Which impossible novel-into-film pleasantly surprised you? (riffing on Orrex's thread)

[Shakespeare]

Which novel were you just certain couldn't be translated successfully to film (but was)?

Two that come to mind: Angels in America (two plays, not a novel, but close enough), and The Color Purple. I thought Walker's epistolary novel was not only overrated, but wouldn't work well as a film; I thought the film ended up being much better than the novel.

[BlueIris]

1. "The English Patient." I think the film tops the novel in some ways.

But in terms of quality I would put them both at about the same level (which is excellent).

[Frank Cannon]

2. Lord of the Rings

I never thought they could approach the imagery of the books. It took technology to catch up to make it possible, but I thought they did a great job.

[4_Legs_Good]

10. Agreed! I thought Bakshi absolutely caputred the atmosphere of Middle earth

very unlike those travesties that whatshisname put together with 50x the budget and a quarter century of time on his side.

:hide:

(sorry, I can NEVER let a pro-Jackson thread go without spouting off my - only person in the world who likes Bakshi's movie more than Jackson's - retort).

David

[TZ]

21. Yep.

That was my first thought. I might have even liked the movies better than the book!

[DarkTirade]

3. I was a bit surprised that they even managed to pull off Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

It doesn't seem like something that would translate to film well. But it did.

[MrCoffee]

5. Fear and Loathing was the first one I thought of.

[DarkTirade]

8. Great minds think alike.

Ours too. Nifty! :)

[cemaphonic]

6. Gilliam stayed true to the deep sense of betrayal and alienation in the book.

It would have been pretty easy to approach that as a stoner buddy comedy, and it probably would have been more commercially successful if it was.

He also got that, as amusing as a bunch of Duke's antics are from a distance, he's a pretty serious asshole that you really wouldn't want to be around for any length of time.

Didn't hurt that Depp and Del Toro went to some pretty extraordinary lengths to get into their characters. Depp lived with Hunter for several months, and on the commentary, they say that he was regularly accused on the set of overacting until the day that Hunter showed up for his cameo and everybody realized that Depp had him nailed.

[DarkTirade]

7. Yeesh. When you said 'stoner buddy comedy' I just got a shiver down my spine.

That would have been a horrible loss. :scared:

[4_Legs_Good]

9. I thought Fear and Loathing was pretty good, but my main impression

was that the two most memorable sections of the book (to me), didn't come off memorable at all in the film. Those were the scenes where he's pulled over with the beer in his hand, and the White Rabbit in the bathtub scene.

They were both in the movie, which I watched just after reading the book for the first time, but just didn't have the same impact.

I love Gilliam, though, utterly. I think I'm the only person on the planet who thinks Baron Munchausen is a masterpiece. Gilliam doesn't even like it all that much.

David

[DarkTirade]

11. Yeah, no translation from one medium to another is going to be able to capture it perfectly

but I'd say they at least captured it well. :)

[4_Legs_Good]

12. Yup.

I was really drunk when I saw the movie too, which was the best I could do at the time, and seemed very appropriate.

I have the Criterion Collection DVDs. I should watch it again.

David

[DarkTirade]

13. I'm one of those weirdos who rarely feels the need to alter my consciousness...

mostly 'cause my brain's usually in a weird place to begin with. But if I ever try something interesting, I might watch that movie along with it. :P

[Orrex]

41. The film is exceptional even without mind-altering substances

In fact, it's probably better without them, because you can see the film's own strengths without artificial assistance.

[cemaphonic]

32. If you have the DVDs, check out the commentaries.

Gilliam's is probably the best director commentary I've heard. Most of the time they are pretty superficial, and mostly just on-the-spot reactions to what is happening in the movie. Gilliam clearly came prepared, and had a bunch of interesting things to say about it.

The Hunter Thompson one is pretty disappointing though. Every once in awhile he'll say something really insightful, but mostly he's just doing his crazy hillbilly shtick.

[4_Legs_Good]

44. Agreed, Gilliam has always done the best Director's Commentaries

I got into laser discs back when they were out specifically for Director's commentary tracks, and his were the best. The Fisher King I think was the first I heard, and it was fantastic. I think it's out of print now (no Criterion DVD), but every film he does has a commentary that is almost as interesting as the film itself, and he's talking so much on a real level, not down to the viewer, and covers everything from the content to the art of filmmaking.

Gilliam's the best!

David

[Orrex]

38. Munchausen is very good

Top notch performances all around.

[Orrex]

39. An excellent, excellent film

For some fucked up reason, Comcast's Digital Cable "infoblurb" gives it just one-and-a-half stars, which baffles me.

Depp and del Toro are both extraordinary actors, and they're very near the top of their game here. The film is funny and poignant and disgusting and entertaining all at the same time.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

46. I liked Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

I actually read the book after I saw the movie and there were parts of it that simply could not be translated between the two mediums, but all in all, both were enjoyable.

[PassingFair]

4. The World According to Garp.

I didn't think they could pull it off, but
they did a pretty good job. Surprised the
crap out of me....

[Danger Mouse]

18. I think the movie improves on the book.,

[Rabrrrrrr]

14. Barely Legal Teens XVII

I mean, I thought, "Oh my God, no way they could film that!" but they did. They did.

