# Book to movie, Most disappointing????



## kitty1456 (May 27, 2010)

What book that you absolutely loved which has now been turned into a movie has really disappointed you??

Some of the ones ive been disappointed with are:

The Chronicles of Narnina. (Just couldnt compete)

The Nanny Diaries. (Some of the best/funniest bits are not in the movie)

Memoirs of a Geisha. (Also missing some excellent parts)


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

For me, the absolute worst movie from a book was *Queen of the Damned*. They took two of my favorite Anne Rice novels, collapsed them into a single movie and cut out every one of my favorite parts from each novel ....


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

_Jurassic Park_. The book was phenominal. The movie less so.

Even worse was the sequel, _The Lost World_. OK book, awful movie.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Jurassic Park? Really?

And I'll go with a less obvious choice: Watchmen. The comic book was phenomenally intelligent. The movie was a slavish devoted, but stupid, adaptation. Minor changes resulted in massive ramifications throughout, and subtle tweaks in certain characters and reactions ruined later scenes. Oh, and the sex scene was painfully laughable.

David Dalglish


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

The fifth Harry Potter movie. Absolutely atrocious.


----------



## Stormy (May 24, 2010)

The princess diaries. I mean the movie is ok but really other then the characters name it's totally different.
Also Twilight. The movie was awful and i loved the book though new moon was better.


----------



## Tris (Oct 30, 2008)

Ugh, there are so many!  But I would have to say right now, since I rented it out of curiosity and because I just finished the book..."Absolute Power".  I mean chuncks of the plot gone, characters severly altered and/or non-exisitant.  I could hardly recognize it!  I felt like it was a total waste of $5 and using up my free rental.  But I am a highly curious person...

Tris


----------



## sbaum4853 (May 3, 2010)

Dune. Greatest sci-fi book of all time, and still no one's been able to make a good movie from it. David Lynch made one that's good in a _wow that was weird and makes no sense_ sort of way, and SyFy made a mini-series that was more like watching a play than watching a movie. Peter Jackson needs to make a Dune movie!


----------



## 1131 (Dec 18, 2008)

I've said it before and I'll say it over and over again 
The 2002 movie version of The Count of Monte Cristo.  They changed the beginning; but in fairness they had to because they couldn't have had that ending (which was in no way similar to the book) if they had not changed the beginning.  They also changed things that, ultimately did not have an impact on the story.  Dante's father did not kill himself, he died of starvation, and the tunnel cave-in, totally different.  I don't know what that movie was, but it was not The Count of Monte Cristo.


----------



## threeundertwo (Jul 25, 2009)

I'll agree that the 5th Harry Potter was awful.  Charlotte's Web has been destroyed onscreen recently.  The Keira Knightly version of Pride and Prejudice makes me writhe in pain.

I guess I'm just picky about book adaptations.  There have been some very good ones.  I thought A Handmaid's Tale was actually an improvement on the book.

I decided not to go see The Lovely Bones.  I guess I just want to keep the visualization of that one in my imagination.

The Time Traveler's Wife left out some of the key elements of the book.  It could have been so much better.

I've only read the first 2 Twilight books.  When my daughter puts the movies on I have to leave the room.  I want to slap that actress who has no facial expressions and no range of emotions whatsoever.  Blech.


----------



## sillyolebear (Apr 27, 2010)

A few come to mind...

twilight the first movie.. I read the book after seeing the movie and I wish in the movie they explain why that word as the title like it does in the book  

My sister's keeper.. HELLO the book was great from start to finish. Why would they change the WHOLE ending, when the ending is what made the book

Marley and Me.. very disappointing.. so much of the GREAT book not in the movie.

I know they are now filming water for the elephants I really enjoyed that book so I hope they really do a great job on the movie


----------



## imon32red (Jun 15, 2009)

My vote is for Battlefield Earth.  It is one of my favorite books.  The previews of the movie convinced me not to go but it was family and friends that sealed the deal for me.  I still have not seen it.

Honorary mention to all of the Harry Potter movies after the 2nd and The Count of Monte Cristo.  The Count of Monte Cristo is in my all time top ten books.  Unfortunately no movie will ever do it justice.


----------



## kitty1456 (May 27, 2010)

Yeah I agree about Twilight, The books were excellent but the girl that plays Bella just wrecked the whole movie, like OMG u have a Vampire AND werewolf in love with you SMILE!!! lol Ill swap places with u any day! =)

My Sister's Keeper was also a disappointment, I was watching it with my mum and when the end came she starting screaming (scared the hell out of me as we were watching in the dark) that it was wrong! hahaha

The Lovely Bones was also different from the book, and SSSSLLLLLOOOOOOWWWWW!!!

Do the writers of the books have any say in the movies at all??


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

I can't think of one that hasn't been mentioned, but if it's okay I'll share the one my husband thinks is a tragic adaptation: *Starship Troopers*. He absolutely loves the book and thinks the movie is an embarrassing abomination. (Yes, he feels that strongly about it.  )


----------



## dnagirl (Oct 21, 2009)

_The Lawnmower Man._ The phrase, "based on a short story by Stephen King" is a joke. When the entire plot is different and the only similarity between the story and movie is two sentences in one scene, I don't know how you can even claim it is based on anything.


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

A.S. Byatt's _Possession_. Granted, it's one of my fave books of all time, so there was very little chance they would make me happy w/ the movie, but I was almost in tears. Jennifer Ehle was great, but otherwise it sucked big time.


----------



## William Meikle (Apr 19, 2010)

Book to Movie: Ghost Story. Peter Straub's book is a classic. The film is just dull. Special mention to the many clunky attempts to turn Stephen King short stories into full length features, and also to Phantoms, a truly dire movie made from a great Dean Koontz book.

Comic Book to Movie: Also too many to mention, but special black marks to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. It could have been a classic but too much bad CGI and a duff plot killed it stone dead.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

dnagirl said:


> _The Lawnmower Man._ The phrase, "based on a short story by Stephen King" is a joke. When the entire plot is different and the only similarity between the story and movie is two sentences in one scene, I don't know how you can even claim it is based on anything.


Speaking of which - _Children of the Corn_, as a movie, is an abomination. The short story was fabulous and I loved how the short story ended way better than the movie.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

Kristen Tsetsi said:


> I can't think of one that hasn't been mentioned, but if it's okay I'll share the one my husband thinks is a tragic adaptation: *Starship Troopers*. He absolutely loves the book and thinks the movie is an embarrassing abomination. (Yes, he feels that strongly about it.  )


I have to agree. OTOH, if i manage to forget that it is based on a book, I really enjoy the movie. But I love campy films.

I can't stand these full length movies based on children's novels - Dr. Suess & Where the Wild Things Are. You are really milking those books for a 90+ minute film.

This is a stretch but the Dungeons and Dragons movie is horrid as well. I know there are others that I wonder if they read more than the backcover before writing the script, but I'm just drawing a blank...


----------



## twinmom_112002 (May 5, 2010)

The worst one that comes to mind is Clive Cussler's Sahara. The movie was horrible but the book (and series and anything he writes) is really good.


----------



## Neekeebee (Jan 10, 2009)

_Practical Magic_ by Alice Hoffman.

N


----------



## L.J. Sellers novelist (Feb 28, 2010)

I'll probably take some heat for saying this, but I recently watched the Sherlock Holmes movie and didn't care for it all. The character, tone, and plot were nothing like any of the original books. Even without certain expectations about the character, the movie's story was just not engaging—for me. I'm not a fan of the supernatural, and the whole secret sect plot line has worn thin. I also grew weary of the brawling.

Interesting note: At one point, a conversation between Holmes and Watson reminded me so much of the relationship between House and Wilson (from the TV series House), we stopped the movie to discuss the parallel.

Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law are both fine actors and fun to watch, but as an adaptation, the movie disappointed me. In fact, we didn't finish watching it. 
L.J.


----------



## dnagirl (Oct 21, 2009)

twinmom_112002 said:


> The worst one that comes to mind is Clive Cussler's Sahara. The movie was horrible but the book (and series and anything he writes) is really good.


OMG that one was so bad that I had blocked it from my memory. I really enjoyed the book but the conversion to movie was horrible. The characters didn't look like their descriptions in the book and they changed a ton of stuff. Isn't that the movie that Cussler didn't want his name associated with after they made it?


----------



## Erik Williams (Jun 13, 2009)

Got to agree with _Jurassic Park_. _Sphere_ was bad.

_Raise the Titanic_ and _The Sum of All Fears_ were pretty terrible, too.


----------



## Labrynth (Dec 31, 2009)

Watchers by Dean Koontz.  My fav book of all time was gutted and left on the side of the road to bleed a slow, painful death.  It starred Corey Haim if THAT tells you anything.

Then again I'm not sure there's been any movie from a dean Koontz book worth seeing.

I was very disappointed in the last few Harry Potter movies.  They have left so much out, much of which is a major portion of why I loved the books.  The role of the Weasleys as a family in Harry's life has been stripped away to non existent.  Bleh.


----------



## William Meikle (Apr 19, 2010)

L.J. Sellers said:


> Interesting note: At one point, a conversation between Holmes and Watson reminded me so much of the relationship between House and Wilson (from the TV series House), we stopped the movie to discuss the parallel.
> L.J.


