Agreed! I swore loudly in a theater full of small children after that movie.... That had to be the WORST film adaptation I have ever seen, and this involves surviving Eragon, which previously held that title. Besides the fact that the characters were the wrong age, the plot was completely different, and the revelation of who the lightning thief is was shallow and really, wrong(Kronos and the pit of Tartarus are never even mentioned, and I consider Kronos to be the true thief, despite who physically took it), they couldn't even get the Greek stories right. Since when has Persephone lived in the Underworld during the summer? I could go on much more about this, but I shall hold my peace for a little bit. Don't prod me tho, haha.
Wait how could they mess up something like that? I never watched the movie or read the books, but I remember that story. She could never be in the Underworld during Summer, simply because her mother would have made it Winter.
I'm not sure how they messed that up. Persephone was just sort of there, and they made it sound as though she spends the majority of her time with Hades rather than only wintertime. Gah.
I read the books and I was EXTREMELY upset with how the movie turned out. I mean, don't get me wrong, the animations were great, and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, but they did EVERYTHING wrong. The plot, the characters, some parts were mismatched! And, the way the sequel goes, they just completely ruined chances for the sequel, so don't get your hopes up.
They'd better not try to do a sequel. There'd be no point to it other than to show off their animation skills and their complete inability to stay true to novels.
If you know you're not going to be watching anything that is serious or funny and the such, its actually and improvement on the novel.
You're exactly right. I think Hollywood simply wanted a hot Rosario Dawson all sex-crazed cougar for straight up sex appeal...And they should be ashamed since it's a kid's book/movie! Percy Jackson (movie) murdered the magic of the books! And what is even more disturbing (and flat out wrong) is that the author approved the differences/changes made in the movie! He said he thought the books were too cheesy. The cheese is what made the kid's books good, made them special...Taken away and made more "sophisticated" sucked all the shine out of the books. BB Walter
SACRILEGE! HERESY! But really, I loved the LOTR books. I liked the archaic english style, it made it feel truly grand. I really felt the part where the elves came to helms deep in the movies was too unfaithful.
New Moon for me! I fell in love with the book and the entire series before I saw it. HORRIBLE! Like those little glimpses of Edward Bella gets when she's about to do something reckless? Yuck! It probably didn't help that my friend and I were the only two people over 18 years old in the theatre. Made the movie seem childish, as the girls giggled evry time Jacob took off his shirt. HAHA.
Ok, this movie hasn't come out yet, but I just found out yesterday that there was going to be a movie version of the book Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert. I had my doubts about how well that would turn out, and then I found out they had cast Julia Roberts as Elizabeth, and I lost all hope. That book seriously changed my life...it crushes my soul a little bit that they're going to destroy the movie version of it. They should have cast Caroline Goodall. She would have made a good Elizabeth.
Hmmm.. Interesting question. I think the transition from a book to a film is a difficult process, as the author pours his emotions out into a novel, it is very difficult to replicate that in a script or film. However, I believe with the time length available, the Harry Potter series has been done fairly well, and I am happy with the decision to split Deathly Hallows into two films. I think the first book that popped into my head when thinking about this question was the Lord of the Rings. I loved the novels, it was a masterpiece of fantasy and, in my opinion, has had few rivals that measure up to it. Transferring the Lord of the Rings, a deep, long story into a film would have been a daunting task. Peter Jackson, im my personal opinion, did a great job on the script, giving the overall story in a relatively short time (though admittedly, they were quite long films) and in a way that is easy for newcomers to understand. I think Film and Novel Writing can, and should, be mixed, as the same will then appeal to two completely different markets. Though, it only works when a considerable effort is used to not only replicate the story, but present it in a way that viewers can relate to, while also attempting to statisfy the hardcore novel fans.
I totally agree with you on Half Blood's scene where Dumbledore falls, it was masterpiece! But I didn't like the fourth film; it was very commercial! The best ones were the sixth, fifth and third ones. They;re not totally faitful, but they're worked on really well. I just hope they make the last movie the best! Also, Twilight was okay, but New Moon was trash! It ruined that little things that the book had! I'm not surprised though; they're making Twilight series as fast as a 5 minute documentary! They just want it done with! At least Harry Potters did justice to the characters... New Moon ruined most of the characters and Eclipse is gonna do the same, it was made WAY TOOOO fast!
