# Close to the book?....



## Pyan (Sep 15, 2007)

Vladd and I were chatting, and this came up....

Is there any film adaptation of a book that you were completely happy with?
 And if not, what came closest - or furthest?


----------



## Connavar (Sep 15, 2007)

*Shawshan Redemption* is the only perfect book movie i have seen.


Quality wise and content wise there is so little difference beteween the two plus the great actors didnt hurt exactly.

I would give it 10/10 as how close it came to the original book story.


Next best is* Godfather I,II*- the story in the second movie isnt totaly the same but quality wise its as good as the book.  How cant it not be Brando,Pacino,De Niro best character actors in movie history.

I give it 7/10 only cause the second movie has part they made up and wasnt as good as the rest of the two movies.


----------



## The Ace (Sep 15, 2007)

Can't remember the author now, but a horror novel called, 'The Keep.'

It ran on the premise that the vampire legends of Eastern Europe had a basis in fact, an immortal monster who could take human form, cast no reflections and turned his victims (in this case a squad of Nazi soldiers) into zombies.

Although largely well-made, the film missed many of the more subtle moments (Like the jewish professor showing a crucifix to the monster who pretends to be terrified and provoking a crisis of faith.)

The big disappointment, though, was the ending, with the monster's nemesis, 'The red-haired Man,' finding love and redemption, a message giving as much hope for the future as the monster's destruction and the surviving nazis departing for Barbarossa.   

The ending was changed (perhaps to leave room for a sequel ) in a way that left me profoundly unsatisfied.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Sep 16, 2007)

_Silence of the Lambs_.  I'd already read the book.  The movie follows the book more faithfully than most adaptations.  Yet, I was still on the edge of my seat all through the movie.

_Gone With The Wind_.  The book is so long that of course the film had to leave a lot out.  A lot.  But you'd never notice when you are watching it, because it _feels_ like it is all there.  Amazing achievement.


----------



## dwndrgn (Sep 16, 2007)

I can't recall one that I was completely happy with.  Though the closest to pretty darned good would be Jurassic Park.  The bits they changed weren't substantive (though the fact that they changed them to be politically correct was a tad irritating) and they hit all the high points and left out nothing of major importance.   But I would say the furthest were the Bourne movies.  All three adaptations of the first book totally missed the point of the book, the major suspense points, and the opening scenes and actual end.  All completely off, not even close.  It's been years since I've seen them or read the book and it still irks me.  How do you do a 180 on the ending???  Sorry, I'll stop before I start ranting.

What I find interesting is that the Harry Potter movies have been not too bad for the most part though some big things were changed or left out that should have been worked in.  Despite this I've enjoyed the heck out of every single one.


----------



## unclejack (Sep 16, 2007)

Okay well yall are makin me remember my darker days but many of stephen king's movies follow his books pretty faithfully. Carrie is probably the most accurate in comparison to the book that I've ever read. Misery wasn't too far off either, minus the sledgehammer scene and the shotgun scene. Needful things...eh, they changed the ending and left alot out but the book was like 1000 pages so what do you expect? I've heard that the stand was pretty accurage, I never could get through the book though, too long. The dead zone is very accurate also. That's about all I can think of right now that are close to the books.


----------



## ravenus (Sep 16, 2007)

I always maintain that a slavish adaptation of the literary source is not the best kind. I do like faithful ones but I've also enjoyed adaptations that moved away from the source and presented a refreshing new facet.


----------



## murphy (Sep 16, 2007)

The Ace said:


> Can't remember the author now, but a horror novel called, 'The Keep.'
> 
> It ran on the premise that the vampire legends of Eastern Europe had a basis in fact, an immortal monster who could take human form, cast no reflections and turned his victims (in this case a squad of Nazi soldiers) into zombies.
> 
> ...


 

For those that are interested, the author was F. Paul Wilson.


----------



## brsrkrkomdy (Sep 16, 2007)

*What movies that are done well and close to the books?  A Boy And His Dog by Harlan Ellison (yeah it's a novella but still counts as a book.) And Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. (So they left out the mechanical dog, so what?)*

*And what movies didn't?  The Keep by F. Paul Wilson.  To be fair, the movie had a good going for it: the casting, the music, the photography, and some special effects.  The bad part: frozen acting, crappy dialogue, some overblown effects, and you honestly think that muscle bound dude is fooling anybody into thinking he's a vampire?  Puhleeze!!! *
*Damnation Alley by Roger Zelazny.  The acting's so-so but the special effects are a real joke.  The only thing the movie got going for it is that juggernaught with wheels.  That's it.  Nothing else.  Did it follow the book? To some degree, yeah, but they left out Hell Tanner.  This is the only character in the book that steals the show.  What good is the movie without him?*


----------



## Culhwch (Sep 16, 2007)

ravenus said:


> I always maintain that a slavish adaptation of the literary source is not the best kind. I do like faithful ones but I've also enjoyed adaptations that moved away from the source and presented a refreshing new facet.


 
_The Prestige_ is certainly one that would qualify as such. I've almost finished the book, and it's quite different to the film, but both have their own strengths.


----------



## Connavar (Sep 16, 2007)

The problem when its very unsimiler to the book is Hollywood lack of creativity.

Usually when they make up a story of their in a movie version of a book its shallow.  At least most of the ones i have seen.


----------



## Overread (Sep 16, 2007)

Connavar sums up what generally happens when hollywood gets its grubby hands on a franchise - too much of what they produce is based on a formula and not on creativity - e.g. film must have comic releaf character who must appeal to 2 year old (looking at you JarJar).

That said it odd but LOTR really should not be in this list - so much is changed and cut - and yet it does so because it was made well and to a structured story.

