Books and their Film conversions...

WilliamWeird1313 · November 11, 2008, 12:54:51 PM

better than the book:

Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining... King b***hes about it being different than the book, but I've read the book, I've seen the movie, and I've seen the made-for-TV one that King preferred... Kubrick's version is better than King's original or that awful TV one he loves so much... to tell you the truth, I thought the book was grossly overrated, while I think the movie is a near-perfect film

nowhere near as good as the book:

Vampire$, otherwise known as John Carpenter's Vampires... based on the book Vampire$ by John Steakly, Steakly book is, in a word, awesome... one of the few books that treats vampires like engines of death instead of sad goth kids... amen to that... John Carpenter's film version is often considered to be his worst movie (second only to Ghosts Of Mars) but I feel it is unjustly maligned and as actually a pretty decent, fun, watchable flick... but it is completely incapable of being compared to the book

any of three adaptations of I Am Legend... The Last Man On Earth is a good movie, but cannot compare to the book (I'm a huge Richard Matheson fan)... The Omega Man butchers the book, but does wind up being a "dumb fun" kind of movie (c'mon, it's Chuck Heston!)... I Am Legend starring Will Smith just flat-out sucked... there's also a shameless rip-off meant to cash in on the Will Smith flick, made by The Asylum, called I Am Omega (brilliant title... ::gag::) that stars the host of Iron Chef America (I can't remember his name right now, but he was also in Double Dragon and The Crow television series)... I have not seen this rip-off yet, but seeing as I Am Legend is one of my all-time favorite books, and seeing as how I'm endlessly amused by the hilariously crass filmmaking practicies of The Asylum, I plan to check it out (and review it) very, very soon

on a related note... Naked Lunch was great... not really an adaptation, more like a pastiche, but very, very good

peter johnson · November 11, 2008, 01:18:55 PM

You don't mention the Vincent Price version of the same Matheson story -- That one adheres to the story fairly well, though the ending is a bit rushed --
peter johnson/denny crane

WilliamWeird1313 · November 11, 2008, 01:20:53 PM

Quote from: peter johnson on November 11, 2008, 01:18:55 PM
You don't mention the Vincent Price version of the same Matheson story -- That one adheres to the story fairly well, though the ending is a bit rushed --
peter johnson/denny crane

The Last Man On Earth is the Vincent Price one.

Doggett · February 21, 2009, 03:43:52 PM

Jurassic Park had a better ending than the book. In the book they count raptors...never really understood why. If it was me, once I'd got the power on, I'd sit behind the big fences and wait for the helicopter to arrive. Jeff Goldblum is Ian Malcolm !

Timeline...far, far worse in film form...

Strip Tease the book had a nice ending with Erin ending up as a dancer for Disney Land. They should have had that in the film !
Burt Reynolds was great as always. The film took away a lot of the satire of how the rich screw over poor Migrant workers, and the gruesome deaths... Erin's husband's death was partially sweet.

Golden Compass - THE WHOLE ENDING IS MISSING!!!!!!!!!!

zombie no.one · February 22, 2009, 09:27:57 PM

Quote from: doggett on February 21, 2009, 03:43:52 PM
Jurassic Park had a better ending than the book.

never read that book, saw the film first and the prospect of then reading the book didnt really grab me. I heard its supposed to be quite good though

Saucerman · February 23, 2009, 08:48:17 AM

Alfred Hitchcock's adaptation of Robert Bloch's "Psycho" blows the novel away. Bloch's novel is extremely lackluster.

Wag · March 02, 2009, 01:57:51 PM

The Rules Of Attraction was both a good book and film - obviously there were elements of the book that were lost but I enjoyed both (despite Dawson being in the film) and could not say which is better.

I think is generally better to watch a film and then read the book from which it was adapted, if possible.

Also, having been recently encouraged to read From A Buick 8, I am not excited about the prospect of a film either.

trekgeezer · March 02, 2009, 02:19:35 PM

Quote from: WilliamWeird1313 on November 11, 2008, 12:54:51 PM

Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining... King b***hes about it being different than the book, but I've read the book, I've seen the movie, and I've seen the made-for-TV one that King preferred... Kubrick's version is better than King's original or that awful TV one he loves so much... to tell you the truth, I thought the book was grossly overrated, while I think the movie is a near-perfect film.

Have to disagree with you, I waited for that movie to come out after I read the book and I have to agree with King. Kubrick built a big flashy car with no engine. He totally missed the point of what the book was about.

