When in high school we had to read To Kill a Mockingbird and I just knew I was going to hate it. Ended up loving it. I was leary about seeing the movie because I didn’t want the book “spoiled” but actually the movie(with Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch) was a very faithful telling of the book. Some stuff had to be left out, but the rest was, IMHO, very much in the spirit of the book.
i do not think so.
what think ye of the lack of the last chunk? i like it not. i think it misses the whole point of the book, really.
i also disagree with your opinion of burgess’ writing… i think it is perfect in a clockwork orange. i have not read any of his other books, although i have been meaning to pick up a copy of the complete enderby.
you are right, i am sure, regarding his copy of finnegan’s wake. i bet he has seven copies. maybe even eight.
Well, Kilgore, we’ll have to disagree on this. I of course know that I’m right and you’re wrong, but I understand that YMMV. 
And you want a book that’s even more perfect, as it were, than CO? Read Riddley Walker by Russell Hoban. I don’t have it here to quote the blurb, but Burgess gave it one of the most overwhelmingly positive recommendations I’ve ever encountered.
. . . I never pass up a chance to prosyletize for my favorite book. I found these blurbs:
I know I’ll get my ass kicked for this (Apocalypse Now being such a popular film), but I have to disagree with this - I didn’t get the feeling that Apocalypse Now gave any sense of what had happened to Kurtz - it was just a bit too much like a standard ‘get the crazy guy out of Vietnam’ plot.
Kurtz’s connection to the narrator, regarding how the narrator is sucked into the evil view of ‘The Horror’, is the most important part of Heart Of Darkness, and I didn’t get any sense of that from the film. I’ve spoken to lots of people who have seen AN but not read HoD, and none of them seemed to get out of the movie what I thought were the main themes of the book.
The Documentary on the making of AN, Hearts of Darkness, is probably as close to perfection as a doco has ever come, though, so at least something really good came out of the movie.
Talking of controversial, I thought the film version of Naked Lunch was fantastic, as someone who’s read not just the novel, but all of the letters, drafts and random scribblings written around the same time. The book itself has no plot, and the movie concentrates on the state of mind of the author, which, if you read the book, is exactly the thing you’re forced to deal with throughout it. I don’t think one is better than the other, just that they complement each other quite well.
HenrySpencer
re: Naked Lunch. A good movie, but it was definitely not a movie of the book; it was a fictional fantasia about the book.
Let’s also not forget the masterful LA Confidential, where the book and movie are quite different. The book is a convoluted affair with about six plots swirling around and spread over several years. The movie has about three and takes place over what looks like a few months. James Ellroy in the DVD version of the film that he loved the adaptation of his book. I believe they won for best adapted Screenplay that year (and would have won best picture if it hadn’t been for that damn sinking boat…).
Sort of - the book is a disjointed series of hallucinations and stories (in the sense of a storyteller sitting there and telling you something). Some of this is played out in the movie, and some of it is referred to - for example the story about the man teaching his asshole how to talk. When I first saw the movie, I thought it was a contrived way of putting in the story (simply having the main character tell it), but after thinking about it, it fitted the form of the book very well.
The movie is a synthesis of the source material (letters, notes, scrapbooks) that was also the source material for the book - the novel wasn’t written in a conventional way, but was put together, sometimes thoughtfully, sometimes randomly (eg the chapter order), by Burroughs and his friends/editors.
HenrySpencer
RE: Contact:
Well, I happen to like bug eyed monsters! Contact irritated me because I expected more dealing with space travel, having a great love for realistic ship design, and instead found the movie to be essentially a display of political infighting and maneuvering. If I want to watch that all I need to do is turn to CNN.
Concerning the titles I mentioned I am aware that the movies made of then strayed from the book context to a degree but not so far as to virtually obliterate the original story line. Christine strayed a tad, but followed the main line. Logans Run did the same. The Haunting of Hill House dumped roughly 75% of the book line and built up some sections too much.
