I'm well into reading books then seeing the film. Of course being obsessed with Stephen King at the moment it's quite easy to do although I have gone the other way on occassion and read the book after seeing the film. EG recently read 'The Shining', 'Carrie', 'The Green Mile' after seeing the films and had mixed views. Loved all the books but I prefered Carrie the film to the book, and loved the book of 'Green Mile' as well as the film. And 'The Shining', well I really enjoyed the book, it's fantastic and explains so much you need to know that the film doesn't but the film is it's on work of genius so you can not really compare them. Kubrick makes it his own.

Am determined to read 'IT' (as film was disappointing) and am curious to watch 'Thinner' and book was good

Some books that I prefered the book to the film are King's 'Christine', 'Delores Claibourne', John Gresham's 'The Firm' and of course as much as the last Harry Potter films was brilliant compared to the first two, they don't compare to the books which are fantastic.

Anyones else read a book and been really disapponited with the film, or if anyone wants to comment on Stephen King books OR films feel free!!

I love the Harry Potter books and I think they have done a good job with the films. The first 2 films were always going to be aimed at kids, but I love what was done with the 3rd film.


Granted Books made into films are never going to be as good because most of the time a lot will be cut out, or the film will never turn out how a person has imagined it to be like.

But on rare occasions, you can have the best of both worlds, like Trainspotting for example. Great book and a great film.

Lord of the rings is my fave book to film of all time

I agree that LOTR is the best book to film adaptation. To be honest I always found the books a bit twee and even laughable in places, plus there's just far too much bloody singing.

Peter Jackson managed to make them far more palatable to a modern audience without losing the essence of the books. No mean feat.

'Thinner' is a strange little film, I think mostly mired by its budget in that the special effects leave a lot to be desired; but it's an amusing little curiosity nonetheless.

As a Patricia Highsmith fan I remember being very annoyed with the Matt Damon version of Ripley especially as I'd seen the far more faithful 'Plein Soleil' before. Now though I enjoy it for what it is, a beautifully shot film with some great performances that takes considerable liberties with its source material. So what if Ripley's more of a ineffectual, lonely, closeted homosexual than a ruthless sociopath? It's not the book - it's a film inspired by the book.

When a band covers a song I prefer it when they alter it enough to make it their own and distinctive from the original (not a Westlife style Karaoke version).

The only film adaptation of a book I love that still gets my goat is 'American Psycho' - don't even get me started!

Oh I love the films too. Even 'Chamber of secrets' but they just aren't as plot friendly as the third film was. The reason I love watchng films that were books is that when you read a book you connect to the characters so well, they become known to you and familiar and it's interesting to see how an actor can take on your idea of that character. Some get it perfet others don't...



I agree. One book that really got me into reading actually. I purposly read it before I saw the film and loved them both.

Other films I'm soo looking forward to after reading the books are Philip Pullmans' His Dark Materials' and King's 'The girl who loved Tom Gordon'

I also really like reading a book and watching a film and comparing the two. Books/films I can remember reading and my preferences:

- I totally agree

Lord of The Rings/Lord of the Rings - book, just because of the greater depth to the book, but I don't want to take anything away from 3 great films.
Bladerunner/Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep - film, and definately the best Phillip K Dick adaptation about, followed closely by:
Total Recall/We Can Remember It For You Wholesale - book, while a good film, the book ends MUCH MUCH earlier in the story and leaves you reeling a lot more.
The Beach/The Beach - book, the film was absolute crap, leaving out whole chracters and plots (where was the nam stuff?)
Hunt For Red October/Hunt For Red October - film, saw it first, and can't read the book without imaging old Sean

Thats all I can think of for now, but I would say that on the whole, I prefer the medium I read/saw first.

Captain Corelli's Mandolin was such a disappointment.

The book was a lovely tale of unrequited and unfulfilled love, death and heartbreak. The film was a Disney-esque visit to the picturesque island of Kefalonia. (Yes, two -esques in a sentence is bad form). One scene showed one of Captain Corelli's men sacrificing himself to save the captain. Which was nice, but meant absolutely nothing as the character was never seen much up to that point. In the book, he has whole chapters dedicated to him, were he talks about his life, experiences, and the love he has for Captain Corelli that can never speak it's name. Suddenly, his death becomes a lot more poignant.

