Best/Worst Adaptation

[El Torpedo]

I've got a Lit-film class I where I have to write an essay on a film adaptation from a novel or short story and I'm having a hard time coming up with something to write on. I wanted to do something post-apocalyptic because that's my favorite genre, but in that case I could only think of I Am Legend and The Stand for some reason, though I'm sure theres more.

Anyway, my favorite adaptation is Dexter. Even if it's a TV show it encapsulates the themes and characters of the novels perfectly, if not expanding on them. Worst? LXG.

[Hulud]

No Country For Old Men is very faithful to the book

[Jericho]

Sideways was a good one

[nuclearjew]

My personal favorite is The Shawshank Redemption.

[Blue]

The worst is Steven Kings Running Man or the Bourne Trilogy.
About the only things the movies have in common with the books are the charcters names.

[vasili denisov]

Last Temptation of Christ is a strong adaptation of the novel; in the book, the metaphysical aspect is ambiguous, whereas in the movie it's definite. It does show up the problem with adapting anything that has a strong set of ideas that aren't easily translated visually. In the book, it's clear that Christ is a mix between the extreme visions of the Baptist and Judas, as well as a more benevolent one, but that point's lost in the movie.

I'd say Casino would be an excellent example of a movie capturing almost all the information contained in a book with almost nothing lost. The advantage was that the book and movie were made alongside each other, so the movie influenced the organization of the story in the book, without having to pick and choose the more visual elements.

[zero]

I am Legend strayed really far from the book. The novel is timeless but the movie was just trash. They tried pushing it more towards an action flick.

Gene Wilder's version of Willy Wonka was close to the novel. Depp's version wasn't to far away but it had its differences.

[Archetype]

The worst is Steven Kings Running Man or the Bourne Trilogy.
About the only things the movies have in common with the books are the charcters names.
The Mangler was worse, I think. King's had some bad ones.

[mongo]

the godfather. /thread

[Mr. Brown]

Anyway, my favorite adaptation is Dexter. Even if it's a TV show it encapsulates the themes and characters of the novels perfectly, if not expanding on them. Worst? LXG.

Your joking right? They changed so much from his brother to what happened to Dokes, it's a joke.

The worst is Steven Kings Running Man or the Bourne Trilogy. About the only things the movies have in common with the books are the charcters names.

I had read the Bourne novels like 10 years ago and like the books and novels equally. I just red the Running Man last week and feel cheated with the movie version. Hopefully someone will do a more faithful adaption someday.

[Ethix]

Any book Michael Crighton wrote that was made into a movie = bad adaptation.

Generation Kill seems to be pretty close to what's in the book, but I'm only a quarter into it at the moment.

[Pax Britannia]

American Psycho is a good adaption of the book. Some scenes are lifted entirely from the book word for word which I love because it shows respect for the material. And the stuff missing from the film is simply not shown rather than explained away or replace with new scenes like in so many adaptions.

[Archangel]

Anna Karenina, LotR, Dracula, Apocalypse Now...

[wacker]

To Kill a Mockingbird.

[wonderllama]

Worst for mine, well, one of the worst, has got to be that Guy Pearce version of The Time Machine....truly terrible.

[NOTKyle]

If you're still talking post-apocalyptic you could go with Children of Men. The book and the movie are both beautifully done even though the movie strays slightly.

[moe_blunts]

Rosemary's Baby is pretty true to the novel.

The Exorcist is a fucked up book, as was the movie.


But I think Wacker nailed it with To Kill a Mockingbird.

[Archetype]

Worst for mine, well, one of the worst, has got to be that Guy Pearce version of The Time Machine....truly terrible.


That movie wasn't that bad.

[wonderllama]

Are you kidding?
Don't get me wrong, Guy Pearce is a good actor, but he was terrible in this.
He's in town at the moment actually, I might go belatedly bitch slap him for that film.

[Archetype]

That movie wasn't that bad.

And Guy Pearce isn't that good of an actor.

[The Batman]

The worst is Steven Kings Running Man or the Bourne Trilogy.
About the only things the movies have in common with the books are the charcters names.

But are the books better than the movies? Because the Bourne movies were great and Running Man was a fun movie.

[IdiotBrain]

Even though MUCH was left out of it, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was a truly amazing film adaptation.

Until I saw that movie, I did not know Ford Prefect was black.

[Archangel]

Or, we could tell Torpedo to research his Goddamned essay by himself...

[El Torpedo]

There's no time for that

[Tromboner]

There Will Be Blood is a good adaptation of the book Oil! by Upton Sinclair.

[Willam]

Worst for mine, well, one of the worst, has got to be that Guy Pearce version of The Time Machine....truly terrible.

