movie to book and book to movie

[bounty]

I recently started reading the running man by Stephen king. having seen the movie a few times, I was familiar with the premise of the story, however, while remaining somewhat true to the essence, I was surprised to see how markedly different the story in the book is, on a great number of large issues, compared to the story in the movie.

but this isn't ruining the book for me by a longshot. in fact, im enjoying marking the differences as I go along. (I felt the same way with forrest gump)

(the story in the book seems totally legitimate, if not even better, as a movie, so it makes me wonder why it was changed)

has anyone else experienced that?


by contrast, is the converse true also? is it likely that someone who enjoyed a particular book would enjoy a movie that although remained relatively faithful to some essence of the story, nevertheless changed a great number of things? can we not watch a movie with that same sort of open mind? or do we get easily disappointed (and why) when the two don't jibe and would be happier with high fidelity to the source material?

maybe as another part of the conversation---i came to the jack reacher novels after watching the movie with tom cruise cast as jack reacher. liked the movie, like the books---but the reacher in the books is like 6'4" and 240lbs. jack reacher fans rightly criticized tom cruise's being in the role. i think i would have felt likewise had i read many of the books first. likewise, i didn't like willam defoe cast as john clark in tom Clancy's clear and present danger---just a bad fit. in the running man book, ben Richards is 6'2" and ~160lbs---clearly not Arnold Schwarzenegger--so i wonder how fans of the book felt about that casting.

[Pike Bishop]

I would think the greater difference between a novel and the film adaptation one has already viewed, the greater the enjoyment of that book. Few people want to re-trace the exact steps they've already walked. In the case of The Running Man, which is immensely different from the film "adaptation," that would probably be moreso. I rarely read books of movies I've watched, the Layer Cake novel probably being the only one I can recently remember. So, I couldn't really comment on the experience.

As to watching movies of novels I've read, I do what I would advise others to do. Firstly, I keep in mind that succeeding as an adaptation and succeeding as a film are two separate things; neither are necessarily contingent on the other. Also, I remind myself my particular vision of what a cinematic re-production of the novel I read is not necessarily the one that has to appear on the screen. The filmmaker is free to make his or her legitimate cinematic vision of the novel, and should do so.

[YesNo]

I agree with what Pike Bishop said. The book and the movie are separate and should be judged on their own merits even though they are based on the same plot.

[Pompey Bum]

I think I've said this before, but I don't like seeing a movie before reading the book. It interferes with my personal construction of the characters in my mind as I interact with the author's vision. After reading, I may or may not object to a director's vision of the same book, but it certainly doesn't have to be identical with the one I concocted.

[JCamilo]

I recently started reading the running man by Stephen king. having seen the movie a few times, I was familiar with the premise of the story, however, while remaining somewhat true to the essence, I was surprised to see how markedly different the story in the book is, on a great number of large issues, compared to the story in the movie.

but this isn't ruining the book for me by a longshot. in fact, im enjoying marking the differences as I go along. (I felt the same way with forrest gump)

(the story in the book seems totally legitimate, if not even better, as a movie, so it makes me wonder why it was changed)

has anyone else experienced that?


by contrast, is the converse true also? is it likely that someone who enjoyed a particular book would enjoy a movie that although remained relatively faithful to some essence of the story, nevertheless changed a great number of things? can we not watch a movie with that same sort of open mind? or do we get easily disappointed (and why) when the two don't jibe and would be happier with high fidelity to the source material?

maybe as another part of the conversation---i came to the jack reacher novels after watching the movie with tom cruise cast as jack reacher. liked the movie, like the books---but the reacher in the books is like 6'4" and 240lbs. jack reacher fans rightly criticized tom cruise's being in the role. i think i would have felt likewise had i read many of the books first. likewise, i didn't like willam defoe cast as john clark in tom Clancy's clear and present danger---just a bad fit. in the running man book, ben Richards is 6'2" and ~160lbs---clearly not Arnold Schwarzenegger--so i wonder how fans of the book felt about that casting.

Well, the question is not the fidelity to the original (or fidelity to what), for example, Apocalypse Now is a masterpiece, a great adaptation of Heart of Darkness, despite the great differences, you still have a feeling of civilization vs.barbarie, the unexplained darkness of humankind, etc. However, the adaptation of Watchman is in many aspects too faithful to the comic book in many aspects. I feel the director is obviously a fan of comic books, his language is very close to that. And that is his failure: he is so much a fan that he didn't add anything to Watchman, he basically repeated it (with a smaller story). His problem was not the difference in the final, it was the extreme similarity to what the comic book narrative did. The movie credits were great, they should print it in the next edition of Whatman, it is something that understood the series.

I do not mind watching any in any particular order (albeit, novels adaptations of movies are usually meh), I care little about plot details to have any change of spoilers, but it is no damage to notice if the changes are made for a bad reason (like the love story of an elf and a dwarf by Peter Jackson).

[kiki1982]

Maybe my opinion is a bit purist, but I find if you put a title on your film that is the same as the novel you adapted from and not a different title 'inspired by' then you at least have a kind of obligation not to stray too far from the message your base had.

Obviously you can take some licence in this. Merely making everything happen as it happened in your novel might be difficult, too slow or anything else, but the message should stay intact. Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility had significant plot changes too, as I recall, but the film wasn't worse for it, rather the opposite actually.
The latest BBC adaptation of Emma on the other hand I found diabolical (I know there are some who don't agree with me). In that respect Lost in Austen was a better 'adaptation', if you will, of Pride and Prejudice than Emma of its novel. Emma betrayed a total lack of understanding of the stuff Austen was mocking, so why make that adaptation?