I think you'll find it's the other way round. House has explicitly been written with a Holmesian subtext. For example, House's home address used to be apartment 221B, while Holmes lives at 221B Baker Street, and "House" is obviously a play on "Ho(l)mes"

Wikipedia has more parallels here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_House#Parallels_to_Sherlock_Holmes


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

_Nightwing_ by Martin Cruz Smith.

Scary book, and the movie was so bad I was laughing through most of it.

Mike


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

Battlefield Earth is a favorite book. Saw 5 minutes of the movie and felt very bad about the wasted five minutes.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

I know a few people have said the 5th Harry Potter Book, but my least favorite of the movies has to be the 4th book (Goblet of Fire). It's my favorite book of the series and I was disappointed beyond belief with the movie. They embellished in scenes that didn't need embellishing and almost completely cut out parts that could have been spectacular in the movie (Maze). I haven't been as disappointed in the later ones because I've lowered my expectations quite a bit.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Dragonlance.

And to a lesser degree, the Harry Potter movies, which seemed so rushed compared to the books.


----------



## chipotle (Jan 1, 2010)

I agree about Sherlock Holmes - I love Robert Downey Jr. and liked the cinematography but by the end of the movie I was just rolling my eyes through the endless slow-motion fight scenes.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

DArenson said:


> And to a lesser degree, the Harry Potter movies, which seemed so rushed compared to the books.


In a way they were. Didn't they want to keep the actors as close in age as the characters? Which they should have realised was impossible given how long it takes to go from script to screen, and that the books weren't finished yet.


----------



## Melonhead (Jan 1, 2010)

Clan of the Cave Bear. Everyone agrees with me, too, all 14 people who saw it.


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

Melonhead said:


> Clan of the Cave Bear. Everyone agrees with me, too, all 14 people who saw it.


Yeah, count me in as one of those 14. That'd have to be way up on my list.


----------



## Addie (Jun 10, 2009)

imallbs said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it over and over again
> The 2002 movie version of The Count of Monte Cristo. They changed the beginning; but in fairness they had to because they couldn't have had that ending (which was in no way similar to the book) if they had not changed the beginning. They also changed things that, ultimately did not have an impact on the story. Dante's father did not kill himself, he died of starvation, and the tunnel cave-in, totally different. I don't know what that movie was, but it was not The Count of Monte Cristo.


I absolutely agree. I haven't seen that many movies based on books, but that one really annoyed me. _The Count of Monte Cristo_ is my favourite book, so I was really disappointed with their need to tie everything into a pretty little bow. It came out way too Hollywood. The only part of the movie I liked: James Caviezel was good looking.


----------



## Zack Hamric (Jun 2, 2010)

It's really a wide open field with so many truly bad nominees, but the movie "Shooter" was almost unrecognizable as having been developed from the Stephen Hunter novel "Point of Impact"


----------



## Mike Dennis (Apr 26, 2010)

Without hesitation, I can say it was _Bonfire Of The Vanities._


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Mike Dennis said:


> Without hesitation, I can say it was _Bonfire Of The Vanities._


I didn't like that much as a book. . . . .so had no interest in seeing the movie.


----------



## Imogen Rose (Mar 22, 2010)

The last Harry Potter movie  (Emma Watson whining on the ball room steps totally ruined it for me).


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

sbaum4853 said:


> Dune. Greatest sci-fi book of all time, and still no one's been able to make a good movie from it. David Lynch made one that's good in a _wow that was weird and makes no sense_ sort of way, and SciFi made a mini-series that was more like watching a play than watching a movie. Peter Jackson needs to make a Dune movie!


Yes! Great description of Lynch's _Dune_, ha. I'd love to see that cast with today's special effects capabilities. The Scyfy rendition was good -- except the characterization of Paul as a whiny baby ruined it.

The SciFi sequel, _Children of Dune_, was excellent, I thought.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

I want to add: _The Golden Compass_

It was actually wonderful, perfectly cast, and acted, and the sets were gorgeous.

But the ending was such a weak, cowardly cop-out! The studio was afraid of the real ending and forced the "cheerful" treatment. In other words, they acted quite like the Magesterium. And they ruined their movie and probably lost millions of $$ and destroyed the franchise.

Cowards. Idiots. argh.

But that's just my opinion!


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

For Dune lovers, they're actually relaunching the franchise for movies. Supposedly the script is phenomenal and faithful to the book...but they always say that when they're launching a franchise.

I've seen the crappy Dragonlance animation movies for rent at movie gallery, but never had the guts to actually watch it. My wife is a huge, huge fan of them, and I found 'em a good read myself. Are they really as bad as they look?

David Dalglish


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

L.J. Sellers said:


> I'll probably take some heat for saying this, but I recently watched the Sherlock Holmes movie and didn't care for it all. The character, tone, and plot were nothing like any of the original books. Even without certain expectations about the character, the movie's story was just not engaging-for me. I'm not a fan of the supernatural, and the whole secret sect plot line has worn thin. I also grew weary of the brawling.
> 
> Interesting note: At one point, a conversation between Holmes and Watson reminded me so much of the relationship between House and Wilson (from the TV series House), we stopped the movie to discuss the parallel.
> 
> ...


Technically - this was not an adaptation of any Holmes story or novel. This was an "original" story using existing characters. And there was nothing supernatural about the events - as you would have found out if you'd finished watching it!


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

I detest the first two "Harry Potter" movies.  Chris Columbus - a hack film director if ever there was one - crammed as much information from the novels into them as he could, but left out all the spirit and "magic" of the books.  I've liked all the adaptations since he finally left the project, with occasional reservations.  (Like the Hermione break-down scene at the ball someone mentioned above.  I think that was in "Goblet of Fire," not in the last film.  Although she did pout embarrassingly over Ron's love-shenanigans in the last one.  On the other hand, I never agreed with that relationship in the novels either.)

That "The Count of Monte Cristo" adaptation with Guy Pearce was beyond ludicrous.

And I hate the Keira Knightley "Pride and Prejudice" as well.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

DYB said:


> I detest the first two "Harry Potter" movies. Chris Columbus - a hack film director if ever there was one - crammed as much information from the novels into them as he could, but left out all the spirit and "magic" of the books. I've liked all the adaptations since he finally left the project, with occasional reservations. (Like the Hermione break-down scene at the ball someone mentioned above. I think that was in "Goblet of Fire," not in the last film. Although she did pout embarrassingly over Ron's love-shenanigans in the last one. On the other hand, I never agreed with that relationship in the novels either.)


I could get into a lot of trouble for admitting both of these things, but I watched the first HP movie and it was OK - completely unoriginal fantasy but entertaining - so I read the book. I found the book to be exactly the same as the movie.

Then I never bothered to watch or read any of the following chapters in that saga. I love that they encouraged so many people to read, (which is always good) but I never understood what everyone saw in them.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

Half-Orc said:


> I've seen the crappy Dragonlance animation movies for rent at movie gallery, but never had the guts to actually watch it. My wife is a huge, huge fan of them, and I found 'em a good read myself. Are they really as bad as they look?


Arghhh, the animated movie (you say movies - they made more than one?!)...our gaming group got together to watch it. After 15 minutes we turned it off. For a movie released in 2008 it had the graphics from an 80s cartoon (think He-Man), except for the dragonish creatures - those were CG. We figure they spent the money on voice actors (Keifer, Lucy Lawless, etc) and the CG.

We watched the 80s Dungeons and Dragons cartoon instead.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

re: Harry Potter



Geoffrey said:


> Then I never bothered to watch or read any of the following chapters in that saga. I love that they encouraged so many people to read, (which is always good) but I never understood what everyone saw in them.


Personally, I thought the plots got deeper and more intricate as the series went on. . . .though at least one had a little too much in the way of tangents that didn't really affect the main stream. Interestingly, the writing style 'matured' as the main characters mature from 11 to 18. . . .book one is very much a kid's story. . . .by book 7, there's lots more going on -- and threads from previous books that it helps to know about to follow what's happening.

The movies, while drawn from the books, could not, practically, include EVERY SCENE -- especially as the books got longer and longer. . .so, for instance, in GoF. . .they left out all reference to house elves necessitating a change in plot for how Harry figures out one of the challenges. For purists this is anathema. 

Frankly, the books might have been better for some tighter editing. . .leaving room for a bunch of other stories featuring characters from 'the world'. . . .but she did it the way she did it. I'm not at all sure how it's going to work out to have the final novel split into two movies. . . . .though I supposed there are enough fans to make them profitable. Where they'll really make the money is after they're both out and movie houses can have back to back screenings and charge more money. . . . .


----------



## AlexJouJou (May 16, 2010)

imon32red said:


> My vote is for Battlefield Earth. It is one of my favorite books. The previews of the movie convinced me not to go but it was family and friends that sealed the deal for me. I still have not seen it.
> 
> Honorary mention to all of the Harry Potter movies after the 2nd and The Count of Monte Cristo. The Count of Monte Cristo is in my all time top ten books. Unfortunately no movie will ever do it justice.


Oh wow I thought I was the only one who hated the Harry Potter movies after the second! Even my kids dislike them -- we have gone through 2 DVD copies of each of the first two since it's been watched so many times - it's funny...even now when we want to watch Harry Potter the kids automatically go to 1 and 2. My son's been trying to get my daughter and I to watch the 6th one because we got it in December and I am not even interested (and I haven't seen it yet!)


