Books to Movies

[AdmiralPeacock]

Flight of Dragons
Sphere
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Blade Runner)
We Can Remember It for You Wholesale (Total Recall)
Second Variety (Screamers)
Basically most things based on Phillip K. Dick stories

 

[Lurking_Logic]

Can you think of many you liked?

I generally enjoy the Harry Potter ones
Lord of the Rings was awesome
I prefer the Starship Troopers movie to the Original book
The BBC movies of Terry Pratchetts, Hogfather and also Color of Magic/Light Fantastic

Do comic adaptations count?

 

[Memeticemetic]

I, Claudius was fantastic as well, but I admit to not having read the Graves' novel

Get on that. As in, drop whatever else you're reading and read it asap. You won't be disappointed.

Other fantastic books to movies:

Blade Runner; based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Phillip K. Dick.
(The movie bears almost no resemblance to the book at all but is still awesome.)

A Scanner Darkly; Phillip K. Dick

The Shining; Steven King

A Clockwork Orange; Anthony Burgess

The Trial; Franz Kafka
(stars Anthony Perkins, totally worth the hassle to find it if you can. I've got in VHS. Holy crap, I'm old.)

Willie Wonka and the Choclate Factory; Roald Dahl
I prefer the Gene Wilder classic but the more recent version didn't suck either.

2001: A Space Odessy; Arthur C. Clarke
Doesn't quite count since Clarke and Kubrick worked on the novel and the movie concurrently.

I'm sure I'll think of others to post later.

 

[SpaceCDT]

The more recent Harry Potter films came out quite well (the first two were awful, IMO).

I hated The Golden Compass film. It didn't live up to Northern Lights at all. I'm really, really tempted to go into a long rant about it, but I'll just say it should have been an adult film and left in all the blasphemy and brutality of the book.

Yeah, well said to all of that!

 

[Andiferous]

I, Claudius was fantastic as well, but I admit to not having read the Graves' novel

Get on that. As in, drop whatever else you're reading and read it asap. You won't be disappointed.

Other fantastic books to movies:

Blade Runner; based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Phillip K. Dick.
(The movie bears almost no resemblance to the book at all but is still awesome.)

A Scanner Darkly; Phillip K. Dick

The Shining; Steven King

A Clockwork Orange; Anthony Burgess

The Trial; Franz Kafka
(stars Anthony Perkins, totally worth the hassle to find it if you can. I've got in VHS. Holy crap, I'm old.)

Willie Wonka and the Choclate Factory; Roald Dahl
I prefer the Gene Wilder classic but the more recent version didn't suck either.

I read the Wonka books as a kid in school and a few times since, and I agree, I admit I still like the earlier movie a lot better. For some reason I still remember patches of lyrics. Tunes like Oompa Loompa dooble de do, and images of little people doing the kan-kan in lederhosen will never, ever go away. The Gene Wilder version was so much better than the last one, I think. Depp tends to overact at times and this detracts from the actual plot... Too much look and little substance. Even if it's... you know, Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory...

I have tried to watch A Clockwork Orange a few times, but for some reason I can't get past ten minutes. I really have to look into those others.

Pillars of the Earth has been made into a miniseries recently, btw...

I think I rather prefer most sci-fi on film to on the page. And most fantasy in type to on the screen...

2001: A Space Odessy; Arthur C. Clarke
Doesn't quite count since Clarke and Kubrick worked on the novel and the movie concurrently.

I'm sure I'll think of others to post later.

Didn't know that.

That was close to half a century ago, no? :lol:

Just teasing of course, thanks!

 

[Andiferous]

The more recent Harry Potter films came out quite well (the first two were awful, IMO).

I hated The Golden Compass film. It didn't live up to Northern Lights at all. I'm really, really tempted to go into a long rant about it, but I'll just say it should have been an adult film and left in all the blasphemy and brutality of the book.

I can't say any of the Potter films were awful, and I do have a certain respect and fascination for the evolution of writing maturity and target audience over the years, a lot like the books. No one has done anything like that before, to my knowledge, and Rowling did a great job, despite prevailing Potter snobbery.

Again, I've a mixed opinion on His Dark Materials. I do not think any of those stories lend themselves to visual interpretation in any meaningful way. Doing so would be like an evil Michael Landon film without the marketing power of righteousness salvation in its favour. I'm glad they didn't do number two.

 

[Nelipot]

So what makes a good book a good film on screen? Because the film delivers the same feeling you get from reading the book? I thought IT was a great story that failed miserably on screen because the kidhood couldn't be conveyed as King wrote it. I love Terry Pratchett but only the books, for the same reason. Conversely, Godfather films far and away transcend the books IMO. To Kill a Mockingbird - great book, great film; I think it boils down to the film evidencing the spirit of the book in the way a reader felt it and that's a potion very hard to brew.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

So what makes a good book a good film on screen? Because the film delivers the same feeling you get from reading the book? I thought IT was a great story that failed miserably on screen because the kidhood couldn't be conveyed as King wrote it. I love Terry Pratchett but only the books, for the same reason. Conversely, Godfather films far and away transcend the books IMO. To Kill a Mockingbird - great book, great film; I think it boils down to the film evidencing the spirit of the book in the way a reader felt it and that's a potion very hard to brew.

I completely disagree. We're talking about completely different media here. Books are written in a certain way because of the characteristics of reading. The writer addresses the story/issue in a certain way because books have their advantages and their limitations. if you're trying to get the same effect on a completely different medium, in this case, film, you can't use the same strategy that the writer used. You need to adapt. Books are felt in a different way than movies are.

That's why I think people are often disappointed by movie adaptations of books (I'm talking about people who have read the original book).

EDIT: Now that I reread your post, I'm not quite sure if we're on the same side or not.

 

[Laurens]

Someone mentioned it earlier, I thought Of Mice and Men was pretty good.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas too...