Recently I saw "The Beach" on TV and thought I would re-read the book again cause I enjoyed it the first time I read it.... Now I am disappointed by the film as the characters are so different and Leonardo de-brussel sprout is quite shit as Richard.. the shark attack was scarier to imagine than the film and Richards relationship with Daffy was crap in the film and really quite comical in the book... I thought the same of LOTR at first but can understand some ofthe changes etc but the changes made in The Beach I think were unnecessary really... Any films you seen that have either ruined the book or vice versa? And let's hope The Da Vinci Code is as gripping as the book....
Its a cliche but its true , the film can never ever live up to your mental impressions of a book . In all my years of reading/watching the only film that ever came close was " Misery" the Steven King movie . I reckon King is a slight exception as in this case it was a two handed drama mainly played in one room and King writes close to film script anyway.
Another one that kinda dissappointed me was "Man on Fire" Denzel Washington remake film however the books by A J Quinnell are a series of about 8 or so I think off the top of me head and here we are with one film relating to the first book and it has been changed out of most recognition... I think Shawshank and Green Mile are very close/similar.. and as for Troy... biggest load of shite I have seen in an age,,, primarily just a film designed to catch glimpses of Brad Pitts butt.... not that I begrudge those that are into him.. but the parts of The Illiad that I read were very unlike the film...
Intensity by Dean Koontz, edge of the seat reading, not quite the same with Doctor Perry Cox from Scrubs as the homicidal axe murderer :scared: yes i know the film was pre-Scrubs, saw it again recently though
L.A. Confidential - I think most will agree is a fugging awesome film....the book has actually been followed quite closely by the screenwriters, just with a couple of hundred extra pages that are mostly background ( but still bloody riviting ) A Bridge Too Far ( Dickie Attenborough, film & Cornelius Ryan ) the film is good, but I prefer the book, because it also offers a more human scale ( for example the SS soldiers congratulating some captured Paras for their fighting - saying it was as good an anything they saw in Stalingrad - and a corporal replying "It was only our first time of streetfighting....but don't worry, we'll do much better next time, mate!"
I wouldn't say that a disappointing film version of an enjoyable book "ruins the book" (to use your terms, Benz), but I have many times been disappointed by film versions of books, so much so that I don't expect to enjoy the film. One film of a book I loved that did live up to the standard of the book, despite being transposed from London to Chicago, was "High Fidelity". This was largely due to the excellent acting of John Cusack and Jack Black. Mike.
The most disappointing film recently has to be Troy....... You'd think that Achilles single-handedly took on the world.... and that Hector and Lysander played no part whatsoever.... a totally crap film... quite narcissistic from Brad Pitts' point of view.... Menelaus was portrayed as a monster, quite different to the Tales of the IIiad...... Best book to film....... and tv adaptation has to be Pride and Prejudice..... my favourite book of all time.... the Jennifer Erle version and now the Keira Knightley one are high on my 'i can watch this film a milllion times and not get bored' list....... equi-princess xxx
Whichever you read or see first is always different to the other. It is worse if you read it first, as your mind creates the scenes and characters which rarely match those in the film.
In essence I agree with “I want that one†here. At the end of the day the differentiator is an individual’s imagination. What one reads in a book will be different to another’s. This can be from a scene to script. For instance how many times do we read a name in a book and pronounce it one way and discover that a film has pronounced it differently. We can imagine a scene yet a director may imagine it differently. In some cases I think this can work well. Tolkien for example was a very descriptive writer and for me, sometimes overly descriptive, which took away the flow of the book. One reason the film worked so well for me, as I did not need to go through the chapters telling me that the grass was green or that the birds were singing etc etc. In most cases we tend to compare one to another, which I don’t think is necessarily the correct thing to do. They are different, one is your interpretation, one is another’s.
Quote by johneboy Intensity by Dean Koontz, edge of the seat reading, not quite the same with Doctor Perry Cox from Scrubs as the homicidal axe murderer :scared: yes i know the film was pre-Scrubs, saw it again recently though
Basically, every film that has ever been made of a Koontz book has come up woefully short.. Watchers anyone :shock: although 'servants of twilight' was reasonable..
misery by stephen king was a good screen adaptation, and as others have said, the green mile and the shawshank redemption. after watching the new hitchikers guide to the galaxy film, is very close to the original radio series, which as we all know the book was based on, which in turn bears no real resemblence to the radio version. noddy was a good adaptation to the tv screen as well, character devolopment was well intergrated, and plot was adhered to.
I,m a big James Patterson fan my first book of his was Along came a spider, I was riveted to the book and every other book he,s wrote , but when i watched the film it was ok but nowhere near the real story, and the main character for me would have been played by Denzil Washington but it was Morgan Freeman
Quote by Happy Cats Shawshank Redemption, whilst slightly different to the film also matches up. Sorry, that wasnt the question you asked, was it?
