Books made into Movies

[Amanda]

Are you fishing for compliments, Amanda? Don't confuse name calling with constructive advice. Most of us here have seen at least twice as much life than you. And, I don't think you are dumb at all. Youthful. which brings it's own naivety. but not dumb.

No. I'm surprised whenever someone compliments me. It's surely the exception.

I don't hope or expect anyone will rush in with the "Oh no You're brilliant" comments. I'm just relating my experience. I kinda think everyone must live with the same thing so maybe others will relate, but I never, EVER expect compliments. If I did I'd be sorely disappointed.

I can't remember anyone thinking I was worth the trouble to bother with. Is this not normal? I thot it was. I thot no one cared. If anyone does could you please post? I think I could use knowing someone cares.

 

[KittenKoder]

What book did you love, that Hollywood got "right" and one that you loved that Hollywood got "wrong?"

To Kill a Mockingbird was done right. Twelve Angry Men, too (at least the first film).

The Lord of the Rings trilogy was also done right, capturing both the good and bad aspects of the books.

One was "Silence of the Lambs" by Thomas Harris. I read that book a few times before the movie came out, and loved the movie as much as the book. Jonathan Demme got EVERYTHING right in that movie, because he stayed true to the book.

I agree, but then when I read the book I got the distinct impression that the author was envisioning it as a movie already. Sometimes its resemblence to a screenplay was unmissible.

The SECOND "Lord of the Rings" movies, yes, the first one was horrible.

 

[Jon]

What book did you love, that Hollywood got "right" and one that you loved that Hollywood got "wrong?"

To Kill a Mockingbird was done right. Twelve Angry Men, too (at least the first film).

The Lord of the Rings trilogy was also done right, capturing both the good and bad aspects of the books.

One was "Silence of the Lambs" by Thomas Harris. I read that book a few times before the movie came out, and loved the movie as much as the book. Jonathan Demme got EVERYTHING right in that movie, because he stayed true to the book.

I agree, but then when I read the book I got the distinct impression that the author was envisioning it as a movie already. Sometimes its resemblence to a screenplay was unmissible.

The SECOND "Lord of the Rings" movies, yes, the first one was horrible.

The first movie was boring, but horrible? Not even. There's just not as much action in the first, and there's a LOT of talking.

The second one was the best, by far. The Battle for Helms Deep is one of the greatest cinematic achievements ever. The third movie had the best story, but it could have used more action mixed in. I know it was a long movie, but I honestly could have sat through another hour or two if they had included the Scouring of the Shire.

Needless to say, I can't wait to see how Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth writer/director) handles The Hobbit, especially the Battle of Five Armies.

 

[KittenKoder]

To Kill a Mockingbird was done right. Twelve Angry Men, too (at least the first film).

The Lord of the Rings trilogy was also done right, capturing both the good and bad aspects of the books.



I agree, but then when I read the book I got the distinct impression that the author was envisioning it as a movie already. Sometimes its resemblence to a screenplay was unmissible.

The SECOND "Lord of the Rings" movies, yes, the first one was horrible.

The first movie was boring, but horrible? Not even. There's just not as much action in the first, and there's a LOT of talking.

The second one was the best, by far. The Battle for Helms Deep is one of the greatest cinematic achievements ever. The third movie had the best story, but it could have used more action mixed in. I know it was a long movie, but I honestly could have sat through another hour or two if they had included the Scouring of the Shire.

Needless to say, I can't wait to see how Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth writer/director) handles The Hobbit, especially the Battle of Five Armies.

You don't know about the very first one they made? It was animation of sorts. They bashed all the books into one movie, can't remember the year but it was a long time ago. Not talking first in the trilogy.

Found a reference in the search, it was 1978.

 

[Jon]

The SECOND "Lord of the Rings" movies, yes, the first one was horrible.

The first movie was boring, but horrible? Not even. There's just not as much action in the first, and there's a LOT of talking.

The second one was the best, by far. The Battle for Helms Deep is one of the greatest cinematic achievements ever. The third movie had the best story, but it could have used more action mixed in. I know it was a long movie, but I honestly could have sat through another hour or two if they had included the Scouring of the Shire.

Needless to say, I can't wait to see how Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth writer/director) handles The Hobbit, especially the Battle of Five Armies.

You don't know about the very first one they made? It was animation of sorts. They bashed all the books into one movie, can't remember the year but it was a long time ago. Not talking first in the trilogy.

Found a reference in the search, it was 1978.

Ohhh....you meant the cartoon version. I thought you meant the first of the trilogy. Makes more sense now.

The animated version was awful. My buddy used to work at Blockbuster, and he would play it on the TV's in the store to annoy customers. This was back when the movies were hugely popular. The final bit of the movie features a song about Mt. Doom, and I always think about it when I watch the last bit of Return of the King.

 

[KittenKoder]

The first movie was boring, but horrible? Not even. There's just not as much action in the first, and there's a LOT of talking.

The second one was the best, by far. The Battle for Helms Deep is one of the greatest cinematic achievements ever. The third movie had the best story, but it could have used more action mixed in. I know it was a long movie, but I honestly could have sat through another hour or two if they had included the Scouring of the Shire.

Needless to say, I can't wait to see how Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth writer/director) handles The Hobbit, especially the Battle of Five Armies.

You don't know about the very first one they made? It was animation of sorts. They bashed all the books into one movie, can't remember the year but it was a long time ago. Not talking first in the trilogy.

Found a reference in the search, it was 1978.

Ohhh....you meant the cartoon version. I thought you meant the first of the trilogy. Makes more sense now.

