Movies based on books

[Ranb]

What is your opinion on movies based upon books/novels? When I see the ad/preview for a movie based on a book I have read, I go to the movie hoping that I will see the book "brought to life" so to speak. While I know that a mere picture on a screen can not match my imagination while reading, it is nice to see with my eyes what was written in the book.

I am usually dissappointed when I see a movie based on a book. Sometimes they change it so much one wonders why they bothered to pay for the movie rights and call it by the same name.

Movies like; (a short list, off the top of my head)

The Natural
Bicentennial Man
Blade Runner
Starship Troopers
Timeline
Nightfall
The Lost World
Running Man
Apt Pupil

While Blade Runner, and The Natural were good movies, and Timeline merely ok, the others were not worth ever seeing again in my opinion. The short stories Nightfall and Bicentennial Man would have made wonderful script outlines, but Hollywood just can't leave anything alone. I know that it is expecting too much to hope that all movies based on books can be as close and accurate as Green Mile and Shawskank Redemption, but is it too much to ask to actually make the movie resemble the book in more than a superficial way? Thanks.

Ranb

[SteveW]

As I have posted previously, I have never (with one exception) seen any movie that was a good as the book. I agree, why buy the rights and then change it. The exception is any movie based on Dickens is vasty better than the movie. The guy had great stories but I find his writing stlye so boring!

[Armi Shanks]

Dickens is coma-inducing, but Henry James is enough to make a girl eat her own head....

Films of books will never really be up to snuff IMHO - the gap between the written word and someone else's interpretation of it is too vast.

Having said that, there is much enjoyment to be gained from watching a really bad film interpretation of a favourite book and yelling abuse at the screen. It's positively therapeutic.

[nyarltep]

Moby Dick
A Clockwork Orange

[Glory]

Once in my life I have come across a movie which was uperior to the book on which it was based. "The Hunt For Red October" was a good movie. I got over 150 pages into the book and nothing had happened!. I have no idea where in that book the actual story is. I gave up after the detailed, and as near as I could tell, irrelevant description of the intracies of the "SOSUS" Nets.

Glory

[DickK]

"Last of the Mohicans". I found the book <cough>unreadable<cough>, and Hawkeye's real name is Natty Bumpo. I kid you not. The Day-Lewis film was definitely more watchable than the book was, er, readable.

[Ranb]

A a retired Sailor, I felt the errors made in Hunt for Red October were rather distracting. The book was easy to understand because of my background, but the picture Clancy painted of sub life was like no submarine I was ever stationed on. HFRO was still much better to watch than the embarressing Crimson Tide. CT was AWFUL!!

[Terry]

Originally posted by DickK
"Last of the Mohicans". I found the book <cough>unreadable<cough>, and Hawkeye's real name is Natty Bumpo. I kid you not. The Day-Lewis film was definitely more watchable than the book was, er, readable.

I really liked the book The last of the Mohicans. However, I did find the racism disturbing at times. Incidentally, Natty wasn't often called by his real name. I seem to remember he was most often referred to as la longue carabine.

--Terry

[Edited for typo]

[Ove]

I really liked the book The last of the Mohicans. However, I did find the racism disturbing at times.

MAak Twain has written a novel (or article) where he counts all the errors J.Fenimore Cooper made when he wrote "Last of the Mohikans" and the others. It is hysterically funny.:D

Good adaptions: Harry Potter - Where Eagles Dare - Hmmmmmmm, there must be a couple more.

Bad adaptations: Apollo 13 (good movie but horrible conserning facts) - The guns of Navarone (why bring girls into the story? why make Dusty anti war? he was the one that shot the traitor in the book).

Horrible adaptations: Force 10 from Navarone (Really it IS only the name that resembles the book). ANY Jules Verne adaptation, espescially the 2 or 3 adaptations that has been made of "20.0000 Leagues Under the Sea". The Disney version from 1954 doesn't even bother to make the sub according to Verne's description (and the contemperary drawings) and has a totally stupid plot indicating that captain Nemo has invented nuclear power. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I really think that movie makers should stop using the title of the book UNLESS they plan to follow the book, it is easy to instead writ "Based loosely on ...", or "From an original idea of ..." that way people that go to see the movie at least knows what to expect.

