Books being turned into movies.

TalkWhat Are You Reading Now?

Join LibraryThing to post.

Books being turned into movies.

This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.

1bookworm12
Edited: Sep 20, 2007, 3:53 pm

It seems like so many books came out or are coming out this year based on some great books (and not so great ones) this fall. Maybe it's just me but it seems like there are even more than normal.
Atonement, The Golden Compass, The Jane Austen Book Club, Evening, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, The Nanny Diaries, Beowulf, Stardust, The Hottest State, The Feast of Love and I know there are even more.
I'm always nervous about film versions of books because they usually change so much.
Any thoughts on favorite books being turned into movies?

2teelgee
Sep 18, 2007, 3:09 pm

I recently heard that The Kite Runner is being made into a movie. Not sure how I feel about that. It was such a stunning book; they'd better do a stellar job on the movie. Touchstone is wonky, as usual.

3fyrefly98
Sep 18, 2007, 3:18 pm

I was thinking about this last week, and I'm always nervous about books I love being turned into movies, because they are almost always worse than the book, or leave out some key/favorite part.

However, there are some exceptions. Stardust doesn't follow the book exactly, but I thought it kept to the spirit of the book very well, and the changes didn't bother me at all.

I can think of two movies that I actually thought were better than their books; The Prestige, and Brokeback Mountain. Anyone else have any?

4kiwiflowa
Sep 18, 2007, 4:17 pm

Without a doubt Forrest Gump was a better movie than novel. The novel is totally bizarre and a huge disapointment. I have to give Hollywood two big thumbs up for turning the story around as they did.

the other Boleyn Girl is coming out on film soon too. I can't wait for that!

5teelgee
Edited: Sep 18, 2007, 4:25 pm

More info about The Kite Runner. Due out in November.

6bookworm12
Edited: Sep 18, 2007, 4:34 pm

There are some movies that I think do a good job. They may not be as good as the book, but they are great movies and don't take too much away from the story.
Lord of the Rings was like that for me, as was Gone with the Wind.
And I definitely have to agree that Forrest Gump was much better as a movie then a book. I've heard the same about The Godfather, but have only seen it, never read it.

7scaifea
Sep 18, 2007, 5:55 pm

Ok, I know that saying this is probably akin to committing a major literary crime amongst many LTers, but I think the Lord of the Rings movies were *way* better than their bound counterparts. There. I said it. Please don't be too disappointed in me...

8southernbooklady
Sep 18, 2007, 6:14 pm

I thought the Bridges of Madison County was a decent movie made from a hallmark-card-like book.

9coloradoreader
Sep 18, 2007, 7:32 pm

My husband and I recently rented An Unfinished Life with Robert Redford and Morgan Freeman. I had not even heard of the movie, but enjoyed it very much. Then the following day we were at a used book sale and my husband located the book for me, which I subsequently read and also enjoyed---written by Mark Spragg.

10brismom22
Sep 19, 2007, 10:57 am

Fierce People by Dirk Wittenborn is being made into a movie. Well it is a movie!! I saw the previews for it last week but dont remember when its coming out. I checked to see if it was a book 1st and indeed it was!! I read the book within 2 days. I have a feeling though that the book is going to be alot better because alot of the details im sure they will have a hard time trying to put onto screen!! But its a great read!!

11bluetyson
Sep 19, 2007, 12:56 pm

The end of the Lord of the Rings third movie sucked donkey gonads. :)

The Godfather is a pretty good book.

Jaws is a better movie than book.

12Jargoneer
Sep 19, 2007, 1:08 pm

>11 bluetyson: - that's a fair assessment of the end of the LOTR trilogy, it was cringeworthy in the extreme and seemed to go on and on and on.

In general if you like a book you feel disappointed in the film versions, it's simply because you have high(er) expectations. With a bad book, or one you disliked, your expectations are lower so they are easier met.

13bluesalamanders
Sep 19, 2007, 1:47 pm

Jargoneer -

That's why I almost never go see movies made from books I love. I know I'll hate them and I'll just irritate the people around me by saying "that's not right! that's not how it happened! that's not...!" and since I hate people like that, I definitely don't want to be one.

14teelgee
Sep 19, 2007, 1:50 pm

I recently read Grapes of Wrath, then saw the movie ca 1940. It was pretty good for its time, but the ending was soooo different from the book, it totally changed the flavor of the way Steinbeck ended it. That was difficult for me!

15sergerca
Sep 19, 2007, 1:52 pm

While the book was amazing Lonesome Dove the mini-series blows it away.

16stringcat3
Edited: Sep 24, 2007, 1:31 am

Movie better than book: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Movie and book work together: Girl With A Pearl Earring. The movie made the book much richer, but there were nuances in the book that one would have missed in the movie. And the cinematography made it seem that Vermeer's paintings had come to life.

When I tried to reread LOTR, which I had adored in high school, I was appalled at the clunkiness of the writing and the achingly slow, often digressive pace. The LOTR films WERE much better than the books, but they would never have been so good without the richness of the books to draw from. Hollywood would never have reached those heights on its own. To paraphrase Sir Isaac Newton, "If I have seen further ... it is by standing upon the shoulders of hobbits."

17scaifea
Sep 19, 2007, 3:31 pm

#16 stingcat3:

I definitely agree with you about LOTR, although standing on the shoulders of hobbits still wouldn't let one see very far... :)

18stephanie3
Sep 23, 2007, 4:59 pm

This message has been flagged by multiple users and is no longer displayed (show)
when I was a child I was in a movie my name is Lidasy Lowhand.

19Cariola
Sep 23, 2007, 6:23 pm

Too bad their isn't an abuse code for stupid, irritating, and off-topic posts.

20horuskol
Sep 23, 2007, 8:06 pm

the problem of comparing books to films is that they are two very different media (no duh! you cry) - and I see it as a mistake to cry out "but its nothing like the book"...

that said, there are many films from books that I would suggest not to bother watching - Congo is a prime example...

However, there are books that are converted into outstanding films (even if they are rewritten for the screen)... Do Androids Dream Of Electronic Sheep? is a great story... Blade Runner is a great film... there are a quite a few divergences between the two stories, but the essence is the same in both.

