Nice topic.

I think people if someone really loves a book and realizes it is going to be adapted into a movie, they should realize that not all of it will work on-screen. People do get pissed off when stuff is changed, and stuff does get changed unnecessarily, but if you keep that in mind when you see the movie, I think you should be alright. In fact, there are some endings to the film adaptations that I thought were better than the books;

e.g. Fight Club by Chuck Palahnuik, Little Children by Tom Perotta.

But anyway, here's my list:

My favourite film adaptations:

1. "Stand By Me" (adapted from Stephen King's short story, "The Body") - Absolutely captures the feeling of nostalgic youth and the danger of a simple childhood adventure put forth in the story.

2. "Little Children" and "Election" (adapted from books of the same name by Tom Perotta) - While it doesn't capture the atmosphere I got from reading the book, I think it comes pretty close. They're both pretty faithful and when they are not, the stories are actually better in the movie than in the book. But then again, Tom Perotta adapted his own work to screenplay, so...

3. "No Country for Old Men" (adapted from book of the same name by Cormac McCarthy) - Okay, I cheated for this because I read the book AFTER I saw the movie, but this was the most faithful adaptation I have ever read. The movie follows the book word for word.

Not so favourite:

1. American Psycho (adapted from book of the same name by Bret Easton Ellis) - Way too watered down from the source material. Didn't feel like it captured the right atmosphere. Bale made a good Bateman but the screenplay was too diluted.

2. The Shining (adapted from book of the same name by Stephen King) - King himself apparently had a problem with the movie. I loved the movie, but I regard the movie and the book as separate entities. I did read the book first and was a bit disappointed with the changes in the movie, but I still loved the movie.

My mind is blank for now... but a bad book that made a really good movie - Forrest Gump. Read it and you'll think oh my god, how did they extract a movie from that shit?

Many movies I enjoy are based on novels I haven't read. I will only list movies where I've actually read both. Otherwise most of the once Bunnymilk listed are movies I've really enjoyed. Though I really haven't read the books they're based on.

Also The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy was originally a radio series so it really was the case of a radio series gone novel, gone tv-series, gone movie.

Blade Runner (Based on "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep")
It's just brilliant. It is enough not like the book while still getting that wibe of Dick. It's one of few good Dick adaptations (A Scanner Darkly being another one, where I unfortunately only have read snippets).

Lord of the Rings Trilogy
These three films exceeded all my expecations and it is my opinion that the films are way better than the books. Nothing wrong with the books obviously but the films are just so damn brilliant.

Children of Men
I read the novel ages ago, liking the premise. The film kept that very well. I can't say if it's better than the novel but I bet it is because the novel really dragged out while the film ramps up.

Hogfather
It was on some British TV in two parts so it could be called a miniseries, but really it was a TV-movie split into to parts.
And it was gold.

I'm still waiting for the DVD with subtitles in Swedish so I can show it to most of my family, letting them experience one of the most awesome Christmas-theme films ever.

Stardust
Brilliant book. Brilliant film. One of my favourites from 2007.

Ronja Rövardotter


Then I need to think of stuff that went completely wrong. I can't really come up with all that much right now. Sure. The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe wasn't fantastical (well it was fantastical but it wasn't... uhm... you know) but it wasn't all that horrible. I try to look at the films and novels as completely different entitites, usually looking for either a "feel" that was present in the original or flashy effects that were present in the original. (Narnia & Compass)

Ah now I remember one!

Timeline
Man this film was so horrible, based on something by Michael Crichton (that was equally horrible but in a different way, so I guess it was a faithful adaption after all)

And now looking at films based on author I find.

The Time Machine (2002 version, with Guy Pearce)

So I found some. There's a lot of so-so adaptions though and plenty where I haven't read the book.

EDIT: Also some of my thoughts on adaptions is that I believe that Short Story adaptions is a lot more thankful than novel adaptions. Since in a novel you'll have to cut content to make it fit a movie format. In a high-concept short story you can instead add stuff, expanding the story from it's original short-story format (2001 : A Space Odyssey and, AI - Artificial Intelligence for example)

Ronja Rövardotter

All of the movies based on Astrid Lindgrend's books are brilliant in my opinion. Except Karlsson på Taket. I always hated that guy, he's the msot selfish and mean character ever created in the history of litterature.

I think the film captured the aspects of the book that it focused on perfectly. I think the violence side of the book was far too graphic and distressing to ever be put to film in a tasteful manner. Reading the book I can remember feeling really distressed at how graphic it really was and there is just no way it could ever be put on film and pass censors or really be acceptable to watch without turning into some fucking HOSTEL II shit. I think the people who made the film decided to focus on a slightly different perspective of the book and I think they pulled that off really well.

I agree with the violence being over-the-top and it would have been some Hostel/Eli Roth shitty forefest if it did. And it did put focus on the satiric aspects of the book and that made me glad. It's just that I didn't think the movie was that well-made and obviously I got a feeling from the book that most likely could not have been replicated by a film adaptation of it. But Bateman just didn't seem as 'inhuman' in the movie - like the part in the book, where in the zoo he kills the child and realizes he has no feelings towards it.

