Don't you hate it when they make a movie off of one of your favorite books, and then totally mess it up. The Queen of the Damned thread made me think of this. The best (or worst, depending on your perspective) example of this for me was Jurrasic Park. I loved this book and was really stoked when I heard that it was being made into a movie. Unfortunatley they decided to go for the PG-13 rating and then decided to cut out about the last 25% of the story. They may have butchered the Lost World even more. T-Rex in San Diego? Please.
Jurassic Park, a bad movie?? Granted, I didn't read the book but I'm sure some of the people that helped it gross about 350 million did. It couldn't have been that bad of an adaptation. Basically, Jurassic Park rules.
I didn't think JP was that bad other than them being bailed out by the "coincidental" meeting of dinosaurs at the end and the stupid scene where the dude was sitting on the toilet. JP2 blew chunks. I was pissed. What about books I haven't read or don't care much about? I nominate quite a bit of King's movies, Maximum overdrive topping the list as sucking ass.
Of Mice and Men, was a great book and the movie was just as good. It just goes to show how good of a writter Steinbeck was
I read Jurassic Park after the movie because I was told it was better than the movie. I was fairly young and the book was good, but it didn't make me like the movie less. The effects made for that movie were enough for it to be good. LOTR I also saw before I read it. I actually had no interest in the books or the movie whatsoever until Lynus made me see it with him. I absolutely fell in love with it. I'm now starting the whole series in my spare time (when I'm not studying or on this board, which isn't very often). I really didn't like reading much because I was forced to read mandated books at a very young age. It really turned me off to it. In a way, movies have rekindled a joy for reading for me.
Just to clarify, I really liked JP the movie, but the book was so much better. The Lost World was twice the difference in quality from the book to the movie, but I own that one as well. Basically all I am saying is: Jurassic Park Book - 10 Movie - 8 The Lost World Book - 9 Movie - 6 JP3 Book - non-existant Movie - Kinda sucked
Jurassic Park was great, because it truly brought in the modern age of computer visual effects. Seeing those dinosaurs for the first time on the big screen was incredible. The Lost World is fine as a stand-alone, but it is complete crap when compared to the book. That's probably because Michael Crichton didn't write the screenplay. There were so many corny Hollywood scenes, like the girl using gymnastics to knock out the Raptors, and the whole "Godzilla" spoof. It was a disappointment.
All-Time, absolutely worst film adaptation of a book: Nightfall, based on the Isaac Asimov book. Do not waste your time or money on this by renting it to see if I'm right. Trust me, I'm right. On another note, I was very impressed with the LOTR adaptation. There are so many ways they could've screwed it up... I think that any time a filmmaker can stay fairly true to a book - especially one with that sort of scale - then they have done a good job. I am quite glad that they didn't try to make that one earlier too, as the tech simply didn't exist for it until now. The first Jurassic Park was OK, and didn't stray too far from the book, but the sequels were horrible.
Whenever you consider the book to film transition, you must include that there is a different approach to the storytelling process, especially because you are dealing with a product that is being presented on an entirely separate medium. With that there is also the topic of tone, as in which most books envelope the public, a film generally does so in a more rudimentary style. Now, a solid production will be able to take the existing work and translate it for the viewer. Although, this will not always include every facet, but that is the nature of the task. For which what cannot be included could always be improved upon. Of course this leads to weakened variations as well. But I'm not here to bore you with my geek film rant, so here are my top five transfers. 1 fight club - The fact that it was even made into a film alone was an accomplishment, but what followed was one of the most intriguing and thought provoking trips imaginable. Never has the phrase "new classic" meant so much. 2 high fidelity - An approach that could of easily been faltered, but with an all star cast, top notch production team, and a respect to the original aura of the novel, the boys at championship vinyl walked away with a clear hit. 3 fellowship of the ring - An epic in every sense, what can be said that already hasn’t. 4 the shining - Granted this is more of Kubrick’s tale than King’s, but given legendary material and the mission to present it in all its glory, sacrifices had to be made. With these circumstances the end result was quite feat. 5 jaws - Nearly identical incident to the shining, except with this case more of the films darker side was purged for commercial appeal. Now a few of the moves I agree with, while others I wish would of stayed. That is the ever presences of Spielberg though, and his achievements on this outweigh his disappointments.