21stringcat3
Sep 24, 2007, 1:36 am

RE: film of The Kite Runner. Controversy has started over the rape scene - the family of the boy playing the victim is now complaining that they were never told about the scene, and they're afraid of tribal retaliation for the "dishonor." They've asked that the scene be deleted, but been refused. The movie wasn't going to be released in Afghanistan, but the family felt that made no difference.

22scaifea
Sep 24, 2007, 6:54 am

#20 horuskol: I agree that the movie Congo is lackluster at best, but the first 10 minutes or so are fantastic, if only because Bruce Campbell is in that beginning scene! (Please keep in mind that the word 'fantastic' here is is being used by someone who *loves* bad B-movies, and is enamored of said B-movie superstar and cult-classic (aka Mr. Campbell)...)

23TeacherDad
Sep 25, 2007, 2:19 am

I just read No Country for Old Men because it's due to be released soon, but although the book was engrosing and well done, I doubt it will be the type of movie I would see (until Netflix mails it to us)... I would go see the film of McCarthy's The Road, fantastic book that prob. couldn't be messed up in a movie.

LOVE Prayer for Owen Meany but, aside from the beauty that is Ashley Judd, did not like the movie....

never saw The Exorcist since reading the book when 13 and having the holy crap scared out of me... pardon my french....

24stringcat3
Edited: Sep 25, 2007, 2:33 am

Going back to the '80s, I remember the film of The Neverending Story, a book I loved, being appalling bad.

The Golden Compass is coming out this winter, isn't it? I can't remember what the promos said. I struggled through it and the next in the series (can't remember the name) before I gave up and mailed the trilogy to my brother. Very dreary, although I liked the armored polar bears. Now THEY'D do something about global warming. I kept thinking, "and this is supposed to be for kids?" Oy.

25bookaholicgirl
Sep 25, 2007, 6:26 am

#19 - Apparently, there is :)!

26bookaholicgirl
Sep 25, 2007, 6:31 am

#23 - The movie adaptation of A Prayer for Owen Meany is for some reason called "Simon Birch". My boys and I just watched it this summer. While I agree that it is not nearly as good as the book, I did like it as did my boys (who had not read the book). I guess I knew going in that it wasn't going to be much like the book and just enjoyed it for what it was - a nice, fun but very sad movie. My older boy constantly repeats one line from the movie "I'M SORRY!!!!!" and my younger one always says "Stop before you make me cry again."

27teelgee
Sep 25, 2007, 8:58 am

Into the Wild is coming out soon; directed by Sean Penn. I've heard both picks and pans about it.

28AlaMich
Sep 25, 2007, 2:19 pm

There is an article over at the online NYTimes about the No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency being made into a movie now. I love that series and I'm not sure what I think about it being filmed. Maybe more than most novels, those books have created a place in my mind, and I don't want it influenced by someone else's vision. Not to mention, since not a lot actually "happens" in the novels, I don't know what they will film. I think I will probably give it a pass.

29stringcat3
Sep 25, 2007, 4:19 pm

> 27 I've heard nothing but glowing reports about the film ofInto the Wild. Heard a very interesting NPR interview with the author last week. THe New York Times had a big article, very positive, last Sunday. Sean Penn is one of the more thoughtful actor/directors around. The film's backstory, about the family's involvement, is interesting as well.

30Cariola
Sep 25, 2007, 8:25 pm

I actually thought the film of Restoration was quite good--surprising, since Robert Downey Jr. made it just about the time he crashed in the neighbor kid's bed.

Enduring Love was dismal. I'm not sure that McEwan tranfers very well to film, but I will still want to see Atonement.

Friends in England, isn't there a new film of Brick Lane just out? That could be interesting.

31reptiliancandy
Sep 30, 2007, 6:21 pm

I'm really nervous about The Golden Compass. I've always loved the trilogy, so I'm really not so sure about the movie. I'm debating if I should even see it. Plus, I don't know if they'd be able to make the other two books into movies....the attacks on religion seem like it wouldn't translate well to film, especially if they're shooting for some kind of "kids'" movie. But if the omitted that it wouldn't even be the same story. Arg....I don't know.

In general, I think most of us readers know that the film version is rarely as good as the book.

32erelsi183
Edited: Sep 30, 2007, 6:28 pm

I've come to think of movie versions as different tellings of the story, not as direct translations into a different medium. I struggled with the first Harry Potter movie because it wasn't the same as the book. In fact, I struggled with the musical "Wicked" after reading the book by Gregory Maguire, because those two are definitely not the same. The conclusion I came to was that I had to stop going to the movie expecting to see the book played out on the screen. Because of time and because of target audience, most books just have to be cut down. Not to mention the fact that you lose the author's style, her choice of words, his use of description or whatever else. It's just not the same thing.

So now, when I go to see a book-based movie, I try to put aside what I know about the book. It just frustrates me to compare them, and then I don't enjoy the thing I just paid ten bucks to see.

(But I do understand the frustration/nervousness!)

(Deletion below was because this got posted twice...oops!)

33erelsi183
Sep 30, 2007, 6:27 pm

This message has been deleted by its author.

34teelgee
Oct 4, 2007, 12:14 pm

Some ongoing controversy re: The Kite Runner movie. Here's a link to the NYT article

Touchstone not working, as usual.

35Nickelini
Edited: Oct 4, 2007, 1:42 pm

On Friday nights, when my husband goes to play hockey and the kids are in bed, I get to watch whatever movie *I* want. I just realized that all my favourites are films made from books: Out of Africa, Pride and Prejudice (the Colin Firth version, natch), The Hours, Room With a View, Orlando, Dr. Zhivago, Sense and Sensibility, and even The Lord of the Rings (though I usually watch that one with my family).

I'm usually disappointed by films made from books, so I was pretty surprised when I realized that many of my favourite movies were first books.

PS: Stand by Me was better as a movie than a story, though the story was pretty good too.

36FrancesS
Oct 4, 2007, 2:33 pm

There is a new movie coming out called The Seeker. Apparently it is based off of the Dark is Rising Series which were FABULOUS. The movie looks beyond bad - its not even set in England!!

