JofaGuht Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 This one is a toughie. I can't think of a best, in fact I just wanted to discuss novel adaptations in general. I thought Fight Club did a very good job until the ending, which didn't make much sense (how does shooting yourself in the jaw kill your other personality?), though it would be tough to do it how the novel did, the novel's ending is much more perturbing and thought-provoking. You still have to appreciate the film for catching the overall feel and rhythm of book, which would be very difficult considering the way the book was written. Another one is Ring. And by that I mean ALL of the adaptations and sequels, even the more mediocre ones. The way people have been making Ring movies proved to me that I shouldn't be bothered by those who remake and bastardize films and books. Ring was such an urban legend that it's good that it's been told so many times in so many different ways. It's funny how the most recent movie (the American one) is almost completely unrecognizable to the book, but I'm not angry about that, they really adapted the first Japanese film of it anyway. I love the fact that they were able to take this story and make it their own way. One of the Ring themes was rumors and gossip, it's very true to form for this to happen. Sadako Yamamura (or Samara Morgan or what have you) is much like Ichabod Crane or Paul Bunyan, at tall tale status. I love studying the many very different interpretations of this story and am looking forward to the next American installment (which supposedly has nothing to do with the other sequels, so I'm looking forward for this to further the mythology). What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 I'm gonna go with "One Flew Over The Kookoo's Nest". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 I know Lord of the Rings will spark a very heated discussion, so I'm gonna steer clear of that. I can't really name any that do really well, but I can sure name some bad ones, starting with Roal Dahl. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. First of all, they changed the firckin' because america didn't really care much about charlie and second of all, it was way too light hearted for my taste. The Book was much darker, with the prospect of children actually dying when they did bad things as apose to the films "Funny things are happening, but they'll be okay" feeling. Hopefully Tim Burtons and Johnny Depp's redo will be better. Let's not get started on Matilda, who was generally nothing like the title girl in the book. The BFG was okay, but again, didn't really fit in with the character. Any takers on other books? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 The first 2 Godfather movies. Blade Runner the movie is better than the book. Also, this is the one movie that I can think of that I prefer the original non-directors cut better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JofaGuht Posted September 4, 2004 Author Share Posted September 4, 2004 I know one I completely forgot! Election. The book was actually awful but the movie was great. I wouldn't have guessed you could have made such a cool sarcastic, satirical piece from such a mundane and stupid book. My award definitely goes to Election. I also liked the Green Mile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 The Green Mile reminds me about The Shawshank Redemption. That one was good, and pretty faithful to the book. Stand By Me was also another pretty good adaptation of a King story made into a movie. There really haven't been that many of those... Some have argued that the original Shining movie was better than the book, but I dunno... I thought the Harry Potter films were OK, although die-hard HP fanatics seem to really hate them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remi Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 I thought Fight Club did a very good job until the ending, which didn't make much sense (how does shooting yourself in the jaw kill your other personality?), though it would be tough to do it how the novel did, the novel's ending is much more perturbing and thought-provoking. You still have to appreciate the film for catching the overall feel and rhythm of book, which would be very difficult considering the way the book was written. I went to a Chuck Palahniuk (the author of Fight Club) recently, and he mentioned that the one thing he didn't like about the movie was the ending. It kind of ruined one of the messages in the book really - you build something like that up, and it will take on a life without you. Other than that I'd say that Fight Club certainly is one of the best adaptations out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natty Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Bridget Jones's Diary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrMcCoy Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Originally posted by edlib Blade Runner the movie is better than the book. Also, this is the one movie that I can think of that I prefer the original non-directors cut better. NO WAY! i loved the book, but the movie was utter crap... in fact, the movie didn't even follow the book... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Originally posted by edlib I thought the Harry Potter films were OK, although die-hard HP fanatics seem to really hate them... I feel ashamed to have read them after pretty publicly stating that I hated the whole franchise, but, save for merchandising, the books aren't half bad. Even if you're nor a die hard fan of the books, or even if you haven't read them, Daniel Radcliff's (Potter's) acting is God awful and the guy who played Ron isn't much better. In the latest film, that girl [playing hermione got better, but not much. Also, overall, they stayed way too close to the book than any decent movie should. yeah, die hard fans would have loathed it even more, but a good movies is different from a good book, and some artisit liscense should be taken with such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JofaGuht Posted September 5, 2004 Author Share Posted September 5, 2004 I haven't read the books. I thought the first two HP flicks were just so-so, but I really dug the third one. It was darker. Me likey darkness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivy Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 seven (or "se7en" if you like) the movie was spot on IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien426 Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Originally posted by JofaGuht I haven't read the books. I thought the first two HP flicks were just so-so, but I really dug the third one. It was darker. Me likey darkness. I've read the books and was downright disgusted by the first part. So I stopped after that. I've said that already, but I think LOTR did a waaay better job as a book adaption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feral Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Originally posted by Joshi I feel ashamed to have read them after pretty publicly stating that I hated the whole franchise, but, save for merchandising, the books aren't half bad. I think it would actually be fair to say that the books are