Novels and Movies

[happyfilmluvguy]

Since the begining of the motion picture industry, film makers have taken what was on paper, sandwiched in a leather binding and recreated the images on film. They still adapt and base films on novels to this day and there are still,
many many stories that have yet to be discovered.

What films stayed true to their adaption? What films did not but still managed to create a memorable story? What films did not stay true to the story and setting they were portraying? Any character differences between the novel and the movie?

I have not read the Harry Potter books but have seen a majority of the films. If it is as popular as the books, I believe they do stay true and are well casted. A film which I have much admiration for does not stay completely true to the story and it's characters, but manages to make a wonderful picture.
Shawshank Redemption. Though "Red" was a pale Caucasian Irishman, I could not cast a better actor for the role than Morgan Freeman. Brooks character from what I have heard did not have a big part in the short story, but here they expanded his character and change and it works very well.

How about you?

 

[Shearer]

You know, the one that has always bothered me the most was Jaws. By that I mean I was bothered by the book not being as good as the movie. The adapted screenplay strayed far and I'm glad it did. The movie's right up there on my Top 10 just because of Robert Shaw's monologue in the middle... I actually don't care that much for Roy Scheider as an actor (most likely because I had to dissect All That Jazz for weeks in a film class) and I can take or leave Richard Dreyfuss depending on the part.

That being said...

Hooper has an affair with Brody's wife???

I mean, REALLY, Peter Benchley.

 

[Steve]

I can think of very few films that have stayed true to their source material, except, perhaps, The Adventures of Robin Hood.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy almost goes without saying as a good interpretation of the books, and stellar film-making all the way around as far as I am concerned.

The Count of Monte Cristo gave a great job of storytelling, good acting and visuals, but the changes it made from the book, (which happens to be my favorite novel of all time,) were too many for my taste. Giving Edmond a son who neither he nor the boy realized was the son until the end of the film was far too Hollywood.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Not vintage, but very true to the story are all of the Harry Potter movies.

Also, and I'm sure I'll get laughed at for this, The Devil Wears Prada was spot on. Although I found the book to be funnier, but that wasn't due to bad scripting, just bad casting in certain parts. However, Meryl Streep was fantastic in this film! I'm pretty certain she was the only reason why I watched the entire movie.

 

[Sunny]

The Lord of the Rings trilogy almost goes without saying as a good interpretation of the books, and stellar film-making all the way around as far as I am concerned.

I'd take issue with that one. Don't get me wrong, I love the movies for the visuals and some of the characterization, and there's a TON they get just right. But there are more than a few things changed, and many not for the better.

For my own, I think The Hunt for Red October adaptation was extremely well done. Much of the action was necessarily condensed, but it makes sense (if you pay attention!) and works just as well as the book.

A friend of mine has said that the Ben-Hur film is better than the novel. I'm not sure that I can agree with him, since the novel is an abiding favorite of mine. The film focuses far more on the Judah-Messala conflict than on Judah's internal struggle about the meaning of the Messiah, which is a very key part of the book. Yet the film seems complete as it is, and the Hollywood-style "religion" isn't too terrible.

The adaptation of Sense and Sensibility that Emma Thompson did is remarkable. It diverges widely from the original action and flow of events in the original, but manages to give an incredibly true sense of character and fact nonetheless. It doesn't try to do too much in its time limit, instead developing character.

The worst film adaptation I can think of is the Saint movie with Val Kilmer. The original Saint, Simon Templar, was written about in many books and short stories by Leslie Charteris back largely in the 1930s-1950s. The movie doesn't pretend to adapt any particular book or story, but it is supposedly the same character. I beg to differ!!! The name is the same, but there the resemblance ends. It is very sad, since the Saint is such an engaging, larger-than-life character; but in that film, he ends up as just another dark, violent loner-type.

 

[Steve]

The adaptation of Sense and Sensibility that Emma Thompson did is remarkable. It diverges widely from the original action and flow of events in the original, but manages to give an incredibly true sense of character and fact nonetheless. It doesn't try to do too much in its time limit, instead developing character.

Ah, that reminds me. The BBC / A&E adaptation of Pride and Prejudice was a perfect adaptation of the book; almost word for word the whole way through. Great casting too.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Ah, that reminds me. The BBC / A&E adaptation of Pride and Prejudice was a perfect adaptation of the book; almost word for word the whole way through. Great casting too.

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

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

I'd take issue with that one. Don't get me wrong, I love the movies for the visuals and some of the characterization, and there's a TON they get just right. But there are more than a few things changed, and many not for the better.

For my own, I think The Hunt for Red October adaptation was extremely well done. Much of the action was necessarily condensed, but it makes sense (if you pay attention!) and works just as well as the book.

A friend of mine has said that the Ben-Hur film is better than the novel. I'm not sure that I can agree with him, since the novel is an abiding favorite of mine. The film focuses far more on the Judah-Messala conflict than on Judah's internal struggle about the meaning of the Messiah, which is a very key part of the book. Yet the film seems complete as it is, and the Hollywood-style "religion" isn't too terrible.

The adaptation of Sense and Sensibility that Emma Thompson did is remarkable. It diverges widely from the original action and flow of events in the original, but manages to give an incredibly true sense of character and fact nonetheless. It doesn't try to do too much in its time limit, instead developing character.

The worst film adaptation I can think of is the Saint movie with Val Kilmer. The original Saint, Simon Templar, was written about in many books and short stories by Leslie Charteris back largely in the 1930s-1950s. The movie doesn't pretend to adapt any particular book or story, but it is supposedly the same character. I beg to differ!!! The name is the same, but there the resemblance ends. It is very sad, since the Saint is such an engaging, larger-than-life character; but in that film, he ends up as just another dark, violent loner-type.

Very well said Sunny, I'm rather impressed. You bring up points I hadn't thought of, yet now that you bring them up I couldn't agree more. I truly enjoyed the adaptation of Sense and Sensibility that you speak of, and think you are spot on with your statements about it. I also 100% agree with your statements in regards to The Saint. I thought this modern day movie was nothing like the character portrayed in an earlier era. You're right, the only thing they share is a name. Topped with a completely un-stellar performance by Mr. Kilmer, I thought this movie was a major flop and could be seen as an insult to the original character Kilmer was attempting to no avail to portray.

 

[Senator Jack]

We've had the thread about the ending of 'A Clockwork Orange' before, so I won't bring that up again except to note that the ending of the novel and the picture are extremley different. (I'm a fan of the novel's ending.)

I had expected a really good film of Kingsley Amis' 'Lucky Jim' from the BBC but was let down by the way they turned Jim Dixon into a man with high ideals about education.

'Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter' has almost nothing to do with the original play but I have to say that while I'm a fan of writer George Axelrod, the world really didn't need another reworking of Dr. Faustus anyway.

The only similarities between the film version of 'The Spy Who Loved Me' and the book is Bond and Steel (hohummily renamed Jaws in the movie) and as I wrote in the Casino Royale thread, it needs to be remade.

I suppose 'Psycho' is about as far from the source material one can get though. The only thing the film and short story had in common was the psycho part. And speaking of horror films, I was totally let down by the film version of Clive Barker's 'Cabal', retitled 'Night Breed'.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[Elaina]

LotR is a good adaptation. I agree things were changed that shouldn't have been, but it's a good introduction to the vast world Tolkien created. It got my son interested in it, and now tries to get anyone he can to read the Hobbit to him.

For the most part, I don't watch movies based on books. They're a dissapointment more often then not. A few are good (like "Red October" nad the Harry Potters are pretty true to the books) but more just, well, suck.

And, really, an actor can't ever stack up to what I have in my head. Except Ian McKellan, because my dad, to me, IS what Gandalf should look like, and barring the sexual orientation and the English accent, Sir Ian could be my dad (in a weird Twilight Zone version of "the Patty Duke Show": they look alike, the walk alike, and they sound alike except my dad has a southern twang, and the other is English).

 

[Doctor Strange]

I can't believe nobody's mentioned The Godfather (and parts of Part II) yet. An outstanding adaptation of the book - an improvement on it in some ways.

The Grapes of Wrath captures the spirit of the book perfectly, even with the changes necessitated by Hollywood at the time (e.g., the final scene). There are several other good Steinbeck adapations too.

There have been several good adapations of Sinclair Lewis novels, especially Elmer Gantry, Dodsworth, and Arrowsmith.

There are plenty of other examples I can't think of at the moment...