[Shakespeare]

16. Not quite the contribution I'd hoped for from you.

Apparently, nobody can adapt Rabrrrrr into a movie, either. :P

[Rabrrrrrr]

23. You expected more from me? Something more extreme like "Anal Invasion Bloodfest Creampie LIII"?

Or something more like a legitimate and intellectual book?

Was it the tameness of the porn movie title, or the lack of a serious book that has you wanting for more?


And a Rabrrrrrr movie could be an interesting one, though difficult to cram into two hours.

[Shakespeare]

24. hmm....something edgier, with subtle literary undertones.

A Rabrrrrr movie could only be directed by Warhol or Herzog, and with half of those possibilities deceased and the other half batshit crazy, I'm not optimistic. No hope of requital.

[Rabrrrrrr]

25. Something like "Rozencrantz and Guildenstern in Drag"?

Actually, I think I'd like David Lynch, John Carpenter, or Kevin Smith to direct the movie about me. Hell, maybe all three together.

[Shakespeare]

26. That trio might just work.

Lynch for the story, Smith for killer dialogue, and Carpetner for visuals/effects.

This just might work after all...

[Rabrrrrrr]

29. It would definitely cover the surreality, the horror/evil side, and the outspoken

string of expletives offered in a hilarious and quite literate kind of social commentary, parts of my life.

[PVnRT]

35. I've seen that - the movie is very faithful to the source material

[Tom Kitten]

15. Adaptation

The screenwriter, Charlie Kauffman, realized he couldn't come up with a script for "The Orchid Thief" so he riffed on the idea of him having writer's block adapting the story. Don't know how successful it was translating the book but it was an entertaining film.

[Danger Mouse]

17. "Ghost World" if graphic novels count.

It captures the soul of the source material perfectly.
One of my favorite graphic novels, one of my favorite films.

[Orrex]

42. I love that film!

Very solid from start to finish.

[Shakespeare]

19. Another - Taymor's adaptation of Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus. n/t

[RFKHumphreyObama]

20. To Kill A Mockingbird

I think this is the only movie I've eve seen that has so accurately and successfully conveyed and perhaps expanded on the depth, emotion and substance which made the novel so successful. All the characters in the book seemed to come to life in the movie exactly as they were portrayed in the book and that's a very rare attribute indeed.

[electron_blue]

22. Contact. They changed the storyline noticably, but I still love watching the movie

as it capture the spirit so well.

[Mike 03]

27. George Hill's adaptation of John Irving's "The World According to Garp."

At the time that film came out, I was quite young and that novel was my favorite novel in the entire world. I was scared to death to see it and didn't want it to 'ruin' what I had imagined the book to be. But it was a very good film. Not as good as the novel by a longshot, but a genuine attempt.

I also felt that the film "Hotel New Hampshire" was a genuine and somewhat successful effort to adapt an Irving novel.

[Mike 03]

28. About "No Country for Old Men."

Cormac McCarthy is my favorite writer, and years ago I made a promise to never ever see a film based on one of his books. However, I violated that and did see the Coen brothers' film.

First of all, "No Country..." is one of McCarthy's weakest novels. Even so, it is much better than most literature out there.

Secondly, the adaptation of the book was completely faithful to the spirit, description and details of the book. It looked exactly like I imagined the book.

The rumor is that Ridley Scott is going to take a stab at "Blood Meridian." I think this could be total calamity. The book is unfilmable, truly.

[cemaphonic]

33. Yeah, the Coens did a good job with it.

It's definitely his most screen-adaptable novel. It reads a lot like a self-subverting Elmore Leonard novel, and the biggest danger to an adaptation was losing the "self-subverting" part.

I probably would have tried to find a way to work in Bell's WWII story, since it is pretty central to his character. And I like the final non-confrontation between him and Chigurh in the book a bit better, but overall they did a great job.

I nominated "Blood Meridian" in the other thread. I think I heard that Scott passed it on, but IMDB still has him listed.

[Orrex]

40. I'd love to see Suttree adapted for the screen, if done correctly

Such rich characterizations and setting would be hard to beat. I can't even begin to think about the casting, though. I suppose that Michael Clarke Duncan would get pegged as Ab Jones, though...

[Westegg]

30. "Unbearable Lightness of Being."

[terrya]

31. "Lolita"

Of course it was Kubrick who directed. But still, I was pleasantly surprised by the film.

[cemaphonic]

34. It's OK, but it's the only Kubrick adaptation where I think the book is better.

[darkstar]

43. Right...novels with such stylized first person, unreliable narrator

voices are tough to adapt, IMO (i.e., Catcher in the Rye) but the Kubrick works for me somehow, too.

[kwassa]

36. Slaughterhouse 5.

I never thought Vonnegut would translate.

[semillama]

37. Beowulf, but not because it was a faithful adaptation - it wasn't

but the movie took the source material and made a damn good action film.

Trainspotting was another really good adaptation.

[PVnRT]

45. Children of Men - I thought the movie was much better

Frankly, the ending in the book sucked donkey balls.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

47. The Right Stuff

Tom Wolfe's writing style was seemingly impossible to translate into film. The movie can't portay everything about that style in it, but nonetheless is very, very good, one of my all time favorites.

[mainegreen]

48. A Scanner Darkly.

I was sure there was no way they could capture that special essence of no-fucking-clue-insane-wtf-madness that so rarely translates from page to screen. Instead, the whole film captured the book as near as any film I have ever seen has captured a book.

It was also the role Keanu Reeves was born for.