Similarly, Captain Corelli and Pelagia lose contact after the earthquake that rocks the island, the earthquake that kills her father. The Captain returns to the island, years later, but sees Pelagia with a baby, and assumes she has married a local boy. Pelagia, one morning, sees someone who looks like her Captain, but dismisses this as her mind playing tricks. Pelagia was indeed holding a baby - but it was not hers, and it was indeed Captain Correlli, who had returned to lay flowers on the grave of the man who saved his life, and whose letter he had discovered. In fact, it is an elderly couple who are eventually reunited in modern day Kefalonia, perhaps to rekindle their early love?

In the film, after the earthquake, everyone meets up again and lives happily ever after. When I left the cinema, I felt very like the Pegg-ster "You just SO don't get it...!" How dare they be happy!

I sooo hate it when they change the ending! That's the worst. Like in 'The Firm' the ending of the book was brilliant and the film was just piss poor, I find my self shouting at the screen "No! That's not what happens!!" Same with 'Christine' Mind you whole chunks from Christine were left out of the film. And I hate it when they don't kill people who should have been killed!

Would really like to read Captain Corelli's Mandolin though, haven't seen the film so I'm off on the right foot!!

The book is lovely, but some of it is really really tough going. Like walking through treacle, only er, reading. But ultimately worth it.

The only book I found tough going recently (even after being told by an old guy on a bus that it was his favourite book ever) was 'Catch 22'. I couldn't finish it. I'm sure a lot of people love it but it wasn't for me, I hated the repetative humour and found it hard to concentrate. If it's like that I may find it a struggle, if not I'll give it a bash! Still finishing the Philip Pullman Victorian ones though first...

Do TV adaptations count?

Anyone who saw the recent-ish version of Back Home-back me up here!

The book is wonderful-It's by Michelle Magorian, she of Goodnight Mr Tom fame-I read it when I was eight and reread it constantly because the story is so well written (and there's some mild swearing in it, something my mother didnt pick up on when she bought it for me, i spose) I won't bore you with the story-buy the book!

Anyway I'd read about this film adaptation about six months before it was shown, and was really looking forward to it. But when I actually saw it I was incredibly pissed off that the story had been changed-why? I have no idea-to miss out at least one vital character and some of the names had been changed too (which was just ridiculous). I even bought the book for my auntie so she could understand why I was so annoyed it wasn't what I hoped it would be.


I'm also slightly confused as to why the version of "Come Together" hasn't been screened in the UK yet. It was made with a cast of british actors, an adaptation of a british book, so why's it only been released in Canada? Anyway the book of that is very witty and well-written. However as Lucy Punch who I cannot stand is playing the main female lead, I don't hold out great hopes for it.

As far as I'm concerned the two can't even be compared - Scott took the basic ideas from Dick, but then used them to make a masterpiece - the book is a dull piece of shite. I had to cover this for my Novels into Film unit at uni, and me and a mate had several stiff conversations about which was better (he was wrong cos he liked the book).

Possible my favourite novel to film adaptation is Brighton Rock - a great novel which became a classic film - there are many changes, but the essence of the conflict between love and religion (a major trope of Greene's) is retained.

What I want to see is a faithful adaptation of War of the Worlds, but with Spielbergo & Cruise involved in making a trilogy out of a 200 page source novel, it ain't gonna happen.

I didn't realise they were making it into a trilogy.

I'd say the same about the film Total Recall vs the short story 'We can Remember it for you Wholesale'. They start fairly similar but then go in such different directions the film's more inspired by than adapted from.

Doesn't bother me though, as a bit of a Dick aficionado (no giggling at the back) I find it to be one of his sillier stories and far prefer the film.

i totally agree- the book was one of the beast ive ever read and the film just felt like a totally different story.

