Films adaptions better than the book

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Three old films, from novels by Nevil Shute:

"A Town Like Alice", "No Highway" and "On the Beach". *

For me, Shute was a very pedestrian writer, but he told great stories, so his books worked really well as films.

+1 I especially hated the narrator in Alice. We're supposed to believe that Jean shared the most intimate details of her reunion with Joe with Mr. Strachan?

Originally Posted by elemenoP

I saw/read it many years ago (and I was young), but how about Out of Africa? I remember falling in love with the movie, and then trying to read the book and getting bogged down in too many details about how to run a plantation in Africa. I would like to try both again. As I understand it, the movie takes details/story from several of her books, not just the eponymous one.

Gack. I know Dinesen took some liberties with the truth, but not as many as the film did. Robert Redford was ridiculously miscast. Denys Finch Hatton was younger than Dinesen and bald as a proverbial billiard ball, as well as not having an American accent!

I haven't seen anyone mention Gone with the Wind, which is a far better film than book, even though I prefer the story told in the book.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

And the class differences between Frodo and Sam seem dated and out of place in the book

Actually, the fact that their relationship is not one that feels right to a 21st century reader is, I think, a strength in a book that is set in our remote past (or if you prefer, in an entirely different world entirely). Now granted, in the 1940s when the book was being written, such a relationship would not have seemed that odd to many in England (or at least, that is the impression I get from watching some old British sitcoms and reeding Jeeves and Wooster books).

--
Bill

[dynabook]

The Bourne Trilogy.

Ludlum's story was melodramatic but plausible. The movie was tight and exciting with believable characterizations if not entirely believable stunts.

I couldn't make it through the last book. Just got bogged down.
--MH

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

I haven't seen anyone mention Gone with the Wind, which is a far better film than book, even though I prefer the story told in the book.

Ack! I will grant you that there are a few lines that are better in the movie than the book (e.g., Rhett saying "Has the war started?" after Scarlett throws a vase, and his line "A minor point at such a moment" when she says he isn't a gentleman), but I rank GWTW as my favorite book of all time, and GWTW as my favorite movie of all time--each version is at the pinnacle of its format.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Ack! I will grant you that there are a few lines that are better in the movie than the book (e.g., Rhett saying "Has the war started?" after Scarlett throws a vase, and his line "A minor point at such a moment" when she says he isn't a gentleman), but I rank GWTW as my favorite book of all time, and GWTW as my favorite movie of all time--each version is at the pinnacle of its format.

I'm splitting the hair that says that GwtW is a great film, but it's not great literature, albeit compulsively readable. Has there ever been a shorter 1,037-page book? And as I said, I prefer the story in the book, as I think Rhett's character (and he really is cold and controlling) gets whitewashed in the movie, making Scarlett an unregenerate b!tch.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Rizla

The 13th Warrior:
The movie was great fun and the book left me cold (I couldn't get into it).

I always thought The 13th Warrior was based on Beowulf...

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

Of course, when I was a teenager I wrote lots of "poetry" because I was oh so deep and had transcended traditional thinking.

^That was me, too!

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I always thought The 13th Warrior was based on Beowulf...

The 13th Warrior is a 1999 historical fiction action film starring Antonio Banderas as Ahmad ibn Fadlan and Vladimir Kulich as Buliwyf; it is based on the novel Eaters of the Dead by Michael Crichton.[2] It was directed by John McTiernan and an uncredited Crichton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_13th_Warrior

Love that flick.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by sbroome

The 13th Warrior is a 1999 historical fiction action film starring Antonio Banderas as Ahmad ibn Fadlan and Vladimir Kulich as Buliwyf; it is based on the novel Eaters of the Dead by Michael Crichton.[2] It was directed by John McTiernan and an uncredited Crichton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_13th_Warrior

Love that flick.

Yeah, I've seen the movie but never read the book. But it has to be based on Beowulf. Anything other than that is crazy. It's classic Beowulf...

[MrsJoseph]

Oooh! I just looked up the book. So the movie is an adaptation of an adaptation of Beowulf!

Not confusing at all.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

I'm splitting the hair that says that GwtW is a great film, but it's not great literature, albeit compulsively readable. Has there ever been a shorter 1,037-page book? And as I said, I prefer the story in the book, as I think Rhett's character (and he really is cold and controlling) gets whitewashed in the movie, making Scarlett an unregenerate b!tch.

My head is exploding. I think both characters are multidimensional and sympathetic in both versions. I see very little difference in how they are portrayed in the movie and the book.

I had read the book multiple times before I ever saw the movie, and had formed my ideas of who the characters were. I thought the movie was completely true to the book.

I happen to be rereading the book right now ...

I think it is great literature. It's entertaining, accessible, memorable, and readable.

[grumbles]

Movies do not deal with ideas very well. The whole point of a movie is to show things in motion. Books can deal with long passages of description that set up scenes that just won't work in a movie.

I was reminded of this since I have just finished reading The Executioners (Cape Fear) and thinking how the whole emphasis of the movie was different from the book. The movie is about the conflict between Sam Bowden and Cady. It's a great movie, well done. On the other hand, the book is about the idead that there are corners in the legal system, where the system breaks down. The police and the legal system can't protect the Bowdens from Cady, and they decide that the only thing they can do to protect themselves is to go outside the law and take it on themselves to execute Cady. The book is mainly about Sam Bowden coming to terms with fact that he will have to go ouside the law to protect his family. I think it is a great book. But the connection between the book and the film are superficial.

One of my all time favourite movies is the original "The Flight of the Phoenix". I read the book some years later and I found the book dull, dreary and disappointing. On the screen, Stewart and Kruger made the characters of Town and Dorfmann just sing and live. Those actors, along with the rest of the cast, made a dreary story live.

So if you liked the book, you may like the movie and if you liked the movie you may like the book, but don't count on it. What you can count on, is that they won't be the same.

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by Catlady

My head is exploding. I think both characters are multidimensional and sympathetic in both versions. I see very little difference in how they are portrayed in the movie and the book.

I had read the book multiple times before I ever saw the movie, and had formed my ideas of who the characters were. I thought the movie was completely true to the book.

I happen to be rereading the book right now ...

I think it is great literature. It's entertaining, accessible, memorable, and readable.

Sorry Catlady, I'm with issybird on this one, enjoyable though the book was at the time I read it (which was after seeing the film, back in my 'teens). Maybe the whitewashing (sorry, no pun intended) of the origins of the Ku Klux Klan was part of what stuck in my throat, even back then, or maybe I have added that layer on subsequently.

I did think the film was very well done and I loved Vivien Leigh as Scarlett - a great performance - but the principals were all very good. I don't know what I would make of it now - I haven't seen it for many years.

[IcecreamLtDan]

Originally Posted by dynabook

The Bourne Trilogy.

Ludlum's story was melodramatic but plausible. The movie was tight and exciting with believable characterizations if not entirely believable stunts.

I couldn't make it through the last book. Just got bogged down.
--MH

I have to agree with this one. You got further than I did, I couldn't finish the second book. Love the movies though, the wife and I just did a rewatch this past week. When I heard about the new movie, I wasn't looking forward to it, but the trailer does make it rather intriguing to me now.

[Vic333]

One Few Over the Cuckoo's Nest, by far.

Logan's Run

Bladerunner.