PDA

View Full Version : Which books have been made into movies multiple times, but never well?


Malthus
12-14-2006, 10:52 AM
My favourite example of this has to be H. Rider Haggard's King Solomon's Mines. It has been made into multiple movie versions; all suck, as far as I have seen.

Another would be Conan Doyle's The Lost World.

What are your favourites?

CalMeacham
12-14-2006, 10:59 AM
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court -- vehicle for Bing Crosby and Will Rogers, indifferent cartoons, lame PBS version. Just once I'd like to see it played even close to straight.


20,000 Leagues Under the Sea -- some have been pretty decent, but they never realy captured the spirit of Verne. A lot of them were downright awful. Verne, Wells, and Poe have fared pretty badly when it comes to faithfulness of adaptations. Which b brings up:

The Mysterious Island -- Curiously, the silent version of 20,000 Leagues has a faithful portion of this book. Most adaptations pretty much jettison the book, though [/B]


Casino Royale -- I haven't seen the latest, yet, but , good as it may be, by this point in time it can';t be all that faithful. Certainly the two previous versions took considerable liberties.

The Puppet Masters -- done twice already. The first version wasd an unauthorized rip-off, the second tried, but ran into the Hollywood machine. One day they'll do it right. I hope.

CalMeacham
12-14-2006, 11:07 AM
Oh, yeah, a science fiction short story -- Fredric Brown's Arena. They only really officially adapted it once, as an episode of "Star Trek" (TOS), but it's been ripped off many times (like the "Outer Limits": episode "Fun and Games". Even the Star Trek version changed it, especially the ending. With CGI and intelligent writing and directing, you could do a great job on this.



Arguably, I, Robot. The Will Smith movie, as we all know by now, wasn't even originally an adaptation of the book. IIRC, one of the British 1960s SF shows did this (Out of this World or Out of the Unknown), but with their limited time (short episode) and legebdarily low budget it can't have been all that good. And amn asimov-blessed script was written (by Harlan Ellison), which I liked (although YMMV)

RealityChuck
12-14-2006, 11:10 AM
Alice in Wonderland -- been done many time, never particularly well. The problem is that Alice really has no plot and no character, just incidents. In addition, you end up having to put bits from Through the Looking Glass into it because people expect things like Jaberwocky and Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. This means major adjustments to squeeze them in. The closest anyone came to a decent version was the 1999 TV version (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164993/), but that just barely rises above mediocre.

CalMeacham
12-14-2006, 11:37 AM
Another short -- Asimov's classic Nightfall has been made into two appallingly bad movies. I'm sure it could be done well. I've done it in my head.


I've just finished reading Solaris, and I've seen both film versions. They're both well-made, but they ain't the book by a long shot.


I don't thionk that either the Kubrick film nor the TV movie did justice to Stephen King's The Shining.

Ethilrist
12-14-2006, 11:49 AM
I haven't seen many of them myself, but my father (an English writing teacher and playwright) feels that attempts to make Huckleberry Finn into a movie always fall flat when they run into the Dauphin, because finally, some interesting characters, and the writing goes off on a wild tangent and they never get back on track.

OneCentStamp
12-14-2006, 12:19 PM
Heh. Two of my five favorite books of all time:

Of Human Bondage, by W. Somerset Maugham. Each time (three times, most recently in 1964), the casting has been poor and the plot butchered.

Dune, by Frank Herbert. I'm not even talking about faithful adaptation (Weirding Module, anyone?). I'd just like to see an entertaining movie with not-distractingly-bad special effects.

CalMeacham
12-14-2006, 12:25 PM
Dracula. At least with this one they keep approaching "good" by stages. Stoker's weird, multilmedia novel has too many characters and too many scenery changes, and adaptations invariably condense scenes and characters. The Coppola version is the only one to give us a taste of that multimedia sense, along with usually-jettisoned characters like Quincey Morris, but it also gave us Van Helsing played as a loon, an emphasis on the erotic that went well beyond the book, and that goofy bit about Lucy being the reincarnation of Drac's wife that was lifted from other flicks (like Dan Curtis' TV version, or the original Mummy movie), and ain't in the book at all. Too many versions either try to duplicate the stage play (not a good strategy), or are simply dull (the much-vaunted Louis Jordan PBS version). PBS is having another go at it in FDebriary. Maybe they'll get it right this time.