I long ago realized that fidelity to the tone/message of the original is far more important than recounting all the events and detail. I don't have a problem with combining characters or telescoping the story as long as it's essentially faithful to the message. That's the whole point of an *adaptation*.

Oh, and my feeling about the Lord of the Rings is that they did an exceptional job. Sure, they left out *tons* of stuff, made lots of changes (not all of them good), and turned it into far more of an action-adventure horror/war film than the original is... But they kept much of the essence intact, including the pervading sense of sadness/loss that the old order is passing away. As great as the production design, acting, music, effects, etc., were, I think the adaptation - boiling 1000+ pages of dense material into three long movies that can be (mostly) understood if you haven't read the book - is the outstanding achievement of the films. And, if nothing else, they have brought a huge new readership to Tolkien!

 

[Jack Scorpion]

In LOTR, they basically took out everything I possibly liked from the books and kept in everything I hated about the books. In my mind, a terrible adaptation and some terrible minutes of my life.

The Long Goodbye is one of those movies that I think ended up far better than the original book. Although, I think in the case of most Raymond Chandler novels, this is true. Raymond Chandler never ended a story well. And The Long Goodbye has one of movie's best endings.

The Thin Man, despite being a goofball comedy, if I remember correctly, actually kept very tightly to the original novel. So much so that reading the novel afterwards, I kept replaying scenes in the movie over in my head.

Apocalypse Now and the Heart of Darkness is also one of my favorite adaptations, but I guess I am of the opinion that when a book is adapted into a movie, big changes should be made.

 

[jake_fink]

Huston's Maltese Falcon is an excellent translation from book to film, even if it's most famous peice of dialogue was lifted from Shakespeare rather than Hammett.

Huston did well with Treasure of the Sierra Madre and very, very well with Fat City where, again, he relies very much on the book's dialogue.

I prefer the film Billy Liar to the book. Women in Love was a good adaptation.

I think Brideshead Revisted is one of the best examples of a film (television) filling out and improving on the original material. The book is good but the tv series is outstanding.

That said, some books should have stayed books. Ask the Dust and The Unbearable Film Based on the Unbearable Lightness of Being come immediately to mind.

 

[Sunny]

Very well said Sunny, I'm rather impressed. You bring up points I hadn't thought of, yet now that you bring them up I couldn't agree more. I truly enjoyed the adaptation of Sense and Sensibility that you speak of, and think you are spot on with your statements about it. I also 100% agree with your statements in regards to The Saint. I thought this modern day movie was nothing like the character portrayed in an earlier era. You're right, the only thing they share is a name. Topped with a completely un-stellar performance by Mr. Kilmer, I thought this movie was a major flop and could be seen as an insult to the original character Kilmer was attempting to no avail to portray.

Aww, thank you! I also agree that the A&E Pride and Prejudice is hands-down the best Austen adaptation to date. The remarkable thing about Sense and Sensibility is that it achieves that level of trueness without six hours to play in.

And GASP! Someone else knows the real Simon Templar!! :eusa_clap The whole movie was an insult. The whole beginning bit in the orphanage - where on earth did that come from? And he uses aliases - but he simply uses names of saints, instead of keeping the S.T. initials with bits of genius like Sugarman Treacle and Sebastian Tombs. A friend of mine has been making copies of the George Sanders films for me, which I'm very excited to see. I understand that Sanders portrays the Saint very well for the most part, lacking mainly Simon's athleticism.

 

[Haversack]

I rather like the adaptation of Dumas that George MacDonald Fraser did for Richard Lester's _Three/Four Musketeers_. Of course, turning it into two movies helped but caused many legal problems.

Another good Huston adaptation was his _The Man Who Would Be King_.

Haversack.

 

[MAGNAVERDE]

A few years ago, the son of one of my pals took his girlfriend to see Great Expectations with Gwyneth Paltrow & Ethan Hawke. Obviously, it wasn't David Lean, but this kid would never watch a movie that was 1) 60 years old & 2) black-&-white, and I figured that seeing a dumbed-down version of the story, despite its prettified cast & modern setting & pop music, would be better than having no acquaintance with Dickens at all. After all, until then, the guy had thought Dickens was a children's writer.

