Bad movie interpretations

[slayda]

My worst two have already been mentioned. Both great books and extremely poor movies - Clan of the Cave Bear & Puppet Masters. I wonder if there is an inverse correlation with books quality being very high that "forces" the movie to be very poor.

Having worked, peripherally, with video, I realized that where a book can provide the "skeleton" of the background and the reader fills in the "meat" from their own imagination, a movie has to explicitly create the background for every scene. This does impose a definite hardship on movies.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by slayda

I wonder if there is an inverse correlation with books quality being very high that "forces" the movie to be very poor.

Not sure that's always true. I think 'Silence of the Lambs' and 'Felicia's Journey' are examples of very good books that became very good films.

I think, if you love a particular book, you're more likely to be dissatisfied with a film of it - because it's bound to differ from your treasured imagining of it.

[HarryT]

I think that very often short stories make better films than novels do. Inevitably, there's too much "detail" in a novel which has to be missed out in a film version, and that's bound to disappoint the fan of the novel.

Interestingly, I thought that the "Extended Editions" of the LOTR films were just about as faithful to the books as it's practically possible to be. I was very impressed by them.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Not sure that's always true. I think 'Silence of the Lambs' and 'Felicia's Journey' are examples of very good books that became very good films.

I think, if you love a particular book, you're more likely to be dissatisfied with a film of it - because it's bound to differ from your treasured imagining of it.

And then they turned around and bjorked 'Hannibal'.

Although the remake of Red Dragon was good, the original was one that should be listed here. Almost the same script, just better acting.

[slayda]

Never read the book but "The Shawshank Redemption" is one of my favorite movies. IMO Morgan Freeman's narration is a large part of why it is so good. I did find it amusing that his character in the book was a "white" Irishman. In fact in the movie he responds to the question of how he got the nickname "Red" with the statement, "It must be my Irish ancestry." or something to that effect.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by slayda

Never read the book but "The Shawshank Redemption" is one of my favorite movies. IMO Morgan Freeman's narration is a large part of why it is so good. I did find it amusing that his character in the book was a "white" Irishman. In fact in the movie he responds to the question of how he got the nickname "Red" with the statement, "It must be my Irish ancestry." or something to that effect.

Excellent short story by Steven King.

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by slayda

Never read the book but "The Shawshank Redemption" is one of my favorite movies. IMO Morgan Freeman's narration is a large part of why it is so good. I did find it amusing that his character in the book was a "white" Irishman. In fact in the movie he responds to the question of how he got the nickname "Red" with the statement, "It must be my Irish ancestry." or something to that effect.

This is sort of off-topic, since it is about a book. Short story, actually. I think maybe Asimov, but it's "The Ugly Man" or something. Not "The Ugly Little Boy," that's another one. But it was this immortal caveman who had wandered the world, and he claimed to have founded the race of "black" Irish. Not as in African-American, but the Irish who are dark eyed, dark haired, and so on, like Shannon Dorherty from 90210, as opposed to red haired Irish.

Now back to your originally broadcast thread....

[TheRealBillc]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned I, Robot yet. The only thing the movie had in common with the book was the title.
I liked "The Day the Earth Stood Still" as a movie, but it bears little relationship to the book, "Farewell to the Master".

[nekokami]

Besides titles others have already mentioned, I'd add Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, but it was a weak book, too (IMHO). Stupid flying car nonsense.

I was somewhat pleasantly surprised at Prince Caspian, btw. The story was rearranged a bit, but in many ways more depth was added to the characters than Lewis had actually written.

Regarding LOTR, I actually thought the relationship between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum was pretty faithful to the original. On the other hand, Theoden and Denethor both got pretty mangled, particularly the latter.

Examples of books I read after I'd seen the movies and liked much better as books include 101 Dalmatians, Peter Pan (though Hook wasn't too bad) and The Wizard of Oz.

[McClaverty]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think that very often short stories make better films than novels do. Inevitably, there's too much "detail" in a novel which has to be missed out in a film version, and that's bound to disappoint the fan of the novel.

Bingo. Hollywood, please take note.

Mixed results on three films adapted from or "inspired by" Richard Matheson's I Am Legend: "Omega Man" and "I Am Legend" both left me wishing I'd stayed home. The 1964 Italian film "Last Man on Earth", starring Vincent Price, was much closer to the original, allowing for the limitations of the medium. Matheson is credited as a screenwriter, which may explain why.

Planet of the Apes: The 1968 Charlton Heston film took monumental liberties with the book, but I have always preferred the film. The book made much less of an impression on me than the film did. Forget the remake. Forget any remake of any film.

[spooky69]

Originally Posted by mores

Hmm, I must say I really, *really* liked Paul Verhofen's version. I pretty much like all his movies. Totally peaked and surreal, but with a message. Like Robocop. I'm a Verhofen fan, even if I don't know, right now, how to spell his name

I didn't know Robocop director man also did Starship Troopers. I liked 'em both quite a bit (and saw them both in the theatre, coincidentally), although I've seen them both a few times and Robocop is clearly just better. Starship Troopers is a really solid action movie, though, and I've seen it hated on but it's still really fun.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Interestingly, I thought that the "Extended Editions" of the LOTR films were just about as faithful to the books as it's practically possible to be. I was very impressed by them.

I haven't seen the extended versions (I think), but I should chime in that the trilogy was probably executed just about as well as it possibly could have been under the circumstances (massive budget, limited filming locations [all New Zealand, right?], Peter Jackson ["'Twas beauty killed the beast." - Jack Black (Peter Jackson)]). All in all, a pretty impressive set of movies (even when contrasted very strictly against the books), but still not nearly as good as it should have been. I think a lot of the popularity with fans of the books can be attributed to getting things just right enough to diffuse most potential criticism.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by spooky69

I didn't know Robocop director man also did Starship Troopers. I liked 'em both quite a bit (and saw them both in the theatre, coincidentally), although I've seen them both a few times and Robocop is clearly just better. Starship Troopers is a really solid action movie, though, and I've seen it hated on but it's still really fun.

I haven't seen the extended versions (I think), but I should chime in that the trilogy was probably executed just about as well as it possibly could have been under the circumstances (massive budget, limited filming locations [all New Zealand, right?], Peter Jackson ["'Twas beauty killed the beast." - Jack Black (Peter Jackson)]). All in all, a pretty impressive set of movies (even when contrasted very strictly against the books), but still not nearly as good as it should have been. I think a lot of the popularity with fans of the books can be attributed to getting things just right enough to diffuse most potential criticism.

It's worth getting the extended versions. Just enough new flesh on the bones to make it worthwhile.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by McClaverty

Bingo. Hollywood, please take note.

Mixed results on three films adapted from or "inspired by" Richard Matheson's I Am Legend: "Omega Man" and "I Am Legend" both left me wishing I'd stayed home. The 1964 Italian film "Last Man on Earth", starring Vincent Price, was much closer to the original, allowing for the limitations of the medium. Matheson is credited as a screenwriter, which may explain why.

Planet of the Apes: The 1968 Charlton Heston film took monumental liberties with the book, but I have always preferred the film. The book made much less of an impression on me than the film did. Forget the remake. Forget any remake of any film.

See both versions of Red Dragon and get back to me on that. Take lots of pain killers before seeing the first version, becasue you'r going to want to rip your ears off mid way through.

[TheLongshot]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Starship Troopers (at least one person who worked on this had read the novel)

To be honest, I wouldn't call it an adaptation of the novel. More like they took some basic ideas from the novel and went their own direction. Based on that, it is actually not a bad film. They probably should have removed Heinlein's name from it, tho.

The same probably goes for I, Robot (which I haven't seen yet.)

Jason

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by TheLongshot

The same probably goes for I, Robot (which I haven't seen yet.)

I, Robot was OK for me. The short story has lots of background info that the reader already knows or can quickly get caught up on. The movie has to reference those ambient details. So it is more of a gestalt of Asimov robot stories than a direct portrayal of the single story.

Aside: I saw it for the first time on a transatlantic flight, with a head injury, on pain killers. Imagine that!