sometimes to a new medium as movies to books (or to plays or to music or to paintings, etc), sometimes to a new culture like romeo and juliet taken from an italian story to an english drama, sometimes to time as we have both movie versions of Ben Ur (obviously, there is other differences too). The point is how well it is done, what is added, etc. Without those adaptations art would be dead, there would be no transformation (better word than creation) and just some static worship of dust marble statues.

I think that's an interesting facet too---changes of mediums allow for stories to be kept alive.

one interesting snag I see there though, and I think this is a common criticism, is that the popular medium of video sometimes (if not often?) takes precedence in our mind over the printed word, especially when it comes to non-fiction.

I wonder if everything many of us know about the battle of Thermopylae comes from the movie 300...

Well, Jesus is white mostlly because it is not the first moment of human history that humans have their perceptions towards visual representation and not orality or literature.

Jesus is white? Not the Nazerite I know.

no ennison, I think jcamilo was agreeing with my point about how we believe certain things more so because of their visual representations than from other sources or reasons.

I hope the thread stays alive a bit more...I still like the topic.

I broke a rule a few months ago when I watched the BBC/PBS production of Wolf Hall before reading the two Hilary Mantel books on which it was based (Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies). Usually I read a book first so the interpretations of actors and directors don't get mixed up with the pictures and voices in my head. I was wringing my hands over this in one of the posts above (Mark Rylance's interpretation of Thomas Cromwell had been beyond masterful and I knew I would be stuck with it) when Whifflingpin told me--in effect--to stop whining: Mark Rylance was good enough for the likes of me.

Having read both books now, I can report that we were both partially correct. I was right that I would be unable to rid myself of the image of Mark Rylance, but that cut both ways. For one thing, Thomas Cromwell did not look like Mark Rylance, at least based on the famous portrait that Hans Holbein painted of him. The real Cromwell lacked the actor's sad, patient, vaguely bemused face. If Holbein is to be believed (and it was a portrait), Cromwell ran to fat, with little piggish eyes and the face of a pissed off thug (which he was as a youth). Even Mantel comments on the discrepancy between Holbein's Cromwell and her own, who is often surprised (and sometimes offended) that others find in him the face of a killer. "Did you not know?" his own son asks him.

But for me it was Rylance's voice that endured through the books, and about that Whifflingpin was right: it was good enough, and I'm not sure I could have come up with anything better on my own. Its calm control and competence while the sky (or Christendom in any case) seems to be falling in is what gives Rylance's Cromwell his peculiar force and likability. The only flaw in Rylance's characterization is that he makes Cromwell a little more sincere than Mantel wrote him. By the end of Bring Up the Bodies, Cromwell's ethics have worn pretty thin, even by Tudor-era standards. When Anne Boleyn (his one-time ally) will not go quietly, he initiates a miniature reign of terror in which he brings about the execution of men for whom he bears personal grudges, and get's off the hook a family friend (one of the few who may actually have been guilty of adultery with Boleyn), all as a pretext for sending her to the chopping block. That's right, Mantel seems to be saying, that's the way the real world works. And maybe she's right; but if so, shouldn't Cromwell at least sound like more of a killer by that point? In the books, his easy demeanor is to some extent a calculation meant to disarm. But in Rylance's performance it is just a little too sincere--a little too likable. And it sets him up to be too much of a victim when, in the still unpublished book (and presumed installation of the television series), --SPOILER ALERT-- he will follow Boleyn to the block only four years later. In some ways, he deserved what he got.

But if Rylance intruded into my personal reading of the books, I was surprised by those who did not. Claire Foy's Anne Boleyn was intelligent and sexy (it takes broad talent to play as convincing an Anne Boleyn as a Little Dorrit), though personally I read the character a little differently. I saw her as more of an opportunist and less as a regal presence than Foy played her. (To be blunt, I saw her as a self-aware fraud--or is that true of all royalty?) Will Keen as Thomas Cranmer was a bigger problem. The part was grossly underwritten (though that is hardly Keen's fault). In history, Cranmer was at least as important as Cromwell in the English Reformation, and Mantel gives him an important role and a nuanced, believable character (he reminded me of a theology student I once knew). Keen does little more than blink frequently--apparently a mannerism of Cranmer's in--just to let you know who he is.