His fall was a masterpiece, and while I liked the effects and storyline and interpretation of the 4th book, you're right, it was pretty commercial. I like the fall off the tower, but I really wanted that funeral. And I liked the scene in the beginning, with Dumbledore leading a shattered Harry away from the cameras after Sirius died.... it was giving a glimpse back, and I liked that.
Hollywood screwed that up bad. Another book/movie that they messed up pretty bad was Flicka. In the book it wasn't a teenage girl, hell it wasn't even a girl at all. It was actually a little boy(I think around 10) that found Flicka. Plus Flicka wasn't just some random mustang they came across, she was actually the daughter of a crazed horse. Not to mention when the boy found Flicka she wasn't a full grown horse, she was still pretty young considering she drank milk from the crazed horse(Flicka was suppose to be too old, but the book explains it). Also, the kid had a younger sister that was only 4 or 5, not real big. I'm not saying Flicka wasn't good, I'm just saying they didn't wanna follow the book. There's a lot of other book/movies that Hollywood messed up, but I can't remember them all at the moment. So yeah, but hey it's Hollywood. The way they see it, if there isnt any blow-something-up action or sexual romance, it's not worth they're time.
Twilight, New Moon, Let the right one in (although not exactly hollywoods error), most of Stephen King's novel adaptations (with the known exceptions), Honestly I think my list would be shorter if I can tell which ones Hollywood didn't mess up
When I read a book a movie plays in my head. I see the characters in front of me, see their every detail. When I see a movie, this little fantasy world is torn apart. I still regret watching the Harry Potter movies, because reading the books after wasn't the same, I couldnt see the movie in my head anymore.. I love watching movies. I love reading books. But the two of them can't mix for me.
Very akin to the book-version, eh? I'd have to say the Percy Jackson Series. My friend had a birthday a week before mine, and he went to see the movie. He told me all of the bad things about it, helping me effectively evade that disaster.
I despised Twilight adaptation from book-->movie. For one, I never imagined Kirsten Stewart as Bella. She just didn't fit. And Robert Pattinson? Gross. Well, that's just me. I was bored the first time I watched it. And I hated what they did with the Cullen's house, and the graduation caps were lame. I hated New Moon the book, and even though the movie was a huge step-up from Twilight, my complaints were about Alice and Bella, mostly. I didn't like Alice's hair. I thought it was supposed to be spikes, or something. Whatever. Bella's screaming sounded like someone was branding her, rather than her being afraid. The ending, you know, the two minute stare-off between Bella and Edward was overdone. And then, Marry me, black screen. Pooh.
My Sister's Keeper - The movie completely changed the best parts of the book. There are other movies that I hated, but I can't remember now. I liked LOTR movies better than the books. I have to say that Tolkien's idea was completely original and it changed the way people see fantasy now, but I can't get into it. Wish I could.
Don't worry, there are better books that came before him that follow the same pattern. And with any luck his influence will die out sooner or later, because quite frankly, it is getting a bit annoying. Excellent writer though he was, I hate that everyone seems to laud him as either the (a) creator of high fantasy with elves and whatnot, or (b) the best writer of high fantasy. Utter trite crap, that is. But I digress; I study pre-Tolkien fantasy literature, and am contemplating writing a book on the manner, so I am perhaps a smidgen biased on this issue. Anyway, no book was ever ruined for me by the movie, as that would be silly. Some particularly awful adaptations, in my opinion, include Eragon (an awful book, admittedly, but the adaptation stripped it of everything but Point A and Point B), some of the middle HP movies (PoA, GoF, and OotP), anything by Dr. Seuss, The Black Cauldron, The Da Vinci Code, and A Sound of Thunder. There are a few movies I can think of which were AWFUL adaptations in regards to loyalty to the source material, but were EXCELLENT films nonetheless. How To Train Your Dragon is a good, recent example of that.