Any book by Steven King that gets transfered to film has been crap apart from green mile and Rita Holworth and the shawshank redemption (the original name) None of the films have ever had the budget to make it a good transfer. I must admit I prefer truelife stories that are put on the big screen. Anyone seen Coach Carter? fantastic film, from a real story
I used to be of the opinion that books were generally better than the corresponding films, but lately I've been changing my views. The more I've read about film making the more I realise that it's not especially useful to compare the two different mediums. They're very different and a good film of a story could be very different to a good book telling the same story. Occasionally you get a situation where both the book and the film are good and manage to complement each other, each providing aspects of the story that the other medium cannot convey. The two examples I can think of like this are 2001: A Space Odessey and The Abyss. In both cases the film and the book were produced in parallel rather than one being an adaptation of the other.
Quote by weekleylearner Shawshank Redemption, whilst slightly different to the film also matches up. Sorry, that wasnt the question you asked, was it?
Any book by Steven King that gets transfered to film has been crap apart from green mile and Rita Holworth and the shawshank redemption (the original name) None of the films have ever had the budget to make it a good transfer. I must admit I prefer truelife stories that are put on the big screen. Anyone seen Coach Carter? fantastic film, from a real story I agree with you on Steven King books/films there, both Christine and It were fecking scary reads to me (bloody Pennywise the clown :scared: ), but the films just didnt touch that area in my brain where the books do. Books allow more mental interpretation, leaving you to create that demon, scary situation, etc for youself, so you basically scare yourself poopless! I have actually been reading a book and thrown it down cos ive just read a paragraph that made me edgy! Films rarely have the same impact for me, and then only when they make me jump, cos im a scaredy cat lol.
i'm an avid horror reader, stephen king, james herbert, robert mccammom, and i am mostly dissapointed by the film adaptations by and large, with the exception of the ones i have named. i also read terry pratchett and robert rankin, both of which have declined to make their books into proper films (soul music and witches abroad we both animations) and i must agree with them, they can never be made into motion pictures, if you have ever read either of these authors, you would understand.
Matilda by Roald Dahl.... Book= fabulous, film= steaming pile of manure Directed and "starred" in... Dani De Vito who re-cast the family so he could play .. Matilda's dad... and some skinny woman who played his wife... everyone who's read the book will know that this complete role reversal of characters was completely un-necessary and totally spoiled the film. Coupled with the extra bits he put in that weren't in the book ( a perfectly good and entertainly full reading material) just ruined a great children's classic that was fine to start with. It put me off seeing charlie and the chocolate factory tbh and Roald was never happy with any of the films made of his books as he said a child's mind and imagination is far more gruesome than any adult could portray on film. I tend to agree. Gem. x
I thought the book of Jurassic Park was much better than the film, which I also thought was great, but they changed the story completely at the end, probably so they could leave it open to make the sequels.
IMHO books are always better because it is as good as your imagination, and because it is your own imagination, it is as good as you can make it and also personal to you (does that make sense?!?) Now I love John Grisham books - but the films have been a big letdown (the firm, the pelican brief and the client) Also (sad I know) I am an avid Harry Potter book fan - but the films are nowhere near as good as the books i have read (and reread) I would agree that Misery was very good, but still not an amazing film of the book and also quite enjoyed "the tommyknockers"
Quote by welshBIcouple IMHO books are always better because it is as good as your imagination, and because it is your own imagination, it is as good as you can make it and also personal to you (does that make sense?!?) Now I love John Grisham books - but the films have been a big letdown (the firm, the pelican brief and the client) Also (sad I know) I am an avid Harry Potter book fan - but the films are nowhere near as good as the books i have read (and reread) I would agree that Misery was very good, but still not an amazing film of the book and also quite enjoyed "the tommyknockers"
I love John Grisham and Michael Crichton books, but yet again, just not as good as the books. I cant really put a finger on any film adaption thats as good as or better than the book
Quote by Benz2502 Any films you seen that have either ruined the book or vice versa?
Yes, the film Troy based on The Iliad and Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Both great books ruined by the fims. I actually started a thread about books and films ages ago - if you want have a look at http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/41104.html
Quote by Benz2502 And let's hope The Da Vinci Code is as gripping as the book....
as for The Da Vinci Code, well I can't agree with you as I found the book appallingly badly written. It's been a while since I read it, but I recall the author desperately trying to end each part with a cliffhanger...... I had to use superhuman strength to stop myself singing dum du dum dum duuuuummmmmmm at the end of each chapter. Such a trite way of trying to keep the readers attention. I think the da Vinci book has been made 'popular' because it was so disapproved of by the Catholic Church. Otherwise, it is 'just a book, entertaining for a long haul flight I grant you, but no masterpiece. I managed to finish it, but it took some determination. I do hope they make a better job of it with the film.
I liked the Story of O because when it came out, I was young and impressionable...and it made a very big impression. My usual reading material is Black Lace books. Have any other ladies read them? I'm trying desperately to write a story to submit to them. It's pretty difficult to think of something unique.
"Captain Corelli's Mandolin" by Louis De Bernieres was a very bad adaptation. To be honest I enjoyed the film and then read the book. The I realised why people had said it was the worst book to screen ever. I have also just read "Sugar Rush" after enjoying the TV series. Well the only thing that is the same are the character names and the title otherwise its completely different.
Swinging Heaven features sexually explicit material. To access this site you must be of the legal age to engage with the material of an adult site.
By entering Swinging Heaven you agree to the following;
I am deemed an adult where I live, and I am at least 18 years old
I am allowed to access & view sexually explicit material
0 likes
but it was Morgan Freeman 
