As the title of the post says, I am curious as to what book you feel Hollywood ruined for you. I know, yes Hollywood has a tendency to do these sorts of things to us and I'm certain that each person can name at least a few. For me it was the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind, I didn't know that the "The legend of the Seeker' Series on TV was based on the novels, I watched a few shows and I really didnt feel that the show did the books any justice, I think perhaps that it was because I really liked the books and felt some sort of attachment to them. I dunno....but I was curious to know what you folks thought.
Well. I actually think Hollywood does do justice to most books. They may not be the 'exact same thing' and sure. They may make the character black even though he's Asian. But it is still the same genre. They make what sells and what sells is entertaining. Lets take porn for example. When you read about it in books. You can only imagine what it would be like. But in a movie you get to visually see what is in front of you. Actually measure the distance from this to that. Things that you can't do in books. If you liked the movie. You'll like the book. Except for Aragon. That just sucked.
You mean Eragon, I think. And only because they're the same genre doesn't means the movies are doing 'justice' to it. For example, the book may be really good, but the movie could be a low-budget production with many changes in the plot in order to make it more accessible for the general public. The difference in quality could be easily seen in a case like this, and therefore it wouldn't be making any justice. The last Harry Potter movies and The Lightning Thief are examples of movies in this category, simply because they omit many characters and change some characteristics in others. Movies shouldn't be reduced only to make them fit in a length, because in doing so they also diminish the book's shine that attracted so many people.
I think Twilight. Defently. Stephenie Myers' book was absoutly amazing, the movie was terrible. I honestly almost fell alseep. I expected something blow-my-mind worthy, but instead it felt like I was being hand-fed hospitle food. -.-
I'm still not convinced that the movie hast to be about the book. Though this is just me. I loved the movie and the book.
I really don't see at all what was wrong with this movie. They did a few changes that would have been necessary to keep the seriousness and tone (a.k.a. the ending because no one would have taken it seriously who hadn't read Watchmen). And the dvd release had the whole comics thing as well, which is cool. They did step out of seriousness badly though at one time. I totally ROFLed at the theatre during the sex scene where Hallelujah was playing. XD But anyway, for me, I Am Legend pissed me off beyond any failed book movie. Matheson created an awe-inspiring novel with an incredible ending. The Will Smith movie has almost nothing to do with the book. If it was called something else, I would have never seen the comparison. Absolutely nothing is alike. I could rant for an hour about it, but I don't want to, and you probably don't want me to.
Oh, yeah, that's why they often say that the movie will be based in the book, 'based' being the key word here. They adapt them in such a way that makes it easier for movie-goers to understand it. This makes the movie and the book two different visions of something relatively similar, and it comes to personal taste which one you like better (although most people prefer the book than the movie version, simply because it has more depth and it is longer, giving you enough time to connect with the characters). And I agree with Wavanova, it is definitely Watchmen for me. They transformed Alan Moore's masterpiece into a confusing bloodbath.
The animated version of the comics was definitely not that bad, but the movie itself was awful. All of the little poetic subtleties and beautiful dialogue of the book were absolutely butchered. Watchmen has such deep meaning and intricate plot and character development that no medium other than the original graphic novel could depict it with any justice. Making Watchmen into a movie would be like making Art Spiegelman's Maus into just a standard novel. Both of these books lose their poignancy when expressed in any other format. As Marcelo said, the movie just became another fast-paced superhero action bloodbath with absolutely no grace or intelligence. Entire key elements of the story were completely ignored, too. The book was a remarkably well executed commentary on politics, philosophy, and human interaction, and the movie just turned it into another mindless puddle of Hollywood superhero dreg.
Ella Enchanted, Eragon, Twilight, some of the Harry Potter's, Inkheart... And a few more. My sister and I have an agreement. Only one of us goes to see any movie made from a book we like, that way if it's awful it's only ruined for one of us. Some movies I thought were well done: Pride and Prehudice (the BBC 5 hour one), LOTR, and the first Narnia. I really liked Slumdog Millionaire, and the Boy in the Stripped Pajamas, but I haven't read the books yet to compare.
Eragon. They completely butchered the story. The only few things that were the same were names, a dragon... and well thats about it really. They changed things that didn't need changing. While its not a book they ruined but a video game. *gulp* Super Mario Bros. That was one of the worst adaptions I have ever seen. Now I can't see how a Live Action movie could be really made from the game... but surely they could have come up with something better? Thats actaully all I can think of at the moment.
