I take each project for what it's worth. I don't particularly care who does a film or book (though I do seem to mostly despise whatever Jerry Bruckheimer cranks out). I liked The Shining in both book and movie form, but the two are completely different projects. I think King's book has more substance, but Kubrick's film really generates a 'mood' and a certain creepiness that is unique. In an effort to move the discussion along, I'll nominate Paper Moon as one of my favorite movies, adapted almost verbatim from the book Addie Pray. The film uses only the first half of the book, and also changes the locale from the deep south to Kansas and Missouri, but I think it catches the story to perfection in it's delivery. I never tire of watching it, though have only read the book once (after seeing the film a few times). I have not read Fannie Flagg's Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe and hope someone may be able to chime in with a comparison (forgive me if I missed it earlier). There's a movie with a fantastic story and I think it's well told on the screen. Having read another of her works it seems they got the flavor of the author's writing correct.
I am Legend with Will Smith would have been good if it wasn't an adaptation. I did like the Omega Man adaptation however. Anyways, worst adaptation? Planet of the Apes with Mark Walhberg. Honestly, Burton's film was a little bit more like the book but there wasn't something right about it either. The original film with Charleton Heston did deviate from the novel however it was so enhanced and much better with a taste of Rod Serling. I don't think adaptations mean they need to be a copy of the book. It just has to either be done right or better.
I recently watched Where the wild things are. Not sure if anyone mentioned it here before, but I really enjoyed it. Don't let the fact the main character is an eight-year old fool you! This is by no means a kid's movie, though one should expect to have their inner child stirred at the very least! I really love how it is a bit hollywood-ish and a bit arthouse-ish, the two go together well to subtly deal with complex human themes like friendship. Great movie!
Ew! Eragon might take the Cake for worst movie adaptations in my opinion. Looking back at the book, it isn't that great, but I enjoyed them. The movie was gawd awful! I can't think of any others, as Eragon was a huge blunder. As for Best Movie Addaptaions: I would say, The Harry Potter series, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Life of Pi was BRILLIANT, and I also enjoyed Cloud Atlas. Of Mice and Men (though not nearly my favorite) was really good. I cannot think of any others at the moment.
Eragon was actually awful. Think The Hunger Games was pretty badly done too, it had potential to be a lot better, it was only okay.
You know, the first time I watched The Hunger Games, I felt like it was just okay. Not terrible, but not good. The acting, besides a few characters, wasn't great, fr as closely as I felt they tried to stick to the book, they didn't do a good job of conveying any emotion, or conflict. things were just happening. I liked it more the second and third time around, but I will not say I love it or that it's great. I think, if they had more time/and or funding, they might have been able to emphasize certain things a bit better. But the sequel, Catching Fire, looks like it's gonna be pretty darn good--much more fleshed out, more conflict, perhaps more emotion, maybe even better acting or directing. That's one of the 3 movies I'm actually excited to see, along with Thor: Dark World and The Hobbit Part 2. And for all of us hating on Eragon... I think that may have been the worst movie I've ever seen... otherwise pretty high up there (I've seen some pretty bad comedies and would-be horrors).
I actually really liked the movie of One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, but not better. I just thought that it did a pretty good job at telling the story. The Shining got butchered. I understand that Stanley was doing his own vision, however, I'm not sure that it can then be called The Shining. I also really disliked the movie Stardust compared to the book (though I did read the book first). Someone mentioned manga normally being better than the Anime, and I don't know that I agree with that. Sword Art Online is a horrible novella, but the Anime kicks ASS. Anime is now designed with the ultimate goal of being turned into an Anime. However, I really do hate when the Anime gets ahead of the manga and goes off on its own tangent. > <
Brokeback Mountain. The film didn't just do a "based upon the short story by Annie Proulx." It pulled a full "we took dialogue and scene transitions and settings details straight out of the text with minimal, if any, creative license whatsoever." Probably why I liked the movie so much.
I haven't read World War Z yet, but I watched the movie the other night and liked it despite some bad reviews. Now I'm going to have to read the book to see what the difference is. The movie is a lot of tense action and not some much else. I'm hoping the book has a different take on the story. There was a lot of moralizing that I suspect the book will do a better job of.
