Literature Books Adapted Into Film
- Thread starter thefadedone
- Start date
FortyTwo
Custom Title
The Mist was an excellent short story. Overall the film adaptation was okay, but honestly their little trick with the ending was just too depressing.
On the topic of Steven King, how about Pet Sematary? That's an example of something that became an okay film but deviated pretty far from the book in the process. There's something about the book that's just really stomach-churning and revolting, in a freaky/enjoyably scary way.
Don't even talk to me about It. That was such BS compared to the insanely complicated and amazingly detailed book. Unscary and crappy.
Thankfully, they're doing a new two-part It remake movie soon. I hope they do better with it.
Hmm, now for non-Steven King... Lord of the Rings is very faithful, or so I've heard. Apparently the movie version of The Lovely Bones is good but loses complexity in transition from the book. Eragon was terribly adapted.
Oh, and Percy Jackson and the Olympians was the most absolutely ******** adaptation of anything, ever. They literally destroyed the storyline and butchered the characters when they made the film. What a disappointment.
On the topic of Steven King, how about Pet Sematary? That's an example of something that became an okay film but deviated pretty far from the book in the process. There's something about the book that's just really stomach-churning and revolting, in a freaky/enjoyably scary way.
For instance, the animals that come back in the book are much creepier in that they don't attack or harm or become violent. They just become inert and uncaring, like they're distant. And the kid that comes back (the first one, not the main character's son) is characterized so much better in the book. He is cruel and insane and insulting and disturbing. In the movie, they go for the conventional scare tactic, which is to have everything be violent and scary and want to kill people. That isn't bad, especially in the industry, but it's not nearly as adequate as the book's version of events.
Don't even talk to me about It. That was such BS compared to the insanely complicated and amazingly detailed book. Unscary and crappy.
The bit at the end with the spider? In the book it was SO PROFOUND and crazy, with the Turtle and whatnot. In the movie it was reduced to like two minutes of them fighting a crappy spider. Tim Curry did a good job but other than that it was absolute ****.
Thankfully, they're doing a new two-part It remake movie soon. I hope they do better with it.
Hmm, now for non-Steven King... Lord of the Rings is very faithful, or so I've heard. Apparently the movie version of The Lovely Bones is good but loses complexity in transition from the book. Eragon was terribly adapted.
Oh, and Percy Jackson and the Olympians was the most absolutely ******** adaptation of anything, ever. They literally destroyed the storyline and butchered the characters when they made the film. What a disappointment.
Spang
Foot Fetisher
- Joined
- May 31, 2012
- Reaction score
- 6,127
- Age
- 47
There are some (few) examples where I actually think that the movie adaptation was better than the original book.
Only one that comes to my mind right now is Cloud Atlas. They managed to tie some strands that I considered loose ends in the book. Also, it's a powerful book/movie with an abolitionist message.
Best regards,
Andy
Only one that comes to my mind right now is Cloud Atlas. They managed to tie some strands that I considered loose ends in the book. Also, it's a powerful book/movie with an abolitionist message.
Best regards,
Andy
FortyTwo
Custom Title
I think The Neverending Story, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and a couple of plot points in Game of Thrones (because I need a third one and to be honest, some of the changes they make are so fantastic) all are better on the screen.
But ... If I remember correctly, the "Neverending Story" movie only covered half of the book (might be wrong, read the book some 20 years ago, only saw the movie recently)
FortyTwo
Custom Title
yakherder
老外
I find I get the most enjoyment out of the overall experience if I see the movie first, like it, then read the books to learn the details that weren't in the abbreviated cinematic version.
If I read the book first, I usually end up being disappointed by the movie. Not always, though. I don't see anything wrong with the concept. Worst case scenario is another shitty movie. That risk exists whether it's based off a book or not.
If I read the book first, I usually end up being disappointed by the movie. Not always, though. I don't see anything wrong with the concept. Worst case scenario is another shitty movie. That risk exists whether it's based off a book or not.
Interesting. I have done that only a few times, when I found a movie so interesting that I also wanted to read the book.
Does having seen the movie not kill the suspense for the book?
Does having seen the movie not kill the suspense for the book?
yakherder
老外
I haven't found it to be the case. Usually they're just different enough to still have surprises. Sometimes barely comparable.
Calliegirl
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 5,798
- Lifestyle
- Vegan
I've heard that about World War Z. That the only thing the movie and book have in common is the name.
FortyTwo
Custom Title
So very true. The book is a fascinating and detailed international look into one possible realistic reaction to a zombie plague. The movie is, at best, a pretty decent zombie flick.
Similar threads
