<p>Have you ever preferred a movie to the book from which it was adapted? if so, which one? What is your favorite/least favorite adaptation?</p>
<p>I preferred LOTR movie(s) to the book(s). I had read The Hobbit when young but never the trilogy; did so after seeing the first movie. I’ve always loved the GWTW movie but have always been bothered by the absence of Scarlett’s first two kids; also think the movie is much more sympathetic to Rhett than the book was. I guess my least favorite adaptation was “Troy” (if you consider the Iliad and Odyssey to be the source books). It’s a good thing I saw it at home because I was yelling at the TV by the end. My favorite adaptation is the PBS “Pride and Prejudice”; to me, watching it is like listening to a favorite album. But I also love the book so maybe that doesn’t count. </p>
<p>How about both - which book/movie should always be done in pairs? For example, “The Right Stuff” - seeing the movie makes you better appreciate the book and vice versa. They should really be marketed as a matched set.</p>
<p>I prefer the Hebrew Scriptures to the movie “The Ten Commandments” starring Charleton Heston. :)</p>
<p>And I’d rather read the New Testament than see Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” because Mel seized upon one of the most conservative of the interpretations from the disciples. Also, when Jesus speaks from the cross in Aramaic, the English subtitling is not always accurate, according to my H who really knows that language, and it aligned itself with a specific theology that came into being long after the historic event of the crucifixion. So it was an issue of historic authenticity; missed the boat a few times. I was too scared to see that movie… </p>
<p>OTOH, I’ll watch “My Fair Lady” forever, but have trouble plowing through George Bernard Shaw’s “Pygmalion.”</p>
<p>I thought the most interesting dispute about books adapted into movies was the flap over “The DaVinci Code.”</p>
<p>Anything the Coen Brothers do is fine by me, including Fargo and No Country for Old Men. They really turn a plot into great screen dialogue. Every word sounds just as if I heard it in my daily life, plain and simple. </p>
<p>I’m excited that the Coen Brothers will next adapt a novel by one of my favorite novelists, Michael Chabon, “The Yiddish Policeman.” I’m looking forward to that collaboration in the coming year.</p>
<p>My S is a freshman majorinig in screenwriting. I’m becoming aware of adapted novel/films and watch for the names of the screenwriters now. The writer’s strike also made people more aware of “adapted for the screen” writers.</p>
<p>It’s hard to bring a book to life; you have to know the tools of film, replace narrative passages with filmed landscape, pace things visually through directing and editing, and so much more.</p>
<p>“Godfather” was a pulpy, somewhat trashy book - the movie’s a classic.</p>
<p>“In Her Shoes” and “Devil Wears Prada” as books were both so light as to be nearly weightless - but made into intelligent movies</p>
<p>And I actually liked No Old Country For Old Men better as a movie – the book isn’t nearly the level of McCarthy’s other novels.</p>
<p>^^Mario Puzo has said that if he had known how big The Godfather movie was going to be he would have tried a lot harder to write a much better book.</p>
<p>The Right Stuff, Brokeback Mountain, but only by a hair.</p>
<p>Sense and Sensibility, my least favorite Jane Austen till I saw the movie. I finally found Sensibility sympathetic.</p>
<p>Hitchhikers Guide to the Gallexy, I thought the book was stupid, but somehow managed to enjoy the movie.</p>
<p>The Witches of Eastwitch - I don’t like Updike, but the movie sparkles, one of Nicholson’s best roles.</p>
<p>The Last of the Mohicans movie versions by a mile (either the Daniel Day Lewis or the Masterpiece Theatre versions) The book is unreadable.</p>
<p>The French Lieutenant’s Woman - hated the double ending of the book - loved the way it translated to film. Film seemed much less pretentious than the book.</p>
<p>As a pair…I think reading the book made me understand Memoirs of a Geisha much more, as the movie doesn’t go into much detail and it begins at a weird point.</p>
<p>I actually preferred Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (the movie). I thought the cast was INCREDIBLE, and I actually cried (and I don’t really cry during movies).</p>
<p>Eragon was the worst translation of a book to a movie I have ever seen. If it weren’t based on a book, it would be a terrific movie. But as it stands…awful. That’s what happens when you don’t involve the author, folks.</p>
<p>I think that Cold Mountain should be paired with the movie.
