Book to movie adaptations - good, bad or indifferent?

[yoda313]

Hello,

I finished reading Micheal Chricton's SPHERE book this weekend. Excellent book. I also finished rewatching the 1998 movie with Dustin Hoffman.

The comparisons were outstanding. There were hardly any plot rewrites. Most of it was what happened in the book. Some things were obviously trimmed for time but the main thrust was there.

So do you like movie adaptations of books????

I loved the Lord of the Rings. I just finished reading Return of the King (just starting the appendices). I started with the Hobbit and after a year or two finished the trilogy (I was reading other books while I was doing it ). I thought for the most part Peter Jackson was faithful to the book while making it entertaining.


Thoughts?????

Kevin

[Faustus]

Its a very tough thing to get right. So there is not option for Most are bad, but some are OH SO GOOD.

[Forum Troll]

I just hope they dont butcher the adaptation of "Memoirs of a Geisha". The book was outstanding. Movies rarely due the original book justice.

[yoda313]

Hello,

Flaystus - Updated poll

Kevin

[Faustus]

Voted.

I've likely mentioned this before but, If they ever do make an adaption of Enders Game and mess it up I will punish all involved.

[bazooka]

The movies are often bad because they leave out alot of the storyline.

I usually like the book better.

[yoda313]

Hello,

Did anyone like the first movie version of DUNE????

I thought it was ok. I mean it had mid 80's special effects, some were lame but it got a good part of the story line in.

I'm not saying it did near as good as Lord of the Rings but it was entertaining (and doesn't hurt that Patrick Stewart was in it - should have had a bigger part).

Anyone see the newer version of it??

Also, I read the 4 original Dunes.... Aren't there more book versions of Dune out????

Kevin

[BJ_M]

time is a factor, a 2.4 hour movie is equal to a 120 page book more or less ...

so take a 300-400 page book , edit it down to 80-120 pages and then write a script based on that .....

otherwise - figure on a 8+ hour movie ....

it is not always a easy job , sometimes it is done very well ... but trade offs have to be made ..

[Faustus]

I like the movie version of Dune alot. It had its own style to it that I quite enjoyed. It did however murder some things from the book. Overall I accept it as a Dune movie. The mini series was much better if more cheaply produced.

Plus any movie featuring Patrick Stewart fighting and carrying a dog is good in my book.

[BJ_M]

i thought the mini series was better of dune also -- it played more the sexual tension between brother and sister that was so important in the book, as well as the religious aspects were better carried ...

[Faustus]

i thought the mini series was better of dune also -- it played more the sexual tension between brother and sister that was so important in the book, as well as the religious aspects were better carried ...

I shall confidently assume you mean the second mini series.

While on the subject of mini series anyone notice that just stringing two, 2 hour episodes together seems to count as a full fledged mini series these days?

[yoda313]

i thought the mini series was better of dune also -- it played more the sexual tension between brother and sister that was so important in the book, as well as the religious aspects were better carried ...

I shall confidently assume you mean the second mini series.

While on the subject of mini series anyone notice that just stringing two, 2 hour episodes together seems to count as a full fledged mini series these days?

Hello,

What about that miniseries "encounters" or was it sightings? The one with the cigarrette smoker dude from Xfiles hosting it??? That was like 10 or more episodes wasn't it???


Kevin

[pacmania_2001]

I wish they'd make a movie out of Rainbow Six but I don't think it'd translate well to film.

[yoda313]

I wish they'd make a movie out of Rainbow Six but I don't think it'd translate well to film.

Hello,

Hmm.... Yeah that could be a problem with pacing... Though it could be a tom clanyish type movie. Or a Jack Ryan series???

Kevin

[BJ_M]

how about books that should never have been in a film ..

anne rice 's Exit to Eden is the first that comes to mind .. what waste of a film ....

[Doramius]

Voted.

I've likely mentioned this before but, If they ever do make an adaption of Enders Game and mess it up I will punish all involved.

