User avatar
ER757
Topic Author
Posts: 3427
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:15 pm

Readytotaxi's thread on worst movie remakes got me thinking about books that I've read which have had movies of the same title. Most of the ones I've seen were less than faithful recreations, some worse than others. Here's my best of and worst of

Best
Andromeda Strain - while not 100%, it came pretty close. They replaced one of the male leads in the book with a female but the story in the film followed the book very closely.

Worst
Osterman Weekend - I am a huge Robert Ludlum fan and was very much looking forward to the movie as this book was one of my favorites by Ludlum. The film had little to do with the book, story went off on a completely different direction. Don't get me started on the Jason Bourne movies........
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 6603
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:50 pm

Lord of the Rings. It's impossible to get the length and depth of that story into three three-hour films. The book is beautifully slow-paced and episodic with more fully fleshed characters than the film could ever hope to achieve.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2773
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:14 pm

[*]The Godfather is an exceptional adaptation. Little to none of the core story changes. The movie eliminates a few side plots but otherwise faithfully executes (pun intended) the book.

As for the worst, good Lord there’s too many bad ones to pick the superlative. Scarlett, the sequel to Gone with the Wind could be right up there, though.

On a related note, the prize for movies that are better than the book could go to The First Wives Club. A terrible book that was made better by the movie.
 
User avatar
ER757
Topic Author
Posts: 3427
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:29 am

Braybuddy wrote:
Lord of the Rings. It's impossible to get the length and depth of that story into three three-hour films. The book is beautifully slow-paced and episodic with more fully fleshed characters than the film could ever hope to achieve.

Agree completely - but I went into those movies knowing the books would be short-changed so wasn't disappointed. I think Peter Jackson did a good job within the framework he had to deal with (what to include and what had to be left out to keep the films at a reasonable length). Could have done without the love story between Arwen and Aragorn but I guess they had to give Liv Tyler something to do
 
User avatar
BartSimpson
Posts: 594
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:01 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:14 am

The day of the Jackal.

Not only one of my favorite novels, but the movie was almost completely spot on, too.
 
TSS
Posts: 3174
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:57 am

Best: The Silence of the Lambs- The movie so closely follows the book and the actors are so perfectly suited to their roles that I have difficulty remembering which parts of the book didn't make it into the movie.

Worst: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (4th in the series)- The first two films did a remarkably good job of preserving the core story and bringing as much of the books to the screen as possible within the time available. The third film, a little less so. The fourth film, however, cut out way too many important plot points that are referenced later in the series and, adding insult to injury, the director saw fit to "get creative" and add silly, pointless elements to the film that were never in any of the books.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
Cadet985
Posts: 2143
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:52 am

Worst for me has to be “The Hunt for Red October.”

I totally get that you can’t capture the entire essence of a book in a two hour movie, but there is so much that happened in the book that isn’t even mentioned in the movie, it’s basically unwatchable for me.

Marc
 
WIederling
Posts: 8503
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:32 am

BartSimpson wrote:
The day of the Jackal.

Not only one of my favorite novels, but the movie was almost completely spot on, too.

Which one?
the original french one or the Hollywood deform? :-)


All bond movies: often no connection to the books beyond some character names.
( But both were all good entertainment.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
YYZatcboy
Posts: 1169
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:15 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:49 am

Best: The princess bride (arguably better than the book.)

Worst: All of the Harry Potter movies
DH1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30/50/80 717 727 735/6/7/8/9 744 762/3 77E/W E40/75/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150
J/S DH8D 736/7/8 763
 
User avatar
BartSimpson
Posts: 594
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:01 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:59 am

WIederling wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
The day of the Jackal.

Not only one of my favorite novels, but the movie was almost completely spot on, too.

Which one?
the original french one or the Hollywood deform? :-)


I thought it was obvious that I was talking about the original one. I didn't even bother to watch the re-make.
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 3071
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:21 pm

WIederling wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
The day of the Jackal.

Not only one of my favorite novels, but the movie was almost completely spot on, too.

Which one?
the original french one or the Hollywood deform? :-)


Which is the original French movie? There is a movie with Edward Fox as The Jackal from 1973. That's an UK/French co-production. That is an excellent movie. Considering that the book was released in 1967, the French haven't had too much time to make their own.

