Literature Books Adapted Into Film

[thefadedone]

I'm torn when it comes to the subject of books being turned into film, movies, or tv series. It tends to either go horribly wrong or really well.

I just read about Stephen King's "Under the Dome" being adapted as a mini series and shown CBS.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...date_n_2463352.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

King's work is the perfect example of how these adaptations can go from one extreme to the other. Most of his books do NOT translate well into film , but stories such as The Green Mile go over pretty well.

How do you feel about it? Should the books just be left alone and not fucked with? Or do you enjoy seeing it all played out on screen?

 

[AeryFairy]

I try and think of the books and the movies/TV versions as separate things. Sometimes it's difficult - when I love a book, and they leave something out that I feel is super important, or they change something, it can wind me up a lot. But I've enjoyed a lot of movies that were based off of books, even when the books were ones I liked.

I think my favourite book -> screen adaptation is Bones. Possibly because they've created something that is so far removed from the books, that the only thing they really have in common is a character name and profession but I can enjoy both the TV series and the books, and one doesn't at all spoil my enjoyment of the other. Quite tricky to achieve that

 

[Alice-Bee]

*Cough* Alice *Cough*

 

[SuicideBlonde]

Nifty, I read Under The Dome a few year ago, good book.

 

[Moll Flanders]

The first films that came to my mind were Gone With the Wind, Brighton Rock, Silence of the Lambs and To Kill a Mockingbird which were all amazing adaptations.

I really liked the Harry Potter films obviously. I enjoyed the book The Lovely Bones but I didn't see the film version as I thought the book seemed so well done that it didn't seem like the film would add anything.

I couldn't get through the book American Psycho as the violence was stomach-churning so I preferred the film.

 

[mary1]

In general, I like it. When I really love a story, I want to consume it in all it's forms. Sometimes I'm disappointed but at the same time, I get to relive the story.

I thought the Narnia films were well done. Especially the scene with Lucy and Mr Tumnus. I felt like it was EXACTLY like how I had imagined it in my head.

 

[das_nut]

Kurt Vonnegut has had some amazing books translated into film - Mother Night, for example (and to a lesser degree, Slaughterhouse 5).

 

[AeryFairy]

I couldn't get through the book American Psycho as the violence was stomach-churning so I preferred the film.

I love when a book is so violent and sick that it makes you physically hurt... there's something amazing about a bunch of words on a page being able to elicit that sort of response. I can't stand overly gory/violent TV or movies, but for some reason, my imagination making it worse makes it... better. When a book really disturbs me, I throw it across the room - American Psycho got thrown at least eight times.

That being said, I loved the movie as well.

 

[Alice-Bee]

I loved the film Im unsure about the book because my friend who loves gore and horror..i mean he likes some really f-ed up stuff said the book disturbed him.

 

[AeryFairy]

I loved the film Im unsure about the book because my friend who loves gore and horror..i mean he likes some really f-ed up stuff said the book disturbed him.

Yeah, it's incredibly disturbing. But, that's the point of it - it's not gross for the sake of gross, everything about it kind of makes you go insane with the character. It's cleverly done.

 

[hungryraccoon]

I agree with AF & generally try & see the book & film version as completely separate things. Although of course it is difficult to not get mad when a book you absolutely adore is adapted terribly. GRRR. But **** happens & what can you do?

One that really stood out for me was Atonement. I loved the book & the film too - I think it was done perfectly.

 

[hungryraccoon]

The first films that came to my mind were Gone With the Wind, Brighton Rock, Silence of the Lambs and To Kill a Mockingbird which were all amazing adaptations.

I really liked the Harry Potter films obviously. I enjoyed the book The Lovely Bones but I didn't see the film version as I thought the book seemed so well done that it didn't seem like the film would add anything.

I couldn't get through the book American Psycho as the violence was stomach-churning so I preferred the film.

The Lovely Bones film was genuinely one of the worst films I've ever watched. I know some people liked it but it was shocking.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I love the film Rebecca but I prefer the novel as I read it about twenty times when I was younger. Jurassic Park, I think the film was superior in every way.

The Lovely Bones film was genuinely one of the worst films I've ever watched. I know some people liked it but it was shocking.

Oh really? I didn't miss much then. I know someone who thought it wasn't that good but I've never read any reviews.

 

[Lord Snot]

King's work is the perfect example of how these adaptations can go from one extreme to the other. Most of his books do NOT translate well into film , but stories such as The Green Mile go over pretty well.

How do you feel about it? Should the books just be left alone and not ****ed with? Or do you enjoy seeing it all played out on screen?

For me, King's books translate perfectly. The films tend to be as rubbish and unscary as the books

I usually end up preferring whatever came first. I saw The Help and then downloaded the audiobook, and I just can't get into it because the narrator sounds different from the film characters and it seems wrong. I'm sure the book will be better than the film but I need to give it time, let the movie fade from memory and then listen with a fresh mind.

I'm hesitant to see Life of Pi because I'll probably hate it for deviating from the book.

Generally I think book >>>>>>>>>>>> movie.

 

[SuicideBlonde]

The last new King book/movie I saw was Desperation. It few years ago and I was just finishing reading the book. the movie was very close to the book. Both where pretty good.

 

[Moll Flanders]

The Mist was good.

 

[Danner]

I couldn't get through the book American Psycho as the violence was stomach-churning so I preferred the film.

I couldn't make it all the way through American Psycho either, but it wasn't the violence that put me off. I just found it really tedious and felt like I was reading the same thing over and over again, so I put it down around the halfway mark. Maybe I would have had an easier time with it if it had been half as long. I wasn't crazy about the movie either.

What about instances where the movie actually improves on the book? I like the film version of The World According to Garp, but I didn't like the book much at all.

 

[SuicideBlonde]

Fight Club was a good adaptation, but Choke was pretty bad. Both good books.

 

[thefadedone]

Fight Club was a good adaptation, but Choke was pretty bad. Both good books.

Watching the film version of Choke was painful. Some scenes were non sto lines from the book which was cool but it just didn't carry over well into a movie version. It was boring and the acting was horrible. I couldn't bring myself to finish watching it and I'm glad I didn't because I read that they changed the ending which imo was one of the best parts of the book.

 

[yally]

The Lovely Bones film was genuinely one of the worst films I've ever watched. I know some people liked it but it was shocking.

Agreed! Saw it in the cinema and found it hard not to keep laughing the whole way through.

Stardust is another good book, AWFUL mess of a film.