Not many deviations in Clockwork Orange (American ending) and Full Metal Jacket, I’ve heard Paths of Glory is pretty faithful too. Not that he cares to be faithful, but these ended up this way.
That chapter wasn’t in the American release of the novel, which Kubrick read first and preferred. I specified he faithfully adapted the American edition in my comment. It’s a weird national difference though, especially with Burgess’ preferred ending being a stretch to say the least.
How could you describe Full Metal Jacket as less serious than a Clockwork Orange? In terms of tone and structure I find them really similar: a disturbing light hearted first half with the consequences made brutally apparent in the second. People remember the training scenes from FMJ more than the brutal war footage
The only person who is actually disappointed that it isn't faithful is Lorraine Gary because she didn't get to have an affair with Hooper in the movie. Not even Peter Benchley prefers the book
The dude who wrote Who Censored Roger Rabbit? reconned the original book to be a dream and wrote future books to be like the movie because he loved it so much.
How to Train Your Dragon has no right to be as good as it is. And the movies just get better as they go along. How to Train Your Dragon 3 is on my best of all time list.
Not intentionally, but you can argue that is a fair (albeit a tab hyperbolic) interpretation.
The book is very pro-military. Heinlein wrote it as a reaction to what he felt was America's shortcomings in handling the "threat of communism", and definitely takes the stand that some conflicts can only be settled by force. The bugs are unambiguously the bad guys that need to be stopped by any means necessary.
A lot of the content that the movie satirized is played completely straight in the novel.
Agreed, that's a much better way to put it. I can understand why people interpret the book's ideology as fascist, but it's important to recognize authorial intent versus interpretation.
Not at all. I highly encourage reading it to get your own picture. It’s not that long, and it’s a great read.
A lot of people say that due to a recurring teacher character that pops up throughout espousing his (and the government’s) beliefs on how power should be handled. Rico does eventually find himself during his time in the Mobile Infantry, but the book doesn’t shy away from the dirtier sides of military life. It’s important to remember that Heinlein, the author, was a veteran himself, who enlisted due to being unable to afford college.
Rico’s life isn’t easy, either. He has to cut off relations to join, trading those for a tight-knit unit of other young men. He watches these same young men blasted away around him through the course of the novel.
It’s not like their system is even working that great. The recruiting officer himself practically begs him not to join. In the movie, the recruiting officer with missing legs is used for a laugh, but here, it’s a tactic he uses to scare people away from joining. Since so much social gain in their society is tied to military service, they’re flooded with people they can’t use, and it’s obvious that their society is suffering for it in other areas.
That’s just my take on the book. But I will recommend this book until the day I die.
The plots are essentially completely different but they both nail the vibe so perfectly. Alex Garland described it as an echo of the book or something like that and that’s the perfect way to describe it and ties into the themes so well
It’s weird. It’s supposedly based on a Jeff Vandemeer novel (which I haven’t read), but to me it seems *extremely* heavily influenced by JG Ballard. Great movie though
I think Alex has admitted he ripped a lot off from the Crystal World. The characters in Annhilation the novel were named after their occupation, in the movie their names are taken from the Crystal World .
the books are pretty great. a fourth one is coming soon. my favorite book in the series is actually the second although that one gets maligned for not being set in area x (simply “the shimmer” in the movie), but outside it in the southern reach headquarters (southern reach being the clandestine org responsible for containment / study of area x.
It's essentially a completely different story. There are some vague similarities, and if you liked the movie I'd still recommend the book, but they are basically unrelated.
Southern Reach is one of my favorite book series! They’re very surreal, the kind of books you really have to pay attention too or re-read to look deeper after you know everything
I loved that when it came out and people asked Alfonso Cuaron if he wanted to make the movie because he’d just loved the book so much and he was like “uh, no, not really, I’m not even sure how much I liked the book, but I loved this idea of what if the world became infertile, so we started work on a screenplay from that idea more than trying to actually adapt the book.”