But the actor who intruded least into my imagination was, oddly enough, the otherwise talented Damian Lewis as Henry VIII. And it's not that Lewis was having a bad day of acting, either. He is quite powerful throughout. But his characterization of Henry (or perhaps the director's) was different than Mantel wrote it in some important ways, and author's version is frankly the more interesting. Lewis plays Henry as a bully. He is Mr Big: he knows what he wants, and controls events far more than Mantel's Henry does. Cromwell has to scramble to keep up with his agenda. But what Lewis misses is that Henry as an alpha male is almost beside the point, although he was certainly was that, too. But Mantel's Henry is also (ironically) hopelessly awash in the bardic illusions of a chivalry. He is described again and again as the truest gentleman in Christendom; and he is genuinely shocked by the lurid tales that Cromwell's informers and victims cook up against his wife. In other words Henry lives in his own world: one in which the leader is not expected to be the dirtiest political dealer (that was Cromwell's job), but the greatest athlete of his day (as Henry was), the manliest man, and the most exemplary Christian gentleman. But as Mantel is also at pains to point out, these ideals (however realized they had ever been) were dying by Cromwell's time. Henry on the jousting field is already a dinosaur. The future belonged to people like Cromwell and even Anne--despite certain spectacular setbacks. So where (I suspect Mantel to be implicitly asking) does that leave royalty today? Where the British monarchy (between the which and Mantel there is remarkably little love lost)? Such considerations remain in the codpiece, so to speak, if Henry is just portrayed as the biggest d*ck of his day. But in Lewis' defense, he does deliver the best and funniest line in the series (taken straight from Mantel): "Call her Elizabeth. And cancel the joust!"

But if some of the leads in the series left me alone as I was reading, I was surprised to see which of the supporting players did manage to shoulder their way in. Bernard Hill's Fielding-esque Duke of Norfolk was beyond resistance; I could not free my reading from his voice or his face (although the historical Thomas Howard looked nothing like that). Anton Lesser's Thomas More did not look much like the humanist intellectual (the author of Utopia), sadistic anti-Reformation persecutor, and Catholic saint and martyr whose beheading Cromwell engineered, either. (Ironically the historical More looked a little like Mark Rylance!) But Lesser's haunting voice--just needling enough, just self-pitying enough, just believable enough to be terrifying--stayed with me to the end. I read some of his lines out loud and I was surprised how well I could mimic him. And then there was Lady Rochefort, Anne Boleyn's venomous sister-in-law, a minor but important character in the book, who is played to tawdry perfection by Jessica Raine. I smiled every time the character appeared in writing because I could just hear Raine's jaded and slightly bitter voice: "Oh tra-la-la, tell it to the Commons!"

So what do I get for breaking my own rules? More than I expected, I'll admit. But the Wolf Hall series was a powerhouse of talent, and Mark Rylance's performance alone would have justified a peek. I cannot help but think that I got lucky with this one. I hope they can get the actors back for the third installment.

My nephew sent me the Jack Reacher movie on DVD so that was my first introduction to the character and I went out and very quickly zipped thru the books. I admit by Book 16 or so was getting just a wee bit tired of the aimless roaming but then the next book would bounce me back. The movie nows pales in comparison with the source material. I was fine with the Lord of the Rings movies until the third one where I felt the last part of the book was jettisoned in favor of a very dull celebration to make a point about changes that annoy. Golgol's novella Taras Bulba was a passable adventure film in the 1960s with Tony Curtis and Yul Brynner and it years before I managed to read the novella and discovered the final ending which the Russian version from a few years back DID reveal and that certainly has made me rethink the original film attempting to add as 'happy' an ending as they could without changing a huge plot point--no spoilers intended. Anyway just a couple of examples cited.

For me it really depends and it can go either way. I used to always like to read the book first before watching the movie, but so many books are made into movies these days (and often I haven't even heard of the book until the movie) that I kind of just let that go.

I go in with the expectation that the movie and the book will likely have certain differences, so it doesn't surprise me when it happens and it usually doesn't spoil the book or the movie for me. If it is a book that I particularly love, and have very clear ideas about certain characters in my own mind then it is true I might have some disappointments in the movie if it doesn't live up to my own expectations. But I do make an effort to try and view the book and the movie as separate from each other.

It is difficult not to in my head compare the book to the movie, but I make an effort to judge the movie not upon how closely or how well it followed the book, but purely based on as a movie, was it a solid, good, entertaining move.

For me, it's a lot of fantasy novel adaptations that have difficulty maintaining fidelity with the text. Eragon, The Lightning Thief, both books I loved, had movie adaptations where the central style and voice that made the narrative compelling were no longer there. They retained the basic premise and plot of each to maintain a token relationship with the original version, but the parts that made each unique were gone.

I was really impressed by the recent Gatsby film with Dicaprio and Raimi. The cinematography, for one, was beautiful, and worked in time with Nick's narration to evoke the central themes of the novel. And there's a pulsing orchestral theme from Lana Del Rey's "Young And Beautiful" that comes in whenever the green light appears that absolutely sells the meaning of the moment. So adaptations can work, but like a lot of people have said, it has to speak to the most central components of their source material, even if a few stylistic changes need to be made.