It is understandable for a screen writer to have to cut and slash a lengthy book to make it fit a time element and to enhance some sections to make them more interesting, but to virtually gut the original work and rewrite it is not acceptable.
I watched Lost In Space, having watched the original TV series years ago, and while the new version was not a book, I was still unhappy with the way they warped the story. Like, in the origonal, the robot was a jolly fellow after being restored to normal. In the film, he gets destroyed, a suspiciously 1960s similarity is then later built, but does not play the major role he did in the series. The new version was good, but only loosely based on the TV series.
As disjointed and hallucinatory as the book was, it had a kind of governing vision within which the “story,” such as it was, took place. The movie is outside of that vision, and includes the writing of the book within its vision. That’s what I mean when I make the distinction between “of” and “about.”
Andromeda Strain
The changes they made were minor (swapping a male character for a female) but most of the character’s traits were included. I thought it was one of the most faithful adaptations of a book I’d ever seen.
The Shining
Book: Good
Movie: Did he read the book?
I was never more disappointed in a movie than I was with The Shining.
Sagan was a strong opponent of space travel between the stars. All of that nasty speed-of-light stuff got in the way. He set out to write a book about the only way we presently have of “communicating” with other possible civilisations: Radio waves.
“186,000 miles per second. Not just a good idea; it’s the law!”
i’ll try to grab that book tomorrow, lissener.
thanks.
Movie that’s better than the book?
Mrs. Doubtfire. Don’t waste your time on that one.
Some books should be left alone. Examples are: ** The Scarlet Letter **. Demi Moore ruined a perfectly good story. This is a perfect example of why every actor/actress in Hollywood should NOT have their own production company.
But some movies improve on the original story. ** Legends of the Fall ** comes to mind. The novelette was okay, but I thought the movie was more interesting. And then there’s the ** Last of the Mohicans **, where the movie completely altered the plot into what I thought was a much more compelling story. Of course, it could have just been the fact that I got to see Daniel Day-Lewis in a loin cloth…
Book: The Princess Bride: Magnificent, wonderful, stupendous book.
Movie: All of the above and just a tiny bit better (mainly by cutting that the crap in the first few pages about Goldman’s fat, neurotic son, and his (fat?) neurotic wife and replaced it with whatshisname…Colombo…as the grandfather and um…whatshisnametoo…as the kid)
Fenris
As has been stated previously, movies and books are very different things.
Books are a more leasurely form of entertainment. Reading is a mostly solitary activity, that can be paused at anytime. The written word is an excellent medium for communicating abstract ideas and different points of view that movies can’t neccesarily do as well (Narratives are a good example. They genereally are harder to pull off in a movie than in a book).
Movies are packaged entertainment. The audience is fed the data at a set pace in a set time frame. Most of the data is visual, and therefore it’s going to be more visceral in nature.
Most importantly, movies are generally at a different audience than book readers.
I feel that a movie should be judged on its own merits, not on how it compares to the book.
When you turn a book into a movie, you have to make changes. It’s inevitable. (Proof: Greed. A 250-page book turns into an 8-hour movie). Because of the adaptation process, things get cut out, and people who read the book complain. But Hollywood needs to appeal to a much wider audience than a book, so the often feel the need to simplify matters of spice them up.
A Clockwork Orange works quite well both as a book and a movie. It’s silly to think people would go into the theaters to listen to nadsat. And as for the “last chunk” – if you mean the final chapter – it was never published in America until well after the movie was released. The American editor cut it out, and most critics agree that they were doing Burgess a big favor. It’s quite possible Kubrik never knew it existed.
We have a series of threads over in “Oh, The Humanities!” at the 3FMB called “The Book/The Movie: ______” (where ___ is the title) which I’d love to have you guys participate in. If the title you want to discuss isn’t there, go ahead and start a new thread 
http://fff.fathom.org/cgi-bin/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number=13