kfudge Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Has there ever been a movie that measured up to the book? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Yes, The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Peter Jackson took an epic novel and distilled out of it the essence of a very good set of films. They look right, they feel right, and they totally respect the source material - what more could you ask for?! And two examples of films that are better than the books they are based on: Starter For Ten: The film definitely has a better ending than the book and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: It got rid of the flab from the book, and made a very good, well paced film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanna Addison Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I didn't like Goblet of Fire - I preferred Order of the Phoenix for film - but then I prefer that Michael Greenberg (?) to Steve Kloves. Personally if I've seen the film before I read the books I don't read the books if I like the movie: example - Bedknobs and Broomsticks - I love the Walt Disney film too much for me to read the book. So I do try and read the book now before I watch the movie. I loved The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. I thought that the elongated battle scene was superb and CS Lewis would have loved the Phoenix's setting the baddies aflame I think! And Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was true to the book and I loved the added history of Willy Wonka - also Christopher Lee and Johnny Depp playing father and son - inspired! But - as a general rule - (and because I'm so picky!) I do prefer the books to the movies as there is so much more detail in the book and some of the magic does get lost on celluloid! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephanie2008 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I thought Green Mile was pretty close to the book. I did read the book after I saw the film but I think it did it justice. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory corrected all of the mistakes from the first film in my opinion - much closer to the story in the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDR124 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 It happend to me a week ago to say: "The film was absolutely better than the book." It was the first time, but believe it was well deserved. I generelly tend not to compare books and films, considering them two completely different form of art you can't quite have the right to compare. But this time I was impressed on how you could turn a good book in a wonderful film. Book: Let the right one in, by Richard Lindqvist; Film: Let me in, Thomas Alfredson (screenplay by Lindqvist). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kell Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 The Princess Bride - it's extremely faithful to the book with minimal changes - the action, humour, style and spirit of the book is kept intact and the casting and performances were nothing short of inspired. They really did the book credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawr Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 The Shining, brilliant adaptation, definitely not a mirror to the novel, it's more of a different take on the story, which is brilliantly executed by Kubrick. Die Hard i have heard is much better than the book. Another King, Misery i think is a fantastic adaptation. I also agree with Lord of the Rings, who'd have ever thought you could make such a great movie which so wonderfully reflected the epicness of the series? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: It got rid of the flab from the book, and made a very good, well paced film. I didn't like Goblet of Fire - I preferred Order of the Phoenix for film Doh! Chalk that one up to late night posting, I actually meant Order of the Phoenix! Six-hundred odd pages of waffle, two-and-a-half hours of fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kell Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I'll actually be able to put several of these to the test shortly as I just bought a couple of the "Great Adaptations" books with dvds. I've already seen and read Pride and Prejudice (book way better than the Keira Knightly tosh), but I've also now got Jude the Obscure and Vanity Fair to read and watch at my leisure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Jude the Obscure I don't think I'm ever going to be able to watch Jude again . . . That's The Doctor, he can't do that! One of my favourite book to film adaptations is David Lean's version of Great Expectations, a great story anyway, but wonderfully filmed - top stuff! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanna Addison Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I preferred the Kiera Knightley film to the Andrew Davies adaptation. Kiera has the body type of the average woman around then (I went to Jane Austens house where she wrote it and I saw some dresses of a typical example of a woman - and Jennifer Ehle is way to big and busty!) and she was exactly how I imagined Lizzie Bennet when I first read her as a fourteen year old. As was Mr. Darcy and Caroline Bingley - (as a red head with green eyes!) Though the Mr and Mrs Bennet in the tv version was more how they are in the book. Also I preferred the Longbourne in the film - it was an old family house that was breaking apart ... The tv version found a what would have been UP TO DATE house where no way generations of Bennets would have lived at ... all in all I preferred the Movie to the TV version but then I will ALWAYS prefer the book to ANY adaptation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfudge Posted June 2, 2009 Author Share Posted June 2, 2009 I was disappointed with Kite Runner. I thought that though the movie was good, it did not do justice to the book. I do agree that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was a great movie that was very accurate to the book. Does anyone watch the movie first and then read the book? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kell Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Does anyone watch the movie first and then read the book? Me! I definitely prefer to do it that way, as I can enjoy the film in its own right and then find out all the extra bits when I read the book and enjoy that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephanie2008 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I do if I can help it. A lot of the time I watch movies without realising they were books to start with, such as White Orleander. I watched the film then read the book. I do try to read the books first before comparing the film, otherwise you get stuck with the pictures in your head when you're reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peacefield Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 The Shining, brilliant adaptation, definitely not a mirror to the novel, it's more of a different take on the story, which is brilliantly executed by Kubrick. I'm afraid that I will have to respectfully disagree with my friend here on this one . I enjoyed the novel so much more than the film and thought it was far superior. While the film is a different take on the story, why did Kubrick bother doing an adaptation if he was going to completely change key points? I know that you can't necessarily copy a book from page to screen exactly, but for me, I thought the struggle existing within Jack Torrance was much more believable in the book, and I thought the ending in the book was more interesting. Who knows, maybe I just have a problem with the gentleman in Rawr's avvie over there, but that's another story. Stand By Me was an excellent adaptation of King's short story, The Body, but I guess I like the movie better because it just expounded on the short story. I think that's the only case of a book I've read that has a better film adaptation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawr Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Oh i have read the novel several times, it's one of my favourites and there is a massive difference between the two in terms of plot, character, atmosphere and such and some really great scenes are left out, such as the bee hive, the hedges etc. I like the film for what it is, just something created and based upon King's tale. I don't think Kubrick's the kinda guy to just stick with the script anyway It doesn't do the psychological depths of the novel justice though i definitely agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peacefield Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Okay, so as a stand-alone film I will give Kubrick some credit, but grudgingly . Hedge animals can kick the butt of a hedge maze any time and any place though! I also will never forgive Kubrick for what he did to poor Halloran, but ah well, what can you do?