The star loaded movie The Jackal from 1997 is just another action movie. Not entirely bad, but definitely not remarkable.
310, 319, 320, 321, 321N, 332, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E45, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, MD82, Saab 340, YAK40
 
BlueberryWheats
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:46 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:25 pm

Forrest Gump... the book and film are nothing alike. I liked the book and love the film though.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8503
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:54 pm

WildcatYXU wrote:
WIederling wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
The day of the Jackal.

Not only one of my favorite novels, but the movie was almost completely spot on, too.

Which one?
the original french one or the Hollywood deform? :-)


Which is the original French movie? There is a movie with Edward Fox as The Jackal from 1973. That's an UK/French co-production. That is an excellent movie. Considering that the book was released in 1967, the French haven't had too much time to make their own.

The star loaded movie The Jackal from 1997 is just another action movie. Not entirely bad, but definitely not remarkable.


Day of J*
Style and the director had me place it in the french cinema noir domain. I didn't look carefully :-)

The 1997 thing wasn't bad to look at.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:55 pm

Cadet985 wrote:
Worst for me has to be “The Hunt for Red October.”

I totally get that you can’t capture the entire essence of a book in a two hour movie, but there is so much that happened in the book that isn’t even mentioned in the movie, it’s basically unwatchable for me.

Marc

I don't disagree that the movie deviates substantially from the book. That said, I love the movie. Actually, the book is my favorite book and the movie is my favorite movie. I've read the book probably 20+ times and seen the movie easily north of 150 times. Randomly, I was just thinking last night about the major difference in which Soviet officer dies toward the end because I was talking with someone about Montana. lol

To me, the movie is just so good as a thriller that any deviations from the book really don't matter to me. Great dialog, good casting, good pacing... To me, as long as a movie captures the essence of a long novel (which, by default, can't really be fully converted to movie form), I'm good with it... and I think The Hunt for Red October as a movie does fine justice to The Hunt for Red October as a book.
Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7392
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:42 pm

This will be based off of books I've read and have been adapted to films that I've seen too. I'm certain there are worse films; I just can't judge them.

Best: The Reader. My only gripe is that a key element was left out of one scene, though if the viewer is astute, they'll be able to get the plot later on, before it is actually revealed.

Worst: It's almost a 3-way tie between three HP books: Prisoner of Azkaban, Half Blood Prince, and Deathly Hallows Part 2. Initially, it was Prisoner of Azkaban: I don't know what the writers were thinking here. Then Half Blood Prince came out. I hated it, but not as much as PoA. And then Deathly Hallows Part 2 arrived. It was a good movie but I was very disappointed that it didn't fill expectations. The whole reason for splitting the last book into two films was to accommodate as much of the book as possible (and milk it for cash). The way the final duel happens is nothing like in the book and would have been a perfect ending instead of the one on one that we had on the film.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7392
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:46 pm

TSS wrote:
Worst: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (4th in the series)- The first two films did a remarkably good job of preserving the core story and bringing as much of the books to the screen as possible within the time available. The third film, a little less so. The fourth film, however, cut out way too many important plot points that are referenced later in the series and, adding insult to injury, the director saw fit to "get creative" and add silly, pointless elements to the film that were never in any of the books.

To be fair, GoF was significantly longer than the previous books so the director and writers HAD to cut certain parts (or split the book into two films which at the time was unheard of). I don't think anything important was cut out. In my opinion, it still preserved the core aspects of the book.

Braybuddy wrote:
Lord of the Rings. It's impossible to get the length and depth of that story into three three-hour films. The book is beautifully slow-paced and episodic with more fully fleshed characters than the film could ever hope to achieve.
I'm afraid of reading the books because I know a lot will have been cut out or modified and will more than likely make me hate the films.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
Cadet985
Posts: 2143
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:06 pm

cjg225 wrote:
Cadet985 wrote:
Worst for me has to be “The Hunt for Red October.”

I totally get that you can’t capture the entire essence of a book in a two hour movie, but there is so much that happened in the book that isn’t even mentioned in the movie, it’s basically unwatchable for me.

