Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime

How do tv/film adaptations compare?

edited May 2006 in - Reading

Comments

  • Booker prizewinner, The Line of Beauty, is on BBC2 tonight (the Champions League Final is on ITV1 at the same time).
    Do adaptations come up to scratch, or is the book always better?
  • I think the book is better, most of the time. Although it depends on who is in the adaption, are they great actors and draw you in to the story? Or do they look like they've been put there to fill a space?
  • I agree with Kangeroo and Nena. Whether something is going to be as good as the book or better is dependent on the sensitivity and skill of the person who adapts the books. Andrew Davies is consistent, and rarely produces a bummer.  If it's weak to start with, casting can make something borderline better or beyond rescue.
  • Someone who loves the Harry Potter books recently said he thought the latest film was awful as it was filmed practically in darkness.

    Of course this might have been to add atmosphere, but it was more likely to make as much profit as possible by saving money on background detail.

    I haven't seen it, so I can't judge. The talking books read by Stephen Fry are brilliant though!
  • In the main, I always prefer the book.  Films are subjected to the writer's and producer's interpretations.  Usually, with a good story, they have to miss bits out to sqash it into film length.
  • You see Jay,

    It's all down to interpetation. The foregoing opinions exemplify the impossibility of a finite answer.

    Personally I enjoy the written words of a well composed story because they "paint a picture" for my imagination to interpret. There may be many alternate images that can be conjured by the same mix of words, each individual reader having their own vision. As soon as a story is committed to the small or large screen it projects visions as seen by directors and editors.
  • I have a rule ( which I often break I'm sorry to say) that either I read the book, or see the film. Especially when you read the book first the film is usually a disappointment. But as someone said before: HP4 was a very good film in  itself.
    I came up with this rule after I read "Life and Loves of a She-Devil" and saw the film afterwards. A HUGE disappointment.
    I'm still in doubt whether I should go and see the 'Da Vinci Code'.
    And I'm certainly going to watch Hollinghursts 'Line of Beauty' tonight. I'm just too curious!
  • I watched Stephen King's Needful Things after having read the book.  My verdict?  Crap.  I vowed never to watch a film of a King book that I'd already read.  The only recent exception to this has been Secret Window - but that could have had something to do with the fact Johnny Depp was in it....  Anyway, it was a good film, and so far as I remember, stuck closely to the plot.
  • I prefer the book.  A film can make me want to read the book, but if I've read the book and then see the film, something always seems to be missing.
  • Alan Garner had a rather cutting remark to make about the Lord of the Rings films - something along the lines of needing to take a bad book in order to make a good film - and on those grounds, the Lord of the Rings films were very good indeed.
    Mee-ow.
  • Interesting topic this - I still believe that the two are totally different mediums and should, therefore, be viewed with as much detachment as possible from each other, not easy especially with 'cult' literature.  I like John Grisham and I think the films have been both faithful to the source as well as entertaining in their own right. HP and LOTR are such exceptions because of the huge fanbase of the books - but the reason Rings worked so well on film was because the scripwriters weren't afraid to break away from the text to make a good film - let's face it, as much as alot of us love the books, the films could have been disastrous.  The HP films have failed in my opinion (although enjoyable in their own right) because the scriptwriters have been too cautious in the adaptation - too fearful of upsetting the fans.  By all accounts, Da Vinci has found the same problem.  Personnally, as both a booklover and a film buff, I wish scriptwriters would come up with more orginal features, and rely less on book adaptations.
    Just as a final response to Return of the King and the missing end scenes - there was no way on earth a cinema audience was going to buy into the scouring of the Shire - the ring was destroyed, the quest was fulfilled - it would have been death on film to start that up.
  • Is it usually the first one you read/see that you prefer? If you always prefer the book, is this because it's 'longer' than the film &/or shows more internal stuff rather than all-action?
  • I agree with Jan. When reading a book I always use my imagination and visualize characters, places and scenes, even feelings and atmospheres, so I create my own personal book within the book. Bearing this in mind, when I watch tv/film adaptions I try to be objective and just enjoy the story, accepting that it has been done from someone else's point of view.
    By the way, did you watch The Line of Beauty? Did you like it?
  • Ah, now this is also on The Line of Beauty topic on another thread. Main character a bit of a drip.
  • Is it just coincidence/natural that the books that win the prizes have also been adapted for the screen? In the Big Gay Read top 'ten', there were 'Tales of the City'; 'Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit'; 'Tipping the Velvet'; 'Fingersmith'; and 'Brokeback Mountain'. And 'The Line of Beauty' had already won the Booker.
  • you can't beat the book. I always remember the first adult book I read was Flowers in the Attic. The film did not compare. I am reading The DaVinci Code at the moment. I really like it but do not think the film will compare, judging by what the critics say
  • A friend of mine says the film is boring. I found some of the DVC gripping and I didn't want to put the book down. Other parts - long dialogue sections about some of Brown's theories - I found tedious and skipped some of these sections. I was not in a hurry to read another DB novel. The book, despite its claim, is fiction. Many of the ideas, such as Jesus' marriage to Mary, have no historical or biblical evidence to support them. The Jesus and Mary's marriage idea is a very old one revived.
  • A friend of mine says the film is boring. I found some of the DVC gripping and I didn't want to put the book down. Other parts - long dialogue sections about some of Brown's theories - I found tedious and skipped some of these sections. I was not in a hurry to read another DB novel. The book, despite its claim, is fiction. Many of the ideas, such as Jesus' marriage to Mary, have no historical or biblical evidence to support them. The Jesus and Mary's marriage idea is a very old one revived.
  • Sorry about the repeat - I thought I hadn't pressed the 'submit' button, so pressed 'back' and then 'submit' again. Abject apologies. 
  • Hi Jay Mandal, I also think the main character in The Line of Beauty is a bit of a drip (I wish he would wipe that smirky smile off his face) but to be honest I think they all are. Maybe they are meant to be, rather empty and forgettable.
Sign In or Register to comment.