What are some of the better book to film adaptions out there?

[jabberwock_11]

I think I already saw Fletch on here, which is a great book and a hilarious movie.

I'm also a big fan of both the book and movie version of Thank you for Smoking.

Although the movie version of Fight Club is VERY different from the book I think it was well done over all and was about the only way that the book could possibly have been adapted into a movie. Internal dialogue and slowly revealed insanity just do not always translate well onto the silver screen.

[devilsadvocate]

The Shining.

Yeah, I know, King didn't like how Kubrick handled it. Yes, I read the book first. Still one of the best IMO.

[happy_terd]

I gotta say the original star wars trilogy. Would people even know about the books if it werent for the movies? *shrug* Some would, but most wouldn't.

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by happy_terd

I gotta say the original star wars trilogy. Would people even know about the books if it werent for the movies? *shrug* Some would, but most wouldn't.

I enjoyed the audiobook for "Star Wars - Episode Three" much more than the movie. It is also true with the novelization for "Star Trek II - The Wrath Of Kahn," the movie was outstanding and the novelization add even more great details to the story (such as a friendship between Saavik and Peter Preston).

In keeping with the topic, some more movies to mention:

- Around The World In 80 Days (both the 1956 version starring David Niven and the 2004 version starring Jackie Chan): the 1956 version provides the definitive film version of the story (and one that all later versions have followed), with Niven as the perfect Phileas Fogg. Although the 2004 version starring Jackie Chan takes a great number of liberties with the original story, it is still a very enjoyable movie that adds a great deal of humor to the story, and allows for some great Jackie Chan martial arts action.

- A Boy Named Charlie Brown: Although not an adaption of a text book, this movie has the look and the feel of the comic strip and everything works. Added to this are the songs by Rod McKuen, including the great closing theme (a heartbreaker of a song).

- Hulk (the 2003 version directed by Ang Lee): Although many people didn't like this movie, the focus on the psychology of Bruce Banner is what made the movie work for me. With this movie, you got the feeling that The Hulk was more than just "Hulk Smash," and getting into the mind of Bruce Banner is as interesting to me as what The Hulk does.

- I Robot: Although not based on a specific Asimov story, this movie feels true to what Asimov established in his robot stories and you can see many elements taken from a number of his stories, and the detective angle was straight out of his Elijah Bailey stories.

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by happy_terd

I gotta say the original star wars trilogy. Would people even know about the books if it werent for the movies? *shrug* Some would, but most wouldn't.

There wouldn't have been any books actually. Although coming out first (if only by a couple weeks for RotJ), all the novelizations for the original trilogy were based on a screenplay for the movies.

[GeoffC]

LOTR : The films changed some of the written story and often for the better.

Sharpe series : The books are a little long-winded at times.

[raphaelnonsenso]

David Lean's Dr.Zhivago. The Book was Great, the film, even better.
The English Patient. The book did nothing for me whereas the film was superb

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

LOTR : The films changed some of the written story and often for the better.

Although one issue with the films was the "linearization" (is there such a word?) of the time-line, which removes a lot of the suspense compared to the books in which, as you know, we jump from character to character, moving backwards and forwards through time.

Eg, in the books, we leave Frodo having been captured by the orcs in Mordor, and then we see the army in front of the "Black Gates" being taunted by being shown his possessions. We don't know what's happened to him at that point. Has he been captured? Does Sauron have the Ring? In the film, we have a linear timeline, and we already know that Frodo and Sam have made good their escape and are climbing Mount Doom at the time, so all the suspense of the "Mouth of Sauron" scene has gone.

[freerun]

I thoroughly enjoyed the book and the film Cider House Rules.

[GlennD]

I enjoyed the LOTR films and didn't mind some of the changes (totally understood removing Tom Bombadil for example), but I was very irate about the changes to Faramir's actions in the Two Towers in regards to Frodo and the Ring. I didn't see any particular reason to change that particular sequence and it just didn't go over well for me.

My favorite adaptation is actually a miniseries rather than a movie - the Shogun miniseries that they did way back in the 80s.

Worst adapation for me has to be Starship Troopers. Verhoeven completely missed the point of the book.

[JSWolf]

Worst adaptions for me is Dune the Movie and Dune the mini-series. Both were major blunders.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Worst adaptions for me is Dune the Movie and Dune the mini-series. Both were major blunders.

I don't know, Frankenstein (1931) was pretty bad as an adaptation. Not that it was a bad film; it was excellent. It just wasn't the story that Mary Shelly wrote.

[recluse]

The Best Adaptations:
Misery,
Shawshank Redemption, and
Stand By Me ("The Body").

The Worst:
Ghost Story

[Datatraveler]

The Stand by Stephen King..
I'm not a huge King fan however I really enjoyed the mini series, and I like the book so much I read it again every summer. Both were different but I thought the film version did a good job of recreating the book

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Worst adaptions for me is Dune the Movie and Dune the mini-series. Both were major blunders.

I like the Dune movie.

I thought the TV adaptation of Peake's 'Gormenghast' trilogy was way better than the books.