Written by Michael Dance on 6/11/10 • • Filed under: Features, Lists

Chances are, at some point in your life, you’ve finished a book, set it down, and said to yourself: man, I’d love to see a movie version of that — if it wasn’t totally impossible. Some novels are just unfilmable — too complex, too unstructured, too far inside the heads of its characters, too suited to the written word. But if you’re a movie lover, there’s always that part of you that wants to see one anyway.

So our latest poll posed a question: of a handful of the most famously “unfilmable” novels, which one would you really want to see made anyway? Below are the results — including explanations on why they’re deemed unfilmable, and what steps — if any — people have taken over the years to try to film them.

1. Ender’s Game – 56 Votes

What it’s about:

In the future, humanity has hesitantly banded together after near-extinction at the hands of an alien race known as the Buggers. In preparation for another inevitable invasion, the International Fleet drafts young child prodigies around the world to a massive Battle School on an international space station to train to become the next generation’s military leaders. The novel follows the diminuitive, initially six-year-old Ender Wiggin through his experiences in Battle School and beyond.

Why it would make a great movie:

It’s sort of like a harder-edged, more analytical Harry Potter in space. The strength of the book lies not in its sci-fi trappings but in its portrayal of Ender’s brilliantly analytical mind and the friends and enemies he makes in school. And the low-gravity “Games” in Battle School would be awesome action sequences.

Why it wouldn’t work:

Because the weight of the movie would be entirely in the hands of six- to ten-year-old actors. Which would be impossible, which would mean the filmmakers would likely up the age, lose a bit of the novel’s soul, and end up still having the same child actor problems.

Who’s tried anyway:

Author Orson Scott Card has personally written a few different versions of the screenplay; most recently Wolfgang Peterson (Troy, The NeverEnding Story) was attached to direct in 2009 for Warner Bros., and David Benioff was re-writing the script. Then Peterson dropped out and the minor production company Odd Lot Entertainment optioned the script. That was over a year ago; no word since.

2. The Catcher in the Rye – 51 Votes

What it’s about: Three days in the life of the talkative, excitable 16-year-old Holden Caulfield, who ditches boarding school to run away to New York City.

Why it would make a great movie: Because it’s a classic novel that taps into the mind of every teenager who’s ever been disillusioned about anything. Also, a bunch of cool stuff happens. Like: he hires a prostitute and then gets beaten up by her pimp.

Why it wouldn’t work: Because the entire novel takes place distinctly through Holden’s first-person narration. In a movie, we’d see the action, but would likely lose the flavor that makes it a memorable novel in the first place. It’s the classic example of a novel that just wouldn’t translate. (Which, of course, kind of makes me and forty-nine of you all the more curious about what a movie version would be like.)

Who’s tried anyway: Lots of people, all rebuffed by author J.D. Salinger himself. Who is now, sadly, deceased…

3. Ulysses – 21 Votes

What it’s about: A day in the life of Dubliner Leopold Bloom that oddly resembles the adventures of Homer’s hero Odysseus.

Why it would make a great movie: It’s apparently one of the 100 best novels of the 20th Century. I say “apparently,” because, well…

Why it wouldn’t work: Have you actually read it? It defines impenetrable. Really long, really complex, and like The Catcher in the Rye it heavily uses a stream-of-consciousness narrative. Only way more. Quite simply, nobody would have any idea how.

Who’s tried anyway: Surprise! This actually was a real-life 1967 movie, and was even nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay. Go hunt it down. There was also a less successful 2003 loose adaptation called Bloom. And then there’s a 2001 French film called I’m Going Home that’s partially about the filming of a new adaptation. All that, and it still has a reputation for being unfilmable. (Some say James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake is even more unfilmable, but I didn’t include it for the sole reason that I don’t think I’ll ever meet anyone in my life who’s actually read it.)

4. Cat’s Cradle – 19 Votes

What it’s about: One of Kurt Vonnegut’s big early hits (it predates Slaughterhouse-Five by six years), it stars a guy name John who’s researching a book about the atomic bomb, who stumbles across a scientist named Felix Hoenikker. Hoenikker’s developed a wildly dangerous (possibly apocalyptic) substance called ice-nine, which after his death falls into the hands of his sympathetic — but also weak and stupid — children.

Why it would make a great movie: It’s a politically-driven morality satire held together by Vonnegut’s frequently hilarious observations. You could sort of say that about all of Vonnegut’s books, but this is one of the better ones, which is saying quite a bit.

Why it wouldn’t work: It’s the old problem of how to get such a strong narrative voice onto a movie screen. There’s also not much action. The 1972 movie version of Slaughterhouse-Five was pretty flat, and that’s a much more cinematic book than Cat’s Cradle.

Who’s tried anyway: Well, as an homage, Ice-Nine appeared as a computer virus in the otherwise forgettable Al Pacino flick The Recruit. But a real adaptation was recently pursued by Leonardo DiCaprio’s production company, Appian Way, and supposedly Richard Kelly was writing it. It doesn’t sound like it went anywhere, but it shows the interest is there.