All of the movies based on Astrid Lindgren's books are brilliant in my opinion. Except Karlsson på Taket. I always hated that guy, he's the msot selfish and mean character ever created in the history of litterature.

Agreed. I just think that Ronja Rövardotter is that small amount better than all the others, so it's the only I mentioned here.

Children of Men
I read the novel ages ago, liking the premise. The film kept that very well. I can't say if it's better than the novel but I bet it is because the novel really dragged out while the film ramps up.

My friend recently read the book and told me he much prefered the film. He's an English student and he's all YEA BOOKS LOVE THEM BOOKS so I'll take his word for it.

Hogfather
It was on some British TV in two parts so it could be called a miniseries, but really it was a TV-movie split into to parts.
And it was gold.

Yeah it was pretty good huh. I hear there's Colour of Magic and Light Fantasic adaptations on the way from the same people which will be interesting/awesome.

On the whole though I really can't be doing with book to film adaptations. I love books and I love movies but god damn is it disappointing sometimes. The biggest disappointment in this department recently was The Golden Compass because I love those books so much and that movie was terrible in so many different terrible ways.

Guys, JJ Abrams is making a Dark Tower movie (or series, or something).

http://www.cloverfieldnews.com/

http://www.tv.com/story/8764.html

Others might disagree, but I love David Lynch's Dune. I think it's much better than the book (I hated the book) and has a really great gritty visual style and mood. The set, costumes, and music were all top notch, especially compared the recent mini-series. The movie's intro (with the space guild people and the navigator) is one of my favorite movie scenes for some reason. I also liked some of the cast; Kenneth McMillan as as grotesque and mad Baron Vladimir Harkonnen was an excellent choice!

I still agree with people who hate Dune because of the rushed and confusing screenplay, but it's really more of a unique visual experience rather than something that's meant to have any depth. Like I said, I hated the novel(s), so I didn't mind any butchery they did to it in the process of adapting it into a movie.

Other than Dune, I generally avoid reading something that was adapted into a good movie and would rather just see it on screen (saves time!), but a notable exception is Fight Club. I really liked both the novel and the film, and while the movie's ending was great from a visual and aesthetic point of view, I liked the novel's ironic ending more. They're too different things though, so I don't think I can compare them.

Oh, there's LotR too, I never liked the LotR books and I didn't like the movies either, but I do think it was a faithful and good adaption. As boring the first two movies were, it was still much better than reading Tolkien describe every rock in a forest in great detail. Long movies bore me, even good ones. I was never able to see Forrest Gump in one setting although I really liked it.

I've read The Time Traveler's Wife recently and really liked it. They're working on a movie adaption for this year and it's hard to go wrong with it because the story easily lends itself to the romantic comedy genre. I really don't know anything about the director (Robert Schwentke, directed Flightplan and Tattoo) but I always thought Eric Bana was a good actor.

Others might disagree, but I love David Lynch's Dune. I think it's much better than the book (I hated the book)

I thought that I already posted in this topic, but I guess not. The best book to film adaptation I've seen was James Clavell's Shogun (released in 1980 - but you can't even tell. It looks like it was made in the 90s to me). The movie is epic (it was split up into ten 60 minute parts and aired on tv as a mini-series) and it follows the book very closely. I highly recommend it, even to those who have never read this masterpiece.

Here's the basic plot blurb:

John Blackthorne, an English ship pilot, whose vessel wrecked upon the Japanese coast in the early 17th century is forced to deal with the two most powerful men in Japan in those days. He is thrown in the midst of a war between Toranaga and Ishido, who struggle for the title of Shogun which will give ultimate power to the one who possesses it.

Go see it. You won't be disappointed. After the 9 hours and 10 minutes you spend watching it you become depressed that it's over.. the characters are all developed superbly and the emotional dramas and conflicts that unfold are riveting. I honestly cannot praise this film and book enough.

atlas shrugged

I honestly didn't know Children of Men was based on a book until I read this topic.

I also didn't know No Country For Old Men was based on a book until after watching the movie.

With that said, I think the only people who truly dislike book to movie adaptions are the ones who read the books first.  The main themes are almost always lost in the transition (such as the anarchy rules message in V for Vendetta or the dogmatic christian satire in The Golden Compass) but overall, the films do a good job (mostly) in crunching 500 pages of material into a 2 hour flick.  When I watch a movie based on a book I loved, I try not to think about it as an adaption so much as a re-imagining.  When you don't have the original source material in mind, it makes the stuff you're watching much more bearable.

With that said, my favorite adaptions are Stardust and James and the Giant Peach.

Eragon... love the book... the movie was nothing like it.

Dude, they are both completely awful. Seriously, they are embarassing even by the standards that the fantasy genre usually sets for itself. Christopher Paolini is a juvenile chode that wouldn't have ever been published if not for mommy and daddy.

Yes, I really hate Eragon. I picked it up at a train station in India just before heading out into the BACK COUNTRY for a week and it's all I had to read and holy fuck it is terrible.

HOWEVER!!!!

The movie, somehow, managed to be worse.

So BunnyMilk is pretty excited they are going to release this.

This'll be probably quite... interesting.