hogan873 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 A discussion in the movies thread got me thinking about movies that are based on books. I'm an avid reader, and I usually look forward to seeing movies based on books I've read. Of course, most of the time, the book is much better. But every once in a while a movie matches or even exceeds the book. So, let's discuss the movies that we've seen that are based on books. What adaptations were good, which were terrible, what books would you like to see adapted, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Jurassic Park wins forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Very few movies I've seen were as good as, let alone better than, their books. LOTR movies I think I may have liked better than the books. The Hunt for Red October was as-good-as, but not better than. Another interesting question - what books have you all read that you really do NOT want made into movies? Maybe ones you think just cannot be good as film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Also always wondered... when they talk about original screenplay vs adaptation, like for the Academy Awards, how is that determined? Some years back, the movie Thirteen Days was nominated for best original screenplay. Except, there was a book, about the exact same historical events with all the same cast of characters (pretty much)... not to mention the fact that it was a history piece. I enjoyed the movie, but, how is that an Original Screenplay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 9, 2014 -> 09:27 AM) Jurassic Park wins forever. I still have to go with Wizard of Oz. The original obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Books are always better IMO. Movies always fall short because they miss so much detail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Best I've seen? To Kill a Mockingbird The Godfather L.A. Confidential Shawshank Redemption Maltese Falcon The Right Stuff Worst? Bonfire of the Vanities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 TV shows as well. The Game of Thrones TV show is great for what it is and I try to consider it a different adaptation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I was surprised that I enjoyed the movie version of "On the Road". I am a big Kerouac fan and I just didn't believe I would enjoy any adaptation, even if I did it myself. I was hoping to see "Big Sur" in theaters but the opening was small and never spread near me. I was reasonable pleased watching the "Lord of the Rings" movies. Perhaps because my expectations were small. I really did not like the movie "I am Legend" mostly because it did not follow most the literary analysis of the book. When the book was published there was a lot of "white flight" from the cities. Many scholars believed that the vampires were a metaphor for blacks and the protagonist represented whites fleeing from the cities or staying and dying. As for the movie that bested the book -- "Jaws". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I think a lot of people will relate to the idea that many times when we read a book, your memory of it is more like a movie than it is a collection of words. When I first saw the Harry Potter movies, I was astounded at how closely they matched my "mental movie" from reading them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogan873 Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 The one movie I can say for sure was better than the book was Up In The Air. I saw the movie first and then read the book. I'm glad I had seen the movie first, because I probably would not have watched the movie based on what I thought of the book. Some movies that have come close would be Jurassic Park, The Omen, Stand By Me (The Body), The Shawshank Redemption, The Road, and even Catching Fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I am hoping for a adaptation of Magician by Raymond E Feist some day. Also The Dark Elf Saga by R A Salvatore. I like Jurassic Park, but the book is so much better and darker. I know Speilberg needed to sell it to a big audience, but there was a lot cut out of the book version. I was hoping Jurassic Park 4 would be a complete reboot but it seems like they are continuing the story laid out in the previous movies. Harry Potter was a great adaptation, especially the final 3 movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Goodfellas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Jurassic Park was fun, but I agree with Kyle, the book was much better. Harry Potter movies come close, and were really well done. There have been rumors on and off for years about my favorite non-fiction book in recent memory, Blood and Thunder, being made into a movie. Dreamworks bought the rights some years back. I think it will be really hard to cast Kit Carson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I agree generally that the books are almost always better than the movie, mainly because of time constraints. One recent exception? The Hunger Games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 9, 2014 -> 10:12 AM) I agree generally that the books are almost always better than the movie, mainly because of time constraints. One recent exception? The Hunger Games. That movie feel short IMO because they explained NOTHING. All of a sudden they are on a train and the food is amazing, but WHY?? There was no narration at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 9, 2014 -> 10:14 AM) That movie feel short IMO because they explained NOTHING. All of a sudden they are on a train and the food is amazing, but WHY?? There was no narration at all. I'm the opposite. I think the movies dwell too much on the non-games stuff. We got in the first movie that all of the districts are poor, hungry and have little to no luxuries, but the capital and everyone who lives there are well fed and rich. Really the big upgrade in the movies is not having to read 40 pages of inner monologue about what boy Katniss likes/dislikes and why. That crap was awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 9, 2014 -> 10:28 AM) I'm the opposite. I think the movies dwell too much on the non-games stuff. We got in the first movie that all of the districts are poor, hungry and have little to no luxuries, but the capital and everyone who lives there are well fed and rich. Really the big upgrade in the movies is not having to read 40 pages of inner monologue about what boy Katniss likes/dislikes and why. That crap was awful. It just seemed to me they didnt show the class separation as clearly as they should have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 It makes me think the Divergent series will be similar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I really liked most of the movies made from Grisham books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 9, 2014 -> 11:11 AM) I really liked most of the movies made from Grisham books. Agreed. They did good jobs with casting in those early ones too. A Time to Kill was especially good, both in book, and in movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 After Jurassic Park (and all the other Chricthon stuff) I stopped reading books because it was just simpler to see the movie and never know what really should have happened. JP book is one of my favorite endings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 9, 2014 -> 11:21 AM) After Jurassic Park (and all the other Chricthon stuff) I stopped reading books because it was just simpler to see the movie and never know what really should have happened. JP book is one of my favorite endings. Bringing Malcolm back from the dead in order to write The Lost World because of his movie popularity was such a terrible decision. And conversely, not killing off Hammond at the end of the movie was an equally bad decision. One of the things that bugs me the most about the movie is the misrepresentation of Hammonds character. A funny thing is that his son in the second movie is closer to what Hammond was in the books, a greedy capitalistic SOB that would stop at nothing to get what he wanted, and ultimately died because of his bad decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 9, 2014 -> 11:35 AM) Bringing Malcolm back from the dead in order to write The Lost World because of his movie popularity was such a terrible decision. And conversely, not killing off Hammond at the end of the movie was an equally bad decision. One of the things that bugs me the most about the movie is the misrepresentation of Hammonds character. A funny thing is that his son in the second movie is closer to what Hammond was in the books, a greedy capitalistic SOB that would stop at nothing to get what he wanted, and ultimately died because of his bad decisions. Yes. It really pissed me off as well that they made Hammond some jovial near-nincompoop. That said, movie was still excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwritecode Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Most of the movies I've seen that were based on a book that I've actually read have been Stephen King books. Best: Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me, The Mist, The Green Mile Worst: Hearts In Atlantis, The Dead Zone, Bag of Bones, The Running Man, Tommyknockers, Dreamcatcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.