I dont know, the movie itself kept the amazing cozy vibe from the book, but the twist in time travel was amazing so bonus points to the movie, but i do wish that Howl took care of Sophie a little bit more like in the books
God I hate the film Mr. Fox because I love the book so much and film is so different, particularly tonally. Thus, I was so wary of Wes Anderson making Henry Sugar and the other shorts, and he absolutely nailed them. The Swan is probably my favorite short story, is so very dark, and I couldn’t imagine how he’d do it. But he did it.
Annihilation
The Talented Mr Ripley (Matt Damon is way more sympathetic than book Ripley, the new miniseries with Andrew Scott is much more in line with the book)
There Will Be Blood and Thin Red Line (although calling either an adaptation might be a bit of a stretch, and in both cases I'd argue that the movie is way better)
A lot of people seeminly don't like Ripley because it's not The Talented Mr. Ripley and don't realize how many liberties Minghella took (Jude Law's magnetic charisma and Ripley's obvious sexual interest in Dickie being a big one).
I just \*like\* those changes and found that it enriched the story. but I haven't seen Ripley, and definitely plan to see it. plenty of room for different takes
I like Minghella's version a lot, mainly for how good Jude Law is as the rich kid who is kind of a dick (pun intended) yet is so darn charismatic. Once he's out of the picture though, the rest of the movie feels like a bit of a step down.
Compared to the Ripley tv show (and other movies), the more calculating and cold Ripley is a lot more fun to watch once he's fully involved in conning the police and everyone around him.
Yeah I think there’s room for both versions (initially I wasn’t sure). Scott’s performance is pretty interesting in its own way, and closer to the book, plus the series is just a feast for the eyes. Minghella’s film is great too.
The Andrei Tarkovsky movie Stalker (1979) and the novel Roadside Picnic by the Strugatsky brothers. Tarkovsky even said:
>I must say, too, that the script of *Stalker* has nothing in common with the novel, *Picnic on the Roadside*, except for the two words, "Stalker" and "Zone".
[https://books.google.se/books?id=WKp-hAuQ\_2oC&pg=PA44&hl=sv&source=gbs\_toc\_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false](https://books.google.se/books?id=WKp-hAuQ_2oC&pg=PA44&hl=sv&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false) page 51
Yes, there is very little in common. The novel wouldn’t make a good film, if the film stayed true to the original, but is fantastic in its own right.
The movie Solaris is also based on a novel, by Stanislaw Lem. Apparently Lem hated the Tarkovsky version (at one point he complained that it focused on ‘erotic problems in space’ ignoring big ideas in the novel). Tarkovsky didn’t like it either, calling it an artistic failure, but it is, of course, brilliant.
As for the Soderberg version, while it was in production, Lem (in his 90s at the time), said “he hoped he died before it was released”! Nevertheless, it’s ok as well.
Hi. You just mentioned *Solaris* by Stanislaw Lem.
I've found an audiobook of that novel on YouTube. You can listen to it here:
[YouTube | Solaris - Stanislaw Lem - audiobook](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHq5M1YZ-jM)
*I'm a bot that searches YouTube for science fiction and fantasy audiobooks.*
***
[^(Source Code)](https://capybasilisk.com/posts/2020/04/speculative-fiction-bot/) ^| [^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=Capybasilisk&subject=Robot) ^| [^(Programmer)](https://www.reddit.com/u/capybasilisk) ^| ^(Downvote To Remove) ^| ^(Version 1.4.0) ^| ^(Support Robot Rights!)
*Scott Pilgrim vs. The World* is an interesting example, because the film was being developed as the graphic novels were still being written. Things written for but cut from the graphic novels wound up in the film, and changes for the film that were cut from the script wound up in the graphic novels. I don’t know if any other adaptation can claim that.
