nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Films that do/don't live up to the Book or Screenplay

Merkin

I'm always invariably disappointed by a film adaptation of a book as I find one's own imagination to be better. Not entirely sure why, I just think it's probably impossible to capture all the nuances and subtleties that you'll find in literature.

In my experience there are a few films which have done a really good job at portraying the book and what it stands for. Atonement by Ian McEwan is an amazing story and I think the film was pretty outstanding too, particularly the vile character played by a young Saoirse Ronan.

Ken Kesey' One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is another amazing book and film (who doesn't love Jack?) and Bernhard Schlink's The Reader was very sympathetically portrayed in the film with Kate Winslet (even though the sight of her face makes me want to smack her across the chops).

What films have you seen that have done a great book justice?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

wobzilla1

Did anybody else like the miniseries adaption of the Shining? If you discount the child they got to play Danny, it's a good watch. Much more faithful to the book too.

AnonoBoy

wobzilla1 wrote: »

Did anybody else like the miniseries adaption of the Shining? If you discount the child they got to play Danny, it's a good watch. Much more faithful to the book too.

I think people put a bit too much emphasis on whether a film is faithful to the book or not. A faithful film adaptation is not necessarily a good film, they're different mediums.

In a book a long rambling inner monologue can be beautiful, hilarious and thoroughly entertaining. On film turning that into voiceover will more than likely just be tedious.

But to answer your question.... haven't seen the mini-series version. Isn't that written by King himself?

banie01

Dune....
The Lynch film butchers the source material in every aspect but for the actual appearances of the character's although that said
Chani, should be ginger and Paul and Feyd should be @7yrs younger! haha.(And wtf Sting was cast for other than as a cash in is beyond me)
But to my mind...
Apart from Patrick Stewart as Halleck....Which was excellent....

Every single performance was terrible, overacted haminess of utter ****e actors...
His visual depiction of most characters however fits with how I imagined them in my own mind whenever I read(or reread) the book.

And as for the SciFi channels mini-series adaptations, utter utter abortions!

I'm of the opinion that while Dune is a great book(One of my favourites, cheesy as that is), with huge scope\space opera....
It doesn't really lend itself to a successful adaptation.
Which is all the more surprising considering it is broken into a trilogy format in the book from the getgo....i.e Dune>Muad D'ib>The Prophet

sunflower27

Water for Elephants is a fantastic book. I was so disappointed when it ended. The film was dire, dreadful in fact.

trashcan

Agree that generally films don't match up to the books they are based on. I really liked Clint Eastwoods adaptation of Denis Lehanes Mystic River though. Great book and the film does the story justice. I don't understand someone making a film of a book and totally changing the story. Write a completely new film if that's what you want. Hitchcocks version of the 39 Steps is a prime example. Bears nearly no relation to the book whatsoever.

stefan idiot jones

Alien was a poor book.

The most honest adaptation of a book that I have read is First Blood.

The Running Man is a book by Stephen King and the film has virtually nothing in common with the original book. I don't know why they bothered.

....and finally. ...ANY attempt to put the brilliant Terry Pratchett's books to the screen can just stop and give up now. Do not try any more, you are idiots to even attempt it.

chopperbyrne

banie01 wrote: »

Dune....
The Lynch film butchers the source material in every aspect but for the actual appearances of the character's although that said
Chani, should be ginger and Paul and Feyd should be @7yrs younger! haha.(And wtf Sting was cast for other than as a cash in is beyond me)
But to my mind...
Apart from Patrick Stewart as Halleck....Which was excellent....
Every single performance was terrible, overacted haminess of utter ****e actors...
His visual depiction of most characters however fits with how I imagined them in my own mind whenever I read(or reread) the book.

And as for the SciFi channels mini-series adaptations, utter utter abortions!

I'm of the opinion that while Dune is a great book(One of my favourites, cheesy as that is), with huge scope\space opera....
It doesn't really lend itself to a successful adaptation.
Which is all the more surprising considering it is broken into a trilogy format in the book from the getgo....i.e Dune>Muad D'ib>The Prophet

If HBO, Showtime or AMC got their hands on it, it could easily be as successful as Game of Thrones.

Think ScyFy still have the rights though, which is why they keep putting out bad mini-series every few years.

Earthhorse

Das Kitty wrote: »

Blade Runner is better than the source material, IMO.

Then again all they really keep from the book is the world it's set in, so I'm not sure that counts.

Disagree. The book is far superior to the film. Far more going on in it.

Stephen King wasn't too happy with Kubrick's take on The Shining:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shining_%28film%29#Response_by_Stephen_King

Though he seems to have mellowed somewhat about it more recently.

stefan idiot jones wrote: »

Alien was a poor book.

I disagree but either way it was a novelisation of the movie, not the other way around.

Merkin

trashcan wrote: »

I really liked Clint Eastwoods adaptation of Denis Lehanes Mystic River though. Great book and the film does the story justice.

