Books > Movies

"Why does Hollywood take our favorite novels and turn them into crap?"
 
That's the question posed by Willing Davidson in this Slate article.  He's particularly upset about the book to screen translation of Revolutionary Road.
 
"The book is so much better than the movie!" is a common phrase in pop culture discussions, so let's get specific:  In the comments, vote for A) the worst example of book to movie translation and B) the best example of book to movie translation.  If you need a refresher on your options, this website should come in handy.  As Linda Richman would say, "Discuss!"

Comments

[Joe]

Quite possibly the worst film adaptation is For Love of the Game, which was a short novel by Michael Shaara published posthumously by his son. Shaara won a Pulitzer for the Killer Angels. Anyway, the original story was flawed but a thoroughly enjoyable read. Quick paced.

The Kevin Costner adaptation was dreadful. Eschewing the elements of the characters that made them real.

Part of the problem for me was I read it at age 18 and immediately envisioned how I would make the picture, and the product was not only nothing like my vision it was barely recognizable as the book.

In terms of faithful adaptations, I would say that the over long Gettysburg, adapted from the Killer Angels, was pretty much a direct transcription. Though Martin Sheen was the wrong man to play Robert E. Lee. Not best film adapted from a book, but the most faithful in my not so humble opinion.

[LarryK]

"Bonfire of the Vanities" was a great book, but the movie was a travesty. Better movies than books? God may strike me dead for saying this, but I would nominate the Narnia movies (I like CS Lewis's defenses of Christianity, his fiction not so much).

[Teresa]

The Harry Potter movies have done a wonderful job of capturing the essence of the books, although some great storylines had to be sacrificed. Two other favorite film translations: Ang Lee's "Sense and Sensibility" and the 2005 "Pride and Prejudice."

The film translation which disappointed me the most is probably Jodie Foster's "Contact." I LOVE Sagan's book, but the film was painful to watch.

[BRS]

I have enjoyed all of Nick Hornby’s books, and at least “About a Boy” and “High Fidelity” turned into very watchable films. (I never got around to seeing the American version of “Fever Pitch,” partially because it wasn’t a straight adaptation, and partially because I hate the Red Sox). I don’t know that “How to be Good” or “A Long Way Down” would translate to film as easily, as they are more philosophical books.

[Allison]

GOOD:
-My favorite novel (The Beach by Alex Garland) was turned into a decent movie (the one with Leo DiCaprio). The book is darker and Leo's character is supposed to be a Brit with dark hair, but I enjoy them both.

-Sophia Coppola's film version of The Virgin Suicides did justice to a great book.

-Ditto BRS' comments on About a Boy.

-For lighter fare, I enjoyed both the Bridget Jones' Diary books and movies.

BAD:
-I know there are far worse example out there, but I was very disappointed with the Prince Caspian movie. That's one of my favorite Narnia books and they wrecked it in the movie. Aside from Caspian's RIDICULOUS accent, the filmmakers needlessly changed a lot of things (both plot points and character personalities) that drove me crazy.

HILARIOUS:
-For all the readers who were also business majors (or went on to business school), you probably had to read The Goal by Eliyahu Goldratt at some point. I can only hope that you also had to watch the movie, because it was one of the most hilariously bad things I've ever seen.

OTHER:
-I can't let this discussion go further without giving a shout out to the fabulous Adaptation.

[Katie]

I admit first that I have not read enough works of works of modern fiction, though my K-12 public school education has served me quite well in the classic works department.

I think there is one element of written work-to-film translation which is forgotten, and that is the film being loose or literal. Success can be had by being loose (as with "modern day" translations of Shakespeare plays...you know which ones) and failure or at least mediocre film versions can result from being too loyal to the written version. Others can give more examples of how this loyalty does not always result in a decent film version.

The first example that pops to my mind is Twilight. Mockery and hissing aside, it was a guilty pleasure of mine over this past summer. However, the movie was rather disastrous. They wrote and filmed scenes that at times were near identical in word, action, and setting, and it did not match at all what I did love about the first book in the series. It was screened at my school a week ago, and all the audience treated it like a comedy, particularly during the delivery of lines which in the book were serious. Having the actors say word for word what their literary characters also said comes off more like an in-class out-loud book reading than a film