Books and Movies

[Weevil]

EBW's right.

Well, hot damnit. That is the first time that's been said here. Can we have a parade?

 

[nasty]

But you never, ever see Jack as a loving father and doting husband...from the job interview on, he's edgy, angry, and eventually volatile. In the book, there was love between the father and son, between the husband and wife. In the movie, none of this is retained. Thus, it's not as scary as the book.

If I had seen the Kubrick movie without reading the book, I probably would have liked it. However, there were parts of the book that were very effective IMHO that did not carry over. The interaction between the characters didn't work for me. Since the book is about the dissolution not only of a man but of a family, it's vital that there be a family to dissolve. In the movie, there was none.

Plus, having Danny talk to his finger was the stupidest idea ever.

Ok. You're absolutely right. There wasn't a very loving family in the original. But, that didn't bother me at all, to be honest. I also have to admit, I saw his version before I even read the book. Although, I STILL love the movie. The ending was SO much better. I mean, hedge animals? I'm into the peculiar, but, that was just dumb. The maze was cool. It just had a more claustraphobic atmosphere. And, you may have thought the kid was a moron, but, when he erases his footprints in the snow to confuse Jack? I wouldn't of thought of that.

 

[nasty]

Laurel,

You gotta remember this rule of thumb,(my rule of thumb, actually.) Only if it says, "Based on actual events,"will it stick to the actual plot. Even then, Hollywood will Dramatize the hell out of it.

 

[christophe]

Also, the adaptation that Ted Turner's people did of "The Killer Angels" became "Gettysburg", which ended up being a 6-hour movie on television. But, it was faithful to the book in nearly every word[/B]

They are currently working on the next installment "Of Gods and Generals." Filming is in the process

 

[SweetCherry]

But, there's hope. Some of the best adaptations of books were made, miniseries-style. ABCs miniseries verions of "The Stand" and "The Shining" were two great pieces of work - faithful to the book, and well done, in all. Also, the adaptation that Ted Turner's people did of "The Killer Angels" became "Gettysburg", which ended up being a 6-hour movie on television. But, it was faithful to the book in nearly every word.

I'm afraid I have to diagree here. I was greatly disappointed with the way "The Stand" was done. I am an avid fan of the book. I've read it about 20 times, and I've seen the movie at leasr 5 or 6. (I have it recorded.) Every time I watch it, I get so pissed with it that I have to go back and damn near kill myself reading it to get the image of it out of my head. Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy it to an extend. I just would have expected better from a book as great as The Stand. Too much was missing, and they changed a lot of stuff around.

 

[christo]

When Kubrick made the film "2001-A Space Odyssey" people kept asking Arthur C. Clarke what, uh, the whole film was about. Because it's almost indecipherable. And Clarke said he had no idea. He went to the premiere of the film and came out of there as stunned and bewildered as everyone else. It was totally Kubrick's movie, just as "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut" and "A Clockwork Orange" are Kubrick movies, not adaptations of works by King and Burgess and the Austrian guy who wrote the book "EWS" was based on.

I never read "The Shining", and so had no preconcieved expectations, and I loved it. I thought it was one of the best horror/scary movies ever made. It's brilliant, the scenes with Danny riding his Big Wheel around the hotel, the elevator full of blood, the twins flashing into his mind's eyes...terrifying.

But as an adaptation of the novel? There King fans may have a gripe. And, if he was still with us, I'm sure Kubrick wouldn't have cared a whit. He wasn't making "Stephen King's The Shining". He was making his own. That's why these authors get huge amounts of money for the rights to their books. Because they came up with an original idea that they are allowing someone else to totally screw with.

J.K. Rowling apparently had a LOT to say about the Harry Potter movie, but she's the biggest selling author in the world and has that kind of clout. Plus she's still writing the novels and can't have a scene in the movie that paints her into a corner in book 7.

I had a writing teacher in college who had several of his novels turned into TV movies. He said it was a totally surreal feeling, walking onto a movie set and seeing a room that he described in the novel turned into real life. It wasn't quite as he imagined it, but it was close. Gave him the willies. He also said that the dream of the novelist was to have every single one of his novels bought by Hollywood...and then never have the movies made. Get the money, save the aggrevation.