OneCentStamp
12-14-2006, 12:31 PM
I don't thionk that either the Kubrick film nor the TV movie did justice to Stephen King's The Shining.
I enjoyed the movie, but it had a very different flavor to that of the book.

I guess we need to specify "well made" (for purposes of this thread) as either "faithful to the book" or "made into a good film." I know we already had a recent knock-down, drag-out thread in CS where we debated which was more important.

Stranger On A Train
12-14-2006, 01:27 PM
Casino Royale -- I haven't seen the latest, yet, but , good as it may be, by this point in time it can';t be all that faithful. Certainly the two previous versions took considerable liberties.Although updated (and it takes some considerable liberties with some of the characters) it is surprisingly faithful to the gist of the story, including Bond having to outplay Le Chiffre (in Texas Hold 'Em, rather than baccarat, which actually makes more sense as the former is a game of skill as well as chance) in order to make his superiors (The Organization rather than the deprecated Smersh) turn against him, buying back into the game thanks to Felix Leiter, the duplicitous Vesper, the car accident, et cetera. In fact, with the exception of the first couple of Bond movies and On Her Majesty's Secret Service, this is probably the closest any Bond movie has come to both the story and spirit of the literary Bond.

I haven't seen the 1954 episode of Climax based on Casino Royale (which swapped the allegances of Leiter and 'Jimmy' Bond), but the David Niven-headed spoof was an awful, awful movie by any standard and shouldn't be considered a Bond movie at all, even in the non-canon sense.

Go see the new film; I think you'll be pleasently surprised.

Stranger

FordPrefect
12-14-2006, 01:28 PM
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was, as I recall, a pretty faithful adaptation of the book. Right up till the last scene. I have only watched it once, it is an abomination now.

CalMeacham
12-14-2006, 01:49 PM
I don't demand slavish imitation of the book, but the movie ought to be true to its spirit and feel. The Shining wasn't. From what I've heard, Casino Royale might be. I'll see.


Branaugh's Frankensdtein , like Coppola's Dracula, came close, but didn't quite make it. For both Drac and Frank there are low-budget versions that came close, too -- Jess Franco's 1970 Count Dracula was awesomely good and eveb faithful -- for the first 1/3 to 1/2. Similarly, the independent Victor Frankenstein (AKA Terror of Frankenstein) was remarkably true as well, but eventually petered out before the end. We're approaching the True Vision, I think.

Zsofia
12-14-2006, 01:52 PM
I haven't seen many of them myself, but my father (an English writing teacher and playwright) feels that attempts to make Huckleberry Finn into a movie always fall flat when they run into the Dauphin, because finally, some interesting characters, and the writing goes off on a wild tangent and they never get back on track.
What does he think about the Roger Miller stage musical, Big River?

kaylasdad99
12-14-2006, 01:52 PM
<kaylasdad99 writes Stranger On A Train's name on a slip of paper, places paper into an envelope marked "Naughty", and heads to the Post Office...>

You're in for it, now.

BrainGlutton
12-14-2006, 01:57 PM
Another short -- Asimov's classic Nightfall has been made into two appallingly bad movies. I'm sure it could be done well. I've done it in my head.

Dumb story anyway. The celestial event is plausible. The psychological effects are not.

Malthus
12-14-2006, 02:07 PM
I enjoyed the movie, but it had a very different flavor to that of the book.

I guess we need to specify "well made" (for purposes of this thread) as either "faithful to the book" or "made into a good film." I know we already had a recent knock-down, drag-out thread in CS where we debated which was more important.

Good point. I myself had in mind a mixure of both - that is, failthful to the atmosphere of the original (I won't demand slavish obedience to the book, because I know that can make filming difficult/impossible) and at the same time an entertaining, good film.