I thought Eragon was awful in book form too... Personally, I thought the film Children of Men was rape of an amazing book. It completely changed the story, and the backstory. And V for Vendetta. It was too (and I know I'm going to get flack for this) Americanised. As good as Hugo Weaving was in the title role, the adaptation changed V from an unstable sociopath reacting to a fascist regime, to a virtuous freedom fighter. The book was so much darker, and so much better. I can understand why Alan Moore hated the movie so much.
Speaking of Alan Moore. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, awful film. Hogfather, I still cannot for the life of me see how an adaption can be so faithful to the source material and yet at the same time completely fails to capture the spirit of the original. I had a similar problem with the recent Watchmen (Alan Moore again) adaption.
LoEG was horrible. I'd completely forgotten about that. And Watchmen wasn't bad... It just didn't capture the essence of the graphic novel, which honestly it was never going to. I thought that Jackie Earle Haley and Jeffrey Dean Morgan were outstanding, but the guy who played Adrian Veidt was awful, and so was that model they had playing Silk Spectre II. They just didn't get the characters right.
I'm finding it hard to believe no one has mentioned Dune in any of its cinematic incarnations. I think, for me, that this is the quintessential amazing book gets turned into shameful waste of celluloid example. The first version should have just been called Twin Peaks: Sting and the Weirding Modules against the Big Wormies with Music by Toto. The SyFy version... well, it's the SyFy version. Need I really say more?
Eragon was acceptable in book form. Not great, but not awful either, it somehow managed to drive straight down the middle of the great literary road. The film, though, was awful, fragmented, and made little to no sense unless one rabidly quoted the book alongside the footage of the film. Why is everyone claiming Twilight was better as a book? The film and the book are equally repulsive, disingenuous, and poorly-written. Remember that Meyer is a rabid Mormon without the slightest hint of respect for the feminist movement. In fact, I read an article in Philosophy Today that claimed Twilight had single-handedly reversed social acceptance of women for the last fifteen years. Myself, I find that a little extreme, but I'm not the one with a PhD in social philosophy. Being an anime buff, two films that didn't live up to the literature they were based on, for me, were Tales From Earthsea, which bears no relation to Le Guin's work, and moreover was rife with clichéd and trite themes, and Howl's Moving Castle, which bears a mere superficial resemblance to the original. Howl's Moving Castle is a special case, though, because even though it failed to adapt the book accurately, it's nonetheless a perfectly good film. Miyazaki's direction lends itself better to his original work; I adored Nausicaa, for example, and while My Neighbour Totoro was unbearably sugary-sweet for me, I appreciate that it's an excellent film.
Hollywood butchered all of the Harry Potter movies. Sure, they're ok, but nowhere near the quality of the books. Eragon the movie was horrendous. I Am Legend is good, except for where they changed the ending, which if you know anything about the book, the ending explains the title. Jurassic Park the movie was actually, in my opinion, much better than the book. The Lord of the Rings also did a great job on the movies.
Totally agree. V was an unsettling, amoral anarchistic revolutionary-bordering-on-terrorist. The movie version of V was basically "Take every stereotypical American liberal's wet-dream and turn it into an uninteresting, slightly demented character." The movie had its good points but it was not even close to the comic book.
I had actually managed to forget that disaster... It's technically not a book, but I was disappointed by the movie version of Tristan and Isolde. It wasn't bad by any means, but the opera is one of my favourite works of art. Oh, and I found the movie version of Twilight amusing, especially in the way the lead played Edward. Couldn't get more than a few chapters into the book despite a very strong effort.
Yes, it is a book as well. A long poem, rather. There have been many versions over the centuries. Tristan and Iseult
I tend to erase bad movies from memory but I can mention a few I think surpassed their source material. I think Lord of the Rings was better than the books. I'm sorry Tolkien's Ghost, but your books were just tedious and cramped full of off-plot ramblings. The movies made the world come alive while sticking to the story. I feel the same way about Name of the Rose. The story was much better without a whole chapter dedicated to unraveling the origin of the Franciscan order, and the film managed to preserve the feel of the time and place amazingly. The characters were perfectly played -- I can't think of many movie villains who surpass Bernardo Gui on selfrighteous cruelty. That guy was Satan! And then there's the ending...the most ambiguous yet emotionally charged ending ever. Name of the Rose remains one of my favourite movies of all time.
Oh no, one I do remember that did the book no justice... The Time Machine from 2002. Horrible. Simply...horrible. Morally better-knowing, presumptious and uninspired. The original tale of a longing for a better time when humankind has outgrown its need for murder and war -- a longing that is never answered -- was reduced to a kill-the-villain-and-save-the-girl action shtick.
I know Eragon is an average book at best, but the movie makes all other bad movies look pretty good. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was vomit at best. To be honest, i try to stay away from loved novel's, turned into movies (except for a few like LoTR and No country for old men).
