Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Best/Worst book to movie adaptations

mobilehaathi said:
I am shocked, SHOCKED I say, to hear this from your mouth!!:eek:;)

(Read this from your fingertips?)
Click to expand...

It is, if memory serves, just barely possible that I might have mentioned this film once before.

You make it sound as if I've spoken of this film many, many, many, many times. A foul calumny...an evil canard!

Anyway...I was just speaking of the film in the context of the unique quality of the book's adaptation to film.

I mentioned, only en passent, that it's a GREAT FILM.

So there, Mr Sarcastic Pants!:(

:p :p ;)
 
The absolute worst adaptation of an otherwise excellent book into a dreadful move was 1990's The Bonfire of the Vanities.

Tom Wolfe's seminal novel about 1980s Wall Street greed captured perfectly the social currents that were transforming New York.

The 1990 movie of the same name suffered from abysmal casting choices: Tom Hanks was too nice; Melanie Griffith wasn't sexy enough; and Bruce Willis had no business being in the film at all. Even Kim Cattrall managed to screw-up the role of being a wealthy young housewife.

The "Best" adaptation? Thats going to require some thought. Because while Moby Dick (1956 - starring Gregory Peck, dir. John Huston) and Remains of the Day (1993, starring Anthony Hopkins) were both excellent movies - they were films (respectively) about whaling and butlers in a way that the foregoing novels - weren't.
 
It's a tie for worst in my opinion. Stardust, which is a Neil Gaiman book that had no crossdressing closeted pirate in it and the movie adaptation which co-starred Clarie Dains. Enough said there.

The other is the first Lord of the Rings movie. It was so chopped and rushed is was just absolutely terrible. I hated sitting through it at the theatre and might have even left if I wouldn't had been with friends.

Best? Can I say a TV show? A Game of Thrones? It's amazingly accurate compared to the books and I think the casting has been spot on. It's just such a wonderful show.
 
vrDrew said:
The absolute worst adaptation of an otherwise excellent book into a dreadful move was 1990's The Bonfire of the Vanities.

Tom Wolfe's seminal novel about 1980s Wall Street greed captured perfectly the social currents that were transforming New York.

The 1990 movie of the same name suffered from abysmal casting choices: Tom Hanks was too nice; Melanie Griffith wasn't sexy enough; and Bruce Willis had no business being in the film at all. Even Kim Cattrall managed to screw-up the role of being a wealthy young housewife.

The "Best" adaptation? Thats going to require some thought. Because while Moby Dick (1956 - starring Gregory Peck, dir. John Huston) and Remains of the Day (1993, starring Anthony Hopkins) were both excellent movies - they were films (respectively) about whaling and butlers in a way that the foregoing novels - weren't.
Click to expand...

I have read 'The Bonfire Of The Vanities', - and thought it an excellent and thought-provoking read, and, as I cannot abide Tom Cruise as an actor in any shape, form, or role, I am glad that you have advised me that the movie adaptation is one to avoid. Duly noted.

Remaining with the topic of movie adaptations of books written by Tom Wolfe, I thought his book 'The Right Stuff' (itself extremely interesting) was made into an excellent movie, with a truly inspired piece of casting where Sam Shepard (who is a superb actor) played Chuck Yeager.

I agree with you; the movie 'The Remains Of The Day' was superb and Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson were both outstanding; mind you, I also loved the book, a bitter sweet elegiac work.
 
I thought that the movie version of Tom Robbins's Even Cowgirls Get The Blues was a real clunker whereas I loved the book. And while I haven't read Agatha Christie's Death On The Nile, the movie version is the only time I've walked out of the cinema before the end of the movie. (Robert Altman's tedious version of Popeye came close, though.)

There's a movie version of Mark Helprin's Winter's Tale due for release soon. Wonderful book. Let's hope Hollywood gets it right.
 
VI™ said:
The other is the first Lord of the Rings movie. It was so chopped and rushed is was just absolutely terrible. I hated sitting through it at the theatre and might have even left if I wouldn't had been with friends.
Click to expand...

That was my response to trying to watch the BBC tv miniseries adaptation of Gormenghast. It was like the director was telling the cast, come on folks, we've only got 2 minutes for this scene! Hustle! It was painful to watch. They hired some of the best British acting talent and totally wasted them.
 
for me

John Carpenter's The Thing. Bill Lancaster (Burt Lancaster's son) nailed the tone of the novella and the paranoia beautifully.