Another example of one done repeatedly but not well - Wells' War of the Worlds. I'd love to see a good version of the original story in all its late-Victorian glory. The less said of the most recent attempt, the better. :(

Sage Rat
12-14-2006, 02:18 PM
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea -- some have been pretty decent, but they never realy captured the spirit of Verne. A lot of them were downright awful. Verne, Wells, and Poe have fared pretty badly when it comes to faithfulness of adaptations.
Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water is a rather distant interpretation, but it is good.

CalMeacham
12-14-2006, 02:21 PM
Tarzan. Johnny Weismuller's versions really ruined the character, but I don't think Hollywood ever really capturecd the essence and feel of Burrough's hero properly. Oddly enough, the very first Elmo Lincoln silent version was pretty close, much of the time. The 1980s Christopher Lambert version was visually stunning and sometimes faithful, but actuially managed to get boring. And Disney's version, while very true at times and at least not dull, went off into distinctly non-Burroughs-land as well.



I haven't seen them, but Haggard's She (as well as King Solomon's Mines) has been filmed about half a dozen times, as has Benoit's l'Atlantide, and I understand none of them comes close to the books.



Gotta agree about war of the Worlds[p/B] Even if Harryhausen had made his Victorian-era version, I doubt if it would've been true Wells. But, as I said, wells hasn'ty, in general, fared well at the hands of fiilmmakers. They did a wonderful job with [B]the Man Who Could Work Miracles. They also were faithful with Things to Come, which had Welles himself at the helm. Unfortunately, that was the problem in this case.

Doctor Who
12-14-2006, 02:24 PM
Alice in Wonderland -- been done many time, never particularly well. The problem is that Alice really has no plot and no character, just incidents. In addition, you end up having to put bits from Through the Looking Glass into it because people expect things like Jaberwocky and Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. This means major adjustments to squeeze them in. The closest anyone came to a decent version was the 1999 TV version (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164993/), but that just barely rises above mediocre.
I agree with this assessment. However, I'd take the 1985 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088693/) TV version over the 1999 version.

BrainGlutton
12-14-2006, 02:30 PM
Another example of one done repeatedly but not well - Wells' War of the Worlds. I'd love to see a good version of the original story in all its late-Victorian glory. The less said of the most recent attempt, the better. :(

Do you mean this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407304/) (w/ Tom Cruise) one or this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638/) one? (The latter being set in 1899 or 1900, and which I haven't seen -- never came to any of the local theaters; and nobody seems to think well of it.)

Malthus
12-14-2006, 02:34 PM
Do you mean this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407304/) (w/ Tom Cruise) one or this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638/) one? (The latter being set in 1899 or 1900, and which I haven't seen -- never came to any of the local theaters; and nobody seems to think well of it.)

The Tom Cruise version. Never even knew the other existed, until now. Though judging by the reviews on the site you posted, I ain't missing much. ;)

NDP
12-14-2006, 02:37 PM
I haven't seen many of them myself, but my father (an English writing teacher and playwright) feels that attempts to make Huckleberry Finn into a movie always fall flat when they run into the Dauphin, because finally, some interesting characters, and the writing goes off on a wild tangent and they never get back on track.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is the first book I thought of when I read this thread's title. The movie or TV versions I've seen mostly eliminate the novel's satire and darker aspects. Also, many episodes are left out altogether (e.g., the Grangerford/Sheperdson feud is often missing). The end product always seems to be a sanitized 'lite" version of the book.

Stranger On A Train
12-14-2006, 03:12 PM
I don't demand slavish imitation of the book, but the movie ought to be true to its spirit and feel. The Shining wasn't.Totally agreed. Word has it (I don't know if this is true or not, 'cause it sounds like BS to me) that Kubrick didn't even read the entire novel, merely the first hundred pages or so and a summary.

