I never read the book but Cloud Atlas was the most ridiculously bad film I have seen in years.
I thought the book of Cloud Atlas was terrific although I know people who couldn't get beyond the first chapter. Whoever took on the job of filming it was almost certain to fail. It was pretty much unfilmable in my opinion - and that's why I couldn't bring myself to see it. My own nomination for the worst film of a book is Captain Corelli's Mandolin. This book by Louis de Berniere was a tour de force, a masterpiece, which was at the top of everyone's reading list in 1998. People seemed to fall in love with it and it became a massive success. There was a documentary on TV about the Corelli phenomenon, in which somebody even said that they measured how far they liked people by how much they liked Captain Corelli's Mandolin. Then the Hollywood film was made - with Nicholas Cage utterly miscast in the title role and the story altered (including the controversial ending) - and the book's reputation never really recovered. Instead of the modern classic it looked certain to be, it is now largely forgotten, or at any rate it seems to be considered a book of its time, of that mad summer when everyone was reading it. People who have only seen the film would never think that behind the Hollywood trash was such a beautifully written and moving book.
I loved Cloud Atlas the book and I thought the film was great too. Most people hated it too.
I agree about the 007 books - I tried three 'cos I couldn't believe how bad they were compared to the films, but in the end I gave them up as unreadable.
Going in the other direction, I loved Ken Follets Pillars of the Earth, and thought the screen adaptation was a good stab at recreating it. However World Without End while good in book form was awfull on the screen. Every episode veered pointlessly away from the original storyline, and the last episode when a bunch of land grubbing peasants defied the king and his army was both factually and actually so laughable as to take the series into pure stupidity. I cannot imagine why they thought the changes they made on the plot were sensible (Follet was clearly named in the credits as a consultant) but to be honest, apart from the character and geographical manes, there was little left of the original tale when it arrived on the screen, which made me wonder why they bothered using the book as a jump off point in the first place.
His early books (Digital Fortress / Angels and Demons) were good reads whilst the Da Vinci Code wasnt bad... the latter should never have been released as a film before A&D as it straight away messed the timeline up
Since Da Vinci Code though; Dan Brown's books have been rubbish
I read one of the Bond books once. Not a patch on the film
Yes - I read The Man With the Golden Gun when I was at school, about the only thing the book and the film had in common were the title and the character names.
As a dedicated of the James Bond films, I'm only now getting around to reading the original books and to say I am underwhelmed is anbit of an understatement!
They are all relatively short with little bits of action interspersed. But then they were written in the late 50s and early 60s and as such the audience exüectations were probably a bit different. Hard for me to say as I was born in 1962, the year Dr No came out.
I do intend to read all the books including the recent ones and am especially looking forward to reading the William Boyd one (one of my favourite authors)!
Don't bother with the William Boyd one (even though he's one of your favourite authors) it's awful. IMHO
There's a film version of a Flashman book with Sean Bean in it. It ain't great.
Are you sure? I've only heard of Royal Flash which was made in 1975 - had an all star cast (McDowell, Ollie Reed, Alistair Sim and Henry Cooper(!)) but I would have thought Sean Bean was too young for it. Not a great film but I remember quite enjoying it.
Nope, I stuffed up. It was McDowell. love the books, but can see that they aren't Hollywood fodder.
I never read the book but Cloud Atlas was the most ridiculously bad film I have seen in years.
I thought the book of Cloud Atlas was terrific although I know people who couldn't get beyond the first chapter. Whoever took on the job of filming it was almost certain to fail. It was pretty much unfilmable in my opinion - and that's why I couldn't bring myself to see it. My own nomination for the worst film of a book is Captain Corelli's Mandolin. This book by Louis de Berniere was a tour de force, a masterpiece, which was at the top of everyone's reading list in 1998. People seemed to fall in love with it and it became a massive success. There was a documentary on TV about the Corelli phenomenon, in which somebody even said that they measured how far they liked people by how much they liked Captain Corelli's Mandolin. Then the Hollywood film was made - with Nicholas Cage utterly miscast in the title role and the story altered (including the controversial ending) - and the book's reputation never really recovered. Instead of the modern classic it looked certain to be, it is now largely forgotten, or at any rate it seems to be considered a book of its time, of that mad summer when everyone was reading it. People who have only seen the film would never think that behind the Hollywood trash was such a beautifully written and moving book.