A number of Steven King books have been made into movies with great results. The problem is when King himself gets involved that causes the movie to go downhill. (Stick to writing, SK!) As far as TV movies, I thought The Stand was well done. (That was one long ass book, BTW.) 'Salem's Lot was done for TV many years ago, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. One of my favorite books, Dean Koontz's Hideaway, was absolutely butchered by the movie. Ugh!
Every Koontz movie made to date has been butchered. A couple of the made-for-TV productions have been acceptable, though (I liked Intensity); SK movies are regularly butchered as well (but The Stand could have been much worse)... Good call on Fight Club, DBC. That movie was way underrated, IMHO. One of Pitt's best performances ever, and he's one of those guys who gives a good one every round... I think it'll end up being a cult classic for years by plot alone.
The Firm -- the last 75 or so pages are extremely tense...it was completely left out of the movie...truly, the best part of the book.
I had seen "The Shining" in my teens and thought it was a damn scary movie. I finally had to read the book for a college English class (go figure!). When I read it, I was surprised by the complexity of the relationship between Danny and his father. There was one scene in particular, where the father comes out of his madness just long enough to let the boy know he loves him, that was absolutely heartbreaking. It made me sorry that Kubrick decided to focus solely on the horror aspect. A few years ago, however, I happened to catch a tv movie of "The Shining" that King himself directed. It starred Steven Weber and Rebecca DeMorney -- not exactly an A-List cast, but I thought they did a fantastic job. King stayed true to the deeper psychological aspects of the story. I thought it was a much truer and more enjoyable adaptation of the book.
When was this made into a movie? I know Richard Wright did a very low-budget movie version himself in Brazil (?) eons ago and there was a TV version with Matt Dillon in the 80s. Neither of these are very good. Have I missed a third version?
I've found most of the John Grisham book-to-movie adaptions to be rather bland and disappointing. I'll speak to 4 of 'em: The Firm - book: Great book. Ending was very tense (as DEANBCURTIS stated earlier). The Firm - movie: Sucked. Tom Cruise was miscast in this role. Wilford Brimley? Please. Ending was completely changed (for the worse). Suspense wasn't there. I hate Hollywoodized movies... The Pelican Brief - book : I read this book in one sitting. I don't think I've ever done that with another book (that's a compliment to Grisham). Great plot, good action, good characterization. The Pelican Brief - movie: The whole black/white Denzel-Julia semi-romance thing was distracting and felt tacked on and artificial. The movie was bland at best, and I didn't give a rat's ass about any of the characters. They also changed a few elements of the plot, too. Prognosis: "Meh." A Time To Kill - book: One of my favorite books of all time. Easily Grisham's best book (and first?). Very moving. Characterization was top-notch. Can't praise this book enough. A Time to Kill - movie: Not too bad, but definitely lacking when compared to the book (ok, my expectations were a bit high for this one). McConaughey was okay. Bullock sucked. Samuel L. Jackson was also decent, as was Spacey. Could've been a contender. Didn't fall flat, but didn't separate itself from the pack. The Rainmaker - book: A good book, but nothing special. Decent plot, decent characterizaton. The Rainmaker - movie: I thought this movie was great. Matt Damon was cast perfectly for this role. Coppola did a very good job with this movie (even if the book was lacking). DeVito was a bit distracting, though. Probably the best Grisham adaption I've seen yet. Don't get me started on Michael Crichton. I've read all but 3 of his books (Eaters of the Dead, Terminal Man, and The Great Train Robbery). I could go into a 3 page diatribe about how much the movie Sphere blew huge chunks of ass (especially when compared to the book, which I feel is an absolute classic).
The Rainmaker was one of my favorite movies and better than the book in my opinion. I am hearing that they want to make The Runaway Jury into a movie and I am excited since that was my favorite Grisham book. Its rumored to have Ed Norton as the lead character. Hopefully that one happens. I read Hannibal before the movie came out and it sucked I thought. The ending in the book was absolutely awful. I thought that the movie was much better even though they edited the crap out of it. A ton was missing from the book which was not all bad. I actually had wished that I had not read the book after I watched the movie.