----------



## threeundertwo (Jul 25, 2009)

"How the Grinch Stole Christmas"

I would give anything to unsee this movie.


----------



## 1131 (Dec 18, 2008)

twinmom_112002 said:


> The worst one that comes to mind is Clive Cussler's Sahara. The movie was horrible but the book (and series and anything he writes) is really good.


That movie was bad, it turned an action adventure into a yawn and nap



L.J. Sellers said:


> I'll probably take some heat for saying this, but I recently watched the Sherlock Holmes movie and didn't care for it all. The character, tone, and plot were nothing like any of the original books. Even without certain expectations about the character, the movie's story was just not engagingfor me. I'm not a fan of the supernatural, and the whole secret sect plot line has worn thin. I also grew weary of the brawling.
> 
> Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law are both fine actors and fun to watch, but as an adaptation, the movie disappointed me. In fact, we didn't finish watching it.
> L.J.


I had trouble getting through the 1st 15 - 20 minutes of that movie but it got better. The DVD, however, is in the bag for the library. I would like to see Robert Downey Jr take another stab at Holmes though. By the end, he had shown he could do a great Holmes


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

The Seeker made from Susan Cooper's Dark is Rising. I loved that book as a kid and the movie had none of the magic. Totally sucked the life out of it!


----------



## ReginaLovesHer Kindle (Nov 30, 2009)

All of the Harry Potter movies have been a dissapointment, although I still watch them to see them on screen.

The Twilight movies -- while not great literature the movies completely destroyed the story (or in my opinion anyway).

I agree about the ending of the Golden Compass -- what a dissapointment b/c the movie was otherwise good.

Movies that I thought were fantastic and a tribute to the books:  all three Lord of the Rings movies.


----------



## MLPMom (Nov 27, 2009)

All of the Harry Potter movies with the exception of the first one was pretty disappointing, still good but in the last two they have left so much out that I felt was crucial, I am really wondering how the 7th movies is going to cover it all, which is maybe why they broke it into two. 

Twilight movies, very disappointing. Even though New Moon was better than Twilight, still terrible.


----------



## ReginaLovesHer Kindle (Nov 30, 2009)

I thought New Moon seemed like a movie about the love story that didn't happen (Jacob and Bella) rather than between Edward and Bella. Although I have to admit I am a Jacob fan.

Have you seen the trailer for HP7 part 1? It is on http://www.mugglenet.com/ It looks good, hopefully b/c they are breaking it into 2 parts it will be good.

I haven't seen the Lightening Thief yet, hoping they didn't butcher that one.


----------



## Vyrl (Jun 7, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> For Dune lovers, they're actually relaunching the franchise for movies. Supposedly the script is phenomenal and faithful to the book...but they always say that when they're launching a franchise.
> 
> I've seen the crappy Dragonlance animation movies for rent at movie gallery, but never had the guts to actually watch it. My wife is a huge, huge fan of them, and I found 'em a good read myself. Are they really as bad as they look?
> 
> David Dalglish


I'm certain to hear howling from Dune readers, but I actually enjoyed the 1980s Dune movie more than the book. So howl away.

As for bad book-to-movie conversions, here goes:

1. Eragon (The book was OK but the movie was terrible)
2. Watchers (Loved the book! My favorite Dean Koontz)
3. The Stand (Nowhere near the epic quality of the book)
4. The Wizard of Earthsea (Well, I'm cheating a little as this was for TV. But it was terrible nonetheless. The books were fabulous)
5. Harry Potter (I enjoyed the movies. But they lacked the spirit I so enjoyed in the books.)

My favorite book-to-movie of all time is the Princess Bride. Classic.


----------



## luvmyBOB (Jan 7, 2010)

I totally agree about Sphere.  I hurried to read the book before we went to the movie and I couldn't believe how horrible the movie came out.  

I also agree with HP #5.  It has been the worst of them so far.  We went with a bunch of family members and I was sure we were going to get kicked out because we started making fun of the movie because we were getting so bored.  

My kids didn't even like Where the Wild Things Are, that was one of my favorite books growing up.  When they didn't like it I decided not to taint my happy memories.


----------



## Belita (Mar 20, 2010)

The Harry Potter movies have been disappointing. I liked the first two the best and thought Order of the Phoenix was the worst. There is just so much in the books it is hard to include enough, but I agree they kept stuff in that could have been left out. That was my biggest beef with OofP. They included so much that wasn't essential to the story, but left out really important information. I do still watch them and buy them on DVD.

I love the Sookie Stackhouse books, and like the show True Blood, but I really didn't like what they did with Marianne/the maenad in the second season. I'm hoping season 3 is better. I don't mind so much when TV series deviate from the books (I love Bones and it's very different from the Kathy Reichs books) if it's done well. 

I couldn't stand Where the Wild Things Are. I was never a big fan of the book, but the movie was one of the worst. My friends and I struggled to stay awake.


----------



## Imogen Rose (Mar 22, 2010)

Belita said:


> The Harry Potter movies have been disappointing. I liked the first two the best and thought Order of the Phoenix was the worst. There is just so much in the books it is hard to include enough, but I agree they kept stuff in that could have been left out. That was my biggest beef with OofP. They included so much that wasn't essential to the story, but left out really important information. I do still watch them and buy them on DVD.
> 
> I love the Sookie Stackhouse books, and like the show True Blood, but *I really didn't like what they did with Marianne/the maenad* in the second season. I'm hoping season 3 is better. I don't mind so much when TV series deviate from the books (I love Bones and it's very different from the Kathy Reichs books) if it's done well.
> 
> I couldn't stand Where the Wild Things Are. I was never a big fan of the book, but the movie was one of the worst. My friends and I struggled to stay awake.


I totally agree!

Imogen


----------



## bvlarson (May 16, 2010)

How about that cartoon version of the Hobbit, anyone remember that?
There are always "Congo" and "Timeline", double slaps for Crichton.
Recently, I was pretty horrified by that one-season-wonder series they did on Jim Butcher's books.


----------



## Blanche (Jan 4, 2010)

Charlaine Harris's "Sookie Stackhouse" series -- I love the books -- don't care for the HBO True Blood series based on the books.  Ironically, I became interested in the books thru a friend who was telling me about the series.  I don't have HBO so I picked up the first book.  After reading through the first four books, I discovered that the True Blood series was available through Netflix so I ordered them.  Such a disappointment.  Movie characters didn't seem true to the book characters and there is a lot of freedom taken with the storylines.  In my mind, Ms. Harris's Sookie is much more enjoyable than HBO's Sookie. Of course, the same friend that suggested the series argues just the opposite.


----------



## Blanche (Jan 4, 2010)

> Recently, I was pretty horrified by that one-season-wonder series they did on Jim Butcher's books.


Absolutely! I had forgotten about that series. Probably because I didn't make it even halfway through the episode. And I WANTED to like it! Another disappointing book-to-movie adaptation.


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

Blanche said:


> Charlaine Harris's "Sookie Stackhouse" series -- I love the books -- don't care for the HBO True Blood series based on the books. Ironically, I became interested in the books thru a friend who was telling me about the series. I don't have HBO so I picked up the first book. After reading through the first four books, I discovered that the True Blood series was available through Netflix so I ordered them. Such a disappointment. Movie characters didn't seem true to the book characters and there is a lot of freedom taken with the storylines. In my mind, Ms. Harris's Sookie is much more enjoyable than HBO's Sookie. Of course, the same friend that suggested the series argues just the opposite.


My daughter and I thoroughly enjoy both Sookies - my other daughter just can't let the books go and enjoy the series. I just look at it as Sookie's "parallel universe", with many of the same characters, but different lives & adventures. If it were too true to the books there'd be no surprises for me and I wouldn't bother watching the series.


----------



## terryr (Apr 24, 2010)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> The Seeker made from Susan Cooper's Dark is Rising. I loved that book as a kid and the movie had none of the magic. Totally sucked the life out of it!


I needed Brain Brillo for that. I love Susan Cooper's books, and that... was abomination. The sad thing is, people who have never read the books get the movie versions stuck in their heads as the original versions.

I was not as disappointed by The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe as I was with Prince Caspian... delete, delete, delete! (Not to mention, what happened to the great CGI the first movie had? I cringe in anticipation of Dawn Treader.)

Also agree about the ending of the Golden Compass.



> I've seen the crappy Dragonlance animation movies for rent at movie gallery, but never had the guts to actually watch it. My wife is a huge, huge fan of them, and I found 'em a good read myself. Are they really as bad as they look?
> Arghhh, the animated movie (you say movies - they made more than one?!)...our gaming group got together to watch it. After 15 minutes we turned it off. For a movie released in 2008 it had the graphics from an 80s cartoon (think He-Man), except for the dragonish creatures - those were CG. We figure they spent the money on voice actors (Keifer, Lucy Lawless, etc) and the CG.


The Dragonlance animated version isn't THAT bad, as far as the adaptation and voice talent, and isn't that good as far as everything else. What sucks is the animation isn't as good as the DVD cover art implies. I love those stories and think CGI is the only way to do them justice, but geesh, they had a bubblegum budget on that one for sure. I own it only because it was cheap at the time. Won't watch it again.