37ellevee
Oct 4, 2007, 3:28 pm

#36! Blaspheme! The movie can't be bad! Christopher Eccleston (The Doctor from Doctor Who) is in it! *sinks deeper and deeper into denial*

Good/Great Movies from Books
* Requiem For A Dream
* Leaving Las Vegas
* Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas
* High Fidelity
* About A Boy
* Brokeback Mountain
* Trainspotting
* The Shawshank Redemption
* Wonder Boys

There are dozens more, of course, but those are some that haven't been mentioned.

I think it depends on who makes it, and who gets cast. I live in fear of the film version of Watchmen. I want it so badly to not suck, but... I can't be sure. I'm very on the fence about who's cast as Rorschach. At least they didn't go with Jude Law...

38scaifea
Oct 4, 2007, 3:47 pm

#35 and #37: I second your votes for Stand By Me and The Shawshank Redemption - there's something about Stephen King's stories that seem to translate really well onto the big screen. Except for The Shining. Sorry Kubrick fans, but that movie was *terrible*!!

#37: I also second your Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. By the time I saw that movie, I already had a huge crush on Johnny Depp (like, who doesn't?) and was also already deep into my fairly unhealthy obsession with HST. So, yeah, that movie did me no good on either account; it's like the old Reece's Cup commercials ("Hey, you got chocolate in my peanut butter...Hey you got peanut butter in my chocolate") - two great obsessions that go great together...

39CarlosMcRey
Oct 4, 2007, 5:33 pm

#38 - Um, you are exempting Stephen King's horror stories, right?

40bookworm12
Oct 4, 2007, 6:02 pm

I agree about Stand By Me, The Body wasn't a bad story, but the movie was so much better.
I definitely agree with your picks ellevee. I loved High Fidelity both the book and film versions.
But you have to admit sometimes a book is just destroyed when they try to make it cross over. Those examples just show that it can be done, and it can be done really well.

41scaifea
Oct 4, 2007, 6:41 pm

#39 CarlosMcRey: I spoke out of not-so-much-experience, really (as usual); I'm trying to make my way through the King corpus and have vowed not to watch too many of the movies made from his books until I'm finished, so I've only seen a few of the many SK-inspired ones. You're probably correct though, since I've heard others talk in disgusted tones about some of the movies. The short stories, though, seem to do well as movies, or at least the one's I've seen. And I really enjoyed the tv mini-series version of The Stand, but then again, I'm a sucker for Gary Sinise and Adam Storke...

42CarlosMcRey
Oct 4, 2007, 6:56 pm

I think I'm probably on the flip side, having seen several SK-inspired movies but only having read one of his books. (The Gunslinger) I've never seen The Stand, so the closest I've gotten to a good SK-inspired horror movie would be Apt Pupil.

43Joycepa
Edited: Oct 5, 2007, 8:46 am

Well, here goes, but I'm going to check in on the side of those who thought that the LOTR movies were better than the books. I thought they did a terrific job of adaptation, and added something that is totally missing in Tolkien except in a forced way: humor. I'm a Tolkien fan--I have all the major books, including The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin. But in my opinion, there are entire sections of LOTR that are dull and utterly boring. I always think that comparisons of JK Rowling to olkien are unfair to Rowling. Tolkien's genius lay in the creation of a world and language, mythology--certainly not in the development of his main characters, who never change.

Fortunately, I live in a remote area so that I really don't have to worry about assassination! :-)

And just to show what a a philistine I am--Return of the King is one of my favorite movies! But then I loved the battle scenes.

I might add another excellent movie adaptation of a book--"Gettysburg" from Killer Angels. It's major flaw--and it's a big one--is the casting of Martin Sheen as Lee. I really like Sheen as an actor but he is NOT the one to play Lee. For example, Lee was a superb horseman. Sheen, for the most part, looks as if he met his first horse the night before filming.

With the exception of leaving out the real reason why Dick Garnett suicidally rode off to die in Pickett's charge, the movie was incredibly faithful to the book.

In contrast, I could barely watch "Gods and Generals", adapted from Gods and Generals by Jeff Shaara. Again, I thank heaven that no one can find me, but that movie glorified Jackson who was, as far as I'm concerned, a creep. Yes, he loved his wife, yes he was a brilliant general (but flawed--funny how no one ever makes movies about his disastrous performance in the Peninsular campaign), but he was incredibly indifferent to his men. The Battle of Fredericksburg, however, was very well done. The casting of Lee in that movie was excellent--I wish they'd used Robert Duvall in the first one.

Now to irritate a great many JK fans (of whom I am one of the more rabid): I really liked the movie from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. No, it wasn't the book--but then you simply can't make a 9 hour long movie! The book is one of my favorites in the series, and I was apprehensive about the movie until I saw it (3 times).

And I do have some apprehension about Harrry Potter and the Deathly hallows. Contrary to many people, I loved the epilogue, thought it perfect. BUT, even as I was speed reading my way through on July 22 (would you believe it, we managed to snag a copy out here THAT DAY in the wilds of Panama?), a part of me niggled about the amount of exposition, which is hard to film. Oh well, two years to worry.

44Joycepa
Oct 5, 2007, 8:23 am

I now am going to apologize about the length of my post--I'm truly sorry--I got carried away!

45teelgee
Edited: Oct 5, 2007, 1:57 pm

Joycepa =-= I don't understand why you would apologize for a long post. This is a talk forum, for pete's sake! I thought it was very interesting. And I think you're safe from assassination attempts, not just by virtue of your undisclosed location!

46brismom22
Oct 5, 2007, 1:43 pm

My all time fav book that was turned into a movie would have to be The Notebook. I've watched it a million times and probably read the book a million times. Both are great. I wish they'd do The Wedding into a movie. I think I might just go read that again!!!

Touchstones dont seem to be working sorry.

47fannyprice
Oct 6, 2007, 12:45 pm

I know that this is a book turned into a TV show, but I just finished watching the first season of Showtime's "Dexter" and then picked up the book Darkly Dreaming Dexter, which is the basis for the show. I have to say that so far I think the series is much better than the book. Some changes were made to facilitate the transition from page to screen and I think that they have actually improved upon the original. Things that come off as completely pretentious and lame in print somehow work on the show. I also think the main character's MO is better executed (no pun intended) on screen.

