Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I realize the December 2009 op, but for movies The Mist (2007) is right up there in my favorite SK films. Like LABART stated in post #27 in page 1, the ending is indeed different from the short story (from Skeleton Crew). The director changed the ending from the short story, and King seemed to agree. The ending is unreal. Totally out of left field. Ending spoiler:
Spoiler
go see this!
Books:
If the op is still about, I would highly recommend The Stand.
I liked 'Salem's Lot. Unusual format for a book but it was one of the early reads from him and I liked it for what it was - a vampire book.
Also liked Carrie . Movie followed the book pretty well iirc.
I see your point. But I can think of several GREAT movies made from not-so-good books. And the movies were great largely because they departed from the original source material. For example:
THE GODFATHER. Arguably one of the greatest movies ever made. The novel is so-so at best. There were parts of the book I liked, but most of it I did not. And it was VERY poorly written. A master of prose Puzo was not.
JAWS. One of the greatest movies of the 1970s, an era of great movies. But the book is horrible. Really, really bad in fact. The "heroes" are so unlikeable in the book that you're hoping the shark will eat them.
BLADE RUNNER. The greatest science fiction film ever made. The novella on which it is based is an incoherent, boring mess.
PLANET OF THE APES. Another classic sci-fi film. The book is okay.
STAND BY ME. I liked the short story "The Body" well enough. It was okay. But the movie was better.
PSYCHO. The greatest thriller ever made by one of the world's greatest filmmakers. The book is okay. Not bad, but nothing great.
JACKIE BROWN. Great movie. Okay book.
I've seen two of these movies: Jaws and Planet of the Apes. I did not care for either. Have seen the whole Planet of the Ape series of movies, but could live without ever seeing them again.
I have to admit that I have never read any books associated with these movies, so there is no way for me to judge them that way.
I may have read "The Body" but cannot remember it offhand.
Truthfully, I am not a big movie person. I would rather read a big thick book - even a series of them - and imagine it myself.
I guess that explains why I no longer desire to watch a movie or tv show based on a book.
In my opinion, the author writes a certain story. If it goes to another medium then it should be the same story, not another one.
If someone wants to create a whole new story in a whole new place, then by all means they should do so. However, they should not use someone's title or borrow ideas and say it is based on that. It might be 'based on it' but it is not the original. Let them take credit for their own work and not use some well known author to gain respectability.
It can't be the same story. The novel and the film are too different. The vast internal dialogue in most novels is not practically replicable.
There are films based on novels because the stories that make good novels often make good films. But they will be different.
The notion that Apocalypse Now should never have been made because it isn't Heart Of Darkness, or the same of The Wizard of Oz (which most certainly is not Baum's novel), is beyond silly. If you can't handle the difference between a novel and a film then you should just go on avoiding the latter and not worry about it, and stop with the insistence that they should not even exist.
Happily, I don't demand that a film be the novel on which it was based (which is not possible), and so I don't deprive myself of some great films.
By the way, the claim that screenwriters and directors who make films based on novels are "using some well known author to gain respectability" is sad and ridiculous. The Coens had widespread respectability long before they purchased the rights to No Country For Old Men from the willing author. Cormac McCarthy was no victim. And the film, while using much of the exact dialogue from the film, makes major changes to the story (SPOILERS: the complete elimination of the sheriff's backstory during World War II, the elimination of the hitchhiker, the way Chigurh deals with the businessman who hired him, and so forth).
The Coens had widespread respectability long before they purchased the rights to No Country For Old Men from the willing author. Cormac McCarthy was no victim. And the film, while using much of the exact dialogue from the film, makes major changes to the story (SPOILERS: the complete elimination of the sheriff's backstory during World War II, the elimination of the hitchhiker, the way Chigurh deals with the businessman who hired him, and so forth).
I liked the NCFOM movie well enough I suppose. But I LOVED the novel, and the movie really misunderstood both the Sheriff and Chirgurh. The Sheriff's reluctance to go after Chigurh is not based on cowardice, and Chigurh is not a psychopath in the novel. But that's what the movie suggests. The Coens are great filmmakers, but I think they really misunderstood those 2 characters.
A director who is well known for being true to a novel is John Huston. And you cannot argue with his success.
Yes, I'd agree. And come to think of it I wish someone would try to re-film the Hemingway novels. Personally, I didn't find any of them cinematically likable after we experience the writing style. I know some top actors were used but to me it looked like it wasn't enough. Something in the translation from words to screen seemed to not click. Just my opinion. Curious as to how others see the films.
It can't be the same story. The novel and the film are too different. The vast internal dialogue in most novels is not practically replicable.
There are films based on novels because the stories that make good novels often make good films. But they will be different.
The notion that Apocalypse Now should never have been made because it isn't Heart Of Darkness, or the same of The Wizard of Oz (which most certainly is not Baum's novel), is beyond silly. If you can't handle the difference between a novel and a film then you should just go on avoiding the latter and not worry about it, and stop with the insistence that they should not even exist.
Happily, I don't demand that a film be the novel on which it was based (which is not possible), and so I don't deprive myself of some great films.
By the way, the claim that screenwriters and directors who make films based on novels are "using some well known author to gain respectability" is sad and ridiculous. The Coens had widespread respectability long before they purchased the rights to No Country For Old Men from the willing author. Cormac McCarthy was no victim. And the film, while using much of the exact dialogue from the film, makes major changes to the story (SPOILERS: the complete elimination of the sheriff's backstory during World War II, the elimination of the hitchhiker, the way Chigurh deals with the businessman who hired him, and so forth).
The Wizard of Oz
We are each entitled to our own opinions.
I already said I don't watch most movies based on books I have read. I DO watch movies about books I have not read - and I will not read the book after I see the movie.
It can't be the same story. The novel and the film are too different. The vast internal dialogue in most novels is not practically replicable.
That sounds like a tv/movie apologist
I mean - of course - the things can't be exact. Yet the story can be the same. . .the story. Shinning isn't the same as the book, but not because it couldn't be. . because Stanley Kubrick's vision was DIFFRENT
True Blood is crap. . .because HBO needed 2x the sex
Game of thrones has been scaled down by 90%, because HBO doesn't have the budget to do it right
Most of the time i've seen movies and books differ it isn't because the story wouldn't translate, its because the director / producer/ screenwriter wanted to make the story "HIS/HER'
yet such an outcome isn't because the medium is different
True Blood is crap. . .because HBO needed 2x the sex
I haven't read the books, but on the TV show I have to concur. True Blood is soft core porn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
Game of thrones has been scaled down by 90%, because HBO doesn't have the budget to do it right
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
Most of the time i've seen movies and books differ it isn't because the story wouldn't translate, its because the director / producer/ screenwriter wanted to make the story "HIS/HER'
yet such an outcome isn't because the medium is different
It really depends on the novel. Some novels are very internal. Take BAG OF BONES for instance. Great book, and a great deal of the conflict is internal. On the page, it's riveting. It really didn't translate well to film. Not a very good movie at all. If they ever do a version of THE GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON, I expect much the same result for the same reason.
But then you get a book like TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, which is a great movie and very faithful to the book. There's definitely more in the book. Filming everything in the book would have made a 7 hour movie. But what you see on the screen was all in the book.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
