bbs.bunglefever.com

Book to film adaptations! Almost always a problematic situation, but it can be done well none the less. Though more often than not it is not. Which tickle your fancies?

For starters, the gangster stories...

The Godfather: A trashy but enthralling novel and a fantastic trilogy. Some of the editing problems were taken out by including parts of the novel in the first two movies, as well as making the movies stupid-long. Good read, great watch.

Scarface: (Armitage Trail) The name is really the only thing the novel has in common with the film, set in the uh..'20s if I remember correctly, it's all Irish gangster stuff. Though funnily enough, the cover of my copy still has Pacino on it. Great little story none the less.

Carlito's Way: Once again, not that much like the movie, but a lot more than Scarface. Follows a Puerto Rican gangster in '70s New York, very much in the 'one guy against all the shit' style so popular within the genre. Both this and Scarface are quite thin novels and well worth the easy read.

Goodfellas: (Wiseguy) A 'true' account of the Lufthansa heist. A little more in the book than the film, once again following the Heights of decadance to the fall from grace. Written by (the now deceased I think) Henry Hill. One is as good as the other, theres no real subtleties to be ruined in these movies, so as long as they're well cast they can't fuck up too bad.

Donnie Brasco: By agent Pistone, FBI. Not one of my favourites, as like in the film, Pistone spends a lot of time fluffing the fact he was outsmarting the gangsters and they were pathetic small time crooks. Not what I'm lookin' for in a glorifying gangster story. None the less, Pacino and Depp is a good start.

Now onto some others...

Virgin Suicides: This is about as by rote and facsimilous as an adaptation can get. Sofia Coppola pretty much copied it straight over. The voiceover passages are as they are in the novel. That being said, the film is pretty and the soundtrack is the best part, so stick to the movie.

Catch-22: Undoubtedly my all time favourite book, and considering the narrative style, a damned good adaptation. Many of the characters are gone, as is entirely necessary for a book of such a large cast. Also, one of the earlier examples of well thought out non-linear jumping within large production film. Tops!

Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy: Wow. This was shit. Taking into account the first bookof the five, then disregarding most of it, replacing it with a shitty new story, and basically reversing and highlighting the outcome of Arthur and Trillian's relationship. Great cast, travesty of a story. It did look quite pretty though.

The Dumas Club: (Movie titled 'The Ninth Gate') Arturo Perez-Reverte is a brilliant author and all his novels (disregarding the love stories) take on a gritty protaganist, who most usually sounds like Johnny Depp, as he uncovers some mystery, be it in art, history, religion et al. The movie sadly conglomerates characters and stories left and right, then cuts out the middle of the novel and hops conveniently onto the end. Reverte's books are full of historical information on whatever the theme is, this is sadly lacking from the movie also. Great book, shitty film.

Blade Runner: Well yeah. First attempt of the movie is just plain silly, with the voiceovers and happy ending. Director's Cut is better, but still completely disregards the philosophical heart of the novel. Only giving the most rudimentary touches on the nature of humanity and life.

Red Dragon (Manhunter) / Silence of the Lambs / Hannibal: Well deary me. Both versions of Red Dragon are fun. Harris was never an amazing writer, but particularly so with this book. Fun story, couldn't really go too wrong with an adaptation, though that said, the ending to the remake was better (closer to the book) and had better cast. As for Silence of the Lambs. Once again, a really fun, albiet trashy story, with some intersting characters. Major plot leaps in the adaptation, but all in all still good. Hannibal, however - I cannot fully impart my scorn for Ridly Scott's travesty of a film. Many major characters left out, hence major plot discrepencies, culminating in the ending being the polar opposite to the book. I had hopes when I saw the dvd had an alternate ending, but it's really just a trivial difference to the end product's. The real travesty of this is the themes and point of the book. It is about justifying why hannibal ISN'T a monster, and concerns itself with art, history, fine taste and good manners. The movie is fucking tripe.

More as I remember 'em...

Mobiesque";p="790823 wrote:
Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy: Wow. This was shit. Taking into account the first bookof the five, then disregarding most of it, replacing it with a shitty new story, and basically reversing and highlighting the outcome of Arthur and Trillian's relationship. Great cast, travesty of a story. It did look quite pretty though.

I totally agree. Everything that made the book great was somehow absent from the film. Some lines that were hilarious in print became painfully unfunny when said out loud, and at points I felt like I was watching a children's film. I actually felt embarassed watching it, because the friends I was watching it with knew I was a fan of the books.

Hmm, other examples of book to film adaptations...

I like this game!

Fight Club: I think the movie adaptation marked the beginning of the end for Chuck Palahniuk. When the film was made, he had two books out and a third on the verge of being published. Fight Club was his first, and his second -- Survivor -- was heaps better in all the right ways. I haven't read Invisible Monsters, but I've read everything that came after the movie, and it's just more of the same. A real shame, because he was capable of some really surreal stuff. Another one where the book ended better than the film.