Im a huge fan of the harry potter books which I still prefer to the books. The 3rd book is my favorite,and I thought the director was the best in film 3 but there were a couple of things that niggled me which I can overlook. The only parts of the film that still niggle are aspects in the scrip that were purposely easier for younger viewers to understand, like how Snape talked to lupin when harry uses the map, reminded me of a really cheezy police/detective drama or of sunset beach. Oh and the Bogart in the defence against the dark arts lesson, It NEVER TURNED INTO A DEMENTOR and it made lupind fear WAY to obvious.
I know obviously it cant be exact to the book. The most accurate to the book was Chamber of secrets i think, which I really like now which was my lesser favorite books. But the film version doesnt at all touch upon why and feeling why i like the 3rd so much.

All the niggles (even the bad ones) are forgiven for the great Ron+hermonie scenes "do you want to get a bit closer...To the shreaking shack!". Me and my best mate whos also a huge HP fan now go see the movies to se Ron do his stuff and see how the plot thickens...

Really looking forward tothe big argument scene in Goblet of fire.

Did you hear that stuff about the new director asking them to write an essay on their characters before the filming started, cause he wanted to see how they viewed their chatacters?? And just by shear chance, Emma wrote a 16 page essay, Danial wrote about a page and thought he's done well, and Rupert forgot to do it!! This was exactly what they characters would have done so even though Rupert was worrying about not doing his he got let off! I just thought that was a great story

I really enjoyed the third film, everything about it. There are always things that niggle me about these films but when they are done there's nothing that can be done to corect it so you just have to go with it. I think 3 was the most accurate to the book but that's just me. 4 was my fave book so I can't wait for that to come out!

To continue the Stephen King bit of this thread I think the worse text to screen version has to be The Lawnmower Man. Not that the short story was that great but it was completely unrecognisable. They kind of crossed the whole thing with Flowers for Algernon and didn't worry about much beyond the special effects.

Pet Semetary was really dire too.

I liked the translation of Farenheit 451 with Julie Christie as I felt the whole midlife crisis element kind of added to something to the characters that hadn't been as explicit in the book and the way the futuristic element is so deeply entrenched in the time of the film.

That's on my book shelf ready to be read! Do you mean the film is bad compared to the book? If so I look forward to reading it then whinging all the way through the film

The book of Pet Semetary was pretty dire too (you know the usual formulaic, Stephen King by numbers he is wont to do every now and then) but the film really plumbed new depths.

Depends how busy your life is really.

Stephen King books are always a bad translation into film, in my opinion. I'm dreading a Dark Tower film/series. Nothing could do that justice!

I really liked the Stanley Kubrick Shining version with Jack Nicholson. Shelley Duval seems a bit out of place but as a filmin its own right its great.

Most of them are trash though, especially the one which King took charge of, Maximum Overdrive.

Kingdom Hsopital was interesting but, as far as I know, wasn't based on a book by King, just his experiences and nightmares.

On the Stephen King Debate theres a few films that no-one seems to be mentioning, all from the Different Seasons collection:

The Shawshank Redemption/Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption: Well, the film is a classic, and far more well known than the novella its based on, but its a good read all the same. It was a while ago when I read it so I can't really remember how much it departed from the original.

Stand By Me/The Body

Apt Pupil/Apt Pupil: Have never seen the film but I keep wanting to, because if they've done it justice it could be really good. Anyone seen it and can offer any comments?

And when they make the final novella, Breathing Lesson, into a film, I'll be first in line to see it

Oh, how could I forget Shawshank or Stand by Me for that matter!

It was written by King. Apparently he was in hospital in Europe somewhere (Holland I think) and picked up a series of videos, Lars Von Trier's Danish miniseries called 'Riget' (a.k.a. The Kingdom) and basically loosy based Kindom Hospital around them. That's why there are so many different German and European sounding names, Mrs Druse. Dr Stegman, Elmer. Carrie Von Trier, Otto etc etc

Yeah I have this too, but Shawshank is my all time favourite film so I'm looking forward to reading that. Soo many Stephen King books to read, so little time to read them in!