But, the quintessential film adaptations, have been for me all the movies made of the works of William Shakespeare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojGM...PPmd_RUgKulBlg

That's a playlist I found one day that compiled twelve trailers from those films in the past fifty years or so, sort of as a list reference tool. I really liked the first two on the list, a new Love's Labours Lost (not the Kenneth Branagh version which was pretty forced), and Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing. The 2013 Tempest was also really fantastic, in terms of special effects and cinematography, but also in the power of the language. And the Henry V movie was well done, though not a terribly creative adaptation in setting or motifs.

Cymbeline looks absolutely terrible. The play is ultimately a comedy (ends in a marriage, sons returned), but this adaptation is just way too serious. Parts of it are dark perhaps, but not to this degree.

I'd love to see what ya'll think of these adaptations! What looks best to you? What looks worst?

Oops. the Tempest was 2010, my bad!

I have rarely found a movie to be better than it's book counterpart, but I am biased. In my opinion, literature is the best form of media. Movies have their place, certainly, but there are too many moving parts during the creative process to ensure perfect translation of inspiration to reality. Even a director of singular vision and genius cannot wrangle a production by themselves. You have crews, actors, and etcetera, all contributing positively and negatively to a movie's creation. Writing is uniquely singular (disregarding editors, and such.)

Well, I don't think you'll find one better than its book counterpart, but you can find some of comparable quality in their respective fields, at least for viewers who have experienced the novel first. So long as the movie can find similar appeal, echo the positive traits of the book in its own format, we can say that it is good. Not better, but worthy of its inspiration.

needed somewhere to post what im thinking and I was able to dig this old thread up.

im currently reading the Manchurian candidate and while I like the story, I really dislike the story telling and so ive been skipping parts like crazy and looking forward to the gosh darned thing to be over.

in keeping with the thread---ive seen the remake of the movie many years ago, but its been so long that im not seeing liev schreiber or denzel Washington as the characters in the book. having seen the remake, and in an effort to make the book more enjoyable, I started watching the original with frank Sinatra and Laurence Harvey. the movies okay, but im still not really seeing the actors in my mind as I read the book. however, the movie watching has rescued the book at least a little bit because im enjoying looking for the similarities and departures.

M*A*S*H the movie was way better than the book it was inspired by, IMHO.

its been so long since ive read or watched either but my memory is that the book lacked some of the depth and maybe some of the comedy and also grittiness the movie was able to convey.

I didn't know this to the extent it exists:

https://www.bookseriesinorder.com/mash/

We've all seen the movie and loved it. But what of the book? I thought it was even better than the movie:


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...20180106220818

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...efer_Shane.jpg



As a kid I loved the movie. As an adult, I enjoyed the novel even more.

Somewhere In Time was the movie adaptation of Richard Matheson's Bid Time Farewell.



The former is the only romance movie in history that has as many (if not more) male fans than female:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....SR232,232_.jpg



The name of the novel was changed once the movie came out. Those familiar with the tv show Twilight Zone know what a special writer Brooklyn's Matheson was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bid_Time_Return

Gump, Forrest Gump. Also Bond, James Bond.

Ya know, Breakfast at Tiffany's was also a pretty good pop song from the 90s.

ive read breakfast at tiffany's, and enjoyed it (and the pop song), but haven't seen the movie.

I have however seen this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG_0a7EFK7M

have shane but haven't read it yet, nor seen the movie. which is a little weird because I like westerns.

I watched somewhere in time about a year ago and enjoyed that.

I just grabbed sex in the city yesterday. I didn't know it was a book.

I finished reading the golden compass a few weeks ago and just started watching the movie. it got a pretty low rating on imdb but im liking it so far. im only 30 minutes in and im finding things in it that I wish that book had done.

ive probably mentioned this elsewhere---forrest gump the movie was way better than the book, but the book was still very good and I also think there were some scenes from the book that would have gone really well in the movie that got left out.

i finished watching the golden compass a few days ago and on the whole, i really enjoyed it. i thought it did a better and tighter job of telling the story than did the book. also, the changes they made from the book made the story better. most importantly, the movie left out something bad from the books ending and so the movie concluded on a happier more hopeful note.

i did have some major criticisms however as concerns casting. iorek byrnison is a great character but i absolutely didn't like ian McKellen cast as his voice. what? that's not Gandalf! sam Elliot as scoresby did not work for me either. Christopher lee made a quick cameo as some head figure in the magisterium but how can anyone see him as anything other than Saruman the white when the roles are so similar?

lyra (the main character) grew on me, Nicole Kidman and Daniel craig were well cast, and so was eva green as Serafina the witch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHYoOGfBObU