July 9, 2013

Top Ten Best/Worst Book-to-Film Adaptations

Top Ten Tuesday is a weekly meme created by the bloggers of The Broke and the Bookish. This week we're listing our top ten best/worst book to film adaptations. I decided to split this half and half, listing five of my absolute favorite movie adaptations and five I consider to be some of the worst (listed from low to high).












Some of the Best: 
Girl with a Pearl Earring (based on the book by Tracy Chevalier): I actually haven't read the book or seen the film in maybe seven-ish years, but I remember liking both well-enough when I read/saw them. Any story about art is bound to capture my attention; the film adaptation features Colin Firth and Scarlett Johansson, and it really captures the essence of the somewhat-creepy relationship between Griet and Vermeer and the Netherlands in the 1600s.
Gone With the Wind (based on the novel by Margaret Mitchell): How can this ever not make its way onto a list of best movie adaptations? The film is not without its flaws, but anyone who has read the book can just tell how well the film attempts to emulate all that the book stands for. The film made the character of Scarlett O'Hara that much more accessible for tons of people, and there will never be such a thing as too much Scarlett. 
Pride and Prejudice BBC Version (based on the novel by Jane Austen): This is the only Pride and Prejudice adaptation worth mentioning, to be honest. I did give  the 2005 version a try the other weekend, and it just confirmed my suspicions. With the extended length of the BBC version, more time is devoted to help viewers better understand the culture and on the relationship that develops between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy. And, of course, nobody can play Mr. Darcy like Colin Firth (he played him again in the modernization Bridget Jones' Diary).
The Perks of Being a Wallflower (based on the book by Stephen Chbosky): I know this book has its critics out there, but I really enjoyed Charlie recounting his freshman year of high school. And I'm not sure if I've ever seen a film that is as faithful to its source material. The film really was the book brought to life, and this is one book I'll happily reread while picturing the actors and scenery that the film provided.
The Lord of the Rings (based on the trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien): You all knew this was coming, didn't you? The Lord of the Rings film trilogy epitomizes everything that a good adaptation should possess for me. Many actors and crew read parts of the book right before filming relevant scenes.Not only did the cast and crew respect the source material enough to produce a film that remained faithful to its roots, but they also made the story more accessible to a larger audience. This is the shining example of how book to film adaptations should be done.


And Some of the Worst:
The Hunger Games (based on the book by Suzanne Collins): While I was thinking of some bad adaptations, I asked my boyfriend for suggestions, and this topped his list. While I enjoyed the film, I can see his point. The film focuses so much on the visuals that it ignores pivotal character histories and the chance to explain the background about Panem. I think those who didn't read the book would be a little lost watching the film, which is a key factor in a bad adaptation for me.
Twilight (based on by Stephenie Meyer): So, the book actually isn't any good either, but I feel as though the film adaptation expounds upon every instance of awkwardness and really emphasizes the terrible writing. The book also hinges on the attraction/instalove felt between Bella and Edward, and I had a hard(er) time believing it through Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson's performances.
The Polar Express (based on the picture book by Chris Van Allsburg): Nothing is technically wrong with adapting a picture book, but I feel like they don't have enough going on in them to warrant the feature film that many of them become (Maurice Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are also fits in this category for me). Just too much has to be added to the storyline that the film loses its credibility as a faithful adaptation, in my opinion. Also, Tom Hanks is fine and all, but him doing every major character's voice is a little much.
Harry Potter (based on the novels by J.K. Rowling): The Harry Potter series formed a significant part of my childhood and I honestly never expect to love a series as much as this one. I was so excited to see the movie adaptations, but was disappointed to realize that feel like flashy films hoping to build upon the franchise and earn lots of money versus loyal adaptations of a beloved series. The Prisoner of Azakban is the absolute worst (it deviates from the plot of the book so significantly, and for no apparent reason).
Ella Enchanted (based on the novel by Gail Carson Levine): To be fair, I haven't actually seen the entire movie. But from the little I've seen and heard, the fact that this movie shares its title and inspiration with Gail Carson Levine's incredible Cinderella retelling is a travesty. Except for characters and the setting, basically nothing is the same as in the book. Since the book is one of my childhood favorites, knowing this about the movie just makes me want to cry.