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawr Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I never ever saw the point of what happened to poor old Halloran ya know :S it's like, come on, he has some spine in the novel! The film just distances itself away from the framework of the book too much to be considered an honest adaptation i think, that is why i consider them two different interpretations of one tale :b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosalind Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 I liked the adaptation of Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. Loved the book more but the film was good. They didn't even cut the whole whale vs petunia bowl part for the people who read the books this is actually very important in the future if they ever do get to film the other books The harry potter adaptations are OK, but then I miss parts that are so important in the whole series. I've known people who haven't read the books to love the films. Me, I just go to see them as mindlessly as I can. The last adaptation I saw was Confessions of a Shopaholic. Honestly just went to see Hugh Dancy in it. (He's the guy who plays Grigg in The Jane Austen book club adaptation). It was funny, but I think it was mostly because it was ages since I read the book. Anyone got any thought about these adaptations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) Not sure if I've posted my thoughts on this before, but my opinion on books v.s. movies, never differs. Every time, it seems to be books for me. I feel that this is because when I read a book, I have my own characters, places and even voices in my own mind. Then say I watch a film, I'm always disappointed with how it turns out. I'm not sure if this would change with watching the film to it, before reading the book, I may have to check that out! I do however have one situation where I have so far preffered the film to the novel; and this is the Lord Of The Rings. I can't really judge yet, though, however, because I've only read The Hobbit so far. Although I really enjoyed the films, so the books will have to do a lot to beat it. Don't all beat me up on that one yet until I've read them all. Edited June 15, 2009 by Ben Total mess up of grammar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissy Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Don't all beat me up on that one yet until I've read them all. No Ben, you are fairly safe there. The LOTR were fab films, and captured all the action really well, whilst leaving some of the peripheral density of the books to one side (thank goodness). They are hefty books, and Peter Jackson kept faithful to their souls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookJumper Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I liked the adaptation of Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. Loved the book more but the film was good. I beg to differ. As far as I was concerned the only good thing about that movie were the opening credits, featuring lovely dolphins and the quirkily adorable "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish" song especially composed by quirky Neil Hannon (aka The Divine Comedy frontman). Sadly it went all downhill from there; I was asleep 20mins in. The comparison with the excellent TV series didn't help. I liked the first two HP films (admittedly, there wasn't much to cut, the books being so short!); three was appalling (vital plot elements were left out better to indulge on dramatic scenery, the result being a visually stunning mess); four was equally appalling (they pretty much deleted the entire beginning, which was the best part of the book IMHO); five was hysterically bad. I'll make myself watch six and seven just to understand how it all ends - given that I couldn't even bring myself to finish book seven. Like Twilight, which I watched as a book substitute when I gave up on the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kell Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) I beg to differ. As far as I was concerned the only good thing about that movie were the opening credits, featuring lovely dolphins and the quirkily adorable "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish" song especially composed by quirky Neil Hannon (aka The Divine Comedy frontman). Sadly it went all downhill from there; I was asleep 20mins in. The comparison with the excellent TV series didn't help. I agree so much! The only other bit I thought was good was the way they handled Zaphod's 2nd head under the first one - a nice way for him to blend in wehen it wasn't on show (I also love Sam Rockwell), but I hated how the plot was mashed to a pulp with bits added in that weren't in the book and then changing the ending when they could have conceivably ended it the same place as the TV series if they hadn't added in all the cr*pola they didn't need! I liked the first two HP films (admittedly, there wasn't much to cut, the books being so short!); three was appalling (vital plot elements were left out better to indulge on dramatic scenery, the result being a visually stunning mess); four was equally appalling (they pretty much deleted the entire beginning, which was the best part of the book IMHO); five was hysterically bad. I'll make myself watch six and seven just to understand how it all ends - given that I couldn't even bring myself to finish book seven. You didn't miss much with book 7 - they just camped for, like, EVER in a highly boring, stretched out sort of way, then had a whizzy-fast finale that I had to read 3 times to fully understand who had done what (and I was majorly disappointed with the way several deaths were handled "off-screen". Then a bit of a rubbish "years later" epilogue that was too sugary sweet for words. The book could have been half the length and far better for it and I'm well p-o'd that they're stretching it into 2 films (crass commercialism at its finest!) when the only film they should have considered doing that (in order not to lose the plt completely) would have been No.5 (which was the longest book by far). Edited June 17, 2009 by Kell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimitra Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I'm afraid that I will have to respectfully disagree with my friend here on this one . I enjoyed the novel so much more than the film and thought it was far superior. While the film is a different take on the story, why did Kubrick bother doing an adaptation if he was going to completely change key points? I know that you can't necessarily copy a book from page to screen exactly, but for me, I thought the struggle existing within Jack Torrance was much more believable in the book, and I thought the ending in the book was more interesting. Who knows, maybe I just have a problem with the gentleman in Rawr's avvie over there, but that's another story. Yeah, I got the same from what I 've read, but I don't think I'll ever really know,'cause I saw only the half of the film...I got terrified! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jewell Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I remember vanity fair. I really enjoyed that adaptation, but i must admit, i haven't read the book! I've bought it, but haven't got around to it yet. I do love watching a lot of the adaptations. In fact i recently been looking up all the older ones. Our mutual friend, Far from the madding crowd, wives and daughters, cold comfort farm, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.