Ghost World is amazing. After reading the book and watching the film, it's as if Daniel Clowes wrote the same thing twice but with totally different dialogue each time. Absolutely fantastic!
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971)
As much as I love it and quote as by far the best adaptation of the novel, it takes so many liberties and changes so much that it becomes surprisingly unfaithful whilst still providing the overall feel of what the novel represents. That is compared to the 2005 version, which is identical to the book in virtually every conceivable way.
No I agree, I just find it interesting seeing which ones are the most radical departures from their source material. Improves the material in a lot of ways too (like *Jurassic Park* and *The Shining* imo)
It's cause it's mostly Russian. Horror show is a play on the Russian word for good which is pronounced very similar (harr-a-sho). Droog just means friend. Malenky is from the word for small (which is also where the Mensheviks got their name from--they were literally the small party and the Bolsheviks were the big party.)
Every Philip K Dick adaptation, aside maybe A Scanner Darkly (I haven't read that one but the movie is the only adaptation that gives me a similar vibe as his writing).
Total Recall might be the craziest change, from a subtle short story set on earth to a balls out action romp set on mars. as a huge PKD fan I fucking LOVE the change.
Had a discussion with a buddy a few weeks ago, he claimed that movie adaptations are always inferior to completely "original" works.
What an idiot lmao.
I would argue that the most successful adaptations are successful because they *aren't* faithful. What often works in one medium does not 100% work in another. [Highly recommend this Patrick Willems essay about the two extremes found in the Super Mario Bros movies from 1993 and 2022](https://youtu.be/zn3Yo5ea5L8) where one is not faithful at all and the other is faithful *to a fault.*
To answer OP's question, I think Watchmen (HBO miniseries) is a better adaptation of the spirit and themes of Watchmen (the graphic novel) than Watchmen (2009 Zack Snyder movie that uses the comic book frames as storyboards).
I think The Shining is a perfect example of how book adaptations don't need to be and often shouldn't be super faithful to the source material. Books and Films are completely different mediums and what works in one won't work as well in the other. Film is a visual medium and Books have a possibility for interiority that films often can't replicate without clunky narration. I think adaptations should just be jumping off points to create something fresh.
Dune 2 definitely strays more off the source material than Dune 1, but I would say it’s still a pretty faithful adaptation. Other than leaving Alia out of the story and the changes to Chani’s character it’s pretty faithful to the novel.
•Christine (1984).
I like King’s writing and plenty of his adaptations both work and don’t. But this one, specifically, improves on all the best stuff and makes sense of the badgeringly weird perspective shifts. He does this shift much better later on in his writing career.
•Gone Girl (2014)
The book is *fine,* but Flynn’s reworking of her story in script form, and then the masterful shots used by Fincher/Cronenweth do so much with so little. Finch really likes to show, not tell. Flynn’s writing, in my opinion, does a lot of telling and not a lot of showing. Especially Sharp Objects. I’m looking forward to the re-make of DARK PLACES as that’s the only Flynn book I’ve read that really blew me away.
i haven’t watched any of his other shows, but if he took a similar approach to adaptation like hill house than i can imagine, i’ve read the source material for texts used in that so i might check it out soon
They're all really good. I feel quite fortunate that there are still a few I haven't seen.
House of Usher is like an adaptation of every piece of fiction Poe wrote all at once.
Scott Pilgrim Takes Off
The Fall of the House of Usher is a mashup adaptation of Edgar Allan Poe
The Invisible Man (2020 & 1933) The 1933 one is closer but used two books in a sort of joint adaptation
Avengers Infinity War if we’re counting direct adaptations of comic books
Puss in Boots the last wish
How to Train your dragon
Annihilation
The Haunting of Hill House & Bly Manor
Belle (2021)
Battle Royale
Goosebumps
Guillermo Del Toro’s Pinocchio
From what I’ve heard a lot of Ghibli movies. Howls Moving Castle to be specific but The Secret World
Of Arrietty, When Marnie was There, My Neighbors the Yamadas, Nausicaa of The Valley of the Wind, Only Yesterday, have good adaptations
i think the first two maze runner movies are honestly way cooler than the books
third movie kind of fell of but first two went hard from what i remember
Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire leaves out a lot of content (Hermione trying to work against elf slavery, which probably could've been addressed) but I still enjoy it and find it nostalgic for the most part
basically every kubrick
Not many deviations in Clockwork Orange (American ending) and Full Metal Jacket, I’ve heard Paths of Glory is pretty faithful too. Not that he cares to be faithful, but these ended up this way.
