I've just finished watching the film version of Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston. It's one of my all time favourite novels and the film version, starring Halle Berry and the very delectable Michael Ealy, is not bad. It's not quite as good as the book, but it does a bloomin' good job.
So, my questions are:
What are the best screen adaptations of novels? Are books always/never better than the films?
I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that The Godfather films are better than Mario Puzo's original book. But I preferred Raymond Carver's short stories to the Robert Altman directed Short Cuts, for example.
Films often have to sacrifice detail or sub-plots just to fit into a sensible time. Lord of the Rings lost Tom Bombadil completely for instance - but a good director can make all the difference and make sure the feel of the film is right. There are some adapatations that are so far from the content and intent of the book that any possible link should be fogotten.
I would say that Hunt for Red October survived the adaptation process quite well, but the longer (director's cut?) version was better than the theatre version. Same is true for LOTR - the extended versions include whole sections of explanatory scenes that lets teh films make more sense than the shorter versions. Now we have DVD options I think direcotrs should be encouraged to do that and have 2 versions - time-limited for the cinema and as long as it needs to be for DVD.
If you want to see atrocious manglings calling themselves after proper books try any of the 1950's 60's 70's Agatha Christies. Bloody awful they were. How anyone could think Peter Ustinov (great man that he was) resembled in any way the neat, dapper Hercules Poirot is beyond me and some of them had Americans as Poirot or Marple FFS!
*feels the need to confess*
Although I read and LOVED The Hobbit as a child, I have neither read nor seen any of The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
<<< slopes off now...
I find it varies. I thought the LOTR films were shite yet loved the book as a child and young adult. There was that other film not so long back about the guy who couldn't communicate easily, Diving Bells and Butterflys, awesome film shite book I thought. I am just about to read the Bourne Trilogy, I thought the film was pants so I shall find out what the books like.
As a teen I must have read everything Ian Fleming ever wrote, but I've yet to see a Bond film that lived up to the quality of the books.
I must admit I'm not looking forward to the film adaptation of Lee Child's Jack Reacher story. I love Reacher; he's a great character & the novels are, in my opinion, a cut above the average thriller. Reacher is a big, tough guy with an uncompromising moral code.
BUT (and it's a HUGE but!) the film will star Tom Cruise as Reacher. Could not be further from the character.
That's the problem I think: it's so hard for a film version to capture the way you imagine a novel's character is in your head.
I once read a book that was written from the film script....don't ever bother to do that.
The harry potter films come very close to the mark as far as the books were concerned, but it's unusual, and that's mainly down to time constraints. Unless the author, and their books are bestsellers, then they won't have much weight to pull when it comes to the script and the rewrites. If a scriptwriter, unless mega succesful or commissioned, submits a script which is over a hundred pages long then it'll probably go unread .. hollywood kinda works on a page a minute screen time. The brits, however, do prefer dialogue and so are more likely to include the spoken words of the book. That's why most authors don't write scripts, they can't bear to leave stuff out. You can see why it's easy to leave out that which was perhaps interesting on the page because it doesn't have much impact visually.
Any of us who read can site countless travesties. The very pshycological short novel 9 1/2 weeks, just a for instance, was just total nonsense on screen.
I rarely watch films that are made of any books i have read, the few i have watched have been awful and so different to the books so i have been very dissapointed.
I have read a book after watching and enjoying a film though, it was Atonement which i really enjoyed both as a film and a book.
I never think that films are as good as the book that they were inspired by.
One that I found particulary disappointing was the Da Vinci Code. I couldn't put the book down but thought that the film was crap!
In my opinion, the detail and suspense found in a book just cant be replicated on film.
I tend to avoid films made from books that I have enjoyed on the grounds that I'll probably regret seeing them. But one exception I did make was to watch "October Sky", the film version of Homer Hickam's "Rocket Boys".
Superb book, and not a bad film either.
Yers gift, fine book, fine film.
Celestine Prophecy
I read this and the others in the series whilst travelling in New Zealand. Really enjoyed them and was perfect book to read whilst surrounded by breath taking scenery and meeting loads of new people.
Came back to Blighty and after a while saw the film sitting on the new release shelf of Blockbuster. You know.... one of those new releases where there's only one copy in store and they put it on the bottom (sometimes worth looking here I might add).
Against my better judgement (of judging a film by its cover) picked it up and thought I'd give it a go.
Utter Disappointment! What a load of shite - completely ruined it for me and was God awful film. Oh well, you live and learn eh but it might just have been a great film, I'd never have known if hadnt took a chance. Oh well.
I find, more often than not that the book is far better than the film. Most times there is to much information lost when a book is turned into a film
