Personal View site logo
Best and WORST Book to Film Adaptations
  • 29 Replies sorted by
  • robmneilsonrobmneilson

    You had me until I saw Sin City and the word "best" in the same sentence. But I get what your saying, it is a faithful adaptation.

    A quite good adaptation from a book is the Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Much is changed, but the spirit is correct.

  • dumiledumile

    The film adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo was beyond disappointing. But the biggest offender to me is Dune. The book is, to me, on the same level as Tolkien's work - the film on the other hand - ugh.

  • CRFilmsCRFilms

    @sam_stickland I've read and heard stuff like that before. Either that's, "Yeah, I didn't like it, but I want my other books bought or I want to write or direct movies myself, so I have to say that and keep working in film."

    Or because the lie of books need to be changed, they don't have the confidence, experience or POWER to make sure it's done right. And while I hold Sin City as a benchmark, you don't have to adapt it all 100% the same. There are usually 3-4 critical scenes or parts of a book that if you nail those right, it doesn't matter if it's not totally faithful. Shawshank nailed the rooftop scene, they nailed the escape, nailed the sisters, and especially nailed "Brooks was here".

    Walking Dead didn't nail most key scenes, most especially the final scenes of Shane. Nail the spirit, the the few critical scenes, and that's more than 90% of adaptations.

  • sam_sticklandsam_stickland

    Part of what makes a good adaptation is how close they stay to the original source material.

    I'm not sure I agree. I remember reading an interview of an author who's work had been adapted into a film (alas, I've forgotten the name of the film and the author). The interviewer asked him if he was disappointed that the film was so different from the book. And he said he no, on the contrary he'd been very closely consulted and most of the changes were his ideas. Why? Because he felt that the original story was great for a novel, but not the best for a film. In his view both the book and the film should make the best use of their mediums and be good pieces of art in their own right, and he didn't want to make a mediocre film just for the sake of sticking to the source material.

    He said, and I'm paraphrasing "If you liked the book, read the book. It's still there." :)

Add a Comment