Breakfast at Tiffany's: Folks who tell you this is a great movie have never read the book. He does not find Holly Golightly's cat, and they do not end up in love. She leaves, he pines forever. And that's how it would happen. Hollywood probably didn't think that'd go over well.

The Birds: The title and basic premise are the same, but the specifics are worlds different, and in Daphne DuMaurier's version, while the ending is not spelled out for you, it's plainly clear that they are not getting out of that house. I always felt that Hitchcock's ending was fairly contradictory to the story, and a bit odd that the birds just stop for no apparent reason.

Psycho: Robert Bloch was one of the best of the pulp-magazine writers. The book delves much more into Norman's head, as well as his history. The movie leaves much of that out, instead focusing solely on the protagonists, which is a shame because Robert Bloch's version manages the same twist while keeping things in Norman's perspective. An impressive feat, for sure. If you can't find a copy of the novel, check out his short works.

Requiem For A Dream: Aronofsky almost gets the book down, with this one. The only major discrepancy is with Jennifer Connoly's character. In the book, she's a ruthless bitch, and ends up empowered by her transformation. Where once she needed to rely on her men to score a hit, now she's able to get her own. The book made her more of a victim, and I actually prefer Aronofsky's portrayal. The "Can you come home today?" bit is not in the book, and it breaks my heart every time I see it.

Here's some I haven't read the books for... anyone?

Jackie Brown (Rum Punch)
Being There

less than zero: wonderfully depressing book. stupid movie.

Oh shit, The Rules of Attraction gets that vote, too.

I haven't seen Rule of Attraction, but I agree on Less Than Zero. I didn't hate the movie, but the book was something else entirely.

As mentioned (and now deleted) in another thread:

Lord of the Flies
Seen, but not read. Really loved the film, but wished I'd read the book first. I'll probably get around to it one day.

Lord of the Flies is a fucking brilliant book. I finished reading it again yesterday. Scary stuff.

Lord of the Flies was required reading in high school. I remember being disappointed with both versions of the movie when I saw them.

I won't bore everone with my in-depth, expert descriptions of the differences between the Harry Potter books and the movies.

There were two versions?!

*checks imdb*

ReverseEngineer";p="791021 wrote:I like this game!

Fight Club: I think the movie adaptation marked the beginning of the end for Chuck Palahniuk. When the film was made, he had two books out and a third on the verge of being published. Fight Club was his first, and his second -- Survivor -- was heaps better in all the right ways. I haven't read Invisible Monsters, but I've read everything that came after the movie, and it's just more of the same. A real shame, because he was capable of some really surreal stuff. Another one where the book ended better than the film.

Agreed, though I don't know if his growth into formulae has that much to do with the film. True, Survivor was the better of them, but it seems like he was always set to take on such a repetitive style. Hard to say, but the more you read of him the more you can pretty much write an equation for a Palahniuk novel. A shame really, he did have a lot of potential.

Jackie Brown (Rum Punch)

Ah, of course! From what I remember, it's really not a whole lot different, but it's been a while. Though, that reminds me

Get Shorty / Be Cool The former is a fairly true adaptation. Elmore Leonard translates pretty easily to film. Sadly, the latter is shocking. Some needless changes are made just for the sake of making the movie more sellable. eg. Ms Moon, the singer, is a black soul artist instead of a white country rock artist. Theres a few others that come off as totally frivolous too. The funny part being, even in the book, The Rock's character seems pretty well written for him.

The Rock and Vince were the only thing going for that film. It was basically a product-placement driven film from what I remember.

I don't really dig Elmore for a read. I've tried, but find it poor.

One man's poor is another man's easy and fun. I find his dialogues and speech very natural, and his stories interesting and fun. Be Cool far less so. I'm not a big fan of Get Shorty, but by the time he wrote Be Cool, he's getting a bit old to be 'down' with us hip kid's lingo.

I'm not sure if Freaky Deaky got made into a film, but thats probably the best I've read of his.


OOoh!

L.A. Confidential James Elroy does great crime, great characters, great stories. I really liked the movie too. Crowe can suck a fuck, but Guy Pierce and The Spaceter are always fun.

Clockwork Orange ...Probably not that much needs to be said. Its been a long time since I saw the film so I can't remember what was actually in it and what I just remember from the book.

IT Funny, I consider King a trashy writer, but I've quite enjoyed what I've read of his. IT is a long-ass book, written in easily digestible language. The film is terrible, but I still like it. The book simply had room for so so so much more story and character development. Also, the non-linear stuff was handled quite well. My favourite parts are the flashbacks to historical incidents involving IT.

Different Seasons (Shawshank Redemption / Apt Pupil / Stand By Me). Now this book is probably the actual reason I don't hate Steven King. More in your suspense than thriller, these are great little novellas. All the adaptations are really fairly similar to the books, though the ending to Apt Pupil (not a great film anyway) was dissapointing, as the book's left a far greater impact. It's a shame though, the fourth novella in this book - The Breathing Method is the only one yet to be made into film, and it's hands down the best of the lot. IMO.

