Novels and Movies

[happyfilmluvguy]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned To Kill A Mockingbird. I remember I read the novel, but can't remember a thing about it.
The movie though....wow. I don't think anything could be adapted the way that novel was. Perfert everything. :eusa_clap

What's been the best adaption of a classic novel like Treasure Island or the Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Fin? Moby Dick? King Arthur? The Adventures of Robin Hood?

Has anyone seen a film that they thought was so good, and in the end credits, it says "Based on" or "Adapted by", and you thought to yourself, "that was based on a book?"

 

[Sunny]

I have mixed feelings on Mortensen as Aragorn. I can see why one can come to the "he's not a king" but also in the book, he was supposed to have been so far from it at that time, that it would have fit (aka Strider.) Had they of made the actor look more like himself at the end (nerdy and clean shaven) it may have been a better transformation. I like the movies, and I like the books (anyone who knows me can figure that out after a while) but truth be told, I'm much more fascinated by Tolkien's inner workings of the myths then I am those particular books. The history and languages alone have given me many years of inner debates (and only because I've only met one other person who can/would debate the philosophy with me.)

I thought Mortensen did the Strider part the best; he really looked the part then. Even at the council of Elrond he spoke as a king. It was in TTT that it really began to go downhill; possibly this is a result of PJ & Co. re-working things and adding flashbacks. Appearance-wise he has issues (height being the biggest one), but that's not my big problem. It's with the character that PJ created. In the Paths of the Dead - Aragorn summoned them and they came. None of this dramatic challenge junk, and especially not fleeing with their tails between their legs. The real Aragorn didn't waver in his actions, even if he doubted the outcome. That's the mythology coming out, and it's a mythology alien to our culture now. By the way, are you on the forum at The Barrow Downs?

Has anyone seen a film that they thought was so good, and in the end credits, it says "Based on" or "Adapted by", and you thought to yourself, "that was based on a book?"

That's how a good friend of mine discovered the Saint books. She saw one of the films with George Sanders on TCM, and noticed that it was based on the book by Leslie Charteris. So she found a book and has been HOOKED ever since. I, on the other hand, got into them because of the radio show with Vincent Price. As with the movies, the radio show attributes the character to Leslie Charteris. I was extremely fortunate to find an omnibus of stories and novellas at my local library. :eusa_clap

 

[celtic]

when i first saw kubrick's Lolita, i wanted to strangle peter sellers. i had just recently read the book and found it to be one of the best things i had ever read. seeing the movie many years later, i can appreciate the film more.

the absolute worst adaptation i have ever seen is of the Anne Rice s/m drama/romance Exit to Eden. (ok, i admit that seeing a nude Dana Delaney is well worth the agony of having to watch that abortion, but...)

 

[Amy Jeanne]

The only one I can compare at this time is Red Headed Woman, written as a novel in 1931 by Katharine Brush and then filmed by MGM in 1932.

In this case, the movie is waaaaay better than the book. Lil LeGendre is terribly selfish and unlikeable in the book. I don't know if it's supposed to be funny, but if it is it doesn't translate well on paper. Jean Harlow's portrayal of Miss LeGendre is spot-on perfect in the film. The film is also a LOT more risque than the book.

Let's thank our lucky stars that MGM didn't stick to the book on this one

 

[Feng_Li]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned To Kill A Mockingbird. I remember I read the novel, but can't remember a thing about it.
The movie though....wow. I don't think anything could be adapted the way that novel was. Perfert everything. :eusa_clap

I haven't seen that since we read the book in high school. I really should rent it sometime.

Has anyone seen a film that they thought was so good, and in the end credits, it says "Based on" or "Adapted by", and you thought to yourself, "that was based on a book?"

Ditto with the Saint; I saw part of one of those on TCM the other day and remember being very impressed.

 

[Elaina]

. By the way, are you on the forum at The Barrow Downs?

I go, but I don't talk at all. There's only 2 of the 6 I visit I speak.

 

[SFSEAN]

F. Scott

I agree, it was very well done! :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

I make it a point to read Gatsby at least once a year and unlike most, I actually like the 1974 movie with Redford and Farrow. "Look at all those lovely shirts." Oh and the best version ever of "What'll I do" is by Chet Baker.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

I make it a point to read Gatsby at least once a year and unlike most, I actually like the 1974 movie with Redford and Farrow. "Look at all those lovely shirts." Oh and the best version ever of "What'll I do" is by Chet Baker.

I enjoyed that version of The Great Gasby too. In some cases you feel as if you can't compare the novel from the movie, because generally they were both good in their own way. They don't cross as being better or worse.

What about novels that were adapted multiple times? Alice In Wonderland for example.

