Jump to content

Good Movie Adaptations


the Gleeman

Recommended Posts

The best movie adaptations is LotR in my opinion. It is actually the only movie adaptation that I find actually better than the books. Or at least more enjoyable. Don't get me wrong, the books are great, but they almost bored me to death. The way Tolkien writes just is so full of way too long descriptions, boring dialogues and that just kills all of the action. The action that I need to actually enjoy the book and the action that should be well presented in books, because there are battles. How is it possible to write about fighting and kill action in the same time? The movies did a really great job showing all of the epic battles, and kind of made characters more interesting (especially Aragorn, who was really dull in books for me, I didn;t like him at all) as well. And in general the movies are so epic, and I love epic.  However I still need to fast forward the "Frodo and Sam parts", because they're still boring as hell, and I still can't stand these characters, and I felt the same way while reading the books. I mean, watching and reading about Frodo and Sam once was fine, but now everytime I do a rewatch and reread, I just skip their part.

 

Hobbit movies are fine, and I thonk I liked them, but there nowhere near as good as original LotR movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

LotR was a fantastic adaption. Given, it did have to leave stuff out, but then I really didn't enjoy bombadill really. I remember enjoying the Inkheart movie much more than the book. The Never Ending story is an aaaaaaaamaaaaaaaazing book, and the first movie is a pretty good adaption of the first half really but I'm not going to even mention the movie's sequels....

I liked the Ender's Game film, sure it wasn't the book, but it made a good try at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god. That thing that happens to others has finally happened to me. I accidently down voted quiver. Why must you fail me phone. You were doing so well.

 

I'll fix it. :)

 

Man, we still have to see the third Hobbit movie.  I honestly didn't expect more from those movies than the original LotR trilogy, but still I find myself feeling blah about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I think the best movie adaptations are the ones whose books you haven't read. 

 

However, having read the books I still think City of Ember, The Princess Bride, Stardust, City of Bones, Neverwhere and the first Harry Potter movie are good.

 

I liked the Hobbit and thought LotR was well done.

 

Eragon was terrible.

I liked the Percy Jackson movie but I have never read it. 

The second Harry Potter film was not good and the rest were worse.

The Dark is Rising was odd.

 

I love the Chronicles of Narnia and still feel the old BBC adaptations were better... the new LWW felt off to me and the others were completely wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the Harry Potter adaptations a lot. Same with Hunger Games. Different from the book, but still interesting. The Hobbit/LotR were also nicely done, save for the last Hobbit movie which I really didn't enjoy. They could have put all that into the Desolation of Smaug, to be honest.

As for bad movie adaptations, Timeline was quite possibly the worst one I've seen. And yes, I am counting the Percy Jackson ones into that list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WORST adaptation I have ever seen was Eragon. That piece of crap haunts me to this day, making me physically ill when I think of it. The ONLY thing they did well was Durza's casting. Idiots.

Ugh...the ERAGON film was just plain brutal! There was so much cut from the book that it turned into "generic fantasy movie 57 with some vague nods to the original ERAGON novel". A BIG thumbs down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got to be honest. I saw the first Hobbit at the movies ad about half way through had to go to the toilet. I then thought about it, realised that I didn't really want to see the rest of it so I walked home.

I didn't quite do that, but I was pretty close, especially during the scene where they try to escape from the goblins in the mountain.  And each commercial I saw for the other 2 turned me off of them so completely that I still haven't bothered.  And this from someone who a. liked the LOTR movies in spite of the changes, and b. was alright with them adding in the white council (or was it the council of the wise, I forget which is which) to the hobbit films.

 

The commercials for Ender's game (possibly the book I have reread the most) did the same.  Every time they blatantly showed you the end of the final battle, with him screaming his command no less, I was more and more convinced that they had taken everythign I liked about the book and just trashed it.

 

As far as good adaptations, I'll second Princess Bride, LOTR, and Harry Potter 1 (I didnt see any of the others until HP 7 pt 2, which was awful).  beyond that, I couldn't say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good movie adaptations don't exist. Period. (Except "The Princess Bride")

(I'm going to get so much hate right now.)

 

I respectfully disagree.  "Interview With the Vampire" I quite enjoyed.

 

Granted, I thought the book was terrible, so there was nowhere to go but up.

 

(Apparently Anne Rice's writing style curdles in my brain.  I still can't believe that I actually made myself finish that thing.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I respectfully disagree.  "Interview With the Vampire" I quite enjoyed.

 

Granted, I thought the book was terrible, so there was nowhere to go but up.

 

(Apparently Anne Rice's writing style curdles in my brain.  I still can't believe that I actually made myself finish that thing.)

 

Funny thing is I thought the Vampire trilogy was better in book then in movie. They completely ruined Lestat in the movie. Louis was good, but Lestat was badly cast. A strong part of Lestat's character is the fact he was made vampire at 21 years of age. Tom Cruise was just too old to play him convincingly: they thus had to change the character. When you read the book, the Lestat you discover is a much, much, much different person.

 

Still, I thought it was a good movie and not a bad interpretation, but they could have made it better by taking a younger wilder actor for Lestat and please, someone who actually is blond..... You know, Hollywood does not run short on blond haired early twenties actors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing is I thought the Vampire trilogy was better in book then in movie. They completely ruined Lestat in the movie. Louis was good, but Lestat was badly cast. A strong part of Lestat's character is the fact he was made vampire at 21 years of age. Tom Cruise was just too old to play him convincingly: they thus had to change the character. When you read the book, the Lestat you discover is a much, much, much different person.

 

Still, I thought it was a good movie and not a bad interpretation, but they could have made it better by taking a younger wilder actor for Lestat and please, someone who actually is blond..... You know, Hollywood does not run short on blond haired early twenties actors.

