Litwit Lounge discussion

I know a few previous individual threads here have already touched on this topic, but I wonder if anyone would be interested in discussing other movies based on books, in general or specifically? What are your favourites? Which ones didn't work for you?

For instance:
I really enjoyed the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice (starring Keira Knightley, Matthew Macfadyen, Brenda Blethyn, Donald Sutherland and Judi Dench). I thought it was well cast and well acted, and that it was a good condensation of the story. I know many people prefer the BBC miniseries with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, but I found that much more difficult to get through. It's easier for me to read whiny or superficial characters (such as Mrs. Bennet and Caroline Bingley) than to have to listen to them. I also found Colin Firth's interpretation of Mr. Darcy's arrogance as more hateful than intriguing, although he does grow sweeter as the story goes on.

I don't like it when they rewrite the story for the movie. Gone With the Wind would have been 8 or more hours, but they could have gotten most of it right.
Like movies based on short stories or novellas so it all gets in there. Stand By Me is one of my favorites.

Merging/changing characters is a pet peeve of mine, too, in most cases. Although I didn't mind that it was Arwen who saved Frodo and fought off the Ringwraiths in Fellowship of the Ring, instead of Glorfindel.

I like the Harry Potter movies in general, but they leave out a lot. And the last one changed something toward the end in a really inexplicable way.

The Twilight movie, I thought, improved on the book by interweaving the menacing approach of James, Laurent, and Victoria. The movie Bella is at least aware that 'something wicked this way comes' (sorry, couldn't resist), instead of having it suddenly sprung it on her like Meyer did in the book.

Syra wrote: "I don't like it when they rewrite the story for the movie. Gone With the Wind would have been 8 or more hours, but they could have gotten most of it right.
Like movies based on short stories or n..."

I concure Syra. Stand By Me (The Body) and Shawshank Redemption both were great renditions, of the short stories by Stephen King.

The attempt to turn The Colorado Kid into a tv mini series seems a little trite, perhaps?

Callista, I am so angry about how the Vampire Diaries (The Awakening, The Struggle, The Fury, Dark Reunion) have been basterdized for television that I can't even enjoy the books anymore.

Some screen writers and directors do a wonderful job of improving upon a story, and do their best to ensure there are little, or at least minor deviations. It's so upsetting when the opposite happening.

I guess it's just a 'name brand recognition' thing, but I think it's so stupid to take the title of a work and say the TV show or movie is based on it, and then proceed to change everything! but the names. Why not just create your own story, with its own characters? With the current vampire frenzy, you can't tell me a network wouldn't have pounced drooling on a pitch like "it's like 90120 but with vampires!"

I basically agree with the opinion that, if you're going to adapt a fiction work for the screen, you should adapt it as faithfully as possible; you owe that to the author, as well as to the fans. Though I'll admit that I'm with Callista in not minding that Arwen got a chance to show her mettle in Peter Jackson's LOTR adaptation --which I consider an outstanding, and on the whole really faithful, achievement in bringing the series to life! The Harry Potter films (for the most part) and the Twilight movies that I've seen are, IMO, similarly excellent in this regard. (They labor under the disadvantage of trying to compress a lot of material into a roughly two-hour space, a problem overcome partially by making the adaptation of the final novels of the respective series into two-parters.) But on the whole, Hollywood writers/directors seem to think that a quest for accuracy is beneath them.

I'm one of those who think the BBC Firth-Ehle version of Pride and Prejudice is the gold standard for P&P adaptations, though I haven't seen the 2005 version. Another absolutely outstanding Austen adaptation is the one of Sense and Sensibility starring Emma Thompson (who also wrote the screenplay). And I think the 1994 film starring Winona Ryder and Susan Sarandon really brings Little Women to life in a masterful way.

I very much liked the Emma Thompson Sense and Sensibility and the Keira Knightley/Matthew McFadden Pride and Prejudice, but I'm in the minority for not being in love with the Firth/Ehle Pride and Prejudice.

I've never seen the Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice, though we have it here in the library where I work, and I liked her performance in the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie. Callista, just out of curiosity, what are your main criticisms of the Firth/Ehle version? (It's been about ten years or so since I saw it.)

Werner, I think you should try the Knightley P&P, especially if you liked her in PoC. As for the Firth/Ehle, I normally like Colin Firth, but I thought his initial depiction of Darcy made the character come off as simply hateful. When they first meet, for example, he looks to me as if he wishes she would die. He does thaw out nicely as things go on, though. I find Mrs. Bennet and Caroline Bingley immensely annoying to listen to/watch. They weren't as bad on the page.

Thanks, Callista. I'll try to work in the Knightley version sometime; it should be fun to compare the two, and compare it with the book.

It's often the case that, in a dramatic adaptation, where you can actually see and hear the characters, their impact (positive or negative) is heightened. The miniseries version DOES bring Mrs. Bennett to very annoying life, and Caroline is worse than annoying. (I greatly wished that somebody'd haul off and slap her. :-) )

I haven't seen many live theatrical performances. But the Bluefield College theater department put on a good adaptation of A Christmas Carol several years ago, which I did see; it was also quite faithful to the original.