If you want one book that has really bad luck with the film industry the look at Earthsea - sci fi channel casts a nearly all white cast and messes up the story - and Ghibli does similar - though without a totlly messed up story - but it is changed


----------



## The Ace (Sep 16, 2007)

murphy said:


> For those that are interested, the author was F. Paul Wilson.



Thanks Murphy, I read the library book a long time ago.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Sep 16, 2007)

If we're including animation and graphic novels , then When The Wind Blows is virtually identical to the book

As far as 'real' movies are concerned , the original Harry Potter film was just how imagined it after reading the novel. All the other imho have been terrible conversions , particularly the last 2. How on earth anyone who hasn't read the novels can understand what is going on is beyond me


----------



## sanityassassin (Sep 16, 2007)

unclejack said:


> Okay well yall are makin me remember my darker days but many of stephen king's movies follow his books pretty faithfully. Carrie is probably the most accurate in comparison to the book that I've ever read. Misery wasn't too far off either, minus the sledgehammer scene and the shotgun scene. Needful things...eh, they changed the ending and left alot out but the book was like 1000 pages so what do you expect? I've heard that the stand was pretty accurage, I never could get through the book though, too long. The dead zone is very accurate also. That's about all I can think of right now that are close to the books.



A lot of Stephen Kings books and stories have been adapted some have been done well others are so far away from the story you wouldn't actually know it was the same story (the Running Man is a prime example)

The Omega Man had big differences from I am Legend. Apart from the Stephen King movies mentioned above along with the Green Mile I can't really think of any other good adaptations


----------



## unclejack (Sep 16, 2007)

sanityassassin said:


> A lot of Stephen Kings books and stories have been adapted some have been done well others are so far away from the story you wouldn't actually know it was the same story (the Running Man is a prime example)
> 
> The Omega Man had big differences from I am Legend. Apart from the Stephen King movies mentioned above along with the Green Mile I can't really think of any other good adaptations


 
Yeah, that's very true. I wasn't tryin to give the impression that alot of his work is true, that's why I only mentioned the ones I considered to be pretty accurate. It's just that I've read more of his books than anyone else so that's why I mentioned his books. The Dark Half was also very accurate too by the way.


----------



## The_Warrior (Sep 17, 2007)

I hope no body dares to talk about a film that startes with an E.


----------



## Overread (Sep 17, 2007)

The_Warrior said:


> I hope no body dares to talk about a film that startes with an E.


 
come on the only thing worth mentioning about that E film was the digital dragon - the rest - my sister could write better! A rushed formula for christmas curtesy of america - thus only the blurb - character list and title were needed.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 17, 2007)

Although in many ways different from the book, I felt that James Whale's version of Frankenstein captured the spirit of Shelley's masterpiece. It successfully brought to light the fact that this is not a horror story but a tale of somebody feared and hated because they are different.

On the other hand Branagh's adaptation of Frankenstein was much closer to the novel but failed miserably - a good example why we cannot assume that a fine piece of literature can necessarily be transferred into a cinematic environment and automatically be successful.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 17, 2007)

Foxbat said:


> On the other hand Branagh's adaptation of Frankenstein was much closer to the novel but failed miserably - a good example why we cannot assume that a fine piece of literature can necessarily be transferred into a cinematic environment and automatically be successful.


 
Yes, that was the damnedest thing. Though the last half-hour departed from the novel seriously (actually, it went off into La-La Land for a good while at that point) that was one of the most peculiar cinematic experiences... beautifully shot, superb performances, excellent cast, wonderful production values, directed with a sure hand... and the corpse never got up off the table... to so speak....

I still contend that you could do something very close to the novel as a film (or perhaps a mini-series), and it work. For one thing... when do we actually get a version of Frankenstein's creature that is actually articulate in the way he is presented there? Then it plays on both levels, as he is both an object of pity, and a frightening figure, and the tale keeps its ambivalence between the two....


----------



## roddglenn (Sep 17, 2007)

The Ace said:


> Can't remember the author now, but a horror novel called, 'The Keep.'
> 
> It ran on the premise that the vampire legends of Eastern Europe had a basis in fact, an immortal monster who could take human form, cast no reflections and turned his victims (in this case a squad of Nazi soldiers) into zombies.
> 
> ...


 
I thought the film of The Keep utterly sucked in comparison to the book.  In addition to what you've already mentioned, the film totally washed over the struggle between the German Army Commander and the SS Commander sent to crush the localised rebellion which they blame for all the mysterious deaths.  The film also lost all of the suspense felt by the reader in the first half of the book where German soldiers are getting picked off one by one.  I was thoroughly disappointed with it and had been so looking forward to it with being such a fan of the book.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 17, 2007)

roddglenn said:


> I thought the film of The Keep utterly sucked in comparison to the book. In addition to what you've already mentioned, the film totally washed over the struggle between the German Army Commander and the SS Commander sent to crush the localised rebellion which they blame for all the mysterious deaths. The film also lost all of the suspense felt by the reader in the first half of the book where German soldiers are getting picked off one by one. I was thoroughly disappointed with it and had been so looking forward to it with being such a fan of the book.


 
I have to agree with you, Roddglenn... The film had some very good moments, but overall it was very much a case of style over substance... and rather belabored style, at that....

Not a theatrical film, but nonetheless a very worthy adaptation of a novel: the WGBH/Boston (PBS) production of Nathaniel Hawthorne's *The Scarlet Letter*, with Meg Foster playing Hester Prynne, John Heard as Dimmesdale, and Kevin Conway as Roger Chillingworth. Frankly, I can't stand most adaptations of Hawthorne, and especially of this one -- to my mind, they all miss the boat. But this one... it captures the feel of Hawthorne's writing... that multi-layered feeling of things happening both on the surface and on an otherworldly plane; they weren't afraid to take on the metaphoric and figurative aspects of Hawthorne -- one can see here, for instance, that Chillingworth may well be a "diabolical agent" in the form of Hester's husband, who really did drown at sea... or perhaps not; the ambiguity about such things is kept balanced throughout, leaving the viewer in a state of suspense about how much is simply the view of the time, and how much really is tied to the supernatural.... Also, Meg Foster, I think, makes the best Hester Prynne I've seen... a complex characterization, to say the least. Some flaws, definitely, but an amazingly good adaptation of a writer difficult to adapt to any dramatic medium, nonetheless....

