The Film Library

They Got It Right

Until fairly recently, I've been known to have a knee-jerk, negative reaction to films based on books I love. Hell, even books I mildly dislike would usually rate better with me than the film version, and not always based on pure quality. A lot of that was snobbishness, a way to feel superior by telling myself the experience I had was better than the one most people in the theatre had. Of course, I've lightened up a bit, and now tend to go the other way. Where once a filmmaker changing a small detail from the book would get my ire up, I now hope for these deviations. In the end, I'll always have the book I read, and the movie should provide it's own unique experience.

The movie that brought me to this way of thinking was actually the third Harry Potter movie, Prisoner of Azkaban. I'd seen the previous two, but part three was the first one I saw after reading the books. My girlfriend, and many of my friends who had read the books, disliked the movie because of how much it left out. I loved it, partially for that very reason. While the first two films crammed in every detail and subplot that it could, they felt a little robotic, flat and hollow with no real emotion. The third film, by excising most of the subplots, focused solely on the emotional core of the book, and was able to breathe in that extra room. It's the first film of the series that I think could stand up as it's own work of art. The way I put it when explaining my point to angry Potter fans is; the first two films had the subplots, but missed the heart, while the third film lost the subplots but nailed the heart of the story.

There are others that I think have succeeded due to their alterations of the source material, of course, but while I've gone over this topic elsewhere, I think I'll leave the floor and hear what you have to say. What are some of your favorite book-to-film adaptations?

Re:They Got It Right

I love a lot of movies that I know are based on books, but unfortunately I haven't read many of them.

Here are a couple where I both love the book and the movie:

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Catch-22

Jurassic Park

Watching Jurassic Park is one of my earlier memories of specifically wanting to read a book first and then see the movie.  I remember I loved talking about the differences between the book and the movie.  But I still think the movie is a good time.

Re:They Got It Right

Re:Re:They Got It Right

Jurassic Park was a good one. Michael Chricton gets a lot of respect from me for being a really smart dude, even if I don't like all of his books. He's really good at writing blockbuster movies in novel form, and I usually enjoy that. Eaters of the Dead(The 13th Warrior)is a really good example. I love that book, it's such a great read. The movie disappointed me, but that was because I was expecting the book. If i checked it out again I'd probably enjoy myself.

I read that book when I was younger, and, due to the author's foreward, thought it was based on true events. Chricton spends a lot of time in the beginning setting up the history of the documents that formed the basis of Eaters of the Dead, admitting to embellishing parts of it where text was missing or needed some spicing up, but saying it was mostly true. And then the novel has all of those historical/anthropological footnotes explaining the customs of the vikings and arabs. But then, to my embarrasment, a later edition was released and he admitted he made it up as part of a bet, that he couldn't write a Beowulf style book and have it become interesting and popular. 

Re:They Got It Right

To Kill a Mockingbird

Great book, awesome movie.

Re:Re:They Got It Right

indieabby88:

Although there were a lot of changes made, I think "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" was able to remain true to the spirit of the book. I got a real kick out of the movie, though from what I hear, I was one of the few Adams fans who did.

I actually almost named the newer Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as one of my less favorite adaptations.  But then I thought about it again and tried to think of what they could have done different.  And I'm not entirely sure.  I think maybe sometimes some of the ideas in it are almost too much to picture.  And then when you do see them, it doesn't have the same effect.  Not sure.

Re:Re:Re:They Got It Right

TheWorkingDead:

Jurassic Park was a good one. Michael Chricton gets a lot of respect from me for being a really smart dude, even if I don't like all of his books. He's really good at writing blockbuster movies in novel form, and I usually enjoy that. Eaters of the Dead(The 13th Warrior)is a really good example. I love that book, it's such a great read. The movie disappointed me, but that was because I was expecting the book. If i checked it out again I'd probably enjoy myself.

I read that book when I was younger, and, due to the author's foreward, thought it was based on true events. Chricton spends a lot of time in the beginning setting up the history of the documents that formed the basis of Eaters of the Dead, admitting to embellishing parts of it where text was missing or needed some spicing up, but saying it was mostly true. And then the novel has all of those historical/anthropological footnotes explaining the customs of the vikings and arabs. But then, to my embarrasment, a later edition was released and he admitted he made it up as part of a bet, that he couldn't write a Beowulf style book and have it become interesting and popular. 