I feel that I should point out that in my mind a good adaptation is one that captures the essence of the original book. And those tend to be the ones that are more faithful to their source material. I fail to see how adaptations to other forms of media can really respect the original work if they film's plot/setting/characters/pivotal scenes end up varying drastically from what was originally written. If a film does vary drastically from the source material, then I don't want to think of it as an adaptation, something "based on" a book; instead, I prefer to think of them as "inspired by" the book. Inspiration is a much looser term and has the freedom to be applied to a wider range of interpretations. So for me adaptation = something that should be fairly faithful to the original material.

Now that my mini-rant is over, let me know what you consider to be some of the best and worst book-to-film adaptations!
author image

Amanda

Amanda loves few things better than sitting down with a cup of tea and a book. She frequently stays up far too late, telling herself she just needs to finish one more page. When she's not wrapped up in the stories of others, Amanda works as a children's librarian in a public library.

27 comments:

  1. Oh I agree with you about Prisoner of Azkaban (it was probably my least favourite adaptation of the HP books), but I actually thought the first two were as good and true to the feel of the books as they could have been. That became less apparent with the latter films for me, though... And yes! Lord of the Rings was fantastically done. It would definitely make my best adaptations list too. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bad acting is really what bothered me about the first two, to be honest. I guess there's not much they could have done, but the actors who played the trio all acted super awkward and just didn't make the characters ring true, in my opinion. And yay LotR love!

      Delete
  2. Yes! I agree on so many points here. Definitely the LotR trilogy is the best adaptation ever. The films were so good and faithful and you can just tell that everyone involved was so into what they were doing. I really enjoyed the movie Perks, but haven't read the book. Considering the author adapted the screenplay, I'd imagine it was pretty faithful to the story. Twilight made my list, too. I thought the HG movie was ok, but my husband hated it. It's funny that this was the first one your boyfriend thought of, too. Great list!
    Natflix&Books' TTT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. That's why LotR will always be the best movie adaptation made. That level of commitment (while incredible) is just not very typical, unfortunately. And oh I didn't know that about Perks! But it was an incredibly faithful adaptation, so that makes sense. And that is a coincidence lol. Maybe the HG movie just doesn't ring as true for guys?

      Delete
  3. I'm conflicted! I hated Twilight, but loved the Harry Potter movies! But I do also love the old school Pride and Prejudice!
    If You have a sec please check out my top ten http://www.bookcrackercaroline.blogspot.com/2013/07/top-ten-tuesday-3.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well 2/3 in agreement is pretty good lol. It's not like I can't see why people like the HP movies, but for me personally they don't work. The books have had such an impact on my life that they would have had to basically be perfect adaptations for me to enjoy them.

      Delete
  4. I can't believe I forgot about Ella Enchanted! IT WAS SO BAD THAT IS PROBABLY WHY. Such a shame considering how awesome the book was.

    I think you're the first person I've seen add The Hunger Games to the bad category but I guess I see what you mean. Are you excited about Catching Fire, though?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know. It is the most disappointing EVER. I refuse to watch the whole thing for that very reason.
      And haha I still liked the movie myself. It was entertaining and visually brought Panem and the story to life. It just didn't do as good a job explaining the background as I would have liked (which for me was okay, since I have read the books). Also, I think that Jennifer Lawrence, while an awesome actress, should not have been cast in that role. She's just physically too big - she looks like a tribute. And an important aspect of the book was how tiny and inferior Katniss looked, which made her win that much more impressive. Nonetheless, I enjoyed watching it and am definitely excited to see how books 2 and 3 are adapted!

      Delete
  5. Yes, I loved P&P, GWtW, Perks, and LotR, but I think THG, Polar Express, HP, and Ella Enchanted have a certain charm to them. Although they aren't based perfectly off the books, I think they're all such entertaining films that I find myself watching with my family quite often. Still, great list, Amanda!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand your points. I was specifically looking at each film's value as an adaptation, regardless of whether or not I enjoyed watching it. I still really enjoyed THG. And I can understand why people like HP (although I'll never be one of them). Ella Enchanted, though, is unforgivable to me. It's a movie that should never have been made IMO. I also don't think that it's a book that can ever translate well into the film medium; too much of the story is dependent on Ella's internal thoughts and emotions, which can't be portrayed that well. I think that also affected HG a little, and made Jennifer Lawrence's portrayal of Katniss a little flat (though I don't think that was Lawrence's fault at all).