"The Scarlet Letter" (1979) (mini)


----------



## roddglenn (Sep 17, 2007)

I thought Hannibal actually was a decent film adaption and more so for the fact that Ridley Scott changed the ridiculous ending that Harris had put into the book.  Apart from the changed ending and missing out a sub-plot involving Starling's friend from the academy I thought it was very close to the book.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 17, 2007)

> I still contend that you could do something very close to the novel as a film (or perhaps a mini-series), and it work. For one thing... when do we actually get a version of Frankenstein's creature that is actually articulate in the way he is presented there? Then it plays on both levels, as he is both an object of pity, and a frightening figure, and the tale keeps its ambivalence between the two....


 
I vaguely remember a mini series from the seventies. I think it was a BBC production and I think it had Jon Finch in it. I also vaguely remember that it was quite good and pretty accurate.....then again, my memory might be a little vague


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 17, 2007)

Will have to look and see if I can find that one... I'd like to at least give it a whirl, and see..... Thanks.


----------



## Allegra (Sep 17, 2007)

I agree with some King's films mentioned above, such as _The Green Mile,_ _The Shawshank Redemption,_ even _The Shinning_.

A few others I can think of for now:

_Doctor Zhivago_
_Gone with the Wind_
_The English Patient_
_The Horse Whisperer_
_The Bridges of Madison County_
_Silence of the Lambs _
_Ripley's Game_
_Chocolat_


----------



## Overread (Sep 17, 2007)

Foxbat - from a time when the BBC produced quality not trash - I remember their productions of narnia and hitchhikers guid to the galaxy - almost word for word and scene for scene - I found the hitchhikers book partially boring as after the tv series I know nearly every joke.


----------



## ravenus (Sep 17, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> For one thing... when do we actually get a version of Frankenstein's creature that is actually articulate in the way he is presented there?


Perhaps when you can convince movie makers that a being can get THAT articulate by learning language by overhearing a conversation and then discovering a happy treasure of philosophical tomes just when he needed to hone his newly learned art. Perhaps even THEY find it a difficult swallow 

But but but...have you seen Hammer's *Frankenstein must be destroyed*? That film contains IMO one of the more articulate representations of the creature on celluloid (in a terrific performance by Freddie Jones)...although he is not created the classic way.


----------



## Quokka (Sep 18, 2007)

_Schindler's List_ was very good, it does cut out alot of Schindler's life before and after the war, so you don't get as true an impression of the man Oskar Schindler but maybe it works better as a film (certainly a 'blockbuster') for it.

I haven't read _The Princess Bride_ but I'm sure its been mentioned before that its very true to the book?

I thought the Harry Potter books did very well at capturing the feel of the books and _The Andromeda Strain_ is a really great translation of a Michael Crichton book,_ Sphere_ isn't.

_High Fidelity,_ proof that occasionally a good adaption can even survive being transplanted (England to America)

I wasn't actually a big fan of the movie to start with and having now read the book I like _Contact_ even less and finally, I am still waiting for that really good adaption of _Dune_, unfortunately it looks like they're going to keep trying untill I get it .


----------



## ravenus (Sep 18, 2007)

I loved Contact the film a good deal more than Contact the book, which suffered from Sagan's "all the nice good and inherently cool scientists of the world come together and try to bring about world peace and harmony" claptrap. The film made a right decision in concentrating on the heroine's personal journey.

A really good adaptation of Dune...in which I assume the word good stands for 'faithful' will just make for a very tedious film except for people who're obsessed with the source work and regard it as infallible.


----------



## Quokka (Sep 18, 2007)

ravenus said:


> I loved Contact the film a good deal more than Contact the book, which suffered from Sagan's "all the nice good and inherently cool scientists of the world come together and try to bring about world peace and harmony" claptrap. The film made a right decision in concentrating on the heroine's personal journey.
> 
> A really good adaptation of Dune...in which I assume the word good stands for 'faithful' will just make for a very tedious film except for people who're obsessed with the source work and regard it as infallible.



Fair enough and each to their own but for me the movie of _Contact_ lost alot when it ditched so many of the surrounding characters and ended up being an over simplified love story.

As for what I mean by 'good' I suppose as with my comments about Harry Potter and _High Fidelity_, it's more about keeping the feel of the book rather then a scene by scene translation. I like the main characters and plotline to be more or less the same but I suppose the change of medium should also be seen as an opportunity.

I actually think the original _Dune_ movie achieved this much really well but it gave up to much in doing so, like a plot people who hadn't read the book could follow. The comment was kind of tongue in cheek as  it was  raised in another thread that it may well be getting another remake.


----------



## ravenus (Sep 18, 2007)

Love story? For me there was no love story in Contact. It doesn't mater that the priest was played by Matthew McCoughnahey (or whichever way one actually spells the name ) and he has a sleepover moment with Ellie. It was entirely a story of personal faith as I saw it. And I thought most of the surrounding characters were pretty cardboard. The Indian scientist character IIRC had a very weird sounding name, something like it was pulled out of the hat by someone who just combined two random first and last names from somewhere, regardless of cultural origin.

The film is I believe a lot stronger for keeping its focus on Ellie and removing the redundancy of the other people's experiences.


