Sorry if this gets posted twice, blame my browser.

Anyway, I just wanted to take a moment before responding to the thread to say hello, "Hello", I have been lurking for awhile and thought this would be a good thread to reply to.

1. The Stand, it had some moments but overall it failed to capture the depth of the novel.

2. The Princess Bride, both film and book were a fun innocent romp through a gentler fantasy world.

3. The Warriors, though cheesy it didn't have any of the pretensions nor duller moments of Yurick's novel. I cannot compare to the Anabosis having not read it.

Sorry if this gets posted twice, blame my browser.

2. The Princess Bride, both film and book were a fun innocent romp through a gentler fantasy world.

"The Princess Bride is kind of a special case. First is, Rob Reiner had actually read the book -- an extreme rarity, as far as I can tell. Second, the same guy, William Goldman, wrote the script and he had written the novel, and in fact was better known for his scripts than his novels ("Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", anyone?), plus he was given some input into the casting.

The intro to the 25th anniversary edition of the novel has some good stuff about the origin of the movie.

Sorry if this gets posted twice, blame my browser.

Anyway, I just wanted to take a moment before responding to the thread to say hello, "Hello", I have been lurking for awhile and thought this would be a good thread to reply to.

1. The Stand, it had some moments but overall it failed to capture the depth of the novel.

2. The Princess Bride, both film and book were a fun innocent romp through a gentler fantasy world.

3. The Warriors, though cheesy it didn't have any of the pretensions nor duller moments of Yurick's novel. I cannot compare to the Anabosis having not read it.

Welcome aboard!

Can't disagree with any of those choices - especially #3.

Okay, here's how it's played:

1) Name 1 film adaptation which is worse than the source material (novel, play, graphic novel, video game, tv series - remakes of other movies don't count).

2) Name 1 film adaptation that is as good as the source material - i.e., both the source and film are great in their own right.

3) Name 1 film adaptation that is actually superior to the source material.

You can't name a film that has already been named. Discussion is encouraged.

I'll start off:

1) The Keep (naturally).
2) A Clockwork Orange
3) The Parallax View - boring mish-mash of a novel, pretty interesting paranoid conspiracy film.

Pick up your #2 pencils and begin.

1. The Shining (Kubrick-Nicholson version). Things were added that did nothing to advance the story, things were removed or changed that were necessary to the story. Very badly done. This will always be at or near the top of my "terrible adaptations" list.

2. The Princess Bride. I see reasons given in previous posts so I'll leave it at that. Both film and book were equally enjoyable.

3. Children of Men. I saw this in the theater about a year ago and just watched it for the first time since on DVD last night. The film is so extremely well done that even a long time fan of the book (like me) is swept up in the drama and suspense and barely even notice the differences until after the end credits. The book and film are only somewhat similar and I think I do prefer the film when all is said and done.

1. The Shining (Kubrick-Nicholson version). Things were added that did nothing to advance the story, things were removed or changed that were necessary to the story. Very badly done. This will always be at or near the top of my "terrible adaptations" list.

2. The Princess Bride. I see reasons given in previous posts so I'll leave it at that. Both film and book were equally enjoyable.

3. Children of Men. I saw this in the theater about a year ago and just watched it for the first time since on DVD last night. The film is so extremely well done that even a long time fan of the book (like me) is swept up in the drama and suspense and barely even notice the differences until after the end credits. The book and film are only somewhat similar and I think I do prefer the film when all is said and done.

Ditto The Shining. I never understood why people raved over it, and I;m a huge Kubrick fan. Nicholson's over-the-top performance made him look like an obvious lunatic from the git-go; there was none of the feel of the protagonist's gradual personal deterioration that was such a strong element of the novel.

Children of Men - I also thought the film was excellent, I've been meaning to read the novel.

Welcome aboard!

Can't disagree with any of those choices - especially #3.

I am glad someone else agrees with my assessment of Warriors, after seeing the movie I had high hopes for the book, but like I said overall quite the disappointment, it didn't even have the famous line, sheesh!milewinkgrin:

As for the shining, I can only assume that those who like the Nicholson movie haven't read the book. I mean, as an original movie, not that bad, as an adaptation of the book, I believe it failed. As you said earlier Mick, there were many cool aspects to the story, but the one that resonates is the erosion of a good, albeit battered mans soul. On a side note, have you seen the made for tv version? Much better, one of the better Stephen King adaptations.