Book to film adaptations

Generally the book is better than the film, in the case of several of the classics the film version can only be as good if done over a series (for example BBC pride and prejudice, as opposed to the kera knightly film version which was too short to encompass all the characters and situations needed to make the film any where near as good as the book)

However in some cases the books don't carry across the spontanaiety (spelling?) of the films. A couple of major examples to illustrate my theory are Jaws, Jurassic park and The Princess Bride all three are relitively simple in plot line and in all three i feel that it is the characters likability which makes te films so successful. However, in the books the characters are not as developed or likable as they are when played by the actors who took the part. In the film of Jaws Roy Sheider and Richard Dreyfuss took the main parts and were both likeable and had great screen presence, in the book Chief Brodie was a pig and Mat Hooper was a sleezy little shit who was having an affair with ellen brodie, the character of Quint was unmemorable in the book but was played brilliantly by Robert Shaw and his part although small in the movie was one of the most entertaining in any film. The upshot of all this is that the characters in the book were such arseholes i really was rooting for the shark.

IN the book of Jurassic park, again the characters were no where near as likable as they were in the film (although I am a hugh michael crichton fan and usually love his characters) and without the added wow of the cgi dinosaurs there was not really much to keep this book afloat apart from a brilliantly fun idea of having scientists ressurect dinosaurs.

The book of the princess bride by william golding was a huge let down as I love this film and think it has stood the test of time fantastically and can stand up to any modern movie and probably win hands down, carey elwes (sp?) who playes westley plays this part with such flair that he is the ultimate dashing hero and mandy patinkin who plays inigo montoya is also equally matched in heroic status, in the book though westley comes over as a bit of an arrogant sod and princess buttercup as a thicko, there is also the annoying addition of footnotes and asides every bloody page by the author butting in, and in the film this is done by fred savage and peter faulk in a lovely way so as to be funny without being intrusive, in the book its just annoying.

There are many books out there that kick the arse off any attempt to make them in to films, the subtlety of the writing and atmosphere created by the writer can not be recreated on the big screen and in these cases i wish people would not even try to make it in to a film (John Grishams "A painted House" is one of these, beautifully written, brilliant book...sodding awful soulless film), possibly a bit controversially i also feel that the lord of the rings was better left as a book, as were the harry potters (although imo i didnt feel that HP was that much of a brilliant book to start with, enjoyable but nothing mind blowing).

Additionally there are the movie adaptations of graphic novels which are either fantastic or suck big time, sin city, road to perdition and 300 being the better graphic to movie crossovers and judge dredd being the absolute worst case scenario.

I guess its all down to personal preference but my preference is that if yu can not do the book justice and make the film just as good if not better than the book DONT MAKE IT!