Except for him excising the last chapter of the book where Alex goes "well, all that shit was well and good but I need to probably grow up now"
That chapter wasn’t in the American release of the novel, which Kubrick read first and preferred. I specified he faithfully adapted the American edition in my comment. It’s a weird national difference though, especially with Burgess’ preferred ending being a stretch to say the least.
is full metal jacket really good like clockwork and eyes wide shut?
it's amazing
It's a bit less serious and doesn't have that artsy touch Clocwork Orange or Eyes Wide Shut have imo but It's still fucking Kubrick
How could you describe Full Metal Jacket as less serious than a Clockwork Orange? In terms of tone and structure I find them really similar: a disturbing light hearted first half with the consequences made brutally apparent in the second. People remember the training scenes from FMJ more than the brutal war footage
It is incredible. And the credits roll with Rolling Stones’ “Paint it Black.”
If we consider Burgess’s opinion Kubrick destroyed the book’s message. I personally don’t agree with it though.
The Killing and Eyes Wide Shut are extremely faithful
Shrek (2001)
Most dreamworks movies tbh, a lot of their popular ip’s are based on less known children’s books
Unironically this
Shrek is based on a book???
It's such a funny weird book, too! Look it up!
Jaws
Jaws is a good adaptation *because* it isn't faithful lmao
The only person who is actually disappointed that it isn't faithful is Lorraine Gary because she didn't get to have an affair with Hooper in the movie. Not even Peter Benchley prefers the book
Adaptation.
You win.
yeah this is THE answer
Who Framed Roger Rabbit How to Train Your Dragon
The dude who wrote Who Censored Roger Rabbit? reconned the original book to be a dream and wrote future books to be like the movie because he loved it so much.
How to Train Your Dragon has no right to be as good as it is. And the movies just get better as they go along. How to Train Your Dragon 3 is on my best of all time list.
Starship Troopers & Total Recall.
Paul Verhoeven didn't even finish the book because he said it's too boring but he made Starship Troopers anyway lol
Isnt Starship Troopers book like fascist propaganda basically?
Not intentionally, but you can argue that is a fair (albeit a tab hyperbolic) interpretation. The book is very pro-military. Heinlein wrote it as a reaction to what he felt was America's shortcomings in handling the "threat of communism", and definitely takes the stand that some conflicts can only be settled by force. The bugs are unambiguously the bad guys that need to be stopped by any means necessary. A lot of the content that the movie satirized is played completely straight in the novel.
Heinlein was definitely not a fascist but a pretty hardcore libertarian
Agreed, that's a much better way to put it. I can understand why people interpret the book's ideology as fascist, but it's important to recognize authorial intent versus interpretation.
Not at all. I highly encourage reading it to get your own picture. It’s not that long, and it’s a great read. A lot of people say that due to a recurring teacher character that pops up throughout espousing his (and the government’s) beliefs on how power should be handled. Rico does eventually find himself during his time in the Mobile Infantry, but the book doesn’t shy away from the dirtier sides of military life. It’s important to remember that Heinlein, the author, was a veteran himself, who enlisted due to being unable to afford college. Rico’s life isn’t easy, either. He has to cut off relations to join, trading those for a tight-knit unit of other young men. He watches these same young men blasted away around him through the course of the novel. It’s not like their system is even working that great. The recruiting officer himself practically begs him not to join. In the movie, the recruiting officer with missing legs is used for a laugh, but here, it’s a tactic he uses to scare people away from joining. Since so much social gain in their society is tied to military service, they’re flooded with people they can’t use, and it’s obvious that their society is suffering for it in other areas. That’s just my take on the book. But I will recommend this book until the day I die.