Marc

I don't disagree that the movie deviates substantially from the book. That said, I love the movie. Actually, the book is my favorite book and the movie is my favorite movie. I've read the book probably 20+ times and seen the movie easily north of 150 times. Randomly, I was just thinking last night about the major difference in which Soviet officer dies toward the end because I was talking with someone about Montana. lol

To me, the movie is just so good as a thriller that any deviations from the book really don't matter to me. Great dialog, good casting, good pacing... To me, as long as a movie captures the essence of a long novel (which, by default, can't really be fully converted to movie form), I'm good with it... and I think The Hunt for Red October as a movie does fine justice to The Hunt for Red October as a book.


I mean the movie leaves a lot out...just to name a few — and not giving spoilers — it leaves out POTUS, it leaves out how large the operation was, the DSRV just magically appears, some key players in the operation are completely left out of the movie, etc.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9570
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:09 pm

luckyone wrote:
[*]The Godfather is an exceptional adaptation. Little to none of the core story changes. The movie eliminates a few side plots but otherwise faithfully executes (pun intended) the book.


Has to be the best, one of the best movies of all times, and the author of the Godfather also was heavily involved in and was credited for the screenplay. Mario Puzo was the author of course and made the screenplay with Francis Ford Coppola.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2621
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:18 pm

Honestly, I don't think it is fair judging a movie adaptation on the fact that it couldn't possibly cover all of the themes, topics, subjects, etc of the book. Just look at Game of Thrones and the fact that even with a full season of hour+ footage you still can't capture an entire book.

So a better question is, did the film/series do an adequate job of covering the book.

I've had one experience where I was upset with an adaptation - the Legend of the Seeker series that CBS produced and failed after I think 2 seasons (based on the Seeker of Truth series by Terry Goodkind). It was honestly a travesty. I managed to stomach a couple of episodes. Waited, watched another one to see if it had improved - it had not - and moved on with my life. To be fair the author acknowledged up front that it was an adaptation and would have differences from the book - so that was expected. What wasn't expected was the poor acting and cinematography that would make B movies seem like blockbusters.
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:04 pm

Cadet985 wrote:
I mean the movie leaves a lot out...just to name a few — and not giving spoilers — it leaves out POTUS, it leaves out how large the operation was, the DSRV just magically appears, some key players in the operation are completely left out of the movie, etc.

The movie clocks in at nearly 2 hours and 15 minutes. That's really pushing it for a thriller/action movie. They cover a whole lot in that time.
Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12476
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:28 pm

Interestingly, having read The Godfather several times in the last few years, I find there to be notable differences in certain characters which I think are important (primarily, I find Michael Corleone's characterization to be much more sympathetic in the book). Still a great book and movie.

Lord of the Rings - well, I would actually call the movies great adaptations, given how difficult it must be to adapt those books.

The Lost World was a terrible adaptation, but the book isn't great either, so no big deal.

trpmb6 wrote:
Honestly, I don't think it is fair judging a movie adaptation on the fact that it couldn't possibly cover all of the themes, topics, subjects, etc of the book.


Agreed.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:00 pm

I'll toss one out there as not-sure-if-good-or-bad: The Bourne Identity.

I know that the novels were written in a much different time in modern history compared to when they were turned into movies, so there was very naturally adaption to the present day required, but... it's more like they took the general idea of Bourne and applied it to a much different story. I didn't read the book until couple years ago, so I was surprised to see how different it was not just in setting (as expected) but also in terms of characterization, events, etc. It's weird, as I really like the movie and though the book was good, but can't determine whether I think, "Oh, this was a great adaption to the present day" or "Wow, they really cut out a lot of the soul of this story even if it's a good movie."
Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
 
TSS
Posts: 3174
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:13 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
TSS wrote:
Worst: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (4th in the series)- The first two films did a remarkably good job of preserving the core story and bringing as much of the books to the screen as possible within the time available. The third film, a little less so. The fourth film, however, cut out way too many important plot points that are referenced later in the series and, adding insult to injury, the director saw fit to "get creative" and add silly, pointless elements to the film that were never in any of the books.

