Buttmunker

Some of us have read the book before it became a film while others have read the book after seeing the film - in the end, you are either a fan of both the film and book, or you hate one or the other.

"Jaws" comes to mind. I saw the film first, since I didn't know how to read novels at age 8, and it has been a favorite film of mine ever since.
I read the novel a couple of years ago, and hated it! With 20 years watching the movie over and over again, I got very familiar with the characters and storyline. The novel by Peter Benchley was totally different with its characters. It was a different story all together - Hooper had an affair with Mrs. Brody, for Heaven's sake!

Wazootyman

I felt that the novelization of Home Alone 2: Lost in New York was an infinite amount better than the piece of dreck that was the movie. The movie was missing the prologue explaining how the Wet Bandits escaped prison and went to Kevin's house again... this was critical

fallow

But how would you feel if it you had read the book first?

A Clockwork Orange was one of my favorite films until I read the book. That final chapter is essential and it was completely removed from the film (even though it was filmed in England). It frightens me to read Traumnovelle (book that Eyes Wide Shut is adapted from) because I've heard most people say that the book is infinitely better.

Same thing happened with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I don't like the way that Nicholson played McMurphy as a raving lunatic the whole time. That character has so much depth I, personally, felt was missing from the film

waskydiver

First thing that comes to mind is Fight Club is an excellent adaption.

Worse... Battlefield Earth

BobSoup

This doesnt really count as a movie but i read Band of Brothers before seeing the miniseries and I love them both equally

Coral

The Sweet Hereafter.

Egoyan added a few things that turned an outstanding book to a masterpiece film.

Buttmunker

I obviously saw "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" before reading the novel because of my age, so I already appreciated Nicholson's performance as R.P. McMurphy. When I picked up the book, the character was greatly enhanced - larger and infinitely more powerful. You knew his thoughts, his feelings, his self. You could never capture all that in a film. It isn't possible, which is generally why the book is always better in most cases.

Buttmunker

The Godfather. Great film (again, saw it first) and a terrific novel! Just like "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest," the novel of "The Godfather" had enhanced dimensions to its characters - it was like peering into the fictional world from a whole new angle that was blocked from the film version. A genuine treat.

Stoolie

John Irving -

The Good

Cider House Rules
World According to Garp

The Middle of the Road

The Hotel New Hampshire

The Painfully Horrible

Simon Birch - Irving was wise to remove his name from this production. I remember being excited about the movie when it was announced, but then I swallowed my own tongue when the director said, "We're just going to have to take out the whole Vietnam part."

stoolie

Liver&Onions

Jurrasic Park - the book was MUCH better....

And Fight CLub, Both are really good, but I am partial to the book.

Heat

Fletch - Both the book and the movie were excellent because the movie didn't try to copy the book.

The Russia House - Good book but the movie was way too slow and tried to hard to copy the book.

Buttmunker

That's a good point. Had I been older when the book was released and had read it first before seeing the film, I may have had a different perspective on the blockbuster film. I suppose there's a whole generation out there who have read the novel by Peter Benchley first, and wound up hating the film because it was adapted very PR-friendly.

I hated the book, and would never read it again because I thought it was a little boring, and the characters were unsympathetic. Hooper died in the book, but I didn't care that he died because he was represented as a cad in the book. Had Hooper died in the film, I would have felt badly for him because he was a good guy. Hell, when Quint died in the film, I felt bad for him because he had redeeming qualities, even though he was an arrogant prick (when he told his USS Indianapolis story, that made him human, that made him a person with feelings). In the book, he was one-dimensional, and though he did die in the book as well, I could have cared less.

With the case of "Jaws," it is a big surprise to me that there was a successful film adapted from it, despite the fact that the book itself was a best seller.

Buttmunker

I agree with you wholeheartedly about that! The book was a great adventure - a bit scary, and realistic. When I was reading the book, I believed what was happening. I surrendered, and the book swallowed me whole.

The movie was a huge let-down. Too many "close calls," and Grant and the rest of the people didn't seem scared enough when being pursued through the jungle by prehistoric creatures. The scene when the boy - Tim - got electrocuted on the fence, and lived, that ruined the whole movie for me!

And Hammond was portrayed as a friendly old geezer who finally got the point at the end of the film. Meanwhile, the novel's version of Hammond was a friendly old geezer who never got it, that is, until he had his guts eaten out by one of the dinosaurs.

