Which novel would you LEAST like to see as a film, and why?

[Orcadian]

Use of Weapons, or any other story that revolves around the mistaken identity of the protagonist.

Why do you say this, Swank?

 

[Swank]

Why do you say this, Swank?

Have you read it? Who is Elethiomel?

 

[Orcadian]

Have you read it? Who is Elethiomel?

Nope, totally unfamilar title. Just interested in why you think a film of this wouldn't work...

 

[Toby Frost]

Presumably because you'd see the person's face and it would be hard to pull off the deception.

I think the Culture novels would be difficult to film well because they'd be superficially visually easy to do, but the subtext probably wouldn't sit well with Hollywood. I wonder whether Orwell's novels might have the same problem.

I'd be wary of an adaptation of Gormenghast. I think it would be very difficult to get the tone right.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Presumably because you'd see the person's face and it would be hard to pull off the deception.

I think the Culture novels would be difficult to film well because they'd be superficially visually easy to do, but the subtext probably wouldn't sit well with Hollywood. I wonder whether Orwell's novels might have the same problem.

I'd be wary of an adaptation of Gormenghast. I think it would be very difficult to get the tone right.

I think that it was made into a tv series by the Beeb about 20 years ago?

 

[Toby Frost]

Yes, and it was pretty good. After a slightly wonky start, it turned out quite well. Unfortunately, the bloke playing Steerpike hammed it up too much.

 

[Ian]

This is an interesting subject. There are some stories that I think couldn't possibly be made into a film. 'Oh Whistle' is one, where I couldn't see how television could capture the nuances of the character of Professor Parker and the sheer terror that he bears witness to. Then I saw Timewatch and Michael Hordern take the story in a different way, and do it quite brilliantly. However there was a more modernised version, and that didn't do too well at all.

I think that the best movie/tv shows are those that don't necessarily stay entirely true to the book that they are based on. After all books and tv/film are entirely different forms of media. The best adaptations are those that use the strengths of their format and try not to copy the parts of the book that would make them weaker. The tv, radio and book versions of Hitch Hikers Guide are all quite different in their own way, but all stay true to the vision of Douglas Adams. The film version is also different, but didn't capture that same magic.

So would 'never say never' about a filmed version of a book (although tv series do tend to do much better than movies). And if a tv series or movie encourages viewers to seek the book to read afterwards, then that is never a bad thing.

For me, the reason the film of "Hitch-Hiker's guide" never worked is that it actually betrays everything that Douglas Adams is about. Despite the wit and humour of his work, Adams takes an essentially mordant and disdainful view of humanity. The film ends with a ghastly sentimental bit of drivel that is the very opposite of his writing.