Do you watch and like book adaptations?

[John F]

From another thread:

Originally Posted by John F

...

For me it is hard to say that one is better then the other; movies and books are different, to me.

For me, I've seen a lot of poor movies; I haven't read a lot of poor books.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=332627

If I've watched/read one I will usually seek out the other.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

The Princess Bride Read the book first, then saw the movie - again and again, more times than I could count. When I re-read the book, I came to the conclusion that Goldman was a better screenwriter than novelist.

The Princess Bride is an excellent movie. But I also think the book was quite good and unique. They both (IMHO) need to be experienced and either order is OK.

Hogfather the casting was PERFECT. I have never seen any Downton Abbey, and have no interest in ever doing so, but Michelle Dockery forevre has a place in my heart as Susan Sto Helit.

Yes Hogfather is quite good. Also quite good is the two-part The Coulor of Magic. A lot say it's better then the book. David Jason played Rincewind and we was very good.

I know it's somewhat different, but my wife and I are quite enjoying The Day of the Jackal TV series.

While the books is good, I really thought the TV series of The Tattooist of Auschwitz was very good and moving.

[Bookstooge]

I'll watch them and it's usually a toss up if I'll like them or not.
The recent Dune duology is a good example. I was ok with the changes the first movie made to what Herbert had written in the book, but at the end of the 2nd movie I just turned off my tv in disgust and threw the disc away. I wanted nothing more to do with it...

[Apache]

Years ago, I went to see the movie of a book I had read. Both were good, but the only thing they had in common was the title and the names of the two main characters.
Apache

[PeterT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The HHGTTG movie was rubbish. The best versions are the radio versions.

Remember, the original was the radio version! The books were an adaptation of the radio series.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by PeterT

Remember, the original was the radio version! The books were an adaptation of the radio series.

I remember the weird confusion I felt the first time I ever heard the Eagles' original version of "Journey of the Sorcerer" , it just felt wrong!

[theducks]

It goes both ways.
I read Dune (as a Serial) in Analog long before any of the movies. (I agree, the last was best)

I could not read LOTR, but I liked all the movies.

I read Star Wars (the novelization) before the movie was released, It was better. Mostly because of some of the cuts to fit time.

And just because a remake has more effects...

I liked the earlier Time Machine (Wells) better.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by theducks

I read Star Wars (the novelization) before the movie was released, It was better. Mostly because of some of the cuts to fit time.

So did I and I agree.
Apache

[haertig]

Expecting the movie to be the book, or the book to be the movie, often times leads to disappointment. Let this expectation to fall by the wayside and differences between the two mediums tend to get more tolerable.

You imagine what a scene looks like in a book. In a movie the scene is right there in front of you, not much imagination is required. In a book you read what the character is thinking - in a movie you have to imagine that. Also, movies are more heavily edited IMHO. Most people have an expectation of how long a movie will last, and they are edited to meet that expectation usually. Not so much so for books.

That being said, generally if I like the book I expect the movie to suck. And visa versa. But I have been surprised in several cases and they have both been good.

[Karellen]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

Nice save! I am so pleased I don't have to blacklist you here and invoke a thousand year curse on your descendants.

For sparing me and my descendants I ....

Originally Posted by Bookstooge

The recent Dune duology is a good example. I was ok with the changes the first movie made to what Herbert had written in the book, but at the end of the 2nd movie I just turned off my tv in disgust and threw the disc away. I wanted nothing more to do with it...

I quite enjoyed the second movie. More than the books. Hated that Dune mini-series which was such a confusing production... the actors could not even agree on how to pronounce Maud-Dib and actors were pronouncing it "Mardi" or "Madib" or "Maudi", and Children of Dune mini-series was a bit so-so.

Originally Posted by haertig

Expecting the movie to be the book, or the book to be the movie, often times leads to disappointment. Let this expectation to fall by the wayside and differences between the two mediums tend to get more tolerable.

Yea, that happened with me and Foundation tv series. I had spent about 8 months reading everything Asimov and then came the tv show, and it felt like a real punch to the gut, and I immediately hated it. Hated it!!!
But about 5 months ago, I rewatched it. No expectations, no emotions, and I really enjoyed it and can't wait for the next season. Hopefully it is not cancelled

[DiapDealer]

I like good movie/TV adaptations of books. To be clear: I'm not using "good" in the sense that the movie clings fervently to every aspect of its written counterpart. I'm fine with movie adaptions that stray dramatically from the canon of the books. I tend to compartmentalize them from each other. If I'm entertained and the movie is consistent within in its own framework of reference, then I'm probably going to like it. No bad movie or TV show has ever succeeded in ruining a book I enjoyed. They're separate endeavors.

[Witty Username]

Good Omens was one of the best book-to-screen adaptations I've ever seen.

[ottdmk]

My favourite movie of all time is a book adaptation: The Princess Bride. Years after seeing it,I finally read the book, which I also really like. However, I like the movie more.

Probably doesn't hurt that both book and screenplay were written by the late, great William Goldman.

[nabsltd]

Originally Posted by haertig

You imagine what a scene looks like in a book. In a movie the scene is right there in front of you, not much imagination is required. In a book you read what the character is thinking - in a movie you have to imagine that.

For me, the movie that improved on my imagination of the book was Jurassic Park. The first reveal of the dinosaurs, the T-Rex and the fence, the speed of the Velociraptors...it was all much more "real" in the movie.

Mostly, though, my problem with movies of books is that really good book series are often a huge letdown in the translation and often don't get past a single movie because of poor audience response.

[JSWolf]

The Narnia movies are good. It's a shame they never finished the series.

Sometimes they can take a book and make it quite good. The Slough House series by Mick Herron is good and the Apple TV TV series is quite good. Well work watching.

What's supposed to be good compared to the Book (Rivals by Jilly Cooper) is the series on Disney+. It's not for Children. So if you have children or Grandchildren and Disney+, you'll need to put on parental controls.