h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

For me, an adaptation is good if it makes me want to go out and buy the book. One example of this is 'King Rat', based on the novel by James Clavell. I'd read Shogun, Taipan and Noble House, but was unsure of King Rat because of its war-time setting. I saw the film, starring George Segal, James Fox, Tom Courtney et al., and went out and bought the book. I wasn't disappointed.

If I'm watching a good adaptation of a book I haven't read for a while, the film will make me want to go and read the book again. If it's a really good adaptation, I'll be able to see the actors in my mind's eye as I read.

There are a couple of things that make for a bad adaptation, IMHO. One is bad casting - see my comments on the 1956 version of War and Peace in the 'Changed endings and miscasting' thread. Another is changing the story so much that it bears no resemblance to the book on which it was based. I appreciate that it's necessary to miss things out so that the film fits in to 2 hours-ish, but it is possible to do this without ruining the story. 'The Name of the Rose' is an example of doing it well. However, I have seen films where the only link with the book on which the film was based is the title and the names of the characters. The story, in some cases, has been changed completely. Why buy film rights if you're not going to do a film of the book?

yeah - like 'mary shelley's frankenstein'. what a con. so much for being 'an authentic adaptation', which is what the title made me expect.

I've never seen the point of putting the author's name in the film title. The people who care who wrote the book will probably already know. For those that care and don't know, there's always the credits - "Based on the novel by xxxxx". As you say, using the author's name can give the impression that the film's going to stick closely to the book. I've seen so few films that do, that I can count them on the fingers of one hand.

Mind you, sometimes a film can improve on a book by missing out a lot of stuff that doesn't add to the flow of the story. In a way the film 'The Name of the Rose' did this. The book contains a lot of stuff on heretics that the film, quite rightly, left out. I won't say it's one of my favourite films, but it is a reasonable adaptation.