Also Room with a view.</p>
<p>Hitchhikers Guide to the Gallexy, I thought the book was stupid, but somehow managed to enjoy the movie.</p>
<p>I love that movie- the casting was fantastic IMO. ( I have the book but haven’t read it)</p>
<p>I thought The Right Stuff was much better as a book. There are only three books that I have ever stayed up all night to read: The Right Stuff was one of them. And in my opinion, Gone with the Wind was also better as a book, although that may have been because of the time period when the movie was made. I always felt that the movie characters (especially Scarlett) were almost caricatures of the book characters, but that may just have reflected the more exaggerated acting style of the time.</p>
<p>Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, worked better for me as a movie series. I did read the books after seeing the movies, but I have found that I can’t get through any of Tolkien’s other writings. I need the visuals. </p>
<p>The Godfather was better as a movie, too, in my opinion.</p>
<p>I love Troy. I am one of the rare people who actually thinks that it’s a very good movie. Both Homer and the people who wrote the movie script were making stuff up, as might be expected since both were interpreting events from way before their time. Troy is not intended to be an adaptation of the Iliad, as far as I can see. It’s an alternative, no-intervention-by-the-gods version of what might have happened. </p>
<p>I can’t decide about Brokeback Mountain. I cried when I read the story but not when I saw the movie. Yet the movie fleshed out the characters and their lives in a way that added considerable perspective. </p>
<p>The question for the moment is: Given that I liked the book version of The Other Boleyn Girl, do I dare see the movie, which I understand is something of a disappointment?</p>
<p>Brideshead Revisited. Well ok, it wasn’t strictly a film, but rather an 11-hour BBC series. It was the most faithful adaptation of any book I’ve ever seen, and brought the characters to life in an extraordinary way. It enhanced and surpassed what was already an excellent book.</p>
<p>I read The Other Bolyn Girl some time ago so didn’t really have it in my head when I saw the movie. The best parts to me were the costumes, sets, etc. - kind of let the plot just ride along with the visuals. I wasn’t crazy over the way the scenes transitioned, i.e. fade to black, next scene, lots of looking at someone’s face, fade to black, etc. My mom called after she saw it and I discovered that I had actually learned a lot of English history from reading historical romances and watching PBS specials - was able to update her on the characters.</p>
<p>With legends, I like the movies to stick closer to the legends. Yes, history is written by the victors. But would we want to see a movie where Guenivere says, “Sorry, Lance, I’m sticking with Art!”? Should Juliet live after Romeo dies (oh, wait, she did in West Side Story). </p>
<p>Another great adaptation is 2001: Space Odyssey. I like all of Arthur C. Clarke’s books but that movie just took it into a whole other dimension.</p>
<p>I first read The “Lord of the Rings” back in high school in the late 60s, and I found Tolkien’s writing to be vivid enough that I didn’t have any trouble “seeing” the story unfold in my head as I read. However, I must say that some of the visuals in the movie were even better than I imagined them (e.g. the orcs swarming over the walls in Moria). But I didn’t like most of the alterations to the story itself. The only major alteration in the movie that I agreed with was leaving out Tom Bombadil, who was a pointless diversion that did not advance the plot in any way.</p>
<p>I was very glad to have read the book “2001: A Space Odyssey” before I saw the movie. It made it much easier to understand exactly what was happening in the movie, especially at the end. A lot of my friends who had not read the book tried to put all kinds of tortured, mystical interpretations to the plot. It was actually a fairly straightforward SciFi story.</p>
<p>Among my most favorite film adaptations are:</p>
<p>*A Midsummer Night’s Dream<a href=“1935”>/i</a>: This timeless film version, directed by William Dieterle and Max Reinhardt, with an all-star ensemble cast (including James Cagney as Bottom, Olivia de Havilland as Hermia, Mickey Rooney as Puck, and Victor Jory as a mesmerizingly sensuous Oberon) demonstrates why I think Shakespeare is lifeless when confined to the printed page.</p>
<p>*Gone with the Wind<a href=“1939”>/i</a>: Directed by Victor Fleming (as well as by the uncredited George Cukor and Sam Wood), this film remains one of the best examples of superb moviemaking. I have tried to plow through Margaret Mitchell’s 1936 novel several times, without success; it is too long, too confusing, and has too many characters. Screenwriter Sidney Howard not only plowed through the novel, but streamlined and refined it into a movie masterpiece. </p>
<p>*Flower Drum Song<a href=“1961”>/i</a>: Henry Koster’s splashy Rodgers & Hammerstein musical is a joy to hear and see, but the 1957 novel (C.Y. Lee’s The Flower Drum Song) on which the film is based, is one of the darkest and most depressing novels I have ever read.</p>
<p>*The Grifters<a href=“1990”>/i</a>: Stephen Frears’ film is classic noir, and is one of my all-time favorites; however, I found Jim Thompson’s 1963 novel to be poorly-written and forgettable.</p>
<p>I have few “least favorite” film adaptations worth mentioning, because I am mindful that a novel (or a play) and a film are different creative art forms. I have been disappointed by what I consider to be “bad” film adaptations, but a “bad” film adaptation doesn’t change my opinion of a “good” novel or play. Many of my favorite films have been produced from original screenplays, and many of my favorite novels and plays have never been adapted to film.</p>
<p>Prizzi’s Honor is a mess of a badly written book; the movie is an absolute classic.</p>
<p>It may be heresy to say it, but The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is really not a good book. The movie is not especially faithful to it, and every departure was a good decision.</p>
<p>Julie Taymor’s Titus takes a minor Shakespeare play and turns it into compelling (if hard to take) art.</p>
<p>The Seven Pillars of Wisdom is sort of a back-door classic of demented, deceptive autobiography. Its filmed version – Lawrence of Arabia – is vastly superior, and needs no apologies.</p>
<p>It’s not a book-to-movie conversion, but last summer I compared The Departed to its Hong Kong original, Infernal Affairs. There is practically a 90% overlap between the two films, but the 10% is the difference between one that deserved its Best Picture Oscar and a fun B-movie.</p>
<p>I agree with TimeCruncher on The Grifters, and would say the same thing about that other Thompson adaptation, The Getaway.</p>
<p>Gigi one of my favorite movies and only a minor novella by Colette.</p>
<p>Interview with a Vampire. Tom Cruise rocks and Anne Rice’s prose is purple enough to dye anything.</p>
<p>Ditto Anne of Green Gables. Prose almost unreadable.</p>
<p>Ditto Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants.</p>
<p>Movies that do absolute injustice to their source material: Anything by Hemingway. The lyricism and sting of his prose doesn’t translate to the screen at all.</p>
<p>Catch-22 a very memorable book and only a moderately memorable movie. Same with all Vonnegut adaptions.</p>
<p>And I’ve never seen an adaptation of Huckleberry Finn that does any kind of justice to the most influential novel in American literature.</p>