To be fair, GoF was significantly longer than the previous books so the director and writers HAD to cut certain parts (or split the book into two films which at the time was unheard of). I don't think anything important was cut out. In my opinion, it still preserved the core aspects of the book.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, but the main thing that really hacked me off is that they had an actor who dead-on looked exactly like Victor Krum was described in the book (Tolga Safer- https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1670700/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t49) on set yet they cast Krum with a musclebound pretty boy, something he very specifically was not in the book. Once again adding insult to injury, in many scenes they had the guy who looked like Krum standing right next to the guy playing Krum, which struck me as sort of a "Nyah-nyah!" thing to do.

einsteinboricua wrote:
Braybuddy wrote:
Lord of the Rings. It's impossible to get the length and depth of that story into three three-hour films. The book is beautifully slow-paced and episodic with more fully fleshed characters than the film could ever hope to achieve.

I'm afraid of reading the books because I know a lot will have been cut out or modified and will more than likely make me hate the films.

Aw go on, read the books. Props to Peter Jackson for getting as much of the books on film and following the story as closely as he did, something no other director has even seriously attempted. If nothing else, think of the films as teasers/previews for the books, as in "If you like those, you'll LOVE these!".
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
WIederling
Posts: 8503
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:48 pm

There is one movies that made me angry for the fact that it scraped a da Vinci to have room for some doodles
that tried to make a point on fascism. In vain.

Starship Trooper. Nothing of the philosophically interesting things in the book survives.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3759
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:12 pm

ER757 wrote:
Braybuddy wrote:
Lord of the Rings. It's impossible to get the length and depth of that story into three three-hour films. The book is beautifully slow-paced and episodic with more fully fleshed characters than the film could ever hope to achieve.

Agree completely - but I went into those movies knowing the books would be short-changed so wasn't disappointed. I think Peter Jackson did a good job within the framework he had to deal with (what to include and what had to be left out to keep the films at a reasonable length). Could have done without the love story between Arwen and Aragorn but I guess they had to give Liv Tyler something to do

The Hobbit movies are even worse, if you ask me. They have absolutely nothing in common with the book.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2621
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:14 pm

N14AZ wrote:
ER757 wrote:
Braybuddy wrote:
Lord of the Rings. It's impossible to get the length and depth of that story into three three-hour films. The book is beautifully slow-paced and episodic with more fully fleshed characters than the film could ever hope to achieve.

Agree completely - but I went into those movies knowing the books would be short-changed so wasn't disappointed. I think Peter Jackson did a good job within the framework he had to deal with (what to include and what had to be left out to keep the films at a reasonable length). Could have done without the love story between Arwen and Aragorn but I guess they had to give Liv Tyler something to do

The Hobbit movies are even worse, if you ask me. They have absolutely nothing in common with the book.


They were movies in search of a book to support it if anything.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 8876
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:23 pm

Best Adaptation of a Book: The Firm. John Gresham There were some sketchy parts to it, but i thought this film stayed rather true to the book.

Worst Adaptation of a Book: The Sum of All Fears--Tom Clancy. This film was just plain awful, too many details skipped , and to much frivolity.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2773
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:31 pm

I just had an additional thought:
Of Human Bondage, the 1934 adaption. Excellent adaption of the book. They changed one or two things like instead of Mildred having syphilis she had TB.

Gone with the Wind. I'm not getting into the sociology of the story, but the movie adapted it very well, though it left out the fact that Scarlet had two other children.

In the toss-up category: The Devil Wears Prada. A snarky book about a bunch of unsympathetic characters was made into a completely different movie wherein the characters still irritated you but for entirely different reasons.
 
Agrajag
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:23 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:36 pm

Worst for me is The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Brilliant books, the author, Douglas Adams, said they were unfilmable... And he was right. The film was terrible.
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Slartibartfast had a point
 
Agrajag
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:23 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:38 pm

The Wickerman remake also plunged depths seldom seen.
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Slartibartfast had a point
 
User avatar
ER757
Topic Author
Posts: 3427
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:44 pm

cjg225 wrote:
I'll toss one out there as not-sure-if-good-or-bad: The Bourne Identity.

I know that the novels were written in a much different time in modern history compared to when they were turned into movies, so there was very naturally adaption to the present day required, but... it's more like they took the general idea of Bourne and applied it to a much different story. I didn't read the book until couple years ago, so I was surprised to see how different it was not just in setting (as expected) but also in terms of characterization, events, etc. It's weird, as I really like the movie and though the book was good, but can't determine whether I think, "Oh, this was a great adaption to the present day" or "Wow, they really cut out a lot of the soul of this story even if it's a good movie."

