# novel you love but hate the movie.



## bookuniverse (Jul 1, 2012)

I love "Love in the time of cholera" but I don't like the movie...it could have been better!


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

This topic or one very similar comes up here every couple of months or so. A little searching should provide you plenty of opinions.


----------



## mistyd107 (May 22, 2009)

My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult the changed ending on the movie completely missed the point


----------



## charlesatan (May 8, 2012)

The Postman.

Not quite novels but a lot of the Philip K. Dick adaptations (Minority Report, etc.).

(Again, not quite a novel, but I, Robot.)


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

charlesatan said:


> The Postman.
> 
> Not quite novels but a lot of the Philip K. Dick adaptations (Minority Report, etc.).
> 
> (Again, not quite a novel, but I, Robot.)


I didn't mind the "I, Robot" adaptation -- as long as I wasn't concerned about it being anything like the book (or short story collection, or whatever the heck it was  ).


----------



## mallington (Jun 20, 2011)

A book that really impressed me years ago was John Masters' BHOWANI JUNCTION. His use of multiple points of view, each written in the first person, gave it a unique psychological dimension. No one since Kipling had written so vividly about India. The film was a big budget production with major stars, but it totally lost the sexual tension of the book. Filmed in Pakistan, it was subject to a rigid censorship that excluded altogether those scenes of explicit sex that were very germane to the novel. I was equally disappointed with THE CAINE MUTINY, one of the great works of 20th century literature. Not that the film was bad, but it only covered a portion of the book. A novel of this length and scope could only have been done effectively as a mini-series.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

I didn't _hate_ the movie as such -- it was entertaining in its way. But the only thing the Will Smith flick had in common with Asimov's 'I Robot' (one of my favorite sf books) was the title. And that being the case, why not call it something else?


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

Sorta in this vein - Andre Norton's 'Beast Master' was made into a series.

EWWWW YUCK!!!


----------



## That Weird Guy.... (Apr 16, 2012)

Wow. where do I start? There are so many books I loved, but hated the movies. 

The major one that sticks out in my head is the Twilight Series. Fabulous books, total crap movies.

Les Miserables (1998 with Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush)

Hannibal by Thomas Harris

Exit to Eden by Anne Rampling (Anne Rice)

I Am Legend by Robert Mathison. I have no idea what the heck that movie was supposed to be. 

I could go on forever.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

T.J. The Diva (but not really...) said:


> Wow. where do I start? There are so many books I loved, but hated the movies.
> 
> Hannibal by Thomas Harris


Sorry, but I have to disagree on this one. The middle section of the novel largely consists of a tour guide to Florence, and David Mamet's ending makes a lot more sense than Harris' 'Clarice Starling, Bride of Frankenstein' conclusion.


----------



## Alexandra Sokoloff (Sep 21, 2009)

Has anyone seen We Need To Talk About Kevin?  I loved the book so much I'm afraid to see the movie -  I'm a fan of Tilda Swinton but I think she's a really bad choice for the mother, very emotionally inaccessible, which is going to give a certain slant to everything about the movie.


----------



## Brian Rush (Jun 21, 2012)

Got to go by the title of the thread exactly, so this isn't asking for books you loved that the movie version departed from so widely that you kept going "wait a minute." Good books made into BAD movies, right? That you would have hated even if you'd never read the book, but the fact that you HAD read the book meant you watched the stupid movie when otherwise you'd never have gone near it.

Top contender for me: _Dune_. The book is a classic of SF. The movie sucked horribly. Sting as Feyd-Rautha spent half his on-screen time posing like a primadonna, and the totally forgettable portrayal of Paul was, well, totally forgettable, and that travesty of filmmaking that turned the Sardaukar into semi-robots instead of hardened fierce warriors -- pathetic.


----------



## Phil Berry (Jun 22, 2012)

The Magus.

Asked whether he would do everything the same if he had to live his life all over again, Peter Sellers thought for a moment and said: “Yes. But I would not see The Magus.”

Apologies if this has been mentioned before, it's a great anecdote.


----------



## Ben Nitschke (Jun 1, 2012)

I usually don't mind the film adaptation of most books because sometimes you can do more in a book than you can with a film. So film just sorta has to take what it can. Having said that, it has to be the movie version of Hideaway. Koontz story was great on it's own and should have translated into film very easily. I felt the casting of Silverstone was just some producer's idea of "Hey, she's really hot right now, lets get her on this!" It really took a lot away from the original story and just made the movie flat.


