Books Do Not Make Good Films

The Dirty Dozen was a better movie, but that was because the movie only really started at the end of the book, which was more of a study of the psychology of the dozen rather than an account of their exploits. The obvious problem with making movies from books is that a story that can fill several hundred pages and take a couple of days to read can't be depicted in a couple of hours of film. Practically all of the character building text is lost and replaced with visual spectacle. It's also worth noting that many people who will happily watch a movie on auto-pilot can't be bothered to concentrate on a book. I know a 'picture is worth a thousand words' but that would reduce many short stories to a snapshot.

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest?

The Big Sleep The Maltese Falcon LA Confidential Howls Moving Castle Lord Of The Rings Cold Mountain was rubbish though.

Do comic books count? ~PEPS~ “There is no spoon.”

Inspector Morse...every episode is the length of a short film so I'm counting it. Almost all the Ian Fleming Bond Books. Stephen King's 'the Shining' which is nothing without Jack Nicholson.

The Shawshank Redemption! (agree with One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest too.)

Comic 'books' not allowed, because errr they are comics not books.

Comic books = e.g. Spiderman, Superman, Batman, V for Vendetta... (first 3 have definitely made good films, but as haven't seen 4th yet, can't comment) Sort of agree with TC on Bond, although perhaps the fact that they "bear almost no resemblance to the books" is proof that books can make good films? - i.e. if the film-makers don't try (and fail) to copy the books, but make something that is based on but more suited to the medium of film...? (reminds me, I've been working my way through the Flemings in strict publication date order... looking forward to "For Your Eyes Only"...!) ~PEPS~ “There is no spoon.”

What about graphic novels?

I have a theory that books make rubbish films when the filmmakers stick too close to the book. That said Maltese Falcon is virtually the book scene for scene and it's great. It's kind of hard for a film to add much to the book, film scripts being only a few thousand words long and all. But... Maltese Falcon added *that* line the way only bogey could say it. Big Sleep added sexual chemistry that wasn't really there in the novel. Lord Of The Rings added by removing, the films found a far more human story that gets buried by all the turgid history in the books, plus there were more orks getting their heads chopped off in the films. Howls moving castle I havent read the book so couldn't say.

>>why the hell do they keep on doing it? because they're desperate for a good story

Two come to mind: One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest Sophie's Choice

the iron giant the princess bride jaws

Damn, can't have Shawshank then 'cos it's a short story.

Why do they do it…? Hmm… Well my theory is twofold… 1. It is simply easier to make films out of novels than short stories, because with novels all the material is there, you just have to remove bits; whereas adapting short stories probably takes more creativity – interpolating, actually filling in narrative gaps, etc. 2. Economics: I would think it is easier to get funding for a film based on a (relatively) well-known novel than a (relatively) obscure short story. Particularly in the case of e.g., the Harry Potter phenomenon… we all want to see a film based on “Harry Potter and the Purple Hand Grenade” (or whatever), we’ll be tootling down to the cinema in droves, even though we (i.e. hardened Potter fans) know we’ll be seriously disappointed at everything they’ve left out. Re comic books/graphic novels – even easier! They don’t even have to imagine what things look like! That’s not to belittle the undoubted quality of the first Superman, a couple of the Batmans and the Spidermans, of course… ~PEPS~ “There is no spoon.”

Gone with the Wind...was a pretty good book and made a pretty good film. To Kill a Mockingbird...not bad. In Cold Blood...not bad. The Grapes of Wrath...pretty good. Field of Dreams ie...Shoeless Joe...pretty good. Catch - 22...pretty good. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/(link is external)

Do you think Capote actually wrote To Kill a Mockingbird? Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/(link is external)

Hitchhiker's Guide Stephen King's 'IT' I have Mixed feelings about Frank Herbert's 'Dune'

Field of Dreams was a very successful movie here, one of my favorite Costner movies...based on the book Shoeless Joe by Paul Kinsella (whom I leared from in College btw) I can see it not being that big in England...it has baseball as a theme and that's an American subject for the most part. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/(link is external)

King's 'IT' terrified me, both the book and the film, in fact to this day I have been unable to watch the entire film, same goes for 'The Shining' I switch off at the same point each time.

Field Of Dreams was quite popular RD, probably because although the story had a baseball theme you didn't actually have to know anything about the sport to understand it. We do have Baseball you know, the difference is that we call it Rounders and stop playing it after school.

'Ang on, Cook... Filed of Dreams... ? "Holepunch them, and they will be filed..." ~PEPS~ “There is no spoon.”

The other difference Camus is over here the athletes make 4 million a year to play it, and I have to spend a hundred bucks to take the girlfriend to a game. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/(link is external)

Move to the U.K and hang round school fields, you will see plenty of games free of charge, problem is you will most probably get arrested.