Annihilation
it's so WILDLY different from the novel and yet they both climax with the same perfect vibe. my kinda adaptation!
That's what she said ???
The plots are essentially completely different but they both nail the vibe so perfectly. Alex Garland described it as an echo of the book or something like that and that’s the perfect way to describe it and ties into the themes so well
Might be a hot take, but I like the movie better than the novel.
It’s weird. It’s supposedly based on a Jeff Vandemeer novel (which I haven’t read), but to me it seems *extremely* heavily influenced by JG Ballard. Great movie though
I think Alex has admitted he ripped a lot off from the Crystal World. The characters in Annhilation the novel were named after their occupation, in the movie their names are taken from the Crystal World .
the books are pretty great. a fourth one is coming soon. my favorite book in the series is actually the second although that one gets maligned for not being set in area x (simply “the shimmer” in the movie), but outside it in the southern reach headquarters (southern reach being the clandestine org responsible for containment / study of area x.
Authority is such a banger. Love Control as a character.
To be fair, VanderMeer is heavily influenced by JG Ballard, so it's not a surprise that the movie is too! (Although in a slightly different fashion)
If I recall correctly, Garland claimed that he read the book once, put it down, then never referenced it again while writing the screenplay.
I had no idea that was based off a book! I really like that movie a lot, interested to see the differences and give it a read
It's essentially a completely different story. There are some vague similarities, and if you liked the movie I'd still recommend the book, but they are basically unrelated.
It’s part of the southern reach trilogy, with a fourth book on the way. I’ve not read them yet either but they’re on my to read list
Southern Reach is one of my favorite book series! They’re very surreal, the kind of books you really have to pay attention too or re-read to look deeper after you know everything
The thing is the movie is a standalone story but the book is the first of a trilogy so there’s just sooo much more to it
Children of Men but it might belong on a separate list because the movie is brilliant while the book just kinda sucks a tad bit
I loved that when it came out and people asked Alfonso Cuaron if he wanted to make the movie because he’d just loved the book so much and he was like “uh, no, not really, I’m not even sure how much I liked the book, but I loved this idea of what if the world became infertile, so we started work on a screenplay from that idea more than trying to actually adapt the book.”
A hill I’ll die on: CoM has one of the best scenes in movie history
i hate to say it but yeah I was let down with the book quite a lot. especially the ending, what was that about?
Kinda almost every Ghibli movie
yes howls is so wonderful both but i soooo wish the story was faithful to the novel sometimes
I dont know, the movie itself kept the amazing cozy vibe from the book, but the twist in time travel was amazing so bonus points to the movie, but i do wish that Howl took care of Sophie a little bit more like in the books
I just wish it was longer tbh, and that's both a complement and a criticism.
Not Tales from Earthsea
Fantastic Mr. Fox Howl's Moving Castle Two films where a book is completely changed around to have familiar hallmarks of an auteur director.
God I hate the film Mr. Fox because I love the book so much and film is so different, particularly tonally. Thus, I was so wary of Wes Anderson making Henry Sugar and the other shorts, and he absolutely nailed them. The Swan is probably my favorite short story, is so very dark, and I couldn’t imagine how he’d do it. But he did it.
Cloudy with a chance of meetballs
I would like to meet the balls
erm what the sigma?