And while I adore MacReady the meteorologist in the source novella, I love the P.S.T.D. 'Nam vet chopper pilot R.J. MacReady in the film even more. 32 years later it's still my favorite Kurt Russell performance. And I often switch between this and Escape from New York as my all time favorite film.

I know there are more but nothing tops The Thing for me.

Maltese Falcon > yes that too. :)
 
Oh, and Neverwhere. It was absolutely terrible, but the book was amazing. I believe the producer/director or someone stated that the BBC wasn't cooperating at all and that basically caused the lack of quality.
 
Shrink said:
One of the most remarkable film "adaptations" of a book is "The Maltese Falcon".

I put the word "adaptation" in quotes because the film is a scene for scene, word for word transition of the book to the screen...with the exception of one chapter which many critics questioned belonged in the book at all. Huston could have just handed the cast the book, without bothering the have it typed into script form, as there was nothing in the movie that departed from the book in any way! There was no "adaptation" at all...just a direct filming of the book.

And it didn't turn out too bad :)p) for all that.;)
Click to expand...

I didn't know this - its a great movie :) I'll have to watch it again and/or read the book
 
maflynn said:
I didn't know this - its a great movie :) I'll have to watch it again and/or read the book
Click to expand...

Neither did I, until Shrink pointed it out, (I think in an earlier post, also when we were discussing this movie). An excellent film, one I consider to be virtually flawless and utterly timeless; I cannot think of a redundant scene, shot, or line. Simply superb.
 
Tomorrow said:
On the other hand, I thought The Hunger Games stayed very true to the book, and was very well portrayed and entertaining to watch.
Click to expand...

after having watched the 2nd one last weekend and now reading your comment i will never read any of the books ;)

the first one was "ok" but was already done better before
the second was a good follow up because the story about the society outside of the games became more interesting but it still feels very "look at me i'm a movie aimed at 15 year old females"

10 years ago Battle Royale was mind blowing in comparison
 
maflynn said:
I didn't know this - its a great movie :) I'll have to watch it again and/or read the book
Click to expand...

Scepticalscribe said:
Neither did I, until Shrink pointed it out, (I think in an earlier post, also when we were discussing this movie). An excellent film, one I consider to be virtually flawless and utterly timeless; I cannot think of a redundant scene, shot, or line. Simply superb.
Click to expand...

Prior to reading the book, I had seen the movie so many times I knew most of the dialogue by heart. Then I read the book, and to my absolute amazement there was every scene and every line...exactly as in the film.
 
I remember reading Michael Crichton's Disclosure and thinking what a great book. Went to see the film (with Michael Douglas and Demi Moore) when it was relaxed at the cinema and thinking what a rubbish film. I've seen it since on the TV and didn't think it was quite as bad as I'd remembered, but not a patch on the book.

Whilst quite a few Crichton books have done well on the big screen (thinking Jurassic Park), a really good book is very difficult to better on the big screen. More recently, I think they've done a decent enough job with The Hunger Games and Catching Fire but still not as good as reading the books!
 
It's interesting to note here that the top awards contenders this year--American Hustle, Wolf of Wall Street, 12 Years a Slave--are all based on books. (So far I've only seen American Hustle, and it was really very good.)
 
Of all the movies I have watched the one that kept closest to its source material was Stephen King's Langoliers. Which doesn't necessarily make it a great movie, mind you.

In my opinion the Hitchiker's Guide movie was alright - not as good as the novels of course, though they also keep getting worse from book to book. And you haven't seen bad adaptions until you have watched the Perry Rhodan movie. :D
 
How ironic: ;)
LOTR- soared to the heights.
The Hobbit- crashed and burned for a subtle reason, complete and total abandonment of the tone of the book.

I'm sure there is more I've forgotten, than remembered:

Best Adaptions: LOTR, Harry Potter series, Deliverance, To Kill a Mockingbird, Gone With the Wind, The Godfather (original), From Russia With Love, Jaws, and The Princess Bride.

Never read the book, but movie sucked: League of Extra Ordinary Gentlemen and Daredevil.

Strays from the book, but still good: Jurassic Park, X-Men series, Walking Dead, The Shining (original).

