Best book to movie adaptation

[Darththeo]

Verhoeven famously never read Starship Troopers, so to call it an adaption is a bit wrong. If you changed the names it would be unrecognisable from the book - and that is because the movie script started out as an unrelated movie. Bug Hunt at Outpost P or something like that. Later on they heard the rights were going for Starship Troopers, bought then, changed a few names and pretty much called it a day.

When they pitched it, it didn't go anywhere. By recognizing the similarities with the book, they push it as an adaptation but a lot was lost.

The movie is very much a hybrid of the original pitch and the novel.

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly, I don't care. It may be true, it may not be. Other people involved may still have read it, it's not like the director is the only person who controls the entire movie. And sometimes NOT knowing the source material can actually be an advantage, because it doesn't predispose you (actors often do this, especially when it's things like stage to screen adaptations).

At the end of the day, all I care about is the end result. Whether they read the book or saw it in a dream, I don't really give a fuck - did they make a good movie that engages with the source in a productive, medium-appropriate way, yes/no? That's ALL that matters to me.

Eh, I would argue you have to have some knowledge of the source material if you are going to make an adaptation, but sometimes you branch off of it as what works in a novel doesn't translate 100% to a screen. Some of the changes worked for Starship Troopers, others didn't. What it likely did best was have the same argument as the novel essentially. Both the movie and novel are argued if they are pro-fascist. You'll find people who believe that Starship Troopers was pro-service despite the obvious satire. The novel is more subtle with its message and it is debated on whether or not the author shared those views, but he also had work expressing opposing views.

[Hotmail]

Le Collectionneur (2002). Yeah, it's a French Canadian movie. Bite me.

[Biomega]

Eh, I would argue you have to have some knowledge of the source material if you are going to make an adaptation, but sometimes you branch off of it as what works in a novel doesn't translate 100% to a screen. Some of the changes worked for Starship Troopers, others didn't. What it likely did best was have the same argument as the novel essentially. Both the movie and novel are argued if they are pro-fascist. You'll find people who believe that Starship Troopers was pro-service despite the obvious satire. The novel is more subtle with its message and it is debated on whether or not the author shared those views, but he also had work expressing opposing views.

My point is I don't care how they get there, I only care where they end up. If they did a good job and I'm happy with the end result, whether they read the book or not doesn't matter to me - only the quality of the product matters. If I look at that product, I will not evaluate it differently based on whether or not they've read the book, because a good movie doesn't turn bad by them not having read it, and a bad movie doesn't turn good by them having done so. It absolutely does not matter to me, only the quality of the film matters.

The fact that reading the book may increase the chances of the film turning out good is probably true, but also irrelevant to me and my evaluation. Because I don't give a shit if something had a 90% of being good, I only care about whether it ACTUALLY IS.

It's kind of like saying putting a scope on a rifle increases your chances of hitting the target - that's true, but at the end of the day, all I care about is DID YOU HIT THE TARGET. Whether or not you used a scope isn't relevant to me, only the fact whether you hit or not. Deciding to use a scope or not may matter to THEM because it gives them a better chance to make the shot; but not to me, who only examines the target.

[ZazuuPriest]

Eragon

/10

[VMSmith]

They're not great movies, but I'll give a shout to both Ender's Game and Childhood's End simply because they both took stories that I would consider mostly unfilmable and made them enjoyable without straying wildly from the points of both books.

[Malkiah]

also vote LOTR, because the movies are barely watchable while the books are some of the most god-awful piles of liquid shit-filled garbage i've ever tortured myself enough to try to read. making a couple low-tier fantasy action flicks out of quite possibly the worst novels ever written is a pretty hefty accomplishment.

fight club, because it's pretty faithful to the source but also elevates it since chuck palahniuk seems good at ideas but bad at prose and structure, and the movie delivers the same basic story in a much better way.

american psycho because the movie is actually amazing and the novel is basically a human rights violation in print form.

[Malkiah]

The obvious answer is 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit'.

that is both an awesome and solid pick, and until you posted it i had forgotten that was based on a novel. +1

[Fabinas]

also vote LOTR, because the movies are barely watchable while the books are some of the most god-awful piles of liquid shit-filled garbage i've ever tortured myself enough to try to read. making a couple low-tier fantasy action flicks out of quite possibly the worst novels ever written is a pretty hefty accomplishment.

Careful with that edge. People here might trip and cut themselves.

I has a jerb fo juu at my lit mag.

[Biomega]

I mean overall it's entirely subjective. I've read Starship Troopers and watched the movie, and I'm ok with the movie being different because the book isn't exactly a great masterpiece. With Rings of Power, I'm angry because the source material is a masterpiece in my opinion, so it seems borderline sacrilegious to change it.