----------



## Karen Mead (Jul 2, 2012)

Well I didn't hate the entire movie, but the first Percy Jackson and the Olympians movie was very weak compared to the book. I didn't mind the movie when I first saw it, but when I checked out the books out of idle curiousity, I realized they'd completely misunderstood and miscast the main female character. Now I never want to see it again because I think it would annoy me.

Also, since people are mentioning Twilight, once again I don't HATE the movies per se but I think the weak acting from the two leads really hurts those films. I actually kind of like Edward in the books, could not possibly care less about him in the films.


----------



## D.A. (Mar 29, 2012)

Thought I'd add my voice here since I worked in TV and Film for twenty years and know that most audiences, readers, and other venue writers can't really imagine how extremely hard it is to cram a wonderful, intricately plotted, and deeply characterized book, into a 120 page screenplay of 90% dialogue.  It's a killer.  There is so little time, and such huge constraints in form and structure - give the screenwriter a break - novels are a world, screenplays are more of a moment.  I think it's generally a rarity to love a book and then love the film.  They are different creatures - both valid - different.


----------



## Ben Nitschke (Jun 1, 2012)

D.A. said:


> Thought I'd add my voice here since I worked in TV and Film for twenty years and know that most audiences, readers, and other venue writers can't really imagine how extremely hard it is to cram a wonderful, intricately plotted, and deeply characterized book, into a 120 page screenplay of 90% dialogue. It's a killer. There is so little time, and such huge constraints in form and structure - give the screenwriter a break - novels are a world, screenplays are more of a moment. I think it's generally a rarity to love a book and then love the film. They are different creatures - both valid - different.


I knew that had to be reason so often film adaptations stray considerably from the source material. Books have a lot of freedom to explore certain ideas or introduce characters that otherwise would be hard to cast into a tv/film. I agreed with Karen Mead wholeheartedly about the Percy Jackson movie. I read those books before I saw the movie (I actually read the last book first on accident). I was scratching my head about some of the changes they made, but after thinking about it a bit, it made sense from a production stand point.

They had to blend a lot of Clarisse's personality traits into Annabeth because it just didn't make sense to bill all the half-bloods in the movie. I'm sure if they make more movies they'll bring Clarisse will come back. She has a pretty major role in the next book. I am also sure it won't be hard for them to write her character into that story, despite what they did in the first movie. It sucks, but I think its one of those things you say about film vs book.

That's why Hideaway still bugs me. Regina was such an important character in the book, and Silverstone was just some hot name they tacked on for publicity. I HATE when Hollywood does that.


----------



## Karen Mead (Jul 2, 2012)

Ben Nitschke said:


> I agreed with Karen Mead wholeheartedly about the Percy Jackson movie. I read those books before I saw the movie (I actually read the last book first on accident). I was scratching my head about some of the changes they made, but after thinking about it a bit, it made sense from a production stand point.
> 
> They had to blend a lot of Clarisse's personality traits into Annabeth because it just didn't make sense to bill all the half-bloods in the movie. I'm sure if they make more movies they'll bring Clarisse will come back.


I can understand combining secondary and tertiary characters from the book for the sake of streamlining things, but Annabeth is the second most important character in the series next to Percy Jackson himself. IMO, amalgamating her with someone else was just a bad move.

As D.A. has explained, I can appreciate how difficult it must be to turn a book into a film: there are a ton of limitations, and no matter what you leave in or take out, someone is bound to be unhappy. But I guess for me personally, changing the personalities of the most important characters may be crossing a line.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Alexandra Sokoloff said:


> Has anyone seen We Need To Talk About Kevin? I loved the book so much I'm afraid to see the movie - I'm a fan of Tilda Swinton but I think she's a really bad choice for the mother, very emotionally inaccessible, which is going to give a certain slant to everything about the movie.


Hm, you may be right. I admired the movie ("enjoyed" isn't quite the right word) and her performance, but I didn't really share her journey.

Great book, terrible move nomination: _The Lovely Bones_.


----------



## RikNieu (Jun 2, 2012)

Not movie, really, mini series.
The Stand.
I loved the book but Laws that series was terrible! M-O-O-N, that spells corny!