Also want to read the Dark Tower books at some point too, but better get the old classics out of the way first..

my 3 faveourtie book to film adaptations would have to be High Fidelity, Interview With The Vampire and Fight Club.

the worst ive ever seen is easily American Psycho, fucked that up so badly.

I didn't like High Fidelity at all, but that was mainly due to the fact they made the shop an american shop and american cast when the reason I related to the book was because it was set in London The guy in the book is far more geeky than John Kusack, John Kusack doesn't even have enough geek in his little finger no matter how much he tries. Just my opinion!

yeah, i thought 'High Fidelity' translated pretty well too. Not living in London anyway i couldn't care less that it wasn't set in the city and John Cusack was Rob Gordon. Jack Black is on top form too.

'Fight Club' i thought was the rare exception when the film is better than the book and i love the book. Both Brad and Ed's career best performance.

I thought Bridget Jones's Diary wasn't a bad adaption to film.
Granted it was never going to be as good as the book, but Renee Zellweger played Bridget just how i had imagined her, and noone could have been Mark Darcy apart from Colin Firth

I didnt think it perfect, there wasnt half as much about Shazza, Jude and Tom ( also didnt like the guy who played Tom at all, but that is just my opinion) and changing Julio to Julian was a bit of a disappointment but overall it was a good film, brig on the edge of reason!!

Just a comment on the Harry Potter film........... cant beleive they missed out Peeves. that was well gutting, think Rik Mayall would have done a excellent Peeves

Although I really loved the visual style of the Prisoner of Azkaban (MUCH better than the last two Harry Potters) they did have to completely fillet it to shoe-horn everything into 2 hours. If I hadn't read the book I'm not entirely sure I'd know what the hell was going on, so much was missing.

It makes me a bit worried as to how the hell they're going to make Goblet of Fire into one film without making it utterly incomprehensible.

EDITED for my own incomprehensibility.

I'm afraid I'm a complete and utter snob when it comes to the bespectacled teen wizard and applauded the day Linda Smith condemned adults reading Harry Potter to an eternity in Room 101.

So though I haven't read the books I can say I thought the first film was far too long for a kiddy flick, it bored me senseless, hence I've avoided the sequels.

As for Bridget Jones' Diary - don't get me started (worst film EVER made).

I'm such a miserable sod.

Oh I'm a complete sucker for Bridget Jones! I loved both books but the film is really feel good I watch it whenever I'm depressed (it's a woman thing!) I LOVE Renee as Bridget and can't wait for 2 to come out in November I prefered the film's end to the book, it was more romantic.

And apparently Daniel is in 2 a lot more than he should be. I muct admit I really fancy Colin Firth in Bridget Jones, and I've seen clips of the second one and he looks yum in that too! Have to find some pics for the crushes thread now!

I'm sure i read somewhere that 'Goblet of Fire' is gonna be a really long film. So they might pull it off. But yeah, it is a bit of a worry wen you know they're gonna have to cut so much.

Oooo I may have fisticuffs with you then as I dispised her for that comment! People should be allowed to read what they want no matter what it is. I had fun reading them all and if I had listened to a narrow minded ...er person like her I would have missed out, so each to their own I say! (and they aren't just children's books don't even get me started!) I don't see how a grown woman should be so upset at what other people choose to do with their time anyway...

And as for Bridget Jones!!... ah I let you off that one

It was funny though. She talked about adults reading them on trains and said

"at least they could hide it behind porn"

Tee hee

I guess you would find it funny if you weren't so highly strung like me!!

I don't want to be contentious, but the Potter books are for kids - there's no real layering or analogies going, no satire such as you get with Pratchett's work. She writes a good story, and it's great that it seems to have rekindled an interest in reading, but I won't bother reading them again. And Linda Smith was being humerous - she just forgot to use winkies.

As for the films - the best, in cinematic terms, is Azkaban.

Bridget Jones - the book is codswallop of the highest order - haven't seen the film, but with such a meagre source novel, it can't be good.

