Worst book turned movie?

[hayeske]

what movie adapted from a book was your biggest disappointment?

I know just about everyone will disagree with me, but The Shining is mine. The book was friggin’ unbelievable! One of the best I’ve ever read and all you hear about the movie is how good it is. I have to disagree completely. Maybe if I didn’t read and love the book, but the movie didn’t have half of the things in the book and added extras (i.e. the twin girls).

I posted this because of the Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe movie coming out later this year. I loved the book when I was a kid, but I wonder how the movie will be?

I know that 9/10 will say, "The book is always better"

Thoughts and opinions please.......

[Elwell]

This has been mentioned on another thread, but the TV movie of a Wrinkle in Time that was on a while back was just awful.

[glikster]

The Count of Monte Cristo .

-They took the whole theme that he was acting as God's hand and turned it around so that he didn't even believe in God until the end!?
-No Haydee?!
-Why the F*CK change Villefort's wife's name to Valentine?!
-Edmond and Fernand were friends instead of rivals?!
-Fernand was a nobleman's son instead of a fisherman?!

[hayeske]

This has been mentioned on another thread, but the TV movie of a Wrinkle in Time that was on a while back was just awful.
I figured it had. Oh well.

[N D Hill]

The discovery channels adaptation of Wayne Barlowe's 'Expedition.' It had tons of potential which was all pissed away by low production values and pseudo-documentary bullshit.

I hear the Discovery Channel is doing an adaptation of Raptor Red... A great book but I'm cringing at the thought of yet another low budget half-assed production.

[hayeske]

How about the Second Jurassic Park book? I can't remember what it was called. A Lost World? Anyways, great book, shasty movie.

[darth massacre]

Big gripes revolve around 2 of the biggest firefights the modern US army faced in the 20th century.

Blackhawk Down. Don't get me wrong, I love the movie. But there was so many things happening at the same time Mr Scott couldn't possibly get them all into the 2.5 hours. Hence it didn't work for me.....didn't help when I read the book some 12 times and have been doing my own research into the incident.

The even bigger culprit. WE WERE SOLDIERS.
Totally didn't do justice to the book, was grossly inaccurate, laced with bad acting and it had probably just as many speaking parts as BHD. But it was very badly done IMHO. The only thing that reflected what was on the book was the amount of North Vietnamese soldiers pouring onto the battlefield. Everything else was mostly shot to hell for "dramatization".

The fiction/fantasy adaptations, I don't have much problems with. Mostly because we, as readers are limited only by our imagination, while the movie was limited by boardroom approved budget and the director's good taste. That's why I feel its still acceptable most times. But adaptations based on real historical events are those that irk me somewhat....especially if they're inaccurate.

I immensely enjoyed the Harry Potter movies and also the LOTR Trilogy. I'm looking forward to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory despite some negative reviews and for sure I'm hoping for an enjoyable outing with the next Potter movie as well as Narnia.

[Ssenkrah Semaj]

Stuart Little hands down in my opinion....loved the book as a kid, matured me after reading it in fact because of its adult themes...what a shitty hollywood movie E.B. White must be rolling over in his grave(if he's dead???).

[Sinnyo]

I posted this because of the Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe movie coming out later this year. I loved the book when I was a kid, but I wonder how the movie will be?

Just thought I'd point out, I've never read the book but the TV film blew me away.

When it comes to disappointments, LotR is a strange one - I loved the film trilogy to no end, but The Return Of the King disappointed me in the lack of some Ent action down at Helm's Deep. Bloomin' Rohirrim. It's a petty disagreement, but one that stands. Otherwise, I don't see a lot of films from books, or indeed read a lot.

[bracomadar]

How about the Second Jurassic Park book? I can't remember what it was called. A Lost World? Anyways, great book, shasty movie.

I agree. This would have to be my choice. It really wasn't too bad of a movie, except for a few parts, but the book was waaaaaaay better and totally different. Of course Walking with Dinosaurs, or any Discovery special could beat JP3 hands down. That movie just sucked on so many levels. :$ If I were Michael Crichton, I would take someone to court over that shit!

[hayeske]

I've only read the first Lord of the Rings book, and I'd have to say that the movie did a pretty good job of copying the book. There was a lot of stuff to cram into 3 hours of movie. My only complaint was the absence of Tom Bombadil and that whole section. I think it would have been a good addition.

[jermainevl]

Timeline's (book by Michael Crighton) film adaption is one of the worst. Although not what you would call a literary masterpiece, the book was pretty neat and enjoyable. The movie however... was not, to say the least..

[Ssenkrah Semaj]

Another Michael Crichton book that sucked as a movie is my favorite book of his Eaters of the Dead (which is basically a retelling of the epic poem Beowulf in non-poetic form) you may not have heard of the movie because it was named The 13th warrior. I disliked it because they took away the whole magical element/grendel feel of the book for the eaters of the dead.

[hayeske]

Another Michael Crichton book that sucked as a movie is my favorite book of his Eaters of the Dead (which is basically a retelling of the epic poem Beowulf in non-poetic form) you may not have heard of the movie because it was named The 13th warrior. I disliked it because they took away the whole magical element/grendel feel of the book for the eaters of the dead.