See, and I tried to read World War Z when it first came out, and just couldn't get into the book. The movie, on the other hand, I greatly enjoyed.
I read World War Z but I haven't seen the movie. The book is structured more as a series of linked short stories than as a proper novel. I'll be interested to see how they adapted it.
I personally think WWZ wasn't meant to be adapted into a film. A TV series or a series of short films, maybe, but they really had to stretch things to get it into a feature film format--WWZ the book doesn't have a single cohesive plot or central character, after all, so everything about Brad Pitt's character is more or less brand new and movie-exclusive. Giving Max Brooks' "Zombie Survival Guide" a gander before seeing the film isn't a bad idea. Several conceptual things from ZSG make it into the film, things that aren't included in the WWZ book.
The source material of Eragon is, admittedly, very obviously a first-time work. It suffers from a lot of typical pitfalls (infodumps, WrtiersHaveNoSenseOfScale or Distance, really cliched dialogue/plot, flat characters, etc.) but a lot of the elements in it are really interesting (like the magic system). So the book seemed like "good ideas kneecapped by inexperienced writing," it's a bit like the book equivalent of having a decent piece of artwork framed in crappy plywood. Which doesn't really excuse it but there's at least some hope that the author may learn and improve later on. The movie was an atrocious hack job made only with the intention of cashing in on the fandom. The author didn't seem to have as much creative input on the making of the movie as he should have and what little input he had seems to have been ignored. They left out so many important plot points and characters - and what they left in was so badly warped - that they actually can't make the rest of the series without a complete reboot. The effects were half-arsed, the costuming was third-rate, a lot of the actors were very clearly just in it for the paycheck and a few of them are so embarrassed by it that they refuse to even speak about it. The music was about the only thing in the movie that was even halfway decent and it plays like a video game soundtrack from the 90's. If anyone wants to see a really good book-to-movie adaptation, my top three are going to be Coraline, Stardust, and the first of the Narnia movies. The Discworld two-parters they've been doing recently (Colour of Magic, Hogfather, and Going Postal are the ones that are out currently, iirc) aren't too shabby either, even if you miss out on some of the punny humour because most of those were very much print-based jokes.
I agree completely. I watched The Hobbit and started questioning my memory of it so had to go back and reread it to confirm I wasn't going mad. Yet when they added to LOTRs I didn't have an issue with that. One of my favourite adaptations is Interview with a Vampire, I felt that the settings for the film conveyed the moodiness of the book. Same can't be said for Queen of the Damned though.
Oh GOD! Queen of the Damned was an awful adaptation. I was so excited because it's one of my favorite books... and then it just got SLAUGHTERED. Though, I'm not sure how much that had to do with the fact that Akasha's actress died in a plane crash (RIP: Aaliyah). I've now just come to enough the movie as only a movie, and simply because Stuart Townsend is gorgeous!
You're going to find the book way more interesting. The movie wasn't that bad but it was rooting for the action movie crowd. The book is written like a history book taking viewpoints from several people around the world during the Zombie War. Max Brooks, the author did extensive research to make his book authentic as possible to real life survival , politics, society, economics etc.
I was really looking forward to it as well. I agree that the untimely death had a part to play, but I also reckon that the fact they tried to do The Vampire Lestat and The Queen of the Damned in one film didn't help. They tried to do too much with not enough time to do it credit.
Pride & Prejudice (2005) When you average it out I watch this movie at least once a month, but what that really means is I get drunk on wine with my partner and watch it back to back, with each of us acting out roles, her the women and me the men. Until I'm too drunk to stand, then I act them all out (very poorly I should point out)! Best movie adaptation is Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk, movie was directed by David Fincher. In the special edition copy I own there is the directors cut where David and Chuck are talking over the movie and discussing why it went one way, and what they liked or didn't like compared to the book. Chuck never said a bad word about the film, and for a few parts of it, said he wished he had written his novel the way the movie went because it was brilliant. However, Chuck loves to make fun of Fight Club, the novel, every chance he gets. He calls it his great American love story.
The Shawshank Redemption and Lord of the Rings trilogy were the first that came to mind in regards to best movie adaptation. Most of the bad ones have already been listed.
