Films that do/don't live up to the Book or Screenplay

Capt'n Midnight · 15-06-2013 12:56AM

MagicMarker wrote: »

No mention of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?

The movie was utterly atrocious.

http://www.the-editing-room.com/hhgttg.html

In the beginning the film adaptation of THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY was financed. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
...
I'm sure the fans of the books are squirming as this gag is destroyed. I just hope the enjoyment by audience members who didn't read the book is worth the alienation of the fans.

AUDIENCE

I don't get it. Why is he reading poetry?
...
The film ends in much the same way that the book doesn't.

JRant · 15-06-2013 01:03AM

2001: A space odyssey.

Brilliant book and brilliant movie.

K-9 · 15-06-2013 01:07AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I like Bonfire Of The Vanities the movie. IMO the intense panning it got wasn't justified.

The problem was it was such a popular read, between the book and the serialisation previous to the novel, probably half of America read it!

They changed the Brit journalist character, he was a loveable alcoholic roguish journalist, that you could imagine fitting right at home in Time or Newsweek in the 80's, the film turned him into some sort of a heroic character when the book depicted him brilliantly and lovingly as an opportunistic hack, no real redeeming qualities at all, yet he ends up doing quite nicely out of all of it in the epilogue.

The only reason I can think they changed him was they could never have Willis like that, self-serving and opportunistic. Interestingly, it was rumoured the character was based on Christopher Hitchens.

The only character that comes out of it well is the judge, and even in the book he wants to appeal to the crowd and explain his reasoning that was in camera and in his chambers. The film also failed there, the tapes were never made public.

Slutmonkey57b · 15-06-2013 01:15AM

Lord of the rings. Films were long and dull, but the books are bloody awful ****e.

Ten of Swords · 15-06-2013 02:16AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A reboot would be nice

And yes I kinda like the visuals

And besides it's by David Lynch so anything could have happened

There was a fairly bad attempt at a remake of Dune a few years ago, they stretched it out in 3 parts to better explore the source material but I think they just made it even worse than the 1984 movie.

One key thing that sticks in my mind about this remake is how the Sardaukar were portrayed, they looked so camp it was laughable. (For anyone not familiar with Dune they are supposed to be the most feared and highly trained military force in the universe!)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0142032/

Getting back on-topic, for me I think Pet Semetary was a good book but the movie was just horrible, and they somehow managed to spawn an even worse sequel :eek:

The Princess Bride · 15-06-2013 02:26AM

Alex Garland's The Beach was an excellent read-the film was embarrassingly lacking.

I love Dennis Lehane's books-but thought the adaptation of Shutter Island didn't quite live up to the standard of the book.

Samsgirl · 15-06-2013 02:57AM

The Da Vnci Code. Enjoyed the book. Crap movie.

The Backwards Man · 15-06-2013 03:39AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

well if by that you mean remove most of the killing

If you've seen Maximum Overdrive which Stephen himself directed then you'll know why. Rotten tomatoes rating 17%

Maximum Overdrive is my favourite King adaptation of the lot. The direction may have been coke-addled, the acting wooden, and the effects amateurish, but I'll tell you one thing;

It fcuking rocked!!

kylith · 15-06-2013 10:58AM

Amazingly enough, The Prestige is one of those rare films that's approximately five hundred billion times better than the book.

artvanderlay · 15-06-2013 05:18PM

gramar wrote: »

Roddy Doyle's - The Van. I was very let down by the film.
The Godfather on the other hand is a great screen adaption of the book.

I agree about the van. It was one of my favourite books when I was younger; i used to cry with laughter reading it and could imagine everything so vividly. I found the movie very crude and without much warmth which was strange considering it was directed by stephen frears, who did the snapper, and had much of the same cast. Strange...

artvanderlay · 15-06-2013 05:23PM

Green&Red wrote: »

I think one flew over the cuckoos nest is probably the worst film ever made, or maybe just the biggest disappointment, in particular the amazing character of chief in the book is a non entity in the film

Pfff I say

I think the movie is great but I read the book a long time after seeing the movie and it's way better. The character of McMurphy is very different and I do think that a younger Kirk Douglas would have been a better choice rather than Jack. But I suppose writing a book is not a collaborative effort whereas a movie is, so a singular vision is never going to translate easily to the medium of film.

Icaras · 15-06-2013 06:46PM

Choke - I saw the film first on impulse and liked it, read the book and thought it was complete crap.

DoozerT6 · 15-06-2013 06:48PM

The film (miniseries) version of Stephen King's IT (The one with JohnBoy Walton in it!) was seriously lacking compared to the book, which had me crapping my pants at every turn of the page. King's pages and pages of backstories and narrative are chilling, fleshing out the story even more, which is completely missing from the screen version, although it WAS made in 1990 - maybe a more modern version might be scarier/better?!

trashcan · 16-06-2013 02:10PM

msthe80s wrote: »

Alex Garland's The Beach was an excellent read-the film was embarrassingly lacking.

I love Dennis Lehane's books-but thought the adaptation of Shutter Island didn't quite live up to the standard of the book.

Thought it was ok, but not sure about Di Caprio as the main character. He's a fine actor, but having read the book he's not really how I imagined the lead.

krudler · 16-06-2013 02:14PM

kylith wrote: »

Amazingly enough, The Prestige is one of those rare films that's approximately five hundred billion times better than the book.

Indeed, dropping the modern day plotline was much better, fantastic film that.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 16-06-2013 02:32PM

I liked the book ps I love you, it was funny as well, the movie though, everyone was completely unlikeable and it ruined it for me. I am so cultured!

Ice Storm · 16-06-2013 02:33PM

In general, I prefer whichever I've read or seen first.