A brilliant film but I haven't read the book (didn't know there was one!) so I must pick up a copy

--Kaiser--

Merkin wrote: »

A brilliant film but I haven't read the book (didn't know there was one!) so I must pick up a copy

Same author also wrote Gone, Baby Gone and Shutter Island

GLaDOS

Shawshank Redemption is one of the few I'd say improves/matches the original book.

'The Shining' book is far superior to the film imo.

--Kaiser--

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Shawshank Redemption is one of the few I'd say improves/matches the original book.

'The Shining' book is far superior to the film imo.

I dunno, I watched the film just after reading the book and I was like 'WTF? is this a joke?'. But now I appreciate the film and almost see them as separate entities

El Guapo!

ibarelycare wrote: »

The Shawshank Redemption is an amazing adaptation of Stephen King's novella. Stand By Me (from the same collection of novellas) is also a brilliant movie that lives up to the story. So many adaptations of his stories are awful. (I'm waiting for someone to mention The Shining as a good movie...personally I hated Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of the story).

Stephen King also hated the movie version of The Shining. He thought Kubrick butchered it.

castletownman

I thought The Help was a very good adaptation of the Kathryn Stockett novel. Under-rated movie.

K-9

Sleepers was a pretty good attempt at the book, covered the child abuse delicately and effectively.

Just finished reading Bonfire of the Vanities, the film completely changed the Bruce Willis character with some other changes to the plot as well. Can see why it was such a big flop, though egos played a big part in that.

Capt'n Midnight

banie01 wrote: »

Dune....
The Lynch film butchers the source material in every aspect but for the actual appearances of the character's

A reboot would be nice

And yes I kinda like the visuals

And besides it's by David Lynch so anything could have happened

kraggy

Can't believe this hasn't been mentioned.

Awesome book, brilliant film.

(Don't watch if you're in the middle of reading the book)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44TG_H_oY2E

Gone Drinking

Was this posted already?

http://i.imgur.com/YjpwVFW.jpg

Capt'n Midnight

stefan idiot jones wrote: »

The most honest adaptation of a book that I have read is First Blood.

well if by that you mean remove most of the killing

The Running Man is a book by Stephen King and the film has virtually nothing in common with the original book. I don't know why they bothered.

If you've seen Maximum Overdrive which Stephen himself directed then you'll know why. Rotten tomatoes rating 17%

Merkin

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A reboot would be nice

And yes I kinda like the visuals

And besides it's by David Lynch so anything could have happened

There have been a few mentions of Dune and I'd never even heard of it before this!

Wacker The Attacker

When the book\screenplay for inception landed on some movie nerds desk they should have wiped their arse\fanny\balls with it.

That piece of horseplop should never have been committed to film.

cml387

Interesting that Stephen king comes up a lot.

The TV series of Salem's Lot was far superior to the book,

MagicMarker

No mention of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?

The movie was utterly atrocious.

JohnFalstaff

MagicMarker wrote: »

No mention of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?

The movie was utterly atrocious.

TV series had its moments though, always thought it caught the humour of the books in a way that the film missed by a mile.

The Silence of the Lambs would be a good example of a film that made the most of its source material.

I'd love to see a film based on Paul Williams' book: Apple Crumble Or We Rumble - The True Story of the Mountjoy Sweet Trolley Riot

Sky King

Heart of Darkness / Apocalypse Now

Not a direct adaption, but however. Both masterpieces imo.

catallus

The film The English Patient is way better than the book.

The Assassination of Jesse James is a brilliant film and the book is brilliant too, hard to know which is better.

EoghanIRL

I've read all the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy books and the movie is just terrible .

Femme_Fatale

I love an auld nightmare futuristic vision, me.

Nineteen Eighty Four (the version that was actually made in 1984, with Richard Burton and John Hurt) is superb IMO - captures the book impeccably, and Burton is just so perfect as O'Brien.
But...
The Handmaid's Tale - horrendously bad.

I like Bonfire Of The Vanities the movie. IMO the intense panning it got wasn't justified.

I've read snippets of American Psycho - way too f'ucked up. The film is toned down and it's still quite enough sadism. Excellent film though.

Atonement -

(both book and movie).

I haven't read Minority Report but adore the film. Maybe the book is way better though. I think Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?) the book is better than the film, however the film is still great I think.

Ken.

The film Reacher. In the book the guy is described thusly:

Reacher is 6'5" tall (1.96 m) with a 50-inch chest, and weighing between 220 and 250 pounds (100–115 kg). He has ice-blue eyes and dirty blond hair.

Then they go get that fücking midget Tom Cruise to play him. Totally ruined it for most readers of the books as thats all you can imagine now when you read them.

kowloon

Deleted User wrote: »

Children of Men is an example of a movie that was far better than the source material. While the book had an interesting story, it was just badly written and largely boring for the most part. Remember reading once that the director heard the story behind the book but refused to read it as it would ruin his vision - and it worked.
.

Seriously good film.