I loved Cloud Atlas the book and I thought the film was great too. Most people hated it too.
You spoke the true-true there, mate. (shudders inwardly at the memory of Tom Hanks uttering that)
His early books (Digital Fortress / Angels and Demons) were good reads whilst the Da Vinci Code wasnt bad... the latter should never have been released as a film before A&D as it straight away messed the timeline up
Since Da Vinci Code though; Dan Brown's books have been rubbish
I have to disagree. I read two of his books and thought the quality of writing was akin to that of a primary school child of moderate intellect who's never seen a thesaurus.
His early books (Digital Fortress / Angels and Demons) were good reads whilst the Da Vinci Code wasnt bad... the latter should never have been released as a film before A&D as it straight away messed the timeline up
Since Da Vinci Code though; Dan Brown's books have been rubbish
I have to disagree. I read two of his books and thought the quality of writing was akin to that of a primary school child of moderate intellect who's never seen a thesaurus.
I have read a few paragraphs, and also found them unreadable. Brilliant creator of plotlines, awful "writer".
The Hustler film is really close to the book and both great. The colour of money is a differentry story great book awful film Tom Cruise character not even in the book
Pretty much what algarve said. He is obviously very intelligent as you can tell by sheer volume of research that must go into his books but as plot lines and story telling go, not so hot.
His early books (Digital Fortress / Angels and Demons) were good reads whilst the Da Vinci Code wasnt bad... the latter should never have been released as a film before A&D as it straight away messed the timeline up
Since Da Vinci Code though; Dan Brown's books have been rubbish
I have to disagree. I read two of his books and thought the quality of writing was akin to that of a primary school child of moderate intellect who's never seen a thesaurus.
I read Digital Fortress, I think it is the worst book I’ve ever read, even after struggling through the first two pages of Fifty Shades...
I can’t watch these films as they are horrifically miscast.
James Patterson’s Kiss the Girls. Morgan Freeman just isn’t Alex Cross. He is more of a Denzel Washington character in the book.
The Jack Reacher film. Anyone who has read the books would have been aghast at Tom Cruise playing the 6 foot 4 ex military policeman. In my mind Reacher is a Lawrence Dallaglio type.
I read one of the Bond books once. Not a patch on the film
Yes - I read The Man With the Golden Gun when I was at school, about the only thing the book and the film had in common were the title and the character names.
Octopussy Is about 50 pages long and involves a man catching an octopus if I remember right & You only live Twice is about an Island that is full of deadly traps that suicide seekers visit.
Thunderballs good probably better than the film.
Also Rats and the Survivor by James Herbert, and The Amityville Horror, crap film even Margot Kidder topless disapointed!.
So much young adult fiction that I grew up reading. Not because I "fell in love" with the book series and all that sort of thing (even though I might have done), but because the film adaptations were generally atrocious.
- Harry Potter (wouldn't say it's that bad - just pales in comparison to the books, which are phenomenal)
- Eragon (I still maintain this film is some sort of practical joke)
- Percy Jackson series (books are so good! Films much less so)
- Stormbreaker (after the first Alex Rider book - it's... it's shite, though the books are also decidedly "alright" and not much more)
Other bad adaptations:
- Fever Pitch/The Perfect Catch (latter being the UK title). I don't mean the Colin Firth film, which I haven't seen, but the US adaptation of Hornby's book. It's pretty rubbish. The only redeeming feature is that they had to rewrite the ending after the Red Sox broke their curse in 2004! So that was actually quite neat.
- Dan Brown. Books are bad; films are worse.
- The Hobbit. No mate, you don't need three films for it.
Conversely, good adaptations:
- High Fidelity. I think this is because the complete change of context made it all the more alien to one of my favourite books. The casting seemed pretty bang on, too.