      Delete
  6. Oh I agree if you haven't read Hunger Games some elements were not explained very well - I had to explain a few things to my husband when we watched it. I still loved the movie, though. And I so want to watch The Perks of Being a Wallflower! I heard that was an amazing movie!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Luckily my bf had read the books. But it made him a bit angry that it wasn't quite as accessible to non-reader viewers. Which I totally get. And the ambiance/tone of it all seemed a bit off. But it still was solid entertainment, I think. And you need to see Perks! It was incredible. (And same bf absolutely adored it, despite not having read the book. :))

      Delete
  7. The Twilight movies - particularly the first one - were so bad they were good. I loved sitting in the theatre with my friend and poking massive fun at them. :)

    Thanks for stopping by my TTT!

    ~Merin @ Read and Reviewed~

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is very true. My friends and I really enjoyed random shirtless!Jacob scenes in the second film just, apparently, to show how in shape he was.

      Delete
  8. I definitely agree about adapting picture books as movies! Some of the more recent Dr. Seuss ones have been terrible! (Cat in the Hat, The Grinch), although Horton Hears a Who wasn't bad. I absolutely adore the LOTR movies, and have very mixed feelings about the Harry Potter movies. Great list!

    Lisa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I try to avoid those picture book movies as much as possible (helps that I'm not the target audience). Because yeah...just not enough material there. And yay for LotR! Thanks!

      Delete
  9. I definitely agree with much of your list, though I think Harry Potter got better and better. No, it's not the best adaptation but, like LOTR, if it had contained all the details, I think the movies would have been 6 hours long....and that's coming from a diehard HP nut! But seriously, I totally agree with Ella Enchanted. Blasphemy...it's such a great book!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have taken 6 hour movies personally haha. I just have certain standards/expectations that I hope for in film adaptations of beloved books. Also, I felt that there were a bunch of changes in the movie that did not seem to serve any purpose. I can understand cutting things out, but adding or altering things unnecessarily? Maybe that's what bothered me the most. Ella Enchanted - I know! I just want to ignore its existence, I think. And hope a better version gets made.

      Delete
  10. I'm so glad you included The perks of the first category because I LOVE that movie, as much as I love the book. I'd like to see THG included in the first category too, since it's one of my favorite book-to-movie adaptations, but I see where your coming from on that one. Nice picks, Amanda! : )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, agreed! I may have even liked the film a little more. And I am divided on THG. I liked it, but I thought it had some flaws as an adaptation. *shrugs* But nothing's a perfect adaptation, I suppose. Thanks, Dianna!

      Delete
  11. I love the LOTR adaptations and on the whole think they're representative of the books, although ROTK does go on a bit. And Gone With the Wind, amazing book, amazing film.

    I have to disagree with The Hunger Games though! I think they took the right stuff from the books to end up with a good film. If they'd tried to delve too deep, I think the film would have been rubbish.

    To each their own though, great list.

    Sarah

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But ROTK is amazing. I loved all the psuedo-endings haha. And yeah. I need to re-watch GWTW I think. And re-read, of course.
      And I think it's a tricky slope to navigate with film adaptations. There were things THG did absolutely amazingly, and other it did not (in my opinion). But it still was a super entertaining film and I am looking forward to the sequel!

      Delete
  12. Aw, I love The Polar Express, so I'll have to agree to disagree with you there, Amanda! But YES to Gone With the Wind (I try to watch it every year around Thanksgiving when it's on TNT or AMC or whatever) and double YES to all The Lord of the Rings movies. LOVE. THEM. SO.

    I have not yet seen Perks of Being a Wallflower, though I read the book ages ago. I need to check that one out:):)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. haha no worries. I don't expect everyone to agree with all my picks, Heather. And that's awesome. I should do an annual GWTW watch! And that's what matters - if people agree with me on any of my choices here, it better be LOTR. Or else. :)
      You need to see the movie of Perks, Heather! It's so good!

      Delete
  13. I cannot believe I forgot Twilight and Pride & Prejudice!!!! Great list!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. My problem with the HP movies and the first HG movie is that I'm so desperate to see ANY of it that I've come to love them despite their inconsistencies with the source material. And I also really enjoyed Perks but Emma Watson's American accent was really distracting.

    I'm embarrassed I've never read or seen Gone with the Wind. I know, right?

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for taking the time to comment! I strive to make my blog the very best it can possibly be and I appreciate each and every comment on here.