Unfilmable Books

[pip]

I was reading a similar thread elsewhere and thought a few on here would have interesting opinions on this.

Which books is it impossible to adapt for film. Some examples according to some are Catcher in the Rye, Ulysses (a rubbish irish novel ) and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep ( Bladerunner while being brilliant doesn't count as its based on something completely different )

Any other additions or opinions .
Any films which have been adapted but shouldn't have been ( Watchmen would be one for me)

 

[Antiq]

I would have thought Perfume was unfilmable, but they managed it really well.

I can't think right now, but I'll get back to this thread when something occurs to me.

Oh wait, The City and the City by China Mieville could be pretty difficult.

 

[pip]

Agree with Perfume. I was suprised at how good the film was

 

[DaveC]

I think that'll be my next cool to read after Snuff, I've had it for a while and not read read it yet, say the film in the cinema, though.

 

[chris.ph]

with the cgi they have now they could pretty much do anything from dantes inferno to rendevous with rama

 

[Joolz]

Catch 22

 

[DaveC]

Catch 22

 

[michelanCello]

Master and Margarita - even though there are some adaptations, I won't watch any of them, because I just can't imagine this one on film...
Also hard to imagine: Hard-Boiled Wonderland at the End of the World...

 

[Anonymous]

How do you define 'unfilmable'?

 

[Joolz]

Catch 22

I know they've made a film- But they shouldn't have

 

[Quatermass]

I like to divide such unfilmable films into 'couldn't' and 'shouldn't'.

For an example of 'couldn't', I would consider House of Leaves to be unfilmable in its entirety simply because of the nature of what's involved. It's literature that is virtually impossible to film.

And then there is 'shouldn't', novels that should never be adapted, not simply because they would be crappily adapted, but because they are crappy in the first place. Atlas Shrugged (despite it currently being made as an independent film trilogy) is a case in point.

Most books shouldn't be adapted into film. Watchmen was as close as a film adaptation could get to capturing the comic, but I read somewhere once that someone considered a miniseries, like A Game of Thrones.

 

[pip]

with the cgi they have now they could pretty much do anything from dantes inferno to rendevous with rama

But would they work on screen. I always thought of Vimes as a character who would be hard to get on screen no matter what technology you have. The best bits all go on in his head and how that would translate.
Others would be Don Quixote. IT has been done several times but never quite the main point across.
Some plots are too crazy for film , others are just too subtle.

 

[Dotsie]

Thief of Time would be tricky, unless you changed the story.

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norris was a very good book, but would be boring as a film.

 

[pip]

Thief of Time would be tricky, unless you changed the story.

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norris was a very good book, but would be boring as a film.

I did enjoy the book . I know someone bought the rights to film Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell (sorry) but i agree that it would be awful. They'd have to cull the whole plot down.

Thief of time could work but I agree that some would have to change but would love to see Lu Tze on screen

 

[Dotsie]

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell (sorry)

S'OK, I read it a long time ago, and no-one would read it more than once

 

[pip]

Read it twice

But only cos the sorta sequel set of short stories came out

 

[Dotsie]

Too much time on your hands!

 

[Tonyblack]

Small Gods would be difficult. Not that you couldn't film what actually happens, it's more a case of not being able to film the conclusions. I don't think the satire would come across.

 

[BobtheDrog]

I've always thought American gods would never work

 

[Bouncy Castle]

My current Kindle read is probably not one that could be filmed easily - Tom Holt: Overtime.

Most bizarre.