One writer-director team I like that doesn't try for the "spirit and feel" of the books they adapt is Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor (Election, About Schmidt, Sideways). Anyone who has read the novel About Schmidt will agree that the unlikable, bigoted asshole of the eponymous character is almost impossible to empathize with, while the Warren Schmidt of the movie is far more likeable (if totally pathetic). You can see why he wants to prevent his daughter from marrying a waterbed salesman cum mid-level marketing scammer, whereas the novel Schmidt was just an anti-Semetic ass.


<kaylasdad99 writes Stranger On A Train's name on a slip of paper, places paper into an envelope marked "Naughty", and heads to the Post Office...>

You're in for it, now.Urk?

Stranger

Jophiel
12-14-2006, 03:37 PM
Kipling's Jungle Book. I can't say I've seen every version filmed (http://imdb.com/find?s=all&q=jungle+book) (or *shudder* drawn) but every one I have seen has been uniformly God-awful. They either lose the spirit of the story entirely or else are just plain boring.

Jake
12-14-2006, 03:51 PM
Alice in Wonderland -- been done many time, never particularly well. The problem is that Alice really has no plot and no character, just incidents. In addition, you end up having to put bits from Through the Looking Glass into it because people expect things like Jaberwocky and Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. This means major adjustments to squeeze them in. The closest anyone came to a decent version was the 1999 TV version (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164993/), but that just barely rises above mediocre.
Reality Chuck thanks for reminding us of that delightful "Pogo's Christmas song" in your signature every year. Sure do miss that comic strip, and Walt Kelly!

vibrotronica
12-14-2006, 04:44 PM
Arguably, I, Robot. The Will Smith movie, as we all know by now, wasn't even originally an adaptation of the book. IIRC, one of the British 1960s SF shows did this (Out of this World or Out of the Unknown), but with their limited time (short episode) and legebdarily low budget it can't have been all that good. And amn asimov-blessed script was written (by Harlan Ellison), which I liked (although YMMV)I got a copy of the Ellison script because I had always heard it was so good. IMHO, it's unfilmable.

Autumn Almanac
12-14-2006, 04:47 PM
Never even knew the other existed, until now. Though judging by the reviews on the site you posted, I ain't missing much. ;)
Those IMDB reviews are hilarious! I almost want to see this now.

kaylasdad99
12-14-2006, 04:54 PM
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99
<kaylasdad99 writes Stranger On A Train's name on a slip of paper, places paper into an envelope marked "Naughty", and heads to the Post Office...>

You're in for it, now.

Urk?

StrangerAfter the mean things you said about the only Bond film worth watching, I don't think Santa's going to be very happy with you.

Fortunately for you, it turns out that I don't have enough money to buy stamps for first-class postage to the North Pole, right now. So if you want to take that back some time before tomorrow morning, Mr. C. never has to know nuttin'.

And that's my final offer.

Otto
12-14-2006, 04:59 PM
Of Human Bondage, by W. Somerset Maugham. Each time (three times, most recently in 1964), the casting has been poor and the plot butchered.
Bette Davis has risen from her grave and is headed to your house to slap you.

I'd suggest Lord of the Rings but I imagine I'd be run out of the thread on a rail. Sorry, but I couldn't stand the Peter Jackson version and the animated version was naff as well.

Bippy the Beardless
12-14-2006, 05:23 PM
After the mean things you said about the only Bond film worth watching, I don't think Santa's going to be very happy with you.

Fortunately for you, it turns out that I don't have enough money to buy stamps for first-class postage to the North Pole, right now. So if you want to take that back some time before tomorrow morning, Mr. C. never has to know nuttin'.

And that's my final offer.
Sorry, but I know for a fact that Santa thinks the David Niven Casino Royal sucked, even though the big guy's a Niven fan.

kaylasdad99
12-14-2006, 05:28 PM
Sorry, but I know for a fact that Santa thinks the David Niven Casino Royal sucked, even though the big guy's a Niven fan.<scribble scribble Bibby the Beardless scribble scribble>

Sure, Bippy, whatever you say.

:D

Dr. Rieux
12-14-2006, 05:29 PM
Casino Royale is the funniest comedy of the sixties.

