can films ever live up to the books!?

Gingervitis

Don't forget that the Godfather was originally a (mediocre) book by Mario Puzo.

A bad book can create a good film!

Sangre

They can live up but rarely. Why?

Well the main reason is that studios normally choose to adapt very famous and therefore usually very well written, paced and storylined classic. They're a hard act to follow.

Wacker

Gingervitis wrote: »

Don't forget that the Godfather was originally a (mediocre) book by Mario Puzo.

A bad book can create a good film!

I completely agree. Every single divergence in the film from the book is for the better. Example: when Michael is in Kay's apartment before he goes to the hospital. In the book, they go at it like animals and things had never been better between them. In the film, he’s very distant and this clearly bothers Kay. This makes so much more sense, as Michael is changing dramatically.

pickarooney

Psycho was marginally better as a film than a book and High Fidelity was possibly better on screen than paper.

Miguel_Sanchez

Brokeback Mountain.

Very good adaptation.

ztoical

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

Brokeback Mountain.

Very good adaptation.

+1

ztoical

L.A. Confidential for me is a good adaptation. Its a film I think changed what needed to changed in order for it to work as a film but still kept the overall theme and feeling of the book.

The book takes place over a much longer time period [years] then the film [less then 1 year] and the characters have much bigger back stories and there are several subplots left out of the film. The ending of the book wouldn't work for a big budget hollywood movie but they managed to come up with a solution that worked for the film but stayed true to the book.

I enjoyed American Psycho as well thou I do think the book is 100 times better as its my fav book.

Alot of Kubricks films are based on books and taken purely as adaptations of the books no they aren't good but as films they are fantastic.

grames_bond

Palm-Star Entertainment has announced production of a movie version of the bret easton ellis book "Lunar Park" with an expected release date in 2009.

if anyone has read this book, i think you will agree that it is going to be incredibly hard to turn it into a movie! i really enjoyed the book, but am very sceptical about how the movie will turn out!

Mark Hamill

senordingdong wrote: »

Although the story was changed drastically, they did a fantastic job of it so I don't think it applies to this thread.

Why shouldn't it apply to this thread though? It shows that sometimes for a film adaption to succeed it needs to be so different from its source material that they can't really be compared.
I think having a book to compare a film to can kill even a good film because a good book can is always the ideal version of the film for whoever reads it: i.e. you picture the characters exactly as you want (or as who you want), you have your own pictures in your head of how scenes went, of which characters are the most interesting etc, someones interpretation of that can grate on people if they read the book in a different way to the filmmaker.
Novellas usually work as films because there is plenty of play for the director to add what they want, which they usually do, and then its just a case of getting a good director.
Video games almost never work because, while there is usually lots of play with story, its usually never done (so you get shallow or just stupid films like "Alone in the Dark" or "Street Fighter").
Unfortunately, having a director thats willing to diverge from the source is only good if the director is any good (crap directors result in "Resident Evil" or the second half of "I am Legend")

Shryke

BurnsCarpenter wrote: »

I don't think I Am Legend was a novella. Fight Club certainly wasn't. My understanding is a novella is around 70 or 80 pages.

I haven't read the book of The Godfather but I'm told it isn't great.

I'm afraid your understanding is wrong I own both books and they are novellas. Interestingly enough Fear and Loathing (originally a magazine serial) and The Shawshank Redemption are also novellas.

Cokehead Mother

Sandor wrote: »

I'm afraid your understanding is wrong I own both books and they are novellas. Interestingly enough Fear and Loathing (originally a magazine serial) and The Shawshank Redemption are also novellas.

My copy of fight club is over 200 pages long. That's a novel. Novellas are typically less than 40000 words.

I am Legend is also a novel. The Shawshank redemption is a novella. Do you see the distinction?

phasers

I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were better than the books...


they can be done really well, but it's very rare that it works

ztoical

Cokehead Mother wrote: »

My copy of fight club is over 200 pages long. That's a novel. Novellas are typically less than 40000 words.

I am Legend is also a novel. The Shawshank redemption is a novella. Do you see the distinction?

There is alot of grey area. The less then 40,000 word count rule is used mainly by a couple of groups for writing award but there is not set rule as to what is a novel and what is a novella - it's not word count which is the crucial factor. Novellas tend be more concentrated, focussed on contributing to a single issue/point. But even then it is very open. There's a good description of novellas here

I've seen I am legend described as both a novel and novella, its first print run only had 160 pages.

Do you guys count each word as you read it? Don't think this discussion is suited to the Film forum, probably literature would be better?

grames_bond

im even more worried about the lunar park movie now as i have been told that the role of bret easton ellis has been offered to ben affleck?! :eek:

BigBenRoeth

I'm of the opinion that sometimes films can live up to books,other times they just cant.
Example:After seeing the Excorcist a few times 5+ and getting to the stage where i wasnt screaming/running to my Parents when the mad bitch started on at it,i watched the film not for some cheap scare,but for a brilliant story.
I found the book at a charity coffee morning going for 50c when i was about 12.
I read it last year and i must say,it braught me to a whole new level of fear,more than the book could achieve,so there,books win.
Example 2:The Godfather,Quite simply,the book never quite managed to create the sense of thrill and suspense as the Movie did....you dont have background music and an amazing cast in books.
There movies win.
So if anyone agrees or disagrees,let me know

senordingdong

Deleted User wrote: »

War of the Worlds are two that stick out instantly.

What was wrong with WoTW?

EdgarAllenPoo

I enjoyed the James Patterson books (along came a spider and kiss the girls) but the films were absolute formulaic cack. Master and Commander was a good adaptation I thought.

No Stephen King film has ever been as good as the book.

Kess73

GDM wrote: »

No Stephen King film has ever been as good as the book.

Watch The Mist, it may change your mind.


Ok technically the Mist is not a book, just a short story by King, but the film version easily matches King's version.

senordingdong

And I ask you all again...what the hell is wrong with the War Of The Worlds?!!?!?!