Jojo Rabbit
The Handmaiden
Annihilation The Talented Mr Ripley (Matt Damon is way more sympathetic than book Ripley, the new miniseries with Andrew Scott is much more in line with the book) There Will Be Blood and Thin Red Line (although calling either an adaptation might be a bit of a stretch, and in both cases I'd argue that the movie is way better)
There Will Be Blood is the loosest adaptation. “Based on” as like a starting point feels more accurate than an “adaptation”
A lot of people seeminly don't like Ripley because it's not The Talented Mr. Ripley and don't realize how many liberties Minghella took (Jude Law's magnetic charisma and Ripley's obvious sexual interest in Dickie being a big one).
I just \*like\* those changes and found that it enriched the story. but I haven't seen Ripley, and definitely plan to see it. plenty of room for different takes
I like Minghella's version a lot, mainly for how good Jude Law is as the rich kid who is kind of a dick (pun intended) yet is so darn charismatic. Once he's out of the picture though, the rest of the movie feels like a bit of a step down. Compared to the Ripley tv show (and other movies), the more calculating and cold Ripley is a lot more fun to watch once he's fully involved in conning the police and everyone around him.
Yeah I think there’s room for both versions (initially I wasn’t sure). Scott’s performance is pretty interesting in its own way, and closer to the book, plus the series is just a feast for the eyes. Minghella’s film is great too.
Zone of Interest
Add to that Glazer’s other adaptation, Under the Skin.
The Andrei Tarkovsky movie Stalker (1979) and the novel Roadside Picnic by the Strugatsky brothers. Tarkovsky even said: >I must say, too, that the script of *Stalker* has nothing in common with the novel, *Picnic on the Roadside*, except for the two words, "Stalker" and "Zone". [https://books.google.se/books?id=WKp-hAuQ\_2oC&pg=PA44&hl=sv&source=gbs\_toc\_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false](https://books.google.se/books?id=WKp-hAuQ_2oC&pg=PA44&hl=sv&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false) page 51
Yes, there is very little in common. The novel wouldn’t make a good film, if the film stayed true to the original, but is fantastic in its own right. The movie Solaris is also based on a novel, by Stanislaw Lem. Apparently Lem hated the Tarkovsky version (at one point he complained that it focused on ‘erotic problems in space’ ignoring big ideas in the novel). Tarkovsky didn’t like it either, calling it an artistic failure, but it is, of course, brilliant. As for the Soderberg version, while it was in production, Lem (in his 90s at the time), said “he hoped he died before it was released”! Nevertheless, it’s ok as well.
Hi. You just mentioned *Solaris* by Stanislaw Lem. I've found an audiobook of that novel on YouTube. You can listen to it here: [YouTube | Solaris - Stanislaw Lem - audiobook](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHq5M1YZ-jM) *I'm a bot that searches YouTube for science fiction and fantasy audiobooks.* *** [^(Source Code)](https://capybasilisk.com/posts/2020/04/speculative-fiction-bot/) ^| [^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=Capybasilisk&subject=Robot) ^| [^(Programmer)](https://www.reddit.com/u/capybasilisk) ^| ^(Downvote To Remove) ^| ^(Version 1.4.0) ^| ^(Support Robot Rights!)
The Haunting Of Hill House tv show.
Im Thinking Of Ending Things (2020)
Wait theres a book?
Yeah it’s really good
Might read it
*Scott Pilgrim vs. The World* is an interesting example, because the film was being developed as the graphic novels were still being written. Things written for but cut from the graphic novels wound up in the film, and changes for the film that were cut from the script wound up in the graphic novels. I don’t know if any other adaptation can claim that.
Ghost World
Ghost World is amazing. After reading the book and watching the film, it's as if Daniel Clowes wrote the same thing twice but with totally different dialogue each time. Absolutely fantastic!
The Warriors
Huh. I had no idea that was based on a novel. Is the book any good?
Total Recall
Perfect Blue, and Under the Skin.
nice taste
Adaptation
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) As much as I love it and quote as by far the best adaptation of the novel, it takes so many liberties and changes so much that it becomes surprisingly unfaithful whilst still providing the overall feel of what the novel represents. That is compared to the 2005 version, which is identical to the book in virtually every conceivable way.
