Book to film...

[Mojo Ram]

Its always a disappointment...it never translates the full story,the vibe,the characters etc...

From reading the book to going to the movies and anticipating the filmmakers interpretation of said book...images,characters,mood,tone etc...its usually a great disappointment. Its almost a "done deal" these days that you,as a reader will be dumbed down and disappointed as a moviegoer after reading the novel.

I very recently went to see World War Z,having NOT read the novel by Max Brooks...and i was both entertained and left satisfied after leaving the theater. Many others who had read the novel were not. They left pissed and disappointed. I understand...

I get it. I read too. Novel to film sucks...always...its always a disappointment and is always a let down. Novel's are comprehensive and they are a petri dish of imagination,imagery and first person reality in terms of comprehension...

No film can replace the experience of reading an excellent book. Its just the way it is.

The point of this thread(FINALLY!) is to share those rare occasions when you have seen a film based on a novel that you've previously read that simply either met your expectations or maybe even exceeded them. Not too many for sure.
Mine...
1) "The Mist" written by Stephen King directed by Frank Darabont
2) "Jurassic Park" written by Michael Crichton directed by Steven Spielberg(Westworld is a similar,but more interesting theme park story IMO,that deserves a remake) Can you tell that i really like Mike Crichton's writing?

Scripts sometimes come from many different writers so its difficult to declare

Many film screenplays have also been written from successful video games...most of them have been awful.
I thought these guys did it well...

1) "Resident Evil" Paul Anderson
2) "Silent Hill" Christophe Gans
3) "Battle Los Angeles" Jonathan Liebesman(COD)

Many of us read,play video games and watch movies...i'm just curious about how we feel about the adaptation of some of our favorite stories when they get interpreted to film. I think that in current times,its becoming more and more difficult to please the crowd. Art and time says so

 

[biggame1190]

Harry Potter, LOTR, and Hunger Games (the first one atleast) translated in a OK manner IMO. Of course the books will ALWAYS be better because there is so much more content in the books, such as just being inside the main character (or narrators) head to hear their thoughts.

Although I have not watched the last harry potter movie since seeing it in theaters. They changed that one up from the 2nd part of the 7th book so much I was shaking my head alot of times when seeing it in theaters.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Battle LA was based off a video game? Which one?

I think it depends on how they do it, but most of the time they do it wrong. Hollywood does that with everything though, I've seen it personally with my dad working in the business... They always have to change everything, often times it's not even recognizable, which sucks.


There are some video games I think would make great movies, but I don't want Hollywood fucking them up and ruining it... Having just played through the Last of Us (highly recommend it) I want more... I can't wait for a sequel (they better make one) and if done right I think a movie would be great, but I know they wouldn't do it right...


It's to the point if I read a book and then go see a movie based on it, I just assume it'll be totally wrong anyway, and accept it. Black Hawk Down is a good example of that, having met many of them personally, and reading the book, the movie is incredibly incorrect... So when I watched it, I had to remind myself that it wasn't really that true.

 

[Ram Quixote]

The movie version of Hunt for Red October was better than the book, IMO (the book bludgeoned you to death with various government entities), despite using Alec Baldwin as Jack Ryan. Baldwin did fine, it's just that he didn't really fit the characterization of Ryan.

My wife read the Crichton novel, Congo, and she preferred the movie as well. It's one of our favorites, mostly because of the excellent character actors (Delroy Lindo, Ernie Hudson, Tim Curry) scattered throughout the movie. Forget the idiocy of the gorilla using sign language.

LOTR did okay. But they got a few critical things terribly wrong. I won't bore anyone with details.

 

[Mister Sin]

I think this is based off of mostly disappointment in the difference from what our mind created, to what someone else's created. Outside of just downright changing the story of course.

 

[Mister Sin]

To be honest, I don't read if I can help it. And I always laugh at the guys bitching about how bad the director screwed it up....but I could understand the feeling of being let down because you go in already "knowing" what will happen and how it will happens an it what chapter it happens in.

 

[Ram Quixote]

To be honest, I don't read if I can help it. And I always laugh at the guys bitching about how bad the director screwed it up....but I could understand the feeling of being let down because you go in already "knowing" what will happen and how it will happens an it what chapter it happens in.

One word ... expectations. I can get past expectations if I recognize that the images I wanted to see were from my imagination. But when the story is hacked apart ... when a dynamic between two main characters is fractured ... :doink:

 

[Thordaddy]

The movie version of Hunt for Red October was better than the book, IMO (the book bludgeoned you to death with various government entities), despite using Alec Baldwin as Jack Ryan. Baldwin did fine, it's just that he didn't really fit the characterization of Ryan.

