Most disappointing movie adaptation of a book

oxygen_old

The Watchmen was only briefly mentioned, surprisingly. There was sooo much wrong with that adaptation. Dont get me wrong, it gets alot right, but still.

The sub plot of Nite Owl and silk spectre was brilliant in the book, he used his secret identity as a crutch, while she detested it. It was a really good love story, rare enough in a graphic novel. In the film this subplot is soo hamily done they needend have bothered putting it in there. Really, its ****.

Unlike everyone else, I didnt mind the change at the end of the movie. They can only destroy Manhattan so many times in movies before it gets a bit depressing. (I think they need to stop) All though the carnage did seem kindof underplayed and detached in the movie. No classic line "They just went out for indian" (or something like that). The death toll was only mentioned in the movie. In the book, the carnage was really well done, because it seemed so out of place in a superhero.

Joycey

turgon wrote: »

One of the key ideas of the Lord of the Rings is that the elves dont care about middle earth anymore. Coming to Helms Depps was just a cop out.

Wait a minute... There are ideas in Lord of the Rings??? Seriously?

I'm sick of this attitude that the best way to adapt a book to film is to facsimile the book. This doesn't work, it's pointlessly pedantic, and it makes bad films.

+1

Why do people bitch because plots have been changed moving from book to film? I dont get it. Surely its much better to actually contribute something original to the film and create something worthwhile then to just churn out an exact copy of whatever book was the inspiration.

I couldnt read Fear and Loathing because id seen the film so many times that I knew every incident and every word that was spoken pretty much. I like Terry Gilliam as a director but I wish he hadnt stayed so "faithful".

Although the more fluff they remove from LoTR the better, what a load of tripe, thank god whatever nob directed it doesnt have a creative cell in his body, otherwise the pain would have gone on for even longer :rolleyes:

Skally-wag

The Kiterunner

Stench Blossoms

Misery.

I was really disappointed with the film considering the book was so good.

Rascaduanok

Joycey wrote: »

I couldnt read Fear and Loathing because id seen the film so many times that I knew every incident and every word that was spoken pretty much. I like Terry Gilliam as a director but I wish he hadnt stayed so "faithful".

Other way around for me — read the book years before seeing the film and it was so funny and brilliant that the film didn’t live up to it. What I saw of it at any rate. Did it show the attorney vomiting into his shoes?

theCzar

I wouldn't complain if the film was good in itself. A disappointing adaptation would be one that made a bad film of a good book. A good (albeit perhaps unfaithful) film is not as such disappointing. Books and films are too inherently different to do any more than borrow ideas from each other. Trying to use the strengths of another medium is a recipe for a **** adaptation.

That said, you can't change the ending! I haven't gone near I Am Legend after I quizzed a friend about it as without THE ending, I don't see the point.

Ciaran B

The Black Dahlia.

I know it was expecting too much for a James Ellroy adaption to be as good as LA Confidential but they really dropped the ball here. Poorly cast (Josh Hartnett was majorly out of his depth), bland to look at and badly directed. There's a thread on IMDB suggesting De Palma played the whole thing for laughs but I don't agree; it's just a bad film.

aoibhebree

My Sister's Keeper.

I thought the book was really good, and while a lot of the film was different to the book, I still thought it was alright until the end. I'm not going to say anything too specific, but I'll spoiler it just in case ...

The ending is completely different! It's just completely predictable, it's what you'd expect all the way through when watching the film, no surprises. The ending in the book was way better, it made a lot more sense. With the new ending, the title "My Sister's Keeper" doesn't even make sense. And apparently Jodi Picoult herself wasn't a bit happy about the changed ending, but had no control over it.

If you thought the book was good, I wouldn't particularly recommend the film.

MultiUmm

White Oleander.

It's not a very well known book, or film for that matter, but the movie did it no justice at all.

It cut out huge sections of the book which made the story somewhat incomprehensible and confusing and it portrayed Ingrid, one of the main characters, all wrong imo.

Outkast_IRE

The stand !!!!!! I think this film will someday be made into a worthy trilogy ,
Another one that will be adapted for movie is The Traveller by john twelve hawks it will be the new matrix i know it

This_Years_Love

High Fidelity, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, The Virgin Suicides, Bring Down the House, Marley & Me, Animal Farm... that's all I can think of right now.