Same thing applies to source accuracy for me - all that matters is the end result. Is accuracy to the source conducive to a better adaptation? Probably. Is it REQUIRED? No. Nor is it a guarantee for a good end result. Which, same as before, is the only thing I care about. Super accuracy or accurate-ish, doesn't matter to me, I only care IS IT GOOD OR NOT.

I can definitely see a version of RoP that's a departure from the source to at least the degree the actual show is, but with writing of a very different kind that makes it actually watchable. What was wrong with RoP wasn't the inaccuracy - it was so many other things. Of course, you could have ALSO made it better AND more accurate, but accuracy doesn't simply translate into quality. It can contribute, but it never guarantees.

[hellhamster]

Lol I watched Starship Troopers yesterday too and its like almost 10 years since I watched it the last time

Such a unique movie. And the 15 year old in me remembers Denise from that time

Yeah Denise was my kickstart into puberty as well.

- - - Updated - - -

The most faithful adaptation is Three Body Problem by publisher Tencent. The show came out exactly as I've envisioned it in my mind.

Starship Troopers was obviously not a faithful adaptation because Verhoeven didn't get the book, but he is a master of that particular branch of sci fi genre so the result was an incredible movie.

[Biomega]

Starship Troopers was obviously not a faithful adaptation because Verhoeven didn't get the book

I don't think that's true. He didn't do things the same way the book does them, but I think he absolutely understood something fundamental about what the book is doing, and found his own way of doing something similar. That's exactly what an adaptation should be like imo.

[Syegfryed]

I guess i am with most people with lord of the rings godfather and fight club, i don't remember many on top of my head, cause most of the adaptations were shit but i liked harry potter adaptions a lot, especially the first ones.

- - - Updated - - -

Eragon

/10

Are you serious? that was atrociously bad, they butchered so much that the urgals were humans with pants, no elves or dwarves, it was hard to find anything right there

[DarkAmbient]

For me the one that comes to mind is Tomas Alfredson's 2011 version of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Some minor changes, and a lot of necessary book-to-movie compression, but very faithful to the world portrayed by Le Carre, with an excellent cast and an evocative rendering of that time period.

[Altrec]

Stardust - I think the movie did it better.

[Corvus]

I don't think that's true. He didn't do things the same way the book does them, but I think he absolutely understood something fundamental about what the book is doing, and found his own way of doing something similar. That's exactly what an adaptation should be like imo.

Given he never actually read it, I'm not sure how he could get it.

[Biomega]

Given he never actually read it, I'm not sure how he could get it.

First, we don't know if that's actually true; second, that doesn't mean he couldn't have done it. I don't even care if he just lucked into it by pure chance (and I'm not saying he did, just that I wouldn't care if he did). The result speaks for itself, regardless of how he arrived at it.

He didn't even write the screenplay, someone else did. You are letting one anecdote that could just be a joke or promotional stunt for all we know cloud your actual judgement of the final product.

[Tuor]

Eragon

/10

You kidding right? I've read all the books several times, and the movie is just awfull, the worst adaptation from a book i've ever seen.

[Koriani]

First, we don't know if that's actually true; second, that doesn't mean he couldn't have done it. I don't even care if he just lucked into it by pure chance (and I'm not saying he did, just that I wouldn't care if he did). The result speaks for itself, regardless of how he arrived at it.

He didn't even write the screenplay, someone else did. You are letting one anecdote that could just be a joke or promotional stunt for all we know cloud your actual judgement of the final product.

Ook now I'm just really confused =D

Clearly SOMEONE who wrote for that movie had read the book. Director doesn't have to, certainly. But SOMEONE did.

Otherwise what we're saying is, without reading the book, someone managed to coincidentally write and develop something *really close* to "Starship Troopers", including using the same terms, just due to the laws of big numbers of the universe? =D That doesn't "just happen." Anymore than 100 monkeys writing for 100 years would 'coincidentally' write Shakespeare.

Cuz I would argue if no one in the production ever read the book, the movie isn't an adaptation. Its an original work that happens to be really similar. But its not an actual adaptation. =D

You can't "adapt" something you never looked at the source material for. (Again, agreed, director doesn't have to read shit - but a writer somewhere involved with this, read the book.)

[Canpinter]

The Martian is great and super loyal to the book.

[Benggaul]

I'm going to bend the rules and pick a streamed show based off a book.

Good Omens is one of my all-time favorite Pratchett/Gaiman books and the Amazon series that Gaiman made was absolutely wonderful. Pretty perfectly cast (with the exception that the woman who is supposed to be "plain" or "awkward" is, once again, just a hot woman in glasses), beautifully shot, exceedingly faithful to the book (naturally, with Gaiman at the helm) and really made the story come to life for me more than my own imagination achieved. 10/10 will watch again.

...

Of course I read that they're going to do a second season which makes me cringe. The first season fully covered the novel from start to finish and I was very happy with how it ended. I'm leery of any additions without Pratchett's invaluable influence.