----------



## Briareus Delta (Sep 18, 2007)

sanityassassin said:


> A lot of Stephen Kings books and stories have been adapted some have been done well others are so far away from the story you wouldn't actually know it was the same story (the Running Man is a prime example)


 
The Stephen King adaptations are, as you say, of variable quality to say the least. But I've always thought *Carrie* was particularly well done - didn't stray at all from the plot and managed to capture some of the atmosphere of the book as well.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 18, 2007)

Ravenus... Yes, I've seen that particular one; and yes, Jones put in a very good performance (as he quite frequently did). As for the creature learning so... well, as Sir Walter Scott once put it:



> But as we have consented to admit the leading incident of the work, perhaps some of our readers may be of opinion, that to stickle upon lesser improbabilities, is to incur the censure bestowed by the Scottish proverb on those who start at straws after swallowing _windlings_.


 
I do get your point, but given the utterly inane improbabilities they allow through in so many films, I hardly think that's the sticking point. Frankly, I'd say it's because they're _conditioned_ to think of the creature as inarticulate, which certainly wasn't the case; good grief, even Karloff, I understand, objected to allowing the thing to speak....


----------



## The_Warrior (Sep 18, 2007)

Allegra said:


> I agree with some King's films mentioned above, such as _The Green Mile,_ _The Shawshank Redemption,_ even _The Shinning_.
> 
> Speeking of Stphen King movies, the diretor from two of those directed the up coming film adaptionof The Mist. Which people have already probaly known about for a year (What dweep I am).


----------



## Aerandir (Sep 18, 2007)

The Outsiders - Written by Susan Hinton and put on film by Francis Ford Copploa. With an all star cast, and a great transitional script it has remained one of my favorite books, and movies since I first came across it as a teen.

Stay gold Pony Boy.


----------



## Aerandir (Sep 18, 2007)

*The Outsiders - *Written by Susan Hilton, and put on screen by Francis Ford Coppola the movie has an all star cast, and transitions nicely into film. With an all star cast, and a theme I could relate to it has been one of my favorite books and films since my early teens. 

Stay gold pony boy.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Sep 19, 2007)

True story about _The Outsiders_.  I might have told it here before...The reason the movie got made was because a group of students at a school here locally voted the novel (which was actually written by S. E. Hinton) their favorite, and Francis Ford Coppola their favorite director.  So they wrote a letter to him and asked him to direct a film version of the story.  After he read their letter he read the book and agreed to direct the film.  The really cool part is that if you watch the credits at the end of the film, he included the names of all the kids who signed the letter asking him to make the film.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Sep 22, 2007)

ravenus said:


> Perhaps when you can convince movie makers that a being can get THAT articulate by learning language by overhearing a conversation and then discovering a happy treasure of philosophical tomes just when he needed to hone his newly learned art. Perhaps even THEY find it a difficult swallow
> 
> But but but...have you seen Hammer's *Frankenstein must be destroyed*? That film contains IMO one of the more articulate representations of the creature on celluloid (in a terrific performance by Freddie Jones)...although he is not created the classic way.


 

Surely the most artisitic monster is that depicted in Young Frankenstein. In how many other films is the creature able to tap dance whilst singing "Putting on the Ritz"?


----------



## ravenus (Sep 22, 2007)

Gadzooks paranoid, you have made a most incisive point


----------



## Spade (Oct 3, 2007)

The Prestige and Contact... only because they're actually better.


----------



## clovis-man (Oct 3, 2007)

"I just had to look,.........having read the book"

I think I've been disappointed by just about every film version of a book I've read. Best example I can think of: "Lord Jim". A huge poduction with a boffo cast that didn't come close to capturing the angst of the book.

The only exception I can think of, and it's not a major one, is the novel "Sphinx" by Robin Cook. Pretty good read. Intrigue and Egyptian treasure and all that. The film of the same name was actually better. They changed the ending a little, adding some surprises and it worked quite well.

Regards,

Jim


----------



## murphy (Oct 3, 2007)

Then there's the Horse Whisperer.   The movie was better than the book.


----------



## wanderer085 (Oct 4, 2007)

It's been a long time since I read it, but Slaughterhouse Five the movie was quite different than the book as I remember, I think some characters names were even switched in the movie.


----------



## Highlander II (Oct 4, 2007)

I was pretty happy with *The Prestige* - alterations were made to make the movie story work, but the 'flavor' of the book was still there - the main themes that make the story.  

That's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.


*ETA:*



Quokka said:


> I haven't read _The Princess Bride_ but I'm sure its been mentioned before that its very true to the book?



I've read _The Princess Bride_ - and the book is different in that it's told as a 'storybook' - almost like the whole thing is from the grandfather's POV - but it follows pretty close.  It's an odd book though -


----------



## Jon George (Oct 4, 2007)

wanderer085 said:


> It's been a long time since I read it, but Slaughterhouse Five the movie was quite different than the book as I remember, I think some characters names were even switched in the movie.


I was just about to nominate this, so we'll have to agree to differ.  My other was Catch 22, or did they change the names in that, as well?


----------



## Giovanna Clairval (Oct 4, 2007)

Talking about films that do _not_ respect the plot in a book, _Minority Report_ must win the first place. The novel has almost nothing to do with the story. I wasn't enchanted by either of them.

A very different interpretation of a novel, if well done, can be as satisfying as the original idea.
_Blade Runner_ has little fidelity to _Do Android Dream of Electric Sheep_ and, from this point of view, it was a disappointment for many PKD's fans. 
On the other hand, for those who accept to avoid comparing it with the book, _Blade Runner_ is a great film.

Who is right in this never-ending debate about fidelity to the original_?_


----------



## Toraspanda (Oct 17, 2007)

On the whole, I don't much care for filmed adaptations of books, with the exception of the BBC serialised classics - Austen, Dickens etc, which are always extremely well realised.