[hgc]

Face it, books and movies are completely different kinds of storytelling mediums. They will never be the same. You should go to a movie expecting it to stand or fall on its own merits, regardless of the original source of the material. Many movies are very much changed from the original, but are still quite good anyway - "The English Patient." Some movies are very different and represent a vast improvement - "The Firm."

I always have to remind myself that adherance to the book is not a factor in determining the quality of a movie. It's simply impossible.

[sorgoth]

Timeline is an excellent book, but movie? No.

The Fellowship of the Ring makes a better movie than book. The other two books are MUCH better.

[volant]

"Leap of Faith"

[TwoShanks]

Hang on a second... Armi Shanks?

I fear the appearance of someone with partly the same username as me who also appears to be inspired by the famed porcelain manufacturer, and speaks plainly about the hideous boredom that is Dickens.

Such a combination can only be a portend of the apocalypse.

[Halbert]

Shawshank Redemption, as mentioned, is an excellent transition. The changes they made had no effect on the story, and made for an easier/better job from the actors.

I liked the running man movie, but it was totally different from the book.

Try 'Waterworld' for a letter perfect transition. Of course, the transition went the other way -- film first, THEN book.

[Skeptic]

A a retired Sailor, I felt the errors made in Hunt for Red October were rather distracting. The book was easy to understand because of my background, but the picture Clancy painted of sub life was like no submarine I was ever stationed on. HFRO was still much better to watch than the embarressing Crimson Tide. CT was AWFUL!!

Heh, I always wondered about that.

I know less about submarines than an elephant knows about roller skating, but I find it hard to believe that the second officer really has to repeat every damn thing the captain says, that the captain never seems to do anything at all except for looking through the periscope at nothing in particular, or that diving to "maximum depth" (whatever it is) will make the hull of the ship groan audibly as if it is going to break any minute.

MAD magazine once had a satire about these movies--with Mort Druker as the artist. Incidentally one of the MAD writers for the article actually went to visit a submarine for the article, and send back a telegram to the office "MANY BRAVE SOULS REST IN THE DEEP. BLUB BLUB". But I digress...

Part of the dialogue:

--"Why do you ALWAYS have to repeat everything I say? Do you know how ANNOYING this is? Let me look at the horoscope..."
--"Don't you mean PERISCOPE, Sir?"
--"No, I mean horoscope! I never do anything unless the stars are right! Let's see, I'm a Leo..."
--"And I'm a Gemini, sir, but that's not going to matter if that ship gets any closer!"
--"A CANCER is what you are!"

[Spektator]

Movies better than the books:

Jaws
The Ballad of Cat Ballou

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Spektator
Movies better than the books:

Jaws


I disagree. The movie was very, very different from the book, and I think they were both excellent, but I prefer the book.

The movie brought more humanity to Quint, but not much. Meanwhile, it made Hooper a fairly shallow character. I much prefer the sleaziness of Hooper in the book.

The only problem with the book was how the shark died. Man, how lame was that!

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]
..........but I find it hard to believe that the second officer really has to repeat every damn thing the captain says, that the captain never seems to do anything at all except for looking through the periscope at nothing in particular, or that diving to "maximum depth" (whatever it is) will make the hull of the ship groan audibly as if it is going to break any minute.



Actually, orders are repeated back to the person who gave them to make sure the order was understood. Normal Naval procedure. The hull does creak a bit when going deep, but the only time I have ever heard it was when I was next to the hull in a very quiet part of the ship. The CO has lots more to do than stare out of the scope. :)

Things I hated about the movie Crimson Tide were, stupid crew taking over the boat for the XO, but leaving enough guns in the small arms locker for the captian's men to fight back. The captian bringing a f--king dog underway and letting it piss in the passageway. The video game sonar display. A Sailor stupid enough to try and tighten sprung bolts on a seawater flange in a part of the ship that does not exist. Sailors running around during a normal diving evolution like the place is on fire. A fistfight over which version of the Silver Surfer is the best. Finally, the quick decision to give the XO a ship of his own to command right after they get back to port. The list goes on and on.