The animated version was awful. My buddy used to work at Blockbuster, and he would play it on the TV's in the store to annoy customers. This was back when the movies were hugely popular. The final bit of the movie features a song about Mt. Doom, and I always think about it when I watch the last bit of Return of the King.

I think Bakshi did great with the movie "Wizards" but when he tried to cram the entire Lord of the Rings into one movie he should have known it wouldn't work.

 

[Phoenix]

The Princess Bride wasn't too far off the book. It's just too difficult for movies to get in all the detail that books can.

Books win every time.

 

[Missourian]

I don't think they'll ever get a Tom Clancy movie right.

Clive Cussler's "Raise the Titanic" was terrible also, but "Sahara" with Matthew McConaughey as Dirk Pitt wasn't bad. Unfortunately Cussler's recent literary contributions aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

 

[AllieBaba]

I've read "Duchess" about Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire (a Spencer, I believe). I read the book, which is called a "novel" but is really a biography...and a wonderful one.

Tonight I'm watching the movie. I don't hold out much hope for it, the star is Kiera Sedgwick, but I love period movies. The book was marvelous...we'll hope the movie is adequate.

 

[midcan5]

Beckett and Kosinski are favorites - thinking about this, it is plays or adaptations I have liked the most.

Being There Jerzy Kosinski and a favorite actor.
Being There (1979)

Focus Arthur Miller
Focus (2001/I)

Death of a Salesman - I have seen the play on this one. Miller again.
Death of a Salesman (1985) (TV)

Waiting for Godot - play again - remove spaces.
h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmoDMdLoUZw
h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoC9Kx5QvK0

In Cold Blood - Truman Capote
In Cold Blood (1967)

The Executioner's Song - Norman Mailer
The Executioner's Song (1982) (TV)

Lots of Charles Dickens - Scrooge

 

[Toome]

To this day, I refuse to see "Sum of All Fears." The Tom Clancy plot was changed to accommodate the political correctness by avoiding the original story with Islamic fundamentalists as the bad guys and going with some Russian white supremacists. Also, Jack Ryan was the Deputy Director of the CIA in the book but in the movie is an analyst who is just starting out with the CIA. Lastly, Ben Affleck plays Jack Ryan, which in my book, makes this a chick flick. (Best role for Affleck was Hollywoodland....where he played a dead guy!)

 

[Chris]

My favorites....Little Women, Slaughterhouse 5, Happy Birthday Wanda June, Gone with the Wind, Dr. Zhivago.....

 

[hjmick]

The Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me, both by Stephen King. Loved both of these movies. Shawshank is one of those movies that I've seen a million times but if I catch it on tv, I get sucked in over and over again.

Having said that, every other SK book or story made into a movie has been crap, imo. I agree with you EZ, they usually botch it and I always tell people to read the book.

The Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me, both by Stephen King. Loved both of these movies. Shawshank is one of those movies that I've seen a million times but if I catch it on tv, I get sucked in over and over again.

Having said that, every other SK book or story made into a movie has been crap, imo. I agree with you EZ, they usually botch it and I always tell people to read the book.

Yeah, I LOVED LOVED LOVED "The Stand" and had read it about 4 times when I heard they were doing a t.v. mini series. I watched the entire thing, but it didn't float my boat.

Amen to Shawshank and Stand by Me.

The reason Shawshank and Stand by Me were as good as they were is because they were based on Stephen King short stories rather than full length novels. Less to capture. This doesn't always hold true, see Children of the Corn. The only SK books to movie that came close to capturing the book are Dead Zone and Misery, though technically Misery was a Bachman book and shorter than most King novels. The success to these translations lies not only with the scripts but with the respective stars, Christopher Walken and Cathy Bates.

As for The Stand, I too am a very big fan of this book, having read it several times, both versions. While the mini-series did not do justice to the book, it was perhaps as good as you can get for such an epic book. While not as good as the book, I didn't mind the mini-series. Jamie Sheridan did a good job as Flagg, Matt Frewer as "Trashcan Man" was a treat, and Bill Fagerbakke... M - O - O - N... that spells Tom Cullen...

Oh God, Shawshank is such perfection. Stand by Me is another of my favorites, very high marks from me. The Green Mile was also incredibly well done thanks to Michael Clarke Duncan, Sam Rockwell, and Michael Jeter. Tom Hanks ruins anything he touches, but his awfulness wasn't enough to overshadow those three. Speaking of Tom Hanks, the movie version of The Da Vinci Code was awful. I blame Ron Howard, he's such an awful director. I would say casting Tom Hanks was his first mistake, but the rest of the cast was spot on. They were perfect for their parts. But the film still fell flat on its face in spite of them, mostly because Hanks is ATROCIOUS as Robert Langdon.

I have to disagree on the rest of SK's stuff. Storm of the Century is one of my favorite movies to date.

I can't mention book to film without citing Lord of the Rings. The dedication Peter Jackson and his crew put into the film delivered as authentic a Middle Earth as one could have asked for. My ONLY complaint about these films is that Gandalf was downplayed way too much. He only casts like...one spell in the whole goddamn movie, and even his battle with one of the Nazgul was lackluster. Everything else was just amazing.

And, Bridge to Terabithia was an awful adaptation. I wanted to throw my soda and candy at the screen watching that trite piece of shit.

I agree with you on The Da Vinci Code, Hanks should have never been cast, I always thought a lesser known actor would have been better. I liked Liev Schreiber for the role. Howard butchered what was obviously a shit script that did not do justice to the book. I will not be paying to see Angels and Demons.