Best/worst book to screenplay/screen adaptation?
- Thread starter digitalbabe
- Start date
The Da Vinci Code book was amazing the film boring I wanted to like it but YAWN 
read the book in two days.
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows the book's battle for Hogwarts V's the filmed version a split second of Oliver Wood and No Krum I was gutted
. A copy upstires and one down a day and a half cover to cover.
That is why I dont read as much as I should nothing else gets done
.
read the book in two days.Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows the book's battle for Hogwarts V's the filmed version a split second of Oliver Wood and No Krum I was gutted
. A copy upstires and one down a day and a half cover to cover. That is why I dont read as much as I should nothing else gets done
.
I have to disagree slightly I have tried twice to read The Hobbit and Lord Of The Rings.
Never managed to get past Chapter 3 and 4 respectively.
I do hard reads as well Dracula Bram Stoker version twice and Precious Bane Mary Webb old Shropshire dialect English .
I just could not connect with Tolken . Maybe because that everyone says that the books are so much better than Jackson /Walsh / Del Turo screenplay .
I just found it rambling. I will run and hide now as I know not everyone feels the same
.
Never managed to get past Chapter 3 and 4 respectively.
I do hard reads as well Dracula Bram Stoker version twice and Precious Bane Mary Webb old Shropshire dialect English .
I just could not connect with Tolken . Maybe because that everyone says that the books are so much better than Jackson /Walsh / Del Turo screenplay .
I just found it rambling. I will run and hide now as I know not everyone feels the same
.
On the contrary, most books ARE better than movies. At least all the ones i've read.
Naturally everyones imagination plays the story better than the visual interpretation.
You always think to youself, why did they use that actor, or how could they cut that vital part out?!
Truth be told, even if you were to direct your own movie out of reading a book, there will always be someone else to judge your vision of the story.
For those that never read the book, there was nothing to compare it to.
Although i must say, The Hobbit movie is quite literally a oage by page adaptation!
Naturally everyones imagination plays the story better than the visual interpretation.
You always think to youself, why did they use that actor, or how could they cut that vital part out?!
Truth be told, even if you were to direct your own movie out of reading a book, there will always be someone else to judge your vision of the story.
For those that never read the book, there was nothing to compare it to.
Although i must say, The Hobbit movie is quite literally a oage by page adaptation!
I hate the phrase as it's way over used. The adaptation might not be as you imagined, but the experience of the movie is way better than reading.
Then factor in the experience of the surround, the pristine picture and screenplay in movies and it's no contest.
---------- Post added at 08:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 AM ----------
I hate the phrase as it's way over used. The adaptation might not be as you imagined, but the experience of the movie is way better than reading.
Then factor in the experience of the surround, the pristine picture and screenplay in movies and it's no contest.
Then factor in the experience of the surround, the pristine picture and screenplay in movies and it's no contest.
---------- Post added at 08:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 AM ----------
I hate the phrase as it's way over used. The adaptation might not be as you imagined, but the experience of the movie is way better than reading.
Then factor in the experience of the surround, the pristine picture and screenplay in movies and it's no contest.
Not when the writer is doing thire job letting the words do the work in your imagination.
A film has just the one interpretation the Directors funded by the Produces.
A book is the individual's realisation in thire minds eye. AS long as the writer has done thire job right then that is not a task but a joy.
Hannibal Rising Thomas Harris the film was a well pail bastardisation of the book and it's movie Predecessors. Red Dragon was a far better film than Manhunter .
NONE could have been filmed without the writer weather from the book version OR a screenplay
.
A film has just the one interpretation the Directors funded by the Produces.
A book is the individual's realisation in thire minds eye. AS long as the writer has done thire job right then that is not a task but a joy.
Hannibal Rising Thomas Harris the film was a well pail bastardisation of the book and it's movie Predecessors. Red Dragon was a far better film than Manhunter .
