Would you refuse to see a film remake of a favorite book?
 

The thread on the new film, "The Mist" got me thinking about this question.

It's one of my favorite stories when I was a kid. It was all about atmosphere and the menacing unknown; written so well that it left a heckuva impression that I remember to this day. I read it once over 20 years ago.

Because of its impact I really have no interest to see it in film form due to the other "menacing unknown" - Hollywood. At least in my opinion, their track record is definitely helping along my decision.

If I see it, I feel that any memories I have of the story will be crushed, replaced by something ridiculously wrong - silly 1 dimensional characters, the finalization of plot points that you can see a mile away .. whatever really. My impression will be left forever ruined.

Bottom line, I won't see it.

Ever feel this way?

No, but I've already experienced the worst: Jurassic Park.

Two of my favorite books have been turned into movies: Catch-22 and The Milagro Beanfield War. I don't rush out to see them.

Nothing is sacred. Books should skip pages and go right to film.

Pretty much every Crichton movie falls under that category, though Jurassic Park was the only one that didn't make me cringe the whole way through.

Why? Are they making a movie based on Catcher in the Rye? I wouldn't refuse to see it.

I guess is depends on who's at the helm. Michael Bay, no way. Scorsese, Tarantino, you bet.

Yeah, Michael Bay totally messed up the love story from the best-seller Pearl Harbor.

I've never seen a movie based on a Nick Hornby novel and possibly never will, so I guess, yeah.

It just depends on who is adapting it really.

I enjoy the Harry Potter series and its been adapted well.

But really Jurassic Park is your fave book? It was an entertaining read as was Lost World but nothing I felt was really amazing. Of all the Chrichton books I think "Sphere" was the most disapointing though.

That'd be a change of pace. The next paranoid Schizophrenic killer will have 87 copies of Cather in the Rye on DVD.

High Fidelity is very good, so is About A Boy. Fever Pitch with Jimmy Fallon is garbage.

Already made, Catch-22. It sucked.

I would have reservations if the book was seemingly impossible to adapt, but there have been some pretty damn good films made from "unadaptable" novels in recent years.

Fever Pitch wasn't a novel, and I've seen the adaptation with Colin Firth.

At the time I read it, yes. Mind you I was like 11 or 12 when I read it. I just think the book completely mishandled the entire first section of the book, failing to build up any kind of suspense. And the final third of the book, with the really cool T-Rex showdown and the raptor island destruction was also mishandled.

That said, Rising Sun and Congo were passable and Disclosure was mildly enjoyable.

I have no problem with a movie based from the book. What I find annoying is that people somehow expect the movie to be as good as the book, or that it should be EXACTLY like the book. But I suppose it depends on the story. Some books only work because of all the details, while others can be adjusted easily for film.

I'm quite looking forward the adaptation of my favorite book: Blindness.

I've never read Sphere, but the movie was pretty bad. I've read Timeline and enjoyed it. I haven't seen the movie, but I've heard it wasn't very good.

All that said, I read his newest one (at least I think it's his newest one) called Next. Terrible in my opinion. The book more or less had no story and it was almost a research paper rather than a novel. Interesting ideas but the story went nowhere. When I finished it all I could say was "What? That's it? Where's the climax?"

That bothers me too. When Fellowship of the Ring came out I remember reading one review that just blasted it and her only reasoning was that it wasn't EXACTLY like the book. First of all in order to film The Lord of the Rings exactly like the book it, not only would have cost probably $1 billion, but it would have been about 30 hours long instead of 10 or 11.

In any event, books and movies are two different mediums. They don't necessarily have to be exactly the same. A movie based on a book is simply another person's (director's) vision of the story. Sometimes it's better, but usually it's worse mainly because of time and monetary constraints.

I would refuse to see it if I felt it was terribly miscast.

Like how there were rumors about A Confederacy of Dunces being made with Will Ferrell as Ignatius. I would never bother to see that crap.

No problem with seeing a movie rendition of a book as long as, like Chrlie Goose just mentioned, I felt casting was appropriate.

Visitor, your memories won't be crushed. If you don't like the film, just forget about it the next day, throw it out of your head, pretend you never saw it at all. It's not that hard as it seems. And only the memories of the book will remain. For example I liked B.E.Ellis' American Psycho immensely and the movie adaptation seemed plain and shallow after that. Not that I erased the film from my memory, but I didn't let it ruining the impression left after the book.

Unless you have killed your brain with booze or drugs, I don't see how it could replace the memory of the original. If that was the case, we would have to avoid anything even remotely similar to a beloved story. Just look at the movie as a completely separate thing, which it is.

No, it just makes me appreciate the book that much more.

Nope. I'd watch the movie out of pure curiosity. Wouldn't have pre-conceived notions that one is better than the other. It's always interesting to see different takes on a subject, especially when transferred from one medium to another.

Really looking forward to seeing "Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell" by Susanna Clarke.

I agree with starseed. Plus its possible that a movie does get it right and turns out to be great like with LOTR. Its rare but it happens.