Then he got it, but good.

Pants

I've read the book too and came to the conclusion that it's just NOT A GOOD BOOK. The shark idea was great, but the characters were weak and unlikeable. The book weighed too heavily on the islander vs. mainlander antagonism. The film has a bit of that, but not much. I think Jaws is a case where they took a poor book and made it a great film

wendersfan

I won't make any claims for these being "best" or "worst", but:

The Godfather
Silence of the Lambs

Both were pretty mediocre popular novels, that when translated to film, nearly achieved the status of 'art'.


Less Than Zero
The Bonfire Of the Vanities

Both were great novels that were turned into absolute crap when filmed.

Simpson Purist

Best book-to-film adaptations

Fail-Safe
The Godfather
Jaws
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Silence of the Lambs
The Shawshank Redemption

Worst

The Perfect Storm
The Bonfire of the Vanities

Buttmunker

Best Stephen King adaptions:

1) Misery
2) The Shawshank Redemption
3) The Green Mile
4) The Shining (I liked it in and of itself as a film, even though Kubrick left out all the human aspects from the book)
5) Stand By Me (based on the novella "The Body")
6) Dolores Claiborne
7) The Dead Zone (movie)
8) Christine
9) The Stand (TV)

The worst of the bunch:

1) Cujo
2) Thinner
3) Hearts in Atlantis (the book sucked anyway, so no loss there)
4) Carrie
5) Pet Sematary

Filmmaker

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is a far more engrossing, mesmerizing and transcendent experience than the simultaneously-released novelization, Arthur C. Clarke substantial talents notwithstanding...

ccoolidge

Great:
Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas
Many people don't like it, but I thought Gilliam did a terrific job with it.

Good:
Lord of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Rings
Jackson changed alot and left alot out, but how couldn't he? I didn't think a good movie adaptation of this book was possible, but he proved me wrong.

Bad:
Keeping with the Hunter S. Thompson theme, Where the Buffalo Roam.
I still kind of like it, just because of Peter Boyle and Bill Murray's performances, but the directing just sucks. The pace is way to slow and does a disservice to Thompson's writings "The Banshee Screams for Buffalo Meat" and "Strange Rumblings in Aztlan" on which it is based.

Amadeus

Best
Black Hawk Down

Worst
Battlefield Earth

Pants

How can Battlefield Earth be a bad adaptation? If book sucks AND the movie sucks, I would call that a good adaptation.

Buttmunker

"A Simple Plan"

A mediocre book,
a mediocre/good movie starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda

Decent premise - three fellows (two brothers & the brother's friend) finding a load of loot in the woods, but keeping the secret and the money hidden until they're sure nobody's looking for it. Seems like a simple plan (hence the title), but hoe-dee-doh, it isn't!

Thornton and the book/film's writer, Scott B Smith, received Oscar nominations (for supporting actor and screenplay, respectively).

Nick Danger

I liked the story Johnny Mnemonic. I never saw the movie, but it's supposed to be dreadful.

Damnation Alley. Take a story about a Hells Angel blackmailed into going on a mission, make him an Army Colonel and add giant bugs. Yuck.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a great adaptation of a novel.

Kiss Me Deadly is better than the book.

Tyler_Durden

You really think so? I recently read the novel and find the final chapter a total embarrassment; in my opinion (and I have though of this quite a bit) the final chapter goes against a lot of what the novel had previously stated about free will and how we should deal with its more antisocial manifestations.

Interestingly, Kubrick thought the same way - here's a link with a bit of the old backstory :

http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~butting...ck/aco.21.html

The text at that site doesn't explain everything, though -- in fact Kubrick did become aware that there was an extra chapter in the original British edition of the book before filming. He read, disliked it intensely and ignored it.

Buttmunker

Kubrick is a son-of-a-bitch.

That said, I think his films are brilliant to a point of beauty. Thought "Clockwork Orange" and "Dr. Strangelove" were perfect and fair in its adaption from the source material.

I could never understand why he made certain modifications to "The Shining." Like, why would he bother changing the room number from 217 in the novel to 236?? Why did he kill Hallorann? Why didn't the Overlook Hotel's furnace blow up?

Lastly, why did Kubrick make Jack Torrance to be maniacal from the very start of the film, before he even got to the hotel? He was demented from day one, and showed no human qualities in his character at all. Why, why, why???

But I loved the film anyway.