As noted in my original post, big Ludlum fan here - as to the Bourne movies, you are right, very little in common with the books. They were pretty good action movies as stand-alone projects, but anyone expecting the books to have been brought to life on screen would be left scratching their head as to just what the heck they just watched.
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:46 pm

luckyone wrote:
In the toss-up category: The Devil Wears Prada. A snarky book about a bunch of unsympathetic characters was made into a completely different movie wherein the characters still irritated you but for entirely different reasons.

Never read the book, but think the movie is hilarious. I have some problems with Andi's friends and her boyfriend, but otherwise the movie is gold and constantly quotable.
casinterest wrote:
Worst Adaptation of a Book: The Sum of All Fears--Tom Clancy. This film was just plain awful, too many details skipped , and to much frivolity.

I'll agree here. Contrary to my views of The Hunt for Red October, I think The Sum of All Fears is a very weak movie.
Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
 
User avatar
ER757
Topic Author
Posts: 3427
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:46 pm

N14AZ wrote:
ER757 wrote:
Braybuddy wrote:
Lord of the Rings. It's impossible to get the length and depth of that story into three three-hour films. The book is beautifully slow-paced and episodic with more fully fleshed characters than the film could ever hope to achieve.

Agree completely - but I went into those movies knowing the books would be short-changed so wasn't disappointed. I think Peter Jackson did a good job within the framework he had to deal with (what to include and what had to be left out to keep the films at a reasonable length). Could have done without the love story between Arwen and Aragorn but I guess they had to give Liv Tyler something to do

The Hobbit movies are even worse, if you ask me. They have absolutely nothing in common with the book.

Yeah, the Hobbit movies were not good - why on Earth Jackson thought he could get three films out of one book shorter than any of the three Lord of the Rings volumes is beyond me. Swing and a miss IMHO
 
luckyone
Posts: 2773
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:48 pm

cjg225 wrote:
luckyone wrote:
In the toss-up category: The Devil Wears Prada. A snarky book about a bunch of unsympathetic characters was made into a completely different movie wherein the characters still irritated you but for entirely different reasons.

Never read the book, but think the movie is hilarious. I have some problems with Andi's friends and her boyfriend, but otherwise the movie is gold and constantly quotable.
casinterest wrote:
Worst Adaptation of a Book: The Sum of All Fears--Tom Clancy. This film was just plain awful, too many details skipped , and to much frivolity.

I'll agree here. Contrary to my views of The Hunt for Red October, I think The Sum of All Fears is a very weak movie.

In the book her boyfriend is the only reasonable person in the bunch.
 
User avatar
Dieuwer
Posts: 1363
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:07 pm

The Neverending Story by Wolfgang Petersen (1984), https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_ne ... story_1984
Loved the book, hated the movie. Especially the fake flying dog and the endless whining of the main characters.
I really really REALLY hope that someone does a makeover (Disney?, Peter Jackson?).
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12476
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:13 pm

WIederling wrote:
Starship Trooper. Nothing of the philosophically interesting things in the book survives.


From what I understand, that movie was not originally intended to be an adaptation of the book, but when someone pointed out that it bore striking similarities, they borrowed the title and some character names.

luckyone wrote:
Gone with the Wind. I'm not getting into the sociology of the story, but the movie adapted it very well, though it left out the fact that Scarlet had two other children.


Only so much of a 1000-page book you can put into a movie, even if it is 4 hours. But you're right - they did quite well with the movie, though there is lots that is left out.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
SmithAir747
Posts: 1888
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:30 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:20 pm

The Sum of All Fears: The movie is so different from the book particularly in its setting. In the book, the improvised nuclear weapon is detonated during the Super Bowl in the stadium in Denver, by East German and Palestinian terrorists. In the film, the bomb is detonated at a football game in Baltimore, by Neo-Nazis.

SmithAir747
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made... (Psalm 139:14)
 
Max Q
Posts: 7556
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:45 am

Apollo 13 was very good, lived up to the book as did ‘Sully’

‘The last ship’ was an outstanding novel written about a post nuclear world

A tv series was made with the same title but a totally different story, it was pretty corny but not that bad
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns and the love of them by a loud minority are a malignant and deadly cancer inflicted on American society
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2823
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:48 am

IMHO, any Tom Clancy filmatisations were way better than the books.

