›

Bad movie book adaptations...

benzelzbenzelz
edited July 2010 in General Chat
Here, you can talk about a movie that has the worst adaptations to the book ever.



I LOVED the Percy Jackson movie but it was soooooooooooo different to the book!!!
«1

Comments

  • ShaggEShaggE
    edited July 2010
    The Stand. Enjoyable enough, but even at six hours in length, everything that made the book great was chopped out.
  • NateBaileyNateBailey
    edited July 2010
    Youth in revolt was a funny movie that had good casting and represented the characters really well but it doesn't hold a candle to the book.

    There should be a counter discussion on good books that made good movies.
    Case in point Jaws and Jurassic Park.
  • Secret FawfulSecret Fawful
    edited July 2010
    A Series of Unfortunate Events. The acting was pretty good but the directing could have been better, less reliant on CGI, and they condensed three books into one movie.

    Also The Relic. I can not begin to express my disappointment with this one. Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child are better than Crichton on his turf, but this movie was made as a cash in, and worst of all it left out the MAIN CHARACTER of the book and the biggest legitimate reason to read the book in the first place. The main character of that book and its subsequent sequels is a badass, and frankly they really dropped the ball on this movie.
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited July 2010
    Bad book adaptations are so common that, honestly, they quickly fade into being background noise in the universe. It's the great adaptations, and the ones that are greater than their source material that stand out amongst the crowd.
  • HaydenHayden
    edited July 2010
    Rather Dashing wrote: »
    Bad book adaptations are so common that, honestly, they quickly fade into being background noise in the universe. It's the great adaptations, and the ones that are greater than their source material that stand out amongst the crowd.

    Not Harry Potter. Those movies are terrible compared to the books, yet they're still stupidly popular.
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited July 2010
    Hayden wrote: »
    Not Harry Potter. Those movies are terrible compared to the books, yet they're still stupidly popular.
    I don't see how the Harry Potter films are especially notable. Sure, like the entire Harry Potter franchise, it has the one notable feature of being incredibly well-marketed. But also like the whole Harry Potter franchise, it has nothing else notable about it. It's a poor book adaptation just like any other, and it doesn't really stand out. That it was adapted from an originally mediocre book rather than a classic and that it obtained large amounts of cash is, well, not really important in terms of what it actually is.
  • RemolayRemolay
    edited July 2010
    I'm going ot have to note one I haven't seen, but from what I've heard the movie for Children of the Corn is the worst adaptation of anything ever. And yet it still got 6 sequels.
  • GibbeynatorGibbeynator
    edited July 2010
    Not exactly a movie, but there was a TV show of "Flashforward" that had nothing to do with the book except that everyone on Earth has a vision of their future.
  • jeeno0142jeeno0142
    edited July 2010
    Lord of the Rings. The films were good, but I preferred the books. There was quite a bit missed out in the film, but it still worked.
  • Javi-Wan KenobiJavi-Wan Kenobi
    edited July 2010
    I'd like to do a twist to the topic:
    Usually film adaptations of books are worse than the original book, but what happens the other way around? I mean book adaptations (novelizations) of films.
    I've read eight novelizations (the six Star Wars films plus the Clone Wars movie, and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom -the old one by James Kahn, not the new one that appeared when The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was released), and I think that mostly are cheap merchandise, although they add new scenes that aren't on the movies (mostly scenes that are on the original script but were cut from the final edition).
    The only book I trully think that is way better than its movie is Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
  • jp-30jp-30
    edited July 2010
    The 2nd & 3rd "His dark materials" movies. Where are my knife & spyglass movies? Huh?

    Grrrrrrrr.





    (I quite liked the Golden Compass adaptation of Northern Lights, fwiw).
  • coolsomecoolsome
    edited July 2010
    Stardust was great but nothing like the book left out lots and made changes I think they where delibret because the author said he didnt want to see a movie try to be fathful and fail so it was looly based on it. Neil Gaiman once described the movie adaptation as the novels cousan rather then adaptation.

    EDIT
    Im not moaning about the changes I liked most of them and like its diffrent from the book its allmost like 2 diffrent storys.
  • Gman5852Gman5852
    edited July 2010
    Javi-Wan Kenobi wrote: »
    I'd like to do a twist to the topic:
    Usually film adaptations of books are worse than the original book, but what happens the other way around? I mean book adaptations (novelizations) of films.
    I've read eight novelizations (the six Star Wars films plus the Clone Wars movie, and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom -the old one by James Kahn, not the new one that appeared when The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was released), and I think that mostly are cheap merchandise, although they add new scenes that aren't on the movies (mostly scenes that are on the original script but were cut from the final edition).
    The only book I trully think that is way better than its movie is Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

    That reminds me i need to ask if that indiana jones and the crystal skull book i got my little cousin was any good

    Also im sure very few of you have heard of this, but
    Alex Rider: stormbreaker. The series is genius a great series start to end(sadly there was an end only 2 more books left in the series:() but the movie was just terrible. It was changed a lot. In the book he was givin a gameboy that has many gadgets desgiused as games while the movie he was given a DS that was an actual DS and the games where the gadets along with games, plus he has a girlfriend he doesnt even meet until the 3rd book. PLus there where very few action sequences while there where many many MANY in the book
  • IcedhopeIcedhope
    edited July 2010
    Anything steven spielberg has directed based on a book.
  • ZoninoZonino
    edited July 2010
    Icedhope wrote: »
    Anything steven spielberg has directed based on a book.