I've enjoyed the Harry Potter series, though agree that some of the later ones must be hard to follow for those who have not read the books. I loathed the _Lord of the Rings _adaptations, less for what was omitted than for what was changed , and *added*, that was absolutely not in the books and which was  completely alien to Tolkien's creation.

One film, however, stands out for me as being actually _better _than the book, and that was *Zorba the Greek*. The book petered out in a lot of meandering anecdotes of Zorba's subsequent life, but the film had a coherence and a dramatic tension that were, IMO, entirely absent in the book.


----------



## Connavar (Oct 17, 2007)

I liked BBC minis about Dickens work.  They were pretty good,captured what made the books good.


----------



## jackokent (Oct 21, 2007)

The film of Arthur Ransom's Swallows and Amazons was an absolutely perfect representation of the book.  Don't know how widely it was aired though.  Agree with all those who mentioned Hinton's Outsiders.


----------



## Highlander II (Jul 15, 2008)

Culhwch said:


> _The Prestige_ is certainly one that would qualify as such. I've almost finished the book, and it's quite different to the film, but both have their own strengths.



pulling from the beginning of the thread - I agree, _The Prestige_ is one of the best movie-from-a-book movies that I've seen.  Very few get reworked to the point that they work as well as this one did.

_The Thornbirds_ was rather well done, though it was a mini-series instead of a feature.



*ETA:* and I just realized I'm repeating myself, but that's okay...


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 15, 2008)

Connavar said:


> I liked BBC minis about Dickens work.  They were pretty good,captured what made the books good.



I think that the only adaptations of favorite books that have wholly satisfied me were BBC miniseries -- maybe, in part, because the mini-series format gives enough space for a faithful adaptation -- Austen, Dickens, Gaskell, the Brontës, Sayers. 

I'm glad that some of the older ones are now on DVD, because it's such a pleasure to revisit them.


----------



## Overread (Jul 15, 2008)

Don't forget the narnia ones they made - I don't think that they made them all, but they were faithful (least as faithful as they could get with no CGI and no anamatronics!!)


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 15, 2008)

I've actually been trying to forget the Narnia ones,  Overread.  Perhaps the scripts were faithful, but they _looked_ so bad, all the magic went out of them for me -- and without magic you don't have Narnia.

I do find that people who were very young when they first saw that series have little trouble getting past those faults that seem so glaring to me.  But I was already middle-aged and jaded when the series was made.


----------



## BookStop (Jul 15, 2008)

*Chocolat *was very close to the book.
*Princess Bride* felt the same as the book, although a few small scenes were left out - namely the dungeon.
*Secret of Nimh* was very spot on until the rats brought out the amulet.
I really liked the BBC version of *Pride and Prejudice* (1995- Colin Firth)


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 15, 2008)

BookStop said:


> I really liked the BBC version of *Pride and Prejudice* (1995- Colin Firth)



For me, the best P&P was the 1985 series, with Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul.  Not so sexy as Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, but more faithful to the book.


----------



## TK-421 (Jul 15, 2008)

Very faithfull to the book and an excellent adaption, not to mention one of the best films to come out in some time: *No Country for Old Men.*

I found *The English Patient* to be quite different from the book by Michael Ondaatje.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 15, 2008)

Some of the smaller filmmakers are actually better at remaining faithful to the material, though the problem is that they seldom have the budget for the effects necessary to carry it off as well. Had they that, though, several of these could be in the first rank, and they're certainly more respectful of the original stories than 95% of what else is done.

One which comes to mind particularly is the film adaptation of "The Call of Cthulhu", done as a silent film. Very few real actors there, but nonetheless they pull off the air of the silent era rather well; and their adherence to the story itself is amazingly faithful... a few minor details changed, and that's about it.

This seems to be the case with at least a fair amount of what's floating around out there; largely, I think, because the filmmakers in this case actually give a damn about the writers' work and that love for the material shows through....


----------



## Highlander II (Jul 15, 2008)

BookStop said:


> *Chocolat *was very close to the book.
> *Princess Bride* felt the same as the book, although a few small scenes were left out - namely the dungeon.
> *Secret of Nimh* was very spot on until the rats brought out the amulet.
> I really liked the BBC version of *Pride and Prejudice* (1995- Colin Firth)




The reason Secert of Nimh was modified (and I can't believe I remember this from elementary school) is b/c the author passed away before they could secure the rights to it, so several things had to change to avoid stomping on copyrights.


----------



## Overread (Jul 16, 2008)

JD and Teresa I think you are both right - there are very few film makers out today who do stay faithful to the original works - I think its this mindset in the "big industry" that they don't want to copy anothers work, they want the admiration for their story.
Off the top of my head I can only think of Sin City and The 300 as being faithful big bugdet films


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Jul 16, 2008)

For me, hands down the best film adaptation is the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Done perfectly, IMHO.


----------



## TK-421 (Jul 16, 2008)

I agree and I don't care what other purists might think. LOTR by Peter Jackson was the best set of fantasy films made, period. Not 100% perfect, but 99% IMHO. Still love to watch the extended edition DVD's at home.


----------



## Overread (Jul 16, 2008)

I think LotR worked because of 2 main things

1) most (if not all) people accept that the original is almost too big for a film adaptation - least one that will be profetable. Could you imagine a film company backing a series of films where nothing much happens in the first film (that being life in the shire)

2) It was top rate editing, acting, CGI and scrip writing which brought it all together into an enjoyable film

I think the only place that it went wrong was to leave out the Scouring of the Shire - and I don't think I am alone in this - it was something that brought the world of Middle Earth together to me


----------



## Majimaune (Jul 16, 2008)

Hilarious Joke said:


> For me, hands down the best film adaptation is the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Done perfectly, IMHO.