48ellevee
Oct 6, 2007, 10:41 pm

#47 I totally agree. The show Dexter is infinitely better than the source material. I love it. I'm bitter I don't have Showtime, and am waiting for Season 2 to come out on DVD.

49teelgee
Oct 6, 2007, 11:59 pm

47-48 I watched one episode of Dexter and I couldn't bear it. So dark and violent and gruesome. Nothing redeeming about it at all, imo.

50fannyprice
Oct 7, 2007, 2:08 pm

>48 ellevee:, ellevee - I feel the same way! I am seriously debating over how deep my obsession with the show is and how deep my pockets are.... can I get Showtime? The first episode is free on Showtime.com, but if I watch it, will I be compelled to shell out for Showtime?

51Cariola
Oct 7, 2007, 6:13 pm

#50 I don't watch Dexter, but if you get Showtime, you can watch Season 2 of The Tudors in the spring.

52ellevee
Oct 9, 2007, 12:24 am

#49 That's too bad. It's really a beautiful show. Violence and darkness don't bother me at all. They're part of life. Shows like "Desperate Housewives" and "Friends" on the otherhand, I consider to be the dregs of human culture. Now THOSE have nothing redeeming.

#50 Oh, if I get the first episode, I'm screwed and will pay for everything they demand, just for my "Dexter." I have a problem.

53AlaMich
Oct 9, 2007, 4:38 pm

#50 & #52

Or do what I did and get Netflix and watch Dexter on DVD. Way cheaper than shelling out for Showtime when you only like one thing they show. Plus, it beats the heck out of going to the video store.

54fannyprice
Oct 9, 2007, 7:58 pm

#53, Yeah its just we want season 2 NOW! ellevee, I think we both have a problem. :)

Maybe we should make a Dexter thread somewhere. I feel like we hijacked this one. :)

55Joycepa
Oct 9, 2007, 8:31 pm

dexter thread people: nah, nah, don't worry--it's certainly providing me with Alzheimer-delaying mental exercise, trying to figure out what's going on! :-)

56AlaMich
Oct 9, 2007, 8:47 pm

#54...yeah, that's the problem with Netflix, you're always behind a season of everything.

57mrsradcliffe
Oct 10, 2007, 6:56 am

I have to disagree with most people on this thread and say that Lord of the Rings is far better in book form. The Harry Potter films bother me because they miss out so much detail that it's hard to fully understand the plot, but I think that you always must remember that these are adaptations!

Once I thought of films as adaptations, not book replays, I got on with them a lot better on the whole.
However, Chocolat the film was terrible in that it missed the main point of the book and turned it into a simple love story. Pride and prejudice I thought was awful, but I love love the Colin Firth TV version.

High Fidelity was ruined for me in the film due to its change of setting. The book is quintissentially English.

I think my main gripe is that things are left out or changed too much - but I must remember that that is why it is called an adaptation!

58Joycepa
Edited: Oct 10, 2007, 10:19 am

#57 mrsradcliffe: I think it truly depends on what you want out of the film.

I utterly agree with you about needing to remember that these are adaptations. This is particularly true of the Harry Potter films, I think.

Looking at the film Lord of the Rings as entertainment value, then I think the films are far, far better than the book. Thanks to the discussion on this thread, I just recently watched all 3 movies again, and again was struck by the quality of the acting and direction and the way the films do move along. The Ents were one of my favorite creations in the book, and I LOVE them in the movie!

If you want back story, languages, history, descriptions of medicinal plants, world origins, etc., then the books are obviously better.

However, I think that Walsh, Boyd and jackson, the three main script writers, did a fantastic job--even to where they point out a glaring inconsistency in the books themselves in teh character of Faramir, explaining why they changed his story so dramatically.

The DVD set of LOTR has hours and hours of Special Features, every second of which is worth watching.

59TeacherDad
Oct 10, 2007, 11:02 am

Is it possible to watch the entire LOTR boxed set? There's so much stuff on there, it says "running time: an entire lifetime" ....

60Joycepa
Edited: Oct 10, 2007, 3:54 pm

#59 TeacherDad: I really got a big laugh out of your comment!

It certainly takes stamina! I've looked at almost all of it--there are sections on costume design that I was not interested in, so--. I believe but won't swear to it that there are about 5 hours' worth of Special Features for each film, and it may be more. What Jackson did was decide, right from the start, that he was going to have a film record of how the movie was made. I can't tell you how excellent most of that stuff is. Particularly impressive is the Weta Studios footage, where they tell you how the creatures (and more) were constructed. For Fellowship of the Ring, you get to see how Hobbiton was done. Throughout all the films on the Special Features, you go with the siting crew as they search out places in New Zealand to film various sections of the films. Normally, I don't bother watching the actors' special features because for the most part, they have nothing to say. Not in LOTR--all were worth listening to.

Each film has a section on Tolkien which is wonderful. I'm sure you can gather all of that from Wikipedia or similar source, but it's extremely well done in LOTR. The section on Andy Serkis and Gollum is superb.

And, you get to see and thus be able to recognize, Jackson, Richard Tyler and I think the art director, whose name I can't remember, dressed up as corsairs! I get the biggest bang out of watching Peter Jackson take Legolas' arrow--he dies so well!

There is a great deal of extra footage that was edited out of the theatrical version, and there is no question that it makes the films more interesting (and much longer).

There's so much more and just about all of it is fascinating. You can watch in measured doses so that you don't go catatonic in front of the TV. :-)

61teelgee
Oct 10, 2007, 11:36 am

I loved the extra about Gollum and how they filmed him. Sometimes seeing that behind the scenes stuff can ruin the magic for me (e.g. I NEVER want to see the set of Star Trek Voyager!) But I found that piece really fascinating.

62Joycepa
Edited: Oct 10, 2007, 11:52 am

#61, teelgee: Normally, I would agree. But for the most part, knowing how it was done in LOTR did not destroy the magic. But there are a few things that, now when I watch, I'm very conscious of--such as how they managed the size differences. John Rhys-Williams plays Gimli--and Rhys-Williams is over 6 ft tall, the tallest member of the cast!

