Film Adaptations Part 2: Books

This is part 2 of our film adaptations discussion. Here are parts of our chat when we discuss a smidge about film adaptations of books. You’ll notice that we’re both HP fans in the discussion and if you’re not, what is wrong with you?! What's your favorite film adapted from a book?

ped: There are so many good and bad examples of film adaptations of books. Da Vinci Code bombed I thought.
andrew: Yes true, though to be fair I didn't think all that much about the book either. It was an interesting story but not a particularly well-written novel. Some adaptations are done of things that could just be popular, not necessarily good.
ped: Yeah, I'm not a fan of Dan Brown either. Totally over-rated.
andrew: As far as adaptations go, books have been a little more successful. Many of the award winning films at the Oscars and the like are based on novels or other sources. Most recently: no country for old men, atonement, there will be blood (sort of). The success of these may partly be due that there are far fewer people who have read that book who see the movie. There are mountains of movies that have been made that I didn't even know were books.
ped: True, many times it's the films that turn people onto the books in the first place.
andrew: The filmmakers in those cases don't feel as strong an obligation to make the movie exactly like the book.
ped: The more popular the book the greater the expectations though.
andrew: Right
ped: High expectations often can lead to disappointment
andrew: Absolutely, that's why the Harry Potter books are always high stress and why there are actually many huge book fans who like the 1st two movies best.
ped: They were the most true to the books.
andrew: Because they're the most slavishly accurate to the books
ped: But they also had the least to work with.
andrew: True, the books have gotten better along the way. But as movies, I think the last few have been infinitely stronger.
ped: Personally I liked the third film the best because the director was the most creative with it.
andrew: Right, me too
ped: Made it more magical
andrew: He had his vision and it translated well, where the first two kind of feel like staged readings of the books.
ped: I think the number one thing you can do to ruin a book adaptation is to change the ending. They do this whenever the books are really old. They try to modernize the plot and usually fail. The best adaptations do seem to be when no one has read the books. For me it's best when the film adds more to the book.
andrew: Well, if that's the reason they do it, then yeah I agree. As long as the film stand on it's own and doesn't feel like some re-tread, that's where it comes off well
ped: I think when the writer of the book pens the screenplay it's always a success. The vision is maintained.
andrew: I think the same rules apply to the books as they do to plays. First priority should be to make the movie good, on it's own whether or not that means changing a few things and being faithful to the source is second. Kind of like historical dramas: as long as it isn't grossly inaccurate and stays true to the spirit of the story, that's ok with me. A few details here and there are no big deal.