books | Movie Adaptations

Movie Adaptations

A friend of mine recently watched the movie adaptation of Tomorrow, When the War Began and loved it.

Which brings me neatly to a topic that I thought might be a fun and interesting discussion: movie adaptations of books. Which ones have you seen? Do you refuse to acknowledge any as adaptations? Which ones did you love? What're your thoughts on what makes a good adaptation? Should books be adapted for the screen (be it big or small) in your eyes?

For me, I'd say that a good adaptation has to get across the same... soul of the book. I'm not sure that makes sense, but I've only dipped my toes into thinking about this, so I have as yet very little idea of how to best phrase it.

One of the first adaptations I ever saw was The Last Unicorn when I was about three or four. It remains one of my favourite films ever. I never knew until in my middle/late teens, though, that The Last Unicorn was based on a book. Or, if I did, it never registered all that well. It remains one of the best adaptations I've ever seen, and I couldn't rightly tell you why. Unless it's that it sticks so close to the original.

The latest book-to-movie adaptation I watched was Minoes, better known in English as Undercover Kitty, I think, for unknown reasons. (I would dearly love to hear what the people involved were thinking when that title was decided upon. It makes no sense whatsoever.) It was a very cute, fun movie that stuck quite close to the book as far as my memory can tell. The book has a little more background and depth to it, but not very much. I think I might recommend the movie over the book too, especially to non-Dutch people because... Well, let's say our writing style can come across as incredibly stilted and jarring in translation.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I second The Last Unicorn as one of the best movie adaptations I've come across (and one of the few I don't consider a different story than the corresponding book).
Another one would be 2001, which is also one of the few scifi movies / books that didn't shoot scientific facts to smithereens just for the thrill.

Largo Winch, the French comic book series, was turned into a 90s tv series (which I loved) and recently into a movie, which was more "glitzy" but lost some of the appeal behind the plot.

Captain Future, an old-fashioned scifi book series by Edmond Hamilton, was turned into an anime series, which was (and for me: is) a great hit in Germany. It's one of the few cases, where I actually like the screen version even better than the books (but it's a close shave).

And the Lord of the Rings trilogy (most extensive version) would be an example of what I consider a great fantasy series but can't see connected with the books its based on. I still enjoyed it as independent movies, though.

I exclude anime series like Descendants of Darkness (Yami no Matsuei) or X/1999 from this list, because they often are complementing / adding to the book franchise (and this list would probably be waaaay too long, otherwise. ;) )

I have to admit: I never liked the Lord of the Ring books a lot, despite enjoying The Hobbit very much. The trilogy was more interesting to watch than to read.
Usually, books to movies or vice-versa do not seem to strike me the same. A version I enjoyed though, was the adaptation of the first Harry Potter book, which made me fall more deeply in the fandom and discover, with rereading, more of the "Potterverse".
There have been one or two films that had been "better" compared to the books, but now that I try to recall which I can't remember! Oh well, I might comment later again.

Probably, there aren't two sources as contested as the Lord of the Rings (including the Hobbit) and Harry Potter. Movies and books alike.
Personally, I can't stand Harry Potter at all, books and movies alike, and I consider the Hobbit to be one of Tolkien's weakest books (though that might be influenced by the mediocre German translation through which we had to work in class - and no, sentence analyses did *not* help the story along!), but that's just me and my personal preferences in content and style, and I know that a lot of people firmly dislike the books I love. Each their own. :)

Most often, I just watch a movie completely independent from the book (source), firmly compartmentalizing movie and book and thus more-or-less enjoying both independently. However, I rarely go about thinking "if only they'd made a movie out of this great book", because I'd definitely be disappointed by having my imagination replaced by a director's "vision" (or what they call it). However, there were a few movies to which I'd have loved to have a good book source to further delve into the plot, but let's not start on "movie books". Eep.

However, there were a few movies to which I'd have loved to have a good book source to further delve into the plot,

Same here! But instead ...

but let's not start on "movie books". Eep.

Aghhh.*shudders*

I'm curious, do you know why you can't see the LotR movies connected to the book? (I agree with you, mind, but I couldn't explain why if my life depended on it.)