LotR was done well but I was disappointed by it. I mean I love the movies but going close to the book...I see it used more as a guideline than anything else.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Jul 16, 2008)

LOTR was well done and don't think a better version will be filmed - but I have a love-hate relationship with some of it. Some of the character changes really irked me, and I think on the whole it could have been done with more understatement and less melodrama. But then, that goes for many, many movies.  The removal of Bombadil I could live with, filming him effectively would have been nigh impossible, but the cutting of the Scouring of the Shire was an absolute disappointment - that was the real ending, the completion of the circle, and the movies don't have the same satisfying end as a result. Prefer the book by a long shot, as pretty as the movies may be.

_Contact_ has already been mentioned, and I would like to add my voice to those who thought the movie was stronger than the book. The book was perhaps too worthy, and I think it was the right decision for the movie to focus more on Ellie.

Another fan (have I no compassion on your nerves!) of the Beeb's _Pride and Prejudice_ with Firth and Ehle. I have my quibbles with it but they will never top those portrayals of Mr Collins, Mr and Mrs Bennet, Lydia, Sir William Lucas, Miss Bingley, and Lady Catherine. Hilarious, excellent stuff. I love miniseries adaptations in general, as they have the leisure to explore more of the subtleties and let the minor characters shine, as they should.

Having said that, I love the movie of Austen's _Persuasion_, starring Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root - they managed to pack heaps of subtleties in there, it rewards rewatching and is an excellent adaptation.

Peter Weir's _Master and Commander_ was a good effort, too. I don't mind departures from the original story, these are sometimes vital in such a change of medium, as long as the spirit remains intact - and the spirit of the books remained whole for me with this one (I am not entirely convinced of the same for LOTR).


----------



## Nesacat (Jul 16, 2008)

One top of my list would be *Call of Cthulhu*. It's all grainy and looks terribly amateurish but it manages to capture the essence of the short story.

I personally loved the three *Lord of the Rings* movies and watch them regularly on DVD. 

And although they are rather different from the books, I have a very soft spot for Kenneth Branagh's *Frankenstein* and his *Much Ado About Nothing* as well as Francis Ford Coppola's *Dracula* for being visually beautiful and bringing difficult tales to the big screen.

Macbeth is my favourite Shakespeare play so I try and watch any adaptation of it. The two I like best come from Akira Kurasawa (*Throne of Blood*) and Roman Polanski (*Macbeth*).

Also thought *Remains of the Day *and *Silence of the Lambs* were both very well done and portrayed the characters as they appeared in the books.

*The Prestige* was very well done and here I read the book after having watched the movie and very much not disappointed with the movie.


----------



## Nesacat (Jul 16, 2008)

I apologise for the double post but I just remembered this and had to post it before it slipped away and his someplace again.

The movie Saragossa Manuscript based on the book *The Manuscript Found in the Saragossa* by Jan Potocki is very well done. It's a Chinese puzzle box basically with a story in a story in a story. The movie is pretty old and done in black and white.


----------



## Joel007 (Jul 16, 2008)

LoTR was the best adaptation (after the token debate about Elijah Baggins). I can't think of any others that I have been completely happy with. There may be some adaptations where I have only seen the film and never read the book though.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 16, 2008)

The Procrastinator said:


> Having said that, I love the movie of Austen's _Persuasion_, starring Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root - they managed to pack heaps of subtleties in there, it rewards rewatching and is an excellent adaptation.



Ah, you've come up with one theatrical release that I can agree was faithful to the book.  I love that one.  And it reminds me that the Gwyneth Paltrow _Emma_ was pretty good, too.  I prefer the Kate Beckinsale version, but the Paltrow version really only has one significant flaw, in that the Mr. Knightley doesn't appear old enough.

I also thought _The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ was pretty darn close to the book.

I _love_ LOTR, I think Peter Jackson put together an amazing trilogy of movies.  But I really can't say they were faithful to the books except in spots.  Where they are faithful, they are fabulous; sometimes when they stray, the reasons for doing so seem good and right, and they are still fabulous; but there are several changes that don't make sense to me, ardent partisan though I am.

And I do think it will be possible for someone, someday, to do a more faithful adaptation, now that it's been proved that the books _can_ be successfully adapted to the screen.


----------



## clovis-man (Jul 16, 2008)

Re Frankenstein:



Foxbat said:


> I vaguely remember a mini series from the seventies. I think it was a BBC production and I think it had Jon Finch in it. I also vaguely remember that it was quite good and pretty accurate.....then again, my memory might be a little vague


 
It was done in 1973 by Universal Studios. It featured David McCallum as the good Doctor and Michael Sarrazin as the creature in a great piece of casting. He is beautiful at first and only becomes ugly as the story progresses. Worth seeing.

DVD Empire - Item - Frankenstein: The True Story / DVD-Video


----------



## clovis-man (Jul 16, 2008)

RE LOTR:



Teresa Edgerton said:


> And I do think it will be possible for someone, someday, to do a more faithful adaptation, now that it's been proved that the books _can_ be successfully adapted to the screen.


 
I'm not too sure about this. An illustration: In 1962, Peter Ustinov made what I consider to be a very good adaptation of *Billy Budd* for the big screen. It featured the director as Captain Vere, Robert Ryan as the evil Claggert and a very young Terence Stamp as the innocent Billy budd. Filmed in glorious black & white with a good score played by the LPO (IIRC). I thought it captured the essence of Melville's tale.

