Made in Manhattan was a very faithful adaptation of the feeling of being beaten in the head with a fetid segment of a gibbon’s intestinal tract.
The Lord of the Rings isn’t even close to being a faithful adaptation of the books, and that was obvious right from the beginning of the first movie.
The BBC miniseries of Pride and Prejudice is extremely close to the novel. It also has the benefits of excellent casting, and I’m not just saying that because of Colin Firth.
No, really!
Yes, excellent choice, Orual. It was almost perfect, I’m mad I didn’t remember that now.
I was told there’s an incredibly long film version of McTeague that’s completely faithful to the book, crunchy fingers and all.
My vote would be for To Kill A Mockingbird. Just read it and watched it a couple months ago, and it was simply brilliant.
** CATS ** 
I could ask you for the film’s title, but would that be too greedy of me?
The BBC’s adaptation of Dracula (with Louis Jourdan and Frank Finlay) is the closest one I’ve seen to that particular book … it’s slightly compressed, they’ve simplified the relationship between two characters, and combined two others into one, but otherwise it’s pretty darn close.
How the Grinch Stole Christmas
The TV version.
Harry Potter was unfortunately very faithful to the book.
Hah. Eve beat me to it. Fessie, there WAS such a film; there is no longer.
Fight Club. Right up until the very last scene.
Now I can’t decide which ending I like better - the original, or the movie’s.
Well what’s the ending in the book?
Sorry, I don’t know the film myself - just something I was told a couple of days ago by a former film student. He maintained it was soooo long, it was the first “mini-series”.
Fessie, the title of Erich Von Stroheim’s adaptation of Norris’s McTeague is Greed, a film mentioned above. His original, rough cut of the film has been variously said to as much as 8 or 10 hours long; this was only screened once, for about 4 people. The cut he offered to the studio, MGM, was around 4 hours long. MGM rejected it, and Von Stroheim trimmed another hour. MGM then took the film out of Von Stroheim’s hands and released a 2-hour version.
Turner Classic Movies sponsored a “restoration” in 1999, which was accomplished largely by interweaving still shots with the surving 2+ hours of footage; none of the film trimmed for the 1924 release has ever been recovered. (The standard interjection here, when film buffs discuss such things, is “Check your attic.”) The 1999 TCM version is around 4 hours long.
I’m curious as to how you came with this. I thought the movie stuck pretty close to the book. What makes it an unfaithful adaptation?
Going Places – except the final scene isn’t in the movie, at least not the subtitled version I’ve seen – I just read the book this summer, and was left stunned at the actual final event…
It was very good, I realize that. The characters were superbly cast and acted, and it did maintain much of the feel of the book(s). So I don’t want to give the impression I didn’t love it, I own the books and the movie.
As far as accuracy though, the movie left out what I consider an extremely important aspect of the book, which is Paul’s existence in the nursing home. Not just the character who tormented him, but the whole fact of why it was so important and so tied up with the Coffey/Percy story. The “climax” of the book for me, if that is the right word, was how Paul finally handled that situation and why, the whole Coffey story led up to it!
Regardless of what was left out though, the prison plot did not follow either. I had to go back and reread the book because I knew there had to be more wrong with it but couldn’t put my finger on what. (Heh, yeah I know how lame that sounds. What set me off was Paul telling Percy it was “payback” in the movie, and I had a recollection that Paul wouldn’t have said something like that to Percy because they were all afraid of his pull with the governor.) It turned out that they did play a bit fast and loose with the sequencing of the events on the mile, as well as changing more subtle aspects (like with Percy) that didn’t really need to be changed. It makes sense, I guess, to have all the prisoners on the mile at once in the movie, but that isn’t how it was in the book. The timing of the appearance of the mouse, also. Plus some of the aspects of why they were so enamored of the mouse (how he knew regulars from non-regulars for instance) were completely left out. In fact they just didn’t do what they should have with the mouse.
It was a very good movie. Eduard Delacroix in particular, and his reaction to the mouse-stomping was just priceless. The best part was that when a friend and I read the book for the first time, we both talked about how if they ever made a movie of it, there was only one guy who could play John Coffey, and the coolest thing was that a couple years later they did pick Duncan, just as we said they should. We both think Gary Sinise should have played Edgcomb though, and Hanks could have played the lawyer if he had to be in it. If you take a look at the movie and then read the books one more time you’ll see why I said what I did though.
OK, I see where you’re coming from. Thanks!
Back on topic:
The Godfather is probably the best film adaptation I’ve seen.
Ralph Bakshi’s animated “Lord of the Rings” (which covered approximately the first half of the book) was much more faithful in terms of content than Peter Jackson’s version, yet conveyed almost none of the beauty, grandeur, and emotion.