I'd have to say this is true, with Less Than Zero a close second

[canto iv]

I feel like it's easier for me to list adaptations I absolutely hate than it is to list the best or most faithful. There's something to said about literature and its ability to absorb and enrapture. A two hour film adaptations can't really touch on that same feeling, or at least to the same depth. Usually, the adaptations I like are more re-envisionings based loosely on the source material. Most recently, I rather liked The Curious Case of Benjamin Button despite having little to do with the original Fitzgerald short story. Another good example would be Kubrick's The Shining, which Steven King HATED for how much was omitted from the original novel.

[Archetype]

ie. Movies are not books.

[Fazo]

I feel like it's easier for me to list adaptations I absolutely hate than it is to list the best or most faithful. There's something to said about literature and its ability to absorb and enrapture. A two hour film adaptations can't really touch on that same feeling, or at least to the same depth. Usually, the adaptations I like are more re-envisionings based loosely on the source material. Most recently, I rather liked The Curious Case of Benjamin Button despite having little to do with the original Fitzgerald short story. Another good example would be Kubrick's The Shining, which Steven King HATED for how much was omitted from the original novel.

Yeah i read the shining after seeing the movie. Its ridiculous how different Jack's personality was in the novel

Anyways a good re-envisioning...Fight Club? There were a lotta pretty big elements that changed between the book and the movie but both were pretty bomb

[the creeps]

american psycho is the worst for me. the book is so good. full of graphic nasty gore. and the movie leaves you wondering.

[goobie]

Anytime you read the book first and like the book I think the movie will suck in comparison.

[Jericho]

awesome thread bump! The fuck is going on today?

[SammyKC]

Shogun. The miniseries. Completely dreadful. But a lot of the book was "in the mind" as I call it. Its hard for movies to translate what someone is thinking. Same for The Stand...but to me the casting in the Stand was horrible as well. None of the characters looked like I pictured them. I always pictured Chris Sarandon as Randall Flagg. And The Running Man movie really killed the story.

[El Torpedo]

You didn't like Rob Lowe as Nick Andros?!?!???!!!

[Candycane]

"Dreamcatcher" was almost flawless the first half of the movie, very faithful as well as it could be to the novel, then it went all crazy and the artistic vision of Ksdan or whomever ruined it. I will still watch it because even if things are stinkers from Stephen King, they are his and I am his number one fan.

[Candycane]

Shogun. The miniseries. Completely dreadful. But a lot of the book was "in the mind" as I call it. Its hard for movies to translate what someone is thinking. Same for The Stand...but to me the casting in the Stand was horrible as well. None of the characters looked like I pictured them. I always pictured Chris Sarandon as Randall Flagg. And The Running Man movie really killed the story.


See I thought they got Flagg and most of the character's right except for Harold.

[Claydon]

Shogun. The miniseries. Completely dreadful. But a lot of the book was "in the mind" as I call it. Its hard for movies to translate what someone is thinking. Same for The Stand...but to me the casting in the Stand was horrible as well. None of the characters looked like I pictured them. I always pictured Chris Sarandon as Randall Flagg. And The Running Man movie really killed the story.

Are you talking about the Shogun miniseries from the late 70s on nbc?

I remember watching that as a kid and being completely fascinated by it, although I have not seen it since, perhaps it does suck ass.

[Le Goat]

Shao Lin > Shogun

[VoxAngelikus]

There are a LOT of bad book-to-film adaptations (How The Grinch Stole Christmas, Cujo, Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, V for Vendetta, The Bonfire of the Vanities, The Scarlet Letter, and on and on and on and on...), but there is one very ironically bad book-to-film adaptation:

Stephen King's The Shining.

He disliked Stanley Kubrick's version so much that he wrote a whole different version, and then it was a television miniseries? Starring Stephen Weber? Why King insists on these terrible ABC miniseries is beyond me. They do his works absolutley no justice whatsoever.


As far as good book-to-film adaptations, one of the best I have ever seen, and which nobody here has mentioned, is "The Sweet Hereafter". Atom Egoyan's adaptation of Russell Banks' heartbreaking novel is as good if not better than the source material. Both book and film pack an emotional punch to your gut.

[SammyKC]

See I thought they got Flagg and most of the character's right except for Harold.
The Stand is probably the one book (because Ive read it so many times) where I have definite pictures in my head of the characters. Rob Lowe did make a good Nick, and Harold was pretty far off base (in my opinion). But Molly Ringwald was the last person I envisoned for Frannie, and Gary Sinise, though I like him as an actor just wasnt who I pictured for Stu. And I really thought the guy who played Larry was way off base. Oh well, everyones visions are different.

[SammyKC]

Are you talking about the Shogun miniseries from the late 70s on nbc?

I remember watching that as a kid and being completely fascinated by it, although I have not seen it since, perhaps it does suck ass.

Yes that mini-series. Ive probably read Shogun over and over more than any other book. I just like the politics and intrigues and the whole different culture thing. I wish they would take another shot at it, since theyre remaking everything else now. I wouldnt be surprised if we see another Roots with Will Smith as Kunta Kinte the way they are raping the shows of the past.