Umm … none?
I am of the opinion (shared by most booklovers) that the book is always better than the movie. As such, why would I ever doom any book to becoming a movie?
The reason books are better is that movies (and TV shows) have to focus on the visible–the dialogue and action. Books have the visible action, but can also have the character’s thoughts. That adds a depth to the book that the movie can’t always replicate.
As such, I’m always dubious of any book review that says something like “this book would make a great movie!”. That’s basically saying the book is shallow, with little or no character development but plenty of visual action (Exhibit A: that Dan Brown novel).
Note: there are some movies I’ve enjoyed that have been based on books, but I can’t comment because I haven’t read the book. The best example I can think of is Forrest Gump, but I’m sure there are others.
The books which make good movies are those books with compelling and fast-paced plots, but which lack character development (Exhibit B: any James Bond movie. Half a dozen actors, but the man’s character has barely changed in fifty years).
Saying a book would make a good movie is the equivalent of giving it a three-star review.
So I guess the book I’d like to see made into a movie is a book I haven’t read and perhaps don’t have any interest in reading but would still like to know what happens (but without reading the Cliff Notes version).
Let me think …
Thinking …
Still thinking …