I didn't know that The 13th Warrior was based on a Michael Crichton book. I thought the movie was pretty good, but now I want to read the book. The only Michael Crichton movie I really like was the first Jurrasic Park, even though I never read the book. A Trivial Pursuit question I remember about him was that he was fired from one of his book-to-movie productions because he wanted to change the movie too much from the book......maybe it's a pattern for him

[Scubasteve]

The Messenger. The movie adaptation of Joan of Arc, where she is made out to be nuts. Man did this movie ever suck. I disagree about the Shining, unless your talking about the crummy TV version that came out about 2 years ago. It was actually closer to the book, but was nowhere near as scary as the original movie. Heeeeeeeeeres Johnnnny!

Who am I too judge, but I never understood Tom Bombadil's place in the book. It seems very unneccisary and frankly a departure from the feel of the book.

[hayeske]

The Messenger. The movie adaptation of Joan of Arc, where she is made out to be nuts. Man did this movie ever suck. I disagree about the Shining, unless your talking about the crummy TV version that came out about 2 years ago. It was actually closer to the book, but was nowhere near as scary as the original movie. Heeeeeeeeeres Johnnnny!

How was the original scary? Maybe scary because it was so bad. Total letdown. Seriously, read the book. I don't read books ever, and that was kicked ass.

[Scubasteve]

Jack Nick chasing you around with a big axe is scary bro. Im not really a big fan of Stephen King. Too much character development fo rmy taste.... I read it a long time ago, some of the ideas would have been hard to pull off convincingly then.

[hayeske]

I agree with that. I think the thing that really pisses me off about the movie is the twins in the hall and how everyone talks about that as being so scary. IT WASN'T EVEN IN THE BOOK!!! The book is way creepier than that lame movie. No, I take that back. The woman in that movie, can't remember her name. She was so damn ugly in that movie it was scary. I don't know if you remember the episode of Friends when Joey and Rachel were reading The Shining and Little Women. They made a reference to those damn twins like they were in the book. The writers of that episode didn't do their homework.

[Scubasteve]

ha ha ha. Yeah, his wife really did get on my nerves. What sis you think of Cujo? That @#^@ was scary too. I havent seen a really scary movie in ages though. What is a good recent scary one?

[hayeske]

I havent seen a really scary movie in ages though. What is a good recent scary one?

Many people will probably disagree with me, but The Ring freaked me out bad. And parts of The Grudge. I'll have to think about other recent ones I've seen......

[Mike Frank]

Just thought I'd point out, I've never read the book but the TV film blew me away.

When it comes to disappointments, LotR is a strange one - I loved the film trilogy to no end, but The Return Of the King disappointed me in the lack of some Ent action down at Helm's Deep. Bloomin' Rohirrim. It's a petty disagreement, but one that stands. Otherwise, I don't see a lot of films from books, or indeed read a lot.

Have you seen the special extended edition of Two Towers? They added in the forest at the end. All the orcs retreat and gandalf tells everyone not to follow them and it really looks like the trees swallow them up haha its pretty brief, but its cool. Really the film versions arent nearly as good in comparison to the extended editions, mostly because a lot of the flow of the cinematography gets chopped up, and its so much easier to follow in the extended version.

[Scubasteve]

I'll have to give those two a rent.

The extended versions of the LOTR are great. I didn't like some of the comedic parts with Gimli in the ROTK though. They kinda made parts that were supposed to be creepy and made them goofy. Other then that, it was spot on though.

[Sinnyo]

Have you seen the special extended edition of Two Towers? They added in the forest at the end. All the orcs retreat and gandalf tells everyone not to follow them and it really looks like the trees swallow them up haha its pretty brief, but its cool. Really the film versions arent nearly as good in comparison to the extended editions, mostly because a lot of the flow of the cinematography gets chopped up, and its so much easier to follow in the extended version.

Bugger, no, that would explain a LOT. Heh, the length of RotK alone sorta put me off watching any film longer than that... guess I'll have to watch them again before sticking my foot in my mouth. :P (Comments retracted - LotR rocks)

[jfwalls]

I havent seen a really scary movie in ages though. What is a good recent scary one?

The Grudge and the original Japanese version, Ju-on, were damn creepy. I don't remember the directors name, but that movie had some of the most innovative scare moments that I've seen in a long time. The cinematograhpy and pace of the scenes with the ghosts are awesome.

The original Japanese version is very good too, and has some different scenes, and a different ending.