And would series really count? They're again an entirely different beastie from a movie. Longer movies cut up into series (like, say, The Tenth Kingdom was) are again a different kettle of fish. Nnngnnn...

LoTR: The movies are action oriented (well done so, and fast), whereas the books are worded along description and feeling/sensation of the plot. Tolkien's language reminisces of old fairy tales, myth, and lore. The books are focused on giving the right image, the feeling of the scape and events, not the speed and intensity of the action. In addition, Tolkien's narration allowed for a lot of personal imagination and world building due to its "lore language style", making it easy to form a mental image of his world that differs distinctly from the movies.
I love the movies as fast-paced action fantasy with good plot & great effects (so many fantasy films are made cheap and look that way), but the books are something else (and always will be). :)

Well, it depends on the source (and the scope of your initial question. :) ). Personally, I think a series counts when the source is also a series (of books, or if you don't mind: comics (Largo Winch, for which the series was a proper format and a single movie wasn't, imho)), that is, if the source supports a series. For example, I can't picture a book like ACClarke's 2001 being turned into a series, but it is a fantastic movie. And Herbert's Dune series (even shortened to the first two books) was an abysmal movie, but the tv mini-series (8 hours in total) was enjoyable. The same goes for what's been made out of Clavell's Shogun (and the Nobel House). :-)

EDIT: Funnily, "The 10th Kingdom" is something of an oddity for me in that I loved the "movie book" (which I grabbed as a normal fantasy novel in German) and pretty much hated the movie series the book was based on. Probably, because the plot was more condensed, concise (and wittily translated in this case) than the movies were (dubbed).

Edited 2010-09-05 15:35 (UTC)

Mmm... I wonder if it would've been possible to translate some of those elements into the movie more than they were...

Good point. Series have more material to work with than single books. I could see the Harry Potter books working well as full-length (multi-season) series, if it were animated, but I couldn't see, say, Seaward by Susan Cooper work the same way. The book doesn't have the capacity to support that length of adaptation and some, like your example of Dune, have far too much to translate into a movie.

I'm really, really curious about the adaptation of A Game of Thrones, actually. That I think really does need the length of a full season and the book itself is pretty episodic per chapter to begin with so it'll translate better into a medium that's episodic in nature (even if those episodes build on one another, each contain their own story-nucleus) than one that's, well, not. We've seen with more movie franchises that it'd work, but would it with a series like that? I wonder...

A Game of Thrones (all novels) is on my reading list, but´I'm still waiting for the last of the books to be translated, because I don't want to switch languages right before the end of such a stack of books. :)

LotR: I don't think they could have give more of the lore feeling into the movie. It's something connected to the medium, I think. It works incredibly well in literature, but only mediocre in movies, imho.

I don't know Cooper's Seaward, but I loved her The Dark is Rising series.

Makes a lot of sense. It also helps that the series is unfinished. The cast is so large that multiple years between books without at the very least a dramatis personae and a summary of "Previously in ASoIaF" is nasty. Waiting is probably an incredibly good idea.

I was more thinking some of the meandering. I thought Brokeback Mountain did a lot of meandering, but it's been a couple of years since I watched it, so that may be because those shots stood out to me most.

Seaward is... possibly her least known non-picture book, I guess. It's certainly out of print (unlike the others I know of). It's a very beautiful story that's all about the journey rather than the destination. But it's also very slim and the soft, meandering mythic tone of it probably wouldn't translate into a movie either. But it's so soft and gorgeous and warm... I love it a lot. ^-^

I'm not quite sure what you mean with "meandering" in this context.

I didn't list Brokeback Mountain, because I know only the movie and not the short story it's based on.

But Seaward is now on my "look for" list. Maybe I'm lucky in one of the old books stores across town. :)

What you said about the way the book works...

's hard to talk about adaptations if you only know the one version. *nods*

I keep wanting to buy all the used copies I find and give them to friends, but then I'm afraid they won't like it at all. *sad noise* Or that the copies I find (which're online) are all bad ones you could never give as a present... If you do ever find it, I hope you'll enjoy it! It's a children's book just bordering on YA, though. It's not quite up to the same standard as TDIR, if only because it's only 170 pages as opposed to five books, but I like it much better all the same.