I think people just read Harry Potter books for the escapism. I mean, it's just entertainment and as such they're bloody marvellous.

I read all of the books and I'm 19 haha. I dun care if they're for kids, they're really good books. They made a great swap to the theatre. I'm just wondering if the Harry Potter kid is gonna be like 47 years old when they film the last movie though.

I think regardless of whiether they are for kids or not, if adults enjoy them and do not find them childish (which they aren't, some bits are actually quite violent) then that's ok. Joking aside, it's annoying when people who are overopionionated decide that just because they don't like something rather than just saying they don't like it they pick on the fact that it may be for kids and critisise the people who read it because they don't have a valid reason for iit being rubbish. I'd respect people a lot more if they just said "I didn't like it much but if people do then that's fair enough" But then I guess this forum would be sparse if everyone had that view!

As for Bridget Jones - without being sexist - the reason I loved the book and the film was because, as a woman I have done and felt similar things, and I completely relate to it. One thing can be codswallop to one person and a gem to another. I would say that it's more a womans film though.. the dieting, checking voicemail, etc etc.. is that sexist?

For all that PLUS biting satire, wit, social commentary and intelligent writing have you considered Terry Pratchett? Monstrous Regiment is just out in paperback and it's his best yet.

Harry Potter is nice and easy to read and all that jazz, but it's got no teeth and they don't stand up to repeat reading.

And, I'm sorry, but the Phoenix of Fire or whatever the fifth one was called, was a load of overrated sludge.

*ducks from marauding Rowling fans*

EDIT: Sorry Andy, I hadn't noticed you'd recommended Pratchett up the page. Consider me a backup.

Just started Monstrous Regiment and already there's been a comment from Vimes about wars being fought for financial gain - that's the stuff!

And to keep vaguely on topic - I do find it strange that none of Pratchett's work has been immortalised on the silver screen as yet - there's always rumours about Good Omens, but nowt happens.

I'm really glad it hasn't. It would take a very special director and scriptwriter to do justice to all the little quirks and asides that makes Pratchett, well, Pratchetty.

The visuals probably wouldn't be too much of a problem as long as they got Paul Kidby to be the visual advisor. His artwork for the new books has been stunning - and he's managed that rare feat of reproducing almost exactly what was in my head.

Have you seen the new Discworld picture book?

Haven't a few been immortalised on the small screen, in animated form? I remember them showing a whole series, all in different styles, a while back, and of course there's the discworld games with Rincewind

And also, Pratchett is just one of many authors, its almost as though its fashionable to read Harry Potter (or Tolkien, since the films - and there's the key), but you wouldn't be caught dead reading another fantasy, say Tad Williams. I know that isn't true of most people here though.

I've actually never read any Pratchett, what is a good one to start with? Or some of the best ones. I figure with all the King books I have to get through, if I do all the Pratchett ones I'll still be reading them in 2010

It all deends on which your favourite characters are really. They tend to be about a certain group, say the Watch, or the Wizards, or the Witches etc. My favourite group would be the Watch so anything to do with them I would recommend. Without going home to check Guards! Guards! springs to mind (i think, its been awhile).

The City Watch books, in order I think.

Guards Guards
City of Men
Feet of Clay
Jingo
The Fifth Elephant
Night Watch

I would agree that they're the best, and my favourite character is Vimes.

Having said that, there hasn't been a bad Discworld book yet IMO, and you'd do just as well to begin from the beginning with The Colour of Magic. Also highly recommended is his joint work with Neil Gaimen, the afore mentioned Good Omens, and his more recent 'childrens' books - Wee Free Men, and The Amazing Maurice & His Educated Rodents.

The second Guards book is Men at Arms (which was joint 7th in the Spaced Out Best Sci-Fi/Fantasy Book of All Time poll 2003!), not City of Men

I took a mate to see it who'd never read the books only seen the films after id seen it, about 4 times at the cinema. I had to explain LOADS to him. When I did he said "ah that makes sence though, nothing hinted on that in the film"

One good example was the shape of harrys partonus.

Im a huge potter book fan....end of story.