----------



## A_J_Lath (Jun 6, 2010)

The movie version of 'From Hell' by Alan Moore & Eddie Campbell. Admittedly, given the vast scope of the book, making a halfway decent film of it was always gonna be a tough call. But really ... they just shouldn't have bothered.

Heather Graham made quite a fine doxy, though.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

T.M. Roy said:


> I was not as disappointed by The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe as I was with Prince Caspian... delete, delete, delete! (Not to mention, what happened to the great CGI the first movie had? I cringe in anticipation of Dawn Treader.)


Maybe because it's because I haven't read Prince Caspian in well....since 3rd grade, but I found the movie actually very, very entertaining. It might be because I'm also a sucker for fantasy battle scenes. All I know is that a lot of the parts made me laugh, they were willing to actually show people dying, and I wasn't able to predict most of what was going to happen. The scene were the creepy death cultist-looking animals were resurrecting the Ice Queen was fantastic.

David Dalglish


----------



## Belita (Mar 20, 2010)

Meemo said:


> My daughter and I thoroughly enjoy both Sookies - my other daughter just can't let the books go and enjoy the series. I just look at it as Sookie's "parallel universe", with many of the same characters, but different lives & adventures. If it were too true to the books there'd be no surprises for me and I wouldn't bother watching the series.


I think with series that have to make it less true to the book than movies. I think most people who love a book will enjoy watching a movie that is the same thing, but like you said, to have a TV show with more than one season, they probably do have to vary it to keep people's interest. I have a friend who prefers the show. I prefer the books so far, but do enjoy the show.


----------



## Indy (Jun 7, 2010)

Starburst, the Count of Monte Cristo, Disney's The Little Mermaid and The Hunchback of Notre Dame.  Of course, what disney does to stories could be a thread all in its own right.  Seriously though, the Hunchback is a dark, upsetting, emotional rollercoaster of a story with a very unhappy ending, and I want to know what drugs they were on to make them think it would ever be appropriate for children!  (whew, take a breath...)  And the little mermaid did NOT get the prince.  She turned into seafoam for pity's sake!

I'm glad to know there are other Count lovers out there, I thought I was the only freak that ever read that, judging by people I know who look at me funny when I mention it.  

I enjoyed the Harry Potter movies so I am holding out and trying not to read any of the books.  I just know it'll screw up the movies for me.


----------



## terryr (Apr 24, 2010)

Indy said:


> Starburst, the Count of Monte Cristo, Disney's The Little Mermaid and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Of course, what disney does to stories could be a thread all in its own right. ...


Amen. Witness 101 Dalmations, book was MUCH better. And The Fox and the Hound, also a very dark, very sad, even a disturbing book. Bambi was okay, but didn't come close to the original, either.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

(I cringe in anticipation of Dawn Treader.)

You can stop cringing. Disney decided not to continue the series.


----------



## terryr (Apr 24, 2010)

Figures. But that's good--thanks for the update. My shoulders and neck get all crampy from cringing.


----------



## threeundertwo (Jul 25, 2009)

Indy said:


> Starburst, the Count of Monte Cristo, Disney's The Little Mermaid and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Of course, what disney does to stories could be a thread all in its own right. Seriously though, the Hunchback is a dark, upsetting, emotional rollercoaster of a story with a very unhappy ending, and I want to know what drugs they were on to make them think it would ever be appropriate for children! (whew, take a breath...) [snip]


I forgot about this one. I still cannot believe Disney tried to make an adaptation of Hunchback of Notre Dame. Biggest. Fail. Ever.


----------



## HappyGuy (Nov 3, 2008)

My worst nightmare book to movie conversion is the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I wasn't going to watch them because I KNEW the movie would not measure up to my all time favorite books, but dear daughter talked me into it... wish I could unsee those.

The original poster asked the wrong question, it should have been, "Are there any movies that have been as good as or better than the book?"

The only one I can think of is, The Princess Bride.


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

DYB said:


> I detest the first two "Harry Potter" movies. Chris Columbus - a hack film director if ever there was one - crammed as much information from the novels into them as he could, but left out all the spirit and "magic" of the books. I've liked all the adaptations since he finally left the project, with occasional reservations. (Like the Hermione break-down scene at the ball someone mentioned above. I think that was in "Goblet of Fire," not in the last film. Although she did pout embarrassingly over Ron's love-shenanigans in the last one. On the other hand, I never agreed with that relationship in the novels either.)


Well, I like the look of Chris Columbus' movies more than the later ones. I had not read the books when I saw the movies, though and hated them. I worked in a theater and was previewing Azkaban, still not having read the books, when I remarked to a friend watching with me that it just didn't make sense, even with Cuaron directing. There were gaping holes that I sure hoped the books filled that just made me raise an eybrow in a very Spock-like way.

He then patiently explained all my questions away, starting with book 1. I realized after reading the novels, that the movies were going to stink because of all that was left out. The decisions one director made would necessarily reflect the later directors' films. That and it was obvious that the series was not finished when the early films were made, because some very important points were completely omitted.

All that said, I find the HP movies to capture the magic of the books pretty well. I never thought of the books as great, though. Entertaining, certainly, but not great.

Now, that travesty of LOTR by Peter Jackson, don't get me started. Visually stunning. I was willing to let a lot of things slide in Fellowship, knowing the limitations of film, but the film totally destroyed the point of the book, emphasizing things that weren't to be found in Tolkien and de-emphasizing or removing others. Not to mention, they cast Liv Tyler--poor choice for anyone. Well, to make a long critique short, I liked the films less and less, although I really liked parts of the second film, the third was flat awful IMHO. Perhaps it could have been solved by adding one chapter from the book, but perhaps not. This film needed "The Scouring of the Shire".


----------



## terryr (Apr 24, 2010)

HappyGuy said:


> My worst nightmare book to movie conversion is the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I wasn't going to watch them because I KNEW the movie would not measure up to my all time favorite books, but dear daughter talked me into it... wish I could unsee those.
> 
> The original poster asked the wrong question, it should have been, "Are there any movies that have been as good as or better than the book?"
> 
> The only one I can think of is, The Princess Bride.


I'll agree on that one. The Princess Bride movie DEFINITELY is better than the book.


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ yet. Phenomenally funny book(s), yet they somehow managed in the movie to put in all the unimportant parts and leave out all the funny bits.

As for movies as good as or better than the book, the only one I can think of is _The Shawshank Redemption_ (_Princess Bride_ was a great movie, but I never read the book so I can't compare). I think _Shawshank_ turned out so well compared to the book in part because it was only a novella, so they were actually able to fit pretty much everything in the movie. It helped that the acting was phenomenal as well.


----------



## Capri142 (Sep 25, 2009)

I can't believe that it has not already been mentioned. I loved the book by Stephen King THE SHINING, hated the movie though. They tried to make a psychological thriller out of what was just a good horror story.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

David Derrico said:


> I'm surprised no one has mentioned _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ yet. Phenomenally funny book(s), yet they somehow managed in the movie to put in all the unimportant parts and leave out all the funny bits.


I remember the BBC series being better, but it's a long time since I saw it. On some thread here, someone said the original radio show was better than the books. I still haven't heard the radio version. Perhaps the best version of something we love is the first one we are exposed to.


----------



## D. Nathan Hilliard (Jun 5, 2010)

Capri142 said:


> I can't believe that it has not already been mentioned. I loved the book by Stephen King THE SHINING, hated the movie though. They tried to make a psychological thriller out of what was just a good horror story.


I always had mixed feelings about The Shining. Kubrik did a great job of turning the Overlook into a menacing fifth charactor in the cast, and Nicholson just owned the role of Jack Torrance. The sense of claustrophobia achieved in that movie was impressive.

At the same time, they did lose a few things from the book that should have stayed...like Jack Torrance's last act of humanity in mutilating his own face so he would look like a monster to Danny and the Overlook couldn't use him to lure the boy in. The hedge animals were better in the book, but I understand that the technology to do those right simply didn't exist when the movie was made. The maze was an acceptable substitute.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

A recent TV version of The Shining was closer to the book, but not as scary. The one thing Kubrik did that I have always disliked is that he dismissed the whole sub plot of the hotel chef coming to the rescue after sensing Danny's distress. The title is based on Danny's psychic ability, but Kubrik, after showing Scatman Crothers traveling back, just disposes of him quickly. He may have thought that playing with what the audience expects was a creative touch, but when you spend that much screen time building something up, to throw it away just doesn't work.


----------



## Hoosiermama (Dec 28, 2009)

I rarely like a movie as much as the book. 

I agree about the recent Sherlock Holmes. Robert Downey, Jr. doesn't even LOOK like Holmes. That's part of my problem--they never cast who I think should be in the role

One movie I detested was The Firm, based on John Grisham's book. Barely followed the plot of the book, which was actually the second problem. The first problem was that it had Tom Cruise in the lead role. Yuck.


----------



## A_J_Lath (Jun 6, 2010)

Capri142 said:


> I can't believe that it has not already been mentioned. I loved the book by Stephen King THE SHINING, hated the movie though. They tried to make a psychological thriller out of what was just a good horror story.