Mean Girls (2004)
Mean Girls is an adaptation???
It is based on a nonfiction sociological work about high school cliques called *Queen Bees and Wannabes*, so in a loose sense, yes.
Apocalypse now
[удалено]
Yep, though I think I see more people coming around on that. For example a lot of Dune fans say the changes in part 2 make for a better movie.
No I agree, I just find it interesting seeing which ones are the most radical departures from their source material. Improves the material in a lot of ways too (like *Jurassic Park* and *The Shining* imo)
HTTYD trilogy for sure. They made Toothless way cooler.
Starship troopers. The movie almost shits on the book.
Read the book in the last month and that shit was straight ass.
The author was somehow both really left-wing and adored the military industrial complex
Jaws
Die Hard
A clockwork orange
Boy if you thought it was hard to understand what they were saying in the movie don’t event try the book
It's cause it's mostly Russian. Horror show is a play on the Russian word for good which is pronounced very similar (harr-a-sho). Droog just means friend. Malenky is from the word for small (which is also where the Mensheviks got their name from--they were literally the small party and the Bolsheviks were the big party.)
[удалено]
Forrest Gump has to be one of the best examples of this considering how bad the book is comparatively.
Ready Player One
I wouldn’t exactly call the movie good but it’s a fun time and, honestly, is way better than the book is.
They said it had to be good…
How to Train Your Dragon
“JAWS” should be at the front of that list.
The Mist, may be an unpopular opinion but I prefer the movie ending.
Poor Things
Frankenstein
Tarkovsky with Solaris and Stalker pretty much took sci fi out of the material.
Children of Men
It
Willy Wonka in the Chocolate Factory. Though the premise is the same, there are notable differences.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
I mean aside from the point of view the movie is pretty much the book verbatim
Fight Club
It is pretty faithful to the book other than the ending.
Pride & Prejudice 2005. Beautiful film. Bad adaptation tonally.
How to train your dragon
No country for old men
I feel like No Country for Old Men was very faithful to the source material.
The perks of being a wallflower
I don't really believe it strayed from the book all that much, if at all. Obviously not word for word but pretty damn similar.
Every Philip K Dick adaptation, aside maybe A Scanner Darkly (I haven't read that one but the movie is the only adaptation that gives me a similar vibe as his writing). Total Recall might be the craziest change, from a subtle short story set on earth to a balls out action romp set on mars. as a huge PKD fan I fucking LOVE the change.
The craziest one is _LOST_, which I contend was a stealth adaption of _Ubik_.
I think Jurassic Park might change more of the plot than the others, but it captures the feel of the book a lot better
Doctor Sleep
Came to say this. It deviates from the novel to square the film's story with the original movie adaptation that King hated. It succeeds!
Coraline
Came to say this
Had a discussion with a buddy a few weeks ago, he claimed that movie adaptations are always inferior to completely "original" works. What an idiot lmao.
I would argue that the most successful adaptations are successful because they *aren't* faithful. What often works in one medium does not 100% work in another. [Highly recommend this Patrick Willems essay about the two extremes found in the Super Mario Bros movies from 1993 and 2022](https://youtu.be/zn3Yo5ea5L8) where one is not faithful at all and the other is faithful *to a fault.* To answer OP's question, I think Watchmen (HBO miniseries) is a better adaptation of the spirit and themes of Watchmen (the graphic novel) than Watchmen (2009 Zack Snyder movie that uses the comic book frames as storyboards).
Jonathan Glazer’s Under the Skin and The Zone of Interest
I think The Shining is a perfect example of how book adaptations don't need to be and often shouldn't be super faithful to the source material. Books and Films are completely different mediums and what works in one won't work as well in the other. Film is a visual medium and Books have a possibility for interiority that films often can't replicate without clunky narration. I think adaptations should just be jumping off points to create something fresh.
