[Irrelevant]

I've been moved to this topic by recent discussion about The Watchmen becoming a film. Many fans anticipating the film have mentioned that the graphic novel is "unfilmable." One reason catching my attention was that the GN spans 40 years. Not only is that a huge obstacle for superhero films, that's a huge obstacle for any film. Romance of the Three Kingdoms spans 40 years and it takes a huge spanning Chinese TV series to get it right, albeit, with sub-par actors.

What this thread is about is what fantasy series do you think is filmable and what is unfilmable.

Let's keep a few things in mind. Fimable doesn't neccessarily mean good. I think the Drizzt novels are totally filmable, but they may as well cast Nicholas Cage as Drizzt considering how close Salvatore's narrative style is to Jerry Bruckheimer's.

I'm mainly interested in really great books that would make terrible films and really terrible books that would make great films. I think R. A. Salvatore books would make great films despite the books being...well uninspired

At one time, The Lord of the Rings was claimed to be unfilmable. However, the narrative style of films-along with a dedicated fanbase-made the films incredibly successful.

So here now is the question. Name the fantasy book series you feel are unfilmable and which ones are filmable.

Before answering, I want to exclude anything that takes more than 3 novels to narrate. It's understandable that Wheel of Time is unfilmable cause asking WB to invest in three films-4 of which, nothing happens-is unreasonable. However,find an epic that can fulfill Harry Potter acclaim and you'll be rewarded with...admiration. Sorry, can't offer more.

I'll start with 2

Mistborn: Filmable. Totally filmible. Arraon Eckhart is Kelseir, the rest writes itself.
The Prince of Nothing: Totally unfilmible. This is a series that suffers from numerous problems. Narration is needed to explain most of it. if you can't do Star Wars floating text to explain things, don't make the movie.

So I leave you with several goals. Name great books that would make terrible movies, great books that'd make great movies, and
terrible books that'd make great movies

[Irrelevant]

Oh. I'm also interested in great books that'd make great films. Don't want to leave that tidbit out. If you think a film based on a book would be terrible because the book itself is terrible, then don't bother mentioning it.

[Irrelevant]

I find I cannot mention everything I want to in this thread. How to describe filmable. I'm givin the film a 3 hour maximum. The production costs cannot exceed $100 million. Yes LOTR was over $250 million each film, but no studio will ever be willing to bail out that much money for a fantasy movie ever again, so I'm assuming the average budget for all three Matrix films suffices.

[Ranke Lidyek]

People keep clamoring for American Gods to be filmed. I don't think it's a great novel. It's largely plotless, despite the wonderful prose. It would be a horrid film. All ideas and no action lines--even worse than other Neil Gaiman works in that regard. It's easier to get away with that sort of thing in print (and easier in graphic), but impossible in film unless you change the very core of the concept and execution.

[Ranke Lidyek]

I would agree with Prince of Nothing. Definitely not meant to be cinematic. Though the imagery is often first-rate and I like Bakker, there are fundamental issues with the plotting and the internalization.

However, I would be curious enough to probably pay to see it even if I know it'll be awful. Some surrealistic genius could still make it interesting even if there is almost no context to be had.

[Boiler]

I find I cannot mention everything I want to in this thread. How to describe filmable. I'm givin the film a 3 hour maximum. The production costs cannot exceed $100 million. Yes LOTR was over $250 million each film, but no studio will ever be willing to bail out that much money for a fantasy movie ever again, so I'm assuming the average budget for all three Matrix films suffices.

wrong. lotr's overall budget was 280 million, less than 100 million per movie. to put that in relation: th spiderman 3 budget alone was roughly 260 million...

on topic: i always thought david gemmell's books could make great movies: the cast of characters is not too big, there's plenty of action, the plot usually is not too complicated. and 'legend' for instance, would basically need only one big set piece.

[Ranke Lidyek]

David Gemmell.

Hell yeah. I'd DROOL over the Shannow books and Waylander (Hero in the Shadows is downright staggering) as films. Gemmell's plots are always strong and his characters well drawn in a surprisingly minimalist manner. Perfect for the screen.

[GarrickW]

Here I was going to say Malazan would be unfilmable due to sheer size; but I think that's a given, isn't it? Still, I'd love to see it, if someone ever does it.

Adrian Tchaikovsky's books seem quite filmable to me, and the result would probably be quite fun, if it was well directed.

As a side, what ever happened to Peter Jackson buying the film rights to Temeraire?

I think any book could be made into a good film or series of films, but it wouldn't necessarily be the same; you'd lose some aspects, but a good director could make up for that by adding aspects you couldn't have had in the books. Ideally you'd have the author working on the movie as well, and that way, while some things might be lost in the transfer, other things might be gained, and the end product, while not the same, would be as good as the books.

[Gargy]

Everything is filmable, it all depends on how they do it.

Unlike many die hard fans I dont think that a film necessarily have to be an exact copy of the book. It should stand on its own.

[Po6oT]

LotR was unfilmable as proved by Peter Jackson.

Stay strong Christopher! - Hobbit movies meet dire foe in son of Tolkien (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3999008.ece)