5. (tie) House of Leaves – 9 Votes

What it’s about: A cult hit about a tattoo parlor employee who moves into a new apartment, discovers a manuscript of an academic study of a documentary called The Navidson Record, which itself is about a house that…changes, turning into a series of impenetrable passageways and hiding places that drives its inhabitants insane.

Why it would make a great movie: That synopsis I just wrote sounds like it could lend itself to a classy thriller, a headtrip recalling great horror films like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Unfortunately…

Why it wouldn’t work: any movie version of House of Leaves is going to be nothing like the book. You just need to actually look at the book to figure out why. Some pages have one word on each line, forming a sentence twisted in the shape of a snake. Some pages only have one sentence. Different sections have different fonts. Some pages are backwards. And since the book is a study of another study of a documentary of events, there’s a copious amount of footnotes from multiple perspectives, all commenting on each other.

Who’s tried anyway: Nobody; author Mark Z. Danielewski has refused to sell the film rights. Though there is this spectacular fan-made opening credit sequence.

5. (tie) Childhood’s End – 9 Votes

What it’s about: a race of peaceful aliens known to us as the Overlords visit Earth and help transform our planet into a near-utopia. Except, their true intentions aren’t entirely clear (no, it doesn’t turn out to be your basic V-style invasion plot, it’s much more inventive than that) and they look like…well, that’s one of the novel’s surprises.

Why it would make a great movie: Arthur C. Clarke’s classic, beautifully written sci-fi fable is jam-packed with Big Ideas, but it’s all wrapped inside an alien visitation plot that would be right at home on the screen, with an appealing marketing campaign and cool special effects.

Why it wouldn’t work: the structure of the novel would have to be entirely reworked, because as written, there’s a dealbreaking problem: there’s no main character. The first third of the book stars one man, who acts as the main ambassador to the Overlords when they first arrive on Earth. The remaining two thirds take place fifty years later and sporadically jump between a married couple and a curious young engineer. Then there’s the main Overlord character, who appears throughout the book but is rarely seen. If we ever get a movie version, the timeline would be condensed, most of the characters would be written out, and a romantic subplot would be added.

Who’s tried anyway: Kimberly Pierce (Boy’s Don’t Cry) wanted to make it after Stop-Loss, but that movie bombed and she’s known for indies anyway, so studios have (up till now, anyway) passed. But there is apparently a screenplay floating around, though I can’t seem to find who actually wrote it — Akiva Goldsman (A Beautiful Mind) was rumored at one point but apparently (and thankfully) never did. Of course, as expected from a classic sci-fi novel from 1953, you can see Childhood’s End‘s ideas borrowed in certain episodes of pretty much every sci-fi show out there, including Star Trek, Doctor Who, Babylon 5, and Stargate SG-1.

7. A Confederacy of Dunces – 8 Votes

What it’s about: Ignatius J. Reilly, a “thirty-year-old medievalist who lives at home with his mother in New Orleans,” who, after being forced to find a job, stumbles through a series of adventures in the work force with plenty of colorful supporting characters. Written by John Kennedy Toole, who killed himself before the novel was published.

Why it would make a great movie: Just ask the novel’s legions of cult fans: it’s hilarious. Plus, the large cast of characters means a movie version would probably be star-studded.

Why it wouldn’t work: Well, aside from the novel being totally love-it-or-hate-it — Ignatius is a wildly unlikable character from a certain perspective — it’s pretty dense, and the humor can be literary.

Who’s tried anyway: LOTS of people. In the early ’80s, Harold Ramis almost made it with John Belushi. More recently, in 2005 the movie was super-close to being made, directed by David Gordon Green (George Washington, Pineapple Express) and starring Will Ferrell as Ignatius with a supporting cast that included Paul Rudd, Mos Def, Rosie Perez, Jesse Eisenberg, Olympia Dukakis, and Natasha Lyonne. Then it just sort of fell apart for frustratingly vague reasons.

8. Infinite Jest – 7 Votes

What it’s about: A sprawling ensemble novel set in a future unified North America where years are named after products (i.e. Year of the Whopper), about a missing film that’s said to be so entertaining that people lose interest in living after viewing it. Also, a tennis academy.

Why it would make a great movie: It’s quite funny and idiosyncratic, which in the hands of the right team of actors and filmmakers would really be something to watch. You could also maybe trick studio executives into thinking it’s a mainstream sci-fi novel on the basis that it takes place in the future.

Why it wouldn’t work: It’s similar to Dunces in that there’s a lot of humor, but it’s very literary. (And also in that both David Foster Wallace and John Kennedy Toole committed suicide, unfortunately.) Also, way too many characters, no main character, no discerning structure of any kind. And it’s over a thousand pages. You get the idea.

Who’s tried anyway: Before Wallace’s suicide, the rights were optioned, Keith Bunin wrote a screenplay, and Sam Jones was attached to direct, but the option ran out. But Wallace was willing to allow a movie to be made, so it remains a possibility. In the meantime, for Wallace fans, John Krasinski successfully directed a movie version of Brief Interviews with Hideous Men that came out last year.

Additional sources: The Guardian, MidniteMedia, Random House, CountingDown, MTV, Screenhead, and CHUD. And, of course, Amazon and Wikipedia.

Like this post? Grab our feed for your iGoogle page or RSS reader or whatever. Or read our posts in our daily e-mail.