They are planning on making Ender's Game a movie. That was an awesome book though.

It is extremely difficult to turn certain books into movies. Longer books often have to be trimmed to fit as a movie. Someone told me once that a general 120 min movie script is around 200-250 pages, including the action information. A single sheet usually only has an average of 5-7 lines of speaking per main character. If you have a 400 page book, you're going to have to do a bit of trimming.

Now many movies have pulled it off and they have received great reviews and attraction to view them. (IE: Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, LOTR, etc.) However, there are movie that couldn't pull it off as well. Though the movies for some were good, if you read the book first, you felt let down. (IE: IT, Jurassic Park II, Sphere, Battlefield Earth, etc.) I think these movies were done well, but they cut way too much of the important information needed for the movie. I feel Jurassic Park 1 was very different from the book, but I read the book first and I still thought JP1 was still excellent. JP2 just got chopped left & right. Sphere was chopped heavily too. I never got through reading the book IT until after I saw the movie. Even then, the book was so much more well put together than the movie.

I don't think it's very easy to make a time restricted movie from a book that doesn't require such a restriction, but I do think it can be pulled off well and I think there are more great ones out there than bad ones. Some people seem to just forget the good ones and remember how awful the bad ones were.

[yoda313]

Hello,

Though the movies for some were good, if you read the book first, you felt let down. (IE: IT, Jurassic Park II, Sphere, Battlefield Earth, etc.) I think these movies were done well, but they cut way too much of the important information needed for the movie.

Well i can't say much about that because I read the book after I saw the movie. I know they cut a lot out of SPHERE but I thought what they did include was absolutely great

Kevin

[Doramius]

They chopped out information regarding $20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. All of the different ways the "creature" was communicating with them. There were a bunch of others too.

[flaninacupboard]

Sometimes they just **** up. i loved the book of Fight Club, and the film was excellent right up to the last scene - then they screwed it right up for a stupid happy ending

Plus they gave the narrator a name

[ViRaL1]

time is a factor, a 2.4 hour movie is equal to a 120 page book more or less ...

so take a 300-400 page book , edit it down to 80-120 pages and then write a script based on that .....

otherwise - figure on a 8+ hour movie ....

it is not always a easy job , sometimes it is done very well ... but trade offs have to be made ..

Not sure what the words per page conversion is, but at 24fps, a 2.5 hour movie should be worth 216,000,000 words.

[Conquest10]

Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park: The Lost World are the first two that pop into my head (maybe cuz they were some of the first novels I read). The movies are a lot different than the book. The first part WAY moreso than the second. It was good to see some of the things in the first book make it into the third movie. There was a lot cut from the second that added something to the story that I felt would have been better left in instead of adding that whole dinosaur roaming the city. Red Dragon was pretty good. Some stuff was cut, but the adaptation was good. Then theres the movie versions that are nothing like the book. Short Cuts was better as a film. The book was a collection of stories that have no point to them. Its telling a story then it just ends and goes on to the next.

[smearbrick1]

Movies made from books that translated well:

I, Robot - Movie was ok, but had nothing to do with the book. The only thing the movie and the book had in common: robots, character names, and title. (maybe this isn't a good example)

Harry Potter 1 and 2 - Both exactly like the books.

Lord of The Rings Trilogy - Great in every way.

The Bourne Series (The Ludlum books) - Although they don't follow the books, pretty decent movies.

The Hunt For Red October

The Sum of All Fears

The Green Mile

The Shawshank Redemption

Jurassic Park 1, 2, 3 (no book for three though)

Not so great:

Hearts In Atlantis - Maybe if people would have had a little background as to who the people were that were after Anthony Hopkins character, it wouldn't have been a complete loss... Not such a great book to begin with. The movie was based on one story in the book "Low Men In Yellow Coats". It wasn't even based on the "Hearts In Atlantis" story.

Dreamcatcher - I hate this movie. Liked the book. Hate the movie.

It - A giant spider villian does not translate well from the page to the screen.

