In believing that a film of a book never dies it justice?

[ohdearwhatdoidonow]

Am about to stop watching films of the books I've read!

I particularly hated the film version of "my Sisters Keeper" and more recently "One Day"

Now "We need to talk about Kevin" was one of my favourite books from the last 10 yrs. AIBU in avoiding the film like the plague?

Much less high brow. DMum and I are great thriller readers. Many of these have been made it to truly dreadful films.
So much so that my DSIs would ask "is it a book? Have you read it?" because she knew DM and I would just spend the whole film moaning at the bits that are wrong.

I usually read the book, or see the film, rarely both. The film usually disappoints in some way if you have read and enjoy the book. I have been waiting to read 'Bird Song' for ages, next in my pile to read. I deliberated whether to watch it on TV or not. Decided against in the end, and will wait to read the book.

My favourite book for many years was The Dark Is Rising. I refuse to even watch the film made of it as a/ the action is transposed to the US and it is such a British book IMO, and b/ they cast Lovejoy as the Merlin-figure. Just can't see it.

High Fidelity was much better as a film (guess its easier to distinguish between the 2 as book is UK based, film USA).

I really, really hated the first Harry Potter film (as I had such a clear idea of what everything should like in my head), so haven't watched any of the others.

If we're going to talk about book v film, can I just throw in 'graphic novels' (aka comic books); YANBU about them, they should never make films based on comics.

i thought LOTR films were fabulous - but i do wonder how one can appreciate them fully WITHOUT reading the books

i have to say that i loved the trashy twilight books - and yet i think the films are so utterly bad, i can't thnk for a second why anyone who hadn't read the books wold carry on watching

As an aside, I KNOW that the Lee Child Jack Reacher book now being made into a film is going to be utter shite before they have even finished making it. For those of you not familiar, the Jack Reacher character is 6ft4, 17 stone and a pretty ugly bastard, who can kill a man with one hand and make any woman desire him. So, who have they got to play him? TOM FUCKING CRUISE!

Stella I love The Dark Is Rising. It's been awhile since I read it but I refused to watch the film because it would spoil the book for me if I ever read it again.

The cast Lovejoy as Waleran Bigod in The Pillars of the Earth as well and although I was horrified before I watched it, he was actually really good when I saw it. He's not really my idea of Merlin though.

yanbu
back yonks ago flowers in the attic was the book to read.
it was then made into a film.
the book was all about incest, yet they left that out in the film, so it made no sense.
ever since then I have never liked a film based on a book I have read.

The film of Mary Poppins is better than the book. Exception that proves the rule.

its silly to compare the two :S don't get it, of course you can fill more in a book that a two hour film and films are contratined to making shorter films now so something has to give

wouldn't see one as morally superior to the other though

I was going to say about the woman in black too, sounds very different to the book, fully appreciate they can't include everything but to change so significantly seems wrong. Sometimes I enjoy seeing others interpretations, the lovely bones was one I quite enjoyed, however the book is much better.

Interesting to hear what people are saying about 'One Day'. I haven't seen the film, but thought the book was utterly dull. Chick Lit dressed up as Literary Fiction. Not at all what I was expecting and seriously disappointing.

I loved the film version of V for Vendetta. I always wanted to make it into a stage play, and based on the popularity of the film, I uinderstand someone has. About time too!

I watched the dark is rising and it was awful! But so different from the book that it doesn't spoil the book.

I agree with the pp about the Game of Thrones series being better than the book. I started reading the books halfway through watching the series, because I was too impatient to wait for the episodes to come out. But I should have waited. The books treat you like an idiot, while the series (like other HBO series) treats you like you're intelligent - it leaves a lot for you to work out on your own. And whenever the series makes a different choice to the book, it is always a better choice.

The Persuasion movie with Amanda Root (I think that's the name?) is lovely, and the truest Jane Austen adaption, imo. Orlando the movie is very different from Orlando the book, but is still a great movie.

NoOnesGoingToEatYourEyes, it didn't help that I had already planned in my mind the BBC TV weekend tea-time adaption of The Dark Is Rising over a six week Christmas period, going so far as to mark out my book with where the episodes would start and end, and ponder casting...

A Clockwork Orange was a good adaptation of the book.

Also, Midnight Express, Love Story and Day of the Jackal.

That is commitment to the book Stella

They changed the plot completely, Stella. I have no idea why. They should have just given it a different name and not pretended it had anything to do with the book.

And I don't think it is silly to compare the two, Southeastastra. They are both ways of telling a story. It is possible to talk about which tells a story better without having to think about which is morally superior. Sometimes a book tells the story better and sometimes a film does.

Last of the Mohicans, great film but completely tore the book apart, there was pretty much NOTHING the same, I was so disappointed. LOTR; loved both the books and the film, think the books just marginally ahead though.
I think a rule of thumb could be that if the film is made for an American audience/by a US studio it is pretty sure it will never do a good book justice. Seems to be pretty true, with some exceptions.

Only book I've thought hasn't been entirely shat on by the film was Watership Down. Think because a lot of book is stories of Elharairah, not essential to plot. Harry Potter and Tolkein adaptations make my blood pressure go up.

Condensing a good book into a couple of hours is hardly ever going to work. Stands to reason really.

Gone with the Wind was a good adaptation.

Oh yeah - Austen is usually done OK; Mansfield Park my fave but not seen that Persuasion film aforementioned. However on a linked subject - Bridget Jones 2!! A fabby book completely ruined by fidelity to/contracts with actors in the original (so it seemed to me).

There has never been a good film version of Wuthering Heights IMO. Also, thoroughly hated the film version of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (but loved the 80s tv series)

Agree re The Princess Bride - the book is sweet enough but the film is awesome.

Kiera Knightley's Pride And Prejudice.

Emma Thompson's Sense And Sensibility (althouth ET is a million years too old)

I like the TV version of Jane Eyre from a couple of years ago.

I like the Harry Potter films apart from number 3 - the werewolf is ludicrous.

Misery is a good film adaptation of King's book and yes to the Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption.

I thought the TV version of No 1 Ladies' Detective Club was v sympathetic to the books and the woman who played the lead was excellent.