At least they didn't try to make a romcom out of it...


----------



## Merlilu (Feb 23, 2010)

Oh.....Don't get me started!!! LOL  One of my favorite alltime books is Prince of Tides and when Babs (Streisand) bought the rights to the book she turned it into the worst Streisand vehicle that could have possibly been made.  the whole movie revolved around her and her relationship with the Nick Nolte character - not even a bit of the real story came thru in the movie.....a travesty!!!


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

R. Reed said:


> I remember the BBC series being better, but it's a long time since I saw it. On some thread here, someone said the original radio show was better than the books. I still haven't heard the radio version. Perhaps the best version of something we love is the first one we are exposed to.


Interesting theory &#8230; I don't know if it's always the first version, but I know when I read a book then see the movie, the movie almost never compares well with the book -- like the book has "spoiled" me. I can't think of many examples when I saw a movie THEN read the book...

I dunno, in general, I think I just like books more than movies.

I haven't heard the original BBC series -- actually, is it available anywhere? I'm sure it must be.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> For me, the absolute worst movie from a book was *Queen of the Damned*. They took two of my favorite Anne Rice novels, collapsed them into a single movie and cut out every one of my favorite parts from each novel ....


I agree completely. It was my favorite in Anne Rice's vampire series, and then I saw the movie. What happened to all the other vampires?? Lestat walks a fine line in the books between being lovable and annoying somehow he always comes out as lovably annoying... definitely not the case in the film. In the movie I found him unlikable and without a personality.

Dawn


----------



## terryr (Apr 24, 2010)

David Derrico said:


> Interesting theory &#8230; I don't know if it's always the first version, but I know when I read a book then see the movie, the movie almost never compares well with the book -- like the book has "spoiled" me. I can't think of many examples when I saw a movie THEN read the book...
> 
> I dunno, in general, I think I just like books more than movies.
> 
> I haven't heard the original BBC series -- actually, is it available anywhere? I'm sure it must be.


You can watch the BBC version via Netflix online with your computer (or if you can get movies streamed to TV, I don't own a TV but I hear some people do) or rent the discs. Netflix has a great many fabulous BBC shows/movies including my favorite book adaptation of All Creatures Great and Small.


----------



## MenderofRoads (May 9, 2010)

Hoosiermama said:


> I agree about the recent Sherlock Holmes. Robert Downey, Jr. doesn't even LOOK like Holmes. That's part of my problem--they never cast who I think should be in the role


I disagree. I think the most recent Holmes was closer to the original character than most people believe.


----------



## lorezskyline (Apr 19, 2010)

Without doubt Johnny Mnemonic from the William Gibson short story was so dissapointing I guess I should have known the film would be bad with the words also staring Dolph Lundngre and Ice- T on the poster!


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

lorezskyline said:


> Without doubt Johnny Mnemonic from the William Gibson short story was so dissapointing I guess I should have known the film would be bad with the words also staring Dolph Lundngre and Ice- T on the poster!


Absolutely! Could cyberpunk ever translate to film, though? They tried, sort of, with Matrix, but I sat through the first (and best) of those pointing out everything that was stolen from Gibson and others.


----------



## jonconnington (Mar 20, 2010)

probably Battlefield Earth...although given the source material that's not saying much....


----------



## lorezskyline (Apr 19, 2010)

Martel47 said:


> Absolutely! Could cyberpunk ever translate to film, though? They tried, sort of, with Matrix, but I sat through the first (and best) of those pointing out everything that was stolen from Gibson and others.


Cyberpunk is so hard to do for film there are very few that have even got close to pulling it off, only Anime seems to do Cyberpunk justice in movies. Every now and then you here Neuromancer has been optioned I hope they never try and make it!


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

Everyone can start cringing again. I just saw a trailer for "Voyage of the Dawn Treader."
I definitely heard they canceled it, but it's back.


----------



## Labrynth (Dec 31, 2009)

Prince Caspian was pretty awful.  They did fine with L,W&W, but I won't bother with any of the rest of them.


----------



## Lyndl (Apr 2, 2010)

Melonhead said:


> Clan of the Cave Bear. Everyone agrees with me, too, all 14 people who saw it.


 Embarassed, but raising my hand as one of the "14" Awful, awful movie.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I know there were a few but can't think of most right now. I do remember how awful "Pet Cemetery' the movie was suppose to the novel.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

But I liked Prince Caspian...


----------



## MachineTrooper (Jun 22, 2010)

It's an oldie, but _Exodus_ by Leon Uris. It's been said that 90% of directing is casting. Boy, did Preminger start off on the wrong foot! Paul Newman is a great actor, but he was no Ari Ben-Canaan. Even worse were the choices for Dov and Karen. And the sexual backstory Premenger/Sal Mineo inserted for Dov Landau was pointless. The whole epic scope of the book was lost in translation to film. They took a great book and made it mediocre at best.

It surprises me how often I've seen the opposite, though. I guess I better not name names, lest I offend someone my first day here. 

Hank


----------



## jonconnington (Mar 20, 2010)

Or maybe Total Recall? I heard There's a remake in the works....why is it that so many studios make film adaptations of Phillip K. Dick stories...but few of them ever get it right (with the notable exception of Blade Runner....)


----------



## lorezskyline (Apr 19, 2010)

jonconnington said:


> Or maybe Total Recall? I heard There's a remake in the works....why is it that so many studios make film adaptations of Phillip K. Dick stories...but few of them ever get it right (with the notable exception of Blade Runner....)


I kinda liked Total Recall even though it was nothing like the PKD short story it was a bit of a dumb action film but I like the way that at the end you got the sense that it was all a dream everything from his Recall fantasy happened and at the end they look into the distance and its the same picture mentioned at Recall "Thats a new one on me Mars with a blue sky". Or maybe its just me I do like some trashy movies Tremors is in my top 5 lol. Also I though of one other good PKD adaptation I liked A Scanner Darkly with Robert Downey Jr, Keanu Reaves and Wynona Ryder it had a trippy feel.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

It's a REAL oldie - I didn't see it until years after it was out, but "Shane." The book describes a lean, dark man, just my type, and the movie had short, squatty Alan Ladd.


----------



## Lafittewriter (Aug 6, 2010)

I have two:

The Firm...I thought was poorly cast and the re-write of the end butchered a clever ending in the book.

The Mist by Stephen King was overall well done but again I didn't like the ending at all. I liked the way the book ended leaving the reader to wonder...


----------



## M-in-Tx (Aug 7, 2010)

I know these have already been listed, but I was terribly disappointed by My Sister's Keeper and The Time Traveler's Wife.  Both were such amazing, complex books.  

They are in the process of potentially making a movie out of my favorite book of all time.....Outlander.  I cringe whenever I think about the movie people butchering that book.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

I just read and saw The Lovely Bones.  Probably the strangest thing for me is that the movie and the book aren't alike, except at the very beginning.  Things seem to happen out of sequence in the movie (from how it's originally written) and I dunno... I guess they just had a hard time turning this one into a movie.  They changed it from more of the reality of how people would deal with the murder of a young girl in a small town in the 1970's to an action/suspense type film.

Quite a disappointment.

Dawn


----------



## Cliff Ball (Apr 10, 2010)

Every Tom Clancy book, except for _The Hunt For Red October_, that has been made into a movie. _The Sum of All Fears_ movie was the most disappointing. What it is with Ben Affleck that he has to ruin movies made from books?


----------



## jmkwriter (Sep 14, 2009)

Misery by Stephen King. The book was sooo good. And the movie was a solid "meh."

Jurassic Park, too. And most(all) of the Harry Potter films.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

jmkwriter said:


> Misery by Stephen King. The book was sooo good. And the movie was a solid "meh."
> 
> Jurassic Park, too. And most(all) of the Harry Potter films.


I rather liked Misery the movie. Jurassic Park was a different style from the book, but I still enjoyed it (I was the right age for it when it came out).

The Harry Potter films; I agree. I loved the books, but the movies weren't as good.


----------



## squeak (Jul 20, 2010)

Stephen King's It


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

The Lovely Bones and What Dreams May Come both annoyed the heck out of me. Loved the books.

Best? A tie between The Godfather and No Country for Old Men


----------



## pdallen (Aug 3, 2010)

I don't even know where to begin with this one. Just about every movie even based upon a book has failed on one point or another. 

It would be easier to ask what movies succeeded at adapting the book. My first choice there would be To Kill a Mockingbird. Though even that fails.


----------



## pdallen (Aug 3, 2010)

My daughter and I liked The Watchmen. I gave her the illustrated book to read before we saw the movie.

My biggest problem with the movie was the way they gave the crusaders super strength. They should not have been made more than human... except for Dr. Manhattan, that is.

I also didn't like the way they cut out the side characters (the guy with the newsstand, the kid reading the comix, the psychiatrist). They were very important to the book.

I thought the set up of Dr. Manhattan was much more believable than the alien threat.

Really, I thought they did a much better job with Watchmen than with Alan Moore's other books, The League of Amazing Gentlemen and V is for Vendetta. I loved the graphic novel V, but the movie was a terrible botch that lacked all the intelligence of the book and fell on its face in the end.