Terrible Adaptions: The Hobbit series, The Dark is Rising, Dune, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, The Cat in the Hat, Catch 22, and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

And I have real fear about one of my favorite epic book series coming to film, The Honor Harrington series, the seemingly never ending conflict between the Star Kingdom of Manticore and the Republic of Haven.
 
Huntn said:
Best Adaptions: LOTR, Harry Potter series, Deliverance, To Kill a Mockingbird, Gone With the Wind, The Godfather (original), From Russia With Love, Jaws, and The Princess Bride.
Click to expand...

I loved the movie Jaws, but after seeing it dozens of times and reading the book seven or eight times, I don't think the movie represented the book very well at all.

The book featured the mayor's ties to organized crime as a major plot point - totally ignored in the movie.

The book featured the chief's wife's resentment of her husband's blue-collar life after growing up as one of the rich "islanders" - totally ignored in the movie.

The book featured an affair between Hooper and Brody's wife, which set up a LOT of conflict in the last third of the book - totally absent in the movie.

In the book, Hooper gets his for having the affair - in the movie, he survives.

Like I said, I really liked the movie, but aside from a really big fish, it didn't have a lot in common with the book.
 
Tomorrow said:
I loved the movie Jaws, but after seeing it dozens of times and reading the book seven or eight times, I don't think the movie represented the book very well at all.
Click to expand...

I long ago gave up considering this as being very important. A movie, no matter what the source, has to stand or fall on its own merits. It can be hard to put this aside when seeing a movie based on a book you like--for a long time I could not, for instance, appreciate Blade Runner for what it does well because it leaves out virtually all of the book it is supposedly based on. How could they leave out Mercerism? It makes no sense!

But there's practically no way to put all of a novel into a movie, unless the book is short and trivial to begin with. It's just not a reasonable expectation. The movie has to be seen as its own thing--and be judged as its own thing.

And in that light, Dune still sucks.
 
Tomorrow said:
I loved the movie Jaws, but after seeing it dozens of times and reading the book seven or eight times, I don't think the movie represented the book very well at all.

The book featured the mayor's ties to organized crime as a major plot point - totally ignored in the movie.

The book featured the chief's wife's resentment of her husband's blue-collar life after growing up as one of the rich "islanders" - totally ignored in the movie.

The book featured an affair between Hooper and Brody's wife, which set up a LOT of conflict in the last third of the book - totally absent in the movie.

In the book, Hooper gets his for having the affair - in the movie, he survives.

Like I said, I really liked the movie, but aside from a really big fish, it didn't have a lot in common with the book.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute what you are saying other than the tone of the movie paralleled the book quite well. The biggest deviation I remember in the plot is when Brody blows up the shark with an O2 tank, versus after having the **** beat out of it, as I recall, it just coasts up to Brody and dies. Can't have that, we needs an explosion! :p
 
Huntn said:
I don't dispute what you are saying other than the tone of the movie paralleled the book quite well. The biggest deviation I remember in the plot is when Brody blows up the shark with an O2 tank, versus after having the **** beat out of it, as I recall, it just coasts up to Brody and dies. Can't have that, we needs an explosion! :p
Click to expand...

This actually caused problems on the set, as I recall - Benchley and Spielberg supposedly had a big fight over that part of the ending, which resulted in Benchley walking away from the project. While I felt his account was much more realistic (even Mythbusters proved Spielberg wrong!), you're right, you have to Michael Bay-it up a bit for Hollywood. :cool:
 
Tomorrow said:
This actually caused problems on the set, as I recall - Benchley and Spielberg supposedly had a big fight over that part of the ending, which resulted in Benchley walking away from the project. While I felt his account was much more realistic (even Mythbusters proved Spielberg wrong!), you're right, you have to Michael Bay-it up a bit for Hollywood. :cool:
Click to expand...

Speaking of Michael Bay, I love The Island and the first couple of Transformers, never read the books though. :p
 
Huntn said:
Speaking of Michael Bay, I love The Island and the first couple of Transformers, never read the books though. :p
Click to expand...

I read The Island, but I heard the movie was terrible so I never bothered with it. The book was okay, not good enough for me to bother to read it again, IMO.
 
Tomorrow said:
I read The Island, but I heard the movie was terrible so I never bothered with it. The book was okay, not good enough for me to bother to read it again, IMO.
Click to expand...

i heard the same about the island it but after watching it i found quite good (i haven't read the book)
having Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson doesn't hurt either ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back