Book/Film companions

[taxidriver]

As an English student and film fanatic, I find it very interesting to read a book and then see the film after, to compare the two, see if the director took a lot of initiative or stayed fiercely faithful to the material. Obvious examples of big adaptations are The Godfather, Harry Potter, LOTR, ie. big franchises.

But what of the smaller, more independent adaptation successes? My personal favourites are Sideways (adapted from Rex Pickett) and Requiem for a Dream. I'd love to hear of any other more underground films adapted from books though...

[Bartwald]

I have just finished reading Steve Martin's Shopgirl, so I can finally watch the film (definitely prefer to do it in this order). We'll see how faithful this is.

[Quorthon]

Dean Koontz's "Watchers" was prominantly raped when they brought that to the big screen. I took special note list just how butchered the book was by that awful movie in my review.

Jurassic Park--both are good, but the book is a far bigger adventure. Chriton's "Lost World" was head and shoulders better than the movie.

I haven't read the original story on which Bubba Ho-Tep is based, but I very much want to. One of my favorite movies, after all.

The Running Man is another one drastically changed from book to film. Like you wouldn't believe. The ending in the book is hellishly depressing. And the game is also wildly different in the movie. No colorful hunters in there!

[LivingDeadGirl]

Manhunter is a great adaption of Harris' Red Dragon. Although there is the controversial "which movie is better-Manhunter or Red Dragon" debate that we've had on here a couple of times.

One movie that hasn't come out yet that I'm looking forward to is Peter Jackson's adaptation of Alice Sebold's novel "The Lovely Bones". Great & haunting book! The movie's supposed to come out sometime next year.

[Pulpmariachi]

I tend to agree with Bart. I love reading the book first then seeing the movie (I remember buying and reading Big Fish the night before I went to see the film).

Adaptations work both ways. More often than naught, the books are loads better than the movies. Like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings or Timeline. Or Something Wicked This Way Comes.

Sometimes the movies are better. Like Jaws. And I like Jurassic Park the movie better than Jurassic Park the book, but I do agree with you Quorthon that Crichton's Lost World is better than the movie version. And I always thought GoodFellas was better than Wiseguy. Oh and Fight Club.

Then there's the rare occurences where the book and the movie don't really have anything to do with each other. Like The Bourne Identity.

But generally, I like reading the books first.

[taxidriver]

I have to agree with Jurassic Park, and Fight Club, which just clarified everything perfectly.

Having just read The Black Dahlia, I'll be very interested to see if De Palma can do as good a job at adapting Ellroy as Curtis Hanson did with L.A. Confidential.

[LivingDeadGirl]

Some interesting news...


The Hollywood Reporter reports that Kelly Asbury ("Shrek 2") will direct "The Thief of Always," a film which is based on a screenplay co-written by Asbury and horror legend Clive Barker.

The live-action feature film will be based on the 1992 fantasy novel and centers on a 10-year-old boy who is bored with his ordinary life and ventures into a supernatural house in which all four seasons pass in one day.

20th Century Fox will distribute the feature. Barker has tried making "Thief" into a feature since the late 1990s. It most recently was in development at Universal Pictures with Bernard Rose ("Candyman") directing and adapting the script. Previously, "Thief" was in development as an animated movie with Kennedy Marshall at Paramount Pictures before rights reverted back to Barker.