This is something that I have always thought about.  I read a wonderful book, and wonder why nobody makes a movie based on it.

One of the biggest problems I have is that the books I normally read are almost never made into movies.  This is especially true in the Fantasy-Sci-Fi area.  For example, Isaac Asimov was a true master of Sci-Fi, but only 3 movies have been made on his stories (Nightfall, I, Robot, and Bicentennial Man).  Piers Anthony is one of the most popular authors in history, but there has never been a movie based upon one of his books (even though his Xanth series has run 27 books, and the first book in the series has sold over 1 million copies).

One thing that always amazes me is that I see hundreds of movies that come out every year that are absolute crap.  While there are tens of thousands of books that are never made into movies.  Hat are some of your picks for "This should be a movie"?

Here is mine:

The Chtorr War series, by David Gerrold (the creater of the classic Star Trek episode "The Trouble With Tribbles")
Xanth, by Piers Anthony (a movie has been in "Pre-Production" for over 10 years now)
Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card
The Brotherhood Of War series, by W.E.B. Griffin (a wonderful war series about the soldiers more then war itself)
The Belgariad, by  David and Leigh Eddings (a 5-12 book series of wonderful fantasy)
Island In The Sea Of Time, by S. M. Stirling (Nantucket island is tossed 5,000 years into the past)
The Two Georges, by  Harry Turtledove and Richard Dreyfuss  (yes, the actor.  An "Alternate History" where the American Colonies reconcile with England and the revolution never happens)
Casca, by Barry Sadler (where a Roman soldier is cursed to live forever)

The Dictionary - just to see if it was possible ;D

I would like to see more Clive Cussler books made into movies, though the legal disputes Cussler had over 'Sahara' probably ended that :(

I would like to see more Clive Cussler books made into movies, though the legal disputes Cussler had over 'Sahara' probably ended that :(


Not to mention the way they mangled "Raise The Titanic".

One problem that can often happen to a book or author is to have a horrible movie made from one of their books.  Raise The Titanic, Doc Savage, Battlefield Earth, Dune, Slapstick, and Queen Of The Damned were all so bad that they pretty much killed any other chance the original authors had of selling more adaptation rights.

Yet strangely, Stephen King has no problem selling his movie rights, no matter how bad a movie might be.  I think King is truely the "King Of Bad Movie Adaptations".  For every good movie based on his works, there are 4 or 5 really horrible ones.

I would like to see Swan Song by Robert McCammon made into a movie. Probably never happen since it would be like The Stand. But I enjoyed the Swan Song more than The Stand.

I'm a huge Tom Clancy fan and it's driving me nuts that I had do wait 8 years for The Sum Of All Fears to come out, and now I've been waiting 5 years and counting for Debt Of Honor ! What else can Ben Affleck possibly be doing? Do we need a new director, screenwriter, producer, what? I realize the ending came tragically to life on 9/11, but couldn't they just change the ending in a way that still sets up Executive Orders? Both those books were excellent and I still wish they'd put'em on the big screen. NTM after those two, we'd have a great spin-off with a film version of Rainbow Six ! I hope someone in Hollywood reads this.

Your Pal,
Doc
8)

I'd kinda like to see "The Perks Of Being A Wallflower" made into a movie. It was an amazing book, indeed.

Here's one with explosive potential:

Jack Perkins, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." 

Ian Fleming meets Noam Chomsky!

Vincent Bugliosi: Reclaiming History: The assassination of John F. Kennedy.

The way I see it, old Vince is even more passionate about exposing the lack of conspiracy in the JFK assassination than Oliver Stone was about exposing a conspiracy.

This book should be made into the anti-"JFK."

I plan on reading this book.  If anybody can convince me Oswald acted alone, it's Vincent Bugliosi!

Taking a great book and making it into a movie always scares me.  They don't often get it right. 

I'd kinda like to see "The Perks Of Being A Wallflower" made into a movie. It was an amazing book, indeed.


Too bad you can't read it again for at least a year and a half. >:-}D

Taking a great book and making it into a movie always scares me.  They don't often get it right. 

Books and movies are very different story-telling media.  A motion picture simply does not have the same potential as a novel...and the reverse is also true.  Ever read a book cobbled together from the script of a great movie?  That's even worse!

I have been more than satisfied with cinematic versions of some of my favorite novels, most notably:

Gary Sinise's version of Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" (1992).
The story is simple enough to allow a great adaptation for film.
Other directors have done OMAM for movies and TV.  I haven't seen the others, but I doubt they were anywhere near as good as what Sinise and John Malkovich did.

Michael Radford's version of Orwell's "Nineteen Eight-Four" (1984)
There is more depth and background in "1984" than a movie script can convey, but Radford captured the book's essence.  Everything about that movie was top-notch, Radford's directing, the cast featuring (John Hurt, Suzanna Hamilton, Richard Burton, and Cyril Cusack, plus a cameo from Annie Lennox), the cinematography (Roger Deakins), the music (Dominic Muldowney, Eurythmics), and so on.  The explicit sex scenes and the Eurythmics' music lent the story more sensuality than Orwell intended, but I thought that complemented the movie rendition, rather than detract from it. 

And of course there's Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy (J.R.R. Tolkein).
Jackson got the perfect blend of clarity, while conveying a great deal of what Tolkein wrote in his books, and "Hollywood" brilliance.  If it had been up to me, I would have made things more gritty and toned down the show biz glamour, but then I wouldn't have gotten the investment Jackson got.  Pitch an artsy and strange screenplay, get an artsy and strange budget! No, Jackson knows movie-goers want to look at fairytale fantasy images and drop-dead gorgeous women (Kate Blanchett, whoah mama!), so that's what he gave 'em!  But there was much more...so people like me who grew up reading Tolkein's books could have the pleasure of seeing the stories portrayed magnificently on the big screen...and giggly teenage girls could fall in love with Elijah Wood!
:)

Let's see here:

"The Koran," directed by Sherm Cohen
with Jim Carrey as Mohammed.
(Just to hasten the apocalypse, you see!)