- Lord of the Rings. Despite the Tolkien legendarium having SO much, the films do a pretty good job of honouring JRR while balancing that with story and action etc.
I am Legend was definitely a let down compared to the book. Bonfire of the Vanities - OMG.
The Hobbit is a great little story - the films are not.
Agree with views on Lord of the Rings...interestingly when I read the books (three times!) I always skipped through the Two Towers to get the the final show down in the Return of the King. But I think the film version of the Two Towers is the best.
I find the Bernard Cornwall Saxon series of books a little tiresome (all in first person - just how much can a person remember!) But the first two series of the Last Kingdom on TV have been very entertaining mainly due to great casting. King Alfred in the books is a rather wet killjoy... much more nuanced and interesting on TV.
I never read the book but Cloud Atlas was the most ridiculously bad film I have seen in years.
I thought the book of Cloud Atlas was terrific although I know people who couldn't get beyond the first chapter. Whoever took on the job of filming it was almost certain to fail. It was pretty much unfilmable in my opinion - and that's why I couldn't bring myself to see it. My own nomination for the worst film of a book is Captain Corelli's Mandolin. This book by Louis de Berniere was a tour de force, a masterpiece, which was at the top of everyone's reading list in 1998. People seemed to fall in love with it and it became a massive success. There was a documentary on TV about the Corelli phenomenon, in which somebody even said that they measured how far they liked people by how much they liked Captain Corelli's Mandolin. Then the Hollywood film was made - with Nicholas Cage utterly miscast in the title role and the story altered (including the controversial ending) - and the book's reputation never really recovered. Instead of the modern classic it looked certain to be, it is now largely forgotten, or at any rate it seems to be considered a book of its time, of that mad summer when everyone was reading it. People who have only seen the film would never think that behind the Hollywood trash was such a beautifully written and moving book.
Watched Cloud Atlas twice and enjoyed it the second time round. Not read the book so I can’t say how bad or good it differs from it.
for those that are interested re: Dune there is a great documentary of what could of been the greatest Dune film ever. (also possibly the longest film ever made as the script got close to 14 hours worth of footage)
the work created for the film that was never made helped influence the making of other sci-fi films such as Alien and Star Wars. it could of quite possibly have been the greatest Sci-Fi film ever.
The 2012 release of "The woman in black" with Daniel Radcliff. Although visually very good, Radcliff was an awful casting choice for the main character and they changed a bit of the story, most notably the ending to make it "happy". However I'm prepared to admit that I'm a massive fan of the book, original BBC film and the play, so I probably let it p me off more than it should have.
And the 2010 remake of "whistle and I'll come to you" with John Hurt. On it's own it was a very good story in it's own right and was very well acted and shot. However the story was completely changed to the point that there was no longer any whistle in the story. Therefore making the whole original title and premise irrelevant.
Catch 22 is about the only book and film I really see as on a par with each other.
But as the OP said they are completely different arts and usually all you can say is the film is inspired by the book.
Funnily enough, the film of Buffalo Soldiers (my favourite book) was actually a pretty good adaptation - and there are strong parallels between the two books. Weird.
I made a point of getting "The Buffalo Soldiers", having noticed the "best ever book" reviews on here some time ago. To say I was disappointed, and had my ghasted flabbered, is an understatement. Only just realised i had the wrong book, I should've got "Buffalo Soldiers".
For the record, The Buffalo Soldiers is a factual account of the campaigns of a black US calvary regiment in the Indian Wars. Far from recounting the racisms and discrimination they had to contend with it is a white officer's recounting of how well they fought and how many "uncivilised" indians they killed. The attempt to set the record straight that black soldiers fought as well if not better than their white counterparts is achieved, but at the expense of reinforcing the normality of ethnic cleansing and the institutional racism in the US army. The soldiers killed the "enemy" and the Indians "murdered" whites. Author concedes that Indians "may" have been "misbehaving" because their families were starving and the men needed to go out and hunt for food.