Harry Potter 3 - Cut way too much. Seemed like the director was on a mission to make the movie shorter than the first two. It was... however, at the expense of making a film with continuity.

[Faustus]

I don't think they could have kept much more of the 3rd potter book in the movie. From this point out the books are all MUCH TO BIG. Expect more cuts in any future movies.

Overall they still kept their act together I think and made a good film.

[smearbrick1]

I want to sound like a Harry Potter geek, but they could've explained some plot elements:

How did Professor Lupin know about the nature of the Marauder's Map?

Who created the Marauder's Map?

Whose names were on the Marauder's Map?

Why did Harry's Petronis take the shape of a Stag?

[Doramius]

That should be coming out later. There was much talk about the 4th book being split into 2 movies. THe first supposedly is supposed to take in a little of book 3.

[gmatov]

Smearbrick,

Did you read HP3? All your ?s are in the book.

I loved 1 and 2. After my kids and g'kids got me to see HP1, I had to read the "kid's" books, couldn't wait for the next, read HP5 in 3 days, all 872 pages.

Couldn't wait for the movie, read reviews about the "new, improved producer", how good he was, would do things from a different slant.

Absolutely hated the movie!!! Totally disjointed. No wonder you don't know the answers to the ?s you enumerated. They are not there.

The movie is like the "Home Alone" ads, the 5 exciting scenes comprise the entire movie.

Same with HP3, it's as though they showed clips from an ad, a dozen or so action scenes, and if you had not followed the series, by reading, not by 1 and 2, you have absolutely no idea what the hell is happening.

Most movies cannot do justice to the book they are adapted from. You simply cannot get 90 or more minutes of movie from 200 or so pages of print, you lose the nuances that are in the book.

Harry's dad was known as "Prongs", as he and the other 2 became "animagi" I think the term is, to protect Lupin who was a werewolf..

That is why his "Patronis" was a Stag, "Prongs". Black was a dog,"Padfoot", who could control Lupin when the moon was full.

Lupin, Potter, Black and Wormtail, have to get the book to recall his name, made the map.

It do appear you have seen the HP3 but not read it. You do not mention if you have seen 1 and 2. Have you? Rent or buy them, they really are excellent movies, much better than 3.

Cheers,

George

Why, oh why, is there not a large uprising about the way this director has butchered this book? I asked this the day after I saw it, on release with my daughter and grandson, release night My other daughter said she could not get tickets for that night but had them for the next night did I want to go. I said I probably would with the other grandkids, but after seeing it, called to say I did not want to see such a butcher job a second time.

Edit:

Smearbrick,

Just reread your post before the ?s about 3. You have seen 1 and 2, so you know how good the books could be on film. The first director said he was burnt out but did not rule out doing future books. Hope the hell JKR is pissed enough to give him enough to get him off R&R.

[sacajaweeda]

Not so great:

Hearts In Atlantis - Maybe if people would have had a little background as to who the people were that were after Anthony Hopkins character, it wouldn't have been a complete loss... Not such a great book to begin with. The movie was based on one story in the book "Low Men In Yellow Coats". It wasn't even based on the "Hearts In Atlantis" story.

Dreamcatcher - I hate this movie. Liked the book. Hate the movie.

It - A giant spider villian does not translate well from the page to the screen.

It's a recurring theme with King's stuff. Some of the best books make for some of the worst movies.

The Stand? Please. The miniseries they did with that was about the lamest thing I've ever seen.

The Running Man. (Richard Bachman) Even Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn't jazz that one up into a decent flick. Great pageturning read though. That was one of the biggest and most inacurate butcherings of a novel to come up with a screenplay for a movie that I've seen from King or anybody. IIRC (been a while) Ben (Arnold's character) dies on an airplane tripping over his own intestines and guts after being eviscerated. Not quite the heroic ending they had in the movie where he sends Richard Dawson (playing a role of a large black man in the book) careening to his death in the zone.

