Topic: Best & Worst Books to Movies (Read 23129 times)

Lukeypoo · « **on:** 08 Mar 2007, 09:16 »

What are everyone's favorite and most hated books turned to movies? We're talking about books you loved that were either lovingly crafted into a great movie with some integrity or butchered beyond all reason with little to no thought about the original story.

Love:
Shawshank Redemption
LotR (duh)

Hate:
Hannibal
Dreamcatcher

Note:
Ofcourse the books were better. We all know that. But some movies manage to pull off the transition quite well.

Will · « **Reply #1 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 09:19 »

The movie-made-from-a-book that most recently pissed me off was Memoirs Of A Geisha. Horrible, horrible butchery of a beautiful story.

Lunchbox · « **Reply #2 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 12:10 »

Funny, I'd say Hannibal is in my Love list. And yes, I did read the book before I saw the movie.

Love:
Chocolat (except for Johnny Depp)
The Witches
Hitchhiker's Guide (characters were great, I will excuse the canon inconsistencies and the misquotes)
A Series of Unfortunate Events
Bridget Jones
Muppet Treasure Island

Hate:
Harry Potter
Sahara
Matilda
New and Old Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Lukeypoo · « **Reply #3 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 12:34 »

But Hannibal the book was so awesome. Harris's characters had a lot of history and grew on you, and his research provided excellent settings and imagery.

In the movie Hannibal, they completely cut out the sister and tons of scenes with great potential. I could have taken that much and not hated it, but they also completely changed the ending! Which I just can't stand. Because the ending in the book came out of left field and wasn't what you expected at all, but worked.

mberan42 · « **Reply #4 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 12:45 »

Quote from: Lunchbox on 08 Mar 2007, 12:10

Hate:
Sahara

Do you mean the Clive Cussler book & Matthew McConighey (sp) movie?

I think I've read every single Dirk Pitt novel (except the latest one - I didn't know there was a new one until just recently). Shock Wave is my favourite, but they're all pretty damn good.

I terribly enjoyed the movie (especially with Rainn Wilson as Rudi Gunn) but it wasn't true to the novel.

Pareve · « **Reply #5 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 12:52 »

I liked "The Rules of Attraction," and thought that it was actually a lot more cohesive than the book was. As far as accuracy goes, "Brokeback Mountain" was a rediculously true adaptation. Jake Gylenhaal was waaaay too pretty to play Jack Twist. I'd have preferred if the actors were unknown and ugly, although Heath Ledger did an excellent job. My least favorite adaptation is either "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" or "Constantine." Comic books are books too!

ThePQ4 · « **Reply #6 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 12:55 »

I have a love/hate relationship with most Book-to-Movie movies...but to note the ones I can think of:

Hate:
-The Princess Diaries
-Ellla Enchanted
-Cat and the Hat

Love (Usually):
-Bridge Jones
-Cheaper By The Dozen
-Matlida
-Harriet the Spy
-The Hours
-The Joy Luck Club
-Fried Green Tomatoes

Love/Hate Relationship:
-Harry Potter
-Hitchhikers Guide the Galaxy
-Brokeback Mountain
-Series of Unfortunate Events (It should be noted that I have a love/hate relationship with the books themselves...)
- X-Men (all three, in particular the 3rd one...)

Lunchbox · « **Reply #7 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 12:56 »

Maybe it's just that Mr McConaghey (fuck that spelling) and the dude who played Al don't look anything like the way I imagined them. This is my main beef with a lot of book-to-movies. (Probably why I don't get angry about Hannibal, because the actors are spot-on perfect.)

I've read a good chunk of Pitt novels, but not all of them. I love that Clive Cussler manages to insert himself everywhere, and on one of the latest ones I noticed that he named his own son Dirk. That is admirable, and silly.

EDIT:

Ugh, PQ4, mind explaining why you like the Matilda movie? It really pissed me off, because Matilda is one of my favourite books ever. Sure, the kid who plays Matilda is cute, but the blatant Americanisation, the loss of all of Matilda's great tricks and the Chokey, the swapping of Mr and Mrs Wormwood's roles (I suspect this is because Danny DeVito wanted to play Mr Wormwood), and the changing of the ending so that Matilda kept her powers? Ugh blurg argh vomit. Trunchbull was excellent though.