I believe the BBC miniseries of Blandings was also very good. Not sure what plot changes had been made, but it was very Wodehouse, to my thinking at least. Same writer as Lost in Austen, so it wasn't an accident.

Indeed, it all depends whether the plot changes have been thought about and whether there is a general message in hte film that actually ties in with what the novel's message was about.

For me characters on screen also tend to interfere with novel characters. I just can't get the Timothy Spall's Earl of Emsworth out of my head, despite the novel character being described as bald and slim (I though?). Somehow Timothy Spall just fit that character like a glove despite being fat and endowed with lots of hair. That mess on his head somehow expressed the total lack of care he takes as to his appearance... Better than a bald head would ever have done... Althouh probably things depend on how good the screen character was and the Earl of Emsworth was divine .

[Pompey Bum]

For me characters on screen also tend to interfere with novel characters. I just can't get the Timothy Spall's Earl of Emsworth out of my head, despite the novel character being described as bald and slim (I though?). Somehow Timothy Spall just fit that character like a glove despite being fat and endowed with lots of hair. That mess on his head somehow expressed the total lack of care he takes as to his appearance... Better than a bald head would ever have done... Althouh probably things depend on how good the screen character was and the Earl of Emsworth was divine .

It can because hardest to keep your own vision of a literary character when the cinematic performance was especially strong. Against my better judgment, I have just watched the BBC version of Wolf Hall before reading the Mantel novels. Mark Rylance's interpretation of Thomas Cromwell was stunning. For better or worse, that's going to be Cromwell for me when I finally get to the books. It couldn't possibly be otherwise. I also read Little Dorrit after seeing the BBC version, so I got Claire Foy stuck in my head for that character. Imagine my dissonance (or whatever it's called) when she turned up in Wolf Hall--as Anne Boleyn! And not badly cast at all. Still...not Little Dorrit. Please no!

[Whifflingpin]

I read Wolf Hall before watching the BBC version. I thought the book was probably the best historical novel I've read so I was nervous about watching the adaptation. Mark Rylance, though, seemed to capture all the humour & humanity of the Cromwell of the book, and it won't do any harm to see his face when reading, rather than the fat fleshy face usually shown in the history books. (And the rest of the casting was pretty damned good as well.)

[Iain Sparrow]

Well, the question is not the fidelity to the original (or fidelity to what), for example, Apocalypse Now is a masterpiece, a great adaptation of Heart of Darkness, despite the great differences, you still have a feeling of civilization vs.barbarie, the unexplained darkness of humankind, etc.

I was going to mention Apocalypse Now, but as you've beat me to it I'll only say that it's the best example of classic literature being brought up to date and made relevant for a modern audience.
My other favorite movie based on a book, was Stand by Me, directed by Rob Reiner. People forget that early on, Stephen King wrote a charming little novella called 'The Body', and Stand by Me not only was true to the spirit of the book, but actually improved upon it thanks to exceptional casting.

[bounty]

ive really enjoyed reading that everyone, and am glad you joined in, thank you!

some of your writing has inspired these thoughts in me.

one is, I didn't know of the relationship between apocalypse now and Conrad's heart of darkness. ive not read any Conrad yet, though I have some (including that one)---ive heard he's difficult.

I find a few different situations going on in my head when I read books after ive seen the movie. one is, if I have really liked the movie and the actors in it have captured a good vision of the novel's characters, I really enjoy seeing them in my head when I read the book. I like seeing emma Watson as Hermione and Jennifer Lawrence as katniss.

I think often without the image of a movie character in my head, the novel characters remain vague and undifferentiated. sometimes that doesn't matter, and while I like to think I have a good imagination, I like clarity a movie brings to my mind's eye when I read the book.

by contrast, I think I mentioned this above---I am not seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger in my mind as I am reading the running man. and when I read lee child's jack reacher novels, I don't see tom cruise.

I believe kiki was saying something along these lines, what id call "essentially true"---that the movie works to capture the spirit or the message of the book while nevertheless going about changing all sorts of other things. the running man book is still a dystopian story about a totalitarian state that produces blood sport involving oppressed peoples and misinformation.

I wonder how hobbit purists felt about tauriel and kili. I confess a crush on tauriel...so in that case, its hard to know if im not a purist, or if im just a typical guy. i suspect both. smiles...

there is still something interesting to me though about how we can be bothered when the movie takes liberties with the book. sometimes its as if a sacrilege has occurred. itd be fascinating to do some research to see if a particular social/political/religious persuasion was more or less related to that phenomena.

[JCamilo]

You have to consider that everything is somehow an adaptation, sometimes to a new medium as movies to books (or to plays or to music or to paintings, etc), sometimes to a new culture like romeo and juliet taken from an italian story to an english drama, sometimes to time as we have both movie versions of Ben Ur (obviously, there is other differences too). The point is how well it is done, what is added, etc. Without those adaptations art would be dead, there would be no transformation (better word than creation) and just some static worship of dust marble statues.

[bounty]

I think that's an interesting facet too---changes of mediums allow for stories to be kept alive.

one interesting snag I see there though, and I think this is a common criticism, is that the popular medium of video sometimes (if not often?) takes precedence in our mind over the printed word, especially when it comes to non-fiction.

I wonder if everything many of us know about the battle of Thermopylae comes from the movie 300...

[JCamilo]

Well, Jesus is white mostlly because it is not the first moment of human history that humans have their perceptions towards visual representation and not orality or literature.

[ennison]

Jesus is white? Not the Nazerite I know.

[bounty]

no ennison, I think jcamilo was agreeing with my point about how we believe certain things more so because of their visual representations than from other sources or reasons.

I hope the thread stays alive a bit more...I still like the topic.