My answer to this is Fight Club, as transcendental/existential novels often lend themselves well to becoming awesome trip-out films when done well. But I do not simply come here to give my two cents.. Nay, I enter the forum and take my place upon the rostrum for the purposes of properly pompous pontification:
There is a flaw in this conundrum wherein we attempt to compare the transmission of a concept across two different mediums. Film and written word are not entirely dissimilar in essence: Both are widely acknowledged forms of entertainment, and in some cases, art. Each can be moving and inspirational in many ways, as well as have the ability to captivate audiences of viewers and readers. However, by acknowledging that both are two different forms of art, one must accept the fact that they follow different methods and forms of interpretation.
Certain elements, which may work wonders in a novel, simply have no place in film. For one, movie-viewing requires significantly less time for the viewer than it would take to read an entire novel (I don't care how fast of a reader you may be.. you're not getting through HP and the Half Blood Prince in under 6 hours). Yet in the two hours or so of viewing, one would certainly hope to walk away having followed a complete story from beginning to end. Therefore, while a novel can depend on carefully crafted prose and wordplay to tell the tale, a film must take full advantage of itself as a (primarily) visual medium.
The point I'm trying to get at is that it's incredibly facetious of us to attempt to compare the book of a story to its film adaptation... I mean, the word's right there: adapt, meaning (and this come straight from the dictionary) 'to make suitable to requirements or conditions.' In our context, literally speaking, this means that to adapt a book for screen means to make the story told in the book transmittable through the medium of film.
Perhaps there was a passage in the book you found to be particularly moving, or just very interesting, that didn't necessarily lend anything to the fulfillment of the ultimate goal of the story. Were this book made a film, that passage would almost certainly not be included, as to do would almost certainly be a strain on the de facto time limitations of movies. Maybe the author would tend to write intricately in telling us the back story of a character or situation; a filmmaker is limited to visual cues and flashbacks (which should never be overused) to compensate, regardless of how important said information may have been.
Honestly though, as long as Hollywood continues to bastardize our favorite works of literature in new and frightening ways, we'll never be over this century-old argument. I myself felt a very sharp, knife-twisting pain of hatred at the climax of Watchmen, even with how well I felt the movie to be overall. I could say that it comes down to ones attachment to a certain book or story they might have loved for a long time, but that would take much longer to espouse, and I'm not a psych major. Basically, we have with us today two amazing forms of storytelling: one that dances before your eyes, another which swims around inside the world inside your mind inside your head. So enjoy the movie or don't; stick to the book if that's more your fare. Somebody will certainly enjoy the film, and it's not your responsibility to see that they know the 'real' story.. that's their own fault if they don't wanna pick up a book.
So there's my rant.. and thank you OP for helping to make my 100th post worth remembering
EDIT:
I realize a rant like this would be better suited in a 'Movies based on books suck: discuss' thread, but dammit all its Christmas!
There is a flaw in this conundrum wherein we attempt to compare the transmission of a concept across two different mediums. Film and written word are not entirely dissimilar in essence: Both are widely acknowledged forms of entertainment, and in some cases, art. Each can be moving and inspirational in many ways, as well as have the ability to captivate audiences of viewers and readers. However, by acknowledging that both are two different forms of art, one must accept the fact that they follow different methods and forms of interpretation.
Certain elements, which may work wonders in a novel, simply have no place in film. For one, movie-viewing requires significantly less time for the viewer than it would take to read an entire novel (I don't care how fast of a reader you may be.. you're not getting through HP and the Half Blood Prince in under 6 hours). Yet in the two hours or so of viewing, one would certainly hope to walk away having followed a complete story from beginning to end. Therefore, while a novel can depend on carefully crafted prose and wordplay to tell the tale, a film must take full advantage of itself as a (primarily) visual medium.
The point I'm trying to get at is that it's incredibly facetious of us to attempt to compare the book of a story to its film adaptation... I mean, the word's right there: adapt, meaning (and this come straight from the dictionary) 'to make suitable to requirements or conditions.' In our context, literally speaking, this means that to adapt a book for screen means to make the story told in the book transmittable through the medium of film.
Perhaps there was a passage in the book you found to be particularly moving, or just very interesting, that didn't necessarily lend anything to the fulfillment of the ultimate goal of the story. Were this book made a film, that passage would almost certainly not be included, as to do would almost certainly be a strain on the de facto time limitations of movies. Maybe the author would tend to write intricately in telling us the back story of a character or situation; a filmmaker is limited to visual cues and flashbacks (which should never be overused) to compensate, regardless of how important said information may have been.
Honestly though, as long as Hollywood continues to bastardize our favorite works of literature in new and frightening ways, we'll never be over this century-old argument. I myself felt a very sharp, knife-twisting pain of hatred at the climax of Watchmen, even with how well I felt the movie to be overall. I could say that it comes down to ones attachment to a certain book or story they might have loved for a long time, but that would take much longer to espouse, and I'm not a psych major. Basically, we have with us today two amazing forms of storytelling: one that dances before your eyes, another which swims around inside the world inside your mind inside your head. So enjoy the movie or don't; stick to the book if that's more your fare. Somebody will certainly enjoy the film, and it's not your responsibility to see that they know the 'real' story.. that's their own fault if they don't wanna pick up a book.
So there's my rant.. and thank you OP for helping to make my 100th post worth remembering
EDIT:
I realize a rant like this would be better suited in a 'Movies based on books suck: discuss' thread, but dammit all its Christmas!