Anthem

Perfume by Patrick Suskind...although I suppose that was always going to translate badly to screen. :pac:

Also, Angels and Demons. Rather enjoyed the book, the movie was horrendous.

Roisinbunny

giddybootz wrote: »

Really loved the LOTR movies but was very sad that Tom Bombadil wasn't in them

So, so true.. That part was magic!

havana

Furious Banana wrote: »

White Oleander.

It's not a very well known book, or film for that matter, but the movie did it no justice at all.

It cut out huge sections of the book which made the story somewhat incomprehensible and confusing and it portrayed Ingrid, one of the main characters, all wrong imo.

+1

Also The Prince of Tides

Also I may get shot for saying this - but any of the Bourne films. Ok, good films on their own, but to me not decent adaptations of the books.

Roisinbunny

Joycey wrote: »

Wait a minute... There are ideas in Lord of the Rings??? Seriously?

Although the more fluff they remove from LoTR the better, what a load of tripe, thank god whatever nob directed it doesnt have a creative cell in his body, otherwise the pain would have gone on for even longer :rolleyes:

a bit harsh maybe?....the books in my humble humble opinion ( I'm afraid of getting bitten here) I always thought were symbolic of the personal view Tolkien held of the world, its past, and where it was going in the future (emanating from his experiences in WW1)... thought there was a lot to take from the book, besides a great read.. Bit like Animal Farm - getting across social comment through the medium of a fiction?? Or maybe I'm just overthinking it:rolleyes:

I think he put his heart and soul into those books, creating that world with such amazing detail and description- anyone with that talent and perserverance deserves some respect

turgon

Roisinbunny wrote: »

I always thought were symbolic of the personal view Tolkien held of the world, its past, ... maybe I'm just overthinking it

No your not at all. I have read the books a few times, the last time 2 years ago. I also saw the film for the last time 2 years ago. Then I watched it again last month, and having gotten into "classics" literature since I could completely see he was going deeper. The characters are extremely accurate in their emotions and motives etc. Im especially thinking of the two brothers, Borimir and Farimir. Tolkien perhaps setting them up so that they are to be compared??

Even if you choose to ignore the depth of character, there is the whole thing whereby Tolkien created a complete mythology. Including the formation of the Earth, languages, cultures etc. Its extraordinarily imaginative.

The council of Elrond is one of the best scenes in the book, in these terms. The whole sense of world comes together and many of the complex layers surface for a moment to give us a glimpse of the depth.


May I ask Joycey, have you ever read the books?

ally2

Rascaduanok wrote: »

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

What about Carrie? I loved that.

Nimrod's Son

ally2 wrote: »

What about Carrie? I loved that.

And The Mist, thought that was excellent.

Anyway, hands down the worst big screen adaptation is I Am Legend. They ruined that, ruined it real nice like.

Daftendirekt

Don't know if it's been mentioned already, but I'd have to say The Golden Compass (or Northern Lights, to use the book's title). I loved the book, and I thought it was a crying shame that they got this one so so wrong.

dioltas

Denerick wrote: »

Lord of the Rings.

Could have been worse, but quite frankly I would have preferred if they never bothered making a film for such a seminal book.

A close second is The Beach.

Was going to say The Lord of the Rings too. Don't think a film could ever have done the books justice.

dioltas

Speaking of movie adaptations, I just finished A Scanner Darkly really loved it, planning on watching the film tomorrow night, hope it doesn't dissappoint!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

On the subject of Stephen King adaptions, Stand By Me was pretty good no?

I'm afraid I have to agree with The Lord Of The Rings. I read the books way before they made the films and was quite excited about them. I got the first one on dvd, and I only got through the first disc and I couldn't watch any more. Now I know some might say I should have watched the whole thing, and the other 2 films, before passing judgement, but I just can't bring myself to do it.