----------



## Mark Young (Dec 13, 2010)

This is premature, but I just saw the trailer for the upcoming Jack Reacher (Lee Child's character) movie next December. Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher...give me a break! I like Cruise in some of his movies, but he does not fit the Jack Reacher characters I have grown to love in Lee Child's novels. All Jack Reacher fans out there: Am I wrong!

Okay, I am still going to watch the movie, but I may not be able to overcome my prejudice in order to give this movie a fair shot.


----------



## Phil Berry (Jun 22, 2012)

Better film than book - Talented Mr. Ripley.  Not what the thread asked for I know.


----------



## metal134 (Sep 2, 2010)

"Notre Dame de Paris" (AKA, "The Huncheback of Notre Dame").  I refer specifically to the 1923 silent film version, though the majority of film adaptions of the novel suffer from the same indiscretions.  It doesn't so much bother me that a great deal was changed, however I suspect that the change had to do not with the difficulty of adapting such a novel to screen, but rather, in doing so, the filmmaker fundamentally changed what Victor Hugo was saying.  And also, I suspect that many of the changes were done to protect fragile sensibilities.  Such as the changing of the priest from a scoundrel to a saint.  Almost guarantee that was done so as to not offend people.


----------



## Twofishes (May 30, 2012)

Brian Rush said:


> Top contender for me: _Dune_.


This topic has to start and end with _Dune_. The movie was so cheesy it rubbed off on the book.

Otherwise their have been some Sci-Fi films that surpassed their literary counterparts. I'm thinking _2001:A Space Odyssey_( I know some people think the book is a novelization of the film.) and _Solaris_.


----------



## Kathelm (Sep 27, 2010)

"I am Legend."  They tried, and failed, three times to make a movie that comes close to the book.


----------



## deckard (Jan 13, 2011)

I enjoyed The Mosquito Coast by Paul Theroux. The movie was a big disappointment. There were several side stories from the novel that, when left out of the movie, did not make sense.

Another one was Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.

I appreciate time and monetary constraints of movies but some things when cut out of the movie makes it less of an interesting story.

Deckard


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

Another vote for I Am Legend. Would have been so much better this last time around if they had stuck closer to the original story. Also, I loved Starship Troopers but the movie was appallingly bad.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Harry Shannon said:


> Another vote for I Am Legend. Would have been so much better this last time around if they had stuck closer to the original story. Also, I loved Starship Troopers but the movie was appallingly bad.


They just can't get I Am Legend (one of my favorite sf novels) right, can they? The Omega Man was even worse than the Will Smith version.


----------



## Kathelm (Sep 27, 2010)

The really frustrating part is that with the Will Smith version, they wrote and filmed an ending that was at least thematically consistent with the novel.  Then they changed it at the last second.


----------



## raychensmith (Jul 11, 2012)

Murakami's Norwegian Wood.  The book was eye-popping and so utterly romantic (which is kind of funny since it dealt with suicide!).  The movie was blah.  There are countless others.  I'm MORE impressed when a movie is better than the book.  I can think of three:  The Godfather (trashy pulp novel elevated to art), The Hunt for Red October (Sean Connery made the Russian captain interesting), and Jurassic Park (Crichton's sci-fi story really is a movie in prose form).


----------



## That Weird Guy.... (Apr 16, 2012)

Brian Rush said:


> Got to go by the title of the thread exactly, so this isn't asking for books you loved that the movie version departed from so widely that you kept going "wait a minute." Good books made into BAD movies, right? That you would have hated even if you'd never read the book, but the fact that you HAD read the book meant you watched the stupid movie when otherwise you'd never have gone near it.
> 
> Top contender for me: _Dune_. The book is a classic of SF. The movie sucked horribly. Sting as Feyd-Rautha spent half his on-screen time posing like a primadonna, and the totally forgettable portrayal of Paul was, well, totally forgettable, and that travesty of filmmaking that turned the Sardaukar into semi-robots instead of hardened fierce warriors -- pathetic.


Going by this, I can still say the Twilight Movies. They are horribly acted and the effects mistakes are laughable. But i still really enjoyed the books.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

I absolutely loved Preston and Child's The Relic.  The movie...eye gougingly bad.