Half-Orc said:


> Jurassic Park? Really?
> 
> And I'll go with a less obvious choice: Watchmen. The comic book was phenomenally intelligent. The movie was a slavish devoted, but stupid, adaptation. Minor changes resulted in massive ramifications throughout, and subtle tweaks in certain characters and reactions ruined later scenes. Oh, and the sex scene was painfully laughable.
> 
> David Dalglish


----------



## Music &amp; Mayhem (Jun 15, 2010)

Perhaps the worst of all time? Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe. Book was excellent. Movie was trashed by every critic I read.


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

I hated the third act of Watchmen. But the first two were pretty good. On a related note you wouldn't believe League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was actually good in print!


----------



## Valmore Daniels (Jul 12, 2010)

As a big fan of fantasy, I was looking forward to Dragonlance: Dragons of Autumn Twilight.

Major disappointment.


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

They made a Dragonlance movie!?!?!? I never even heard about it! It must have been bad!!!!


----------



## pdallen (Aug 3, 2010)

No you wouldn't. I read it after seeing the movie. A friend insisted I give it a try. And considering how much I enjoyed V is for Vendetta and Watchmen, I figured I owed it to Alan Moore to give it a try. What failed miserably on the screen, worked in print. Like all of Alan Moore, it had a depth the movies lack.



NoahMullette-Gillman said:


> *snip*On a related note you wouldn't believe League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was actually good in print!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm sort of weird in that I don't ever compare the movies to the book. They either stand on their own or they don't.  I don't much care that they change them for the movie, although I often wonder why they made the changes they did.  Some of the movies discussed here were just plain bad movies no matter where they came from.  

Betsy


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

NoahMullette-Gillman said:


> They made a Dragonlance movie!?!?!? I never even heard about it! It must have been bad!!!!


I've yet to see it, but I've had many, many people tell me it was just terrible and amateurish.

David Dalglish


----------



## SidneyW (Aug 6, 2010)

Tough Guys Don't Dance. Book is wonderful, atmospheric noir but Norman Mailer directed the movie himself and while the plot is faithful it doesn't hold a candle to what he could do on the page.


----------



## Barry Eysman (Jul 19, 2010)

The Killer Inside Me. It was Jim Thompson's masterpiece novel. It broke his heart.
Barry Eysman


----------



## richardya (Jul 8, 2010)

sbaum4853 said:


> Dune. Greatest sci-fi book of all time, and still no one's been able to make a good movie from it. David Lynch made one that's good in a _wow that was weird and makes no sense_ sort of way, and SyFy made a mini-series that was more like watching a play than watching a movie. *Peter Jackson needs to make a Dune movie!*


That book deserves another try. 
The movie was terrible yet gripping at the same time.

I just read Fight Club after seeing the movie a few times and they did a great job. I just started no country for old men.
_*
Great Movies*_
LoTR Series
Hunt for Red October
Fight Club
No Country for Old Men

All the Grisham movies are entertaining, more than I feel for his books.


----------



## SidneyW (Aug 6, 2010)

Barry is that the new version with Casey Affleck that was disappointing or the older version?


----------



## caseyf6 (Mar 28, 2010)

David Derrico said:


> As for movies as good as or better than the book, the only one I can think of is _The Shawshank Redemption_ (_Princess Bride_ was a great movie, but I never read the book so I can't compare).


I read the book and the movie is pretty faithful in spirit and in story. I enjoyed it a lot and it's a family favorite.

Stephen King's "The Mist"-- the movie stayed pretty well with the story UNTIL about the last five stinking minutes. Then a short story that ended on a note of hope-- turns absolutely horrible.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Aug 3, 2010)

Oh, man--where do you begin?

How about with the latest "Alice in Wonderland"?


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

Queued said:


> Oh, man--where do you begin?
> 
> How about with the latest "Alice in Wonderland"?


haha I LOVE the new Alice in Wonderland movie - though it's technically not from a book since it's a sequel. Helena Bonham Carter was a riot.

Dwink!


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

They're making a new Dune movie.


----------



## Vyrl (Jun 7, 2010)

Too many disappointments. The worst for me was Eragon.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Vyrl said:


> Too many disappointments. The worst for me was Eragon.


Makes me wonder what was wrong with you if you had expectations for that movie in the first place .

David Dalglish


----------



## mistyd107 (May 22, 2009)

My Sister's keeper by Jodi Picoult


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

I saw Eragon just because sometimes any movie is better than two hours of my life. I was astonished. George Lucas should have sued. They used the script of Star Wars Part IV and just changed the names.


----------



## pdallen (Aug 3, 2010)

I agree. The ending of The Mist was without redemption. I would advise people who want to see the movie to watch it all but the last five minutes, and then turn it off and read the last page of the story.



caseyf6 said:


> I read the book and the movie is pretty faithful in spirit and in story. I enjoyed it a lot and it's a family favorite.
> 
> Stephen King's "The Mist"-- the movie stayed pretty well with the story UNTIL about the last five stinking minutes. Then a short story that ended on a note of hope-- turns absolutely horrible.


----------



## masquedbunny (Jul 18, 2010)

Anything taken from Sergei Lukyanenko. Night Watch was only just okay, but Day Watch was terrible.

The film of Jurassic Park didn't bother me nearly as much as The Lost World.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

pdallen said:


> I agree. The ending of The Mist was without redemption. I would advise people who want to see the movie to watch it all but the last five minutes, and then turn it off and read the last page of the story.


Yeah, I don't know what happened there. Seems like they tried too hard to have a shocking ending.


----------



## Bane766 (Aug 2, 2010)

R. Reed said:


> I saw Eragon just because sometimes any movie is better than two hours of my life. I was astonished. George Lucas should have sued. They used the script of Star Wars Part IV and just changed the names.


The Eragon books are much more of a rip-off than the movie. That WAS a horrible movie, though.

Mostly I try not to compare books to the movies as they pretty much all fail. However most Stephen King movies were pretty bad...I saw It when I was younger and it creeped me out pretty good. The book is much better, of course, but even seeing it now I think it's not too bad. The mist was very dissapointing...one of my favorite of his shorts and they ruined it with that stupid ending.  Stand by Me (the body) and Shawshank were some pretty good Stephen King Novellas to movies. Running Man is another mention for bad...I have no idea where that one came from, but it was a bad movie. The novella, again, was pretty good.

The Harry Potter movies left out so much detail...I understand why, but they still don't live up to the books. My kids love them, though.

LotR turned out to be very long boring movies...the books were so much better.

I loved the new Alice in Wonderland movie and thought Watchman was pretty good (even though it was changed).


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

The Green Mile was a fantastic example of how to do a book-to-movie correctly. Seen it so many times, just wonderful.

David Dalglish


----------



## Hair of the Dog (Jul 19, 2010)

There are too many awful adaptations even to begin a list, so I instead will mention one that was handled well: 李安's production of _The Ice Storm_ by Rick Moody.


----------



## mistyd107 (May 22, 2009)

Half-Orc said:


> The Green Mile was a fantastic example of how to do a book-to-movie correctly. Seen it so many times, just wonderful.
> 
> David Dalglish


IA I ABSOLUTELY LOVED BOTH versions


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

imallbs said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it over and over again
> The 2002 movie version of The Count of Monte Cristo. They changed the beginning; but in fairness they had to because they couldn't have had that ending (which was in no way similar to the book) if they had not changed the beginning. They also changed things that, ultimately did not have an impact on the story . . .


Couldn't agree more--the movie was visually appealing but took a lot of the bite out of the story.

Also (and this is a picky point, because I'm really not disappointed in these movies, just this one aspect of them), while Peter Jackson envisions the settings and most of the characters for LOTR spot on, my favorite character is Frodo, and I feel Jackson's adaptation elevates some characters (like Gimli and Sam) while doing a disservice to other characters, particularly Frodo and Faramir. Frodo's ties to the elves, his spooky mysticism, and his quiet bravery (in _Fellowship_, he stands up to the ringwraiths at the Ford of Bruinen, not Arwen) although touched on in the movies is never explored to the depth I would expect for the main character. Jackson's movies are great, so I'll not belabor the point, but that aspect was a disappointment to me.


----------



## pdallen (Aug 3, 2010)

I much preferred the French version of Monte Cristo with Gerard DePardieu.

As for Peter Jackson's LOTR. I saw the first part of the Ralph Bakshi version in the 70s and concluded that nobody should make a movie of that trilogy. Compared to that, the Peter Jckson version was a huge success.



purplepen79 said:


> Couldn't agree more--the movie was visually appealing but took a lot of the bite out of the story.
> 
> Also (and this is a picky point, because I'm really not disappointed in these movies, just this one aspect of them), while Peter Jackson envisions the settings and most of the characters for LOTR spot on, my favorite character is Frodo, and I feel Jackson's adaptation elevates some characters (like Gimli and Sam) while doing a disservice to other characters, particularly Frodo and Faramir. Frodo's ties to the elves, his spooky mysticism, and his quiet bravery (in _Fellowship_, he stands up to the ringwraiths at the Ford of Bruinen, not Arwen) although touched on in the movies is never explored to the depth I would expect for the main character. Jackson's movies are great, so I'll not belabor the point, but that aspect was a disappointment to me.


