Comparing books to film version and vice versa

[MillyTheKid]

Just finished Stephen King's novella Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. Quite enjoyed it - and can see why they expanded the story for the screen version - although sometimes I'm wary about reading the book behind a favourite film and vice versa. I've never watched the film version of Interview with the Vampire because of my love of the book and never read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? because of my fondness for Blade Runner. Anyone else experience this?

[CharliesMouse]

It's rare that a film matches up to a great book/short story but I think The Shawshank Redemption was a an example of one that did it well. I also loved the film versions of John Irving's The World According to Garp, E. M. Forster's A Room With A View and, most notably Anne Tyler's The Accidental Tourist. Interestingly though, these are all examples where I watched (and enjoyed) the films first and then read the books (and went on to read other works by the authors because I enjoyed them so much).

I'm sure there are loads more books that I have read where the film version was a disappointment but I can't for the life of me think of any examples at the moment! Will come back if I think of any!

[DancelikeEmmaGoldman]

I always thought the MC Beaton novels were really terrible, but the TV series based on the books was quirky and very funny.

I bailed out of the Lord of the Rings trilogy in the first 20 minutes because the film was so at odds with how I imagined the books.

[BeatriceJoanna]

My brother always thought whoever thought to make the Inspector Morse series was really perceptive because the books aren't all that. I agree with EmmaGoldman about MC Beaton; her writing is seriously poor. They changed an awful lot with Hamish Macbeth and turned it into an enjoyable Sunday night watch until the rubbish third series Beaton didn't like it though, did she?

Personally, the only film that I've preferred to the novel was The French Lieutenant's Woman but that might have been because I saw the film first. I am, as a general rule, wary of seeing adaptations of novels that I really enjoyed because it's rare the adaptation lives up to the book.

For instance, there was a recent adaptation of Dr Thorne. The screenplay was by Julian Fellowes and it had a great cast, including Tom Hollander, Ian McShane and Rebecca Front. Sadly, I thought it was dire and was really disappointed.

When I watch adaptations it's usually with a sense of the triumph of hope over experience. I don't think I've had that feeling the other way round though and not read the book because I loved the film or tv version.

[Dottierichardson]

I was really disappointed by the Netflix film of Annihilation based on the Jeff VanderMeer book. The film turned an ambitious eco-sci fi novel into a hackneyed, conventional, alien encounter movie. It turns out Alex Garland, who directed it, only read the book once and was inspired by it, rather than actually adapting it. I took this very badly mostly because if I'd seen the film first I wouldn't have tried the book or the rest of the trilogy.

I also got very wound up by the BBC version of Ford Madox Ford's Parade End again because it wasn't actually that at all. They only adapted two out of three books, by ending at the second they totally changed the meaning and turned what was a devastating post WW1 book into a conventional romance.

I hated the adaptation of War and Peace because again a favourite book and not at all how I imagined it. Same with Ballet Shoes a favourite childhood read.

On the other hand I've watched adaptations of books I'd never read, such as The Jane Austen Book Club and The Nanny Diaries, and enjoyed them immensely.

I've also enjoyed various adaptations of another favourite Emma, loved the version with Johnny Lee Miller and Clueless.

[BookWitch]

I might get shot down for this, but I prefer the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings films to the books, and I say this as a Tolkien fan. He did a very very good job, and even though I love the books, it cannot be denied that they can drag in places.
Don't get me started on the Hobbit films though - utterly ridiculous to make three films out of a pretty short book.

[MillyTheKid]

I won't shoot you down over it. I just can't get into the books and much prefer the films. The Hobbit films were also a stretched-out exercise in ripping off audiences.

[Screaminginsideme]

The 50 shades films are better than the books but both are terrible so that’s not saying much.


The Harry Potter films did a good job but the books are still better.

[tobee]

I really enjoyed The Regeneration Trilogy by Pat Barker but wasn't that fond of the movie, which was, naturally, very condensed. Apparently, she wanted the BBC to adapt it, they were going to, but changed their minds. I should imagine because it would have been expensive.

I read her book Union Street and then found I'd seen the film based on it. It was Stanley and Iris, with Robert de Niro and Jane Fonda. It barely bore any resemblance.

Not sure about an adaptation of her Life Class trilogy....Again, the expense might prohibitive and not commercial enough for tv.