My favorite book-to-movie adaptation was the older Time Machine. I mean, sure it skipped over those nifty theories about how time travel might be possible, but the movie has some of my favorite themes. The themes being Nuclear Holocaust and a Post-Apocalypse world where knowledge of our civilization is reduced to superstition. I also liked Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I'm ashamed to say that the movie feels like a better story than what the book had. I mean, Eustace had to earn his redemption hardcore in the movie.
Despite my hatred of Keanu Reeves and not being impressed with the rotoscoping style (think that's what it's called), on a purely content level I agree. That said, I'm also surprised at how terribly most PKD works are adapted. Paycheck being particularly bad. It wasn't a terrible movie in and of itself, but compared to the short story, it lacked all style and charm that PKD manages even in his dated, sometimes sloppy prose. Then again, the way Hollywood seems to work is by taking great stories, stripping them down to their very basic idea so they can't be sued, and the rewriting it in a way they think will appeal to the masses, since the massses are really more about good plots and ideas (good might be the wrong word... more like memorable, I'd say). Even dated and dusty, PKD stories are still always WAY better than the movies, and in general way better than a lot of contemporary writing anyhow.
I think Blade Runner was the best PKD adaptation. It was almost spot-on with the book, save for the removal of the artificial sheep. It's a brilliant movie, perhaps the best sci-fi film, and also one of the best films about the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Also, Total Recall was a much better movie than it was a story, mostly because it was so different than the story.
For me the best translation from movie to book has been the first two Chronicles of Narnia films. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe and Prince Caspian. I can't comment on Voyage of the Dawn Treader because even though it is my favorite of the Chronicles, I have still not yet seen the movie. (The Irony gods love to kick me in the ribs when I'm vulnerable) But what I loved most about it is that Andrew Adamson and everyone involved with the project were undoubtedly faithful to the source material. Yet, he also made a number of changes and additions to the overall story that made it entertaining, without detracting from the story that CS Lewis wanted to tell. (Okay, the bit with Susan and Lucy splitting up, as opposed to rushing across Narnia with Aslan to turn a bunch of nasty school boys into pigs should have been left in. But I digress.)
Ah yeah, Bladerunner. Haven't seen it in years, but it's in my netflix queue, so will have a look. Total Recall... hrm. I liked the story much better. The movie was a comedy, right? It's about time I pulled out my PKD Reader though. It's got like 24 stories and is totally awesome.
Yeah I'm actually working on an essay on this very subject, inspired by The Adjustment Bureau, which I hated. Not only does Hollywood make PKD stories less interesting, it contorts the message and the values into something feel-good and validating. Pretty sure PKD rolled in his grave when Minority Report came out. I think it's funny that everyone calls him PKD because it sounds weird to say "Dick."
Gonna disagree with you on both counts. First off, look at the awful bastardization of the titles. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep becomes Blade Runner We Can Remember it for you Wholesale become Total Recall I'm gonna say it's pretty obvious which titles are more interesting. Too weird for Hollywood, I guess, but the weird parts are the best thing about PKD's writing, and they're the parts that always get left out. Not gonna comment on Total Recall, but Blade Runner-- people always talk about how great this movie is, and I guess it's not bad. But first of all consider that fact that the movie is not about blades nor runners. Secondly, I think that he got the whole tone and feel wrong. I didn't get a Film Noir vibe from the book at all -- instead of darkness I saw a lot of deterioration. Thirdly the movie leaves out a lot of the best stuff, like Mercerism and the empathy boxes. I don't think they make an appearance -- been a while since I've seen it though. Anyway, these things figure prominently in the book, and the movie is all about the androids. It wasn't a bad adaptation. I don't think it's all it's cracked up to be though, as a film or an adaptation. It's just got good production value and it's really stylish. Didn't win me over.
If you hate Blade Runner, stay away from the book sequals. They follow the movie and they are terrible. Everything there was to like about the movie, gets thrown away. And they have even less in common with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep than the movie does.