ThePQ4 · « **Reply #8 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 13:09 »

Hmmm...I'm not sure. I guess, I just don't care for Dahl's books... I prefer the cinema when it comes to his stories. Plus, I like the special effects, it's cute.

mberan42 · « **Reply #9 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 13:33 »

Quote from: Lunchbox on 08 Mar 2007, 12:56

Maybe it's just that Mr McConaghey (fuck that spelling) and the dude who played Al don't look anything like the way I imagined them.

Ahh, ok. That's understandable. I'm a very passive reader, so I tend to not think about that stuff. I still liked the movie, simply 'cause it's a good adventure movie.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #10 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 14:32 »

'The Bourne Identity' was a boring, poorly made film and an attrocious adaptation of a very good, well crafted thriller novel. I still can't get over how far off it was from resembling the book in any way other than the name of the main character and some other very minor elements.

The Harry Potter Movies are yawn inducing. I've never sat through an entier one.

'V for Vendetta,' apart from the final scenes, was crap. I hated almost every second of it. Another very poor adaptation as well.

I'm looking forward immensely to '300' and Wes Anderson's claymation adaptation of 'The Fantastic Mr. Fox.'

I never saw it, but I don't see how 'Catch-22' or 'Naked Lunch' could ever be turned into films. The former especially has such a disjointed, non-linear narrative structure that I simply cannot imagine a film even begining to capture what made that book so good or being in any way a faithful adaptation.

I kind of liked 'Sin City.'

thehoopiestfrood · « **Reply #11 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 15:18 »

That's really weird because I was going to say that Catch 22 may be my favourite book to film adaptation ever. It's just utterly perfect in every way and just completely embodies the spirit of the book for me.

I think my problem with Hitchhikers is that it could have been done so much better. Ditto X3, there were ideas which were really good (BEAST!!) but it all just went to pot. I don't think I had any major problems with X1 and X2.

Rule for turning comics into films: secret identities are SECRET for a reason. Shame on you. Batman Begins was perfect apart from the whole shitty tacked on Katie Holmes love thing. Her character could have actually been not to bad but at the end it was just muh OMGFORCEDKISSINGSCENE. See the train scene in Spiderman 2 for more secret identity madness.

Oh, on that note, really bad adaption - Judge Dredd. I mean, COME ON! HE DOESN'T TAKE OF HIS MASK!! EVER!! SACK UP SYLVESTER STALLONE, NOONE WANTS TO SEE YOUR FACE ANYWAY.

Man, I am angry tonight, I think I will stop now. I'm sure there are so many more things I could mention but they have escaped my mind at the moment.

tomselleck69 · « **Reply #12 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 16:48 »

Quote from: TheFuriousWombat on 08 Mar 2007, 14:32

I never saw it, but I don't see how 'Catch-22' or 'Naked Lunch' could ever be turned into films. The former especially has such a disjointed, non-linear narrative structure that I simply cannot imagine a film even begining to capture what made that book so good or being in any way a faithful adaptation.

they worked, at least in my opinion. the way the plot was treated in catch-22 was kind of flawed, but i believe it succeeded because of how well they nailed the characters. i loved naked lunch. david cronenberg was saavy enough to handle it as it's own thing, and not try to make a direct adaptation (rare, one-in-a-million case where this was actually appropriate.) burroughs himself gave it his seal of approval. good enough for him, good enough for me.

anyway:

love:
naked lunch
dracula (francis ford coppola version)
titus
once were warriors
stand by me

have some contempt for the numerous omissions, changes, and general wanton disregard with which the source material was treated, but still enjoyed as films:
lord of the rings
dune (david lynch)

absolutely completely truly madly deeply juicily hate:
any and all films adapted from alan moore comics

Lines · « **Reply #13 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 17:56 »

I HATED Cheaper By The Dozen. HATED it. Nothing like the book/play whatsoever and the movie wasn't that great anyways. I'm also getting a little disappointed with the Harry Potter movies, only because they keep cutting stuff out or switching things around that really shouldn't be. Eragon was also pretty much crap, which was sad, because I liked the book and I like Jeremy Irons and Djimon Hounsou, but man was that movie cheesy and boring. The Princess Bride and Lord of the Rings, however, were done very nicely.

Tyler · « **Reply #14 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 18:09 »

<3s
High Fidelity
Fight Club
LotR

ummmkay · « **Reply #15 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 18:47 »

Quote from: Linds on 08 Mar 2007, 17:56

Eragon was also pretty much crap, which was sad, because I liked the book and I like Jeremy Irons and Djimon Hounsou, but man was that movie cheesy and boring.

