Books made into films, they don't always work..

Rocker

Some do of course but The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald does not.  The Great Gatsby is a very fine read but the narration simply falls flat when on screen.

Some stories are almost made for screen adaption.  Anyone care to suggest those that work.  Or those like The Great Gatsby that don't.

boogieman

Lord of the Rings is way better than the books. The Hobbit isn’t. 

Ravenous

Possible heretic alert: I found "Apocalypse Now" to be a let down.  Yes it's long, atmospheric, has plenty of funnily insane characters - but Marlon Brando turning up at the end was disappointing in my opinion.

Sure the guy was supposed to be mad, rambling and a mere shadow of what he had been, but I just didn't get the way he portrayed it. Perhaps he was trying too hard.

ICBM

Rocker said:

Some do of course but The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald does not.  The Great Gatsby is a very fine read but the narration simply falls flat when on screen.

Some stories are almost made for screen adaption.  Anyone care to suggest those that work.  Or those like The Great Gatsby that don't.

Of ones I can remember recently, Sunset Song was good, I thought.

I haven't read The Great Gatsby, but I have the DVD which I haven't watched yet... I'm now wondering if I should read the book first, or later.

Ravenous said:

Possible heretic alert: I found "Apocalypse Now" to be a let down.  Yes it's long, atmospheric, has plenty of funnily insane characters - but Marlon Brando turning up at the end was disappointing in my opinion.

Sure the guy was supposed to be mad, rambling and a mere shadow of what he had been, but I just didn't get the way he portrayed it. Perhaps he was trying too hard.

I thought it was actually an improvement over the book - and that's saying something given how great the book is. The film is simply one of the greatest ever made in my opinion.

sticker

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (Gene Wilder)was a good adaptation of the source material.

 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Johnny Depp)was not .

Philly_Q

OK, call me Philistine_Q....

I found both The Great Gatsby and Heart of Darkness incredibly dull (and unmemorable) books, and I'm not a fan of the films either.  Not denying Apocalypse Now's a great piece of work, but it doesn't move me at all.

I suspect the books best-suited to film adaptations are ones with strong, simple plots, and not necessarily brilliantly written... Agatha Christie, Ian Fleming?  I know the films aren't actually very faithful to the books.

BigBearKris

I have just finished watching "Mr.Mercedes" series which is an adaptation of Stephen King's novel. I must say that as much as most of the films based on his books are barely watchable - "Mr.Mercedes" is VERY good. I recommend it highly.

ICBM said:

Ravenous said:

Possible heretic alert: I found "Apocalypse Now" to be a let down.  Yes it's long, atmospheric, has plenty of funnily insane characters - but Marlon Brando turning up at the end was disappointing in my opinion.

Sure the guy was supposed to be mad, rambling and a mere shadow of what he had been, but I just didn't get the way he portrayed it. Perhaps he was trying too hard.

I thought it was actually an improvement over the book - and that's saying something given how great the book is. The film is simply one of the greatest ever made in my opinion.

I think the same. Book is great, movie is fantastic. All time classic.

FatPete

Ravenous said:

Possible heretic alert: I found "Apocalypse Now" to be a let down.  Yes it's long, atmospheric, has plenty of funnily insane characters - but Marlon Brando turning up at the end was disappointing in my opinion.

Sure the guy was supposed to be mad, rambling and a mere shadow of what he had been, but I just didn't get the way he portrayed it. Perhaps he was trying too hard.

Heretic

Neill

The most disappointing film I can think of based on a well known book is "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy".  The film is truly awful and a real missed opportunity.

 

Veganic

Brighton Rock.
You get one ending in the book and another in the film - both great.
The remake I am struggling to remember do maybe that was shit.

Veganic

Catch 22
Doesn't work as a film or a book but both have great moments.

mikeyrob73

Ladies and gentlemen I give you 

Stephen King -The Dark Tower 

they could not have got the film more wrong, utterly terrible bag of shite. Books are tremendous 

cpcompany

Although I haven't read the book, Perfume the story of a murderer is an awful film. Stanley Kubrick apparently said a film adaption would be impossible, and it seems he had a point. 

On on the flip side, One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest is a much better filum than book

Neill

boogieman said:

Lord of the Rings is way better than the books. The Hobbit isn’t. 

Any excuse to post this:

boogieman

Veganic said:

Brighton Rock.
You get one ending in the book and another in the film - both great.
The remake I am struggling to remember do maybe that was shit.

Yup, the remake was bloody awful, whereas the Dickie Attenborough one is brilliant. The book was great too. 

Rocker

@ICBM, read the book, The Great Gatsby, before you watch the DVD. Then you will have some idea of what is going on. The book itself is a great read..

LuttiS

Veganic said:

Catch 22
Doesn't work as a film or a book but both have great moments.

I was going to say catch 22, I actually liked the book though

Harry Potter films are rubbish though.. books much better. 

Most Robert Howard adaptions are pretty poor.. 

ICBM

Veganic said:

Catch 22
Doesn't work as a film or a book but both have great moments.

Don't agree. The book is a work of disturbing genius, but the film is still good.

LuttiS said:

Harry Potter films are rubbish though.. books much better.

I tried reading the (first) book - thought it was badly-written rubbish. The films are dire too, I've seen bits of most of them since my kids have them on DVD... can't force myself to watch them all.

LuttiS

ICBM said:

LuttiS said:

Harry Potter films are rubbish though.. books much better.

I tried reading the (first) book - thought it was badly-written rubbish. The films are dire too, I've seen bits of most of them since my kids have them on DVD... can't force myself to watch them all.

You're right, they are poorly written books, but she does get better as they go on. However I think the actual story is good, and once you get going on them it does overcome the writing.

Veganic

ICBM said:

Veganic said:

Catch 22
Doesn't work as a film or a book but both have great moments.

Don't agree. The book is a work of disturbing genius, but the film is still good.

I think they are both great but if I recall correctly they both lack a traditional "story". The book is hilarious. The film I find really dark. Not seen/ read for a while though. 

ICBM

Veganic said:

I think they are both great but if I recall correctly they both lack a traditional "story". The book is hilarious. The film I find really dark. Not seen/ read for a while though. 

Nor me, but they left a big impression on me. Both are very dark - unsurprising given the inspiration. The book does manage to be funny in a way that you can't help laughing at even though you know it's really the product of terrifying experiences, the film doesn't quite. It's actually amazing that it filmed as well as it did really - I read the book first and thought a film of it wouldn't work, but it did.