BookTalk.org

I will start. I hate when they make a movie from a book or series and change it so much so that it leaves you wondering if it was in fact based from it at all.

One book that was based off of a book almost word for word and scene from scene.
Underworld rise of the lycans . I read the book first then watched the movie. The only thing that was different was Sonia didn't scream when the sun shot through the hole in the ceiling and pierced her skin vs the book when she screamed so load her father could hear.

One movie I was upset about was My sisters keeper..
I hate that they changed it the way they did at the end more than anything else. I wont get into detail for those who didn't read the book or watch the film but here is the wiki links if you want spoilers.

(wiki Film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sister% ... %28film%29
(wiki Book) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sister%27s_Keeper

The book I am reading now, "The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane" (1974, Laird Koenig) is very close to the movie.
Of course, the book always gives you more embellishments and explanations of a character's actions. In this case, the little girl, Rynn's motives for doing away with her own mother is explained in the book in a manner that elicit's more reader sympathy for the child than the movie with Jodie Foster.

The Hotel New Hampshire by Irving. I think he was very hands-on with the movie. If you haven't seen it, rent it.

Almost all of the books-based movies I've read and watched had slight changes or sometimes big changes. But, what do you expect?! It's normal, though. Maybe it's because stories from the books are longer that movies can take it all from the book.

I thought the movie version of Shutter Island was well done. I really enjoyed the book so I was a little hesitant to watch the movie, since the journey from book to movie is frequently a trainwreck. However, another of Dennis Lehane's books (Mystic River) was made into a good movie so I took a chance. Glad I did...

The first 1 (3) that I can think of are The Lord of the Rings movies. There were changes made such as a slightly larger role for Arwen and the Elves joining the defenders at Minas Tirith (I believe is its name)... and more I'm sure, but overall it seemed a faithful adaptation.

2001: A Space Odyssey probably though I'm not so sure that the movie followed the book since I believe they were co-creations.

The Maltese Falcon captures the spirit and (my recollection says) is a reasonably close retelling of the Hammett story, though probably not close enough to the T. to qualify here.

I haven't read the book or seen the movie in quite a long time, but as I recall Patriot Games was very close to the Tom Clancey novel.

i think jane austen's emma was accurately adapted on celluloid. victorian english countryside could be no real.

The Watchmen was a good recreation, and though they changed some things that seemed like a big deal before i saw the movie, i think they made the right choices.

I started reading "A song of Fire and Ice" after Game of Thrones aired on HBO, and they are sticking to the story pretty firmly, and the places they changed help to illuminate all the bits that would be obscured for lack of "thought narrative" from the POV characters.

Misery was maybe even better than the book.

The green mile.

I'll second A Game of Thrones.

I felt sorta cheated when I read the book after I watched the show. It's my own fault, but when I was reading it, I didn't get to pick how the characters looked - even if they were described differently - I didn't get to pick my own countryside or scenery, etc. The show followed the book with, in my mind, 90% accuracy, and that's huge for a book to TV conversion imho. I can only recall a few of Bran's parts weren't included.