Having just watched the truly awful 'love in the time of cholera' I wondered whether a film can ever top the original book.

I guess some books are more suited to adapting than others

Off the top of my head, wasn't the godfather originally a novel?

It was yes,i think The Green Mile was a pretty good adaptation.

I preferred the film 'Field of Dreams' to the book it was based ion 'Shoeless Joe'.

Some books are just difficult to adapt and shouldn't be attempted. :)

Something like 'The Godfather' and other big 'blockbuster' type novels have their own issues with adaptation - primarily editing - but because it's usually a linear narrative structure you can usually make a decent job.

Any crap book is better as a film, simply because it takes up less time to find out that the story is ********.

I must admit I preferred the film of fight club to the book - heathen that I am!

don't know about a film, but I always preferred the televised Morse to the books, could never get away with Colin Dexter's writing style

I must admit I preferred the film of fight club to the book - heathen that I am!

I don't know if I preferred it, but this was one film that I was going to say is pretty damn good adaptation.

Another good one is American Psycho. The book is genuinely too much for some people - the graphic violence just ruins it - but I thought the film conveyed the madness without the gore really well. Female director, too :)

Other good ones - Gone with the Wind, Brokeback Mountain...

I don't think the film ever improves the book, though.

I know many will disagree, but I think the Shawshank Redemption was a far better film than a short story (and I'm saying that as a big SK fan)

I must admit I preferred the film of fight club to the book - heathen that I am!

Not a heathen- you, Sir, are absolutely correct. Brilliant book though it is, the film is so much better. It's just all of the little visual touches that make it for me.

Although i like Phillip K Dick, I love the remakes usually of his short stories. Blade Runner obviously , Total Recall, Minority Report although the Paycheck with Ben Affleck was a bit bobbins.

I prefer Trainspotting the film to Trainspotting the book and I thought they did a good job on About a boy and Fever Pitch but i still prefer the written version of High Fidelity. Can't believe noone has taken the option to make Tony Parsons books- they'd make brilliant films.

I must admit I preferred the film of fight club to the book - heathen that I am!

Don't worry. Even Chuck Palahniuk has commented that the ending of the film was better than he came up with in the book, so I guess it somewhat improved on an already great novel.

Thought of another few and a Director who is pretty good at adapting is Alexander Payne who did;

Election, About Schmidt and Sideways

Think as someone pointed out earlier, badly written book with half decent story can often make very good film

The Ten Commandments - man, that book is so badly written with terrible narrative structure. But what an amazingly powerful film! :)

Not a heathen- you, Sir, are absolutely correct. Brilliant book though it is, the film is so much better. It's just all of the little visual touches that make it for me.

I feel vindicated in my taste now - and shall follow up with I preferred the film version of V for vendetta to the original comics. I would say I preferred Bladerunner to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep but they were barely the same story so I'm not sure they count!

I give you the king of crap books and mediocre (to be fair; Jurassic Park was good) film adaptations:

Michael Crichton: The Andromeda Strain
Michael Crichton: Sphere
Michael Crichton: Jurassic Park
Michael Crichton: Rising Sun
Michael Crichton: The Lost World
...

Um, nearly all Stephen King novels have been turned into better films (The Shining, Misery, Green Mile, Carrie, etc) or mini-series (It). The exception being The Stand which has never had the movie/series it deserves (the Gary Senise/Molly Ringwald one was pretty bad).

Edit: Oh and add John Grisham as well.

and shall follow up with I preferred the film version of V for vendetta to the original comics.

Right, get the hell away from me right now!

I will admit that it is the best film adaptation of any of Moore's work, but it is still far, far short of the original.

And a Watchmen film is in the works too now. I'm not holding my breath about it, especially as it's being directed by Zack "300" Snyder.

Right, get the hell away from me right now!

I will admit that it is the best film adaptation of any of Moore's work, but it is still far, far short of the original.

And a Watchmen film is in the works too now. I'm not holding my breath about it, especially as it's being directed by Zack "300" Snyder.

I was distinctly unimpressed by the comics I'm afraid. Though I have to admit that comics have been a goldmine of really bad film adaptions - witness DareDevil and Sin City for a start!

I'd still prefer a film based on a comic book than a film based on a video game though.