Manatee
12-14-2006, 06:21 PM
Pretty much any Arthurian text, but especially Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur. Both have been attempted a couple of times each, but nobody's really captured the flavor of either very satisfactorially.

RealityChuck
12-14-2006, 06:58 PM
Reality Chuck thanks for reminding us of that delightful "Pogo's Christmas song" in your signature every year. Sure do miss that comic strip, and Walt Kelly!You're welcome. Some traditions must be upheld.

PunditLisa
12-14-2006, 07:51 PM
The recent attempt to do "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" was a noble attempt but they tried to cram too much content into the movie. It's a shame that Hollywood has shied away from making long movies in the vein as "Gone with the Wind" because I really think it's better to have a faithful yet longer adaptation than to try to cram too much into 2 hours.

I think that "Dune" is nearly impossible to do on film because there's no easy way to explain the history and politics that are integral to the story. Though I must say that the '80's version wasn't entirely without merit; Sting in a diaper was worth the price of admission.

OneCentStamp
12-15-2006, 12:38 AM
The recent attempt to do "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" was a noble attempt but they tried to cram too much content into the movie. It's a shame that Hollywood has shied away from making long movies in the vein as "Gone with the Wind" because I really think it's better to have a faithful yet longer adaptation than to try to cram too much into 2 hours.
But after the recent, ultra-successful example of LotR (which has to be at least part of the impetus to finally adapt Narnia to film), you'd think they wouldn't be shy about making a longer movie. I'm thinking of RotK with its 3 hours and 517 Oscars.
I think that "Dune" is nearly impossible to do on film because there's no easy way to explain the history and politics that are integral to the story. Though I must say that the '80's version wasn't entirely without merit; Sting in a diaper was worth the price of admission.
I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder: as a hetero male, Sting in a diaper was pretty much the nadir of Dune for me. I just didn't need to know that much about Mr. Sumner's Weirding Module (TM). :D :D :D

jackdavinci
12-15-2006, 01:31 AM
Another short -- Asimov's classic Nightfall has been made into two appallingly bad movies. I'm sure it could be done well. I've done it in my head.

Really? I've only seen one of them. I wonder what the other is like. That said, I really liked Asimov's story, and I also really liked the movie. On the other hand, while they both have the same premise, other than that they are extremely different.

I'm going to have to vote for The Bible. I haven't seen that really done justice, even in parts.

Nor the Oddysey. And I'm very disapointed that the Greek epic has been filmed so many times, but the Roman counterpart, Vergil's Aenied, has never seen the light of celluloid.

lissener
12-15-2006, 01:40 AM
Alice in Wonderland -- been done many time, never particularly well. The problem is that Alice really has no plot and no character, just incidents. In addition, you end up having to put bits from Through the Looking Glass into it because people expect things like Jaberwocky and Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. This means major adjustments to squeeze them in. The closest anyone came to a decent version was the 1999 TV version (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164993/), but that just barely rises above mediocre.
You need to see Jan Svankmajer's Alice (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095715/). It's the only one that's suitably dark and twisted to capture some of the flavor of the original.

lissener
12-15-2006, 01:43 AM
You need to see Jan Svankmajer's Alice (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095715/). It's the only one that's suitably dark and twisted to capture some of the flavor of the original.
This paper's capsule review. (http://onfilm.chicagoreader.com/movies/capsules/27293_ALICE)

Thudlow Boink
12-15-2006, 12:08 PM
The recent attempt to do "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" was a noble attempt but they tried to cram too much content into the movie. It's a shame that Hollywood has shied away from making long movies in the vein as "Gone with the Wind" because I really think it's better to have a faithful yet longer adaptation than to try to cram too much into 2 hours.But it's a short book! What's the point of making a movie that takes longer to watch than the book does to read?

And it's not like Hollywood hasn't made any long movies recently.

PunditLisa
12-15-2006, 02:08 PM
But it's a short book! What's the point of making a movie that takes longer to watch than the book does to read?

And it's not like Hollywood hasn't made any long movies recently.

True, but I think the LOTR had a cult-like following prior to the movie. Perhaps that's why they felt they could sink a lot of money into it.