HarlotBug3 · March 02, 2009, 04:11:02 PM

It's sad, but people need to have it spelled out for them when a movie is made *from a book and when a movie is made *for a book. It should be mentioned in tandem with the rating.

A Clockwork Orange is very good book...for its time. The "real" ending seems like either a cop out or one too many self-indulgences in a book that is already very proud of itself.

A Clockwork Orange will be a good movie forever.

Btw, if you want a 'who would be crazy enough to make this into a movie' moment, try DUNE. They end up improving the experience of each other if you keep in mind that:

Movies. Are. Not. Books.

AndyC · March 02, 2009, 05:05:54 PM

Quote from: Circus_Circus on October 23, 2008, 05:23:48 AM
We can't forget Stephen King adaptations . SK's books are far superior to their film versions (of the ones that have been made), he was always disappointed with them and decided to get involved in later ones, which would actually turn out far worse! Examples are "Salem's Lot", "IT", "The Dark Half". I'd say the exception was "The Shining", but the book was still better. I fear for "From A Buick 8", it has been in the works for a while, it's my favourite Stephen King novel and I could see a terrible job being done with it. There's still no actors attached to it and not really any proper details, I hope it's not another "Dreamcatcher" - that film was a joke!

The Shining might have worked as a film because Kubrick made his own movie based on King's book, and didn't worry about adapting it faithfully. King stories are hard to adapt because they're often long and they tend to build gradually. They take patience to read. Movies, especially horror movies, can't do that. King movies tend to fail because somebody is trying like hell to follow the book while at the same time cutting a majority of the material to fit the story into a movie. The Shining worked because King wrote a book the best way he knew how and Kubick made a film the best way he knew how. Each is good for what it is.

I think that is the case for a lot of adaptations. I don't know that there are any movies I would consider better than their literary source, but there are plenty that are as much a good movie as the book is a good book. That's really the best you can hope for. I would count Jurassic Park as one such book and movie. In some ways, I preferred the way Peter Jackson did Lord of the Rings over Tolkien's original story, since he chose to follow all the characters simultaneously, rather than telling each part of the story separately, then jumping back in time and telling us another part. On the other hand, the book adds layers to the story that the movie simply can't fit in. In the end, I like both.

For me, a lot depends on which I see first. If I read a good book, the movie has an uphill battle to measure up. I liked Jurassic Park as a movie, and the book expanded on the story. On the other hand, I read Crichton's Sphere, loved the book, but found the movie disappointing. Same with Stephen King's Apt Pupil.

From a Buick 8 is going to be tricky to adapt, based on what I've read so far (I'm halfway through). The story is such a lengthy collection of flashbacks, changing viewpoints and reflections, covering such a span of time, I can't see it working as a movie. This is especially true because King is at his most Lovecraftian, describing things that simply cannot be accurately described in our terms, and conveying the horror more in the characters' reactions. Lovecraft is also notoriously difficult to adapt for this very reason. On the other hand, if somebody manages to make it work, From a Buick 8 could be a kick-ass movie. That's a big 'if' though.

WingedSerpent · March 02, 2009, 06:02:36 PM

I heard "The Loch" and "Meg" by Steve Alten are supposed to be made into movies. Actually, Meg has been in development limbo for a while now.

The two books are essentually monster movies in literary form. I really like "The Loch" and its re-examination of what the Loch Ness monster could be. (Hint:It's not a plesiasurus).

RCMerchant · March 02, 2009, 08:06:02 PM

Quote from: Saucerman on February 23, 2009, 08:48:17 AM
Alfred Hitchcock's adaptation of Robert Bloch's "Psycho" blows the novel away. Bloch's novel is extremely lackluster.

Though I like Bloch's work...and respect him as a writer...I think his stories and novel's lack charecter devolpment...strange...as he writes "psychological" horror...but in sterotypes. I read PSYCHO as well for the first time recently...and found it very lacking. Hitchcock...of course...is the "Master of Suspense" and more. He had a feel for film set-up. Every scene is framed like I would frame a panel in a comic story....I like to consider it "cinematic" cartooning....to balance and center the work-to make the viewer focus on the action. Make it grab ya! To do less is lazy. It's the difference between drawing a picture or filming a scene...and making it "art". He could have just shot Janet getting stabbed in one or two camera angles...but he did it with many, many quick cut shots...all thought out before hand. Just beautiful.