A movie I saw that infuriated me was "Enemy at the Gates". It was based on a book by the same name, but the plot is also identical to a book that came out just a few years ago called "War of the Rats". It's about a Russian and German sniper hunting each other in the ruins of Stalingrad. It's based on a true story, although it's not established that the German sniper was really there. The hero, Vasili Zaitsev, really existed, and he really fell in love with a female sniper named Tania Chernova. That much is fact.

The movie butchers everything. The introduce a rival love interest that is unnecessary, the action sequences are absolutely ludicrous...there's a scene where Ed Harris, the German sniper, shoots a guy, and then gets up and wanders through no-man's land to see if he got him. Uh, maybe there's someone else with a gun in Stalingrad, maybe? There just so much obvious stupidity that it kills the movie.

The director could have lifted the plot and made a much more interesting and moving movie. Every step he took was wrong. Ruined the whole thing for me.

 

[missbehavin_badly]

Hope you all dont mind my opinion on this......but the only movie I have ever seen that did justice to the book.....was the Green Mile.
On average I think that the movies leave out to much of what made a good book good!

 

[Scabbers]

What about "Being There"? Book and movie were consistent and equally good.

I actually thought the movie was better than the book, more develope, as though Kozinsky had a second go at it. But that's the only case I can think of. Brideshead Revisited has to be the most faithful translation of a book to film I ever saw, but it was for the box, and it took god-knows-how-many episodes to do a fairly short novel. They are two different media, and maybe really shouldn't be compared.

 

[Guest]

What about "Being There"? Book and movie were consistent and equally good.

Marxist,

I have read the book several times and the movie is one of my all-time favorites. The simplicity of the man, while thought provoking, makes him all the more special in our hearts. Whenever I think of Peter Sellers, I automatically think of Chauncey Gardener (Chance the Gardener). Wouldn't it be lovely if the world, as seen through his eyes, was really that simple?

This was a book and movie that stayed true to each other.

Scabbers,

I'm sorry, I didn't see your post on this movie/book, otherwise I would have replied to you, too.

 

[Nigel]

Most of the time, I like seeing a film before reading the book that it's based on - it makes it easier, for some reason, to judge both of them on their own merits, which is how I like to look at both art forms.

Comparison's, however, are inevitable....and some make me think "What the hell were they thinking?" Like "The Stand" - Molly Ringwald?? Definitely NOT my image of Fran Goldsmith - and now when I reread the novel, it's hard to get Ms. Ringwald out of my mind...which blanches my enjoyment of the book a little. I liked "Harry Potter"...very true to the spirit of the book.

I recently read an interview with screenwriter William Goldman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Princess Bride, Marathon Man) who said that when he's doing an adaptation of a novel, he reads the book through...then reads again, making marks in the margins of what he thinks "the story" is....then uses those marks as his guideline for the script. Personally, I like his adaptations.....so for me, he must be doing something right.

"2001" was mentioned previously - back when he was preparing the film "2010", Peter Hyams communicated via modem with Arthur C. Clarke (who wouldn't leave Sri Lanka) - and those communications were put into a book called "The Odyssey File" - which is a very interesting read.....

Nigel

 

[Guest]

Nigel replied:

Most of the time, I like seeing a film before reading the book that it's based on - it makes it easier, for some reason, to judge both of them on their own merits, which is how I like to look at both art forms.

I'm the complete opposite of you, Nigel. I have always read the book before I saw the movie. When I read the book, I like to let my mind wander and picture the characters in my head - what they would look like, how they would react to the situations I'm reading about, that sort of thing. I've often even picked out the actors or actresses who I felt would do justice to the characters in the story should it ever be made into a movie.

Although, I will admit that after seeing a movie and enjoying it so much I have gone ahead and read the book (if I haven't done so already) just to see how it was adapted to fit the big screen.

It was nice meeting you, Nigel. Happy reading and movie watching, All.

 

[Bob Peale]

I think there is another trend though. A lot of author's are now writing books they intend to be movies, and that is probably working out better.

On my list of "never Should Have Done It" I put:

Dune by Frank Herbert
A Time To Kill by John Grisham
Firestarter by Stephen King
Absolute Power by David Baldacci

Loved all the books, but th eway they were written REQUIRED you to react emotionally, to construct your own pictures in your head. Frankly, I didn't like the pictures that the movie adaptaions picked for me!

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

"Altered States" was an excellent film from a book (probably because Paddy Chaefsky did both the novel and the screenplay).