I tend to avoid movies that are based on a book I have read. For a couple of reasons: (1) know too much about the plot it feels like I’m watching a repeat; and/or (2) I’m usually disapointed in the final results (too different, not what I expected, etc.).
However, I did make an exception with the “Horse Whisperer”. Read the book and enjoyed it. Totally disapointed with the movie. Most noticeable was that the ending had been changed (too depressing as a movie ending apparently).
My parents recently saw The Green Mile. My dad had read the book but my mother hadn’t. Both enjoyed the movie. I did read the book (as I never pass on a SK novel) but do not plan to dish out the $10 to a theatre (perhaps a rental when it’s released on video).
My questions:
what is your opinion on movies that are based on a book you have read?
are they typically good or bad?
examples please
Thanks gang,
Lynn
PS - I’m taking a course in Public Speaking (a requirement for promotion) and think this could be a good topic for a speach. That or the results of a survey presenting the differing replies from “all walks of life”. Oops, sorry, I seem to have gone off on a tangent. I return you to your regular scheduled reading now…
I thought “The Heiress” was an excellent version of “Washington Square”—indeed, I preferred the movie to the book.
I am now reading Olive Higgins Prouty’s “Now Voyager,” and if you liked the movie, you’ll love the book; they’re both great three-hankie tearjerkers.
On the other hand, one of my fave books is J.P. McEvoy’s hilarious, cynical “Show Girl” (1929). The movie (1930) is SUCH a piece of crap! The same with “Sheila Levine is Dead and Living In New York.” Great book, lousy movie.
If you liked the film “Double Indemnity,” read James M. Caine’s novelette—bizarre! Devil worship, and all sorts of kinky stuff that never made it to the screen!
Oddly enough, the best screen adaptations of books I have seen have come from Stephen King novellas. As you’ve probably guessed, they are the stories “The Body” and “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption” from his book Different Seasons. These were made into the movies “Stand By Me” and “The Shawshank Redemption”, respectively.
On the flip side of the coin, compare Frank Herbert’s “Dune” with David Lynch’s movie adaptation.
Go see “Forrest Gump.” Then go read “Forrest Gump.” Then try to figure out if Robert Zemekis knows there IS a book. The only thing the book and movie have in common are the title, and some articles (“the” and “an”).
After seeing “The Natural”, I’m ready to believe Hollywood would do anything to screw up a book, just to have a Happy Ending. For example, some unproduced books-to-film:
“Moby Dick”–Ahab finally catches the whale and wins a fishing trophy for his efforts. Ahab and Starbuck declare their eternal love for one another, and buy a condo in East Bay.
“Anna Karinina”–Anna buys a train ticket, and has many fascinating adventures in the West. She retires to New York and becomes a feminist lecturer and suffergette.
"Tess of the “D’Urbevilles”–Tess realizes she was putting on airs and apologizes to everyone. She marrys a local farmer and has sixteen children.
“All Quiet on the Western Front”–Paul is promoted to General and sent to the peace talks. There, his wise and diplomatic solutions bring about the end of the WWI in 1916. He is later elected Reichchancellor 4 terms in a row.
“Portnoy’s Complaint”–Portnory realises he is a sex-addicted jerk and successfully completes his therapy. He settles down with a nice Jewish girl; they buy a house in the Hamptons.
Eve, whatever possessed you? Seeing the words “The Scarlet Letter, starring Demi Moore” should be enough of a warning for everybody. Now maybe if they took the scenes from “striptease”, and inserted them into “the scarlet letter”, you might have had something…
My opinion: in the vast majority of cases, a good novel is not translated successfully to film, if for no other reason than that the time constraints of a film do not permit the full representation of all the subtleties of the novel.
Now of course, a bad novel can be improved upon with a cinematic treatment…
I think the point that we get mixed up on is that when a movie is “based” on a book or story, it’s only “based” on it–not a literal adaptation.
It leaves a lot of room for artistic license and just plain ol’ practicality.
However long it is, for the most part it has to fit into two hours, sometimes a little longer, but seldom much longer.
“2001” is better than Clarke’s novelization of the screenplay of “2001,” which was based on a short story. Don’t know why Clarke changed so much in the novel, but the subsequent novels use the movie as the “true” history.
Ordinarily, I am heartily disappointed in the movie, if I enjoyed the book at all. Example: I liked the VI Warshawski books, but the movie with Katherine Turner was pure crap.
However, sometimes the filmmakers soar. I liked the book ‘The English Patient’, but found the style to be opaque at times. The movie was gorgeously done and flawlessly acted.
