I found myself in a discussion today about the worst book to movie adaptations, and it was so interesting to hear the different opinions that I thought I might bring it to you guys. I do realize that back in July we discussed why the books are usually better, but that isn't the point of this thread. I just want to know which ones you hate most. Personally, the worst crime against a book by the screenwriters in charge of adaptation, and a director who clearly never read the original, was Ella Enchanted. I know, I know, we don't often talk about middle reader chapter books here, but I loved this book as a preteen and I was genuinely excited when I heard they were making it into a movie. I've never been more ready to walk out of a theater in my life. It was horrible. The plot barely resembled the book, the characters were cheesy, the directing was moronic, there was SINGING AND DANCING that came out of the blue, and the whole thing felt like it was meant for 5 year olds. It had none of the magic and fascinating plot twists of the original. I have never felt more disappointed in an adaptation. So what are yours?
I can't think of any movies in particular, but I know what I think is the worst film adaptation of a series of books EVER. That saccharine, badly-researched PC horror that was Little House on the Prairie. The books were excellent and a definite influence on me as a child. That series was just ...crap.
It's rare that I would'vr read the book first, but on the occasion of Hunger Games, I'd just finished reading the trilogy when the film came out. That first one? Oh how I loathed it. The special effects were cheap - that dress on fire looked awesome in my head and I was so excited to see it in film and then it was just really fake and unimpressive. What had me hooked on the book was I honestly didn't know if Peeta could be trusted until about 2/3rds of the way in. The film had no such suspense and imo spoiled one of the best aspects of the book for me. Oh and the less than subtle infodumps that worked beautifully in narrative as exposition and just plain awkward on screen... And seriously, I was kinda hoping Gale and Peeta would both be better-looking than they were
The Animorphs tv show was heartbreaking to see. I absolutely loved those books as a kid, and was thrilled when I read they were televising them. And then I watched the show. A little part of me died.
Ooh I like this topic, Can I name my best? Sod it I'm gonna. Stephen King is a mediocre author, albeit very successful, because he is a pantser and his third acts are always awful, but The Shawshank Redemption film is a piece of brilliance. Tim Burton back in the day was great, but his Alice in Wonderland was dreadful. I mean fist-mouth awful.
Um.. no. I mean, when the first film came out I was like a Beetles fangirl up against the picket line, screaming my head of, in imminent swoon. David Lynch got the "color" and the tone and the feel spot-on, but the film is tragically hampered by 1980's Hollywood dynamics that made 90 min a maximum for any film. The book was just too complex for that, and the whole Peter Jackson way of doing things was still decades in the future. Now, the SyFy Channel's attempt at the book (2000), as a mini-series, was just a kick in the dick. There was no call for that.
The SyFy channel tried it? I haven't watched that shit heap of nonsense since I bought BSG on DVD to avoid watching that awful channel, and only then I watched it while kicking my TV in the proverbial face, while simultaneously destroying my satellite dish. In conclusion, the SyFy channel is not as bad as the Discovery channel which pretends to be scientific, but in fact sells advertising for proven gobshite. So now I got that off my chest. The Dune film starring Tree Hugger Sting and Kyle Campy MacLachlan and Make it So Pickard (is that his real name? I think it is) is amazing. And I know Wreybies has naked pictures of Patrick Stewart on his wall, but that should not sway your opinion. The fact that Wreybies has a disturbing, almost stalkerish love for Patrick Stewart is neither here nor there, except for Patrick Stewart who had to take out a restraining order. But he is in Dune, and that is amazing, he plays it like a Shakespearian Thesp, and that is even more amazing. Love that film.
You walked right into their propaganda. Right into it. Not only did that TV series bring down the reputation of the one resistance front, but it left each of its viewers with a little void and a longing for deeper meaning. The kind of meaning that only the Sharing could provide. And the kind of void that could only be filled by... well, I'm sure you can see where this is going. Didn't you ever read the blurbs on those books? It was all real, man. All real. You got played. Game, set, match. (Totally agree, and was surprised that someone else had posted it. First thing that occurred to me, but thought it'd be obscure!)
Here's the poster for the SyFy version. Or at least that's how I felt after watching it. Oh, and if that wasn't enough to leave you mewling on the ground, clutching your man-bits, they had the gall to make Children of Dune, which was actually a combination of C of D and Dune Messiah.
So their selling point is blue eyes and crap on the forehead (if they had a cock on the forehead I would be intrigued- childish sorry). Those silly blue eye effects are a big turn off (and I know Herbert wrote them) cause they just look amateur.
The second series was marginally better (and that's me being very generous) by dint of Susan Sarandon playing Princess Winsicia Corrino and James McAvoy playing Leto II in Pre-God Emporer form. James is a bonny lad, he is.
Wait it has Susan Sarandon? You may not understand this, cause you like male arse (sorry made me laugh) but she is sexy as fuck.
The funny thing is she is still attractive as she gets older. Youth is (usually) attractive and age is (usually) ugly. But she is just fit.
It wasn't a book-length story, but it's still the worst adaption: Air Raid (Omni magazine circa 1984) to Millennium, a tragedy of epic proportions. A rule of thumb I'm hoping to adopt... watch the movie first, then read the book. I did that with Alien and Aliens as well as The Abyss... best of both worlds.
I actually liked the Burton Alice in Wonderland. It wasn't an adaptation of the book, but a sequel to, I suppose, past adaptations.
You know, when I first saw the first one I burned with disappointment and resentment. I didn't appreciate the choice of Jennifer Lawrence, and I hated who they chose for Peeta. In the books, Peeta is strong and can hold his own. They made him seem pathetic in the movie. But by the second movie I had come around a little, and now I'm pretty pumped for the final installment coming up. I still agree that the first once lacks so much, but I think I actually enjoyed the first half of Mockingjay a bit more as a movie than a book. When I heard they were splitting it, I thought..."But nothing happens in the first half of that book." I know some people felt that nothing happens in that movie as well, but for me it was very well done. Yes, agreed. That was actually the one that started the original discussion I got into. My husband mentioned how he loathed that movie and was cautiously hopeful for the new Netflix series. I did this with Maze Runner, and it worked in my favor. I had no interest in the series, saw the movie and was left with enough questions that I decided to read the book. Now I like them both. There is more info in the books, but the way Dashner writes bugs the living daylights out of me so in some respects I like the movie better. Just saw Scorch Trials, so I'm going to go read that book next. I liked it too. And I really loved Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. My husband informs me that this is blasphemy, but I always hated the terrifying Gene Wilder version as a kid. And as a big, big Rahl Dahl fan, I think the Johnny Depp version follows the book more faithfully.
Eragon. The movie actually managed to make the book look good by comparison, and that's saying a lot.
The Percy Jackson movies were god awful. As a super fan, I was looking forward to them so much. SO much! I even brought two other super fans with me (instead of my boyfriend) to see the first one in theaters. I almost walked out. First of all, they didn't even include two major characters. Second of all, they completely changed the plot. Third of all, they took scenes from the third book and put it in the movie. And fourth of all, they changed a main character's hair color (which was mentioned a lot throughout the books), like it's so hard to wear a wig. The second movie, they tried harder. They added the two missing characters, they stuck to the original plot (though they added some other scenes for "drama"), they didn't pull from other books, and the girl dyed her hair because the fans were so mad. Without reading the books, I may have enjoyed the movies. But I must admit, I'm so happy they stopped making them. They were ruining my love for the books and the author.
I love the book "Needful Things" by Stephen King but the movie left so much out and rushed the rest of what was left in.
