What are your favorite films adapted from books? What films missed the boat completely from their book counterparts? What films were spot-on? Discuss anything and everything pertaining to book-to-film adaptations.

Personally, I've read and watched Fight Club and I'd say that the book and film are quite similar. They have the same gritty vibe that is just so Fight Club. I actually watched the film before I read the book and I think that may be the way to go because otherwise you'll be confused as all hell. In the book, I liked the ending better, as well as the Narrator and Tyler meeting for the first time. It was more... interesting.

I've also read/watched a lot of Stephen King stuff and I've always found the books to be much spookier and better at getting that scary vibe across. The scene described in IT where the kid gets his arm ripped off in the storm drain and the bathroom scene scarred me for life. Dreamcatcher wasn't scary on film in the least, but niether was the book, so. On the other hand, The Shining was probably a dead tie for which medium was better. The book was another masterfully written one, while the movie was just superb (Jack Nicholson <3).

So, share away! I'm interested to hear about other book/film adaptations that were better or worse.

The Golden Compass was genious...but the movie sucked horribly! It made me angry.

I loved the Lord of the Rings movies. I thought Peter Jackson did a phenomenal job, as did the entire cast, and WETA was brilliant. The movies did the books justice, I have to say. Though they cut out a lot, I completely understand the dilemma they had about the length of the movies and such.

I will agree with Lord of the Rings being very good movie remakes. Yeah, obviously they did leave things out, but some things are better read and some things are better watched, in my opinion. Also, I'm sure I would have hated the movies if they tried to stuff in everything. I don't even want to think about how long they would be.

I'll also agree with Golden Compass not being amazing as a movie. It was decent, but it was nowhere near the quality of the book.

The first few Harry Potter movies were kind of disappointing, the third especially for me. I'm a huge marauder fan, and they didn't even mention that Lupin was Moony, which probably just irked the fangirl in me unnecessarily. I think for Harry Potter I'm too attached to the characters and the plot to really enjoy the deviations, which is where I find myself judging a lot of movie adaptations, as unfair as it for me to do so.

I'm going to take the bait here and mention Harry Potter. NOT A FAN of the movies. Generally. Gary Oldman was my biggest disappointment. I mean, I get that Sirius has gotten kinda older and escaped from jail and all that. But please. I expected someone way more attractive. So after seeing the third one and Gary Oldman, I've had to try so very hard to blot out his picture and replace it with MY Sirius. Haha. Sort of the same with Remus, but not as much. And I hate what they did with Hermione. If they could make Sirius less attractive, they DEFINITELY could have made her ugly like she was supposed to be. However, Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix totally makes up for all that though. She was fantastic.

For The Notebook by Nicolas Sparks, I actually prefer the movie. The book was good, I read it after seeing the movie, but I FREAKING LOVE that movie. Soooooo good. And boys, don't lie. You know you love it too. :]

Candy: A Novel of Love and Addiction by Luke Davies. As much as I adore Heath Ledger, the book was better. Hands down. They cut too much stuff, and it wasn't as intense of the book was, so it didn't make much of an impression as a movie as the book did on its readers.

Memoirs of a Geisha (I forget the author...Arthur something?) is about equal for me though. I loved both.

Blood and Chocolate. The book was wonderful but the movie sucked. They changed almost everything. Changed the bad guys, changed who she ended up with in the end. Just...everything. And it was horrible!

I loved the Lord of the Rings! I really did. I thought they were great!

The Harry Potter movies aren't so bad but I feel like they leave a lot of good stuff out that I would have liked to see in the four movies they've already made.

And I don't know if any of you have seen the movie but The Outsiders was wonderful, too. I loved the book and the movie and I think the movie did it justice. I just wish they would have kept Dally blonde. :S

I had that same problem. I really like Gary Oldman, but he doesn't look like a guy who used to be incredibly handsome and then got thrown into jail and molested by death eaters. He looks like a decent looking fellow who got thrown into jail and came out a slightly older decent looking fellow, but not Sirius Black XD

I've read and seen The Outsiders, but they were so far apart (time-wise) that I didn't really catch on to anything like hair colour. Both the movie and the book were good, though.