Billy Budd (1962)

Stanley Kaufmann, the acerbic New Republic film critic, panned it and said it had spoiled the possibility of a "good" adaptation of the story ever being done. I think he was wrong about the quality of the film, but may have been right about the possibility of another effort. It has been 46 years now. Unless it's *Journey to the Center of the Earth *or* War of theWorlds*, there's usually not much motivation for a redo. And if there is one, it may pale in comparison to the original, e.g., *Flight of the Phoenix*. Sort of a "why bother" mentality, I guess.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 16, 2008)

The Ace said:


> Can't remember the author now, but a horror novel called, 'The Keep.'
> 
> It ran on the premise that the vampire legends of Eastern Europe had a basis in fact, an immortal monster who could take human form, cast no reflections and turned his victims (in this case a squad of Nazi soldiers) into zombies.
> 
> ...



F Paul Wilson?
Only one i can think of is 2001,but then if i watch a film i use the excuse that it saves me having to read the book!


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 16, 2008)

clovis-man said:


> RE LOTR:
> 
> I'm not too sure about this. An illustration: In 1962, Peter Ustinov made what I consider to be a very good adaptation of *Billy Budd* for the big screen. It featured the director as Captain Vere, Robert Ryan as the evil Claggert and a very young Terence Stamp as the innocent Billy budd. Filmed in glorious black & white with a good score played by the LPO (IIRC). I thought it captured the essence of Melville's tale.
> 
> Billy Budd (1962)



But think of all the adaptations of books that have been remade, sometimes many times over.  While we're on the subject of Melville, there was a recent mini-series _Moby Dick_.  I've seen several _Ivanhoes_, numerous _Jane Eyres_ (three within the last twelve years), a number of _Frankensteins_ have already been mentioned in this thread -- I could go on and on.  I think there will always be remakes of successful adaptations of high profile classics.  In the case of LOTR, I think it's not so much a question of if as of when (and whether it will be a movie or a mini-series, though I think it will be the latter).


----------



## Overread (Jul 16, 2008)

I just remembered one of my all time favourite cartoon filmes - and its very faithful to the book (as I found out much later) The picwick (SP?) cartoon version of Treasure Island. Old animation (colour) and dated but faithful and well made


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 16, 2008)

{SF MODE OFF}Oh i've just thought of an excellent example,Oliver Twist! I  read the book last year and loved it,and the old B/W film by David Lean(?) was very much up to the job!{SF MODE ON}


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 16, 2008)

Overread said:


> I just remembered one of my all time favourite cartoon filmes - and its very faithful to the book (as I found out much later) The picwick (SP?) cartoon version of Treasure Island. Old animation (colour) and dated but faithful and well made



I've read that one but not seen the cartoon version. Ever read his *Kidnapped* OR?


----------



## clovis-man (Jul 16, 2008)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> I think there will always be remakes of successful adaptations of high profile classics.


 
Good point. I hadn't considered it strictly from that angle. Thinking about it, I have to admit I was surprised to find that Spielberg had actually done a remake of the George Pal *WOTW* rather than a new look at the Wells story. Hmm. Now I'm wondering why somebody HASN'T done another *Billy Budd*.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 16, 2008)

clovis-man said:


> Re Frankenstein:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'm a bit dubious about that last assertion. It has its moments, and James Mason's performance is rather good, but that's about all I recall being worthwhile in this one. Incidentally, McCallum played Henry Clerval, not Victor Frankenstein. As for it being at all faithful to the novel -- there are some minor parts where it is, but that's about the extent of it....


----------



## Overread (Jul 16, 2008)

AE35Unit said:


> I've read that one but not seen the cartoon version. Ever read his *Kidnapped* OR?


 
nope - my reading of older works is badly lacking - I am catching up though, but these new authors will insist on writing new books (and bookshops don't like stocking old stuff - if they do its hidden with the Shakespeare!


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 16, 2008)

Well IIRC its nowhere near as good as Treasure Island,a bit boring.


----------



## clovis-man (Jul 16, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> I'm a bit dubious about that last assertion. It has its moments, and James Mason's performance is rather good, but that's about all I recall being worthwhile in this one. Incidentally, McCallum played Henry Clerval, not Victor Frankenstein. As for it being at all faithful to the novel -- there are some minor parts where it is, but that's about the extent of it....


 
Oops. You're right. McCallum played the "other" doctor and Leonard Whiting was the real McCoy. But McCallum's character was the nastier, of course. It's been a long time since I've seen this. I think I was pleasantly surprised to see a "creature" which didn't look like Boris Karloff. 

I do remember liking it back then, perhaps because it broke some Hollywood stereotypes. But that was 35 years ago. There's been a fair amount of re-telling since then. I'm not sure if any of them are completely faithful to the book. Was Branagh's version all that good?


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 16, 2008)

Branagh's version was, in some ways, remarkably faithful... until about half an hour before the end of the film. (The exception remained in having the creature not nearly so articulate as Mary Shelley presented him -- I'm still waiting for that to happen!) At that point, it went off into a thoroughly different direction. The problem is, the film is beautiful and the performances are excellent (in the main)... but it felt cold and lifeless to me. *Dracula*, on the other hand, despite some serious flaws, was very much alive and in some ways more faithful to Stoker's novel in essence and feel as a result....


----------



## Marcus15 (Jul 16, 2008)

The Stand by Stephen King was damned close to the book although several characters were condensed down into a couple. Having read the book beforehand it didn't bother me.
All of the salient points and scenes were there.


----------



## clovis-man (Jul 17, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> *Dracula*, on the other hand, despite some serious flaws, was very much alive and in some ways more faithful to Stoker's novel in essence and feel as a result....


 
I assume you refer to Coppola's film. I liked it too for a variety of reasons. However, I did object to his reducing Dracula to a love-sick puppy. In other ways, he did follow the book (Hard to believe it's more than a hundred years old) well. Even down to the part with the Bowie knife. But he also couldn't resist adding a touch of *Nosferatu* in having Dracula levered up from his coffin.


