Most accurate book to movie adaptation

Chris_Sanders

Arizona Sports Simp
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
41,161
Reaction score
33,673
Location
Scottsdale, Az
I don't think I have ever seen a movie follow the book as closly as the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

LOL as a fan of the books I can't tell you how wrong this is, ESPECIALLY the Two Towers. I read the books shortly before seeing the movies and there is a ton of stuff missing. Entire characters written out or portrayed poorly.

Doesn't bother me though. I know a book is not a movie.
 

KloD

ASFN Icon
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Posts
10,374
Reaction score
1
Location
Portland, OR
Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption was right with the story, except for the title of course.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
40,686
Reaction score
25,519
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Fellowship had huge gaps missing and was completely hated on by the fanboys.

About the only glaring hole is Tom Bombadil, my favorite part of the book, but he was not central to the story. I know fanboys, and the smart ones agree that it was an incredible adaptation, knowing you cannot have everything when you adapt a book into a movie.

What do you think was so glaringly wrong with it?
 

Gaddabout

Plucky Comic Relief
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Posts
16,043
Reaction score
11
Location
Gilbert
LOL as a fan of the books I can't tell you how wrong this is, ESPECIALLY the Two Towers. I read the books shortly before seeing the movies and there is a ton of stuff missing. Entire characters written out or portrayed poorly.

Doesn't bother me though. I know a book is not a movie.

To capture the depth of those books as thoroughly as the fanboys wanted it, it would take so much film that you could probably wrap every inch of the New Zealand coastline with it. Each movie would be 5 hours and have three intermissions. A director's cut on DVD would be 10 discs. The costs would be U.S. military-like.

But the production team was tasked with capturing the essence of those books in a playing time that would not lose the masses (i.e. somewhere short of 3 hours). I think they did an outstanding job riding the line, and actually reintroduced the books to popular culture. I had so many friends reading the books for the first time, it was almost irritating. It was like being back in 8th grade AP English all over again. Everyone was a LOTR geek!

I thought the movie did an excellent job of driving home Tolkien's primary point: men aren't inherently corruptible, they are already corrupt, and wise men run from temptation rather than believing they are bullet proof.

If anyone is every curious how deep Tolkien ran, his sheer theological depth is best captured in this book.
 

Chris_Sanders

Arizona Sports Simp
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
41,161
Reaction score
33,673
Location
Scottsdale, Az
About the only glaring hole is Tom Bombadil, my favorite part of the book, but he was not central to the story. I know fanboys, and the smart ones agree that it was an incredible adaptation, knowing you cannot have everything when you adapt a book into a movie.

What do you think was so glaringly wrong with it?

I was specifically speaking of Tom :)

Nearly everyone who read the books loves that character. Sad to see not even a cameo of him but what can you do.
 

jw7

Woof!
LEGACY MEMBER
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2002
Posts
8,194
Reaction score
7
Location
Ahwatukee
Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption was right with the story, except for the title of course.

That was the first that came to my mind as well.

Granted, it is much easier to stay true to a story when you are adopting from a novella instead of a full blown novel. But Shawshank seemed perfect and did not leave anything out that I can remember.
 

ArizonaSportsFan

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 15, 2006
Posts
2,260
Reaction score
289
The Abyss. Although technically it would be the other way around - the book following the film.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
46,647
Reaction score
17,298
Location
Round Rock, TX
That was the first that came to my mind as well.

Granted, it is much easier to stay true to a story when you are adopting from a novella instead of a full blown novel. But Shawshank seemed perfect and did not leave anything out that I can remember.

Except the fact that Red's character was Irish in the story, not African-American.

Actually, The Green Mile's main story was extremely faithful to the serial novel. It's the present-day story that is a lot different (with a Percy-like orderly in the old folks home).
 

Matt L

formerly known as mattyboy
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
4,380
Reaction score
589
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
To Kill A Mockingbird was an excellent adaptation and remains perhaps the most important movie of the 20th Century because of it. IMO, of course.

That is such a great point. The movie is really close to the book and I absolutely could not imagine another actor playing Atticus Finch. Even when I have seen movies with Gregory Peck I always think to myself, "Stand up, your father is passing."

(that is a line from the movie)
 
Top