John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath," directed by Michael Moore
with Matt Damon as Tom Joad and Ben Affleck as Preacher Casey
(It's time John Ford's classic rendition get an upgrade.

Bill O'Reilly's "The Factor for Kids," directed by Wes Craven

Too bad you can't read it again for at least a year and a half. >:-}D


Yeah, srsly.

Books and movies are very different story-telling media.  A motion picture simply does not have the same potential as a novel...and the reverse is also true.  Ever read a book cobbled together from the script of a great movie?  That's even worse!

I have been more than satisfied with cinematic versions of some of my favorite novels, most notably:

Gary Sinise's version of Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" (1992).
The story is simple enough to allow a great adaptation for film.
Other directors have done OMAM for movies and TV.  I haven't seen the others, but I doubt they were anywhere near as good as what Sinise and John Malkovich did.

Michael Radford's version of Orwell's "Nineteen Eight-Four" (1984)
There is more depth and background in "1984" than a movie script can convey, but Radford captured the book's essence.  Everything about that movie was top-notch, Radford's directing, the cast featuring (John Hurt, Suzanna Hamilton, Richard Burton, and Cyril Cusack, plus a cameo from Annie Lennox), the cinematography (Roger Deakins), the music (Dominic Muldowney, Eurythmics), and so on.  The explicit sex scenes and the Eurythmics' music lent the story more sensuality than Orwell intended, but I thought that complemented the movie rendition, rather than detract from it. 

And of course there's Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy (J.R.R. Tolkein).
Jackson got the perfect blend of clarity, while conveying a great deal of what Tolkein wrote in his books, and "Hollywood" brilliance.  If it had been up to me, I would have made things more gritty and toned down the show biz glamour, but then I wouldn't have gotten the investment Jackson got.  Pitch an artsy and strange screenplay, get an artsy and strange budget! No, Jackson knows movie-goers want to look at fairytale fantasy images and drop-dead gorgeous women (Kate Blanchett, whoah mama!), so that's what he gave 'em!  But there was much more...so people like me who grew up reading Tolkein's books could have the pleasure of seeing the stories portrayed magnificently on the big screen...and giggly teenage girls could fall in love with Elijah Wood!
:)





Of Mice and Men, is easily adapted, I saw a version with (I think) Jason Robards.  It is one of my favorite stories, but so difficult, so sad. I was supremely pissed off at Mists of Avalon and I have avoided both 1984 and Lord of the Rings, but I'll give them a shot on your recommendation

Of Mice and Men, is easily adapted, I saw a version with (I think) Jason Robards.  It is one of my favorite stories, but so difficult, so sad. I was supremely pissed off at Mists of Avalon and I have avoided both 1984 and Lord of the Rings, but I'll give them a shot on your recommendation

I definitely recommend "Nineteen Eight-Four."  Radford did so well with the script that some of the lines he wrote himself are almost as good as Orwell.  A lot of times when you see the movie version, the characters don't seem like you pictured them when you read the book. 
John Hurt and Suzanna Hamilton are exactly how I pictured Winston and Julia, and Richard Burton is the perfect O'Brien.  There are little inaccuracies added for cinematic expression, for instance, when Winston throws documents down the "memory hole," you see flames arise and incinerates it.  Orwell mentioned no flames.  This was just a way of showing it's gone forever like it never existed, so it's forgivable!

If your read Tolkein's books when you were younger---a word of caution.  My parents read the books to me, and then I read the books myself, and Tolkein's world became part of my consciousness.  I had elaborate visions of the characters and the settings of my own; I wasn't prepared for Peter Jackson's.  It was like coming home and finding somebody had painted the walls different colors and changed all your furniture!  So that's the toughest thing to get past with LOTR!

Finally, an easy question for me to answer!  Thank you! lol


Trinity by Leon Uris 

The Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon.  If you haven't read it/heard of it, I highly recommend the books:

1. The Outlander
2. Dragonfly in Amber
3. Voyager
4. Drums of Autumn
5. The Fiery Cross
6. A Breath of Snow and Ashes

It's a wonderful adventure of a nurse in 1945 England, at the end of WWII who has recently married, and now that the war is over, finally gets her honeymoon in the Scottish Highlands.  Unfortunately, a few days into the trip, she falls through some rocks and travels back 200 years.  It is an absolutely marvelous tale full of Scottish and English history and time travel.  #6 is supposed to be the series finale, but unlike JK Rowling, Diana doesn't wrap everything up with a lovely bow....it feels unfinished, like there might be room for one more book (though she denies it--in which case I'm sure I'm not the only disappointed fan).  Despite that (and some of the horrible stuff that happens to the male lead), I still recommend it to anyone---it is a wonderful story with characters to really come to care about.  It is Sci-fi meets historical romance.

I wish they would make a movie of the series, but I know they couldn't do the book justice.  She describes the characters in such detail, can't think of a single actor/actress "right" for the parts.  :-\\

none. the big screen ruins movies with very few exceptions.

Lunar Park by Bret Easton Ellis would make a great film if done right. But I guess that's the problem, yeah? Doing it right.

Lucky for me, I have heard that they're in pre-production for a film version (although that literally means nothing). But with Ellis' books having a history of page-to-screen doability, I think I may yet see this film get made.

Ooh yes, also, I saw on IMDb that they are making Robertson Davies' novel, Fifth Business, into a Canadian mini-series. I can't wait for it to come out, and I'm sure that Danoota will be excited to hear.