Ranb

[Ove]

I know less about submarines than an elephant knows about roller skating, but I find it hard to believe that the second officer really has to repeat every damn thing the captain says, that the captain never seems to do anything at all except for looking through the periscope at nothing in particular, or that diving to "maximum depth" (whatever it is) will make the hull of the ship groan audibly as if it is going to break any minute.

If you want a realistic submarine movie you might try "Das Boot". It is reputed to be one of the most realistic movies regarding how it is to live in one of those tin cans. Personally i think it is one of the most nail biting movies i have ever watched. IMDB (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0082096/)

[epepke]

One movie better than the book:

Barjo, a little-known French movie based on Philip K. Dick's Confessions of a Crap Artist.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Skeptic


I know less about submarines than an elephant knows about roller skating, but I find it hard to believe that the second officer really has to repeat every damn thing the captain says, that the captain never seems to do anything at all except for looking through the periscope at nothing in particular, or that diving to "maximum depth" (whatever it is) will make the hull of the ship groan audibly as if it is going to break any minute.



I agree with all the complaints about Crimson Tide, except the periscope one. Now granted, I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I can't remember the periscope being used in that movie, even once.

[davidhorman]

The Talented Mr. Ripley was a good book, but the film was better.

How does Jaws get killed in the book?

David

[Ranb]

How does Jaws get killed in the book?


If I remember correctly, it finally expired due to the four (?) harpoons in his body.

Ranb

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Ranb
How does Jaws get killed in the book?


If I remember correctly, it finally expired due to the four (?) harpoons in his body.



Aw, you spoiled the ending.

When I got the book, the first thing I did was turn to the last page to see how the shark died. I read (something like):

Brody, holding tight to the mast and now almost completely underwater, saw the shark coming at him, He could see the black eye of the shark looking at him. "So this is how it ends," he thought. He closed his eyes tight, waiting for the shark bite to come, but it never did. He opened his eyes and saw the shark, just inches away, sinking slowly into the water, until it disappeared from sight. Just then, a cushion popped up next to him in the water ("It will hold you afloat," Hooper said, "if you were a ten year old.") He grabbed the cushion, spied the lighthouse in the distance, and started kicking toward the shore.

He was there, the shark was coming at him, and then, it just died. You have go back many, many pages to see why the shark died, and even then you have to understand that harpooning a shark will eventually kill it (this isn't all that evident in the movie, as they shoot three harpoons into the shark and it doesn't even slow down; in the movie they had three in him and it really wore him down - they had even started to tow him in - the fourth harpoon came in the last fight, where the shark jumped out of the water ("I see your c*ck!" yells Quint as he threw it) and then landed on the boat).

[epepke]

Looks like there's going to be another movie for Dickheads out soon: Paycheck with Ben Affleck.

[Mr Clingford]

1. Tangent on crappy cliched sub films. the recent U-571 (I think!) was dire, really dire

2. You can virtually guarantee that any Michael Crichton film adaptation will be awful. Sphere was not as bad as other films, but I wonder if Mr Crichton cares at all at how bad these films are - perhaps, though, I would take the money too!

[Glory]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
1. Tangent on crappy cliched sub films. the recent U-571 (I think!) was dire, really dire

2. You can virtually guarantee that any Michael Crichton film adaptation will be awful. Sphere was not as bad as other films, but I wonder if Mr Crichton cares at all at how bad these films are - perhaps, though, I would take the money too!

I once had the opportunity to join Dr.Crichton in chat while he was promoting something. Someone asked him how he felt about the reviews Jurassic Park II was getting and did it bother him that people were saying the book was awful. He siad, "I really love my new boat."

Glory

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
2. You can virtually guarantee that any Michael Crichton film adaptation will be awful. Sphere was not as bad as other films, but I wonder if Mr Crichton cares at all at how bad these films are - perhaps, though, I would take the money too!