----------



## pamstucky (Sep 16, 2011)

East of Eden. Book was epic, lyrical, sweeping, intense, passionate, complex. The movie? Stopped watching not even halfway through.


----------



## Daniel McHugh (Aug 15, 2011)

The Time Traveler's Wife. I can't really explain why I liked the book so much. I suppose I was in the mood for those time travel conundrums and Niffenegger added plenty drama to them. The movie however ...... not so much


----------



## JackDAlbrecht (Sep 24, 2011)

I may be shot for this, but.... Harry potter 4,5,6, and 7


----------



## raychensmith (Jul 11, 2012)

Daniel McHugh said:


> The Time Traveler's Wife. I can't really explain why I liked the book so much. I suppose I was in the mood for those time travel conundrums and Niffenegger added plenty drama to them. The movie however ...... not so much


Let's not mince words. The movie sucked dino nuts. The novel, however, was FABULOUS. Of course, the beginning was a bit slow, but what I liked about the romance is how realistic it is, which is sort of funny because the guy pops in and out of time. What I mean by realistic is there aren't any earth-shaking, celestial quaking going on (a la The Bridges of Madison County). Just two people going about their day, and you can just touch their love like a tangible object. And the ending of the novel (not that crap ending of the movie) worked so, so well.


----------



## Daniel McHugh (Aug 15, 2011)

Raychensmith: Dino nuts=spot on. "Touch their love like a tangible object" also = spot on. The author had passion for the lives of the people she revealed to us. The screenwriters were looking to make a buck. Thank goodness they failed miserably. 

I agree with you in terms of the actual science fiction/magical aspect of this novel. It was written as a sort of anti-magic or curse. Niffenegger took time travel and transformed it into the plight of the werewolf. I find it interesting that many of our favorite superheroes share similar abilities to our most tragic horror icons. Turning into a raging beast. Transforming into an alternate persona capable of feats of strength. Beings who virtually cannot be killed. Abilities of flight etc. The Invisible Man is one such example. The concept dances upon the fence of horror/hero. Additionally, The Invisible Man is the rare example of this flawed ability in science fiction.

Niffennegger mirrors this in The Time Traveler's Wife. The unpredictability of the event (and its debilitating effects on his health) transform this book from true science fiction to tragic horror story. Additionally, the unpredictability of his travels added a certain tension throughout the story that is hard to duplicate. A buzz of uncertainty. Combine that with a beautifully conceived love story and you have a tremendous work of fiction.


----------



## kindlenewbie (Mar 17, 2009)

My nomination: Cutter and Bone by Newton Thornburg (movie title: Cutter's Way).


----------



## MatthewLSmith (Jul 12, 2012)

JackDAlbrecht said:


> I may be shot for this, but.... Harry potter 4,5,6, and 7


I won't shoot you , but I do respectfully disagree with you. I think the whole series (both the books and movies) grew increasingly better with each one. That is just my opinion though.


----------



## Anthony Sunderland (Jul 7, 2012)

The other way round for me. Green Mile a great film, but what a lousy, pretension book  

The Shining. Not scary, waste of time.


----------



## Barrymore Tebbs (Feb 19, 2012)

_The Woman in Black_. LOVED the book, and knew they would change the ending. Not only did they change the ending, but the whole thing drags. Making lots of bucks for Hammer, though. Good on 'em.


----------



## AnnMandarano (Jul 14, 2012)

I too have a long list and am of the opinion that the book is generally better than the movie.  Here are a few notable exceptions.
A Far Off Place - movie was nothing like the book (they basically just used the names) but the movie is great as completely unrelated to the books which are great too.
The Princess Bride - both are wonderful! "Inconceivable" as that may be!
Cheaper by the Dozen - another one where only the most basic premise is the same.  I highly recommend the book - my two boys (8 and 6 years love it! The book that is.)


----------



## Audrey Finch (May 18, 2012)

i can't think of a single instance of where the movie even came close.  Too many to mention, but
I adore His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman - the movie of the first part of the trilogy - Northern Lights was dreadful!  And they changed the ending, presumably to soften it for the kid's market.  Aaarrggh!!


----------



## Lanesy (Jun 14, 2012)

Karen Mead said:


> Also, since people are mentioning Twilight, once again I don't HATE the movies per se but I think the weak acting from the two leads really hurts those films. I actually kind of like Edward in the books, could not possibly care less about him in the films.