Eragon... oh man. My 12 year old brother and I went on a "date" to see it because we read the books together. It was awful! Like they took the basic concept of dragon riders and the name Eragon and completely made up their own story.

GodofGrunts · « **Reply #16 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 19:01 »

no kidding I ran out of the movie theater after Eragon (I previewed it before it hit theaters) and proceeded to yell at my manager (I work at a movie theater) and told him that if he put that movie in a big theater I was going to quit. He agreed and we put it into the smallest theater we have.

Dimmukane · « **Reply #17 on:** 08 Mar 2007, 21:48 »

new hates: Eragon, and Bridge to Terabithia. I really don't give a rats ass about how good or bad the other ones were. All I know is they took a perfectly decent children's novel, and either threw in a whole bunch of fantasy creatures that never were in the book and made that the focus of the movie (BtT), or stuck an unknown actor in with a decent cast, butchered the plot, and basically made the unknown (whose name I still do not know) into another Hayden Christiansen (Eragon).

ampersandwitch · « **Reply #18 on:** 09 Mar 2007, 07:05 »

Ah, Eragon was an awful awful book. The movie just happened to be laughably awful-er.

Cartilage Head · « **Reply #19 on:** 09 Mar 2007, 12:20 »

Love- The Green Mile, Fight Club, Of Mice and Men (1991), A Clockwork Orange.

I haven't seen any other movies adapted from books I had read first.

Orbert · « **Reply #20 on:** 09 Mar 2007, 12:30 »

More love for Catch-22. It didn't really follow the book, in fact it kinda did its own thing. BUT all the main characters were there and faithfully represented, and many minor ones as well. Also, the tone of the book, with its nonsensical, nonlinear approach was reproduced in the movie. You didn't know what the hell was going on half the time, but you could put it together, and upon subsequent viewings, you realize how brilliantly done it is. It starts off funny, some of the humor is a bit dark, then at some point you realize it's not even a comedy anymore, but a serious, cynical commentary on war. Then it gets all silly again at the end. Most importantly, the basic plot was pretty faithfully followed.

Hate for Dune, the David Lynch version. It seemed like every chance he had to make something look weird/cool, he went for it, to the extreme, and it didn't much matter how badly it detracted or distracted from the story. Plus, with all the stuff that had to necessarily be cut out, why add shit that wasn't in the book in the first place? I hate that. I've never seen the Sci-Fi Channel miniseries version, probably never will. I've heard good and bad about it.

thehoopiestfrood · « **Reply #21 on:** 09 Mar 2007, 15:10 »

Catch 22 also has some of the best cuts/fades/links between scenes I've ever seen. The way it all meshed/blurred together totally embodied the spirit of the book for me. It's just beautiful and the more I watch it, the better it gets.

jimbunny · « **Reply #22 on:** 09 Mar 2007, 18:05 »

Nuh-uh.

The Princess Bride

A classic. Twice.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #23 on:** 09 Mar 2007, 22:43 »

Quote from: Lunchbox on 08 Mar 2007, 12:10

Hitchhiker's Guide (characters were great, I will excuse the canon inconsistencies and the misquotes)

Canon inconsistencies? There's no consistency between any of the various permutations of the Hitchhiker's Guide. Douglas Adams always tweaked things in between translating the story to each new media. The misquotes thing I just plain don't get.

supersheep · « **Reply #24 on:** 10 Mar 2007, 03:31 »

I think Lunchy is talking about the way that they changed the wording of some of the lines from the book for the film, making them less snappy. It was, almost, but not quite, exactly like the book in that sense.

thehoopiestfrood · « **Reply #25 on:** 10 Mar 2007, 03:53 »

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 · « **Reply #26 on:** 10 Mar 2007, 09:20 »

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 · « **Reply #27 on:** 10 Mar 2007, 16:08 »

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 · « **Reply #28 on:** 10 Mar 2007, 17:02 »

Love:

Lord of the Rings

Hate:

Lord of the Rings

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

Orbert · « **Reply #29 on:** 10 Mar 2007, 17:35 »

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.

eveisdawning · « **Reply #30 on:** 10 Mar 2007, 18:45 »

I second The Princess Bride--so much fun! I adore the movie and the book.

I hate, hate, hate the Hitchhiker's Guide movie. I really couldn't stand it. I thought the book was hilarious, but it just didn't translate to movie-funny for me. I don't really know why. Another hate: White Oleander. I enjoyed the book. I was not a fan of the movie.