Everything that Crichton has ever written has "Buy this for a screenplay!" all over it in neon letters five stories high.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Glory


I once had the opportunity to join Dr.Crichton in chat while he was promoting something. Someone asked him how he felt about the reviews Jurassic Park II was getting and did it bother him that people were saying the book was awful. He siad, "I really love my new boat."

Glory

I think it was Mark Twain who once said of a bad review of a succesful book of his: "I cried so hard I could hardly see well enough to deposit my royalties check in the bank."

[Rat]

The Shining was one which, to me, matched the book in terms of quality, though it did not follow the book closely.

Jack Nicholson and the soundtrack made the film. Scatman Crothers only filled the role of "black man to die" that seemed to be a common theme in the 70s.

They made a TV film of The Shining in the 90s. It followed the book much more closely, so should have been better. In some ways, I guess, it was. But generally, it had no atmosphere.

Cheers,
Rat.

[pupdog]

The Greatest Movie Ever Made (I'm speaking of "Gunga Din", of course) was based on just a poem (by the same title) by Kipling, except that it was sort of also based on Kipling's "Soldiers Three".

One must also consider which movie version is being compared--e.g., the Charles Laughton Hunchback of Notre Dame, or the Disney version?

[shecky]

I usually don't like comparing the two mediums, and am willing to overlook discrepancies if the adaptation is well done.

I do recall seeing a goofy adaptation of "The Scarlet Letter" a few years back. It seemed to take some surprising liberties as I recall.

Several months ago, PBS showed a rather good adaptation of "White Teeth", with a couple of minor things changed to better effect, I think.

[Chanileslie]

Good translations of book to movie:

Shawshank Redemption
Green Mile
A&E's Pride and Prejudice
Jurassic Park (much better movie than book, although the sequels were so bad, I wish I had blinded myself rather than see those!)
the Harry Potter books (so far)
LOTR (so far - the movies did a lot of much needed editing although why some changes that were made in the second movie just baffle me)


Bad translations:

Practical Magic - don't even know why they kept the same name. The movie was almost completely unrelated to the book!
And to many more to name. I just can't understand why a movie producers desire to make so many changes, of which many are silly and unnessary as the original version was much better.

[Peter Jenkins]

Good Movie of book : MASH

Bad Movie of book : Catch 22

Please someone, make this book into an intelligable movie: Anything by Stephen King

What the Hell has this movie got to do with a book of the same name?: Casino Royale

P

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins

[I] What the Hell has this movie got to do with a book of the same name?: Casino Royale

P

The story, as I understand it is as follows. Years before any of the Bond films that we know of were made, CBS purchased the rights to Casino Royale and made a TV movie of the book. The rights to that particular movie never went to Albert Broccoli (producer of all the bond movies except the last one, which he couldn't direct due to the fact that he was dead). Somehow (I am not sure how) Woody Allen got the rights and decided to make a spy film spoof (undoubtedly meant to be the "Austin Powers" of its day) out of it. I think he just used the name because it would have been recognizable as the name of a Bond Novel.

Here by the way, is a little blurb (http://www.universalexports.net/Movies/royale54.html) on the original TV movie. If you ever want to win a bar room bet, the name of the first actor to ever portray James Bond on screen was "Barry Nelson"

Edited because I originally thought the BBC had done the TV movie then I found out otherwise

[Sandy M]

Crimson Tide - I don't know &*()% about submarines or life on a submarine, but I just about spewed when Hackman made his comment about Lipizzaner horses! Was that in the book?!?!? The nonsense that he spouted was so totally opposite of the reality of horse training in general and Lipizzaners in particular that it totally took me out of any "suspension of disbelief" for the entire movie. Okay, so that's my particular area of expertise, but &*)&*%$ that was RIDICULOUS :mad: And it left me wondering if there were machos types watching nodding their head, yeah, right!!!

I've read all of the O'Brien books, and know that Master and Commander is an amalgam of two different books in the series, and that is simplifies a lot of the more complicated nature of both the characters and the plot lines, but I found it a pleasant realization of the books and thought Crowe was good casting, though the actor who played the doctor was much too pretty compared the Maturin of the books!