----------



## Allegra (Jul 17, 2008)

An interesting example is Spielberg’s *Munich* and the book it’s based -*Vengeance* by George Jonas. The film faithfully followed the events and many detailed account in the book, but set a quite different stand. It’s a good film if you don’t compare it with the book. If you do, the whole film has an equivocal element through out. No one can put it better than the superbly eloquent George Jonas himself in his article *The Spielberg massacre* - George Jonas | The Spielberg massacre:

_



			"Moral posturing," I say finally, "allows you to have it both ways. In Tinseltown terms, after the gunslinger blows everyone away, he has a proper crisis of conscience."
		
Click to expand...

_


> _Spielberg's "Munich" follows the letter of my book closely enough. The spirit is almost the opposite. Vengeance holds there is a difference between terrorism and counterterrorism; "Munich" suggests there isn't. The book has no trouble telling an act of war from a war crime; the film finds it difficult. Spielberg's movie worries about the moral trap of resisting terror; my book worries about the moral trap of not resisting it. _


 
Well, Spielberg is a product of Hollywood therefore his way of handling this sensitive subject is understandable, but what I don’t get is a very bad touch near the end of the film – Avner the Mossad assassin team leader’s fierce love making scence with his wife acompanied by grusome flashbacks of Israeli athletes being slaughtered. That, feels SO wrong. George Jonas wasn’t happy about it, of course:

_



			The result isn't so much a celluloid fable of moral equivalence, as a triumphant -- indeed, orgasmic -- battle hymn of the dove. Its climax has "Avner" fornicating in a grotesque montage, intercut with violent visions of the Olympic hostage drama. The inspiration for it probably comes from the Syrian poet Nizar Qabbani, whom I quote in Vengeance, celebrating his new-found potency after Israel's initial setbacks in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Qabbani is sexually aroused by Arab warriors crossing the Suez Canal. Spielberg and Kushner see "Avner" sexually aroused by the massacre at Munich. There's no accounting for tastes.
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## Connavar (Jul 17, 2008)

Allegra said:


> An interesting example is Spielberg’s *Munich* and the book it’s based -*Vengeance* by George Jonas. The film faithfully followed the events and many detailed account in the book, but set a quite different stand. It’s a good film if you don’t compare it with the book. If you do, the whole film has an equivocal element through out. No one can put it better than the superbly eloquent George Jonas himself in his article *The Spielberg massacre* - George Jonas | The Spielberg massacre:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Spielberg is a product of Hollywood therefore his way of handling this sensitive subject is understandable, but what I don’t get is a very bad touch near the end of the film – Avner the Mossad assassin team leader’s fierce love making scence with his wife acompanied by grusome flashbacks of Israeli athletes being slaughtered. That, feels SO wrong. George Jonas wasn’t happy about it, of course:




I didnt know the book existed not for sure.  I thought it did because hollywood rarely make movies on real event without it having a famous book behind it.

I read the hole article by the author.  It was interesting.  I thought the same when i finished watching the first time.  It was typical easy way out of Hollywood movies.  Too neutral.  Shouldn't have bothered with a historic event like this without daring to tale the story fully.

Now i will definitly check out the book and see if its more realistic,less neutral.  Less hollywood....


I agree most on that article those terrorist and their like are evil.  Doesnt matter if you are a Palestine or an Israeli or whoever.

A great qoute this from the article:

_what might turn them off is treating terrorists as people. Not demonizing human beings is dandy, but *in their effort not to demonize humans, Spielberg and Kushner end up humanizing demons.*_


----------



## Allegra (Jul 17, 2008)

Connavar said:


> Now i will definitly check out the book and see if its more realistic,less neutral. Less hollywood....


 
I'm glad you take interest in this book, Connavar. It's realistic, not neutral, and nothing Hollywood. I was blown away by the book and couldn't stop thinking about it after I finished it. 

Jonas is the author of about a dozen books and a political columnist. His *By Persons Unknown* won Edgar Allan Poe Award for Best Fact Crime book. *Vengeance *is based on the true account of 'Avner', real name Juval Aviv, an ex-Mossad team leader of Operation Wrath of God -Operation Wrath of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, even the brief info on wiki reads like a fiction! 

The book is brilliantly-written, intriguing, thought-provoking and heartfelt. Besides espionage-assassination, it also provides lots of valuable info of political background and of different sorts of underground terrorist groups and networks in West Europe at that time. As Amazon editorial review says, "_The mechanics, the horror, the day-by-day suspense of what they did surpass by far anything John le Carré or Robert Ludlum could imagine… Vengeance is a profoundly human document, a real-life espionage classic that plunges the reader into the shadow world of terrorism and political murder. But it goes far beyond that...'._

Hope you'll find it and enjoy it as much as I did!


----------



## Connavar (Jul 17, 2008)

I think i will like it.   I love spy/political thrillers.  Not the James Bond kind but the kind that lets you see the political backround,realistic view on those kind of people and their world.


----------



## Rosemary (Jul 22, 2008)

I don't think there is any film that I have seen and which is better than those books I read.  After reading a book I already have an image in my mind on the characters and scenery.


----------



## Vladd67 (Jul 28, 2008)

Rosemary said:


> I don't think there is any film that I have seen and which is better than those books I read.  After reading a book I already have an image in my mind on the characters and scenery.


I can't think of a better quote when it comes to films of books


----------



## Connavar (Jul 28, 2008)

Vladd67 said:


> I can't think of a better quote when it comes to films of books



Not only that the books has the Advantage of not having so many people who want their version of the story.

A book belongs only to the writer while a screenplay writer doesn't have much of a power on how a movie will be in the end.

I have read enough articles about writers turned screenplay writers who were told their work wouldn't work for so and so reason in a movie.  When they become movies they usually dont look anything like the original story.

Although its a small point that no budget and special effects in the world can rival the imagination of a good author.


----------