----------



## ZsuZsu (Dec 27, 2009)

OK- it's not out yet as a movie, so it is probably quite unfair of me to say.... but I LOVED Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro, and I just saw the trailer for the movie this weekend- and I just can't imagine that the movie is going to be nearly as good as the book.... the book literally haunted me for months!! I have learned over the years that the more I love a book, the less likely it is that I will love the movie version.... YMMV of course!


----------



## julieannfelicity (Jun 28, 2010)

I'll agree with a few who've already said The Lovely Bones.  I loved the book, but the movie just didn't do it for me.  It was ok--just not what I was hoping for.

The next was The DaVinci Code.  I liked the book and was totally RIPPED (angry) when I saw the movie.  It was terrible!


----------



## Travis haselton (Jul 24, 2010)

I can forgive some long novels being crappy movies because it my be impossible to put everything in a 2 or 3 hour period. But when a short story or small novel is botched, thats rediculas.


----------



## julieannfelicity (Jun 28, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> The Green Mile was a fantastic example of how to do a book-to-movie correctly. Seen it so many times, just wonderful.
> 
> David Dalglish


I agree with this (I know ... wrong thread). Even the actors seemed to fit perfectly! I can watch this movie over and over.


----------



## mamiller (Apr 28, 2009)

I don't know if this counts, but The Abyss by Orson Scott Card was actually written based on James Cameron's movie, The Abyss...and was a thousand, gazillion times better than the movie.


----------



## WilliamM (Feb 10, 2009)

so many but the ones that immediately come to mind are

The Shining , Dune, and The Bourne Trilogy


----------



## WilliamM (Feb 10, 2009)

cliffball said:


> Every Tom Clancy book, except for _The Hunt For Red October_, that has been made into a movie. _The Sum of All Fears_ movie was the most disappointing. What it is with Ben Affleck that he has to ruin movies made from books?


got to agree.. think baldwin was a perfect as Jack Ryan ...


----------



## LDS (Aug 4, 2010)

Michael Crichton's "Sphere" and "Congo"


----------



## Chris Redding Author (Aug 14, 2010)

I stopped watching movies of novels I liked a long time ago.
But.
I liked Julie and Julia, but I'm a HUGE Julia Child Fan.
cmr


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Bane766 said:


> Stand by Me (the body) and Shawshank were some pretty good Stephen King Novellas to movies. Running Man is another mention for bad...I have no idea where that one came from, but it was a bad movie. The novella, again, was pretty good.
> 
> The Harry Potter movies left out so much detail...I understand why, but they still don't live up to the books. My kids love them, though.


Couldn't agree more about the Harry Potter movies--they have a lot of flash and bang but leave out too many details for me.

_Stand by Me _ and _The Shawshank Redemption_ are two of my all time favorite movies. For me, Stephen King's writing translates best to film with the more realistic stories, like _Delores Claibourne _ or _Misery_. He wrote in _Danse Macabre _ something about being careful when you show the monster, because if you show too much and don't leave enough mystery, the audience sees the zipper running up the monster's back, and then it's not scary anymore. Some of the directors who have tried to translate his straight fantasy/horror pieces to film haven't been subtle enough in their depiction. Terror is a subtle thing and so easily ruined in film, almost as easily ruined as humor.


----------



## WilliamM (Feb 10, 2009)

purplepen79 said:


> Couldn't agree more about the Harry Potter movies--they have a lot of flash and bang but leave out too many details for me.
> 
> _Stand by Me _ and _The Shawshank Redemption_ are two of my all time favorite movies. For me, Stephen King's writing translates best to film with the more realistic stories, like _Delores Claibourne _ or _Misery_. He wrote in _Danse Macabre _ something about being careful when you show the monster, because if you show too much and don't leave enough mystery, the audience sees the zipper running up the monster's back, and then it's not scary anymore. Some of the directors who have tried to translate his straight fantasy/horror pieces to film haven't been subtle enough in their depiction. Terror is a subtle thing and so easily ruined in film, almost as easily ruined as humor.


agreed his non-horror stories really translate well to the screen..all the others...not so much


----------



## JoeMitchell (Jun 6, 2010)

I haven't read _The Count of Monte Cristo_, but I did see the movie and I actually liked it. it was above average. Now seeing so many of you love it and hate the movie for doing it wrong. I thought I'd gotten the story from the movie but I guess I was wrong. I'm going to have to read it now.

I also loved David Lynch's _Dune_, having seen it without reading the books. I had to watch it a few times to really get it, but I still think of it as a classic.

I'll go even deeper into this pit to say that I enjoyed _Battlefield Earth_ as a science fiction film. Not entirely, as I thought some things like the giant platform shoes the aliens wore were ridiculous, but the ideas presented of humans devolving to a primitive state, similar to The Planet of the Apes, I found interesting. I never read the book, so I didn't automatically hate the movie. I guess I should read that book too, someday.

Reading the book first can spoil an otherwise good movie.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

_The Lovely Bones _ really, really disappointed me. It seemed to have a great cast and then just went off into cuckooland. And honestly, do we need another  too-much-soap-in-the-washer scene...ever?


----------



## Daniel W. Koch (Aug 14, 2010)

I agree with all who said Eragon.  Sooooo disappointing.
I'm excited for the Hunger Games, as the screen play is being written by the author, which should keep it true to the story.


----------



## AlanBaxter (Sep 1, 2009)

I didn't read the whole thread, so apologies if I'm doubling up, but I Am Legend is possibly the worst movie adaptation of all time. The book is awesome, the ending sublime, and the movie just craps all over it, totally missing the point.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

AlanBaxter said:


> I didn't read the whole thread, so apologies if I'm doubling up, but I Am Legend is possibly the worst movie adaptation of all time. The book is awesome, the ending sublime, and the movie just craps all over it, totally missing the point.


Both _The Omega Man _ and _I Am Legend _ (the movie) missed the point. I think that _The Last Man on Earth _ just ignored it; it's probably the most faithful adaptation, but terribly low budget.


----------



## cc84 (Aug 6, 2010)

Just this evening i finished reading My Sister's Keeper, and loved it! I decided to watch the film on youtube, well, how dissapointing. It was just flat and so wrong  

Another one is Confessions of a Shopaholic, i thought the book was ok, while over-rated. But the film was hideous.


----------



## calypso (Aug 21, 2010)

^i completely agree with shopaholic. the actress failed to give the character depth. she just looked like a twat armed with plastic cards. at least the book character somehow, was somebody you could relate to at one point or another.

i agree with the harry potter movies. but then i stopped expecting anything-- no, i started expecting to hate the movie before even actually seeing it, after being greatly and sorely disappointed with the first movie. at least rupert grint was fun to watch tho.  but all in all, one of the worst movie adaptations, IMHO

another book to movie i hated was the angels and demons. i was so expecting a lot from angels and demons since i loved that book better than the da vinci codes but... 

1. Tom Hanks was soo off playing robert langdon. i simply could not see him for the part. Langdon was described to have "good looks and a boyish charm" which made him one of the most crushable professors right? that was the description. in fact, he was even described as having a swimmers body.. much as i respect tom hanks as an actor, he just cannot pull off "boyish charm" let alone a swimmers body. 

2. i cannot - for the life of me - understand why the name of the camerlengo, carlos ventresca had to be changed to something else, i would understand cutting a few scenes due to budget and time constraints,, but changing a name?! i dont get it at all! it doesnt cost more to stick to the original name and i cannot see how changing the name would cut through time constraints. seems little but it's a big deal for me. kinda annoying too!

3. one scene i was completely looking forward to was the scene where the Camerlengo addressed the whole world thru an interview with the college of cardinals behind him. the visual alone would've been breath-taking. coupled with the speech the camerlengo made, not only would it have been such a powerful scene, it would be a magnificent thing to watch. the fact that they did not include this scene in the movie really disappointed me.


----------



## MoyJoy (Aug 24, 2010)

calypso said:


> ^i completely agree with shopaholic.
> 
> another book to movie i hated was the angels and demons. icut through time constraints. seems little but it's a big deal for me. kinda annoying too!


Yes! On both accounts! It think they did a lot of damage to begin with when they moved the setting to the US. I knew it would be all downhill from there.

Angels and Demons... boring boring boring! The book painted such a wonderful adventure. The movie... not so much. And Tom Hanks.. ugh ugh ugh! Robert Langdon will always be Richard Gere in my head.


----------



## Carolyn J. Rose Mystery Writer (Aug 10, 2010)

Shooter. Mark W. just wasn't Bob Lee Swagger.


----------



## div (Aug 25, 2010)

Nights in Rodanthe......I posted that for my wife!


----------



## calypso (Aug 21, 2010)

MoyJoy said:


> Yes! On both accounts! It think they did a lot of damage to begin with when they moved the setting to the US. I knew it would be all downhill from there.
> 
> Angels and Demons... boring boring boring! The book painted such a wonderful adventure. The movie... not so much. And Tom Hanks.. ugh ugh ugh! Robert Langdon will always be Richard Gere in my head.


see i didnt even notice that they moved it to the US. i was soo bored and annoyed with the actress who played becky bloomwood.

angels and demons - to my mind it'll always be dan brown. (he is actually a harvard professor, if my memory serves me right.. and his pic on the HB jacket kinda reminds me of Langdon). i totally agree with you tho, Richard Gere would make a better job! or even George Clooney.


