Most disappointing movie adaptation of a book

Fad

A Clockwork Orange was a major dissapointment for me.

cashback

The Rules Of Attraction
Fear and Loathing - I know a lot of people liked the film, I just found it annoying.
I thought The Beach was decent till i read the book.

The Mad Hatter

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Animal farm was such a good book - what did they do with the ending in the film?

"The animals rose up again. And this time, it would work."

Aside from that, the film was very good. ('Aside from that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?')

girl_friday

giddybootz wrote: »

Well when i heard they had changed to ending of The Horse Whisperer when they made it to a film I refused to watch it. Its a favourite book of mine from my early teens and to this day I haven't seen the movie...won't watch anything with Redford now!!

I ADORED this book and couldn't wait to see the film... Unfortunately it was one of only two films I have ever walked out of and ruined the book completely for me!! :mad:

Rascaduanok

Iago wrote: »

Unfortunatly most of the Stephen King adaptations, but in particular The Stand & IT.

The list goes on from there

The only decent Stephen King adaptations I’ve seen are The Shining and The Shawshank Redemption.

Decuc500

Cold Mountain is a favourite book of mine.
The movie was way too earnest and cringeworthy, not to mention the OTT acting.

partyguinness

I read all the "The Famous Five" books when I was 11/12

"Five Get Into A Fix" No. 17

In the book they go skiing to Wales and the whole plot centres around skiing in the Welsh valleys. In the TV adaption there is no fcuking snow to be seen anywhere. Its a misty grey valley.

I have never felt so cheated in all my life.:mad:

"Needful Things" by Stephen King was atrocious.

Hunchback

Rascaduanok wrote: »

The only decent Stephen King adaptations I’ve seen are The Shining and The Shawshank Redemption.

I thought 'Misery' and Dolores Claiborne were decent adaptations TBH

RuthyB

The Golden Compass

They left so so so much out of the story, and it was just a terrible film anyways.

LOTR

Film wasnt too bad, but it left lots of stuff out, and changed a few bits too

partyguinness

RuthyB wrote: »

The Golden Compass

They left so so so much out of the story, and it was just a terrible film anyways.

LOTR

Film wasnt too bad, but it left lots of stuff out, and changed a few bits too

Yeah LOTR left a lot out including the final battle...but IMO I think it hit the right balance..even with the bits left out (including mixing up the books)..I was getting ready to slate the films but I have to admit..a good job was done:)

Quazzie

Iago wrote: »

Unfortunatly most of the Stephen King adaptations, but in particular The Stand & IT.

The list goes on from there

I'd add Shawshank Redemption to that list.

Denerick

partyguinness wrote: »

Yeah LOTR left a lot out including the final battle...but IMO I think it hit the right balance..even with the bits left out (including mixing up the books)..I was getting ready to slate the films but I have to admit..a good job was done:)

My big gripe with the film was the elves coming to help at Helms deep. It was just an un-necessary butchering of the plot. Return of the king generally was a disappointment, though the Fellowship was ok.

Quazzie

Rascaduanok wrote: »

The only decent Stephen King adaptations I’ve seen are The Shining and The Shawshank Redemption.

How can you say that with a straight face. They totally changed the storyline, introduced new character, etc.

Its a joke

Linguo

Iago wrote: »

Unfortunatly most of the Stephen King adaptations, but in particular The Stand & IT.

The list goes on from there

Totally agree...for such good books why can't they get the horror movies right?Only seem to succeed with shawshank, green mile etc which are brilliant but his scary ones are so good too!

joeystrider

The Girl With The Pearl Earring

Twas a nice, quick lusty read. Light on the eyes.

The film was like wadding through a sea of overwrought cinematography. Plus Scarlet Johansson was dead. Like a stone with lips.

They also managed to eradicate entirely the small amount of humour that was in the book.

It was one long stream of vermeer style shots. Consequently it felt like it took longer to watch the film than read the book..

Greyfox

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

I'd add Shawshank Redemption to that list.

Why would you add the greatest film ever made to that list?

The Lord of the rings is an example of the film been better than what was a good book!

Anybody have the misfortune of trying to watch the Battlefield Earth film?

Da Vinci code was a very enjoyable read, rubbish film though!

MooseJam

Greyfox wrote: »

Anybody have the misfortune of trying to watch the Battlefield Earth film?

Huge disappointment considering the book is up there with the greats

Quazzie

Greyfox wrote: »

Why would you add the greatest film ever made to that list?