Trainspotting Well, theres lots left out of the movie, but it doesn't really matter. Both are excellent. It took me ages to get into the reading dialect thing the first time I read this. I remember staring at the word "futba" for fucking yonks. Oh! Football!

Fear and Loathing Well, with Gilliam on board it would have been hard to fuck this up. Some chapters and sections left out but really a brilliant adaptation of a novel based on ramblings that were supposed to be a short article.

The Loved One This gets pretty goddamned different from the book at several occasions, all in all a pretty good watch, though the flow and mood is kinda inconsistent (due to the moving in and out of the original story) Fun watch though.

Dr Strangelove Both, simply brillaint.

OOh, another.

Primal Fear

Fun movie, like so many of the adaptations I've talked about, hardly a deep and meaningful film, but compelling and intriguing, with a great earlier performance by Edward Norton. The book, really isn't that dissimilar, but Gere's character has a lot more development, and theres a few less 'leaps' (edits) in the story, somewhat like the silence of the lambs comparison. Nothing brilliant, but something fun for a few days of casual reading.

ReverseEngineer";p="791021 wrote:Fight Club: I think the movie adaptation marked the beginning of the end for Chuck Palahniuk. When the film was made, he had two books out and a third on the verge of being published. Fight Club was his first, and his second -- Survivor -- was heaps better in all the right ways. I haven't read Invisible Monsters, but I've read everything that came after the movie, and it's just more of the same. A real shame, because he was capable of some really surreal stuff. Another one where the book ended better than the film.

He actually wrote Survivor first; Fight Club was just the first published. Invisible Monsters will never be made into a film, which is a shame: the main character has a fucked-up face, and it involves much gender reassignment issues that no one in today's more "enlightened" Hollywood would touch.

Survivor would make a kick-ass film but that it's harshly critical of media.

I dunno. Survivor seems infinitely less likely (as it was green-lighted, then cancelled post 9/11) Invisible Monsters was the first I read of his where I thought "cool book, but wait a second..we have a droll, self-depricating, nihlistic protaganist, an underlying, but obvious theme that reflects on modern, consumer culture, and repeated motifs in the writing that aren't that different from..well, anything else he's written. And finishing with an accelleration of narrative that gives the last few chapters an 'out of control' feel".

Survivor is probably my favourite.
Then Fight Club.

By this stage, whilst having similarities, they were still more different, than similar.

Invisible Monsters had some cool parts (I liked the whole thing extended upon from Fight Club, about parents as our models God). Not to mention, he worked in a good amount of gory descriptions.

Choke is right up there, as though it was quite in-line with his formula. Within the A+B+C= A Chuck Palahniuk novel, those specifics were really enjoyable.

Lullaby I do not like. His apparent air of 'gritty realism' doesn't work when you bring magic into the situation, even if you build it up to that very crazy sequence with the cryogenics..

Diary was a bit of fresh air, a few new (and I use the term loosely) ideas, and just kinda fun to read. Still not brilliant, but On Par, unlike his last few.

Haunted - WEAK. The individual stories all had minor points of interest, though occasionally had continuity errors. The meta-narrative was garbage and entirely obvious in it's attempts to bind the short stories together. Guts was cool, as were one or two others. This in and of itself, does not 'his biggest novel yet' make.

Stranger Than Fiction (Labelled here as 'Non Fiction') I enjoyed thoroughly in parts. Some articles were really fun. I liked his Marilyn Manson interview, as though I hate his music, I've seen the guy is far from a moron (at times). The Navy story, and a few others. If you like Palahniuk's writing, it is worth a read, if only to pick and choose by what looks interesting to you.

Fugitives & Refugees - For someone who has never been to Portland, Oregon USA, I was still very enthralled by this book. Chuck did away with a lot of his drab depressive language, and just tried to properly address the culture of this area. Given it's locale, in relation to many of my favourites (whether it be the grunge scene in seattle, or Tom Robbins, a native of the puget sound region) it was a little, if far from comprehensive look into one of, in my opinion, the more interesting cultural areas of that golgotha we call America.

So yeah. Thats my thoughts on the Palahniuk bibliography. Wrong thread probably. Ah well. This is, also, after several years and re-reads. When I was adolescent, I found him entirely gritty and edgy, so at least another 1-2 I loved first time I read them them originally. Lullaby and Haunted I've never liked though.

I reckon I'll probably grab whatever he puts out next, too.

I've only read Diary. I'd read him again if in need of a page-turner.

Saw Slaughterhouse 5 finally.

I thought it were pretty darned good. I had harkenings to Catch-22 for it's good use of direction (like in it's film counterpart) to create a great non-linear narrative.

Needs soberer reviewing, but I was glad to see the adaptation.