Really? I actually thought Robert Pattison did a great job portraying Edward. I admit Kristen Stewart did seem to lack that ability to differentiate her emotions at times but I think she does have that mesmerizing beauty about her that suits the character of Belle perfectly.


----------



## mkeyth (Aug 29, 2011)

Dan Brown- Angels and Demons, the movie was simply... something else


----------



## Jeroen Steenbeeke (Feb 3, 2012)

Audrey Finch said:


> i can't think of a single instance of where the movie even came close. Too many to mention, but
> I adore His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman - the movie of the first part of the trilogy - Northern Lights was dreadful! And they changed the ending, presumably to soften it for the kid's market. Aaarrggh!!


This!


----------



## Nova_Implosion (Jul 20, 2012)

The movie versions of Stephen King's Dreamcatcher and Hearts in Atlantis  were terrible. Hearts was way too expansive for a movie, with the Dark Tower allusions and all. Dreamcatcher never gelled into anything comprehensible. I've always wondered why King would allow Hollywood to adapt some of his more complex novels into screenplays. He has to know that they would never work out. It's not like he needs the money.


----------



## hs (Feb 15, 2011)

Karen Mead said:


> Well I didn't hate the entire movie, but the first Percy Jackson and the Olympians movie was very weak compared to the book. I didn't mind the movie when I first saw it, but when I checked out the books out of idle curiousity, I realized they'd completely misunderstood and miscast the main female character. Now I never want to see it again because I think it would annoy me.


I agree about the Lightning Thief movie. I read the books first and loved the series. As a result, I was really looking forward to the movie. What a disappointment. It felt like I was watching the adaptation of a different book.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2012)

Jan Strnad said:


> Hm, you may be right. I admired the movie ("enjoyed" isn't quite the right word) and her performance, but I didn't really share her journey.
> 
> Great book, terrible move nomination: _The Lovely Bones_.


Couldn't agree more. The Lovely Bones is my nomination. The book was amazing, movie left me less than excited (even with the beautiful cinematography!)


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2012)

Sorry guys, just though of another one.

Complicity, Iain banks.  I couldn't put this book down, I read it and read it unti i was finished.  I'm not even sure I finished watching the movie.


----------



## Julia444 (Feb 24, 2011)

My vote is for Margaret Atwood's wonderful novel THE HANDMAID'S TALE.  The book is a chilling, suspenseful study of a dystopian world, a sort of "what if" examination of what would happen to women in the worst possible societal scenario (and all of her facts were based on things that really happened somewhere in the world).  In Atwood's hands, these were valid concerns delicately studied.

The movie (starring the lovely Natasha Richardson, an actress I always liked), is a weird, campy story that doesn't capture Atwood's intelligence or her nuanced characters.  

I highly recommend the book, but I can't recommend the movie.

Julia


----------



## LinaG (Jun 18, 2012)

Just mentioned one over in the favorite romance thread:

_Shining Through_ novel by Susan Isaacs, film by Laurel and Hardy. The heroine dumbed down to a dimwitted secretary who was chosen for the spy mission because she could speak German.

I've got to agree with _Dune_. I remember they handed out a vocabulary sheet in the theater. Seriously.

Lina


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

Most Stephen King adaptations. Exceptions: The Green Mile, Stand By Me/The Body, Shawshank Redemption.

The Old Man and the Sea. ( I like Spencer Tracey, but think he was miscast in this.)

The Great Gatsby.


----------



## julidrevezzo (Sep 15, 2012)

The Golden Compass. OMG. I love the book, but....I won't spoil it for you but suffice it to say it's watered down because they were afraid of the issues in the book, and the ending was set up for a second movie which, because of the backlash has never yet been made.  Good effort by all the actors involved, but it was total disappointment, if you know the books. If you don't you can probably like it. Maybe if they'd just made the Subtle Knife like they set up to do it wouldn't've been so bad, but there are no plans to do so that I've seen. In fact, last check through Google says in 2009 they put it on hold indefinitely.  What a bummer.


----------



## mestrin (Aug 27, 2012)

Hate is a strong word. 
I loved Savages (the book), but I could take or leave the movie. What's odd is that the author adapted the movie, but somehow it lost all of the tone, which is what really drew me to the book. I still read all the Don Winslow I can get my hands on, but I don't think I'll watch the movie again.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

A vast majority of the Stephen King adaptations.