And yes, I know how they did the 6000 Rohirrim but it doesn't matter--the Battle of Pellinor Fields is one of the most spectacular and thrilling sequences I've ever watched.

63scaifea
Oct 10, 2007, 12:39 pm

Joycepa:
I agree with you about LOTR 100% - absolutely spectacular in every way. I'm a huge fan of Peter Jackson, huge fan. We go way back (by which I mean I've been watching his movies for years), and when I found out that he would be directing LOTR, I thought, Good lord, Pete, what will you do to Tolkien? (Those of you who have watched his early work will know what I'm talking about - Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles,... not exactly epic movies, although I'm certainly a fan of them.) But he's proven that he has a fantastically wide range and can pull off just about anything.

As far as the book-into-movie theme as a whole, I fall in line with the ancient Greeks, who had many different versions of most of their myths and tales, and it didn't bother them a bit to add new ones (the Greek Tragedians were constantly changing myths to suit their purposes). That's why even movies like Troy or The 300 don't bother me (a classicist by trade) - I know the Greeks wouldn't have minded, so why should I?

64Joycepa
Oct 10, 2007, 12:45 pm

The only real problem I had with the movie Troy is Brad Pitt's clever--but only--fight maneuver--a sort of tricky, clunky-looking jump that landed him in the rear of his opponent. I kept wondering when the Trojans would figure it out from watching the instant replays!

65scaifea
Oct 10, 2007, 12:50 pm

Joycepa:

Ha! That's funny - you know, though, that's one of my favorite parts of the movie, because to me, although I'm sure it's not intentional, it looks like he's taking on a warrior pose from Greek vase paintings just before he pounces.

66Joycepa
Oct 10, 2007, 1:47 pm

#65,scaeifea: If realistic, I'm not too sure, then, that it was unintentional. I know Pitt did all the stunts and I believe I read somewhere that he did quite a bit of study on his own for the part. Something I just can not pull out of memory about the style of fighting he and Patroclus used.

67trinah
Oct 11, 2007, 3:30 am

I don't generally mind them, unless of course the director complete disregards the work of the author. A lot of directors have enough respect for the author to try and keep the story there as much as they can.

I try to think of the movie as something that is not connected with the novel, therefore there is not major disappointment. Not everything can be compacted into the movie.

And I also think that it can connect movie goers with the books, especially if the film is great.

68onetrooluff
Oct 15, 2007, 11:29 am

It can certainly go either way.

I would say one of the worst book-to-film adaptations was Michael Crichton's Timeline - auuuuugh. Just.... AUUUUUGH. I read that entire book in two sittings, unable to put it down, crying at the end... and the movie was just horrendous.

One of the really good adaptations: The Virgin Suicides. I think the film version really captured the feeling of the book.

69Rachel208 First Message
Oct 15, 2007, 3:42 pm

Two that I'm really interested in seeing are

'The Bell Jar'- Due out in 2008 and starring Julia Stiles as Esther. I'm not sure about this one-or indeed if the film can be adapted at all. I've seen the 1979 film that Larry Peerce did which I though was awful. As the book relies so much on inner thoughts and confusion it will be interesting to see how it translates to screen.

'The Lovely Bones' - I think this is out in 2008 as well- the line up is looking pretty good, but again, not sure that it can be made into a film- but I think Peter Jackson will do a good job.

I'm always a bit cynical about films being made out of novels I love. I think 'The Beach' says it all..

70XR4L5
Oct 18, 2007, 10:06 am

I recently read the Last Legion by Valerio Massimo Manfredi and was hooked from start to finish. I thought it was a great bit of historical fantasy. I was thrilled when I found out it was being adapted for film & it's released here in the UK sometime soon. I will definitely being taking a trip to the cinema for that one.

Another film I watched after reading a book was Primal Fear by William Diehl. Again a great book with a fascinating character called Aaron Stampler. He was portrayed by Edward Norton, and what a fantastic performance it was. Though Richard Gere as the lawyer Martin Vail was a bit of a let down.

71stringcat3
Oct 18, 2007, 1:50 pm

> 70 We saw The Last Legion when it was released here in August. Definitely a popcorn movie. Colin Firth looks vaguely embarrassed to be in it, Ben Kingsley is having a great time in sandals, Aishwarya Rai is gorgeous and get to do lots of Indian Kung Fu. Kevin McKidd unfortunately get stuck with a one-dimensional bad-guy role. It's worth seeing on the big screen for the action scenes, but it's a silly, silly movie.

If you're hooked on ancient Rome and have never seen the HBO series ROME, I can't recommend it highly enough. The two seasons are available on DVD. Kevin McKidd was one of the leads. Great writing, outstanding case, superb production values, based on actual people and events but with some telescoping for storytelling purposes. Was filmed in Italy at huge expense, which is why they made only two seasons (was supposed to be just one but was so popular they made the second). Be warned: very graphic violence and sex. Makes The Last Legion look like a cartoon.

72kiwiflowa
Oct 18, 2007, 2:55 pm

ooo thanks for the recomendation #71! I have seen the DVD Rome but have been hesitant to buy it knowing nothing about it.. I thought it might be in the 'historical fantasy' genre like 300? I might buy it next time I get a discount voucher.

73stringcat3
Oct 18, 2007, 5:05 pm

> 72 Noooooo - not at all like 300, which was, after all, just a video game on film. I'd check for rentals first - the DVDs are a hundred bucks each through HBO. Netflix also has it available.

74marietherese
Oct 18, 2007, 8:23 pm

I plan on seeing Ang Lee's version of Eileen Chang's short story "Lust, Caution" this weekend. Has anyone else seen it? Any thoughts?

75stringcat3
Oct 19, 2007, 2:10 am

Has there ever been a film version of The Once and Future King? I remember a ghastly Disneyfied cartoon version. Now THERE'S a project for Peter Jackson.

76mrsradcliffe
Oct 19, 2007, 10:18 am

Rome per season is £36 with amazon.