My wife read the Crichton novel, Congo, and she preferred the movie as well. It's one of our favorites, mostly because of the excellent character actors (Delroy Lindo, Ernie Hudson, Tim Curry) scattered throughout the movie. Forget the idiocy of the gorilla using sign language.

LOTR did okay. But they got a few critical things terribly wrong. I won't bore anyone with details.

Red October is one of the few Clancy books I have not read so I can't say I disagree with your evaluation,but the detail you complain about is one of the things I most enjoy about his writing.

IMO making a single movie on his books is pretty difficult ,I think "Red " has one of the fewest pages of the Jack Ryan "series" 387 .
If you didn't like the details in that one,don't bother with the rest,"Sum of All Fears" was over 800.

 

[Faceplant]

The Green Mile was probably the best movie adaptation of a novel that I can remember. It was amazing how closely the movie resembled the story and characters as they played out in my head while reading it.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

 

[brokeu91]

I thought the Hunger Games did a great job working the novel. I also liked the Princess Bride's adaptation. I thought the Harry Potter movies did a decent job (especially the two movies based on the 7th book).

There have been other movies based on novels that I've read that are better films overall than the Hunger Games, but as far as adaptation to the novel, I think Hunger Games is my favorite.

 

[biggame1190]

My wife read the Crichton novel, Congo, and she preferred the movie as well. It's one of our favorites, mostly because of the excellent character actors (Delroy Lindo, Ernie Hudson, Tim Curry) scattered throughout the movie. Forget the idiocy of the gorilla using sign language.

haha I love the Congo movie to. Its very underrated IMO, not too many people know about it.

 

[biggame1190]

I thought the Hunger Games did a great job working the novel. I also liked the Princess Bride's adaptation. I thought the Harry Potter movies did a decent job (especially the two movies based on the 7th book).

There have been other movies based on novels that I've read that are better films overall than the Hunger Games, but as far as adaptation to the novel, I think Hunger Games is my favorite.

Agree on the Hunger Games, I still need to read the next two books before the movies come out.... One of the only issues people had is that Katniss is supposed to be very skinny, like close to starving skinny (for obvious reasons if you know the book) a while Jennifer Lawrence is not fat, she is ....uh...lets says thick (No pun, she is attractive). Just saying, thats really the only beef I have seen people complain about. Not bad.

As for the Harry Potter 8th movie (part 2 of the 7th book). I saw some flaws that irked me a bit. Such as the fact that in the movie they made Voldemort feel when a horcrux was destroyed, which is could not in the book.. And the entire Voldemort/Harry fight was basically made up in the movie, different setting, different style, not using Harry's big speech to Voldy, all different. Off the top of my head. But for the most part the Potter movies did do solid for the books.

 

[brokeu91]

I thought the Hunger Games did a great job working the novel. I also liked the Princess Bride's adaptation. I thought the Harry Potter movies did a decent job (especially the two movies based on the 7th book).

There have been other movies based on novels that I've read that are better films overall than the Hunger Games, but as far as adaptation to the novel, I think Hunger Games is my favorite.

Agree on the Hunger Games, I still need to read the next two books before the movies come out.... One of the only issues people had is that Katniss is supposed to be very skinny, like close to starving skinny (for obvious reasons if you know the book) a while Jennifer Lawrence is not fat, she is ....uh...lets says thick (No pun, she is attractive). Just saying, thats really the only beef I have seen people complain about. Not bad.

As for the Harry Potter 8th movie (part 2 of the 7th book). I saw some flaws that irked me a bit. Such as the fact that in the movie they made Voldemort feel when a horcrux was destroyed, which is could not in the book.. And the entire Voldemort/Harry fight was basically made up in the movie, different setting, different style, not using Harry's big speech to Voldy, all different. Off the top of my head. But for the most part the Potter movies did do solid for the books.

I agree with the 8th movie on Harry Potter. I hated the fact that the end battle in the movie made it seem like Harry was dodging the possible deadly attacks by Voldy. But in the book, Harry conquered death and in doing so had the Elder wand and had a total upper hand on Voldemort. In fact, the book was like the very end of the first Matrix where Neo was basically just toying with the computer programs because it was so easy. I thought that was more compelling than the movie's version. Also it did not allow Harry to give the speech to Voldemort which was so triumphant (is the only word I can use to describe it).

One more movie I thought was great as far as visuals being just how I imagined it was the Lord of the Rings movies. I didn't like how they changed Sauramon and made humans win the Battle of Helms deep when it was really the Ents. But generally I thought it was pretty good adaptation, at least visually.