LWW did have a big money feel to it (the cinematography, special effects and costumes, for example) but it lacked character development essential to the story, IMO. Rather like the first episode of Star Wars. So perhaps it wasn't the length as much as the screenplay.

BrainGlutton
12-15-2006, 02:48 PM
LWW did have a big money feel to it (the cinematography, special effects and costumes, for example) but it lacked character development essential to the story, IMO.

[shrug] No more so than the book itself. If you want to see faithful screen adaptions of novels, you have to accept that the resulting film will always share the book's limitations, whatever they are.

sciurophobic
12-15-2006, 03:17 PM
I know the 1939 movie is a classic, but I wish there was a faithful version of The Wizard of Oz, one where the quartet travel south from the Emerald City to Glinda's palace in Quadling country. And where it isn't all a dream.

Lord Ashtar
12-15-2006, 03:31 PM
Dean Koontz's Watchers. One of the few books he wrote that I actually like, a lot in fact. They made it into a movie four or five times. Each time it got worse and worse. The last installment even went so far as to have (keep in mind it's been a long time since I read it):

Travis (I think that was his name) and his woman (who he didn't meet until halfway through the book) open the movie walking through the woods. Einstein the dog runs up to them, barks a few times, then scratches the word DANGER into the ground in front of them.
Bad. Just really, really awful.

CalMeacham
12-15-2006, 03:31 PM
Paul Brickhill's The Great Escape. The first version looked good (they had ex-Stalaf Luft III POWs as technical advisors), but they condensed a lot down, left out a lot of interesting stuff, gave Steve McQueen an ahistorical motorcycle ride, and gave too big a part to the Americans. The later TV movie concentrated on the post-escape and even post-WWII stuff. I loved the movie, until I rwead the book and saw how much they'd changed and left out.


Edward Abbott's Flatland -- they've done it as a cartoon and as a episode of the original Outer Limits, but the former was quick and inexcpensively done. The latter didn't really adapt it at all ("Behold, Eck!", which certain claims it was adapted from Abbott.)

OneCentStamp
12-15-2006, 04:46 PM
Dean Koontz's Watchers. One of the few books he wrote that I actually like, a lot in fact. They made it into a movie four or five times. Each time it got worse and worse. The last installment even went so far as to have (keep in mind it's been a long time since I read it):

Bad. Just really, really awful.
Worse yet was the TV version I saw 5-6 years ago:

- They made Travis a 10 year old kid. :mad:
- They turned Norah into Travis' mom. :mad: :mad:
- They did away with the Outsider entirely. :mad: :mad: :mad:

It was probably the worst butchery of a book I've ever seen that dared to keep the title (thus excluding Instinct/Ishmael).

FriarTed
12-15-2006, 06:26 PM
I don't demand slavish imitation of the book, but the movie ought to be true to its spirit and feel. The Shining wasn't. From what I've heard, Casino Royale might be. I'll see.


Branaugh's Frankensdtein , like Coppola's Dracula, came close, but didn't quite make it. For both Drac and Frank there are low-budget versions that came close, too -- Jess Franco's 1970 Count Dracula was awesomely good and eveb faithful -- for the first 1/3 to 1/2. Similarly, the independent Victor Frankenstein (AKA Terror of Frankenstein) was remarkably true as well, but eventually petered out before the end. We're approaching the True Vision, I think.

Last year, the Hallmark Channel did a remarkably accurate FRANKENSTEIN with Luke Goss, Alec Newman & Donald Sutherland as the Monster, Victor, and Captain Walton. It was somewhat stilted but otherwise dead-on. I thought the Branaugh-Coppola version was as good as one could expect & relatively faithful (the one BIG diversion- the Bride scene I thought even bested Mary Shelley). The Coppola DRACULA was good in its own right but took a GREAT detour from the book. However, I contest the post that the portrayal of VanHelsing as a loon was that big a deviation from the book.*L*

RealityChuck
12-15-2006, 07:18 PM
Why they don't make films just like the book, reason 122: When Branagh's Frankenstein came out -- a vastly underrated film, BTW -- one reviewer wondered why there were scenes in the arctic. :rolleyes:

John DiFool
12-15-2006, 07:41 PM
Worse yet was the TV version I saw 5-6 years ago:

- They made Travis a 10 year old kid. :mad:
- They turned Norah into Travis' mom. :mad: :mad:
- They did away with the Outsider entirely. :mad: :mad: :mad:

It was probably the worst butchery of a book I've ever seen that dared to keep the title (thus excluding Instinct/Ishmael).

