BellaOnline Forums Books and Music Horror Literature Faithful book to film transfers

I enjoy a good horror book and I enjoy a good (and often bad) horror film. But in my view, a horror novel has never transfered to the big screen successfully.

This phenomenon does not always apply to other genre's where good book to film transfers exist, so what is it about horror?

So, can anyone out there name a good book that was made into a good film?

I will accept anything except The Shining, as the Kubrick film is considerably different to the book.

Oh, and it's good to see another guy here Justin!

Andy, I don't think there are any. I think the reason is because our imaginations can conjure up way more horror (suited to our own personal fears) than any special effects crew can.

I specifically think about Stephen King's "IT". i have never had trouble reading a book, until it came to that one. I had to put it down for 2 days, until I could get my nightmares under control, because the clown, the horrors in my head were a lot worse than the movie. (And we shall not speak of the ones my sub-concious came up with for my dreams!)

Movies just cannot duplicate that.

I don't know about faithful, but one of the only book to film adaptations I really like is Hellraiser from the Clive Barker novella, The Hellbound Heart. The rest of the time, I prefer to read a good book rather than watch the film version.

I don't mind doin both, just as long as I see the movie 1st!

If I read the book, THEN see the movie, I'm always disappointed.

Your "Hellraiser" example shows a good point. It took an entire movie to capture the essence of a short story (I thought that one was a little too short to be called a novella myself!) Could you imagine how long it would take to capture "Imajica"? It would rival "Star Wars"!

THE HAUNTING based on Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House" HAS BEEN DONE MANY TIMES AND RECENTLY QUITE BADLY; HOWEVER, THE 63 B/W VERSION IS WELL DONE(Sorry caps button and I am too lazy to fix it)

Is that the one with Roddy McDowell?

I just saw that. If those 2 movies were supposed to be based on the same book...aaauuuuugggghhhh! The author has to be rolling over and over and over in her grave. (Or is she dead?)

It is difficult to pinpoint a good cinematic translation of an original horror novel. I think Michelle hit a main point violently on the head (hehehehe)...generally, our interpretive imagination is what sets the atmosphere of what we read...to have someone else's vision of the work on screen is interesting, but usually not anywhere near the sub-reality in which the stories exist to each of us that have read them and envisioned them as our own.

One thing that many cinematic versions of literary horror fail to realize is largely the development of character, and, instead, go for the action of special effects. Many non-fans of the genre don't realize that we, as readers, actually care for the people we read about. Granted, we might not be able to turn away when the monster tears it's sharp claws into his bony sternum and rips out the bloody lungs of our beloved character, but that doesn't mean we don't weep for the loss, just the same. How can a movie, in two-and-a-half hours, establish the rapport of character in place of a three, four, or even five-hundred page novel?

That said (phew, am I ranting yet?), think about the length of Barker's "Hellbound Heart." It is a novella that many feel transferred successfully to the big screen (being directed by the author helps, too!). It seems the shorter the written work, the better audiences relate to the filmed story. Indeed, the most celebrated translation of King's work are short stories and are arguably not horror ("Stand by Me," "Shawshank," etc.), both of which I enjoy very much.

The development of character is integral to the success of those films mentioned above.

So, onto not skirting the question, right? Honestly, and I may get flack for this, "Interview with the Vampire" is one adaptation I really enjoy. Although it doesn't replicate the book as Anne Rice wrote it, it manages to capture the essence of Louis' torment through stunning visuals and strong character development. Also, if the movie version of "Rosemary's Baby" doesn't do the book justice, I don't know what would.

The only thing interesting about the movie adaptation of "Queen of the Damned," however, was the the soundtrack.

I would have to say Misery was one of the best adaptations, although I was a tad disappointed they omitted the wonderful lawnmower scene.

That's a good point about the shorter the work, the better it translates. I suppose it has to do with if it's a short work, there's not as much time to become mentally attached to the story in the written form because it doesn't take as long to read, whereas with a novel, the reader is more in tune with the characters because they spend more time with them. Well, that's my thoughts anyway.

I disagree because the book was a lot darker. The film wimped out of showing a lot of the more gruesome scenes, like where he had his foot chopped off.