Book to Film Adaptations - no the "Bad" thread is separate

[Scarlett Johansson]

I was looking at reviews for The Woman in the Window. Sounds cliche but light fun. Anyone read it? I'm aware that the author is apparently a nutty con artist.

The film looks good. Amy Adams, Julianne Moore, Gary Oldman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Wyatt Russell? A great cast. Unfortunately it got pushed back because Corona Chan.

Artemis Fowl looks like trash tho lol.

Some of my favorite book to film adaptations include Stardust, The Lord of the Rings, Perfect Blue, The Handmaid's Tale (yes I like that cheesy 1990 mess), Flowers in the Attic (again, shitty but camp classic), Vanity Fair, and Gone Girl.

 

[CivilianOfTheFandomWars]

The Circle was garbage and did the book an injustice. The book was actually smart, and the main character has an intriguing arc.

 

[Arctic Fox]

I think we already have a thread for this.

 

[Scarlett Johansson]

I think we already have a thread for this.

I see threads for "bad" and "worst" but not for them in general

 

[Y2K Baby]

The more interesting one is film to book, you sped.

 

[CatParty]

Wizard of oz

 

[Pokemonquistador2]

Wizard of oz

The Wizard of Oz is probably the best movie we could have gotten from the convoluted weirdness that was Baum's novels. All children's media written at that time was kind of weird. Little Nemo (based on a newspaper comic series) and it's movie adaptation didn't fare quite so well, probably because it really didn't know what to do with its characters. It just said "Here is this fantastic world. Let's spend a looooong time looking at this fabulous animation. Oops Nemo fucked the world up and has to save it." Whereas the movie Wizard of Oz condensed the story very nicely and paced it well. Having a good ensemble cast of actors helped.

 

[Next Task]

I also loved Gone Girl, book and film. Stardust also worked. Rebecca is very good, though the book is naturally darker than the Hays Code-affected film. Babe.

I'm sure there are others, but I can't think of them right now. It's much less common for me to have both read the book and seen the movie nowadays. Especially as I'd rather see the film then read the book, as the other way around just generally means I don't enjoy the film on its own merits because I'm too aware of the changes.

I saw some online howling about how the Artemis Fowl adaptation looks to have completely fucked the books over. I don't read YA books anymore, otherwise I might know where it falls on the scale of faithful adaptations to completely different premises bearing at best a cosmetic resemblance to the original.

Something like Mrs. Doubtfire, where an odd but charming book became a Robin Williams vehicle, or Howl's Moving Castle, where a strange, weirdly Welsh Diana Wynne Jones book became a very Miyazaki Studio Ghibli film, I couldn't really separate the very different film from the source material I had enjoyed. Even though both films have merits besides that.

Also, you'd think it would be hard to fuck up an Agatha Christie adaptation. Some people have managed it, though (Kenneth Branagh), but then you also get things like the original Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile and Witness for the Prosecution, which are spot on.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Sometimes the movie is better, I learned this most recently with the very underrated horror film The Haunting of Julia.

The movie blew me away, then I read the book and while it was worth reading for learning more about the character's backstories, the movie is overall way better, I was quite surprised by that.

(seriously, go watch The Haunting of Julia)

It's arguable that the Jurassic Park movie is better than the book, the biggest improvement being the characterization of John Hammond, in the book he's just an asshole that never learns the error of his ways and whom you're supposed to dislike, he's basically the villain of the story.

The movie instead makes him a tragic, sympathetic figure and that resonates a lot better, makes it more effecting and thought provoking than just the "corporations bad" message of the book.

The book is in general very cynical, which spoils some of the wonder of it's premise, almost like Michael Crichton was a little embarrassed by it, the movie really plays up the awe of the idea in a way the book doesn't.

The book also has lots of intellectual talk about chaos theory and whatnot that is interesting but arguably bogs things down a bit.

On the other hand there's some cool set pieces in the book that really should have been in the movie and were originally planned to, but Spielberg cheaped out in order to keep it under budget, which I was very disappointed to learn.

Overall it's fascinating to compare and contrast the book and the movie and at the end of the day even if the movie is better the book is still great too and well worth experiencing, basically it's an "adult" take on the story with gory violence and more for your intellect to chew on, as well as a more cynical worldview.

The movie on the other hand is a lot more kid friendly and a thrill ride take on the idea, both are equally valid.

 

[Scarlett Johansson]

I hadn't realized that Psycho and The Exorcist were based on novels until after I saw the films. Arguably Psycho takes more liberties with the source material.

 

[BrunoMattei]

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Fight Club were better as films.

