-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Best book to movie?
- Thread starter justgoofin
- Start date
Oberon
New Member
Dunno ... while I liked "Relic," it moved the location from the New York museum which was just as much a character as anything else in the book ... to the Chicago Field Museum!! 
I would go with Jaws. Spielberg cut to the chase, leaving out the affair between the Brody's wife and the diver and lifting the "horror" aspects to "adventure at sea" with archetype characters ... It helped that Benchly was onboard as writer and consultant.
I would go with Jaws. Spielberg cut to the chase, leaving out the affair between the Brody's wife and the diver and lifting the "horror" aspects to "adventure at sea" with archetype characters ... It helped that Benchly was onboard as writer and consultant.
Doug Johnson
kickbox
Motokid said:
The movie stayed pretty true to the book. Much of the dialogue was taken from the book word for word. Probably why the movie was so good. That, and Anthony Hopkin's performance.
CattiGuen
New Member
Motokid said:Silence of the Lambs (is that horror....I think it is....where's that brat kid who likes to correct everybody all the time...
lol seriously, lil stewie needs to realize that "horror" doesnt have to mean all violence and gore. There's also the horror of war or the horror of humanity (or inhumanity).
with that said, i'm surprised A Clockwork Orange hasnt been mentioned. I was lucky enough to read the book first and the movie was...errr....okay. By itself the movie is great, as a Burgess adaptation, okay. I heard that Burgess even refused to see the movie, saying that his vision could never be properly reproduced! oooh burn!
Fantasy Moon
kickbox
It was closer to the book. I just didn't like Kubrick's version as much even though there were some cool things in there. This could also be because I seen the newer version first, even before reading the book. ^^;;mehastings said:
I don't generally read and watch the movie, but some titles that come to mind are Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist. Oh, yes! The Haunting too! (Actually I like the original and the remake when it comes to that movie... odd, I know.)
venusunfolding
New Member
The Exorcist followed the book pretty well.
I couldn't stand Queen of the Damned. It was my favorite of the vampire books but I thought the movie was awful.
I couldn't stand Queen of the Damned. It was my favorite of the vampire books but I thought the movie was awful.
lethaldose
New Member
I thought Pet Semetary was a great translation, but King did the screenplay for that so that helped. Both the movie and book scared me.
People keep mentioning Kubrick's version of The Shining and that has to be the worst translation of a King novel ever, and that is saying something. Now I am not saying the movie was bad, but other than names and locations it bore little resemblence to the novel. Kubrick took alot of liberties there.
People keep mentioning Kubrick's version of The Shining and that has to be the worst translation of a King novel ever, and that is saying something. Now I am not saying the movie was bad, but other than names and locations it bore little resemblence to the novel. Kubrick took alot of liberties there.
Peronel
New Member
SFG75 said:
Totally agree with that, although it was shown here (Oz) so long ago that I must have been...9 or 10 when I saw it. Scared the hell out of me. I actually saw the movie first and then read the short story (novella, whatever). I think it's one of King's best, if not his most original.
The movie Jaws came out the same year I was bornand since about the age of 10 it has been my most favorite movie of all time. At the age of 23 I finally read the book and was extremely disappointed. Having said that I'm sure it would have been the other way around had I read the book first.
Differences between the two include:
Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss's character in the movie) has an affair with Chief Brody's wife and is a bit of a bastard in the book.
Quint (Robert Shaw's role in the film) is not eaten in the book but rather dies very much like Ahab in Moby Dick having his leg tangled in the harpoon line and pulled under.
Brody (Roy Scheider's part in the picture) does not kill the shark in the end, it actually drowns from the drag that Quint's body creates from the harpoon line. Very anti climactic.
As mentioned before however, had I been old enough to read the novel before seeing the movie my opinion would have probably been that the movie was too Hollywood and unrealistic in character portrayal and story line.
Differences between the two include:
Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss's character in the movie) has an affair with Chief Brody's wife and is a bit of a bastard in the book.
Quint (Robert Shaw's role in the film) is not eaten in the book but rather dies very much like Ahab in Moby Dick having his leg tangled in the harpoon line and pulled under.
Brody (Roy Scheider's part in the picture) does not kill the shark in the end, it actually drowns from the drag that Quint's body creates from the harpoon line. Very anti climactic.
As mentioned before however, had I been old enough to read the novel before seeing the movie my opinion would have probably been that the movie was too Hollywood and unrealistic in character portrayal and story line.
I have always felt that the best adaptation of any of Stephen King's books is Brian DePalma's version of Carrie. Note that I did not say it's the best film based on a King book; but simply that, IMHO, this one comes the closest to actually translating to film the experience of reading the book. I haven't seen all the films based on King books, but I've seen most of them and think that out of all the different filmmakers who have tried adapting King's stuff, DePalma came the closest.