Hunt for Red October had a really annoying religious sub-theme, thankfully the film did away with that.

Sum of All Fears was 600 pages of meh, followed by 50 pages of action. The film cut all the meh away.

Rainbow Six was a solid book though, as was Red Storm Rising. Too bad they weren't turned into films.
 
jcancel
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:07 am

if the time periods were different it's because left wing groups largely disappeared after the collapse of the Soviet union.

SmithAir747 wrote:
The Sum of All Fears: The movie is so different from the book particularly in its setting. In the book, the improvised nuclear weapon is detonated during the Super Bowl in the stadium in Denver, by East German and Palestinian terrorists. In the film, the bomb is detonated at a football game in Baltimore, by Neo-Nazis.

SmithAir747
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:58 am

VSMUT wrote:
IMHO, any Tom Clancy filmatisations were way better than the books.

Hunt for Red October had a really annoying religious sub-theme, thankfully the film did away with that.

Sum of All Fears was 600 pages of meh, followed by 50 pages of action. The film cut all the meh away.

Rainbow Six was a solid book though, as was Red Storm Rising. Too bad they weren't turned into films.

Look, I get that everyone has different preferences, but what the hell are you talking about? I am not sure I've ever heard someone bring that up about The Hunt For Red October, which is roundly considered one of the best Cold War thrillers ever written. The Sum of All Fears certainly isn't my favorite, but that critique, too, is kind of weird because most of the Ryan-verse novels are a long trek up the hill to a breaking point and then lots of action leading to a resolution. What made Clancy so amazing was that you could hardly put one of his books down because even in the long lead up to all hell breaking loose you wanted so much to see what the next step in the setup was. They're all like that.

And "solid" is really underselling Red Storm Rising. Way too long to make a reasonable film interpretation of, but one hell of an amazing Cold-War-gone-hot story.
Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
 
1836Sam
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:35 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:53 pm

Brokeback Mountain was essentially a page-by-page depiction, but much easier to do so with a novella.
 
User avatar
T18
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:28 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:06 am

I can't say that I've ever seen a film adapted from a book I previously read that I cared for much at all with a few exception. The Hitchhiker guide film was not as fun as the book, The Harry Potter films didn't ring to me the same as the books either, Sullys book was way more interesting to me than the film. Granted they are still better than any movie based on a video game I have ever seen. Most of the issue really does come down to being forced to condense a much bigger story down to fit an 90 minute film that causes a lot of fine details to be blurred or omitted in the need of time. I do wonder if large books would fair better as series instead of movies, it looks to work for Game of Thrones but having neither read nor seen it I cannot personally vouch for its quality either way. Granted a TV budget could create major constraints in acting pool and FX (although FX are getting cheaper by the year it seems).
“Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting.” ― Steve McQueen (Le Mans) 1971
 
BN747
Posts: 6544
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:17 am

I'd say, for it's time the original Jurrasic Park.

I don't know how many pages the book has, but cram all that (I know much was left out) into a 2 hour feature and make it soooo simplistic in explanation so that every F-student of geology, evolutionary studies could grasp the concept and weave into a palatable story, that's an adaptation.

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 1784
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:49 am

luckyone wrote:
[*]The Godfather is an exceptional adaptation. Little to none of the core story changes. The movie eliminates a few side plots but otherwise faithfully executes (pun intended) the book.


That's what you get when you have the author also write the screenplay.

casinterest wrote:
Best Adaptation of a Book: The Firm. John Gresham There were some sketchy parts to it, but i thought this film stayed rather true to the book.

Worst Adaptation of a Book: The Sum of All Fears--Tom Clancy. This film was just plain awful, too many details skipped , and to much frivolity.


To me, The Firm was a bad adaptation of a great book. The movie copped out in having Mitch McDeere find a loophole to bring down the firm & still keep his law licence. If they had kept the ending of him breaking client-attorney privilege, the payoff would have been much sweeter.

VSMUT wrote:
IMHO, any Tom Clancy filmatisations were way better than the books.