In the early 70s, I attended a community theater stage production of Dracula in my home town, which was a fairly free adaptation of the novel, but preserved the essential premise and characterizations, and which I enjoyed quite a bit. (At that time, I hadn't read the book.) And when I was in college, I enjoyed a college adaptation of Henry James' Washington Square for the stage. I don't know how faithful it was, but I'd say it had the sort of ironic plot that James often went in for.

I've several 4-5 performances of A Christmas Carol through the years and enjoyed them all with only one exception. That was the adaption I went to last month. Some of the problem was technical, as it was difficult to hear especially one particular actor whose voice sounded garbled to me. They added some modern influences (in the form of humor, some slightly ribald) that made me laugh but overall didn't enhance the story. The part I enjoyed the most was upon leaving the theatre from the upper story, I noticed snow had begun falling. How timely and magical for us Arizonans, the cast caroling as we emerged from the theatre. While walking away, I noticed this magical feat was accomplished with the help of snow machines atop the theatre. ;-) LOL, I confess the efforts were much-appreciated by the quaint, childlike notions that reside within me!

Everyone in my book club agree that the movie, "Brooklyn" was far better than the book.

Beowulf as a rock music show? That sounds fun!

I generally prefer the book to the movie. There are some exceptions, where I've liked the movie as much as the book, although often for different reasons. I don't think I've ever preferred the movie to the book.

"The Martian" was one instance where I enjoyed the book and the movie equally well. The book was so detailed and did a thorough job of immersing the reader in the events and the atmosphere. However, I also feel that Matt Damon was incredible in the adaptation, and really carried the movie, with an understated intensity that permeated every scene.

I'm really looking forward to the latest "Jungle Book," movie adaptation, and plan to watch it on DVD next weekend. I have one friend who also still enjoys, as an adult, some children's movies. Anyone else out there?

I also thought The Martian was extremely well done. I didn't really like "The Girl on the Train," as it was too grim at times but the fact that the movie will take place in NY rather than England turns me off completely. Do any of you have an opinion on this?

Christine wrote: "I have one friend who also still enjoys, as an adult, some children's movies. Anyone else out there?

Christine, my wife and I both can enjoy some children's movies, as well as books. And I have other adult Goodreads friends who feel the same way. People's tastes in both books and movies, if they enjoy both, are usually similar, since the two art forms have a lot in common. That's why C. S. Lewis' comments below about books apply to movies as well. He didn't think that children's and adults' tastes were really two utterly different species:

"...the peculiarity of child readers is that they are not peculiar.... Of course their limited vocabulary and general ignorance make some books unintelligible to them. But apart from that, juvenile taste is simply human taste.... When the literary Establishment --the approved canon of taste-- is so extremely jejune and narrow as it is today, much has to be addressed in the first instance to children if it is to get printed at all.... The right sort [of children's authors] work from the common, universally human ground they share with the children, and indeed with countless adults." --"On Juvenile Tastes"

"I was therefore writing 'for children' only in the sense that I excluded what I thought they would not like or understand; not in the sense of writing what I believed to be below adult attention.... I never wrote down to anyone; and... it certainly is my opinion that a book worth reading only in childhood is not worth reading even then." --"Sometimes Fairy Stories May Say Best What's To Be Said."

Nina wrote: "...the fact that the movie will take place in NY rather than England turns me off completely. Do any of you have an opinion on this?"

Nina, speaking in terms of movie adaptations in general, I personally think that if filmmakers profess to be "adapting" a particular novel for the screen, they should follow it as closely as is reasonably possible. And that certainly includes not totally changing the setting!

"The Secret Garden" was always a favorite even as an adult.

I really liked both The Martian book and book. The movie was really well-done.
I, too, enjoy what some people call children's movies. A lot of them are animated. I think it's better to call them "animated movies" than "children's" or even "family movies". There are plenty of things that can be enjoyed by all--or many--ages.
When I think of "children's" stuff, I think of things that are so narrowly focused for a young audience that they bore or irritate anyone over the age of 12 to tears.
BTW--Neil Gaiman has some really interesting thoughts about categorising works by age.

That's a very interesting setting for the story of that play! I am quite fond of AMND.
I own the movie version that has Michelle Pfeiffer and Kevin Kline in it.

That's unusual. I seem to remember reading the book and then seeing the movie and thought the book better but perhaps the play was indeed better

Definitely sounds fun... I never tire of P & P adaptations which makes it a true classic. ;-)

Should one read Ulysses first? to understand/appreciate it fully?

Ulyesses was required reading in Greek at his high school.

At my husband's school, Marquette in Milwaukee WI

When I was in (I think) 9th grade --or maybe younger-- we were required to read two or three excerpts from The Odyssey, in English translation, but that's all of it that I've ever read. I did read a dumbed-down and bowdlerized kid's version of it, in prose, when I was younger than that; and of course I know a fair amount of the story from other secondary sources. But all that I really remember from my school readings were the poet's (or the translator's) several references to "the wine-dark sea." That phrase was unusual enough to stick with me. :-)

My education seems to be lacking. I had actually hoped to read these classical works with my kids, but that didn't quite happen either, well, one of these days... ;-)

My grandchildren who lived in France where three were born often watched Shakespeare plays on TV when they were ages, ten, nne and six.