_cG · « **Reply #31 on:** 10 Mar 2007, 23:08 »

More hate for the Hitchhiker's Guide movie. God that was just... it was bad. Bad, bad, bad! Half of the humor of the books is in the narrative. That's the problem with a lot of movies adapted from comic novels, most of the humor can't really be translated to the screen.

Gotta throw some love to The Maltese Falcon. Good mix of being faithful and departing to make it work.

BrittanyMarie · « **Reply #32 on:** 12 Mar 2007, 04:06 »

The best novel to film adaptation I have ever seen is One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. It has Jack Nicholson, Christopher Lloyd, Danny DeVito, Brad Douriff, Louise Fletcher AND (if you look really hard) Anjelica Huston (I thought it was funny-she's "woman in crowd on pier"). It also won five Oscars; Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Picture, making it the first film to sweep the Academy Awards (and rightly so). It'll break your heart just as easily as the book does.

Lines · « **Reply #33 on:** 12 Mar 2007, 06:39 »

That's a fantastic movie and an amazing book.

Fiddler · « **Reply #34 on:** 12 Mar 2007, 09:30 »

To Kill a Mockingbird was a really amazing movie version of that book. I remember watching it back in high school and actually enjoying it, which would be rare for the crap they would show in class.

And on the Hitchhikers guide, I have to say that I actually enjoyed it. It wasnt at all the same as the book, but Adams had the habit of making things happen to his characters based on how he was feeling. I.e. if he was sad, he made sad things happen to them... in a funny way of course. The movie was changed because a lot of the melancholy stuff was taken out and we got a nice happy ending with Trillian and Arthur and all that. I like to think that most of that was Adams being a little happier with life. Yeah I know that he didnt complete the script but still, he did work on it.

ampersandwitch · « **Reply #35 on:** 12 Mar 2007, 09:58 »

The Girl Interrupted movie totally sucked.

Lines · « **Reply #36 on:** 12 Mar 2007, 12:42 »

I saw the movie first (and liked it) and then realized it was based of a book and once I read the book, I was disappointed with the movie. I really wish it would have jumped around like the book did, but noooo. Now I have the habit, if I know there is a movie coming out that is based off of a book, I compulsively have to read the book first.

ampersandwitch · « **Reply #37 on:** 12 Mar 2007, 14:02 »

In other news, American Psycho is a great movie out of a decentish book.
The Prestige is amazing, and out of the shittiest book evar.

Orbert · « **Reply #38 on:** 12 Mar 2007, 14:23 »

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest really surprised me, because I'd seen the movie first, a couple of times, then had it as assigned reading for a class. Whoa! First person, Chief Bromden? It did make that very last scene make sense, though. I'd never figured it out. Okay, I knew what he was doing, but the significance somehow escaped me.

Faker · « **Reply #39 on:** 15 Mar 2007, 07:33 »

Was reading down through this and my first reaction was "wow no one has mentioned The Godfather or One Flew Over the Cukoos Nest yet" but then they did, so yay people!

I gotta say that The Godfather movie is by far superior to the book, so that puts it top of the list in terms of adaptions for me.

Haven't seen the movie of Catch-22 yet, but I always thought it would work well as a movie, the way a line of dialogue would segue from one scene to another always seemed more like a cinematic editing device than a literary one.

Orbert · « **Reply #40 on:** 15 Mar 2007, 11:00 »

He used it, too. Not a lot, because that would be gimmicky, but he did use it early in the movie a few times, to great comic effect.

camelpimp · « **Reply #41 on:** 15 Mar 2007, 23:20 »

Actually, I didn't like the movie version One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I felt it didn't really represent the book very well. It played very fast and loose with the plot, changed McMurphy's character, and reglegated Chief Bromden to a bit role, thereby changing the entire feel of the narrative from bizarre and hallucinary to a more straightforward one. Which, to me, destroys the magic of the book.

Although the movie did remove some of the book's extremely overt sexism, which I appreciate.

Orbert · « **Reply #42 on:** 16 Mar 2007, 06:36 »

Those are good points. I guess like many people, if not most, I saw the movie first, then discovered the extra dimension given by the book. The movie did present the same story, quite faithfully, which is the most important thing. How it is presented is a very close second, but I still place it second. I can't stand it when the actual story is changed, but I'm willing to forgive some stylistic indulgences.