Someone earlier brought up the different versions of The Shining. I read that over winter break during my first year in college. The same day I finished the novel, I went right out and rented the Kubrick film (this was a few years before the TV version was made). I HATED it! I couldn't believe how Kubrick had changed the story, etc.
Then a few years later, I came across a non-fiction book titled The Modern Horror Film, in which the author reviews the Kubrick film and encourages the reader to look at it as an interpretation, rather than an outright adaption, of the novel. So I went back and watched it again, and was surprised to find that, when I kept an open mind, I really liked it. There are still things I don't like (particularly the casting of Shelly Duvall as Wendy) but overall I appreciate the film much more now than I did at first.
Also since then, if I'm going to see a movie based on a book I enjoyed, I try to wait a while after I've finished the book so my mind doesn't keep nitpicking on the differences.
It should also be noted that just following the book doesn't automatically mean the movie will be good. A good example of this is the film version of Firestarter, which follows the book to a "T" but isn't very interesting to watch, IMHO.
Someone earlier brought up the different versions of The Shining. I read that over winter break during my first year in college. The same day I finished the novel, I went right out and rented the Kubrick film (this was a few years before the TV version was made). I HATED it! I couldn't believe how Kubrick had changed the story, etc.
Then a few years later, I came across a non-fiction book titled The Modern Horror Film, in which the author reviews the Kubrick film and encourages the reader to look at it as an interpretation, rather than an outright adaption, of the novel. So I went back and watched it again, and was surprised to find that, when I kept an open mind, I really liked it. There are still things I don't like (particularly the casting of Shelly Duvall as Wendy) but overall I appreciate the film much more now than I did at first.
Also since then, if I'm going to see a movie based on a book I enjoyed, I try to wait a while after I've finished the book so my mind doesn't keep nitpicking on the differences.
It should also be noted that just following the book doesn't automatically mean the movie will be good. A good example of this is the film version of Firestarter, which follows the book to a "T" but isn't very interesting to watch, IMHO.
Real Great Idea
New Member
I think that the best horror book to be made into a movie is, without a doubt, The Exorcist. It is and probably always will be, the scariest film of all time
SFG75
Well-Known Member
Peronel said:
I read the book and then saw the film, but I had to laugh because in the book, King makes a reference to one of the scared people running and jumping over items in the terminal like O.J. Simpson. O.J. use to be in these Hertz rental commercials where he was jumping over chairs, sidestepping luggage, and dodging people in his way. Unfortunately, no one in the film turned in an O.J. performance. As for O.J. and his trial, that just makes it weird to see the guy in any film or commercial now......eeeeeerrrrryyyyyyy.
DATo
Active Member
Generally horror books do not translate well into movies. A few of my favorites are: "Silver Bullet" by Steven King, the book I believe was "Cycle of the werewolf", and "The Relic" which is by Douglas and Preston. I am most likely biased since I like books and movies involving some sort of creature; mainly werewolves, but the most profitable and sucessfull horror book to movie conversion is probably "Jaws" by Peter Benchley. I'd be interested to know which ones you think translate halfway decently into movies.
Now you're talking my language ... the werewolf is, and will forever be, my favorite horror theme. I agree with your nod to Silver Bullet. Favorite part of the movie was when the uncle was staying with the kids and the anticipation of the werewolf appearing was thick in the air. But my all-time favorite was the original Universal movie The Wolf Man with Lon Chaney Jr. I first saw it when I was 7 years old and it scared the B'jesus out of me for the next 10 years *LOL*
Edited to add: I also enjoyed Bram Stoker's Dracula - the Coppola film. I know the beginning and end do not match the book but in all other respects I thought it was very well done. Actually, I enjoyed the explanation offered by the movie about the origin of Dracula. I thought it worked well. I was less enamored of the ending though.
Richard Hannay
New Member
Dracula is notorious for having unfaithful adaptations, and I think the Coppola film was the one closest to the original- it even made Dracula's character quite tragic, rather than evil. I think other Dracula films, of course, deserve a mention- the original Nosferatu (haven't seen the remake) was chilling in its use of camera angles, etc., while Bela Lugosi's and Christopher Lee's incarnations were also impressive.
Down the more obscure road, I was also a big fan of the M. R. James BBC adaptation of Oh, Whistle and I'll Come To You, which was absolutely terrifying for something on such a small budget.
DATo
Active Member
I agree. I think Kubrick did an amazing job with 2001. The movie added a surrealistic element to the story which was not present in the book. This, I think, is a very good example of how the medium can enhance or detract from a story. Imagine how difficult it would be to describe the movie ending of this story in prose and achieve the same effect.