----------



## JL Bryan (Aug 10, 2010)

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm sure someone mentioned _Salem's Lot_. Another Stephen King adaptation disappointment was _The Running Man_, which was a very different story from book to screen (not Lawnmower Man different, but close).

I actually liked the SciFi Dune miniseries. I thought it was well done. [ducks and covers]

Jeff Bryan


----------



## WilliamM (Feb 10, 2009)

JL Bryan said:


> I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm sure someone mentioned _Salem's Lot_. Another Stephen King adaptation disappointment was _The Running Man_, which was a very different story from book to screen (not Lawnmower Man different, but close).
> 
> I actually liked the SciFi Dune miniseries. I thought it was well done. [ducks and covers]
> 
> Jeff Bryan


actually I felt the miniseries followed the book a whole lot better than the movie..the movie had a great look to it but that was about it


----------



## JL Bryan (Aug 10, 2010)

Oh, I definitely like the miniseries better than the movie.  Maybe that's why I like it so much, because the old movie was such a disappointment.  And I think the guy that played Baron Harkonnen was excellent.  The miniseries had a little bit of a Shakespearean feel to it.  Someone earlier said it was like a play.


----------



## Music &amp; Mayhem (Jun 15, 2010)

cc84 said:


> Just this evening i finished reading My Sister's Keeper, and loved it! I decided to watch the film on youtube, well, how dissapointing. It was just flat and so wrong


Interesting! I just finished reading the book. Didn't know it was already a movie. Who plays Nurse Ratched ... oops, I mean Mom? Wait, let me guess. Meryl Streep? The firefighter father was um Alec Baldwin? The junkie brother was ... son of Steve Buscimi, the pale and wan sick daughter role went to clone of Patty Duke and the feisty younger sister was Bridget Fonda's daughter. I'm afraid to ask who played the lawyer. To me, that aspect was totally lame. I mean the part about the "handicapped" dog and his earlier affair with the attorney ad litem.

Sorry for being so flip. Parts of the novel were riveting, others not so much


----------



## Rye Catcher (Sep 7, 2010)

I actually enjoyed I am Legend as a movie, but as the adaption for the book, I agree that it totally missed the point. 

Recently I read, then rented Misery the movie adaption to the stephen king novel. It stayed very true to the story but I just never felt the tension and the pain that was horrifically played out in the Novel. The movie made it seem like Sheldon was trapped for a day or 2, and of course omitted some other grisly details that made Annie Wilks such a monster! It's an oldie though, so I'll give the movie credit for being entertaining.


----------



## Erick Flaig (Oct 25, 2010)

Until you have seen Henry Fonda as Pierre Bezukhov in "War and Peace," you can't imagine how one miscast character can impact a movie.  Fonda was a great actor; I loved him in "Cheyenne Social Club," "Twelve Angry Men," and more, but he should have shouted NO to this.


----------



## Dee_DeTarsio (Oct 26, 2010)

Book to movie disappointment: The Other Boleyn Girl...Great actors, great costumes, but it has nothing on the book! (I love historical fiction and I'm reading Cleopatra right now--it is very informative and interesting, but I find myself wishing Philippa Gregory gets a hold of it and works her magic!)


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

Salem's  lot.. the movie was  just kinda silly.. not scary at all.


----------



## Laurensaga (Sep 29, 2010)

Hannibal they absolutely ruined the ending. It took me a few days to calm down.


----------



## MLPMom (Nov 27, 2009)

div said:


> Nights in Rodanthe......I posted that for my wife!


Tell your wife I agree! The movie seriously did no justice whatsoever to the book. The book was amazing, one of Sparks best, the movie was crap. Richard Gere did an awful job portraying his character.


----------



## Pinworms (Oct 20, 2010)

Youth in Revolt

The book is one of the funniest books I've ever read (the sequels suck though).  I wasn't a big fan of the movie


----------



## EliRey (Sep 8, 2010)

First book I ever read waaayy back then watched the movie was The Outsiders uugghh what a disappointment! Then later I read The Godfather, that one actually helped me understand the movie a little better lol. 

Recently another one was The lovely bones and totally agree with someone else who posted about the movie being slooooowwww.. I had to force myself to stay awake for the ending.  

Does anyone know if Jacobs Latter was a book? I'd sure love to read. I saw the movie like 3 times and never did understand exactly if he was alive or hullucinating or in some kind of coma.   It was too wierd! I'll have to google now..


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2010)

The Golden Compass...they ruined everything, casting, music, plot, everything.

Also, The Da Vinci Code...I was so upset with this I ended up getting into a fight with a middle-aged woman on the way out. Details: http://powerlessbooks.com/blog/?p=28

The Two Towers...I wanted to walk out. It was my favorite book in the trilogy, and they ruined the whole thing. It's just unwatchable to me.


----------



## Mark_A_Lopez (Oct 24, 2010)

2002's The Time Machine! I watched it, was reminded of the novel, then read it and was amazed by the liberties taken by the film. Not a bad film really(in and of itself), just doesn't compare to HG Wells' classic.


----------



## kindleworm (Aug 24, 2010)

For me, the most disappointing book to movie was Clan Of The Cave Bear.  Really loved the book and still do, but, I thought the movie was lousy.


----------



## abneretta (Aug 3, 2010)

Jan Strnad said:


> Both _The Omega Man _ and _I Am Legend _ (the movie) missed the point. I think that _The Last Man on Earth _ just ignored it; it's probably the most faithful adaptation, but terribly low budget.


The original ending was true to the story, after testing the film they ended up changing it. The studio had it right, the test audiences rejected it.


----------



## Julie Christensen (Oct 13, 2010)

Is there any book to movie that isn't a disappointment?  They are all terrible, especially if you've already read and loved the book.  The only except I know of is Merchant Ivory's Room with A View, and I prefer the Shawshank Redemption movie to the short story.  But Stephen King wouldn't agree, and I only read the story after I saw the movie.


----------



## lorezskyline (Apr 19, 2010)

Julie Christensen said:


> Is there any book to movie that isn't a disappointment? They are all terrible, especially if you've already read and loved the book. The only except I know of is Merchant Ivory's Room with A View, and I prefer the Shawshank Redemption movie to the short story. But Stephen King wouldn't agree, and I only read the story after I saw the movie.


2001 although i'm not sure this count as book and screenplay were a colaboration between Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke and both were amazing.
The Godfather movie excellent adaptation also Jaws i'm sure there are others. The Princess Bride captured the spirit of the book as well.


----------



## Fireheart223 (Oct 3, 2010)

The last Harry Potter movie to me was a real disappointment. The ending in the book just struck me as being so emotional, I was so excited to see it play out on screen, and it turned out to be completely the opposite. Emotionally, it totally flatlined. Where was all the anger and emotion that should've come from Snape and Harry in that confrontation?? 

I'm hoping that the last two will be a lot better. I'd really enjoyed the fifth one especially, and the trailers for the latest one do look promising.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

It was a made for TV movie, so expectations weren't high, but I was so bummed out about how Archer's Kane and Abel (one of may all-tim favorites) turned out.  The strongest memory I have is that there was a little more powder in Sam N.'s hair every scene to make him look older.


----------



## carl_h (Sep 8, 2010)

I generally ALWAYS find the movies disappointing after reading the books.  As a former submarine sailor who loved reading "Hunt for Red October", I was thoroughly disappointed with the Hollywood adaptation.  It was a good movie, if you knew nothing about submarines, whereas the book was very accurate.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

As a few others have mentioned, the adaptation of Susan's Cooper's The Dark Is Rising book into The Seeker movie was absolutely dreadful. Whoever greenlit that script should've been thrown into the Chateau D'If, along with the director, producer, scriptwriter and all the actors and crew. I'm not sure which level of Dante's hell they're going to end up in for what they did, but it better be one of the lower levels.

Also, Disney's attempt at Lloyd Alexander's The Black Cauldron is probably worthy of judgment at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

chbunn said:


> Also, Disney's attempt at Lloyd Alexander's The Black Cauldron is probably worthy of judgment at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition.


Lloyd Alexander was one of my favorite authors when I was younger, and I wish someone would do a better movie, but Disney probably has a lock on the rights, even though they have buried The Black Cauldron in their vault and don't admit it ever existed.


----------



## Lyndl (Apr 2, 2010)

kindleworm said:


> For me, the most disappointing book to movie was Clan Of The Cave Bear. Really loved the book and still do, but, I thought the movie was lousy.


The movie was worse than lousy. It was excruciating to watch!


----------



## Blodwyn (Oct 13, 2010)

Fireheart223 said:


> The last Harry Potter movie to me was a real disappointment. The ending in the book just struck me as being so emotional, I was so excited to see it play out on screen, and it turned out to be completely the opposite. Emotionally, it totally flatlined. Where was all the anger and emotion that should've come from Snape and Harry in that confrontation??
> 
> I'm hoping that the last two will be a lot better. I'd really enjoyed the fifth one especially, and the trailers for the latest one do look promising.


Oh I totally agree with this. I felt like the romances between the characters somehow became the point of the movie, with all of the other aspects of the story being in the background. So disappointing. It felt flat to me and I didn't have a lot of emotion either at the ending. The book's my favorite of the series, so it was pretty disappointing.


----------

