A discussion in the movies thread got me thinking about movies that are based on books. I'm an avid reader, and I usually look forward to seeing movies based on books I've read. Of course, most of the time, the book is much better. But every once in a while a movie matches or even exceeds the book.

 

So, let's discuss the movies that we've seen that are based on books. What adaptations were good, which were terrible, what books would you like to see adapted, etc.

Jurassic Park wins forever.

Very few movies I've seen were as good as, let alone better than, their books.

 

LOTR movies I think I may have liked better than the books. The Hunt for Red October was as-good-as, but not better than.

 

Another interesting question - what books have you all read that you really do NOT want made into movies? Maybe ones you think just cannot be good as film.

 

Also always wondered... when they talk about original screenplay vs adaptation, like for the Academy Awards, how is that determined? Some years back, the movie Thirteen Days was nominated for best original screenplay. Except, there was a book, about the exact same historical events with all the same cast of characters (pretty much)... not to mention the fact that it was a history piece. I enjoyed the movie, but, how is that an Original Screenplay?

 

Jurassic Park wins forever.

 

I still have to go with Wizard of Oz. The original obviously.

Books are always better IMO. Movies always fall short because they miss so much detail.

Best I've seen?

 

To Kill a Mockingbird

The Godfather

L.A. Confidential

Shawshank Redemption

Maltese Falcon

The Right Stuff

 

 

Worst?

Bonfire of the Vanities

TV shows as well. The Game of Thrones TV show is great for what it is and I try to consider it a different adaptation.

I was surprised that I enjoyed the movie version of "On the Road". I am a big Kerouac fan and I just didn't believe I would enjoy any adaptation, even if I did it myself. I was hoping to see "Big Sur" in theaters but the opening was small and never spread near me. I was reasonable pleased watching the "Lord of the Rings" movies. Perhaps because my expectations were small.

 

I really did not like the movie "I am Legend" mostly because it did not follow most the literary analysis of the book. When the book was published there was a lot of "white flight" from the cities. Many scholars believed that the vampires were a metaphor for blacks and the protagonist represented whites fleeing from the cities or staying and dying.

 

As for the movie that bested the book -- "Jaws".

I think a lot of people will relate to the idea that many times when we read a book, your memory of it is more like a movie than it is a collection of words.

 

When I first saw the Harry Potter movies, I was astounded at how closely they matched my "mental movie" from reading them.

The one movie I can say for sure was better than the book was Up In The Air. I saw the movie first and then read the book. I'm glad I had seen the movie first, because I probably would not have watched the movie based on what I thought of the book.

 

Some movies that have come close would be Jurassic Park, The Omen, Stand By Me (The Body), The Shawshank Redemption, The Road, and even Catching Fire.

I am hoping for a adaptation of Magician by Raymond E Feist some day. Also The Dark Elf Saga by R A Salvatore.

 

I like Jurassic Park, but the book is so much better and darker. I know Speilberg needed to sell it to a big audience, but there was a lot cut out of the book version. I was hoping Jurassic Park 4 would be a complete reboot but it seems like they are continuing the story laid out in the previous movies.

 

Harry Potter was a great adaptation, especially the final 3 movies.

Goodfellas.

Jurassic Park was fun, but I agree with Kyle, the book was much better.

 

Harry Potter movies come close, and were really well done.

 

There have been rumors on and off for years about my favorite non-fiction book in recent memory, Blood and Thunder, being made into a movie. Dreamworks bought the rights some years back. I think it will be really hard to cast Kit Carson.

 

I agree generally that the books are almost always better than the movie, mainly because of time constraints. One recent exception? The Hunger Games.

I agree generally that the books are almost always better than the movie, mainly because of time constraints. One recent exception? The Hunger Games.

That movie feel short IMO because they explained NOTHING. All of a sudden they are on a train and the food is amazing, but WHY?? There was no narration at all.

That movie feel short IMO because they explained NOTHING. All of a sudden they are on a train and the food is amazing, but WHY?? There was no narration at all.

 

I'm the opposite. I think the movies dwell too much on the non-games stuff. We got in the first movie that all of the districts are poor, hungry and have little to no luxuries, but the capital and everyone who lives there are well fed and rich.

 

Really the big upgrade in the movies is not having to read 40 pages of inner monologue about what boy Katniss likes/dislikes and why. That crap was awful.

I'm the opposite. I think the movies dwell too much on the non-games stuff. We got in the first movie that all of the districts are poor, hungry and have little to no luxuries, but the capital and everyone who lives there are well fed and rich.

 

Really the big upgrade in the movies is not having to read 40 pages of inner monologue about what boy Katniss likes/dislikes and why. That crap was awful.

It just seemed to me they didnt show the class separation as clearly as they should have.

It makes me think the Divergent series will be similar.

I really liked most of the movies made from Grisham books.

I really liked most of the movies made from Grisham books.

 

Agreed. They did good jobs with casting in those early ones too. A Time to Kill was especially good, both in book, and in movie.

After Jurassic Park (and all the other Chricthon stuff) I stopped reading books because it was just simpler to see the movie and never know what really should have happened.

 

JP book is one of my favorite endings.

After Jurassic Park (and all the other Chricthon stuff) I stopped reading books because it was just simpler to see the movie and never know what really should have happened.

 

JP book is one of my favorite endings.

 

Bringing Malcolm back from the dead in order to write The Lost World because of his movie popularity was such a terrible decision.

 

And conversely, not killing off Hammond at the end of the movie was an equally bad decision. One of the things that bugs me the most about the movie is the misrepresentation of Hammonds character. A funny thing is that his son in the second movie is closer to what Hammond was in the books, a greedy capitalistic SOB that would stop at nothing to get what he wanted, and ultimately died because of his bad decisions.

Bringing Malcolm back from the dead in order to write The Lost World because of his movie popularity was such a terrible decision.

 

And conversely, not killing off Hammond at the end of the movie was an equally bad decision. One of the things that bugs me the most about the movie is the misrepresentation of Hammonds character. A funny thing is that his son in the second movie is closer to what Hammond was in the books, a greedy capitalistic SOB that would stop at nothing to get what he wanted, and ultimately died because of his bad decisions.

Yes. It really pissed me off as well that they made Hammond some jovial near-nincompoop. That said, movie was still excellent.

Most of the movies I've seen that were based on a book that I've actually read have been Stephen King books.

 

Best: Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me, The Mist, The Green Mile

 

Worst: Hearts In Atlantis, The Dead Zone, Bag of Bones, The Running Man, Tommyknockers, Dreamcatcher