quote:

Originally posted by detroit192:
I can think of only one film adaption of a book that followed the book, as opposed to even being faithful, Watership Down.

300 follows the graphic novel nearly exactly, including reproducing many iconic panels in the book. Sin City almost follows the book. There are very slight changes.

quote:

Originally posted by SR025:
Ready player one

I’m not sure it’s possible... or even wanted. 10 minutes watching someone play Joust against some virtual opponent? A lot of Ready Player One just didn’t translate to the visual medium.

But they could have done better with the timeline of the story, at least.

quote:

Originally posted by flesheatingvirus:
Dune. Any of them.

One of the first I thought of along with...

Flight of the Intruder.

Book was fantastic...movie sucked the sweat off a dead man's balls (to quote Good Morning Vietnam). I have a feeling Stephen Coonts wasn't on set for 98% of the screenwriting and filming.

The Sum of All Fears is a notorious example, substituting "white supremacists" - a more PC villain - than the novel's Arabs abetted by a Native American. But I haven't actually seen it. Here are a couple I have seen.

Sahara (2005), based very loosely on the Clive Cussler novel of the same name. It used very few of the plot elements of the book and had a light-hearted, almost comedic, tone to it, which the book definitely did not have. And I have nothing against
Matthew McConaughey, but he was terribly miscast as Dirk Pitt. Cussler has said he doesn't want any more movies made from his books.

You have to go way back for this one, but Ice Station Zebra (1968) had only the submarine in common with Alistair MacLean's novel.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:


You have to go way back for this one, but Ice Station Zebra (1968) had only the submarine in common with Alistair MacLean's novel.

On that note, another submarine-centric production, On The Beach a 1959 post- apocalyptic film adapted from Nevil Shute's book, starring Gregory Peck, Fred Astaire, Anthony Perkins, and Ava Gardner was a complete lash up. Not only were the main parts horribly mis-cast (excepting perhaps, Mr Peck), but nearly every important detail in the book was changed with only the general story remaining.

The author was 'displeased' and give little or no assistance to the production.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:

Flight of the Intruder.

Book was fantastic...movie sucked the sweat off a dead man's balls (to quote Good Morning Vietnam). I have a feeling Stephen Coonts wasn't on set for 98% of the screenwriting and filming.

Or casting.

Following the book is a misnomer IMHO. Unless the author writes like a screenplay that is. John Grisham does. Lawrence Sanders, James Patterson, etc. To me a book film should be a good film period - irrespective of how you liked the read. A separate experience. If you enjoyed both - bonus. i.e. The Godfather, The First Deadly Sin, Bosch series. Double bonus if you read the book and think of the silver screen character. A few winners i.e. Titus Welliver (Bosh), James Caan (Sonny), Frank Sinatra (First Deadly Sin), Morgan Freeman (Alex Cross).

quote:

Originally posted by l33571:
Starship Troopers

Yep. Heinlein's "The Puppet Masters" was similarly mangled, as well as Asimov's "Nightfall" and "I, Robot".

Although the movies were fun, they would have probably been more enjoyable to me if I had not already read the novels (and was able to see the discrepancies).

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by Orguss:
My top three:
Rising Sun
Ender's Game
World War Z

My first thought. Really disappointed with one of my favorite books.
Ideally, I'd have run with the plan of subsequently releasing Ender's Shadow after & not compressing the timeline to get everyone in 1 place so quickly
A multi episode miniseries could've made it work.
Having read both sides of the series multiple times, I had pretty high expectations.

The Art of Racing in the Rain
Movie was good, to get closer to the book, they'd likely have had to jump a rating as well, at least PG-13.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: P250UA5,

IMO, it is better to see the movie first and read the book afterward.

flashguy

I would actually list an author. I have always since teen years been an Edgar Rice Burroughs fan. Tarzan books are not for kids. I would still love to see a decent film version of Tarzan.

Disney did a terrible job of promoting "John Carter" even though it was a reasonable intro to the Mars series. While trying to cast the hero they also slipped up but all in all not a bad job.

Star Wars Revenge of the Sith... Book was much better at explaining how Dooku was fooled by Palpatine and just how devious Palpatine was in setting up Anakin. Movie glossed over it a bit.

Starship Troopers.. WTF was that movie?

Ready Player One.. Ok maybe a lot of it wouldn't have translated well. But then just don't make the damn movie.

The sad thing about Starship Troopers is now they have the technology to make the movie just like the book but sadly it will never happen. Heinlien had so many great books that easily could be made into movies but for some reason never were or were done so badly.

Watchmen, for omitting the squid drop

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

Sahara (2005), based very loosely on the Clive Cussler novel of the same name. It used very few of the plot elements of the book and had a light-hearted, almost comedic, tone to it, which the book definitely did not have. And I have nothing against
Matthew McConaughey, but he was terribly miscast as Dirk Pitt. Cussler has said he doesn't want any more movies made from his books.

I read Sahara, but honestly cannot remember most of the plot points. I actually loved the movie adaptation. Yes, it was light-hearted, Giordino was far from the 'swarthy barrel-chested Italian' of the books, and I know Cussler himself sued the movie studio over how it broke from the book.

Even with all that, I loved the movie and wished they had made more of them.

There are 70-80 Cussler books, most of which could make great movies (let's just all ignore the 1980 "Raise the Titanic" movie while we are at it ). Cussler did not like the way the film deviated from the book, but Tom Clancy once said that 'giving a book over to a screenwriter is like handing your virgin daughter over to a pimp.' Meaning, most authors bristle at any changes, even if the changes make for a better movie. I'm sure I would be the same way if it were MY work being altered.

I liked McConaughey as Pitt, and I thought he and the small guy had great chemistry. Macy was great as Sandecker (he was much older in the book), Rudi was played as a big dork in the movie unlike the book where he was more of a calm professional. I realize that books and movies are different things, and in general, one cannot translate a book directly into a movie without major changes.