Books made into movies

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Ea

"Platinum" editions? Are they different from the theatre or extended editions?

And yes, the ending of Return of the King was a bit rushed, but they did well with fitting everything in. The only thing I didn't really like was the changes to the ents and how they are lured into going to war. It just doesn't work with their personality, but from a movie-telling viewpoint I can see the point. I love the documentaries that comes with the extended edition.

The platinum editions as sold here in Australia were the extended editions adding close to 60 minutes per movie. With the additional footage, each movie was just so much better!

I thought the army of the dead, wrapped up the battle far to conveniently. It would have been great to see the events as told in the book, when the black ships docked at Osgiliath.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by cearbhallain

I am so looking forward to that. Crichton does kind of epitomize this topic. He's had books that were better than the movies, books that weren't as good, books that posed interesting questions, and books that said nothing at all.

I like that. It is an interesting key.

[bookoffers]

I've noticed that some or most of the scenes are not played/performed in the movies. But I like it when the actors and actresses plays/portraits the role pretty well..

[cearbhallain]

Originally Posted by jabberwock_11

I am a huge fan of The Princess Bride both movie and book, but I have to admit that this is one of the very few instances where the movie surpasses the book. Although the book has some really good detail on the background of the characters I just felt that the movie managed to capture the fun and adventure a bit better than the book.

My heart belongs to the book. But then, I'd read it at least three times before the movie was made.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I'm a big fan of Crichton, too. I've read Andromeda Strain, and I'd say the original movie was probably the most faithful to his book of any of them. His movies, of course, have usually depended on who was doing them, to do them justice.

Spielberg's Jurassic Park took some liberties with the original text, some of which were obviously to bring in a reasonable movie length, and some of which gave us different characterizations (and endings) for certain characters. Hey, it's Spielberg's movie, and I loved it for its adventure qualities and technical accomplishments, but it was almost a different story than that of the book.

Then there are things like Congo... a bad movie of a bad book. Oh, well.

My feeling is that a movie doesn't have to be absolutely faithful to the book, in order to be a good movie. If that were true, every movie would need to be 5-6 hours long, or more, just to include all the material in the book! So I consider every movie as based on all but the shortest book, or short story, but not an actual retelling of the book.

Another movie that was a great version of the book: Metropolis.

[brainycat]

Generally, I enjoy books for what books provide and movies for what movies provide. Adapting a medium that actively engages the reader and provides for things like asides, metaplots and complex arcs into a medium that requires visual cues and momentum can be a chore. Sometimes it's done well, sometimes notsomuch.

I try to keep an open mind and appreciate the story as presented in the medium.

That being said, if they mess up Neuromancer I will demand blood.

[Ladylynn]

I may be alone in this, but I always thought the Silence of the Lambs film did well with representing the book. The book was still better -- introspection, while difficult to portray on the screen, can add so much in a book...and did! Overall, though, when I saw the movie after reading the book it was one of the few times I didn't leave the theater bitterly disappointed.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Philip K Dick's book "Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep" was made into "Blade Runner" by Ridley Scott in 1982.

A superb movie adaption of a rather dreary book. Sometimes Hollywood gets it right!

Was it actually a Hollywood production? I read the book about the film production a few years ago and I seem to remember it was filmed in London. And Ridley Scott kept using so much money that one producer/investor left in the middle of it, I think. When you think of how well the film looks even today, it's well-spent money.

I was even lucky enough to see the digitally restored film in a movie theatre with a digital projector. A wonderful experience - also knowing that the rest of the audience were fans as well. Just sitting there in the dark, in complete silence, hearing the first chords of the intro and then that skyline...

Originally Posted by cearbhallain

I *love* that movie, I hadn't read the book before it came out (heck I didn't even know it was Crichton when it came out) and boy was I surprised by how scary it is. I did eventually read the book, and I found it interesting that the story was a melding of actual historical documents and the legend of Beowulf.

Ooh, another fan! A lot of people don't think much of this film and I often have to defend why I like it. But come on, it got adventure! fantasy! vikings! mysterious evil! more vikings! Antonio Banderas as Ibn Fadlan!

I read the book long before being aware of the film and didn't realise the film was based on it until well after I'd seen t the first time. What I like especially about the film is that all our knowledge about those evil people is gained through the eyes of the viking warriors. We never know more than them -- and in the end, we really don't know much about that people. They are quite mysterious.

What I read into it, is that those people actually have a lot in common with the jotuns from Scandinavian mythology. Chaos powers that threaten civilisation. And that makes the film much more interesting, and more "believable" than the book - where that people just turns out to be surviving neanderthals. How boring.

But then I don't like the current trend of picking apart myths to get to "the man behind" like the Arthur film or the recent Robin Hood film. Myths and legends survive because that the story that contains the value - the possible reality behind is not as interesting.

[Ea]

I realised I completely forgot to mention another of my favourite films; Orlando, directed by Sally Potter, based on Orlando written by Virginia Woolf. The book is a little longer and more detailed, but the film is overall both very faithful to the book, and a good film besides.