One exception that I can think of is The Beach. I read the book after I'd seen the film and thought the book was far superior. A pivotal character had been excluded completely from the film!

Last night I watched the film adaptation of The Remains of the Day. Both the book and film are excellent; I loved them both! I want to reread the book now.

Irish Guitarist · 16-06-2013 05:39PM

I was going to say Stand By Me and The Shawshank Redemption but they've already been mentioned.

They were originally in a book called Different Seasons. There were four stories, three of which were later turned into films. The other film to come from the book was Apt Pupil. It was about a boy who developed an unhealthy friendship with an ex-Nazi and started murdering homeless men. The film left out the whole homeless murder plot which was pointless as it was the major theme of the story. Whereas I thought Stand By me and The Shawshank Redemption were better than the stories in the book I thought Apt Pupil was absolutely terrible.

WoollyRedHat · 16-06-2013 06:26PM

The Cider House Rules- Book is really great, but the film is pretty dire, strips the soul and greatness out of the book, horribly miscasts characters for the main, and it's a wonder how it got nominated for an oscar. Granted the source material is difficult to adapt into a film and stay completely true, considering it's length, but it really shouldn't have been made when it got so many things wrong.

Dman001 · 16-06-2013 08:56PM

Forres Gump is a great tale about one of the original investors of Apple (and also did a bunch of other stuff)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE1_Ha_2h9U

Merkin · 16-06-2013 10:14PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I liked the book ps I love you, it was funny as well, the movie though, everyone was completely unlikeable and it ruined it for me. I am so cultured!

No offence, but I think it's probably the worst book ever written. How it was even published is a mystery.....oh no, wait...:rolleyes:

bnt · 16-06-2013 10:41PM

The makers of The Golden Compass clearly didn't read the whole His Dark Materials trilogy before signing the contract. They had to bowdlerize Northern Lights of its anti-religious message to make it acceptable to Hollywood, and the result fell flat at the box office. I honestly can't imagine them making the rest of the trilogy into films: they'd half to leave out half the content - that's how un-PC they are,

Wattle · 16-06-2013 10:42PM

I loved Kerouac's On The Road when I was a teen but the film version I saw last year was a real mess.

JustAThought · 16-06-2013 11:09PM

Marley & Me the book was a joyful happy slapdash of mayhem & puppy madness & adventures. I loved it & finally then went out a got a dog - and had my own adventures! But the film was dry, sugar crusted with hollow cliched scenes & a dog and children that grew up and aged against a backdrop of a perpetually young & unchanging Jennifer A - skip the film & read the book ! ( at your dog-free peril!)

I read the Wizzard of Oz having bought a old first type edition hardback for
My Mom As a present and it was HUGELY desperately boring & flat. The
Imaginations they had to weave that film
Magic From That Little dry childish moral filled book. Unbelievable!

Book - The Ametyvile Horror. Still has he sweat Rolling down my back when I think of the detail. Pure evil. Film didn't compare.

The English Patient is one of my favourite films. nOT the book - ponderous, overworked, dreary & stodgy.

Hotel Rwanda.
Read the book. Sat in crawling horror through the film - could barely watch it it was so horrifying. Film much better.

Funny old world.

Capt'n Midnight · 16-06-2013 11:53PM

The film Goldfinger was so much better than the book.

It was the first film with frickin' lasers

And some great dialogue

James Bond: Do you expect me to talk?

Auric Goldfinger: No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!

James Bond: Yes, well, I've worked out a few statistics of my own. 15 billion dollars in gold bullion weighs 10,500 tons. Sixty men would take twelve days to load it onto 200 trucks. Now, at the most, you're going to have two hours before the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines move in and make you put it back.

Auric Goldfinger: Who mentioned anything about removing it?

[Bond is stunned into silence]

Auric Goldfinger: The julep tart enough for you?

James Bond: You plan to break into the world's largest bank, but not to steal anything. Why?

Auric Goldfinger: Go on, Mr. Bond.

James Bond: [thinking] Mr. Ling, the Red Chinese at the factory, he's a specialist in nuclear fission... but of course! His government's given you a bomb.

Auric Goldfinger: I prefer to call it an "atomic device." It's small, but particularly dirty.

James Bond: A dirty bomb? Cobalt and iodine?

Auric Goldfinger: Precisely.

James Bond: Well, if you explode it in Fort Knox, the... the entire gold supply of the United States would be radioactive for... fifty-seven years.

Auric Goldfinger: Fifty-eight, to be exact.

James Bond: I apologize, Goldfinger. It's an inspired deal! They get what they want, economic chaos in the West. And the value of your gold increases many times.

Auric Goldfinger: I conservatively estimate, ten times.

James Bond: Brilliant.

Lightbulb Sun · 17-06-2013 12:29AM

The Hobbit was poor especially the first hour of the film which was very drawn out and dull. I enjoyed the book and I wouldn't be a fan of fantasy novels at all.

Slutmonkey57b · 17-06-2013 12:40AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The film Goldfinger was so much better than the book.

It was the first film with frickin' lasers

And some great dialogue

Anyone who says bond films "should be true to the books" hasn't read them, they're utter ****.

General General · 17-06-2013 12:43AM

Showgirls.

Lightbulb Sun · 17-06-2013 12:45AM

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Anyone who says bond films "should be true to the books" hasn't read them, they're utter ****.

Funny thing is Ian Fleming as his real life self was even more badass than the character he created for his books!

Capt'n Midnight · 17-06-2013 01:42AM

As for actors living up to their screen persona, Christopher Lee.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/ChristopherLee?from=Main.ChristopherLee

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/christopherlee.html

Films that do/don't live up to the Book or Screenplay

Comments