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. 
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.
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.
Urk?
Stranger
Kipling’s Jungle Book. I can’t say I’ve seen every version filmed (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.
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!
I got a copy of the Ellison script because I had always heard it was so good. IMHO, it’s unfilmable.
Those IMDB reviews are hilarious! I almost want to see this now.
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.
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.
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.
Casino Royale is the funniest comedy of the sixties.
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.
You’re welcome. Some traditions must be upheld.
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.
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 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 ™.
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.
You need to see Jan Svankmajer’s Alice. It’s the only one that’s suitably dark and twisted to capture some of the flavor of the original.
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.