Films of Books

S

sgt slaughter

New member
When a film is made of a book that I have read and liked, I usually find the film isn't nearly so good as the book - partly because it has to be shortened so much and such a lot is missed out. Sometimes though they spoil it by altering the story line or the ending or make the characters seem different than you imagined.

Very occasionally the film is actually an improvement on the book.

Are there any films which you think were not nearly as good as the books and any you thought were actually better?

Films which I found the MOST disappointing after enjoying the book were "Rebecca" - (Max didn't murder her in the film) and "1984" - they totally changed the ending.

Two films that I thought were much better than the books were "The Servant" with Dirk Bogarde and "Logan's Run" (totally different and the book was dire.)
 
I thought Peter Jackson did a good job of Tolkein's LOTR, and Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange.

A Clockwork Orange is the only example I can think of where the films ending is better than the book. At the end of the book Alex becomes civilized and a valuable member of society. I don't think this ending would have suited Kubrick's film.

I also thought Mel Gibsons 'Passion of the Christ' was excellent. I'll be treading on thin ice if I said the film was better to watch than reading the bible, but I think it is one of few instances where an interpretation of a book is accurately depicted in a film.
 
I went through a phase of reading loaRAB of Agatha Christie.

Strangely enough, although I've found the Poirot film adaptations generally disappointing (especially the Peter Ustinov ones), I thought the Margaret Rutherford Marples were quite an improvement...albeit not very similar to the books.
 
Roots the book and Roots the series were both absorbing, although the book just edges it.

Not sure if I've seen the film version of Papillon:confused: but I couldn't put the book down.
 
I haven't seen the film "A Clockwork Orange" but I studied the book in a literature course at university. I thought the ending of the book was very apt because the whole book is really about brainwashing and "conditioning". (In a way it plays a kind of practical joke on the reader because you have to sort of become "conditioned" into understanding the language to actually read it.)
Alex is brainwashed into losing his lust for violence but, in doing so he also loses the one thing that gave him joy - his pleasure in classical music.
The book neeRAB that ending to show how brainwashing works and yet diminishes people. It also shows the power of the state. The ending is really the whole message of the book. What is the "message" of the film then?

1984 is exactly the same thing really. In the book Winston also becomes brainwashed by room 101, and the torture in "The Ministry of Love", so that in the end he accepts everything about the state, forgets Julia, and says he "loves Big Brother".
I think the ending of the film is weaker because the brainwashing doesn't work. Love conquers all - even the power of the state - and he and Julia are gunned down, hand in hand, among the falling leaves.
 
I haven't seen the film, but can't understand why they would change the ending.

Bladerunner and Misery are two others I thought of where I enjoyed the film more than the novel/story they were adapted from
 
They probably thought the ending in the book was just too bleak and depressing for a film aimed at the BGP.
It wouldn't be commercial enough.

An ending where love was seen to be more powerful than anything the state could throw at them, was far more romantic and uplifting - even if it invalidated everything George Orwell was trying to say.
 
I'm sure I read that John Grisham thought the ending of the movie version was better than his book in that the movie ended with the lawyers being done for mail fraud, rather than Mitch (the Tom Cruise character) having to give up the law, having broken is oath on client confidentiality. I would tend to agree.
 
i didnt really like the film of Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy. they changed the end of that too and created a whole series of events that werent in the book.

I guess being such a cult book/film/radio series they would never please all the fans.
 
I disagree. The film lost its bottle and hence missed the point.

BladeRunner was a great film, but the book was also very, very good and they are so different it's hard to say whether the film is better. I thought The Shining was better as a film, because Kubric is a great director and King had become too formulaic for me.

The Hunt For Red October works better as a film because you can't tell what the submarine captain is thinking. It gets a whole new level of ambiguity.

Millenium, the time-travel story about airplane crashes, is told better in the film. The book switches between the two main characters, so you pretty much know what is going on from the start (except I found it confusing that they were involved with different crashes). The movie adaptation follows one character for the first half and then switches to the other for the second half, which I thought was brilliant. And I love the idea of the girl who smokes too much.

There are several short stores which really seem like nothing special, partly because they are so short, but which became good films. Hellraiser, for example. Or We Can Remember It For You Wholesale/Total Recall.

In general it's best to see the film first and read the book after. The book tenRAB to add more background.
 
Also "The BirRAB" originally a short story by Daphne du Maurier which Hitchcock used the idea of to make a film.

"The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner."

The Sentinel - a short SF story which became "2001"
 
Back
Top