This year during english class my teacher decided to show us how movies butcher books, so I'll throw in The Time Machine and Lord of the Flies (the newest one). The original Lord of the Flies movie was actually pretty good and stayed true to the book, but the newest one and the Time Machine were both terrible movies and changed the books so much.

But yeah, the LOTR movies were good. But Harry Potter's going to get messy, because it'll be weird if they change the actors, but the actors have gotten to old for the characters. I dunno what they'll do about that.

I'm going to be obvious and say that Lord Of The Rings is the most amazing adaptation from book to screen.

But my other choice isn't so predictable. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey was a phenomenal book that is well worth reading - it's a classic. The film version starring Jack Nicholson was just amazing though, they did a great job telling the story in a somewhat different way - while keeping the heart of the story in tact and really keeping his original vision. Well worth reading and watching!

Must Love Dogs.

Terrible book, equally terrible movie.

Oh, John Cusack. HOW COULD YOU?

Oh man, Fight Club is love. I agree that the more interesting ending was the one in the book, and I wanna meet Tyler while he's naked on a beach. I happen to like the books better than the book, just because Chuck's style is one-of-a-kind-genius. But both the movie and the book are are pretty much tied in awesomeness.

And I can't wait for the adaption of Choke to come out in September. Victor Mancini is the most lovable sex addict ever.

Lord of The Rings were great movies, but I've never read the books, so I can't say anything. The Golden Compass and Harry Potter, honestly, weren't very good. The books were MUCH better. I think The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe was great. The first Sisterhood of The Traveling Pants was pretty good, too. I have doubts about the second one, though - things have to be left out to include three books in one movie.

omg! cukoo's nest was great as both novel & movie.

other boleyn girl, the. great book. horrid movie.

I'll be the odd one out, I suppose, because I love the Harry Potter
books and movies. I know that there are a lot of differences, but
you kind of have to look at them separately. Like, almost two
different sets of stories.

If I can mention TV, I feel the same way about the Gossip Girl
books and TV show. I love each, but in different ways. Everything
about the show is so different that it's like a separate story line
and franchise. And once you view it that way, it's much better.

We read and watched The Outsiders in freshman year and I liked
the book better. I just didn't like the actor choice for Johnny. It
really killed me. Along 'school' lines: To Kill a Mockingbird.
Amazing! As book and movie. Our sophomore year teacher
wouldn't let us watch the movie for Lord of the Flies; I watched it
seperately and I understand why. I mean, it isn't even really
based on the movie.

And that's all :]

I suppose I could join the line of saying Lord of the Rings was good both movie and book, but instead I think I'll try to touch on other novels, and a few graphic novels (which, imho, can be just as prolific as novel-novels.)

Touching on the subject of Stephen King novels and movies, generally if King has had nothing to do with the production of the movie it comes out well. The Shining, Carrie, Shawshank Redemption,Children of the Corn, Firestarter, The Mist, 1408, and Misery were all above average adaptations. Some didn't have the same atmosphere as the books--Misery being the notable one because that was the only book to ever make me physically sick--although they all managed to make something of the novels.

There are others, too. Can't think of them.

V for Vendetta was a stunning adaptation of a stunning graphic novel. The directors managed to make the story slightly more relevant to today, although I did dislike how they removed the ambiguity of V's character. He wasn't enough of an anti-hero with a torrid affair with anarchy for me. =P

Everything is Illuminated I was... not a fan. The book bored me a little, although was still generally a good story, but the movie... ugh. I don't know if it's because I dislike Elijah Wood, or just because it didn't seem as good on screen as I did in my mind. Most other people seemed to like it, though, so I suppose I'm a minority.

Stardust was a lovely book and I saw the movie three times in theaters which should be enough to say what I thought about it. XD It was a perfect job of an adaptation, all the characters really came alive.

As for The Club Dumas... I'm sorry Roman Polanski and Johnny Depp, but the adaptation was horrible. They removed the entire plot involving Alexander Dumas, and it was just atrocious all around. There was so much you could do with the original story, but The Ninth Gate was just a depressing adaptation. As a stand-alone movie, maybe it would have been alright, but as an adaptation of The Club Dumas... just no. No. Of course, most people don't even know there was a book, so there you go.