Hunt for Red October had a really annoying religious sub-theme, thankfully the film did away with that.

Sum of All Fears was 600 pages of meh, followed by 50 pages of action. The film cut all the meh away.

Rainbow Six was a solid book though, as was Red Storm Rising. Too bad they weren't turned into films.


You kidding me? You may have a point for The Hunt for Red October, although to be honest Alec Baldwin is not Jack Ryan in my opinion (nor is Harrison Ford, but that's another story). But the Sum of All Fears was ruined because the movie has nothing to do with the book. And Ben Affleck? He's definitely not Jack Ryan!
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
User avatar
dik909
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:56 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:50 pm

Best = Shawshank Redemption. Even though the film added much that wasn't in the book, the final product was still brilliant.

Honorable mention: although I never read the book, One Few Over the Cuckoo's Nest was phenomenal, too.

Worst = Last of the Mohicans. The book by James Fennimore Cooper was sooooooo much more compelling and riveting than the film.

Honorable mention: Sphere by Michael Crichton
 
User avatar
ER757
Topic Author
Posts: 3427
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:43 pm

dik909 wrote:
Best = Shawshank Redemption. Even though the film added much that wasn't in the book, the final product was still brilliant.

Honorable mention: although I never read the book, One Few Over the Cuckoo's Nest was phenomenal, too.

Worst = Last of the Mohicans. The book by James Fennimore Cooper was sooooooo much more compelling and riveting than the film.

Honorable mention: Sphere by Michael Crichton

Cuckoo's Nest is in my all-time top five (actually #2 behind Close Encounters) - Nicholson won best actor and as great as his performance was, he was probably the least convincing of the "patients."
Christopher Lloyd (Taber) was amazing, Brad Dourif (Billy) and Sydney Lassick (Cheswick) were outstanding!

"Sphere" was pretty decent as well
 
TSS
Posts: 3174
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:46 pm

dik909 wrote:
Honorable mention (for Worst Adaptation): Sphere by Michael Crichton

Now I'm intrigued- I read the book and hated it, I felt the ending was a huge copout, so I had less than no interest in seeing the film. How is the film different from the book?
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12158
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:45 pm

Braybuddy wrote:
Lord of the Rings. It's impossible to get the length and depth of that story into three three-hour films. The book is beautifully slow-paced and episodic with more fully fleshed characters than the film could ever hope to achieve.


Watch the extended directors cut editions they run over 3.5 hours and fill in a fair bit which was missing from the cinema releases.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12158
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Best and Worst film adaptation of a book

Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:48 pm

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
luckyone wrote:
[*]The Godfather is an exceptional adaptation. Little to none of the core story changes. The movie eliminates a few side plots but otherwise faithfully executes (pun intended) the book.


That's what you get when you have the author also write the screenplay.

casinterest wrote:
Best Adaptation of a Book: The Firm. John Gresham There were some sketchy parts to it, but i thought this film stayed rather true to the book.

Worst Adaptation of a Book: The Sum of All Fears--Tom Clancy. This film was just plain awful, too many details skipped , and to much frivolity.


To me, The Firm was a bad adaptation of a great book. The movie copped out in having Mitch McDeere find a loophole to bring down the firm & still keep his law licence. If they had kept the ending of him breaking client-attorney privilege, the payoff would have been much sweeter.

VSMUT wrote:
IMHO, any Tom Clancy filmatisations were way better than the books.

Hunt for Red October had a really annoying religious sub-theme, thankfully the film did away with that.

Sum of All Fears was 600 pages of meh, followed by 50 pages of action. The film cut all the meh away.

Rainbow Six was a solid book though, as was Red Storm Rising. Too bad they weren't turned into films.


You kidding me? You may have a point for The Hunt for Red October, although to be honest Alec Baldwin is not Jack Ryan in my opinion (nor is Harrison Ford, but that's another story). But the Sum of All Fears was ruined because the movie has nothing to do with the book. And Ben Affleck? He's definitely not Jack Ryan!


The guy playing him in the Amazon series is pretty close to what I would think Jack Ryan would be like.

One of the worst has to be tiny little midget Tom Cruise trying to and failing miserably to play the giant Jack Reacher!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Caryjack, EIBPI and 18 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos