Books to Movies --> what should be next?

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
22,053
Location
Highlands
#1
Here's a general question - which books should be considered for turnnig into movies next?

But in making your suggestions, do bear in mind the way that movies are usually different - not least in shortened content, but also in terms of artistic licence with the plot.

So...which books do people think would still make very decent movies, despite the limitations of the screen?
 
Joined
May 27, 2003
Messages
88
Location
Thulcandra
#2
Very interesting question!

I think I would like to see a decent version of the Chronicles of Narnia. The old series just isn't good enough IMO...

I think they are great stories, and they deserve great films. If there are to be any...
 

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
22,053
Location
Highlands
#3
That's a good idea - don't believe Narnia has had a treatment for quite some time. Would be great to see a decently rendered Aslan. :)
 

nemesis

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
154
#4
Nothing until they learn to use CGI properly. If I want to watch a cartoon I watch a cartoon.
 
Joined
May 27, 2003
Messages
88
Location
Thulcandra
#5
Sorry, I didn't catch your meaning nemesis...

Maybe it's because I don't know what CGI is... :) (Except for Common Gateway Interface, which I doubt is what you mean... :D)
 

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
22,053
Location
Highlands
#6
I'm guessing that he's being critical of the use of computer graphics in films these days. :) I think he's mention this before. Not quite sure what CGI actually stands for here - Computer Graphic Interface??
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
13
#7
www.narnia.com has news about the adaptation of the books to film.

I'd like to see David Eddings "The Belgariad" converted. Although, I think it would make a better tv series than movies.
 

dwndrgn

Fierce Vowelless One
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
3,900
Location
Help! I'm stuck in the forums!
#10
I'd hate to say anything...I'm usually disappointed. Did anyone see Clan of The Cave Bear? Was that supposed to be based on the book? Did anyone tell the writer/director/producer???

LOTR has been the best adaptation I've seen so far. I'm still a little disappointed that so much good stuff was changed or left out. I do understand that movies have time limits but...maybe they should have made it a TV series.

I suppose if we lived in Perfect, then I would like to see all the Camber series (Katherine Kurtz) and the Mad Ship and Farseer books by Robin Hobb.
 

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
22,053
Location
Highlands
#11
So far as I know, the Clan adaption was a complete joke and failure.

My girlfriend insists on my reading those books, by the way. Soon... :)
 

dwndrgn

Fierce Vowelless One
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
3,900
Location
Help! I'm stuck in the forums!
#12
Yes, they are very good books (at least the first three are...it sort of drifted after that). The movie was definitely a joke - so completely not based on the book that it seems as if they were trying to do that! Besides that, Daryll Hannah is not a good actress, at least IMHO.

The public tv version of The Hitchhikers Guide was actually pretty good - with really cheesy effects that were fun (a la Dr. Who).

I haven't seen The Hulk yet but going by the ads, I'm already disappointed. The Hulk is a cartoon in a live action movie! Yuck. Make the whole thing a cartoon or use a Lou Ferigno double. Plus, he seems to have all the super powers of Superman, Spiderman and Captain America rolled into one. I loved the TV series because they were good stories with some fun action scenes. I don't recall him leaping onto airplanes and such. Just beating the (*&&^(&*% out of the bad guys. Is nothing sacred anymore? :'(

Peter Jackson has done a good job on LOTR because he has had a long time to work and lots of support. Paying attention to detail is important when doing an adaptation, he seems to have done that well. If only they could have split them into six instead of three so we could have met Tom Bombadil. ;D
 

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
22,053
Location
Highlands
#13
I remember the old Hulk TV series - and the superb sad music at the end. That production always seemed to try and emphasise the human tragedy behind Dr Banner, but also how he was able to try and use his curse to help others as he could. From what little I saw of the comics, it's just "bash-bash-bash" - so I have diificulty seeing where plot comes nito it. But I'm a snob like that. :)
 

nemesis

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
154
#14
I do not like the overuse of CGI in films. It is horrible. Star Wars II is a cartoon with real actors. I hoped we went past that after Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Real models please until computer graphic artists learn how to use realistically lighted textures.
 

dwndrgn

Fierce Vowelless One
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
3,900
Location
Help! I'm stuck in the forums!
#15
Bedknobs and Broomsticks happens to be one of my favorite movies! I love old Angela Lansbury movies. Has anyone seen "The Court Jester" with Danny Kaye? I love that silly stuff!

However, I do agree with the overuse of CGI in some films (Attackof the Clones - yes, there was just way too much and it did make it seem cartoonish) and the inappropriate use in others (The Hulk - he should have been live action, it just doesn't look right the way they did it). There are many, however that use it well, best example: LOTR.
 

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
22,053
Location
Highlands
#16
The reason LOTR uses CGI so well is because it uses real models with real textures first. :)

Over-reliance on CGI has become far too widespread. Lucas has especially become very bad at it. The whole point of the film experience is to create illusion - but if the method of that illusion are too obvious, the illusion is shattered.
 

GnomeoftheWest

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
86
#17
I've been waiting and waiting for someone to put "Stranger In A Strange Land" on film.
Can't imagine who'd they'd cast, though.

Any suggestions? (Just in case I suddenly become rich enough to finance such a project)
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2003
Messages
3,532
Location
Central California
#18
Back in the seventies, there was speculation that they would film Stranger in a Strange Land with David Bowie playing the role of Valentine Michael Smith. This, of course, never happened, which I think is too bad. I'm not sure I can imagine anyone else in the role, and Bowie is too old to pull it off now, I'm afraid.
 

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
22,053
Location
Highlands
#19
Maybe he should have done that instead of "The Man who Fell to Earth". A nice beginning - but towards the end of the film I can simply hear a marketing executive shouting that they need "sex and guns" to make it sell. Sad, too sad. Or did I miss the boat on that one?
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2003
Messages
3,532
Location
Central California
#20
No, I don't think you missed the boat at all, Brian. I saw "The Man Who Fell To Earth" and felt it was a waste of Bowie's talents. The film didn't know whether it wanted to be a science fiction film or a "message" film, and so it failed on both counts. I've tried to watch it again, since I first saw it, to see if I missed something the first time through. I just can't make myself sit through it again.
 

Similar threads

Top