"The Book Was Much Better Than The Film!"

[friznit]

How often has that been said? Very seldom does the written word translate well onto the silver screen. It is firstly a matter of time - you spend weeks reading a book but need to fit the whole story into couple of hours of film - and therefore depth, since a film neccessarily must skim over much of the detail. But mostly it is a matter of imagination: books stimulate your imagination whereas films simply spoon feed sound and pictures into your brain (not saying that is a bad thing, it certainly has it's place as a form of entertainment). So, some questions to consider, and I'd be interested in peoples opinions:

What films do justice to the book? I think LOTR and Master & Commander all deserve this accolade.

Should directors be allowed to change the plot to suit the different medium? It failed miserably in Hunt for Red October which was a shame because the film was excellent up to that point.

Can computer games fill a niche between films and books? Give the player a universe and a story to follow but let his imagination fill in the blanks - some sort of self perpetuating storyline driven by the player's actions.

[Roman Totale]

Jaws - the book itself is really just a trashy pulp novel, but on screen it's a masterpiece. Jaws is probably the only film that's ever frightened me - having watched it as a child I now have an ingrained fear of the sea.

[Dog Pants]

I think a director has to be given a bit of creative license with a book translation. Some things in a book just can't be done well in a film, so as long as the film is done well and captures the feel and story of the book it should be able to deviate from it to an extent. I think that it's only really the fanboys who get worked up over decent translations (note, I said decent ones).

However, I can't think of any specific book/film combos I feel I can constructively comment on off the top of my head. I get the impression that the only ones that spring immediately to mind (Harry Potter and The DaVinci code) were written with a film license in mind anyway.

[cashy]

The DaVinci code) were written with a film license in mind anyway.

Well it wasnt written with an interesting book in mind, thats for sure.

[FatherJack]

Some of the recent adaptations of Shakespeare and Dickens have remained faithful, yet still managed to enhance the accessibility of the stories.

[Dog Pants]

Some of the recent adaptations of Shakespeare and Dickens have remained faithful, yet still managed to enhance the accessibility of the stories.

I have to admit I rather enjoyed Romeo and Juliet despite myself. Of course I might have just been enjoying the feeling of being all cultured rather than the film, but I'd like to think not.

[Woo Elephant Yeah]

I think Lord Of The Rings, Harry Potter & the shakespeare movies mentioned, in particular Much Ado About Nothing have all done their authors proud.

I have never read Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, but I believe that people think this was done very well, apart from the 2 heads thing, but they explain on the DVD the need/reasons to change that.

Even though the DaVinci code is out to rent/buy now, I am purposely not watching it until I have seen the book.
If people rave about a book enough, I'd be stupid to watch the film before reading the book.
That said, I did watch the LOTR films before reading the books, and I still thoroughly enjoyed both.

I wonder if I am the only one who thinks that the Rincewind stories in Discworld would now make a terrific film, especially with the quality of modern day CGI. The only problem would be solving the narrator stuff, which is usually highly important in the discworld books.

[Roman Totale]

I wonder if I am the only one who thinks that the Rincewind stories in Discworld would now make a terrific film, especially with the quality of modern day CGI. The only problem would be solving the narrator stuff, which is usually highly important in the discworld books.

Apparently, years ago, some Hollywood studio wanted to do a film adaptation of Mort - but without Death in it

[FatherJack]

I wonder if I am the only one who thinks that the Rincewind stories in Discworld would now make a terrific film.

I think it all depends how they are marketed, as comedy or fantasy. I have the first seven books, and while I found them very entertaining, exciting stories, I didn't really find them all that amusing - at least not laugh-out-loud funny.

What aspect the director chose to focus on would be the deciding factor in my view, if it was laugh-a-minute I don't think it would work too well, if it was action adventure with funny moments, sort of like Indiana Jones, it could be great.

[spoodie]

While we going down this road I'd like to recommend Kenneth Branagh's Henry V, it's a great film, especially the pre-battle speech. I wouldn't dream of reading the play, mainly because written Shakespeare is hard to follow but also because it was written as a play to be watched performed and not read.

I have never read Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, but I believe that people think this was done very well, apart from the 2 heads thing, but they explain on the DVD the need/reasons to change that.

Having read all the books (even the post humorous one) I have to say that film has a fairly good stab at the feel of the books but it's no way near as good. The TV show is much better, if somewhat dated.

[Roman Totale]

Talking of Douglas Adams, the Dirk Gently books are very good.

[Stoat]

Talking of Douglas Adams, the Dirk Gently books are very good.

Though very, very confusing.

[Joose]

Talking of Douglas Adams, the Dirk Gently books are very good.

ooh, yes. Dirk gently FTW.

As far as the discworld thing goes: They *are* making a film of the Hogfather. Apparently it'll be shown at Christmas, possibly on sky 3 (if im right in thinking thats the one on freeview.)

The thing with book to film conversions is that the stuff that works well in film doesnt work as well in books, and vice versa. So some alterations are going to be inevitable. The trouble is, if you have read the book first, you wont be expecting those things to be different. So although they actually make the film better, it makes it seem worse, just because its different.

Some books are just going to convert to film better than others, so a lot of whether the film will be any good or not is decided before the decision to make the film has even been made. The Shakespear films, for example, were originally plays. Films are, essentially, just plays that have been filmed, so of course they are going to be good material for films. I even read a quote from some literature historian fella once that said that if Shakespear had been alive today, he would probably be making films.

I think the key to a film of a book being good is when they take the essense of the book, them make it so that the bits that are inevitably missed out dont matter, and the only bits that are changed are bits that *need* to be changed.

For example: The X-Men films (well, the first two anyway). I would say they are good examples of a conversion (I know they are comics rather than novels, but my point still works), because they kept the feel of their source material, and the bits they changed were fairly few and made sense. Wolverine was tall guy instead of a runt because a short action hero looks silly on the big screen, for instance.

A counter example (cue indignant Roman ) would be the dune film. Huge bits of important plot exposition were entirely missed out, meaning that the film doesnt make a whole bunch of sense. Huge plot points were added for no apparent reason (why sonic weapons? where the hell did that come from?). Some of these new plot bits broke the story even further (you need the worms to make spice, without which spaceflight is impossible and people will die much younger. Yet, when the film ends, the skys open (for no apparent reason) and it pisses it down. This would kill all the worms, as they are highly allergic to water. So why is everyone really happy to see the rain?)

[Nickface]

I heard that "Starship Troopers" was actually a book that really posed questions about service and philosophy, so I'm reading it right now then going to watch the film again and see exactly what went wrong on the path between.

[spoodie]

I heard that "Starship Troopers" was actually a book that really posed questions about service and philosophy, so I'm reading it right now then going to watch the film again and see exactly what went wrong on the path between.

This is another example of very different book and film results, they are both good for different reasons and have total different atmospheres.

[Lateralus]

I remember thinking that the Green Mile was a very good adaptation of a good book. I also defy anyone to make a better film of Lord of the Rings than Peter Jackson did. Extended versions FTFW.

[Duke of Ted]

I'd like to recommend Kenneth Branagh's Henry V, it's a great film, especially the pre-battle speech.

^ This, all the blokes in our family can quote pretty much all of the speech.

The Beach by Alex Garland was an exellent book. Unfortunately Danny Boyle turned the film into a mushy love story.

[Lateralus]

The Beach by Alex Garland was an exellent book. Unfortunately Danny Boyle turned the film into a mushy love story.

Quoted for Truth. Was coming back from a holiday in France, and finished the book just as we arrived at the ferry terminal. Got on board to discover that they were showing the film, so I went to see it. Having just got to the end of a fantastic book, it was probably the most disappointing film I've seen. I've never since been so naive about film versions of books.