half-bad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Originally posted by DrMcCoy NO WAY! i loved the book, but the movie was utter crap... in fact, the movie didn't even follow the book... Really? I loved the movie, especially the "future-noir" feel to the original release. A movie based exactly on the book would have been poor, I believe. A lot of Philip K. Dick's writing would be difficult to make an exciting movie about,.. that's why it seems nobody has ever really tried. Someone told me that "Total Recall" was pretty honest to the story it was based on, but I never read that one, so I don't really know. "Minority Report" and "Blade Runner" are both very different (but in my opinion for the better...) As far as the Potter films,.. well there's no getting away from child actors with them, is there? I don't really think any other actors of the same age in those roles would have been all that different. I thought the films were pretty good for what they were meant to be: Kid's' films. Just like the books are kid's books, but are surprisingly good and mature for that target audience... at least compaired to most of the crap published for children of the target age. Compairing the books and movies to novels and films made for a more adult audience in mind is a little unfair in my opinion. But that might just be me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Originally posted by Alien426 I've read the books and was downright disgusted by the first part. So I stopped after that. I've said that already, but I think LOTR did a waaay better job as a book adaption. I'm not gonna fall into that trap. I liked the movies. As someone who not only watches movies, but likes to know about production and writing and so on, I can see how book adaptions can be tricky for die hard fans. There will always be those who don't really understand that a movie that does exactly what the book does would, more often than not, be crap and pacing is not an excuse, it's an obligation to a good film. I liked the LOTR books. I Liked the LOTR films. The films still brought across the whole feeling of the books, even if it did skip a few things (exactly how does Tom Bombadil move the story, yes, he is an important character, but it would seem as if the entire story just stopped at that point if he was included in the film). And with Harry Potter, from book 3 onwards, it does get a lot darker as Harry grows and HP3 (the film) tapped into that nicely. Acting was still crap, but slightly less crap than before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrMcCoy Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Originally posted by edlib A movie based exactly on the book would have been poor, I believe. could be... the book is kind of strange and it may not work in a film... well, i was pretty disappointed by the film... and about the potter-movies: well, i've seen them and i nearly laughed my ass off because of the bad acting... and i would never ever read the books... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 I saw the movie first. When I finally picked up the book I was more than a bit confused... "How did they get that from this?" I think that moment occured on the very first page, where it describes Decker's wife and kids (?!???) It's more like one of those cases where the events and characters of a movie are "inspired" by a novel, and not really an adaptation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sutcara Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 The Ring (US) is an excellent horror flick, much better than the Jap version and I haven't read the book. Originally posted by edlib Blade Runner the movie is better than the book. Also, this is the one movie that I can think of that I prefer the original non-directors cut better. I can't agree with you there, director's cuts are the director preferred version; it's closer to their vision. I could understand with say Alien/Alien director's cut - but with Blade Runner it is clear since the Dir. Cut is more-or-less what Scott wanted from the beginning. For other movies, let's take The Exorcist as an example, the director's cut is debatable on the grounds that it's what the director wants NOW. Star Wars, of course is a whole 'nother bottle of worms; Lucas is clearly and idiot, and ANYONE here that buys the 2004 SE DVDs is paying for his low quality product and helping his empire thrive. Besides, bootlegs of the original unaltered trilogy will ALWAYS be better. And I do think Blade Runner is better then Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, however it should be noted that they're so radically different and the novel is very short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Sometimes people make good movies on luck, and then they produce a directors cut, and whilst it's closer to the directors vision, doesn't mean it's better for the audience as a whole. Plus, a lot of the time, directors cuts are just ways to make more money out of the same old thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Originally posted by Joshi Sometimes people make good movies on luck, and then they produce a directors cut, and whilst it's closer to the directors vision, doesn't mean it's better for the audience as a whole. Plus, a lot of the time, directors cuts are just ways to make more money out of the same old thing. True. I'm not too terribly fond of the Army of Darkness Director's cut. Some of the best scenes were left out, and some of the dialogue was just terrible. That being said, has anyone seen Apocalypse Now Redux? What are your feelings on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Originally said by The Groovster That being said, has anyone seen Apocalypse Now Redux? What are your feelings on this? Personally, I like the 3rd remake, with brand spanking new title and everything. Click here to see what I'm talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Originally posted by Sutcara I can't agree with you there, director's cuts are the director preferred version; it's closer to their vision. I could understand with say Alien/Alien director's cut - but with Blade Runner it is clear since the Dir. Cut is more-or-less what Scott wanted from the beginning. Yeah, I know... but I still prefer the version with the narration, and without all the implications that Decker is a replicant himself. For the record though: the version of the film I own on video is the director's cut. But I still like the original better for some reason, and I always watch it when it gets played on TV. To me it feels more like a gritty detective film-noir, like some old Sam Spade movie, but just set in the future. The director's cut just feels like another sci-fi film with a bit of a twist ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrMcCoy Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Originally posted by edlib It's more like one of those cases where the events and characters of a movie are "inspired" by a novel, and not really an adaptation. ..."I, Robot" comes to my mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puphlicus Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Deckard is a replicant. The theatrical ending doesn't fit the movie. The narration is dumbed-down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.