Wow! That movie was EXACTLY like the book!

[Robert412]

If you're looking for absolutely, 100% exact, you'd have a very short thread... basically, just your opening question. I cannot think of a single movie that was exactly like the book.

Your typical screenplay for a 2 hour movie is about 120 pages. Your typical novel is anywhere from 150 (virtually a short story) to 1000 pages. You cannot fit all of that into one movie.

Then you have to consider things such as budget, pacing and what translates well on screen and what does not.

Imagination is also important. I may envision something completely different when I read a story than another person. If a line in a book reads "he placed his keys on the table," I might picture a round dark wooden table. Someone else might picture a table cloth. Another may picture a square or rectangular table.

I would have to agree that, excepting a film of someone turning the pages of the book at the exact speed you'd be reading said book, this is an impossible task. If it were anything else, it wouldn't be exactly like the book... And in fact, it wouldn't be exactly like the book, as it would, in fact, be a film, and not a book.

 

[ginyu force]

im gunna have to go with watchmen was the most movie accurate to the book.

 

[AdamNightmare]

The Indian in the Cupboard was a book I loved as a kid, and the movie was basically identical to the book, from what I can remember (it's been a LONG time since I've seen it).

I think if we took children's book -> movie translations into account, there would be far more exact copies.

 

[Solo4114]

The Indian in the Cupboard was a book I loved as a kid, and the movie was basically identical to the book, from what I can remember (it's been a LONG time since I've seen it).

I think if we took children's book -> movie translations into account, there would be far more exact copies.

I actually know the kid who stars in that. He's the son of one of my mom's closest friends from college. I've played Monopoly against him (he did not suffer defeat gracefully, but then, he was only about 8 at the time).

 

[Spitcrazy]

Lord of the rings movies........maybe

First one, no Tom Bombadil jumped out. They cheated this by having Treebeard say some of the lines Tom said in the first book i think in the second movie.

Second, Treebeard (and all the ents IMO) were too tree like. In the book, they describe an ent house inside of a tree with a bed etc and that ents look man like but with bark like skin not so much the walking tree.

Third, they killed off Saruman at the begining of the film, but in the book he lived at the end and was causing trouble in the shire and the fellowship came back and help oust Saurman and Wormtongue.

Mind you, I haven't read the books in years but this is what I remember from talking with friends after watching the movies.

 

[benhs1898]

im gunna have to go with watchmen was the most movie accurate to the book.

No. It is not.

 

[brutalmagic]

A better thread might be whats the worst book to movie conversion.

Like its been said before you wont get a spot on like for like as a movie is typically 2 hours and you cannot fit most novels in that time frame.

To answer the original question, can't think of one, soz.

 

[Zombie_61]

A better thread might be whats the worst book to movie conversion.

Having read all 25 of Burroughs' novels, I can say just about any Tarzan movie is in the running. :unsure

 

[fettster]

I can't think of a single movie.

You could always cheat and refer to on of those "books from the motion picture" which are basically novelised scripts.

I'll tell you one movie that is NOTHING like the book... The americal version of let the right one in, wtf?

 

[Zlurpo]

Of Mice and Men

I remember this being really accurate too.
Also, I watched the movie a while after reading the book, but I thought To Kill a Mockingbird was the same. I could be remembering wrong though.

One of the problems is that, to include everything written in a book, the book can only be about 150 pages long.

 

[Indys brother]

After skimming through this thread, I've noticed that "Of Mice and Men" keeps popping up. Which version is everyone referring to, the most recent with Malchovich and Sinise (1992) or one of it's previous film incarnations?:

1939: Lon Chaney and Burgess Meredith
1968: George Segal and Nicol Williamson
1981: Randy Quaid and Robert Blake

I've only seen the '92 version which I thought was great, but I haven't read the book.

 

[Clutch]

Make room Make room, AKA Soylent Green is pretty spot on to the book. In fact the only thing they didn't convey enough in the movie is that we had passed the Extinction Threshold, there was NO saving us, that's why Saul opted for euthanasia, he just couldn't live with the knowledge that we were done.

I haven't read the book, but I fully understood why Sol ended his life. Funny, I just watched this for the umpteenth time the other day.

 

[Slave1]

Are some of you folks not getting the point of this thread? The whole point is a movie that is EXACTLY like the book. Making comments like, "Except for the part where..." makes it a movie that doesn't belong in the thread. If it's really close it doesn't count. "The only thing they changed was..." is also not a contender.
We're looking for an exact match, people.

If you want everyone to take it literally, then there's no point for discussion because there is no such thing as EXACTLY the same.

Books and movies are different mediums. A movie runs an hour and twenty minutes to three hours. I can read somewhat fast when I want to, but I doubt I could read a book in 1.5 hrs.

Books must be condensed. Scenes are reordered, characters are dropped, changes are made for time's sake or because the changes make sense.

Books don't have soundtracks or spoken dialogue. No special effects or actors. Different medium. The only way they could be EXACTLY the same, as you say, would be for them to just scroll the words across the screen for you to read.

Heck, I would imagine it would be very near impossible to find a movie that matches the script EXACTLY. Scenes get cut, dialogue gets altered or improvised on the spot, or after a test screening they realize audiences aren't receptive to the ending so it's back to the drawing board for a reshoot of the denoument.

Additonally, even novelizations aren't EXACTLY like the books. Again, different mediums. Though this time the process is reversed. Instead of compressing, the novelization writer takes the script of 120 - 200 pages and expands on the material to make it book length. They'll give characters more background, they internalize their thoughts, think about past experiences that aren't shown on screen . . . all sorts of stuff.



So in summary, there really can't be a discussion w/ "EXACTLY" the same.

But if you want to talk about what movies have done a good job capturing the heart or the essence of the book, then we can talk.

And since there ain't no such thing as exactly in this subject, I'll name off some of mine that I think are pretty close or captured the essence, many of which have already been mentioned.

The Shawshank Redemption (No the title isn't even the same. The novella was "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption")

Stand By Me (the novella was "The Body.")
The Exorcist
Dances With Wolves
Psycho
Rosemary's Baby
True Grit (particularly the newer version)
Charlotte's Web (the cartoon)
Watership Down (another cartoon)
The Princess Bride (William Goldman wrote the script and book)
Pet Semetary
Silence of the Lambs
Magic
Bubba Hotep



Some that are really, really different but are still enjoyable to me:

Planet of the Apes (the original)
Bicentenial Man (based on The Positronic Man)
Six Million Dollar Man (the series sprang from Cyborg)
The Howling
Silver Bullet (might as well throw it in, and based on Cycle of the Werewolf)
Frankenstein
Reanimator