NONE could have been filmed without the writer weather from the book version OR a screenplay
.Well, the book is usually better than the movie. So the title should be movie better than book. That will allow us to post good examples. There arent many. One that comes to mind is 2001: Space Odyssey
some of stephen king's older books made some good movies, those were two. The Stand, Shining, Cat's Eye, Carrie, Green Mile, Salem's Lot, and even Needful Things
In what sense should we be ranking best - worst?
Because as far as adaptations go, The Shining (for example) is in the strictest sense remarkably poor, yet it has so much to offer as a film and I'm much more inclined to revisit it than I am the book.
On the other hand, the Harry Potter films are largely faithful to the books, with most of the cuts and alterations being subplots that are relatively minor compared to the main plot, yet I find them to be rather messy and dull affairs on the whole.
Because as far as adaptations go, The Shining (for example) is in the strictest sense remarkably poor, yet it has so much to offer as a film and I'm much more inclined to revisit it than I am the book.
On the other hand, the Harry Potter films are largely faithful to the books, with most of the cuts and alterations being subplots that are relatively minor compared to the main plot, yet I find them to be rather messy and dull affairs on the whole.
I take it more in the sense of a book that translated well into a movie regardless of following the books to a T. I think it is more of getting the point of the movie on the whole as opposed to each point, point by point. Otherwise if it is the exact same then it could get boring. Like your shining example, the book is probably my third favorite Stephen King (behind the Stand and believe it or not Needful Things), the Kubrick Shining however as you mention deviates but is just a classic. However Stephen King didn't like it so much that he re-filmed it and there is another Shinning movie that does stay truer to the book and that one is less than OK. Shining is a good example of both a good and bad adaptation when you think about it.
Also you have to factor in acting and directing with a movie. With a book its you own head.
Another example would be Philip K Dick (who by looking at Wikipedia actually had a lot of film adaptations also) with Adjustment Team short story which is used as the basis for The Adjustment Bureau and Blade Runner.
Though regarding your HP comment, that will cost you an infraction the next time you badmouth HP. Both the books and movies are great. If each movie went into each subplot there would be 20 movies, and I would be ok with that. End of discussion.
I think it is more of when a good book is translated into a good movie
Fair enough, then put the Kubrick Shining down as a good example.
Is the other adaptation a miniseries? I think I've heard of it, and not in a particularly good way. While we're on King adaps, 'It' is a rather poor one. I really liked the book, so the film crushed me with its bland woodenness.
This is very true. Book adaptations are very much group interpretations of the source material. Sometimes those interpretations clash.
I haven't read any Philip K Dick, but seeing how the various film adaptations have wildly different tones, I'd be very interested to find out what he's like.
Though regarding your HP comment, that will cost you an infraction the next time you badmouth HP. Both the books and movies are great. If each movie went into each subplot there would be 20 movies, and I would be ok with that. End of discussion.
Mod brutality! Mod brutality!
To be fair, I actually rather liked the books. And while the films are actually reasonably faithful adaptations, (various minor cuts aside), the problem I had with the films is that they prioritised plot over story, if that makes any sense to you. I'm no hater!
It was a made for TV miniseries, not unlike the Stand or langoliers (bad adaption, btw). Stephen King like had a much closer hand in it, making sure it did not deviate. It is less than stellar. It is one of the few movies and books I did not read.Fair enough, then put the Kubrick Shining down as a good example.
Is the other adaptation a miniseries? I think I've heard of it, and not in a particularly good way. While we're on King adaps, 'It' is a rather poor one. I really liked the book, so the film crushed me with its bland woodenness.
Again never read the books but it seems some worked.
Mod brutality! Mod brutality!
To be fair, I actually rather liked the books. And while the films are actually reasonably faithful adaptations, (various minor cuts aside), the problem I had with the films is that they prioritised plot over story, if that makes any sense to you. I'm no hater!
I think that is more true for the first 4 movies cause the books were shorter and lighter so it was easier. I think what made the last 4 movies so great was they Daniel Yates stayed on to direct them all. Not only did he cut so much of the books and still kept them faithful to the books he also created a clear vision between movies. It was the same feel for them whereas you can see the other direcotrs style from the first 4
Similar threads