Why do that when I can see soccer here the same way. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/(link is external)

>mmm - haven't seen the Princess Bride but I gather it is a pile of Hollywood poo That's fighting talk. The Princess Bride is the most wonderful funny likeable film ever made, it's not onlly a great film it's the best film ever made ever bar none so there! So is Jaws for that matter. No book could never produce the same raw viceral terror from a reader that jaws can from a viewer. The Iron Giant is from a brilliant children's book by Ted Hughes, it was made into a fantastic cartoon by Brad Bird (who went on to do the Incredibles). The Shinning was a fantastic film. War of the worlds was a good film (the original)

Pennywise the Clown in IT is terrifying but when IT appears as a giant spider thing towards the end it's just rubbish...

Ah...now you see that's the problem Jude, I have never watched the film anywhere near to the end, I seem to remember seeing horrid, nasty, scary clown in a storm drain trying to entice a child towards him and promptly switching off!

The Bible: In the Beginning was ok :)

The Keep Never knew the Princess Bride was a book, but I love the movie. We are really sad, and use quotes from it all the time. "You cannot chose the (fill in the blank) in front of you..." Pathetic, eh?

Oh, and Re: The Iron Giant Can we pick movies that are kids cartoons? You could get into all the Roald Dahl movies. James and the Giant Peach is brill.

I remembered two more that I thought were pretty ok films, Chocolat and Girl Interrupted.

The Godfather

Bum, I was going to nominate Chocolat. The Shipping News was pretty good too, imho.

Oh, I'd have to dispute The Shining as a good film. Kubrick ruined it and Jack Nicholson was the WORST Jack Torrance...The Shining is one of my favourite Stephen King novels (and, okay, I cop to being a fan), but the movie omitted what was the fundamental theme of the novel, which is the dissolution of the family unit, and turned it into a half-penny horror show. I can't comment on 'IT'; I read the book several times but can't bring myself to watch the film, as other King books-cum-films are usually sooo bad. Apparently, Pennywise is very scary. Shawshank Redemption as a film was fantastic, but is actually from a short story...? I would agree, though, that LOTR were a fabulous set of films; even though they didn't, to my Tolkien-purist's mind, strictly adhere to the story, they most certainly captured the essence and feel of the books, magnificently.

Ah, I was going to say The Godfather too. I saw the film first (the best way round, usually) and then read the book. There seemed a lot of fluff in the book that was cut with good reason. There was only one pivotal point in the book that I didn't catch in the film. That was when Michael stood outside the hospital and realised that his hand *wasn't* shaking when he went to light the cigarette. Watching it since, I can see it, but I missed it first time round.

Oh, the young Pacino-as-Michael Corleone could park his costly Italian loafers under my bed any time! *swoon*

"I saw the film first (the best way round, usually)" Yes, I agree... I'll confess to not having read Chocolat but I bought it last week (on the strength of the film) with the intention of reading it on my holiday... only 3 days to go and yawl be rid of me. I did, however, read The Shipping News before I saw the film and I wasn't disappointed.

Anything by Proulx is bound to be good, I reckon...

From Here To Eternity A Passage To India Great Expectations The Bad Seed Last Of The Mohicans The 39 Steps Heart Of Darkness/Apocalypse Now Kind Hearts and Coronets The Man Who Would Be King Dracula All Quiet On The Western Front Dr Jekyl And Mr Hyde Frankenstein The French Connection The Hustler Kes The Manchurian Candidate Oliver Twist Paths Of Glory Schindler's List Whisky Galore Sideways I rest my case.

I’m a bit of an anti-Purist. I think The Shining book and The Shining film were excellent, but in very different ways. The film was disturbing, scary and visually/aurally brilliant (in that uniquely Kubrick-esque way). The book, however, explored those psychological factors that AG mentioned, intricately and subtly (in that uniquely King-esque way). The film is more an interpretation of the book than a direct adaptation… and that’s the way I like it! Films and books serve different purposes, so I don’t think it’s right to expect them to tell the same story in the same way. A book can’t be as visual as a film, nor be enhanced by a fantastic soundtrack (LoTR, The Matrix, Star Wars… etc); but a film can’t possibly explore, for example, character development as deeply as a book. I think when people (e.g. you crazy, purist Potter fans out there!) complain that when a book-to-film adaptation didn’t include this bit or that bit, they are missing the point. A film should be a very different animal… I think when a film-maker tries to adapt too faithfully, they’re setting themselves up for criticism… (incidentally I feel the same way about music/songs… I’m never happier than when I hear a “remix” which is totally indistinguishable from the original!) ~PEPS~ “There is no spoon.”