kindly suggests books or novels made into movies?

[AlexGrama]

Referring to a known TV show, I believe that Hank Moody's "God hates us all" being made into a movie, "Crazy little thing called love", is the worst thing to happen.

[HarryT]

The majority of movies originate as books. It's probably easier to make a list of those that don't, rather than those that do.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by hidari

I thought it was a good film...what didnt you like? Paul Verhoeven use of satire? or....

The plot, sub plot, technology, and point of the film were radically different from the themes the book explores. They still fought bugs and the dropship was still the Rodger Young but the parallels end there.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by Phogg

The plot, sub plot, technology, and point of the film were radically different from the themes the book explores. They still fought bugs and the dropship was still the Rodger Young but the parallels end there.

I'd agree with that. It's almost ridiculous to give them the same title. They both kind of use the interstellar war as a backdrop for their authors' very different social commentaries.

Compare to Bladerunner, which (a) does not have the same title as the book, and (b) while stylistically entirely different, is still ultimately about the same thing: what is it to be human?

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by Phogg

The plot, sub plot, technology, and point of the film were radically different from the themes the book explores. They still fought bugs and the dropship was still the Rodger Young but the parallels end there.

Well, I could have forgiven the technology upgrade if the film had been better. Heinlein's 1940's vision of future tech does seem dated and would have made the film seem kind of steampunk(ish?). But I can't forgive the complete abandonment of the whole POINT of the story!

Instead of 'Starship Trooper' why didn't they call it "$@#&, my SF writer never said!"

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

The Girl with a Dragon Tatoo
@apache
Shogun was a TV series, not a movie.

Yep, I wasn't thinking when I listed that one.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

Well, I could have forgiven the technology upgrade if the film had been better. Heinlein's 1940's vision of future tech does seem dated and would have made the film seem kind of steampunk(ish?). But I can't forgive the complete abandonment of the whole POINT of the story!

Instead of 'Starship Trooper' why didn't they call it "$@#&, my SF writer never said!"

So true. The movie was not Starship Troopers. The CGI series Roughnecks: Starship Troopers Chronicles was a better portrayal of the book.
I can not remember the name of the book and movie, but I read a western and went to see the movie. The Name of the movie and the names of the male and female lead were the only thing the same as the book.
Apache

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Apache

So true. The movie was not Starship Troopers. The CGI series Roughnecks: Starship Troopers Chronicles was a better portrayal of the book.
I can not remember the name of the book and movie, but I read a western and went to see the movie. The Name of the movie and the names of the male and female lead were the only thing the same as the book.
Apache

That happens quite a lot. The only thing the James Bond film "The Spy Who Loved Me" has in common with the book is the title.

[RolandD]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That happens quite a lot. The only thing the James Bond film "The Spy Who Loved Me" has in common with the book is the title.

And, oh so many, movies 'based' on Stephen King stories.

[JDK1962]

Much shorter and more interesting lists could be made of movies that actually improved upon the novels.

The Godfather is (IMHO) an example of a movie that far outstripped its source material. The Mario Puzo novel is, at best, a screen treatment, and at worst (which is most of the time) pretty dreadful pulp fiction.

About a Boy is another. I enjoyed the novel by Nick Hornby, but I thought the movie did a terrific job of capturing the spirit of book, retaining all its best scenes while improving the ending, which in Nick Hornby's novel tied the book to a very specific moment in time.

I'm currently reading P.D. James' The Children of Men, am over a third of the way through, and am so far thinking that the screenwriters did a pretty amazing job in taking the essence of the book and distilling it into something cinematic. So far, there hasn't been a single overlapped scene, but the filmmakers got it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JDK1962

Much shorter and more interesting lists could be made of movies that actually improved upon the novels.

The Godfather is (IMHO) an example of a movie that far outstripped its source material. The Mario Puzo novel is, at best, a screen treatment, and at worst (which is most of the time) pretty dreadful pulp fiction.

About a Boy is another. I enjoyed the novel by Nick Hornby, but I thought the movie did a terrific job of capturing the spirit of book, retaining all its best scenes while improving the ending, which in Nick Hornby's novel tied the book to a very specific moment in time.

I'm currently reading P.D. James' The Children of Men, am over a third of the way through, and am so far thinking that the screenwriters did a pretty amazing job in taking the essence of the book and distilling it into something cinematic. So far, there hasn't been a single overlapped scene, but the filmmakers got it.

Given the fundamental differences between the two media - print and film - I think personally that it's difficult to make direct comparisons. Film is a primarily visual medium; print is not. There are many books that just can't be meaningfully directly converted into films, because there's little or no "action".

[Apache]

Gone To Texas was the book, by Forrest Carter, that was made into the movie The Outlaw Josie Wales. Over all, I thought they did a great job with the movie.
Apache

[JDK1962]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Given the fundamental differences between the two media - print and film - I think personally that it's difficult to make direct comparisons. Film is a primarily visual medium; print is not. There are many books that just can't be meaningfully directly converted into films, because there's little or no "action".

I'm not sure I agree that there are successful books that cannot be translated into film, even given differences in the mediums. If there's a compelling story being told, I think a skilled filmmaker can bring it to the screen in a compelling manner while keeping the essence, even if they need to do some reworking (e.g., The Remains of the Day, The English Patient and A Beautiful Mind come to mind...the latter isn't a novel of course, but none of the books had a whole lot of "action"). I believe in the power of good screenwriters.

Then of course of you have something like Alan Hollinghurst's The Stranger's Child...I don't think anyone could make a compelling film out of that. But it doesn't challenge the above theory, because the book completely lacked any dramatic arc (or dramatic incident) whatsoever. A movie of it would have amazing visuals of English country estates, but a screenwriter would have to do a massive amount of work to give it some forward momentum.

[JDK1962]

On the flip side of my posts above, it's also interesting to point out books where the filmmakers TOTALLY missed the flavor of the novel and wound up making something awful out of something good. From a quick glance at my shelves:

-- The Evil That Men Do. Great pulp novel by R. Lance Hill, made into trash, casting Charles Bronson into a role he was 30-40 years too old for.
-- The Girl in a Swing. Richard Adams wrote very little that didn't involve talking animals, but I liked the mood that this novel created. Wow, did the filmmakers get this one wrong. The screenwriting lacked imagination, but casting Meg Tilly was the death knell (no comments on her acting, just totally, totally wrong for the character).
-- Fletch. Believe it or not, a fun, smart, Edgar award-winning mystery. Made into an idiotic Chevy Chase movie that completely missed the tone of the book.
-- Endless Love. Perhaps one of the worst movies of the 1980s, adapted from what I (and a lot of respected critics) thought was a really good literary novel about obsession and love. Poorly scripted, but even a great script would have been doomed by the casting of the male lead (excellent supporting cast though).

I would recommend any of these books without reservation, and would urge you to run far, far away from the films.

[HarryT]

Short stories tend to be the most faithful to a film adaptation. Generally a novel will have far too much in it, and someone who enjoys the novel will almost inevitably be disappointed by what's had to be left out of the film.