"Adequate" Book-To-Film Adaptations?

[Oscar Antonio M]

Which book-to-film adaptations would you call adequate? And why?

[Notoriousaurus]

Deep Throat was adequate, I think there was maybe only one or two scenes missing.

[larphillips]

I'm not sure I understand the question. By 'adequate,' do you consider that to be the absolute best an adaptation can hope to achieve? Or by 'adequate,' do you want examples of films that did just an 'ok' job of adapting from its source material... not outright failures, but not rousing successes either?

[biglyle]

"Deep Throat was adequate, I think there was maybe only one or two scenes missing."

I find that a little hard to swallow.

[Oscar Antonio M]

Originally Posted by larphillips

I'm not sure I understand the question. By 'adequate,' do you consider that to be the absolute best an adaptation can hope to achieve? Or by 'adequate,' do you want examples of films that did just an 'ok' job of adapting from its source material... not outright failures, but not rousing successes either?

Its a bit hard to me to answer because I think its a pretty subjective thing. So I would have to say both

[Marq]

Rosemary's Baby
A book I read in about two days when I was in my very early teens and upon renting the movie the very next day was blown away by it's ability to capture all the best elements of the novel. The uncertainty about who's "in on it" and what their purpose/goal is. I would say the film is even more than an adequate adaptation and an extremely rare case where it exceeds the book. Polanski's gorgeous use New York City and specifically the legendary Dakota apartment building is stunning and not something I would imagine while reading the book. The flawless performances by all the lead and supporting actors further enhances its greatness. Watching the film for the first time, despite having just read the book and thus knowing every turn and twist that would come, I was still captivated the entire time and kept on edge about what would happen next. That the film still holds up to this day as a benchmark among horror films, and that after my having watched it many more times and always loving it since that first time exemplifies what an expert adaptation this film was.

American Psycho
Here's a film where I would lean more towards describing it as adequate. And despite this commonly negative connotation, it's a favoiurite film of mine. Carrying over hardly any of the extremely graphic and detailed murder scenes from Ellis' novel, it still finds a way to ideally carry over the tone and themes of the book without. The pitch black humour of the story and banal obsessions of its characters (be they business cards, Huey Lewis album, restaurant food preparation, personal hygiene routines or Brooks Brothers suits, they all show up nicely). So while the film is a much different experience than the gory and even more precise novel, it very adequately translates to the screen and perhaps even wisely does away with the gruesome and lingering murder details so as not to distract from the overall point and tone - something more at risk of happening with a visual medium.

[larphillips]

But Marq, is that an example of 'adequate?' I mean, I'd say your example was more than 'adequate,' maybe even a superior example of an adaptation. I was going to talk about The Exorcist, as I thought the film was an excellent approach to the novel, and it moved beyond the literary aspects to give us the true visceral experience of film; but I wasn't sure what direction Oscar wanted this thread to go in.

[Marq]

Originally Posted by larphillips

But Marq, is that an example of 'adequate?' I mean, I'd say your example was more than 'adequate,' maybe even a superior example of an adaptation.

It certainly is an example of a "superior" adaptation. It was the first book-to-film adaptation that sprung to mind so I just started a-typin'! Eventually realizing it was far more than adequate. Ah well. My second choice which I've now added is probably better suited for this thread.

[Notoriousaurus]

Marq, I am purchasing a used copy of American Psycho (UR) from a friend. Even though I have already seen the movie, would you recommend the book?

[Marq]

Originally Posted by Notoriousaurus

Marq, I am purchasing a used copy of American Psycho (UR) from a friend. Even though I have already seen the movie, would you recommend the book?

Sure would. A friend of mine went that route and enjoyed the book a great deal. I think you'd love it for the 80s couture fashion chapters alone!

[Jellodyne]

I would say Those movies which must be discussed in the Rivendell forum are adequately adapted. While they're great films, that just qualifies them as adequate adaptations of even greater source material.

If you're talking adequate or better would say High Fidelity is an amazingly good adaptation, as Cusack and company infused their characters with life and vitality which just wasn't in the original stick-up-the-ass british book. IMHO of course.

Bourne Supremacy I would describe as adequate, but less confidently directed or skillfully shot than the more than adequate Bourne Identity.

I would describe the recent Count of Monte Cristo as adequate, possibly adequate+.

[Rileydog]

LOTR-

Any John Grisham book, especially the Firm-

[Midnight Cowboy]

Shawshank Redmeption

[theta]

Originally Posted by Oscar Antonio M

Which book-to-film adaptations would you call adequate? And why?

A) Welcome back, where were you?

B) Adrien Lyne's "Lolita", Anthony Minghella's "The English Patient", and Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" are all adequate.

[Oscar Antonio M]

Originally Posted by theta

A) Welcome back, where were you?

Thanks.
I've been around, I just don't post much.

Marq-Excellent and very detailed contributions to the thread

larphillips-I simply would like to read which adaptations do you feel are adequate. I think its a very subjective thing.

I personally don't like to compare book-to-film adaptations to their source material since I feel that they are very different mediums of expression. There are times where I enjoyed the film more than I enjoyed the book or vice-versa or that the film did better in certain aspects than the book did, but I still think that they work differently.

Frank Darabont says that his way of approaching a book-to-film adaptation is by making the film feel like the book, in spite of the things he cuts or adds.

Some filmakers just apply the books closer to their sensibilities. Francois Truffaut eliminated and added characters in order to play out the love triangle for his adaptation of Fahrenheit 451 which was non-existant in the book, but Truffaut always played out the theme of love in his films and Fahrenheit 451 was no exception.

[Hollow Man]

The Cider House Rules. John Irving's books are a bear to translate to the big screen, but this one was decent, even though it was different in a number of ways. World According to Garp was good too.