Comments
Going in the other direction, I loved Ken Follets Pillars of the Earth, and thought the screen adaptation was a good stab at recreating it. However World Without End while good in book form was awfull on the screen. Every episode veered pointlessly away from the original storyline, and the last episode when a bunch of land grubbing peasants defied the king and his army was both factually and actually so laughable as to take the series into pure stupidity. I cannot imagine why they thought the changes they made on the plot were sensible (Follet was clearly named in the credits as a consultant) but to be honest, apart from the character and geographical manes, there was little left of the original tale when it arrived on the screen, which made me wonder why they bothered using the book as a jump off point in the first place.
Since Da Vinci Code though; Dan Brown's books have been rubbish
Don't bother with the William Boyd one (even though he's one of your favourite authors) it's awful. IMHO
Cracking book. The film starring Matt Damon and Jude Law was just not all that good at all.
The books prior to DVC were better in my opinion.
James Patterson’s Kiss the Girls.
Morgan Freeman just isn’t Alex Cross. He is more of a Denzel Washington character in the book.
The Jack Reacher film.
Anyone who has read the books would have been aghast at Tom Cruise playing the 6 foot 4 ex military policeman. In my mind Reacher is a Lawrence Dallaglio type.
These
Thunderballs good probably better than the film.
Also Rats and the Survivor by James Herbert, and The Amityville Horror, crap film even Margot Kidder topless disapointed!.
- Harry Potter (wouldn't say it's that bad - just pales in comparison to the books, which are phenomenal)
- Eragon (I still maintain this film is some sort of practical joke)
- Percy Jackson series (books are so good! Films much less so)
- Stormbreaker (after the first Alex Rider book - it's... it's shite, though the books are also decidedly "alright" and not much more)
Other bad adaptations:
- Fever Pitch/The Perfect Catch (latter being the UK title). I don't mean the Colin Firth film, which I haven't seen, but the US adaptation of Hornby's book. It's pretty rubbish. The only redeeming feature is that they had to rewrite the ending after the Red Sox broke their curse in 2004! So that was actually quite neat.
- Dan Brown. Books are bad; films are worse.
- The Hobbit. No mate, you don't need three films for it.
Conversely, good adaptations:
- High Fidelity. I think this is because the complete change of context made it all the more alien to one of my favourite books. The casting seemed pretty bang on, too.
- Lord of the Rings. Despite the Tolkien legendarium having SO much, the films do a pretty good job of honouring JRR while balancing that with story and action etc.
- To Kill A Mockingbird. Gregory Peck.
The Hobbit is a great little story - the films are not.
Agree with views on Lord of the Rings...interestingly when I read the books (three times!) I always skipped through the Two Towers to get the the final show down in the Return of the King. But I think the film version of the Two Towers is the best.
I find the Bernard Cornwall Saxon series of books a little tiresome (all in first person - just how much can a person remember!) But the first two series of the Last Kingdom on TV have been very entertaining mainly due to great casting. King Alfred in the books is a rather wet killjoy... much more nuanced and interesting on TV.
the work created for the film that was never made helped influence the making of other sci-fi films such as Alien and Star Wars. it could of quite possibly have been the greatest Sci-Fi film ever.
http://www.jodorowskysdune.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodorowsky's_Dune
Film was good but the book utterly blows it away.
American Physcho
Superb book. Film is a steaming pile of manure.
And the 2010 remake of "whistle and I'll come to you" with John Hurt. On it's own it was a very good story in it's own right and was very well acted and shot. However the story was completely changed to the point that there was no longer any whistle in the story. Therefore making the whole original title and premise irrelevant.
For the record, The Buffalo Soldiers is a factual account of the campaigns of a black US calvary regiment in the Indian Wars. Far from recounting the racisms and discrimination they had to contend with it is a white officer's recounting of how well they fought and how many "uncivilised" indians they killed. The attempt to set the record straight that black soldiers fought as well if not better than their white counterparts is achieved, but at the expense of reinforcing the normality of ethnic cleansing and the institutional racism in the US army. The soldiers killed the "enemy" and the Indians "murdered" whites. Author concedes that Indians "may" have been "misbehaving" because their families were starving and the men needed to go out and hunt for food.
Interested if anyone else made a similar mistake.
Great book about British subculture. The less said about the film the better.