77berthirsch
Edited: Oct 31, 2007, 6:59 pm

23- i am actually hopeful that the Coen Brothers are a perfect match for this book,No Country For Old Men...while reading it I thought it was very much like a Quenton Tarrantino movie...the pace, suspense, violence and greed should translate well if you like that kind of movie story.

78berthirsch
Oct 31, 2007, 7:07 pm

Sophie's Choice
Catch-22,
The Commitments,
Get Shorty,
The Unbearable Lightness of Being,
The Age of Innocence
The Human Stain

these are all films and books that I equally enjoyed. in general, it is always better to read the book first.

79clik4
Nov 14, 2007, 4:59 pm

Love in the Time of Cholera will be out soon.
Also, I agree with Colorado Reader, (From a Wyoming reader, An Unfinished life was a good book and the movie was a great intrepretation; the actors, Morgan Freeman and Robert Redford and even Jenifer Lopez pulled off good characters, adding to the story.

80Cariola
Nov 19, 2007, 8:58 am

#79 Buzz on Love in the Time of Cholera is bad. The NYT review was stinging--basically, that the director and producer (a Brit and a South African) were clueless about Colombian culture and filmed it like a Dickensian novel.

81emaestra
Nov 19, 2007, 5:18 pm

Cariola, thanks for the heads up. That was one I was nervous about seeing. I have loved the book so long that I feared any movie would pale in comparison. Perhaps I will just skip it altogether.

82Madcow299
Nov 24, 2007, 6:18 pm

I would love to see Ender's game adapted. I think LOTR books are better than the movie, and I have stopped trying to compare HP movies and books there's too much they miss.

83Vonini
Nov 26, 2007, 7:57 am

I really enjoyed the adaptation of Memoirs of a Geisha, but that was also because the environment and clothing were so beautiful! ^^ I loved the dancing and the kimonos. I did miss the intensity of the emotions though, but that's more difficult to put into movie I think.

I just read I am Legend this weekend and am looking forward to the movie! I'm curious how they are going to make it work, because especially in the first part of the book there's hardly any dialogue.

84germaine
Nov 29, 2007, 3:45 am

Hi New to this group so here is my twopenneth

"The Bourne Books "by Robert Ludlum that were made into the films why did they bother apart from the lead character everything else was changed why did they bother the books were much better.

What a waste of time watching them.Any one else feel the same

85CarlosMcRey
Nov 29, 2007, 12:14 pm

germaine, I'd have to respectfully disagree on this. Partially, I think it's not that much of a stretch to just accept that they're very much different creations, with the Bourne movies taking much better advantage of the medium of film than a more straight rendering of the books would.

Also, even though the first book was pretty good, I don't think the sequels really maintain the same quality. The second book has silly moments, like Bourne shooting Mao's corpse! (I know it was probably meant to be darkly humorous, but it's just so goofy I couldn't get over it.) It also has Conklin repeatedly refer to someone as an "elegant ass," which is not a particularly clever insult. (Honestly, it sounds as if it was originally written in Chinese and translated into English by a non-native speaker.)

I have to admit I never read the third book, but I've heard that it's really not that good.

86suzanimals
Nov 30, 2007, 4:53 pm

I don't usually get too excited about the book-->movie thing but I am really, really looking forward to Shantaram starring Johnny Depp and directed by Mira Nair. Although it IS a 900+ page book, so many things will have to be cut out.

87Joycepa
Dec 1, 2007, 6:39 pm

OK, I just finished Mystic River by Dennis Lehane. I thought it was absolutely terrific, and it has made me very curious to know about the movie. I realize that was 2003 (I think) but, anyone here both read the book and see the movie and how did they compare and anything else you might like to add!

88taikohediyoshi
Edited: Dec 2, 2007, 4:33 pm

Someone complained about the Bourne movies which did not follow the books. Sometimes the plot is retained but the main character is removed. In the adaptations of Ellery Queen novels, La Décade prodigieuse (Ten Days’ Wonder) directed by Claude Chabrol and Haitatsu sarenai santsu no tegami (The Three Undelivered Letters, based on the Queen novel Calamity Town) directed by Nomura Yoshitaro the detective is replaced.

89Joycepa
Dec 2, 2007, 4:26 pm

#88 taikohediyoshi: That's an unusual twist! How did they do away with the detective and still keep the plots as murder mysteries?

90taikohediyoshi
Edited: Dec 2, 2007, 6:27 pm

In the Chabrol movie, Queen, and the other characters names are changed, but the basic plot, crimes devolving from the Ten Commandments is retained. Haitatsu sarenai santsu no tegami is available in Japan, but not in the USA, and does not have subtitles. But I suspect the same has happened there too. The same thing happened to Ed McBain when his novel King's Ransom was made into movie by Akira Kurosawa (High and Low).

91Joycepa
Dec 2, 2007, 4:50 pm

#90: Wow--I wasn't aware that Kurasawa--one of my favorite directors--made such an adaptation!

92jhowell
Dec 3, 2007, 2:22 pm

#87 Joycepa -- I thought the movie version of Mystic River was great. One of those rare circumstances when book and movie are equally good.

For me -- like with Cold Mountain loved both the movie and the book.

I am just about to watch The French Lieutenant's woman on DVD -- I am nervous because I loved the book and I just can't imagine they can really do it justice.

93taikohediyoshi
Dec 3, 2007, 4:10 pm

Detectives removed/plot remains. Two other examples: Mr Moto was removed when Stopover: Tokyo was made into a movie, and Poirot was removed when Agatha Christie adapted Death on the Nile for the stage.

94Joycepa
Dec 3, 2007, 4:36 pm

#92 jhowell: That's saying a great deal about the movie, but I suppose it's to be expected with Clint Eastwood as director. I went to IMDB and looked up Mystic River and went through the gallery of stills. Sean Penn really looks terrific in what I saw. I wouldn't have imagined Tim Robbins for Dave but he must have done something right--both actors won Oscars. Gonna have to buy the DVD.

95LornaBriggs
Dec 4, 2007, 4:33 am

I know it's old but Bridget Jones is one of my favourites especially the first one.