 

[Scarlett Johansson]

White Teeth by Zadie Smith was given a brilliant adaptation in 2002. Archie Panjabi, Naomie Harris, and James McAvoy were unknown acting babies at the time. Lol.

Like the Widows series, I'm rather upset it hasn't been released on region 1 DVD.

 

[UnKillShredDur]

The Golden Compass movie adaptation pissed me off.

 

[neverendingmidi]

The Memoirs of an Invisible Man was a good adaption. I’m not a big fan of Chevy Chase, but I did like that movie. About half of the book is spent showing how much of a useless, unwanted person the titular character is, and how he ends up invisible.Which is about 15 minutes max in the movie.

The book was so boring the first time I read it I wound up sticking the book on a shelf for two years before continuing, only to find out it kicked off and got fun about five pages later.

 

[soy_king]

I hadn't realized that Psycho and The Exorcist were based on novels until after I saw the films. Arguably Psycho takes more liberties with the source material.

In Cold Blood were a good book and film, and then Capote, which was about the writing of the book, was pretty good.

 

[Scarlett Johansson]

I've a question. I'm watching a show about props and one of the episodes focuses on Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

I didn't realize it was based on a book. Has anyone read it? Jessica is in it?

 

[BScCollateral]

I didn't realize it was based on a book. Has anyone read it? Jessica is in it?

I read it some time ago; Jessica is in it. However, it's quite different from the film.

The Miss Fisher Murders is a decent and enjoyable whodunnit series, IMHO much better than the books they are based on.

 

[Getting tard comed]

Lust, Caution was based on a short story I believe. Haven't read it but the movie is one of my favorites.

Bladerunner based on Do androids dream of Sheep

Terms of Endearment adapted straight from the novel.

Just a few.

 

[RumblyTumbly]

How about film adaptations that are better than the book they are based on?

There is a surprising amount of those:

- Who Framed Roger Rabbit = The movie is not only a fun detective story with great characters, and cutting edge technology and film technique for the time, but features crossovers with classic characters from the main animation studios, creating some very historically significant moments. The book is a pretty standard detective story without the classic animated characters since Roger is a comic strip character rather than a full fledged animated one.

- Jaws = Simply put, Speilberg really trimmed the fat in all the right ways. Extra marital affairs and mafia conspiracies? Who needs all that trash?! Just get to the shark!

- Die Hard = The book, Nothing Lasts Forever, provided the framework for what would ultimately become Die Hard, and while it boasts its own well written and down to Earth human core, the sheer bad assery, exaggeration, action, and excitement of the film can not be out done

- First Blood = Simply put, the movie has an ending that leaves the door open for sequels, and the book does not. If the film had followed the book strictly, then we wouldn't have gotten the Rambo series.

- Kick Ass = Going into the realm of comics, the movie is a fun, foul mouthed, and violent romp that pokes fun at the superhero genre while also giving us a fun story with likable characters. The book feels like an edgelord got some money and is just being extreme for the sake of shocking people.

- The Shining = OK, the one thing I'll give the book over the Kubrick film is that Jack Nicholson's performance is flawed in that Jack looks unhinged before he even gets to the hotel (because, you know, its Jack Nicholson) while the book more convincingly builds the descent into madness. But Kubrick also smoothed out some of the rough edges and made the story creepier. For example, a hedge maze is much better setting for the big chase in the climax...hedge animal sculptures that come to life? That's a tad silly.

- Misery = Another Stephen King adaptation, but this film is better largely because of the performances. Kathy Bates and James Caan are so good in this, that I'd much rather watch the movie than read the book and imagine their voices coming through the text.

- Fight Club = The author, Chuck Palaniuk, himself even admitted that the movie adaptation was better than his original work (https://www.dvdtalk.com/interviews/chuck_palahniuk.html). I agree with him, but it isn't because of deficiencies with the book, but rather because David Fincher's direction, and the performances of Brad Pitt and Edward Norton.

- Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone = The original Potter novel is largely just set up for the much larger story to come, so a lot of it comes across as introductory. That is true of the Columbus directed adaption, but it benefits from trimming some of the fat and perfectly capturing the look and feel of that world. Say what you will about Columbus as a director, but Hogwarts never looked better and more inviting than it did in the two films he directed.

 

[Constellationzero]

- Misery = Another Stephen King adaptation, but this film is better largely because of the performances. Kathy Bates and James Caan are so good in this, that I'd much rather watch the movie than read the book and imagine their voices coming through the text.

Came here to say just this. I read Misery as a book club recipient in the 1990s and when the movie came out...Chef's Kiss! Kathy Bates is absolutely sublime and it makes me happy that she's gotten so many other great roles afterward.

Tommyknockers is complete ass though.