----------



## Alpha72 (May 9, 2012)

Eragon.


----------



## Zoe Cannon (Sep 2, 2012)

_The Dark is Rising_ by Susan Cooper. One of my favorite books when I was a kid, and it meant a lot to me growing up. You might say that when you have memories like that of a book, the movie will never measure up, but I thought the movie version of _The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe_ (another of my Significant Childhood Books) was very well done. _The Seeker_, though - the movie version of _The Dark is Rising_ - was so terrible and uninteresting that I didn't even finish it.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

I'm a big Dean Koontz fan, but most of the movies made from his novels are just awful.


----------



## ewleamon (Oct 7, 2012)

I made an account just for this thread to say that PD James' Children of Men is a fantastic book and a totally crap movie.



I also wanted to stick up for The Hunt For Red October (the book) as opposed to the movie. I love them both actually, but would have loved it if all the air craft carrier antics in the book had made it into the movie.

Oh yeah the Disney version of The Black Cauldron



was just a tragedy...

W.


----------



## Laura Lond (Nov 6, 2010)

The older version of _Mansfield Park_. Don't remember who filmed it, but it was just bad. Ironically, it followed the book very closely, but somehow it didn't work. A newer version has been released, and that one is decent, although they had to stick a brief sex scene in there that Jane Austin would never approve.


----------



## vikiana (Oct 5, 2012)

I have to say that one of the most amazing book I have read recently is "Wthering heights". Please , do apologise me if I have mistales in the language,it is my second one... So When I finished the book I've decided to watch and the movie. Although the movie was an old one I didn't like it at all.  It was quite shallow and I didn't feel the story itself like in the book. My advice to you is not watching the movie first. You will kill the passion and the great harizma of the book!


----------



## Low Kay Hwa (Jun 15, 2012)

_My Sister's Keeper._

The ending is changed!!

Friends who did not read the book like the movie, though.


----------



## vikiana (Oct 5, 2012)

charlesatan said:


> The Postman.
> 
> Not quite novels but a lot of the Philip K. Dick adaptations (Minority Report, etc.).
> 
> (Again, not quite a novel, but I, Robot.)


It's always bad when the director have decided to change the endof the real story. Especialy when it is American one! They have this one desire everything to be with a happy end no matter of fact that the real story is not ending at the same way.



mallington said:


> A book that really impressed me years ago was John Masters' BHOWANI JUNCTION. His use of multiple points of view, each written in the first person, gave it a unique psychological dimension. No one since Kipling had written so vividly about India. The film was a big budget production with major stars, but it totally lost the sexual tension of the book. Filmed in Pakistan, it was subject to a rigid censorship that excluded altogether those scenes of explicit sex that were very germane to the novel. I was equally disappointed with THE CAINE MUTINY, one of the great works of 20th century literature. Not that the film was bad, but it only covered a portion of the book. A novel of this length and scope could only have been done effectively as a mini-series.


 I'm completely agree with you 



K. A. Jordan said:


> Sorta in this vein - Andre Norton's 'Beast Master' was made into a series.
> 
> EWWWW YUCK!!!


"I robot" is one of my favourite books. I haven't watched this movie but as read the lines couldn't help to enjoy the coversation. Changing the plot in this way is bad because the new generations don't read so much as previous and probably tha chance watching the movie is higher than of reading it. ... Having the worng impression is not the best way to learn our kids.teens and more goreing up what kind of literature to read and what kind of impression to have on it.  Do you agree with me?



Brian Rush said:


> Got to go by the title of the thread exactly, so this isn't asking for books you loved that the movie version departed from so widely that you kept going "wait a minute." Good books made into BAD movies, right? That you would have hated even if you'd never read the book, but the fact that you HAD read the book meant you watched the stupid movie when otherwise you'd never have gone near it.
> 
> Top contender for me: _Dune_. The book is a classic of SF. The movie sucked horribly. Sting as Feyd-Rautha spent half his on-screen time posing like a primadonna, and the totally forgettable portrayal of Paul was, well, totally forgettable, and that travesty of filmmaking that turned the Sardaukar into semi-robots instead of hardened fierce warriors -- pathetic.