    Was thinking about this. Jurassic Park is a brilliant film but there's quite a few things different from the book. I hear The Lost World is worse but I've not read that book.
  • AvistewAvistew
    edited July 2010
    I first read the subject line in the same way as Javi.
    I think there are plenty of terrible books written after movies. A fair amount of bad movies based on books, too. Some good movies.

    Movies and books are different and tell their story differently. I think people don't keep it in mind enough. You can't just copy-paste from one to the other...

    Also, I think movies are more of a match for short stories. It seems to me a lot of novels would work better as a series or miniseries. Obviously, that would cost more and bring in less money, so you can't be surprised it happens more rarely.
  • jeeno0142jeeno0142
    edited July 2010
    Sailorcuteness wrote: »
    Stardust was great but nothing like the book left out lots and made changes I think they where delibret because the author said he didnt want to see a movie try to be fathful and fail so it was looly based on it. Neil Gaiman once described the movie adaptation as the novels cousan rather then adaptation.

    EDIT
    Im not moaning about the changes I liked most of them and like its diffrent from the book its allmost like 2 diffrent storys.

    I bought that book expecting it to be the same as the movie, but as you say they are like two different stories. I like the book, and will most likely read it again, but in this case, I prefer the movie.
  • AlcoremortisAlcoremortis
    edited July 2010
    Gman5852 wrote: »
    That reminds me i need to ask if that indiana jones and the crystal skull book i got my little cousin was any good

    Also im sure very few of you have heard of this, but
    Alex Rider: stormbreaker. The series is genius a great series start to end(sadly there was an end only 2 more books left in the series:() but the movie was just terrible.

    Huh? This is an ongoing series. It hasn't ended yet. You're referring book five, Scorpio, right? Cause there's like three more after that and still going strong. Rejoice! :D
  • IcedhopeIcedhope
    edited July 2010
    Zonino wrote: »
    Was thinking about this. Jurassic Park is a brilliant film but there's quite a few things different from the book. I hear The Lost World is worse but I've not read that book.

    It's a completly different story, and just like Jaws he cuts out quite a lot.
  • WillWill Telltale Alumni
    edited July 2010
    Not a book, but I think it's worth mentioning: Avatar: The Last Airbender.
  • BoneFreakBoneFreak
    edited July 2010
    Bridge to Terabithia. The book was simply based on imagination and how across the stream there was a "different" world, but the movie took on all the creatures as for real, and the bulk of the movie was across the bridge, when the book had a lot more real world detail.


    EDIT: Will, check this out then.
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited July 2010
    BoneFreak wrote: »
    EDIT: Will, check this out then.
    This one's better.

    ...but yeah, they do call their seasons "books", don't they? xD
  • BoneFreakBoneFreak
    edited July 2010
    Rather Dashing wrote: »
    ...but yeah, they do call their seasons "books", don't they? xD


    I don't really seem to care about that.. :D
  • WillWill Telltale Alumni
    edited July 2010
    Yeah, what I was trying to say is that the movie doesn't even remotely live up to the quality of the show, which of course I loved.
  • Dragonite87Dragonite87
    edited July 2010
    This is not a book but Super Mario Bros. the movie was absolutely terrible.
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited July 2010
    This is not a book but Pearl Harbor Sucks(And I Miss You).
  • benzelzbenzelz
    edited July 2010
    Dragonite87 wrote: »
    This is not a book but Super Mario Bros. the movie was absolutely terrible.

    I am bowser man with crazy hair and I am a human!

    Mario says, "Let's ride on Yoshi!" But as soon as he sees yoshi he changes his mind and gets eaten by Yoshi.




    The end.

