Off Topic
.
But who likes books better than the film of the book:

With me, reading a book I get the entire "sense-around" experience. In my minds-eye, I can see,smell,touch,feel...

The films never get it right.

But, in a few, they come close.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 20 May 2008, 14:32, 13 replies)

I can't think
of a single adaptation that didn't leave me dissapointed.

Actually, that's a big lie. I love the Godfather and Misery, but I haven't read either of the books so maybe that's why (although I have heard that the book of the Godfather isn't very good)
( Bazongaloid, Tue 20 May 2008, 14:36, closed)

I agree
when reading, I tend to build a mental picture of the characters, and the casting never comes near.

My prime example of this is James Nesbitt in "Quite Ugly One Morning" (ok not a film, but you get the point). Who the hell thought casting him as a quintessential Scotsman was a good idea? He didn't even attempt the accent!
(TheWeeWitch hasn't been here much recently .., Tue 20 May 2008, 14:45, closed)

I agree that the films rarely live up to the books.
However, I have read some books because I had seen the film first. One that springs to mind is Catch 22.
( girlinthehole, Tue 20 May 2008, 14:48, closed)

Troy
Brad Pitt, cos he was bent as, that Achilles fella and that film was totally ghey.
(bazmorningstar efil4nat3b, Tue 20 May 2008, 14:50, closed)

The film versions of
The Shawshank Redemption and Stand by Me (thebook is called the Body I think) by Stephen King were all good I thought.

as good as the book I would say. but that is mainly because they are among my favourite films.

Fight Club too, is great as book and film
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 20 May 2008, 15:07, closed)

I liked American Psycho equally and differently as film and book
The film is more obviously funny and very well made.
the book is scarier and a lot nastier.
( Mockingbird Practitioner of SCIENCE, Tue 20 May 2008, 15:07, closed)

You can't generalise.
Surely each screen adaptation has to be judged on it's own merit. Most of those I've seen have done reasonable justice to their forebears.

You have to consider the work taken in converting written word into watchable motion pictures. Personally, I really appreciate the talent and skill required to take that experience from 'the mind's eye' and actually sculpt it into something that looks good on screen, without a narrative to explain what it smells and 'feels' like. The main challenge being that of narrative and real-time.

I don't have the memory to quote specifics, but think of the way that narrative can interject a hectic fight or even battle scene to closely describe sweat glistening on throbbing biceps and the pungent scent of tribal jockstraps colliding. You have several hours and an unlimited amount of imagination to visualise scenes from a book, where a director may have to try and squeeze all of that detail into a couple of minutes or even a few seconds to fit time and budget constraints.

That said, there are plenty of productions that mercilessly butcher good original works by missing huge chnks of plot or just missing the point entirely. I have to say that the overall advantage is time. A good adaptation can convert a couple of days reading into a couple of hours. Everyone reads a book then watches the film and say's it wasn't as good. More people should try it the other way around. I've read a couple of books after enjoying the film and came away wondering why I bothered as the film did a pretty good job and it certainly wasn't worth the extra time spent on reading the book.

I for one would rather waste 2 hours watching a shit film than 2 days reading a shit book.
(Greencloud Wanted to go fishing on, Tue 20 May 2008, 15:24, closed)

I mostly agree
But I think Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas was adapted pretty much spot on.
(Big Smurf Brush me daddy-O, Tue 20 May 2008, 15:58, closed)

Bridget Jones' Diary
I recently re-read this and was taken by surprise by quite how different it is from the movie. The film (which I watched some time after reading the book) felt *exactly* like the book in terms of character and plot, but it turns out that they'd messed with the book a lot. That, to me, is the mark of a good film adaptation: get the spirit of the book, while not being too desperate to keep to the letter of it. I quite liked Name of the Rose, and the best of the Harry Potter films is definitely the least faithful (number 3). Also the aforementioned Catch-22 - I would have said without question that the book was unfilmable, but I would have been wrong! Oh, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Lots of other examples.
( flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Tue 20 May 2008, 16:25, closed)

@Smurf
Fear & Loathing was a great interpretation...

Perhaps made easier for Gilliam as Ralph Steadman's illustrations would have helped form our expectations and, by extension, his direction.

That's not to take anything away from Gilliam, though; trying to convert anything from the words of Hunter S Thompson to film is a task that is surely beyond most.
( Moey, Tue 20 May 2008, 16:42, closed)

One of the few for me...
...is 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. I don't think the film is better than the book, but also, I don't think that it could have been done any better than it was. Surely Gregory Peck IS Atticus? and the kids that played Scout, Jem and Dill were brilliant too, in fact my one and only gripe is that Tom's arm clearly wasn't caught in a mill as a boy.

Also, there's plenty in the book that didn't make it to the film, which means it's well worth reading in its own right, e.g. the bit where Scout goes to stay with Calpurnia isn't in the film etc.
(Che Grimsdale Best before:, Tue 20 May 2008, 16:48, closed)

Agree with WeeWitch
On James Nesbitt's casting in an otherwise OK adaptation of a good Christopher Brookmyre book. He was so iredeemably shit and wrong in every bloody way. ITV must have had a contract to honour, it's the only explanation. Mind you, they did change the ending as well which kind of fucked up the character relationships in following books, being that the female copper helping our hero in the book was a lesbian, and in the TV version, he copped off with her at the end.

Books to films that are better than the book: Not many. But Jaws springs to mind. The book is OK but too focussed on the Brodie's marital dischord rather than shark chompy-chompy action.

IMHO.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Tue 20 May 2008, 16:50, closed)