 I watche d the movie and it is a very nice one! But you should mention that I haven't read the book so my opinion is not so objective in this case. You can not loose of watching it! You gonna have so much fun 



Daniel McHugh said:


> Raychensmith: Dino nuts=spot on. "Touch their love like a tangible object" also = spot on. The author had passion for the lives of the people she revealed to us. The screenwriters were looking to make a buck. Thank goodness they failed miserably.
> 
> I agree with you in terms of the actual science fiction/magical aspect of this novel. It was written as a sort of anti-magic or curse. Niffenegger took time travel and transformed it into the plight of the werewolf. I find it interesting that many of our favorite superheroes share similar abilities to our most tragic horror icons. Turning into a raging beast. Transforming into an alternate persona capable of feats of strength. Beings who virtually cannot be killed. Abilities of flight etc. The Invisible Man is one such example. The concept dances upon the fence of horror/hero. Additionally, The Invisible Man is the rare example of this flawed ability in science fiction.
> 
> Niffennegger mirrors this in The Time Traveler's Wife. The unpredictability of the event (and its debilitating effects on his health) transform this book from true science fiction to tragic horror story. Additionally, the unpredictability of his travels added a certain tension throughout the story that is hard to duplicate. A buzz of uncertainty. Combine that with a beautifully conceived love story and you have a tremendous work of fiction.


 I'm agree about this movie. It is a classic one and it reveals to us the very fragile and gentle relationship between the characters. After all I think we can enjoy both the novel and the movie. If I have to do it I would choose first the novel. Don't like to interrupt my imagination with impression of the movie. After that I can watch everything. After all I have my intimate personal opinion after reading the book. 



Daniel McHugh said:


> Raychensmith: Dino nuts=spot on. "Touch their love like a tangible object" also = spot on. The author had passion for the lives of the people she revealed to us. The screenwriters were looking to make a buck. Thank goodness they failed miserably.
> 
> I agree with you in terms of the actual science fiction/magical aspect of this novel. It was written as a sort of anti-magic or curse. Niffenegger took time travel and transformed it into the plight of the werewolf. I find it interesting that many of our favorite superheroes share similar abilities to our most tragic horror icons. Turning into a raging beast. Transforming into an alternate persona capable of feats of strength. Beings who virtually cannot be killed. Abilities of flight etc. The Invisible Man is one such example. The concept dances upon the fence of horror/hero. Additionally, The Invisible Man is the rare example of this flawed ability in science fiction.
> 
> Niffennegger mirrors this in The Time Traveler's Wife. The unpredictability of the event (and its debilitating effects on his health) transform this book from true science fiction to tragic horror story. Additionally, the unpredictability of his travels added a certain tension throughout the story that is hard to duplicate. A buzz of uncertainty. Combine that with a beautifully conceived love story and you have a tremendous work of fiction.


 I'm agree about this movie. It is a classic one and it reveals to us the very fragile and gentle relationship between the characters. After all I think we can enjoy both the novel and the movie. If I have to do it I would choose first the novel. Don't like to interrupt my imagination with impression of the movie. After that I can watch everything. After all I have my intimate personal opinion after reading the book.


----------



## Jarrah Loh (Oct 8, 2012)

The Running Man by Steven King or Richard Bachman, or whatever the pen name was.

Great book. Pretty bad 80s Arnie film.


----------



## Aaron Scott (May 27, 2012)

Neither version of _All the King's Men_ really does it for me. The original had too much emphasis on Willie Stark, the other one just didn't quite hit the mark though it at least explored more of Jack Burden's life.


----------



## rm663 (Mar 4, 2010)

For me it's "Dune"



Dave


----------



## Gayle Miller (Sep 22, 2012)

A book I love but hate reading because it's so vile is Trainspotting. The movie version is just awful and comes across as being based on an entirely different book because of the humour.


----------



## RayHartley (Sep 14, 2012)

Although I didn't "hate" the movie... the film adaptation of S.E. Hinton's _The Outsiders_ felt so lacking compared to the experience I had reading it, and that was a major disappointment.

Those Narnia movies were abysmal though...


----------



## jatkin (Sep 9, 2012)

> The Golden Compass. OMG. I love the book, but....


Agreed. There's a reason it's a trilogy, but they only ever made the first movie. It made me so sad.