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by jabberwock_11

I am a huge fan of The Princess Bride both movie and book, but I have to admit that this is one of the very few instances where the movie surpasses the book. Although the book has some really good detail on the background of the characters I just felt that the movie managed to capture the fun and adventure a bit better than the book.

I agree. I really enjoyed the book, but it's not something I could see myself re-reading more than once or twice. I've seen the movie at least 15 times, if not more (and I expect I'll watch it many more times), and I enjoy it every time.

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by cearbhallain

My heart belongs to the book. But then, I'd read it at least three times before the movie was made.

I'd seen the movie (Princess Bride) at least a dozen times before I read the book, maybe that's why my heart belongs to the movie!

I really liked the 13th warrior, I was very surprised at some of the reactions the movie received. I'm going to have to read the book it was based on (I wasn't even aware that it was based on a novel!)

[cearbhallain]

Originally Posted by Ea

Was it actually a Hollywood production? I read the book about the film production a few years ago and I seem to remember it was filmed in London. And Ridley Scott kept using so much money that one producer/investor left in the middle of it, I think. When you think of how well the film looks even today, it's well-spent money.

I was even lucky enough to see the digitally restored film in a movie theatre with a digital projector. A wonderful experience - also knowing that the rest of the audience were fans as well. Just sitting there in the dark, in complete silence, hearing the first chords of the intro and then that skyline...
.

I recently acquired the blue ray edition containing 4 different cuts of the film as well as commentaries and making of features. I'm far from having seen all of it, so I really can't answer that specific question. Over time there have been whole intertube communities dedicated to deconstructing the film and determining for once and for all what it all means.

Personally, I am happy that there exists a movie which really captures Dick's view of our dystopian future, even if it has little to do with one specific book. The feel, it is right.

[cearbhallain]

Originally Posted by Ea

Ooh, another fan! A lot of people don't think much of this film and I often have to defend why I like it. But come on, it got adventure! fantasy! vikings! mysterious evil! more vikings! Antonio Banderas as Ibn Fadlan!

Antonio has never done anything for me. Warrior number 3 however, is. mine. Antonio does get some moments of awesome in the movie though, like when he shows the Norsemen why an Arab brings a dog to war. There is a lot of wit in the screenplay.

I read the book long before being aware of the film and didn't realise the film was based on it until well after I'd seen t the first time. What I like especially about the film is that all our knowledge about those evil people is gained through the eyes of the viking warriors. We never know more than them -- and in the end, we really don't know much about that people. They are quite mysterious.

It's a brilliant narrative structure as we're seeing it ultimately through the eyes of the Arab and we learn about the culture of the Norsemen as he does. That bit with the languages was especially inspired.

What I read into it, is that those people actually have a lot in common with the jotuns from Scandinavian mythology. Chaos powers that threaten civilisation. And that makes the film much more interesting, and more "believable" than the book - where that people just turns out to be surviving neanderthals. How boring.

Crichton's ending sucked. I had hopes because the book was one of his earlier ones, but the book is at its best in the first half - which as I understand it, is taken almost directly from fragments of historical documents that recount an ambassadorial visit from the middle east to the north lands. Obviously for me, the introduction where the author talks about his research and motivation to write the story was the best thing in the book.

But then I don't like the current trend of picking apart myths to get to "the man behind" like the Arthur film or the recent Robin Hood film. Myths and legends survive because that the story that contains the value - the possible reality behind is not as interesting.

Which is why I can say without embarrassment that Braveheart is one of my favorite movies.

I have a big teevee, surround sound, and a comfy couch. When will you be coming over for movie night?

[cearbhallain]

Originally Posted by Latinandgreek

I really liked the 13th warrior, I was very surprised at some of the reactions the movie received. I'm going to have to read the book it was based on (I wasn't even aware that it was based on a novel!)

My dad has these friends that he plays rifleman with. They're also big book and movie geeks so when they come for the holidays we have fun talking about entertainment. It's because of these folks that I even watched the movie in the first place.

The way it was marketed when it was first released led me to believe that it was some sort of El Mariachi vehicle for Bandaras so I wasn't interested. Once I was told that it was based on this book that Crichton had based on a historical document I decided to watch it - they had told me also that the book wasn't that interesting but that the movie was made of awesome. I fully and completely agree with their assessment.

If the producers had thought to market this film as what it is, an historical monster movie, they may have had better success. I was really shocked at how genuinely frightening some scenes are. It's not something I would watch in the presence of children.

[SmartyPants]

Originally Posted by Ladylynn

I may be alone in this, but I always thought the Silence of the Lambs film did well with representing the book. .

i am with you on that one.

I also liked the Witches of Eastwick movie better than the book.
And same with One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest. Must be Jack Nicholson..

hmmm i think there may be a patten here - see movie first, THEN read the book = like the movie; read the book first, THEN see the movie = disappointment.