Earthsea is probably in the running. I admit the pace of the 2nd book (Tombs),
if followed closely, would be hard to make work theatrically, but it still would have
been a worthwhile attempt.

Bryan Ekers
12-15-2006, 07:54 PM
Aniumal Farm has been adapted twice.

Properly, never.

Peter Morris
12-15-2006, 08:24 PM
There have been many movies and TV series based on The Saint, none of them any good.

Diceman
12-15-2006, 08:46 PM
I've seen The Shining in both the original movie and the later TV movie. without a doubt, the TV movie is far superior. Kubric's version only had one thing going for it: Jack Nicholson. Whatever else you might want to say about Nicholson, you have to admit that the man is very good at playing mentally unstable characters. The TV movie had a better script, but not much acting talent. Too bad Nicholson's too old for the part now; if you could re-shoot the TV movie with him in the lead role, it would be sweet.

PunditLisa
12-15-2006, 10:31 PM
Why they don't make films just like the book, reason 122: When Branagh's Frankenstein came out -- a vastly underrated film, BTW -- one reviewer wondered why there were scenes in the arctic. :rolleyes:

I dunno. I thought Branagh's "Frankenstein" was laughably bad, which was quite a feat given its incredible cast. It's one of those movies that my friend dragged me to (she lurves Branagh) and regretted because I still hang it over her head as two of the four hours that I'll never get back. (The other two were claimed by "The Piano.")

RealityChuck
12-15-2006, 10:49 PM
You have to have the right attitude: Branagh's version is a vast, operatic, bold vision of the book. You have to appreciate grand drama and powerful gestures, and, on that basis, it's a very good film.

If you're looking for a "realistic" version, then you probably won't understand.

OneCentStamp
12-15-2006, 11:39 PM
Aniumal Farm has been adapted twice.

Properly, never.
I own the 1940s British version ("England's first animated feature film," the box boasts). Word of wisdom for those who wish to adapt a work of biting satire for the screen: don't fuck with the ending. :rolleyes:

Skald the Rhymer
12-15-2006, 11:53 PM
I don't actually have to say anything, right?

SenorBeef
12-16-2006, 12:51 AM
Dumb story anyway. The celestial event is plausible. The psychological effects are not.


Out of curiosity, how do you figure?

It's an alien, with a different psychology, different genetics and perception. It's not as if it were documenting what humans would do in such a scenario.

If you just look on earth, and see how differently prey and predatory animals tend to be wired, neurologically - even though they survive under very different circumstances, and it's not hard to believe that an alien, growing up in a very different environment, with completely different genetics, would react in that way. I mean, that's part of the story.

H3Knuckles
12-16-2006, 02:01 AM
Based on the various synopses I read of Solaris after it was mentioned here, I'd say that not only has it been made into 2 or 3 films...

It's also been re-written as a novel and made into a film, called Sphere. :D

PS. And this from someone who loved such books as Jurassic Park, Lost World, The Great Train Robbery, Eaters of the Dead, and Timeline. :p

...Man, I'm a whore for Chrichton! :eek:

SenorBeef
12-16-2006, 10:58 AM
If you just look on earth, and see how differently prey and predatory animals tend to be wired, neurologically - even though they survive under very different circumstances

Er, I meant to say, "even though they don't survive in every different circumstances" - as in predators and prey share the same ecosystem, the same genetic base, living on the same planet. So, with even different animals on earth being wired so differently, thinking an alien would think/perceive differently is expected.