I was really impressed by the film Stardust, being quite fond of the book (and a few other Neil Gaiman stories) i was pleasantly surprised that the film did slightly improve on some of the ideas from the book

I haven't read Stardust in a long time, but went to see the film with someone who just finished reading it for the first time the night before.

I loved it, she hated it. Go figure.

i understand that. When i first read the book i found it to be a really moving and magical read, to watch the film straight away probably would compromise the images that you build in your mind

I think it depends entirely on your own perspective.
Some people just aren't readers and for these people then the film is most definitely better. Readers like myself are often let down by films as they can't possibly have the same interpretations of the story that you have. A small scene in the book that you really enjoy can be glossed over in a film as it's not integral to the plot and there just isn't time to include everything.
In some cases I've found myself thinking that I'm glad the author is dead so they don't have to see what a hash has been made of their story, in the cases of Dracula and Frankenstien for example. I really don't know how the film makers had the nerve to include the authors names in the title of the films.

Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is vastly superior to Stephen Kings' book or film.

As a general rule books are always better than their films - however - i hated the book Bridget Jones but really liked the film.

In the book Bridget anoyed the hell out of me, she's so nurotic but the film made me laugh.

Indeed, IMO there has never, to date, been an accurate movie translation of HG Wells' War of the Worlds apart from the DVD of the jeff Wayne musical.

The 1953 version had almost no connection to the book apart from the end where the Martians died of exposure to Bacteria in Earth's atmosphere, and the 2005 Tom Cruise remake had even less connection to the book apart from the "Thunder Child"-esque scene.

I can't remember a film improving on a book.

What annoys me though is when film makers change aspects of the book or leave bits out.

If you don't like the book, don't make a film of it.

A TV movie of the Stephen King book Salem's Lot from the late 1970's starring David Soul was pretty good, but the recent remake TV movie was pretty rubbish.

The Godfather is the classic answer to this conundrum.

The author Mario Puzo is not what you would call a great writer. Most of his books are very similar. And he wastes a lot of time on pointless discriptions of Minor players in enormous extended sicilian families. Rather than moving the plot along.

When he is forced to compress all this into a screenplay so it fits into a 2 hour film you get a much better progression through the story. When the director, Francis Ford Coppola improved the Godfather films of these books, the whole project becomes a work of great value and a cinematic classic with the excellent acting and wonderful soundtracks.

I can't remember a film improving on a book.

What annoys me though is when film makers change aspects of the book or leave bits out.

If you don't like the book, don't make a film of it.

You are missing the fact that most decent novels are about 400 pages, while most great movies are about 2 hours.

If you were to convert 400 pages faithfully into a movie it would last about 6 or 8 hours, that is far too long to be sucessful as people would just get bored of it.

That's why a movie has to miss lots of parts out of the original book.

You are missing the fact that most decent novels are about 400 pages, while most great movies are about 2 hours.

If you were to convert 400 pages faithfully into a movie it would last about 6 or 8 hours, that is far too long to be sucessful as people would just get bored of it.

That's why a movie has to miss lots of parts out of the original book.

Also in a book we can get inside people's heads and see their thoughts and feelings. We'd need constant narrators to be able to do that on films so we have to rely on people's expressions. What can take a page in a book can be conveyed in an instant but if you blink you miss it.

I haven't read Stardust in a long time, but went to see the film with someone who just finished reading it for the first time the night before.

I loved it, she hated it. Go figure.

Not uncommon - I read and re-read lord of the rings when I was younger and was distinctly unimpressed with the movies whereas most people I spoke to who hadn't read the book loved the film!

Angela's Ashes was a better film, than book. Why? Because the I thought the book was full of self-pity, and blame. The film, let you decide your emotional reaction for yourself. (I found).

I know many will disagree, but I think the Shawshank Redemption was a far better film than a short story (and I'm saying that as a big SK fan)i'm inclined to agree

After reading another thread, the only film I can think of that improves on the book is Willy Wonker and the Choclate Factory.

After reading another thread, the only film I can think of that improves on the book is Willy Wonker and the Choclate Factory.

Tis the only post on this thread which I can honestly relate to. The others mentioned, I can't because, at best, I've only seen the film. Apart from Bridget Jones, which doesn't count...because that was accidental.

As was Da Vinci Code. :|

I agree with you on Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and I think you really like this film. :)

Agree with angela's ashes.

Couple of controversial ones - trainspotting and clockwork orange, two truley original author's, language often confusing. The films were more focused and realised the ideas better