 

[mysterygal]

To Kill a Mockingbird; Both book and movie was great. In school it was actually required reading, not sure if it's still the case today[huh] The english teacher I had growing up would have us read a novel then we would see the movie of it (if there was one)...I think that's why to this day, I still prefer to read the book first then see the movie.
For me, it's great to know what's going on inside the character's mind first.

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

I think the time factor has a lot to do with adapting a book to a movie. I enjoyed the English productions of John LeCarre's "Tinker, Tailor..." and "Smiley's People" but they had the time, in the miniseries format, to portray more fully the events in the books.

Of course, they also had Sir Alec Guinness.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

How about Jurassic Park?

Gulliver's Travels?

Winnie the Pooh?

 

[Doh!]

Silence of the Lambs is really faithful to the novel (Hannibal is not worth your time). So faithful, I was shocked that a couple of things made it into the film (for one, Lecter's escape by using a "disguise.") Although Manhunter strays quite a bit from Red Dragon, it is far superior to the by-the-numbers Red Dragon film/remake. Maybe I'll rent Hannibal Rising, just to be a completist.

The Frankenstein novel is kind of a boring read; it goes without saying the film is fantasic.

Conversely, Dracula is a much better novel than any film version (I love Bela but the movie really shows its age).

 

[Twitch]

Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee was a superb book and the movie was a complete dud covering so small a portion of the book as to be almost unconnected. A real in-depth cinematic visualization would have to be a 5 part miniseries to do it justice.

 

[Naphtali]

"Silence of the Lambs" (1991) was so well written that I need not have read the novel. . . or vice versa. They are equally good.

"The Professionals" (1966) is delightfully entertaining. The novel on which it was allegedly based, "A Mule for the Marquesa" by Frank O'Rourke, is neither as well written nor the same plot. Similarities include: a kidnapping; a group of experts being hired to rescue the kidnapped; and the names of some of the characters. That's it.

Screenwriter-director Richard Brooks used these similarities to create a more interesting story with more interesting characters and far superior dialogue. The only place where the novel measures up is its ending -- different and more believable than Brooks'. For entertainment purposes, this difference is irrelevant. The movie is escapist entertainment rather than mimicking reality.

 

[DanielJones]

I thought that Open Range was a far better movie than a book. I'm hoping that The Golden Compass will be as good as the book, so far the book is very engrossing. The previews of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix looks like they may have captured not only the story of the book but actually kept pivital elements in the film unlike their previous films.
Now, I had never read the Graphic Novel for the Road to Perdition but I thought the movie was well done. Another was 300, I thought the movie nailed down the Graphic Novel and did a better job of it.

Cheers!

Dan

 

[Emblaze]

I always think of the Eddie Murphy version of Dr. Dolittle as the absolute worst book to film adaptation ever. I loved the books as a kid, but the film is a completely different plot. I suppose it doesn't count as a bad adaptation in that case, since they consciously decided to revamp the story and make it different.

That Forsyte Woman is nothing like the book version of the Forsyte Saga, but I like it anyway.

 

[Diamondback]

I actually liked Jurassic Park, even though the movie was only the 1st half of the book... saw it six times in theaters, wore out the collector's edition VHS, still have the merch including repros of Nedry's coffee mug and shaving-cream can, along with scans of the brochures you see in the tour cars...

The sequels bombed like the Eighth Air Force over Germany, but...

 

[Haversack]

Warner's movie version of _Captain Blood_ strayed very little from Raphael Sabatini's novel of the same name.

Haversack.

 

[Joie DeVive]

I actually liked Jurassic Park, even though the movie was only the 1st half of the book... saw it six times in theaters, wore out the collector's edition VHS,

I liked it too. They left out my favorite scene (the poisoned egg roll, for those in the know) and I didn't appreciate the alternate outcome for the big game hunting character or Hammond himself, but I was able to forgive the changes in exchange for an adventurous good time.

I think that might have been the best job done on a Michael Crichton book to film. I didn't care for the movie versions of Sphere or Congo at all. Andromeda Strain was pretty reasonable though.

 

[Diamondback]

I liked it too. They left out my favorite scene (the poisoned egg roll, for those in the know) and I didn't appreciate the alternate outcome for the big game hunting character or Hammond himself, but I was able to forgive the changes in exchange for an adventurous good time.

I think that might have been the best job done on a Michael Crichton book to film. I didn't care for the movie versions of Sphere or Congo at all. Andromeda Strain was pretty reasonable though.

Actually, I liked what they did with John Hammond--in the book, I'd argue Hammond and Nedry were both villains and got that they deserved and Gennaro was actually likable and a good guy for a lawyer, but in the movie they reversed big chunks of Hammond and Gennaro's personalities. I hate lawyers anyway though, so that may just be personal prejudice.

And I'll agree that Sphere and Congo downright sucked, never saw 13th Warrior to compare it to Eaters of the Dead (its novel basis; I read the book ONCE and was sleeping with the lights on for a month after. When Crichton does horror....)