    Lol utterly random but if you have seen the movie he is a really freaky dinosaur.
  • NateBaileyNateBailey
    edited July 2010
    If anyone has read The Pillars of the Earth you may or may not be pleased that Starz is turning it into 8 original series episodes. Ken Follet approves of the directing so I hope it turns out well
  • jeeno0142jeeno0142
    edited July 2010
    NateBailey wrote: »
    If anyone has read The Pillars of the Earth you may or may not be pleased that Starz is turning it into 8 original series episodes. Ken Follet approves of the directing so I hope it turns out well

    I heard about that. I quite liked the book, but am unsure whether I'd want to see a TV adaption of it. I'd probably see the first one and decide whether to continue from there. Assuming it's coming to the UK, that is.
  • guybrush32guybrush32
    edited July 2010
    Trainspotting had a pretty decent adaptation of the book, but like any book-film conversion- the book is almost undoubtedly the better. With a book you can just picture the look of the characters and settings how you want to interpret it whereas in a film your relying on someone elses imagery.

    how about films that should never have been made from books? Case and point: Twilight? the story of a dull whiney girl and her sparkly and equally as dull 'vegetarian' boyfriend.
  • AlcoremortisAlcoremortis
    edited July 2010
    guybrush32 wrote: »
    how about films that should never have been made from books? Case and point: Twilight? the story of a dull whiney girl and her sparkly and equally as dull 'vegetarian' boyfriend.

    How about books that should have never been made in the first place?
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited July 2010
    guybrush32 wrote: »
    how about films that should never have been made from books? Case and point: Twilight? the story of a dull whiney girl and her sparkly and equally as dull 'vegetarian' boyfriend.
    I see no reason why the Twilight film shouldn't have been made. Since modern Hollywood is really a form of investment banking that happens to produce film as a by-product, Twilight was a really safe bet for a stupidly profitable investment. If I told you that I'd give you $100 for every dollar you gave me, and a bad movie happened to be made in the process, wouldn't you take me up on the offer?
  • GaryCXJkGaryCXJk
    edited July 2010
    King Creole, on of my favorite Elvis movies, is the most loosest adaptation to a book ever. It's even so loose that the original title, A Stone For Danny Fisher, doesn't even appear in the movie itself.
  • BoneFreakBoneFreak
    edited July 2010
    I haven't read the book, but I'm pretty sure that the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake of the older movie is nothing what Roald Dahl thought up of..
  • RemolayRemolay
    edited July 2010
    Well, in a way it is up to the whole "Your parents can't come, thing."


    Now I'd Say the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, but calling any incarnation of H2G2 an adaptation would be entirely wrong. Every bit of every incarnation had things to separate it from the others. Adams wanted that stuff in the movie. And that is what convinced me that the Hitchhikers movie was actually pretty good
  • BoneFreakBoneFreak
    edited July 2010
    Oh yeah, there's also a movie supposedly coming out sometime in 2011, based on the book of the same name, It's Kind of a Funny Story.

    Now, I absolutely love that book and I wouldn't be lying if I said it's my favorite book I've ever read. So, I expect this movie to not flunk and not be straight to DVD as well. If the movie is closely intertwined with the book, I think it should be shown to a LOT of people.
  • Comrade PantsComrade Pants
    edited July 2010
    Remolay wrote: »
    Well, in a way it is up to the whole "Your parents can't come, thing."


    Now I'd Say the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, but calling any incarnation of H2G2 an adaptation would be entirely wrong. Every bit of every incarnation had things to separate it from the others. Adams wanted that stuff in the movie. And that is what convinced me that the Hitchhikers movie was actually pretty good

    I hate you. I hate every fibre of your being. THAT was not an adaptation, THAT was excrement on a silver screen and you know it.
  • guybrush32guybrush32
    edited July 2010
    The hitchikers file wasn't thaaaaat bad! it'd be hard for anyone to make a film from such a well loved series but I think they made a good effort on it! especially with their choice of actors, felt they brought the characters out pretty well.
  • SeanTSeanT
    edited July 2010
    I'm still waiting for my Tom Bombadil.

    Just sayin'. <.<
  • S@breS@bre
    edited July 2010
    A good majority of the Bond films. Yes, there are some that do stay close to the books and do it well (From Russia with Love, Goldfinger) and there are also some that are decent films with their original storylines (Goldeneye), its the ones that use the title of Fleming's works then don't bother to use Fleming's stories, or unforgivably alter the story drastically, that irritate me.

    They got it back in the right direction with Casino Royale (the middle part of that is basically a modern adaptation of the book and is fantastic, with explodey stuff tacked on either side), but lost it again with Quantum of Solace. Basically all the Roger Moore films are a terrible injustice to the original books after which they are named. Live and Let Die is the only one that keeps some semblence to the novel.

    Moonraker stands out as the worst. A travesty of a film made to cash in on Star Wars; the book is all about a former SS commander wounded in the Battle of the Bulge, who's managed to infiltrate Britain as a philanthopist, offer it a new nuclear deterrant system, but plans on nuking London. Great stuff. Given the current debate about renewing Trident in the UK, they could pull off a decent modern intepretation of that, but I'm sure the Broccoli estate will continue to butcher Fleming's works.


    Also: Bourne films. All resemblance to original novels ends past the point that Bourne is hauled out the water with bullets and a bank number in his back and amnesia. I want Carlos the Jackal! Though the Bourne films were entertaining in their own right.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.