96alcottacre
Dec 14, 2007, 2:40 am

I just learned yesterday as I was reading the book that Then She Found Me by Elinor Lipman is being turned into a movie with Helen Hunt in the lead. I also believe it is Hunt's directorial debut.

97diganwhiskey
Dec 14, 2007, 11:39 am

I just finished Starting out in the Evening and I was unsettled by the several points of view. Somehow I think the movie will get around this. I've long been a Frank Langella fan and I understand he's outstanding in this movie. May be a case where I like the movie better!

98bookworm12
Dec 26, 2007, 12:39 pm

I finally saw Atonement on the big screen. I don't know what everyone else will think, but I really enjoyed it. It stayed remarkably close to the book and I think it was well cast. It was beautifully done.

99missmaddie
Dec 26, 2007, 6:53 pm

I finished reading Artemis Fowl. Does anyone know if they are going to make this into a movie? Personally, I think it would make a fabulous movie.

100sydamy
Dec 27, 2007, 7:18 pm

I have heard they are filming The Time Traveller's Wife to be released next year. Starring Rachel McAdams. I loved the book and cannot imagine how it will translate to a movie, all that jumping around. Sometimes reading the book I had to stop and think about the sequences and when was when, how the heck are they going to have it make sense?

101alcottacre
Dec 28, 2007, 2:39 am

#99 missmaddie - I checked www.imdb.com to see if there was anything posted regarding a possible Artemis Fowl movie, and could not find any record of one.

102wonderlake
Dec 28, 2007, 5:17 am

I am reading a 1993 edition of The Handmaid's Tale which on the blurb points out it is "a major film staring Faye Dunaway". I've got it down on my Lovefilm list.

And for bedtime reading I've got Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows which I presume is going to be made into a film. I'm enjoying it much more than book #6, I'm finding it a real page-turner :)

*touchstones not loading

103Jujo317
Dec 28, 2007, 6:11 am

Pride & Prejudice, Fight Club, Sense & Sensibility, Breakfast at Tiffany's, The Notebook, A Walk to Remember, Snow Falling on Cedars, The Namesake(my all-time fav book), and White Oleander

104teelgee
Dec 28, 2007, 12:28 pm

>102 wonderlake: wonderlake: Handmaid's Tale is a fabulous book but I've heard the movie really sucked.

105Cariola
Dec 29, 2007, 2:18 am

#102, 104 It wasn't THAT bad, but it was just OK.

106mckait
Dec 30, 2007, 3:59 pm

My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult

Dakota Fanning and her little ister will be in it...

107LheaJLove
Dec 31, 2007, 11:42 am


>98 bookworm12: Bookworm12

Yes! I finally saw Atonement as well. I thought the acting was wonderful, the music was perfect. The scenes were well captured. I loved it!

Now, I'm off to go see The Kite Runner.

108Cariola
Dec 31, 2007, 11:52 am

You all are so lucky to live in/near big cities. Neither Atonement nor The Kite Runner have opened yet here, and when they do, it will be 30 miles away.

109Allie64
Dec 31, 2007, 11:54 am

# 100: sydamy
I agree that The Time Traveller's Wife would be hard to make in to a movie. I am afraid to make it work they might have to cut out a lot of things. I found myself having to stop and go back to parts of the book on occasion while reading it, but i just loved the book!! One the top 5 of the year!

#99:missmaddie and #101 alcottacre
The only site I found any information on Artemis Fowl is here:
http://www.artemis-fowl.com/movie_1.php

I haven't read the book, but heard it's really good!

110LheaJLove
Dec 31, 2007, 11:54 am


Oh my!

The things we take for granted! Well, we will be sure to let you know if it is worth the trek!

111scaifea
Dec 31, 2007, 1:03 pm

#108 Cariola: I live 1.30 hours away from the nearest city and I've found Netflix to be a lifesaver. You have to wait until movies come out on DVD, but I'm usually so busy that I don't notice the wait much.

112Sutpen
Jan 11, 2008, 12:53 pm

You know, No Country for Old Men was one of the very best movies released last year, and it stayed almost religiously faithful to the book (the last lines of the movie were word-for-word the same). Coincidence? I wish more movie adaptations would stay that faithful to the book. A book worthy of adaptation probably took years and years to write. Of course a screenplay written in three weeks with the same characters isn't going to achieve the same greatness.

23-
I rather think that The Road would almost certainly be screwed up in movie form. Well, actually, having seen There Will Be Blood twice, I think Paul Thomas Anderson might be able to handle it, but I wouldn't trust it to too many other directors.

113fannyprice
Jan 11, 2008, 12:55 pm

>112 Sutpen:, I agree, but I do think there is a fine line between being faithful to a book and being too faithful to a book. Sometimes when a screenwriter doesn't try to inject something new into the film, what works on the page falls flat on the screen. Like the first Harry Potter movie, which was generally faithful to the book, but was just dull.

114Cariola
Jan 11, 2008, 1:39 pm

#111 Yep, I do Blockbuster online. Atonement just opened at the mall about a half hour drive from here, but I won't be able to get there until next Friday. Hope it stays more than one week. With all the hype, it should.

115Sutpen
Jan 12, 2008, 2:00 am

114-

Ooh, definitely get up to see Atonement if you can. It's tied with Ratatouille for 3rd on my best of the year list. (1 and 2 are There Will Be Blood and No Country).

116hemlokgang
Mar 12, 2008, 11:11 am

#111- I also live a long distance from anything other than a tiny village video store which has only recently conceded that some foreign films might be appreciated even in our rural farm community. I rely heavily on Netflix!

117kitkat211
Jun 17, 2008, 9:30 am

I think that Harry Potter books are amazing, but the movies were just okay. They left out a LOT of detail major plot detail.

The princess diaries...they book and the movie both just okay and cute. Oddly enough the book has NOTHING to do with the movie.

Inkheart was a great book, I hope the movie get the book right. Twilight was also an AMAZING book, but I'm not sure if it can be made into a good movie.