The Harry Potter books.

X-Men and X2.

-HM

[SilentBob]

I guess the best one is Schindler's List by Thomas Keneally did translate well on screen for the movie.

To Kill a MockingBird was ok but i miss not having all the little side stories in the movie (what the hell happen to Dill) But the movie did have most of the book in it and is a classic film.


I'm just hoping one day they will adapt a Michale Chrichton book nicely to the big screen. Both Jurassic Park books are way different from the movie and after reading the books its a real shame not to see them use some of the best scenes in the movie. (or change events and add/remove characters at will)

[leeving]

Originally Posted by Midnight Cowboy

Shawshank Redmeption

I think all 3 movies made from Kings' novella Different Seasons were pretty adequate...i havent seen apt pupil in a while


When I was a kid I read First Blood....thought the movie did it good.

[rubix]

fight club surpassed the book.

lord of the flies was really good i thought.

[theta]

Originally Posted by rubix

fight club surpassed the book.

Ooooooh. That opens a can of worms.

Could you explain why you feel that way?

[machine ghost]

Black Hawk Down was adequate in showing the chaos that transpired but took some liberties with what actually happened (multiple soldier's experiences were combined into one soldier for the movie apparently to allow the audience to recognise the actors thru the mayhem). The most pertinent fact for me from the book that was left out of the movie was that The US govt released the men that were captured that day in exchange for captured US servicemen.

[Welles and Ford Fan]

Thomas Hardy is not always represented well onscreen, however John Schlesinger's adaptation of Far From the Madding Crowd (1967) is a total winner. The story of a women (Julie Christie) and three separate and different men in her life (Peter Finch, Terence Stamp, and Alan Bates) could not have a better cast (Bates & Finch are particularly good), and it is beautifully shot by Nicholas Roeg. Sadly, this title is not available on DVD yet.

Also from Hardy, Roman Polanski's Tess (1980) is also a stunner. Nastassia Kinski has a bit of trouble with her accent, but is adequate as Tess. Lovingly photographed by Geoffrey Unsworth and with a haunting score by Philippe Sarde, Hardy's story of a girl who is used by many, and not really loved until it is too late is beautifully realized by Polanski. I was browsing DVD titles in Best Buy last week and was shocked to find this finally available in widescreen.

I also think Richard Lester and screenwriter George MacDonald Fraser did a superb job with their adaptation of Dumas' The Three Musketeers (1974-split into two films). The film(s) combine a gritty historical reality with broad comedy and high adventure and romance flawlessly. Lester and Fraser later teamed up and did a really good adaptation of one of Fraser's Flashman novels Royal Flash, with Malcolm McDowell perfect as as Flashman, and Alan Bates and Oliver Reed (as Bismarck) on hand for support.

Lester's Musketeer movies remind of a merely (IMO) adequate adaptation-The Princess Bride. I know this movie is a favorite of many people, but to me, it just sort of lay there. I had read the book, and the film actually followed the book quite closely, so I cannot fault it for that. However, I think Rob Reiner was simply the wrong choice for director. He was good at the funny, cutesy parts of the story, but when it came time to kick into adventure/romance mode, he just didn't have it. A director like Lester in his prime was able to combine slapstick, one-liners, elaborate swordplay, romance and tragedy and make it all work. Reiner made the clever stuff work in Princess Bride, but seemed ill at ease with trying to change gears to a more serious vein near the end.

[Damian]

Pet Semetary
Stuck incredibly close to the book. Probably one of the if not THE best Stephen King book-to-move adaptation yet. The only major difference was they didn't have the neighbors wife but opted to replace her with the families "maid" woman who hung herself.

Misery is another good one. Annie was probably a bit more sadistic in the book (Hobling any body?) so I can understand why they toned her down for the movie.

[Jellodyne]

Could you explain why you feel that way?

Well you didn't ask me, but here's my opinion:

Fight Club isn't an adequate translation, it's an unbelievably great translation. Why is it better than the book? Well, it kept the voice from the book, which is very difficult particularly with a strong narrative voice like Chuck's (see any Kurt Vonnegut film) so in terms of capturing the book they're right there. Layer on top of that heaps and heaps of style which actually worked for and not against the story (see Panic Room), add some great, wickedly funny performances by pretty much everyone in the movie, and there you go: movie better than the book.

Can you explain why you feel the opposite (assuming you do)?

[theta]

Originally Posted by Jellodyne

Can you explain why you feel the opposite (assuming you do)?

Because it destroys the structure of the book and completely loses the message of it.

Spoiler (Highlight or Triple Click to Read):

The book closes with a dark thread that the Space Monkeys are self-sufficient and trying to destroy the world, anti-materialists. The HERO, however, has realized that "people just are" and you can't make them into anything they aren't without destroying them. The MOVIE ends with Tyler winning and evey view of life being equally slagged. The cut of the penis isn't rebellious, it's snotty. There are multiple changes that completely alter the tone of the film. In the book, Tyler is not attempting to destroy a credit card company; he's trying to destroy a museum. In the book, it's the narrator who puts the gun to Raymond Kessel's head, not Tyler. The entire sequence about the narrator's boss leading into the bus near-castration is removed. Futhermore, the structure of the novel is intricately recursive; i.e. everything reflects back on everything else. When you take moments out of the book to make room for unnecessary CGI sex scenes and the like, it drags your plot down.

I also have problems with the direction and the overall tone of the movie; as I mentioned before, it's nihilistic like suburban white kids are nihilistic

[Volcane]

Interview With The Vampire
Red Dragon
The LOTR trilogy

All "adequately" made but not as great as they should have been given the books they were based on...