The Langoliers (4 past Midnight) This was one of my fav King shorts until I saw the movie a few years later. Mr Toomey getting his face caved in with a toaster was epic. I don't even remember if they put that part in the movie or not.

Pet Semetary. One of the most chilling horror stories I've ever read. One of only a few books that I have ever read that actually SCARED me. Movie was so-so if you're a King fan. A real flop if you weren't.

I give props to Jack Nicholson for the job he did portraying the mindbending madness of Jack Torrance in the Shining. I read somewhere though that King wasn't happy with the way they did the original and that's why they re-did it, but me personally, Nicholson ******* NAILED it in the first one and ruined any hopes the remake had of impressing me. The CGI effects they had in the gardens helped with bringing to life some of the stuff left out of the first one, but overall I didn't think much of the remake. That was another one that was freakishly macabre to read, but a so-so yet memorable flick.

King's shit just don't seem to come across on the big screen like it does in the books. His amazing knack for character development of a lot of people probably lends to that though. Even people that get killed off early on. That and some of the shit that guy dreams up is just totally bizarro painted in one's mind, but would be rather abstract or even borderline silly/childish to produce for the cameras.

Fuckit. I dunno. All I know is that with few exceptions I'm practically always let down by the King movies.

The soil of a man's heart is stonier.
Sometimes books are better.

[smearbrick1]

Smearbrick,

Did you read HP3? All your ?s are in the book.

I loved 1 and 2. After my kids and g'kids got me to see HP1, I had to read the "kid's" books, couldn't wait for the next, read HP5 in 3 days, all 872 pages.

Couldn't wait for the movie, read reviews about the "new, improved producer", how good he was, would do things from a different slant.

Absolutely hated the movie!!! Totally disjointed. No wonder you don't know the answers to the ?s you enumerated. They are not there.

The movie is like the "Home Alone" ads, the 5 exciting scenes comprise the entire movie.

Same with HP3, it's as though they showed clips from an ad, a dozen or so action scenes, and if you had not followed the series, by reading, not by 1 and 2, you have absolutely no idea what the hell is happening.

Most movies cannot do justice to the book they are adapted from. You simply cannot get 90 or more minutes of movie from 200 or so pages of print, you lose the nuances that are in the book.

Harry's dad was known as "Prongs", as he and the other 2 became "animagi" I think the term is, to protect Lupin who was a werewolf..

That is why his "Patronis" was a Stag, "Prongs". Black was a dog,"Padfoot", who could control Lupin when the moon was full.

Lupin, Potter, Black and Wormtail, have to get the book to recall his name, made the map.

It do appear you have seen the HP3 but not read it. You do not mention if you have seen 1 and 2. Have you? Rent or buy them, they really are excellent movies, much better than 3.

I too have actually read all 5 books... these questions were merely retorical. I believe these were things that should have been made clear in the 3rd movie, but weren't. Can wait to see how they butcher Goblet Of Fire. They are making it as one film!!!!

I think Alfonso Cuaron did a lousy job with "Prisoner". At first I thought it would be a nice change, but then I heard how they cut the movie down so it would be shorter than the first two and I was like... WHAT?? Basically, they made a mad dash to get through the movie. Not a favorite.

Stephen King films are always iffy. 20% (Stand By Me, Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, The Shining) of them I like, the other 80% I usually hate.

It is all due to poor screen adaptation. For example: "IT"... How can you take a book that is marketed toward an adult (or young adult) audience and make it into a mini-series that is completely and totally watered-down? Same thing with Langoliers, The Stand, and the remake of The Shining.

Storm of the Century is maybe the one exception.

Have you seen Graveyard Shift... what a pile of crap that was.

[Doramius]

I was pretty upset at how Lawnmowerman 2 got botched. Lawnmowerman, I didn't think was too bad, though I didn't really care for it in the first place. The books actually drew you in and had some meat to them in the reading. On screen, it was like a 777 with full payload and out of gas at it's highest altitude.