Also someone mentioned East of Eden. The film adaption is ok if you've never read the book, as they do get some of the main points in there. The relationship between the brothers, and how desperate Cal is to impress his father, but they cut so much more out of it. For me the whole point of East of Eden was the "temshe" things that Lee talks about. (I've probably spelt that wrong, but anyone who's read it should know what I'm talking about) Not only did they leave it out, they left him out completely too!!
It is such an epic tale though it would be extremely hard to do it justice.

Another one I was a bit disapointed with was Atonement. Again, like East of Eden, it's a pretty hard one to adapt due to the three different sort of time periods it takes place in. I was surprised at how well they managed that part actually, but I was still disapointed. They left out most of Robbies time in Normandy, which for me was the most gripping part of the book. Also I watched it with some friends who hadn't read it, and they found it very confusing and hard to follow. If I hadn't read the book I'd probably have been lost too.

Funglegunk

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Don't know if it's been mentioned already, but I'd have to say The Golden Compass (or Northern Lights, to use the book's title). I loved the book, and I thought it was a crying shame that they got this one so so wrong.

+1. How did they manage to make it so....boring?!

PADRAGON

The worst Stephen King adaptation MUST be The running man.
It was a story in the Bachman books.
Fantastic read,concerning the future of gameshows.
Including "Treadmill To Bucks!!!" where cardiac patients
earned money the longer they stayed on the treadmill.
Great fun.
But the film had ARNIE BEING CHASED BY OPERA SINGING NEON CLAD BOUNTY HUNTERS.
I need to calm down wheres me tablets

Elevelyn

PADRAGON wrote: »

The worst Stephen King adaptation MUST be The running man.
It was a story in the Bachman books.
Fantastic read,concerning the future of gameshows.
Including "Treadmill To Bucks!!!" where cardiac patients
earned money the longer they stayed on the treadmill.
Great fun.
But the film had ARNIE BEING CHASED BY OPERA SINGING NEON CLAD BOUNTY HUNTERS.
I need to calm down wheres me tablets

I loved this book and heard the film was great (by people who had not read it) but i turned it off after bout 20 mins.... terrible.

IMO every Stephen King movie I have seen is terrible (besides Shawshank) Misery really annoyed me but the worst IMO is IT - terrible film - and Dreamcatcher - dont get me started on this pile of w*nk :mad:

callmescratch

PADRAGON wrote: »

But the film had ARNIE BEING CHASED BY OPERA SINGING NEON CLAD BOUNTY HUNTERS.

Well now I really want to see this

oncevotedff

Greyfox wrote: »

Da Vinci code was a very enjoyable read, ...

Seriously?

I'm slating the television series of the Sharpe books by Bernard Cornwell. OK his books are a bit formulaic but they could have done better on screen.

Also disappointed with the Legend of the Seeker adaptation of Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series.

asdasd

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.

I had the misfortune to read Tolkien's "seminal" masterpiece after seeing the first movie. Utter turgid shtie written for children. The movie was much better. A great cinematographic feast compared to a badly written book. If anything it paid too much attention to the books - we would have been better off without the meandering hobbits in the talking forest. Amongst other things.

By the way - a note to nerds - not one cinematic version of Hamlet has played it as written. Most cut out large portions since it runs too long if all played out. The Kenneth Brannagh version had all the dialogue but was set in the wrong era. I love Hamlet, and like most Hamlets I see in Theatre and Film, all different, none played as written. So get over the fact that your bestest ever book you read when you were 15 has been adapted for the screen, most stuff has. Some for good, some for bad. A book is not a movie.

Hamlet is a better piece of writing than LOTR. Which - it has to be emphasized - sucks balls.

The Human Stain. Great work by Roth, bad adaptation. But it is a difficult adaptation. I admit.

PADRAGON

Elevelyn wrote: »

I loved this book and heard the film was great (by people who had not read it) but i turned it off after bout 20 mins.... terrible.

IMO every Stephen King movie I have seen is terrible (besides Shawshank) Misery really annoyed me but the worst IMO is IT - terrible film - and Dreamcatcher - dont get me started on this pile of w*nk :mad:

"It" was sh*t.Havent seen Dreamcatcher and now i dont want to.
You did the right thing switching off Running Man.
I remember it...**shiver**

PADRAGON

callmescratch wrote: »

Well now I really want to see this

Brave soul