Because the film was sh*te and the book was a really enjoyable read. The book was so good because most of it ( as is the case in a lot of Stephen Kings books) is a running dialogue of the main characters thoughts, many of which were never even broached by the film. The film also invented a character out of nowhere, so in terms of being a good movie adaption of a book it fails terribly. Many might enjoy the movie, but that does not mean that it was a true representation of the book.

FFS one of the main characters Red was named Red because of his hair colour that he had because he was from Irish decent. I'm not being racist but no one can claim that Morgan Freeman is from Irish descent. :mad:

Because of all these points I hate the film, and thats the summary of reasons why it should be added to that list.


P.S I'mm well aware that 'Rita Haworth and the Shawshank Redempion' was a novella and not a book for any of the pedants out there.;)

hkcharlie

Greyfox wrote: »

Why would you add the greatest film ever made to that list?

because sometimes it's fun to be controversial.

I never read the book, but I think the film (and I think I'm in the majority here) was good.

Quazzie

I wasn't trying to be controversial. While most ( like yourself) will love the movie, as an adaptation of a book it is a terrible failure. For me that made me not like the movie because I read the book long before seeing the movie and loved it, and because of that the movie felt like a bit of a sell out, and too many changes were made in adapting it to a screenplay.

You might disagree with me about the movie, but anyone that has read the book as well will surely agree that the adaptation was a failure.

hkcharlie

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

I wasn't trying to be controversial. While most ( like yourself) will love the movie, as an adaptation of a book it is a terrible failure. For me that made me not like the movie because I read the book long before seeing the movie and loved it, and because of that the movie felt like a bit of a sell out, and too many changes were made in adapting it to a screenplay.

You might disagree with me about the movie, but anyone that has read the book as well will surely agree that the adaptation was a failure.

On that note, I will make a real effort to read the book!

TvWatcher

Have always loved Elizabeth Bowen's novel but the film was disappointing. Good score though by Preisner. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0180793/

FruitLover

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

FFS one of the main characters Red was named Red because of his hair colour that he had because he was from Irish decent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony#Comic_irony

mackerel

That's the tricky thing about irony.

Quazzie

FruitLover wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony#Comic_irony

WTF has comic irony got to do with the fact that the character in the book has changed from a red head Irish guy to an African American guy. It wasn't comic irony. It's an example of how they changed certain things about the film to suit the cast they picked and not stay true to the original story. To claim it was intentional so as to obtain som kind of comic irony is stupid to say the least

Madge

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

The book was so good because most of it ( as is the case in a lot of Stephen Kings books) is a running dialogue of the main characters thoughts, many of which were never even broached by the film.

Erm, the majority of the film was told from Red's perspective, and so is the book...
Not to mention that a lot of the famous phrases and maxims delivered in the film are lifted practically word for word from the book. Whole paragraphs containing Red's inner thoughts are delivered by Freeman on screen...

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

The film also invented a character out of nowhere,

Which character are you referring to?

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

so in terms of being a good movie adaption of a book it fails terribly.

How so? IMO, You haven't justified your opinion..

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

Many might enjoy the movie, but that does not mean that it was a true representation of the book.

Tell me Quazzie, if the film didn't represent the book to you, what did it represent?

IMO, the film captured intimately the absolute essence of the book- that hope can never die. It presented and expressed the themes of the book, namely friendship, survival, and redemption with clarity and emotion. The characters of Red and Andy were portrayed exactly as I imagined them, their personalities and emotions displayed through every subtle nuance and quirk depicted on screen. Robbins and Freeman excelled.

How did the film do all this do all this? Good direction, acting, cinematography etc. played a part but I think it's mainly down to the story... Because it is a true representation of the book.

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

FFS one of the main characters Red was named Red because of his hair colour that he had because he was from Irish decent. I'm not being racist but no one can claim that Morgan Freeman is from Irish descent. :mad:

Quazzie, I didn't just enjoy the movie, I 'got it'. (It's pretty evident you didn't )
So much so that a characters hair colour, which is absolutely inconsequential to the plot (in both book and film) didn't even register with me.
You're clutching at straws if that's all you can come up with as a reason to dislike the film...

Quazzie

Madge wrote: »

Quazzie, I didn't just enjoy the movie, I 'got it'. (It's pretty evident you didn't )

I guess I just "got" the book which judging by your post, you didn't.

Intact I'm gonna give it another read over the next few days.

Madge

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

I guess I just "got" the book which judging by your post, you didn't.

What makes you say that?

Black Swan

"Dune"

Rascaduanok

The Shawshank Redemption wasn’t even a book, it was just a short story, if I recall it correctly. A bit more indepth than The Lawnmower Man (which was all of what, 2 or 3 pages?) but still a short story.