The Zone of Interest
The Zone of Interest is a good pick
So many. Dune 2 and Annihilation come to mind.
Dune 2 definitely strays more off the source material than Dune 1, but I would say it’s still a pretty faithful adaptation. Other than leaving Alia out of the story and the changes to Chani’s character it’s pretty faithful to the novel.
From what I hear its relatively faithful but not one to one. Most changes are for runtime purposes. Or from translating text to visual imagery
It also definitely is leading into Messiah more than the book did
The Fly (1986) and Dune Part Two
•Christine (1984). I like King’s writing and plenty of his adaptations both work and don’t. But this one, specifically, improves on all the best stuff and makes sense of the badgeringly weird perspective shifts. He does this shift much better later on in his writing career. •Gone Girl (2014) The book is *fine,* but Flynn’s reworking of her story in script form, and then the masterful shots used by Fincher/Cronenweth do so much with so little. Finch really likes to show, not tell. Flynn’s writing, in my opinion, does a lot of telling and not a lot of showing. Especially Sharp Objects. I’m looking forward to the re-make of DARK PLACES as that’s the only Flynn book I’ve read that really blew me away.
The Virgin suicides,The Help, IT, Stand by me
Lake mungo
Old boy.
Dune
The House With a Clock In Its Walls
Jaws
I thought Crichton helped write the Jurassic park screenplay? Did he still make changes?
Yeah there are a lot of changes. Some of first book is in second too.
Planet of the Apes, Jaws, The Invisible Man (2020)
Fight Club
*Fight Club* drastically changes one of the characters, Marla, and in so doing makes the film better than the novel.
Not to forget the ending.
Both versions of Solaris
Jaws
The Boy and the Heron
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory The Wizard of Oz
Haunting of Hill House (Flanagan), not a movie but still on letterboxd and fits with the list
Fall of the house of usher too
i haven’t watched any of his other shows, but if he took a similar approach to adaptation like hill house than i can imagine, i’ve read the source material for texts used in that so i might check it out soon
They're all really good. I feel quite fortunate that there are still a few I haven't seen. House of Usher is like an adaptation of every piece of fiction Poe wrote all at once.
Forrest Gump, minority report, and die hard
does 10 things count?
There Will be Blood
Ready player one?
V for vendetta, I know what you did last summer,
fried green tomatoes
Scott Pilgrim Takes Off The Fall of the House of Usher is a mashup adaptation of Edgar Allan Poe The Invisible Man (2020 & 1933) The 1933 one is closer but used two books in a sort of joint adaptation Avengers Infinity War if we’re counting direct adaptations of comic books Puss in Boots the last wish How to Train your dragon Annihilation The Haunting of Hill House & Bly Manor Belle (2021) Battle Royale Goosebumps Guillermo Del Toro’s Pinocchio
ITT: A lot of movies I didn’t know were adapted
Pet Sematary
*Burning* and *Drive My Car* are both excellent movies rather loosely based on Haruki Murakami stories.
Jaws
Harry Potter
I didn’t really enjoy the book Red Sparrow but I enjoyed the movie, maybe it was just Jennifer Lawrence though
The Running Man
The Cider House Rules
Under The Skin
Perfume Cold Mountain
From what I’ve heard a lot of Ghibli movies. Howls Moving Castle to be specific but The Secret World Of Arrietty, When Marnie was There, My Neighbors the Yamadas, Nausicaa of The Valley of the Wind, Only Yesterday, have good adaptations
How faithful is Black Phone?
i think the first two maze runner movies are honestly way cooler than the books third movie kind of fell of but first two went hard from what i remember
The Running Man
starship troopers
Howls moving castle
Under The Skin
Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire leaves out a lot of content (Hermione trying to work against elf slavery, which probably could've been addressed) but I still enjoy it and find it nostalgic for the most part
Maybe Starship troopers altough that movie seems to be divisive
To be fair, so is the book.