Fun Stuff > ENJOY

Best & Worst Books to Movies

<< < (6/14) > >>

thehoopiestfrood:
There is an actual proper reason for the major changes between the radio series and the books though - John Lloyd wrote a lot of material for the radio series, including pretty much two whole episodes when Douglas Adams was too busy writing Doctor Who if my memory serves correctly. They were given a joint contract to write the book and went away on holiday together to write it and fell out when Adams decided he wanted to write it alone and bought out Lloyd. Therefore Adams couldn't use anything Lloyd had written out of fear Lloyd would sue him and had to change large parts of the story. That accounts for most of the differences between the radio series and the books. The TV series was then based on a sort of combination of the radio series and book.

I do think some of the stuff on the film was completely lazy/unacceptable - ie. Zaphod's second head. It wasn't even a second head and then they got rid of it for most of the film. How would he have hidden it by putting a birdcage on top of it at the party where he picked up Trillian? He wouldn't have needed to! If they managed to have a second head in the TV series made in 1980/1981, you'd think nowadays they'd be able manage it no problem. The more I'm thinking about it, the more angry I'm getting. I also hated the romantic subplot between Trillian and Arthur. The whole point is, he never gets her, but she still has his kid anyway. If they get together the whole Random character wouldn't work. They tried to leave it open for a sequel, and Adams did leave enough material for a film of each book, but by changing things in the first film it means events that happen later won't work, and Adams isn't around to fix this with his trademark genius so it probably would just all end up going to crap.

McTaggart:
Fun Fact: The funniest part (read: only really funny part) of the movie wasn't even in the book. The bit where they're made of wool and he throws up. Everything else about the film was just really average and didn't at all capture what made the first three books bearable; the sense of the events happening inside some larger universe.

[edit] so yeah, that comes under hate for me. They took books that I thought were really average and made them bad

erwinkirby:
I am completely surprised no one has mentioned To Kill A Mockingbird.  In my mind, the best book to film adaption in the history of cinema.

Worsts-oh, there are so many.  I remember when Divine Secrets of Ya-ya Sisterhood came out I was so angry.  It is a horrible depiction of the book.

Peet:
Love:

Lord of the Rings


Hate:

Lord of the Rings

Man it was good, but it could have been so much better.

Orbert:
The Godfather. A bit obvious, perhaps, but truly a great adaption of a great novel. Puzo was kind enough to include several subplots which added very little to the main story, so they could be easily cut out, but still, what remained was a work of art. One of my favorite books, and one of my favorite movies as well.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page