If you do ever find it, I hope you'll enjoy it! :) Thank you.

TDIR was actually one of the first fantasy series I ever read (together with Cherryh's The Dreamstone, which is certainly not for children). It formed my tastes.

*laughs* Now I know what it feels like to have a response edited whilst you're writing a reply to it. It feels amusing. ^-^

They turned that into a book? Consider my interest piqued. ^-^ I shall have to investigate this. ^-^ Have you ever tried watching the original or do you hate it too much to try? It might be interesting to know it was the dubbing or the actual movie, but you're not me and might not feel similar. ^-^

*ditto* now. :)

"The tenth Kingdom" by Kathryn Kramer Rusch. I can't vouch for the English original, since I grabbed a German translation,which is very funny & was a really positive surprise, only that I made the mistake of watching the movies afterwards (English original and German dub; I got the DVDs *sigh*) and was really disappointed.

Awwww. I'm sad to hear it disappointed you in both versions. I was hoping it might've been the dub from how you said it, though I haven't encountered any really bad German dubs. (Disliking it because I can't get used to the voices doesn't count. I have that a little with The Last Unicorn. There are two Dutch dubs of that. I like the English voices because the original Dutch dub sought out people whose voices matched the original English and I grew up watching that dub, but the newer Dutch dub... Atrocious and abominations are nice ways to describe it. Dutch people can't voice act anymore.)

But if the movie disappointed you after reading the book first, that might bode really well for my enjoyment of encountering them the other way around, right? *trying to be positive* ^-^

:) I think it's because the movies focused a lot on the silliness, whereas the book maintained a kind of balance between silliness and the underlying seriousness of the plot. 10 Kingdoms would probably have done better in half the time and fewer "the three stooges"-events. I still intend to try the series again, starting from the 2nd or the 3rd movie rather than the 1st, which is said to be the worst (and I just couldn't get past it).

Regarding voice dubs - ditto the German dubs. It's come to the point where there are original German movies and tv series with ABYSMAL German voices (as in: even a dub in an unknown language with subtitles is more bearable than the German original) and quality is still going downhill (and then people wonder why you watch Korean tv with subtitles via the net!)

Mmmm... It could definitely have been shorter, yes.

Awww, I'm sad to hear that! I grew up with a lot of German dubs - Dutch channels only started broadcasting at 7am and I was up, awake and bouncy at 5ish - so it's awful to hear they've gone downhill so badly. (And that there's still a bottom to reach! O_O)

Sometimes it makes for hilarious situations, though, when it's the dubbing that makes something funny because it's so awful.

Not all German dubs, but a lot of the commercial channels programs are gruesome to the ears. I guess it's the result of cheap-cheap-cheaper-di-cheap-cheap productions being en vogue.

Funny dubbing: yes. It's not as if it matters whether its intentional or unintentional fun. As long as we laugh. :)

I think the reason The Last Unicorn did so well is because Peter S. Beagle had a hand in writing the script for it. ^_^

I usually hate book-to-film adaptations. I hate Lord of the Rings and I hate even more are the Harry Potter movies. They ruined it for me, Harry Potter I mean. I had the perfect images in my head of the characters, and now, to this day, look like the actors. -_- LOTR didn't ruin it for me as bad, because the first film got me into the books, which made me a Tolkinite for SO many years.

Are you a very visual person? It's probably worst for visually oriented people to see books turned into movies for exactly the reason you describe. They've got a picture in their head and if the actor doesn't match that picture... Poof.

((I need my 'curious' icon back... >>))

Oh, yes! See, since I have autism, I think in pictures. I know that sounds odd, but it's true. So, when I read a book, I have the perfect picture, and the 'bam!' it's gone when I see the movie, just like you said. :(

Most everyone I know thinks in pictures, though probably still differently from how you do. Point is, I don't think it sounds odd. ^-^
I always thought it was my brain that was wonky since I genuinely don't have a clue how to picture what I'm reading. Even if you give my Peakesian levels of detail in the description, they're just words to me. Pretty-sounding words, sure, but I couldn't, say, try drawing out how I picture it like everyone else I know can.

If I were to run into someone or someplace sufficiently described, I'd know/recognise it if the description stuck in my mind, but visualise it on my own before that? That I can't do.