Also keep in mind, if it matters, that when Blade Runner was made it wasn't at all stylish or cool (as far as I recall from research into the film, since I was only 3 when it came out lol). In fact, it was still pretty weird and maligned, both for the style it created and the weirdness. I think in part that's why I appreciate it as a film. It not only found success and two academy award nominations despite a lot of discomfort from snooty film-goers, but it did what imo Dick is known for doing and created styles and trends that can only be seen by hindsight. I think one of the reasons I really like A Scanner Darkly is that an adaptation finally managed to capture the humor and irony that was often present in Dick's stories. Instead of taking his ideas (which were often amazing) and stripping all the charm and quirks, they finally seemed to have enough respect for Dick's work to try to represent his full vision on screen, not just try to cash in on his ideas. Also, short stories generally make better movies. In fact, people are often surprised by the amount of short stories that get picked up for scripts (as opposed to original screenplays or novels). In a lot of ways, it's one of the few saving graces of short-story writers. The unfortunate thing is basically all novels that get adapted end up butchered (and likewise some short stories get nonsense added in). A Scanner Darkly worked because there was honestly a lot of nonsense in the novel that could afford to be cut (intentional, purposeful nonsense, but still nonsense... like sections written in different languages to demonstrate the disconnect that was occurring in the MC. Weird, but great book. Weird, but decent movie, as they kept some of the weird.
I can see what you're saying about it not being "cool" at the time -- but it's definitely all about style. It's highly stylized film-making. Not to say there isn't any substance to it. I actually like it -- I just think people tend to overstate how great it is. I'm really biased because I LOVE Philip K. Dick. I wouldn't say he's the most poetic or beautiful writer, but I am a huge fan of his stories and novels. And I also love Richard Linklater, so A Scanner Darkly really couldn't lose for me. Another decent adaptation of Dick's work if I recall correctly was Next with Nicolas Cage. It was adapted from The Golden Man. It had a lot of the same problems in most Dick adaptations, but also had some strong points. And a really great premis -- a guy who sees two minutes into the future. Makes for some great scenes.
The third one was a disappointment. If I were you, I wouldn't even watch it. Especially after they did such a good job with Prince Caspian, it's really sad to see them drop the ball. I really like Forrest Gump! The book was better but it made an awfully good movie! I would say Lord Of The Rings, because I couldn't even make it through the books and I watch the movies like once a year, but I feel like I can't since I haven't actually read the books to judge them.
I actually didn't hate it, but then again I'm a fan of John Woo as well. It's not a good adaptation, though. It completely contorts the original story and loses the meaning, just like all other adaptations of his work. Still -- wouldn't mind seeing it again. It's been a while since I have, and could stand to re-watch some of these for purposes of the essay. I remember enjoying it.
What about Jurassic Park? I read the book after watching the movie and when I was a teenager and impressed with special effects, and was surprised that I found the book to be much better than the movie, and generally pretty good even when compared to more 'literaturey' stuff (read it for a class, so closer reading than just for pleasure). Maybe I'll have to read/watch them both again, to see how they stand up over time. And I mean, Jeff Goldbloom is timeless, so not worried about the movie not holding up over time!
I'll probably get the DVD for consistency's sake. But of course Adamson wasn't holding the reins on Voyage so I'm expecting some lacking there. It's like Alfonso Curan in Prisoner of Azkaban. I stand by what I say when I say that the third Harry Potter movie was the best of the series because frankly, Curan was the only director that gave a crap about creating a movie and not being one hundred and ninety percent faithful to the books.
To Kill a Mockingbird gets my vote. An outstanding novel, it is still the only film that captured scenes from the book exactly as I envisioned them when I read it. The Five People You Meet in Heaven also merits strong consideration.
If I see a good film, I'm happy. If I see a bad film, I'm disappointed. I mean, I don't see a sad film and then become sad. I'm either happy or disappointed depending on how good I felt the movie was. 1984 was a good film, so I was happy.
