Book to Film adaptations.

Murdock

This isn't just a discussion on Bond film adaptation of the Novels this is for all movies based on novels in general.

I've been watching a lot of films based on books and have been enjoy them. I don't read much these days but I was wondering. Does a book to film adaptation have to be completely faithful to the source material? Now I really can't speak on behalf of this whole affair. My opinion is that it doesn't have to be. But I'd like to hear the opinions of more dedicated individuals who are both dedicated to Book enthusiasts and how they see film translations of said books.

Now, I can say I have read several Fleming Bond novels. Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, and Thunderball. And here is my opinion on the Novel vs Film.

Casino Royale: Both are two very different animals with heavy similarities. I find the film is superior to the Novel. (Not saying the novel is bad but I prefer the film version.)

Live and Let Die: This was a time where the movies were starting to heavily deviate from the novels. I find the novel is superior to the film version but I enjoy both for what they are. I sometimes wonder what it would have been like if it were made in the 60's with Connery.

Thunderball: Thunderball pretty much stays close to the book with a few changes but nothing severe. A perfect adaptation.

So what do you think? Do movies adapted from Novels have to be 100% true to the source? Or can the film adaptation be superior to the source?

4EverBonded

I think film and literature are two very different mediums, although both tell a story. I think it is nearly impossible and indeed not desirable to try to make a movie that follows the book slavishly. I think in many instances it would drag, be boring, or just plain take forever to communicate the major points or emotions of the story.

I love books and I love films. When someone says the film is faithful to the book, I actually hope that is maybe moderately true but not 100%. I do not think it can make for the best cinematic experience, to put it simply.

Casino Royale is a good point. The film moves along, is gripping, and exciting in ways that the novel is not. But the mood in the casino is palpable in the book. However, you only need to look at Vesper's death to see how much better (at least in my opinion) the film is. Having Bond just find her the next day, dead in her room, from a suicidal overdose of drugs would be anticlimatic. What we got in the film was much more interesting, suspenseful, dramatic, and appropriate. I think the film served the heart of the story well.

Walecs

Speaking of Bond, I think that OHMSS and FRWL are two wonderful adaptations of the novels, even though they do not stricly follow the plot of the books. Overall, though, they are pretty much faitfhul to the books.

I could say the same for A Clockwork Orange. The film cut out some parts for lenght reasons, but Kubrick left all the significant scenes intact, and kept the feeling and message of the novel.

Fahrenheit 451 is one movie that differs a lot from the book, yet the movie is as enjoyable as the novel.

The film adaptation of 1984, on the other hand, is 100% faitfhul to the book, it's like they used the book as the screenplay, but I have to say I didn't like it, whereas I immensly enjoyed the book.

Regarding Harry Potter, I hate the movies a lot. They cut out too many parts just to include unncessary scenes that were not in the books, and they are full of plot holes.

I'm afraid I'm going to be disappointed by The November Man, because apparently it has nothing to do with the book it should be based on. Hopefully, it will keep the same characters and themes, despite the plot changes.

Thunderfinger

What @4EverBonded said. A 100 per cent adaptation would in most cases make for a bad film. The mediums are completely different.

This is perhaps why comic book adaptations have become all the rage lately. Much more similar to the film medium.

mirandafrost

Yes, I agree. It would be good if the movies were close(-r) to the novels but you can't have a 100% adaption because it's a different medium.

Creasy47

Honestly, I don't think you can have a book-to-film adaptation that is 100% spot on, unless you copied every mannerism, move, setting, scenery, and all the dialogue exactly, which would make for a big series of films based on one book. Like Fincher says with the books he adapts, you obviously have o go in and flesh out the big moments, separating them from the tinier moments that aren't necessary, while giving it your own spin, too. That's why in TGWTDT, the film lacks a big storyline and changes the ending by:

Omitting Mikael's hook-up with one of the Vanger's, and changing the ending from discovering Harriet is still alive in London, to tracking her all the way to the outback of Australia.

It's why I'm excited to see 'Gone Girl,' because even though I've no idea what happens or how it ends, Fincher doesn't reveal a lot of big, key spoilers in his trailers, nor will he copy the ending to a T, so it'll be fun to read the book afterward and see how it ends.

I've actually thought about certain videogames or novels where it would be a dream to see them copied faithfully, so every setting, scene, and character interaction is found in the film. I'm sure it would cost a few hundred million dollars for certain books or games - recreating the environments faithfully casting all the characters, having everything in its place, etc. - but it sure would be a dream come true.