 

I have to admit, I didn't particularly like him in either.  One of my coworkers has tried to explain Lestat to me and convince me that he gets more interesting and likeable the further the series goes, but I just can't bring myself to try it.  Especially not when there are so many Cosmere books I haven't read yet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit, I didn't particularly like him in either.  One of my coworkers has tried to explain Lestat to me and convince me that he gets more interesting and likeable the further the series goes, but I just can't bring myself to try it.  Especially not when there are so many Cosmere books I haven't read yet...

 

Good point, but I must agree with your colleagues. You cannot judge Lestat by book 1 which is written from Louis's POV. Louis has always been partial to Lestat and he does not know his back story. Book 2 and 3 are from Lestat's POV. You get to see him before he was made vampire... The movie also ruined what happens to Lestat after being poisoned by Louis and Claudia. He survives, but he goes underground for several decades, when he emerges, it is modern day. Movie showed us scared and frightened Lestat who did not know what a helicopter was... Book Lestat, upon emerging, enrolls into University and joins a Rock Band where he pretends to be... a vampire. 

 

All in all, book Lestat is a much better character then movie Lestat. Casting made them change the character too much.

 

Imo, I did not read all of the vampire books. I stopped after book 4 which was quite bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, but I must agree with your colleagues. You cannot judge Lestat by book 1 which is written from Louis's POV. Louis has always been partial to Lestat and he does not know his back story. Book 2 and 3 are from Lestat's POV. You get to see him before he was made vampire... The movie also ruined what happens to Lestat after being poisoned by Louis and Claudia. He survives, but he goes underground for several decades, when he emerges, it is modern day. Movie showed us scared and frightened Lestat who did not know what a helicopter was... Book Lestat, upon emerging, enrolls into University and joins a Rock Band where he pretends to be... a vampire. 

 

All in all, book Lestat is a much better character then movie Lestat. Casting made them change the character too much.

 

Imo, I did not read all of the vampire books. I stopped after book 4 which was quite bad. 

 

Yeah, I just can't work with Rice's writing style.  She bored me to tears, I'm afraid.  I'd probably be able to gulp down the story if it were rewritten by someone else, but that is generally a Thing That Should Not Be Done. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished reading the Life of Pi, and I have to say the movie did an excellent job with that one. Stuck really true to it while also providing wonderful visuals. I did enjoy the extra time given to Pi's religious beginnings, but honestly this is one of those very very rare times where I can say that you can read or watch it and it really doesn't matter because they're both very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I just can't work with Rice's writing style.  She bored me to tears, I'm afraid.  I'd probably be able to gulp down the story if it were rewritten by someone else, but that is generally a Thing That Should Not Be Done. :)

 

It' OK. Honestly, I read the French translations back then, so perhaps they were better  :ph34r: You do lose some of the author's writing style by going to a translation, but I could not read English back then. Recently, I read Robin Hob both in French and in English and I must say the feeling is different even of the story is the same. Come to think of it, I dropped the Vampire circle at book 5 which I tried in English, but I think Ann Rice got lost after book 3.... What she made of Lestat afterwards was just not fun at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished reading the Life of Pi, and I have to say the movie did an excellent job with that one. Stuck really true to it while also providing wonderful visuals. I did enjoy the extra time given to Pi's religious beginnings, but honestly this is one of those very very rare times where I can say that you can read or watch it and it really doesn't matter because they're both very good.

 

I agree on this. 

 

I have found I can be a lot more forgiving on adaptations if I watch the movie first then read the book. It is near impossible to put everything a book has on the screen but sometimes movies can really help you visualize a book. I thought lotr did a good job at this. I am really nervous about an upcoming movie adaptation The Martian. The book is mainly the protagonist journal really curious how this will translate on screen. 

 

On the opposite end of the spectrum one insanely horrible adaptation was Dune. Straying away from a book or not including things is understandable in a normal 2 hour movie but in this case stuff was just made up and added for no apparent reason. Like the cat.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found I can be a lot more forgiving on adaptations if I watch the movie first then read the book. It is near impossible to put everything a book has on the screen but sometimes movies can really help you visualize a book. I thought lotr did a good job at this. I am really nervous about an upcoming movie adaptation The Martian. The book is mainly the protagonist journal really curious how this will translate on screen. 

 

I'm feeling good about The Martian. I have next to no knowledge about the movie except for that it is a thing, but they could do some really cool things with it. Even though the majority of the book is the journal recalling past events, it's told in such a way that turning it into "current" events on screen isn't an issue, you'll just miss a handful of jokes about "well I obviously lived..." but those weren't among the best jokes of the book so their loss is no big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I posted a while back, but I have since watched another one, very new, called Inherent Vice. This is the perfect example of a great adaptation. Pynchon has been called, for decades, unfilmable, and yet Inherent Vice was great. I greatly hope that someone does Bleeding Edge, and I'm honestly baffled Mason & Dixon hasn't been done yet. Someone like Fincher could do that, no one's done it. Which is crazy. But I do hope that Bleeding Edge gets made someday as a movie. It would do very well, especially for today's general film audience. But yeah, Inherent Vice's movie did a good job of keeping the atmosphere intact.

 

Another one I watched, Gone Girl, was amazing. However, I have not read Gillian Flynn's books yet. I heard her other two are coming to the screens. i hope they keep intact that same feeling Gone Girl had. I liked Gone girl, because it had that idea that the Unwritten comics has: what happens when someone's image of themselves is derived from the built-up persona the media has made for you based off of things that someone else said about you? It's absolutely great. Phenomenal movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...