I enjoyed the adaptation of "Fight Club" but felt the original ending was better... creepier and more haunting. The movie did a good job of bringing the book to life.

I loved the film version of LotR and agreed with many of the changes made.

For me, I'd say that a good adaptation has to get across the same... soul of the book.

Yes, exactly. I don't know how it works but a film can be utterly faithful to the plot of a book and be utterly flat. Other have judicious changes made, which keep the spirit of the book but make it work in a different medium. And some books are just butchered for the bigscreen and you wonder why the filmmakers even bothered with the book to start with.

Hmm, I could only think of a few movies at first ... then there were a few more ...

The Secret Garden - I love the book, a childhood favourite, and I thought the movie (1993) was very well done. I still like it.

101 Dalmatians - Possibly my favourite childhood book. The live action version (1996) is quite fun but the cartoon version (1956) is absolutely darling. Definitely the better version, to my mind.

Lord of the Rings - I saw the movies before I read the books and I loved them. After reading the books, I still love them. I think they filmmakers did an amazing job. (Okay, my love of epic scenery may be a factor here.)

Harry Potter - I watched the first movie and went 'meh.' The visuals are fabulous but in some ways I thought the film suffered from sticking too closely to the book and not letting the movie be a story in its own right. I think the LOTR people struck a better balance.

Where The Heart Is (2000)- one of my favourite book-to-film adaptations. They managed to cut out some subplots and minor characters while incorporating important elements from those into the remaining subplots. Really, really good.

The Golden Compass (2007) - the special effects were quite nice. I have blocked all the rest from my memory.

The Bone Collector - creepy crime novel becomes creepy crime movie (1999) but I would say by the end that the movie was inspired by the book rather than adapted from it. I enjoyed both.

Little Women - while I'm not a real fan of Winona Ryder, I really liked the movie (1994) overall.

Some TV adaptations:

Pride & Prejudice - I have not seen the 2005 movie and I have no desire to do so. The 1995 BBC mini-series was utterly superb.

My Family and Other Animals (2005) - Gerald Durrell's memoir of growing up on Corfu before WWII. I adored it. The casting was outstanding and many of the most hilarious scenes were translated to film amazingly well.

Hogfather - I wouldn't say it was bad but ... I don't know that Terry Pratchett translates well to screen. David Jason as Albert was great though.

Agatha Christie's Miss Marple: The Murder at the Vicarage - I liked Geraldine McEwen as Miss Marple but so many plot elements were changed for no reason that I could see and somehow the charm of the books was quite absent. I haven't watched any others.

Phew. Okay, I'll shut up now. Except to say that I am really looking forward to seeing Tomorrow When The War Began. The trailer was quie promising.

Oh, definitely. I refuse to acknowledge The Seeker/The Dark Is Rising as an adaptation of the book. If it were an adaptation it'd have things in common. This... is just Your Average Fantasy Movie with a big name book slapped onto it under the pretense that it wouldn't sell well on its own.

The only good thing that comes from such a connection is when people seek out the books based on it and like them. (My dad's spent so many years trying to get me to read A Wizard of Earthsea I just refused out of principle. Until I saw the TV-movie excuse for an adaptation. Might be horrible, but it did finally convince me to read the books, so it did some good.)

I just watched the sixth HP movie this afternoon. I have to say I think book 6 translated quite nicely into a movie, but I've only read it once and a long while back, so that might've influenced me if I had.

Oh! And there's Chocolat which is quite different from the novel. It does some things I really like, but also some that made me a little sad to see, and sadder because I could argue reasons for the changes.

Mmmm... I have to agree that I'm not sure Pratchett translates all that well, but I think I do prefer it. I can watch Hogfather any time and get along with it, but I need to be in a very specific mood to get along with the original book's narrative.

I hope you'll enjoy TWWB! ^-^

i like gone with the wind & most of the harry potter movies. GWTW works, IMHO, because it's a long movie of a long book. true, tons of stuff was left out, but i think the movie captured most of what went on in the book.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Movie Adaptations

no subject

Generally, I prefer the books to the movies

Re: Generally, I prefer the books to the movies

Re: Generally, I prefer the books to the movies

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject