Best Book to Film.

[BatKnight89]

Do you have a favorite movie based on a book that was faithful and done well.

For me my faves are the Lord of the Rings, although there were things done in the Two Towers I wasn't happy with, and the Harry Potter series has been great.

Casino Royale stayed pretty faithful to the novel, ofcourse they had to modernize it a bit, and it is the only time I liked a movie better than the book it was based on, I can watch it over and over again and not get tired of it.

For me it is very important for a film to stay as close to the book as possible, I hate when liberties are taken that shouldn't be, there's a reason the book is loved by so many and part of the reason a movie would be made of it.

Just like with Comic Books, the most successful ones are the most faithful, I wanna' see my favorite characters come to life, not what some outsider thinks.

[sheets]

The Maltese Falcon is very close to the book, except for a couple of minor points and the fact that Bogart looks nothing like Sam Spade :)

Captain Blood is a similar case, with most of the changes being trims to streamline the story for a normal film running time.

[CaptainAwesome]

Casino Royale was good. I had read the book only about a week before I saw the movie (normally a pretty bad idea, IMO) and I was impressed with how accurate it was. Infact, I think the ending of the movie was an improvement over the book.

[Roquefort Raider]

I am grateful for the efforts Peter Jackson put into staying true to Tolkien's book. Sure, he changed a few things here and there, but nothing that seemed too out of place or wasn't justified in terms of movie-making. I especially appreciated how he placed unused pieces of dialogue here and there in the films: like the opening lines (spoken by Galadriel) that were originally spoken by Treebeard: "...I feel it in the water, I feel it in the air".

I think Disney did a good job with "20 000 leagues under the sea".

"Greystoke" strayed far away from "Tarzan of the Apes", but at least sort of kept the spirit of the story.

"Les rois maudits", a French TV series made in the 70s, was a brilliant adaptation of the novels by Maurice Druon. It's too bad some misguided soul decided to make a new version a few years ago...

There are quite a few good adaptations. Too bad that there are also many awful ones!

[mgs]

Sin City, based on the books and All the old 'Bible movies', based on, of course, the Bible.

[hoffmandu]

Pet Cemetary for teh win

[Jonathan Bogart]

Probably my favorite is Howards End. I saw the movie first, and when I read E. M. Forster's novel afterwards, I felt almost the entire time as though I'd read it before. It's an almost perfect adaptation.

[Blueferret]

Agreed on the LOTR movies. They did stay pretty faithful throughout. Also, I thought The Shining was a better movie than book. My favorite touch was the picture on the wall from the end, showing the staff from 1929 and Nicholsons in the picture. I don't remember that in the book.

[Gordon Smith]

On balance I thought that Jackson did a poor job of adapting LOTR to film. He handled the core plot well enough, I'll grant, and did a magnificient job on the visuals, but he fell down on a lot of characterization points (*) that were thematically important to the work; I think Tolkien would have been appalled at some of the excess.

(*) Pity and mercy are cardinal virtues to Tolkien, he stresses the need to extend charity even to the most undeserving over and over. Yet we see Aragorn of all people acting with utmost ruthlessness in several scenes; he is willing to launch an attack on someone he imagines to be Saruman (in the book he scorns the very thought of attacking an old man without prior warning); he beheads the Mouth of Sauron (in the books neither he nor anyone else harmed the ambassador) and in the single most atrociously conceived and executed scene in all of Jackson's work, Aragorn joins forces with several other heroes to slaughter the crippled and helpless Gothmog. Tolkien would have been revolted and rightly so, for his heroes never behave like this even with great provocation.

[FroggieBKT]

In the Bedroom based on Andre Dubus' "Killings" (short story, not book)
Now that I think of it, House of Sand and Fog by Dubus III is a good adaptation too.
Bringing Out the Dead by Joe Connelly (a GREATLY under-valued Scorcese flick)
and the greatest of all adaptations:
To Kill a Mockingbird.

[Subotai]

(*) Pity and mercy are cardinal virtues to Tolkien, he stresses the need to extend charity even to the most undeserving over and over. Yet we see Aragorn of all people acting with utmost ruthlessness in several scenes; he is willing to launch an attack on someone he imagines to be Saruman (in the book he scorns the very thought of attacking an old man without prior warning; he beheads the Mouth of Sauron (in the books neither he nor anyone else harmed the ambassador) and in the single most atrociously conceived and executed scene in all of Jackson's work, Aragorn joins forces with several other heroes to slaughter the crippled and helpless Gothmog. Tolkien would have been revolted and rightly so, for his heroes never behave like this even with great provocation.

While I think Jackson did a very good job of adapting the novels, these are valid points. I think the violence was meant to lend authenticity to the story - would've been nice if those parts could've been truer to the book.

[sheets]

While I think Jackson did a very good job of adapting the novels, these are valid points.

I agree. I think the portrayal of Aragorn in the films is problematic in general. While I very much like Viggo's presence and appreciate that they wanted to make a statement about power and those who seek it, the way they drag out his acceptance of his kingship comes perilously close to making him look like he's trying to shirk responsibility. Not quite the right message to send, I think :)

[Subotai]

Good point. I don't think that's something you can fault Viggo for as he had not read the books and was going off of the screenplay entirely. Phillipa and Peter should've made sure he understood Aragorn was cautious but not a reluctant leader. Aragorn was in his 80s in the novels, and acted it, but Viggo didn't always act as if he was in his 80s in the films.

That said, Viggo had the exact athleticism and grace necessary for the role, and he was much better than *shudder* Stuart Townsend would've been.

[Bouncing Boy]

I'm surprised To Kill A Mockingbird hasn't been mentioned. That, to me, is one of the most faithful adaptions of a book.

EDIT: Whoops, I didn't read thouroughly(sp) enough, someone else did mention it.

[Matthew E]

There are some movies that actually manage to improve on the books they're based on, such as:

Forrest Gump
Wag the Dog (based on a terrible book called American Hero, or something like that)
The African Queen (the book wasn't bad, but the ending was pointless and the male protagonist far less interesting than Bogart)