118ljreader
Edited: Jun 18, 2008, 3:54 am

I could talk about this all day...
I loved the books and the movies of the following
Angela's Ashes by Frank Mccourt
House of Sand and Fog by Andre Dubus
Rebecca by Daphne DuMaurier - One of my all time favorite movies
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl made into the movie Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
Rocket Boys by Homer Hickam made into October Sky

Some movies that I liked better than the books are
A Beautiful Mind by Sylvia Nasar
Cujo by Stephen King
Accidental Tourist by Ann Tyler just loved Geena Davis as Muriel

Some movies that just didn't cut it IMHO
Jane Eyre by C. Bronte - I read the book in my youth and was terrified of the Lowood School, Grace Poole and the crazy laughing throughout the halls of Thornfield Although I liked the movie (I liked the 1943 version with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine) I don't think it covered these characters and places as well as I would have liked.
The Horse Whisperer by Nicolas Evans - liked the ending in the book better
Beloved by Toni Morrison

119coloradogirl14
Jun 18, 2008, 4:46 pm

I see books and movies as separate entities, and I try not to compare the two, since film is a completely different medium that is ruled by different restrictions. That being said, I do believe that there are better adaptations than others. I really do enjoy the Harry Potter movies, even though they have to leave out large chunks of the plot in order to deal with time constraints. Generally, I find that adaptations of Michael Crichton or Stephen King novels fall flat, the exceptions being movies such as Jurassic Park, The Shining, and Carrie.

1200bazooka0
Jun 18, 2008, 6:02 pm

Lullaby and Invisible Monsters by Chuck Palahnuik are both being made into movies. Choke recently opened here at the Seattle Film Festival but they turned it into a romantic comedy so I said no thanks.

121Nickelini
Jun 18, 2008, 6:16 pm

Generally, I find that adaptations of Michael Crichton or Stephen King novels fall flat, the exceptions being movies such as Jurassic Park, The Shining, and Carrie.

--------------

And don't forget Stand By Me, The Green Mile and The Shaweshank Redemption. I agree about Crichton, except his TV series ER is pretty good (which started out from a non-fiction book he wrote).

122CarlosMcRey
Jun 18, 2008, 7:10 pm

I think one problem with King and Crichton adaptations is that they are such successes in publishing that producers don't really put a lot of effort into the adaptations. After all, movies like Carrie, Jurassic Park, and The Shining all had really talented directors in control.

I remember when the Stephen King movie Sleepwalkers came out, and everyone was excited because King had written it specially for the big screen and had full creative control. That was quite the disappointment. King really belongs behind a word processor, not a camera.

On a bit of a tangent, but after watching The Happening a couple of nights ago, I started thinking they should get M. Night Shyamalan to direct Diary. MNS could add some much needed atmosphere. Palahniuk's minimalist dialogue would be an improvement of Night's portentious/ridiculous stuff. And the twist ending of Diary is somewhat less painful than that of say "Signs."

1230bazooka0
Jun 18, 2008, 7:40 pm

I worry about anything based on a book being put into MNS' hands. The guy has a style, and although Palahnuik loves plot twists, his aren't as grandiose as Shyamalan's.

124coloradogirl14
Jun 18, 2008, 8:39 pm

#121 - I've actually never seen any of those movies, although I've heard good things about all of them.

#122 - Normally I'd agree with the statement that a director can make the difference, but the Lost World seems to be a bit of an exception: Overall, it's a decent movie, but the ending just kills me. Dinosaurs loose in San Diego? Come on... I also agree with your statement that Stephen King doesn't necessarily belong behind a camera. Case in point: the 6 hour Shining miniseries. Stephen King wrote the screenplay, and while it follows the plot of the book much more closely than the Kubrick adaptation, the ending is sickeningly sappy and doesn't fit the rest of the story at all.

125CarlosMcRey
Jun 18, 2008, 8:50 pm

#124 - Okay, good point on The Lost World. I always forget Spielberg was behind that one. Well, even good directors have their misfires.

126Cariola
Jun 19, 2008, 9:10 am

I watched The Other Boleyn Girl a few nights ago. I thought the book was just OK; the movie was a real dog and emphasized all the worst of the book. I don't know if I'll be able to read another Philippa Gregory novel again. (I've read about five now, several much better than this one.)

127bookworm12
Jun 20, 2008, 4:22 pm

I'd agree about The Other Boleyn Girl. I watched it last night, I read it about a year ago, and I wasn't impressed. It just felt like the left out so much of the tension and history. But then again, they only have 2 hours in a movie.

128bell7
Jun 22, 2008, 4:21 pm

I have a tough time liking movies that were originally books because if I watch the movie, that generally means I liked the book. I know going in there has to be changes to make a movie work successfully, but I may still want certain scenes to be in there that I particularly enjoyed or have a different visual idea of the action than the director. This is why I didn't like Prince Caspianas well as the book (or as well as I would have if it had not been a book first). On the other hand, I approved of most of the changes in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

I loved The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and A Walk to Remember in both book and movie form (but the books are better).

Fried Green Tomatoes was one of the only movies I like better than the book...I'd have to rack my brain to come up with more.

129coloradogirl14
Jun 22, 2008, 5:42 pm

I'm probably in the minority here, but I really preferred the movie Secret Window over the Stephen King novella, Secret Window, Secret Garden - I thought the movie ending was much darker and much more satisfying!

130jfetting
Jun 22, 2008, 6:18 pm

# 129 I completely agree with you, coloradogirl14. Of course, the movie did have Johnny Depp. That helps.

131Nina824
Jun 22, 2008, 6:20 pm

I am reading wuthering heights!

1320bazooka0
Jun 26, 2008, 1:50 pm

I read that Blindness by Jose Saramango is being made into a movie. I saw the trailer and it looks like the directors took the whole book out of context.

133scaifea
Jun 26, 2008, 5:00 pm

#132 Obazooka0: Whoa. I can't even begin to imagine that book as a movie, at least one that is at all faithful to the book. I loved the book, but it's so dark and brutal - I don't think I'd want to see it as a movie, if that makes sense.

1340bazooka0
Jun 26, 2008, 5:17 pm

133: There's a trailer on IMDB. It's . . not convincing.

135scaifea
Jun 26, 2008, 5:31 pm

#134: Huh. You're right. That doesn't look great. I'll probably skip it.