[young paddy1]

Day of the Triffids (John Wyndham) just sucked all kinds of ass

for a bit of vice versa stuff blade runner and do androids dream of electric sheep, and fahrenheit 451

[bracomadar]

I didn't know that The 13th Warrior was based on a Michael Crichton book. I thought the movie was pretty good, but now I want to read the book. The only Michael Crichton movie I really like was the first Jurrasic Park, even though I never read the book. A Trivial Pursuit question I remember about him was that he was fired from one of his book-to-movie productions because he wanted to change the movie too much from the book......maybe it's a pattern for him

I liked the movie 13th Warrior, but I never read the book it's based on. I have read "Timeline" and liked it, but I haven't seen the movie yet. As for the Tom Bombadil part of LOTR, that's where I lost interest reading it and I'm glad they didn't put it in the movie. I'm also glad they didn't put all that singing crap in there. LOTR trilogy was actually better in movie form IMO. I just couldn't bring myself to read the books all the way through. I know they are masterpieces and Tolkien spent a lot of time and energy and put a lot of thought into the universe he created and the story isn't bad, but the books lost me on the boring parts. I even tried to skip them, but just found more. Maybe someday I can read it all, but as for now... :nohope:

[Carnifex]

i have to say the old "war of the worlds" adaption.(when was that? 80s?)
they took away everything that was good in the book. they didn't even have tripods. the only good thing were the sounds. the rest sucked ass.

as for scary movies: alien is the scariest thing i've ever watched (though after the first time it's not that scary anymore). even though you perfectly know what's gonna happen in most situations you still get the heck scared. if you want a scary movie with perfect characters on top,you choose the second one (aliens). no characters have ever been better than those.

lotr was a perfect adaption,in all three films. the extended versions make it even better because you get alot more flow to it and some nice details which enrich the world even more. nr 2 is probably still my favourite because of the perfectly conveyed emotions.

[cotron]

anyone remember tank girl? that was bad.

[negativespace]

That old War of the Worlds movie is from the 50's.
They had a War of the Worlds television show in the 80's. Didn't last too long.

[jfwalls]

The newer version of HG Wells The Time Machine. That was bad.

[jfwalls]

Oh yeah, both Conan movies. Even though I liked the first one, I hated how they totally changed his origin, and made him a dumb barbarian. He was never enslaved as a child, and he was very smart and crafty. I wish they would've just made it like the Howard books. I wish Schwarzeneggar would quit being governor, and make a real Conan movie that followed the story of Howard's books.

[Scubasteve]

I liked Conan the Barbarian, though I never read the books. I also thought the time machine was pretty good....The morlocks looked pretty lame though. Im a sucker for time travel movies though.

[armando]

Sometimes movies can have improvements. The greatest book I've ever read is Musashi. About 2 years ago they had a year long mini series showing an episode a week on the fugi channel. It showed buildings and things that I couldn't imagine from my limited knowledge of japanese culture. It also had well done fight scenes, and parts that weren't in the book. Some of the characters were improved too, they were made stonger and more heroic. But it also made some bad choices by changing a character into a wizard, and adding a female ninja wizard that was like his foil or something. Overall I thought the show really complemented the book.

[quesadeist]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie. I was horribly let down... not because it didn't follow the book (which in itself did not follow the original BBC broadcast) but because it lacked that certain quirky humor I would have expected from Douglas Adams and went right on into...I don't even know how to describe it. Just plain bad.

Then again he did pass in the middle of development....

Then again what more could one expect from Disney?

[glikster]

Oh yeah! Disney....

<BEGIN RANT>

The Huntchback of Notre Dame was the single most depressing piece of fiction I have ever read. The only character you can possibly feel anything for is what's her name the gypsy, and she ends up dead because the "hero" - the huntchback - is a MORON!!!

So what does Disney do? Well, of course, they make a kid's musical cartoon based on that. Why would they choose that? While they're at it, why not make a cartoon Les Miserables?

<END RANT>

[SexualSideFX]

Return of the king was pretty dissapointing to me. I have not read the book but the movie sucked. The special effects are bad and the ghosts reminded me of pirates of the caribbean. Also, gollum looks pathetic and his voice is extremely annoying. He's like the jar jar of that series. Gollum was pretty convincing looking but whenever Legolas did something weird you could tell it was fake. The ending went on forever as well, and that 'GRRRRRRL power' part where eowyn kills the witch king was just lame. Just so many things in that movie could have been done better.

[glikster]

Return of the king was pretty dissapointing to me. I have not read the book but the movie sucked. The special effects are bad and the ghosts reminded me of pirates of the caribbean. Also, gollum looks pathetic and his voice is extremely annoying. He's like the jar jar of that series. Gollum was pretty convincing looking but whenever Legolas did something weird you could tell it was fake. The ending went on forever as well, and that 'GRRRRRRL power' part where eowyn kills the witch king was just lame. Just so many things in that movie could have been done better.

Read the books.

[jfwalls]

A couple of people here have commented about the movies, but they haven't read the books. C'mon, give me a break. This thread is about books being converted to movies, and if you haven't read the book then your comments don't carry much weight.

[Scubasteve]

I agree with a little about what your saying there SexualSideFX but your way off on some of it. I agree the ghost army could have used some tweaking, some of Legolas shots didn't look as good as some of the other shots, but the movie even with its flaws did an exellent job of conveing the books. When Eowyn kills the witchking she does look odd. This part was actually handled better in the old cartoon Return of the King. But Gollum was done perfectly in every shot IMO.

[armando]

SexualSideFX is right. I've never read the books, but I never will because of the movies. I thought the special effects were good though. The funniest part of the movie was where that pimp like king jumped from the cliff.

[Scubasteve]

The books are great. Some of the best written literature ever. I thought that part was alittle over the top.