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.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Well, I think an adaptation of House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski would be disastrous. Most metafiction, or maybe just for books that have a distinct literary and heavy style, plot trickery would be or are impossible to translate successfully, at least in my opinion. Finnegan's Wake and The Sound and the Fury stick out as other examples.

White Fang, I think, shouldn't have been adapted. So much of it is really psychological, and I also wouldn't like another film too reminiscent of Homeward Bound.

The Eye of Argon holds much significance towards me, because its awfulness never failed to make me laugh as I read the story. A lot of that description is so idiosyncratic and specific that I don't think the visual form would do it justice.

The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka has been adapted in the UK as just plain Metamorphosis, but it leans more towards horror than pure magical realism/absurdism. Maybe re-title it Literalist Kafka?

I liked the film adaptation of Big Fish, but it's very Burtonized. I think Life of Pi was done surprisingly well.

Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut is a very cerebral book. So are The Mount by Carol Emshwiller and Anthem by Ayn Rand. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time by Mark Haddon is about a teenager who seems very neurodiverse solving a mystery.

Piranesi by Susanna Clarke is a blend of surreal fantasy, ontological mystery, psychological thriller, and crime; all these layers might make it hard to reinterpret for the big screen.

 

[KGeo777]

Paradise Lost - Because a) the story and themes are so peculiar and pedantic, I don't think it is relatable (I don't think Milton did successfully "justify the ways of God to Man"), and b) the imagination is so ambitious--I don't think it would be possible to do it justice in film. John Collier did a mock screenplay of it, some interesting visual ideas but still not enough to overcome the problematic concept and capture the scope of what Milton describes.

 

[Extollager]

Что делать? by Chernyshevsky. (What Is to Be Done?)

I really could see it being filmed with funding from some governments whose leaders like its message.