Roger Ebert had a movie law that said roughly, Good book=bad movie, bad book=good movie. The corollary is that the less Steven King has to do with a movie made from his books, the better the movie. EG Stand By Me is much better than Pet Sematary
I don’t think there is a hard-and-fast rule about whether or not films adapted from/inspired by books will be any good. There are certainly enough good films to prove that good movies can be based on books.
One general guideline is how much of the worth of the book is tied into more abstract elements of language, rather than plot. Movies are good at plot, especially Hollywood movies. On the other hand, there’s really no filmic equivalent to such simple things as metaphors or the “sound” of the language in the book.
Plot-heavy books are some of the easiest to turn into good films. Good movies have been made out of Stephen King novels (though not as many as you might expect), and that’s at least partly because King is a very story-oriented author. But it’s hard to envision a film based on, say, The Sound and the Fury, though I know it’s been tried. Too much of the book is inextricably bound to the way it’s told, and mere presentation of the plot doesn’t begin to do it justice.
Regardless, I’ve never bought the “movies ruin books” arguments that get brough up. I’ve heard several authors repeat the stock answer to such charges: the movie didn’t do anything to the book; the book is still right there on the shelf.
I saw an author’s discussion about the topic here in Seattle a few years ago. James Ellroy made the “still on the shelf” comment. Dorothy Allison, however, was mournful of the adaptation done of Bastard Out of Carolina. I’d have felt bad for her, except that she pretty willingly took the money she was offered and sold the rights. At that point, you’d best just let go and work on thickening your skin.
There are too many good films based on books out there to condemn the practice: Out of Sight, L.A. Confidential, The Big Sleep, M.A.S.H., and on and on. A few dozen Stripteases doesn’t seem to steep a price to pay. (And I’d like to see a good filmmaker try to adapt a Carl Hiaasen novel, come to think of it.)
The categories are Authors, Chaos Vs. Superstring, and Rub-a-dub.
In film school, we learned the basic formula for adapting books into screenplays:
Take what you consider to be the ten most striking or important “scenes” from the book. While retaining the main characters, throw the rest of the book away. Start from scratch, using those ten “scenes” as the initial framework of your screenplay.
Of course, this is only a very basic guideline, and may just be a starting point for someone not familiar with adaptations. There are a million variations for anything, but I think this indicates the basic mindset and explains why many film adaptations do not seem to be drawn from the source material.
The only movie I have ever seen that did justice to the book was Silence of the Lambs. As a matter of fact, I think it was better, due to Jodi Foster’s portrail of Clarice. In the book, Clarice is a little flat- she seems too perfect. But Jodi Foster gave the Clarice dementions, hence adding mightly to the story.
Anyone know about Watchers? The book by Dean Koontz? The book is a fun read (a story about a super-smart golden retriever? Ya got me!). In it, the main plot revolves around a middle-aged man who is sort of going through a mid-life crises. Who do they cast for that part? Why, Cory Haim, of course.
Dizzy
You people have been holding me back long enough! I’m going to clown college!
Sake, how on earth could you give two to Stand By Me (The Body)? Both the story and the movie were great!
In general, I find that most movies are not as good as the book. Most recent example is The Haunting.
Green Mile, however, was excellent. Was very true to the book, which is why it was over 3 hours long! I’ll buy that one when it comes out on tape for sure.
I have to differ with the smily above for Kubrick’s dismantling of The Shining. The book was spellbinding; the movie stunk. Stanley should’ve had his literary license suspended for that piece of crap. I’ve never been more disappointed in a movie. In my opinion, The Shining is the worst movie I’ve ever seen.
As a contrast, I thought A Clockwork Orange was perfect.
A further note on The Shining. The movie was pretty good, but still nothing compared to the book. Most people don’t necessarily remember the movie for its plot, but for the great performance of Jack Nicholsen. The same could be said for Silence of the Lambs, even though the book is not nearly as good as the Shining (although Hannibal was written much better and I’m looking forward to the movie).
Most of the time, when a movie is a disappointment, it’s because it strays from the book plot or deletes important detail. For example, it was about a year and a half before I finally watched Starship Troopers, one of my all time favorite books. Sure enough, I absolutely hated it.
of the movies I’ve seen based on books I’ve read, the only one that I can say was as good as the book was The Princess Bride, but in that case the book and the screenplay were written by the same guy.
Also, the movie adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, renamed Blade Runner in that case, was good, but I have also read a letter by the author, Philip K. Dick, advising the screenwriters and such on where they could put in more sex, and what can be taken out to make room for more sex. I’m surprised the movie turned out as good as it did.