I don't know if there's really a way to present the movie from Chief Bromden's point of view. Most of it takes place in his head, so the most they could do is show the goings-on, and maybe The Chief watching it all and thinking deep thoughts. I would not want the awful, cliched voice-over "thoughts" as he observes things and thinks about them.

Instead, they took a good story, with a good message, and did what they felt was necessary to adapt it to another medium. But I saw the finished result first. I guess it would be different if you read the book first. McMurphy is the main character. In a sense, the book is written from "second person" point of view (first person, but a secondary character), as with the Sherlock Holmes mysteries, which are all from Dr. Watson's point of view. That's a literary device that just doesn't have an equivalent in cinema.

BrittanyMarie · « **Reply #43 on:** 17 Mar 2007, 00:15 »

How was McMurphy much different? I read the book first, and the character in my head was a lot like how Nicholson played it.

onewheelwizzard · « **Reply #44 on:** 19 Mar 2007, 03:24 »

I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were awesome. They conveyed the epic nature of the story really well, and it would've been silly to try to go all textbook with it and copy Tolkien precisely when the whole reason why Tolkien is so good is the epic nature of the world he creates. It's about the overall feel of them both for me, and I thought the movies did a respectable job of living up to the power of the books. I still get chills watching some of the scenes of the movies, and those are always my "Something REALLY SWEET is happening" signal.

To Kill a Mockingbird was a fantastic adaptation, but I didn't like the book so much (I thought it was pretty good but bland) so that was the only reason it really impressed me.

Seconds to The Maltese Falcon.

And BIG ups to Sin City. As an adaptation it was BRILLIANT.

bujiatang · « **Reply #45 on:** 19 Mar 2007, 08:10 »

I was really upset about two things in LoTR, 1) Tom Bombodil 2) the industrialization of the shire. especially 2. Tolkien was very concerned about the industrialization of England, and the effects of the war were supposed to have consequences ven when the hobbits returned home. Problems like what happens to the war criminals if they are allowed to leave quietly or post traumatic stress. Tom was significant to me because the ring of power was supposed to take control of person wearing it, but it had no power over him.

Tolkien was furious when the publisher changed his spellings, I can't imagine he would have abided both of these omissions.

Orbert · « **Reply #46 on:** 19 Mar 2007, 10:13 »

Those are both good points, and common critiques as well. I think a scene with Tom Bombodil should have at least been on the extended version. No, it didn't figure into the main story (which was convoluted enough as it is), but it is an important point that Tom slips the ring on, says "Eh, it's nice" or something like that, then hands it to back them with no obvious effects. Perhaps Jackson was just trying to cut content, or perhaps he was thinking that this scene would detract from the awe of the ring and how it totally takes control of anyone, but obviously not Tom B.

The Scouring of the Shire definitely should have been included. The only thing I can defend that with is that the ending in its final form went on and on forever. Goodbyes and farewells and see-you-laters for like 40 minutes. Great flick, but I was actually relieved when it was over.

JediBendu · « **Reply #47 on:** 20 Mar 2007, 14:51 »

Love:

Sin City
Umm... Lord of the Rings? maybe? (cant' really think of any besides Sin City except for this one. Even though I was supremely upset about the lack of Tom Bombadil.)

Movies I love that are based on books, though I'm not necessarily thinking about the book-to-movie transition:

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
2001: A Space Odyssey.
Full Metal Jacket

Hate:

Harry Potter
A Series of Unfortunate Events

HATE HATE HATE: (excuse the all caps)

V For Vendetta

greenMonkey · « **Reply #48 on:** 20 Mar 2007, 21:36 »

Love:
Much Ado About Nothing (1994)

I watched the movie after reading and performing Much Ado, so I had really high expectations. But the movie was pretty much perfect in my mind. I absolutely love the setting, and the acting is (of course) amazing. The movie fulfilled my expectations completely, and surpassed them.

I can't say the same about the 1999 version of A Midsummer Night's Dream, although it did have some very amusing bits.

Janny · « **Reply #49 on:** 21 Mar 2007, 10:05 »

Best:
Lord of the Rings
V for Vendetta (well yeah, it's a comic, but anyway)

Worst:
Dune- really awful, all of the attempts

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Best & Worst Books to Movies (Read 23129 times)

Lukeypoo

Lukeypoo

Pareve

thehoopiestfrood

GodofGrunts

thehoopiestfrood

thehoopiestfrood

erwinkirby

_cG

Fiddler

camelpimp

bujiatang