Anyway, he & his girlfriend really liked the movie, so his girlfriend bought the book, and after she read it, she let him read it, so the next time I saw him, I asked him how he liked the book, & if they had changed anything in putting it onscreen.

He told me he liked the movie better than the book (no real surprise here: he was still in his 2Os) but he said that he liked the book too. I could hardly believe it. Maybe there was hope for kids after all. But after he told me that they hadn't really changed anything from the book to the movie, I realized that what he had been reading was not actually Dickens at all but a novelization of the movie, in which almost nothing survived of the original story but the names, and not even all of them. In fact, Miss Havisham, didn't even make call-backs for the movie.

I didn't go into my normal harangue about how nothing is as good as it used to be because I didn't want to sound like his dad, but a few days later I gave him a paperback copy of Dicken's original story, just so he could see why that, after 15O years, it's still in print. He made it through a few chapters, then gave it back to me, announcing that he liked the new book better. As he put it, "Now I see why they changed the story for the movie. The old version was totally boring. You should read the new one."
Magnaverde.

 

[Paisley]

For my own, I think The Hunt for Red October adaptation was extremely well done. Much of the action was necessarily condensed, but it makes sense (if you pay attention!) and works just as well as the book.

Another Tom Clancy fan!

Capt. Ramius's motive for sailing the Red October to the U.S. was different in the book and in the movie. In the movie, he was motivated by political conviction. In the book, he was motivated to avenge his wife's death, which was caused by a negligent but well-connected Soviet doctor. I enjoyed both the book and the movie; the book, more so.

 

[Novella]

When I first saw Lord of the Rings I thought it was so fantastic. The only thing that really ticked me off was Arwen's bulked up role as hero to Frodo and the lack of the Faramir-Eowyn romance. I was okay about other things that bothered others (like no Tom Bombadil). I just watched the first movie again the other week (for the first time in a year or two) and it was cheesier than I remembered it. I still think it managed the enormous volume of the stories well, I just appreciate it less than I did when I was 15. (and maybe now I can look beyond the blinding beauty of Orlando Bloom and Viggo Mortensen's ruggedness? haha)

One of my all time favorite book-movie combos is I Capture the Castle. Both the book and the film are so excellent - really they are compliments to each other. The tone, the lighthearted humor, and the trials of growing up were transferred very well to the screen. North & South (the Gaskell novel) is another one of my favorite book-movie duos. It's great because I look at it as having a historical/philosophical dimension (work/labor and management relations) and a romance story (which I become totally girly over). I watched the miniseries in between finishing the book, and I'd say imagining Richard Armitage as John Thornton definitely gave the end of the book a kick, haha.

The Bourne Identity was for a long time my favorite book. The movie version is entertaining, fun, but a bit disorganized. I think as a movie a lot of the complexities of the novel are lost. I like the movie, but I enjoy it as independent of the book.

The Four Feathers (the last adaptation) and the miniseries The Forsyte Saga are two things I really enjoy watching, but I just couldn't get into the books. I think that the novels aren't necessarily bad, just not nearly as engaging as the film versions.

I'm a little ashamed to say I haven't read a single Jane Austen novel. I've seen a ton of the movie versions of her work though. I love Mansfield Park (the one with Frances O'Connor)! I have a soft spot for costume dramas, but I've seen a lot more of the films in proportion to the books I've read.

I couldn't get into the Brideshed Revisited miniseries - does it pick up further on in the story? I actually bought the book before I watched the miniseries, but never got around to reading it. As unfair a verdict as it is, the miniseries turned me off from wanting to read the book!

My least favorite book to movie adaptation (that comes to mind at the moment) is the book Regeneration, which became the movie Behind the Lines. The movie was so lackluster in comparison to how engaging the book was!

 

[WH1]

Anything by Clive Cussler

They have yet to do his Dirk Pitt books justice on the screen. Sahara was entertaining but really had nothing to do with Dirk Pitt and Raise the Titanic was an absolute dud. If done correctly with the vintage cars and more emphasis on the Pitt personality in the books, a movie would be great. Someday maybe!

 

[mysterygal]

If I remember correctly, 'Portrait of a Lady' stayed true to form.
9 out of 10, I always love the novel more than the movie. Sometimes my own visual ideas when reading, turns out better than how the movie is. Plus, I absolutely love books for they bring you into the characters mind. I'm always fascinated with how people think.