Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Adaptations for Better or Worst?
We have all seen our favorite movies and many are based on books, plays, whatnot. Many of us who have read books then saw the film later will attest that the book is better. That is not surprising when you consider that a script is approximately 100-120 pages while a book is much much longer with more time for character development, subplots etc. Books have had to be chopped down to make a 100-120 minute film.
Here's a few such examples:
GONE WITH THE WIND (book, 1936 movie 1939)
in the book scarlett has children by her first two husbands, Charles Hamilton and Kennedy. The film choose to eliminate the elder children and she only has the one daughter by Rhett Butler.
THE GODFATHER (book 1969, film 1972) The book is over 400 pages and has several major differences. Sonny's mistress, Senorina Marcini has a larger role and is quite a sympathetic character. a portion of the book is devoted to the origins of young Vito Corleone and his rise as a Mafia kingpin. These scenes were reenacted in Godfather II and well done.
JURASSIC PARK (book 1989, film 1993) This is a real page turner and I could hardly put it down. It grabs you from the very beginning. Differences (and probably due to budget concerns): there were 7 species of dinos in the film but the book has 15 including flying Pteranadons. The billionaire John Hammond is the central character not the paleontologist Grant. The attorney Gennaro is not eaten by the T-Rex but survives. The game warden is a drunk but he also survives while Hammond dies at the end of the book. The children.Lexx and Tim. In the book, Lexx is the younger and is around 4 years old while Tim is older and the computer geek. I guess Spielberg wanted to give the girl more to do and we all hate attorneys, thus having Gennaro eaten was a crowd pleasing scene.
Thats all I have for starters. I welcome your comments.
Here's a few such examples:
GONE WITH THE WIND (book, 1936 movie 1939)
in the book scarlett has children by her first two husbands, Charles Hamilton and Kennedy. The film choose to eliminate the elder children and she only has the one daughter by Rhett Butler.
THE GODFATHER (book 1969, film 1972) The book is over 400 pages and has several major differences. Sonny's mistress, Senorina Marcini has a larger role and is quite a sympathetic character. a portion of the book is devoted to the origins of young Vito Corleone and his rise as a Mafia kingpin. These scenes were reenacted in Godfather II and well done.
JURASSIC PARK (book 1989, film 1993) This is a real page turner and I could hardly put it down. It grabs you from the very beginning. Differences (and probably due to budget concerns): there were 7 species of dinos in the film but the book has 15 including flying Pteranadons. The billionaire John Hammond is the central character not the paleontologist Grant. The attorney Gennaro is not eaten by the T-Rex but survives. The game warden is a drunk but he also survives while Hammond dies at the end of the book. The children.Lexx and Tim. In the book, Lexx is the younger and is around 4 years old while Tim is older and the computer geek. I guess Spielberg wanted to give the girl more to do and we all hate attorneys, thus having Gennaro eaten was a crowd pleasing scene.
Thats all I have for starters. I welcome your comments.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The Wizard of Oz is pretty different as well. There was a town filled with people made of china, and seemed to have a tad darker of a tone then the film whcih, in my opinion, made it more enjoyable.
You forgot to mention that in the book, Hammond's a total dick, while in the film, he's a kinder character. I honestly didn't mind seeing him die in the book, whereas I would have cared in the film.
The first series of Strike Back was better than the book. Then they made a 2nd series, which I didn't like at all, the main character from the book/first series was only in the first episode.
I want to add Lord of the Rings - I think the films were brilliant, three diamonds in a row, such an exceptionally beautifully filmed and acted trilogy; I do prefer the films to the books. Makes me realize I miss Viggo; what is he doing now? I'll have to check ...
For Sherlock Holmes - how I love the books! Still re-read them. I enjoy many of Basil Rathbone's films and I like very much the new Robert Downey Jr. ones, but my very favorite (and closer to the stories for me) is the Jeremy Brett series from BBC. I own all of them and they are dear to me.
I did think Game of Shadows was better than the first and I'm looking forward to the next one in that series. I don't mind the film adaptations being fresh or somewhat different - the wit, banter, and heart of the friendship between Holmes and Watson is still vibrant. When I am in a pure Holmesian mood, I return to the books.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - I think the U.S. film is even better than the book (the first book is not my fav of the three). Well paced, moves along, stunning; the books dragged mundanely or meandered at times. The film is more exciting, for me.
Little Women - I prefer the book to the three films I have seen. Still hopeful for a version I find satisfying.
I'm sure there are more adaptations I can think of; more later ...
Anyway, a good TV to film adaption I think is South Park: Bigger, longer and uncut, just as funny as the TV series. I'm really hoping the 24 film will be good since I didn't like the way season 8 ended.
While I probably will agree, at this time with nobody having seen the complete movie, I would state that your opinion at this time is based upon pressumptions instead of a factual idea.
The Unbearable lightness of being as written by Milan Kundera is one of those brilliantly filmed books that comes from a brilliant novel.
Relic as written by Mesieurs Preston & Douglas is a brilliant B-movie that comes from an excellent book.
"Christiane F- Wir kinder von Bahnhof Zoo" was an autobiography of sorts, but the movie just grabbed you and kicked you while you were down.
Soldier of Orange as written by Erik Hazelhoff Roelfzema is about the adventures of a student during WOII and his part in the resistance and liberation of the Netherlands. The movie (and the miniseries based upon the movie with extra scenes shot for the series) is far better. And it does not include any stuff from the Police actions in Indonesia in '48.
Yeah I know I probably shouldn't have said that, and I am going to wait to see the movie to fully judge, but I have very low expectations. I didn't like the trailer and Cruise just doesn't seem like Reacher. Still, Lee Childs seems to think he's right for the job, just hope that I can trust him.
It is indeed one of those movies where one would consider Tom Cruise the wrong guy for the job. However he has pulled this off once before with "Interview with a vampire" where he played the lead as the vampire Lestat with a blonde wig. In my humble opinion he still looks wrong for the part but the rest of the cast was perfectly cast and the mood was impressive. They easily matched the Anne Rice novel in intensity. And I do not mind Tom Cruise in the part due to the large amounts of impressivness of the movie.
To Kill a Mocking Bird does a great job of capturing the soul of the novel. Because of the nature of adapting a novel certain things are not included; but overall A+
They draw from the novels and short stories but take liberties with Sherlock as a character. For the best adaptions watch the Granada Jeremy Brett series or the fantastic Sherlock BBC series.
1. In the book, the central character is Willie Keith, the young ensign not Capt Queez (Bogie's character)
2. The romance between Keith and May is well covered in great detail in the book. In actuallity Keith is a real upper class snob and he really treated May badly, breaking her heart.After he dumps her she takes up with a band leader. In the end, realizing he is in love with her, he decides to try and win her back.
3. The book ends at the end of the war when the Caine is being decomissioned and the capt is Keith.
4. The film makers were careful not to offend the Navy in 1954. the book is actually a scathing indichtment of how focked up the Navy actually is.