Have you read or seen Sphere?  That's a fantastic book!  I actually didn't think the movie was that bad either, but it can't come close to the book.

I think there are a few warring phenomena going on when I watch a movie adapted from a book I love when trying to evaluate how much I love the movie.

For one I will give the movie a lot of credit that it doesn't deserve just because it's giving me images from a book I love.  I feel like even when the movie skips or leaves out tons of information or scenes in the book.  I still see all of that information as being a part of the movie.  Rather I project my love for the book onto the movie and give it a context that I love without the movie having to do any real work at all.  So in that way I am giving the movie positive points it probably doesn't deserve.

At the same time, if there are any differences in the movie from the book that  seem to undermind or contradict something I love about the book then I will often count that as a strike against the movie.  Even if these changes are more appropriate or essential for creating a good, original, self-contained movie experience even for people who haven't read the book, it is hard for me to evaluate it outside of the context of my thinking about the book.  In this way I am giving the movie negative points it probably doesn't deserve.

Sometimes I wonder if it's better to see the movie before the book or not.

They Got It Right somehow, but not the book

Here are a few and I am not sure if this is the right discussion, but since I do not think that the film followed the book  or was particularly faithfull, but nevertheless, I enjoyed the film; perhaps this should be a separate discussion thread

Sin City

A History of Violence

Rashomon ( this is not a book, but a story )

The Big Sleep ( Bogart version )

LA Confidential

The Getaway

Moby Dick

Billy Budd

The Thin Red Line

No Country for Old Men

Mystic River

Children of Men ( a very different milieu, story framing, and ending; both endings are equally fitting for the respective piece)

The Short Timers ( Full Metal Jacket )

oh and of course:

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep ( Blade Runner )

The Dexter Series ( however not a film, a television series )

I would love to see 'Out' from the novel by Natsuo Kirino, but it does not seem to be available

I understand the disappointment with Breakfast of Champions, however even though I loved the book, especially the drawings, I really liked the film too.

god, there are so many more, I have already posted on other discussions...many, many that I would love to see into films...I have not seen 'All the Pretty Horses' either but want to even though I view it as the weakest of the Cormac McCarthy Border Trilogy.

I am also interested in seeing Gone Baby, Gone

as for an abomination of a very good book with a much subtler and involved tale,

Taking Lives....oh woe and ruination.

 I suspect that I am Legend will not fare well either after reading it ( I do love Last Man on Earth though )

I have not seen it yet but, I expect little from

Charlie Wilson's War

Re:Re:Re:They Got It Right

TheWorkingDead:

Jurassic Park was a good one. Michael Chricton gets a lot of respect from me for being a really smart dude, even if I don't like all of his books. He's really good at writing blockbuster movies in novel form, and I usually enjoy that. Eaters of the Dead(The 13th Warrior)is a really good example. I love that book, it's such a great read. The movie disappointed me, but that was because I was expecting the book. If i checked it out again I'd probably enjoy myself.

I really liked The 13th Warrior! It's a fun film. Actually, Chricton's novel isn't entirely false. The monster part (far as I know) isn't true, but Antonio Banderas' character is based on a real person. We read some of his accounts (including the account of the viking funeral shown at the beginning of the film) in my high school mythology class.

Re:They Got It Right somehow, but not the book

Puhnner:

I understand the disappointment with Breakfast of Champions, however even though I loved the book, especially the drawings, I really liked the film too.

I've seen almost all of the films you listed, but strangely have read none of the books. I'm looking forward to No Country For Old Men, but the only Cormac McCarthy book I've read was The Road, which was excellent, but I really hope  it doesn't get turned into a movie(more on that at a later date). 

I keep meaning to give Breakfast of Champions another chance, because as time goes on I keep wanting to revisit exactly why a movie brings out negative reactions in me. It's the same reason I'll probably be watching Stanley again sometime soon, even though I distinctly remember thinking that I'd like to burn(as in destroy) the DVD it came on. 

I may be wrong, Breakfast of Champions may be a success in hiding, something I wasn't ready to appreciate when I saw it, but I tend to think I'd react the same way if I watched it again. So much of that movie was, I would have thought, right up my alley, but it just left me cold.