Nina wrote: "My grandchildren who lived in France where three were born often watched Shakespeare plays on TV when they were ages, ten, nne and six."

It's good that they started out with the Bard early, Nina! I never saw a Shakespeare play performed until I was in college; but when I was a kid we had a two-volume collection of the plays in the house, and I read a few of them over the years.

A few years ago when we lived in a condo across from a city park his plays were performed nightly for a month in the summer. We could even hear part of them from our balcony. It was a fun time.

Nina wrote: "A few years ago when we lived in a condo across from a city park his plays were performed nightly for a month in the summer. We could even hear part of them from our balcony. It was a fun time."

Cool!

We read Macbeth for British Literature class in my senior year of high school; but in our small city, we didn't have any possibility of seeing performances of Shakespeare. Trinity Rep Theatre's program sounds wonderful!

Sounds good.

Might be fun for the kids.

When I was in high school we went to England and saw Shakespeare performed by the Royal Shakespearean Company. It was wonderful. We even went to a pub across the street and a bunch of the actors came there and talked to us.

I went to that pub in Stratford. It was named The Black Swan, but everyone called it The Dirty Duck.

lol @ the Dirty Duck

Peggy, what wonderful experience indeed! And especially more so that you were at such an impressionable age. :-)

Donnally wrote: "I went to that pub in Stratford. It was named The Black Swan, but everyone called it The Dirty Duck."

That's the one! Lol

Reggia wrote: "lol @ the Dirty Duck

Peggy, what wonderful experience indeed! And especially more so that you were at such an impressionable age. :-)"

It was great. It helped that my dad was stationed in Germany. It made travel a lot easier and cheaper. We traveled around Germany (lots of interesting castles and some great food). I also went to France and Spain. I didn't see much in Spain though. It was a youth group trip to Mallorca and we spent most of the time on the beach.

I really like the 1995 film of Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen: the one which Emma Thompson rewrote, and starred in as Elinor Dashwood. I say "rewrote" because she took a lot of liberties, and added quite a lot which wasn't Jane Austen. However, it was very respectfully done, and a very entertaining film I've watched several times. I think Werner may have written about it in the films thread too :)

Now I'm watching a slightly later dramatisation, a BBC miniseries from 2008 in 3 parts. LINK HERE. It too is excellent - and more faithful to the book! I'd happily recommend either of these. The acting in both is superb, and sets and production values likewise. A pleasure to watch, plus the miniseries is more thorough than the film, as it is far longer :)

Jean wrote: "I think Werner may have written about it in the films thread too :) "

I checked just now, and surprisingly, I've never mentioned the Emma Thompson production there; I'd already watched it years before joining this group, so it wasn't part of my current viewing by the time I was commenting there. But I did mention it on this thread, in message 7; and like you, Jean, I really like it!

I hadn't heard about the new BBC miniseries. Thanks for the heads-up; I'll have to keep an eye out for that one.

Ah that will be where I saw it! Thanks, Werner.

Another comparison of Jane Austen adaptations which springs to mind is the 2005 film of Pride and Prejudice. In this case, I don't think it is a patch on the BBC miniseries from 1995.

Yes, that 1995 BBC miniseries is the gold standard for Austen adaptations!

Bionic Jean wrote: "I don't think it is a patch on the BBC miniseries."

I'm not sure what this means "a patch".

Reggia, what I understand the idiom "(X) isn't a patch on (Z)" to mean is, basically, "X compares unfavorably with Z." (Or, at least, doesn't compare favorably.) It's not exclusively British English; I recall it being used in the John Wayne movie The Sons of Katie Elder, which is set in late 19th-century Texas. (It may have fallen out of use in more contemporary American English, though.)

Jean can no doubt explain it better than I can. But since she probably hasn't seen the question yet because of the time difference between the two countries, I thought I'd share this in the meantime!

I'm reading Middlemarch, and simultaneously following the 1994 BBC miniseries. I think it is very well done and is a good (albeit necessarily abbreviated) reflection of the novel.

Thanks Werner! That's absolutely spot on (another idiom ... ;))

I've been trying to find the derivation of "not a patch on", Reggia, but all I can discover is that it was first used in 1860 - and I do not know where it was recorded :( Sorry - I never realised it is primarily used in England!

Donnally - I very much like that miniseries too - and think Werner has only recently watched it - so may have some better comments :)

Jean wrote: "Donnally - I very much like that miniseries too - and think Werner has only recently watched it - so may have some better comments :) "

I did watch it at the end of August (the imdb link is here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108858/ ). But since my reading of the book was back in the late 90s, Donnally's much better equipped to evaluate its fidelity to the book than I am. (It did inspire me to want to reread the book, though, and I hope to do that next year!) Considered just in its own right, though, it's an outstanding production in every respect --story, performances and cinematography.