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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.)
Worse yet was the TV version I saw 5-6 years ago:
It was probably the worst butchery of a book I’ve ever seen that dared to keep the title (thus excluding Instinct/Ishmael).
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
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:
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.
Aniumal Farm has been adapted twice.
Properly, never.
There have been many movies and TV series based on The Saint, none of them any good.
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.
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.”)
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.
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:
I don’t actually have to say anything, right?
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.
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. 
PS. And this from someone who loved such books as Jurassic Park, Lost World, The Great Train Robbery, Eaters of the Dead, and Timeline. 
…Man, I’m a whore for Chrichton! :eek:
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.