----------



## bjscript (Oct 26, 2011)

A film of The Tin Drum wasn't bad, but it was more like chapters 2-10 of a book that had many more chapters and characters.

Bill


----------



## bjscript (Oct 26, 2011)

Those Narnia movies were abysmal though...>>>

I thought Santa Clause with a sleigh loaded with weapons was a hoot.

Bill


----------



## Jenni Norris (Oct 10, 2012)

The Horse Whisperer. It was a great book but they wrecked the movie - changed the ending completely. SO annoying!

Also, Time Traveller's Wife. There was something wrong about the movie - almost unwatchable.


----------



## johnforrester (Jun 11, 2012)

I'd have to say The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.  As it goes the film is a very close adaptation to the book but it was the changing of the ending that annoyed me and which ultimately undermined the film for me.  I can't imagine it would have made much more hassle to the film to add in the proper ending.


----------



## Raquel Lyon (Mar 3, 2012)

Audrey Finch said:


> i can't think of a single instance of where the movie even came close. Too many to mention, but
> I adore His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman - the movie of the first part of the trilogy - Northern Lights was dreadful! And they changed the ending, presumably to soften it for the kid's market. Aaarrggh!!


^^^^^
This! Northern Lights was a fabulous book. The Golden Compass failed miserably.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

My experience about novels and movies is what I called "the first love syndrome" - whichever you experience first is what you love.  Lord of the Rings is the classic example.  I don't know anyone who read the book first who loved the movies more.  But people who saw the movies first and loved them say the books are too wordy.


----------



## Seth Mueller (Oct 24, 2012)

gaylethehaggis said:


> A book I love but hate reading because it's so vile is Trainspotting. The movie version is just awful and comes across as being based on an entirely different book because of the humour.


I've tried reading _Trainspotting_. I've tried reading _Porno_. I can't do it. The way Welsh writes dialogue makes me want to pick axe my own thigh.

I would say _Running with Scissors_. Entertaining book--fabricated or not--and a blah movie.


----------



## cekilgore (Oct 31, 2012)

Queen of the Damned - I actually walked out of the theatre 20 minutes in.
A Handmaid's tale - the movie wasn't horrible, but it could have been so much better given the brilliant material provided by atwood. 
A Princess of Mars aka John Carter (*shakesfist at Disney*)


----------



## SteveScaffardi (Sep 6, 2011)

The Lovely Bones! I remember thinking that is two hours of my life I'll never get back. Just awful.

I also read Papillon and then watched the film, and was so disappointed. I know the film has gone down as a bit of a classic, but after reading the book, they missed sooooo much out that you just think what is the point! The book is such a great story.

On another note, I had no idea The Running Man was based on a book! I am not ashamed to admit that I bloody loved that film. Is the book good then? Might have to check that out.


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

SteveScaffardi said:


> On another note, I had no idea The Running Man was based on a book! I am not ashamed to admit that I bloody loved that film. Is the book good then? Might have to check that out.


Book: loved.

Film: hated


----------



## Cliff Ball (Apr 10, 2010)

Off the top of my head....

The Postman - I like the movie, but it definitely isn't like the book.

Contact by Carl Sagan - I enjoyed the novel, but it took me 4 or 5 times of watching the movie before I liked it.

I, Robot - NOTHING like the book.

Eragon


----------



## timskorn (Nov 7, 2012)

I haven't had much experience with books to film adaptations, and the ones I have are actually the opposite of what this post is about.

Wasn't a big fan of Philip K. Dick's Blade Runner, but loved the film.  The Road was done very well as a film, but the book is far better simply because of McCarthy's prose.  I heard they are trying to adapt one of my all-time favorite book's by McCarthy, Blood Meridian, but I can't imagine the film could even come close to the book.

I loved 1984 the book, but the movie fell short in capturing the essence of the story.  The book changed the way I viewed the world, the movie was just a movie.


----------



## RigelsShaper (Nov 3, 2012)

Well, The Neverending Story II was based on the second half of the original Michael Ende novel, and I'd have to say the movie was a big disappointment compared to the book. The first one was great, though.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

Absolutely hated The Outsiders movie version. S. E. Hinton’s novel was about greaser rebels who listened to Elvis and rumbled to the throb of rock and roll, and what did the movie soundtrack contain? Strings! I love classical music, but it didn’t belong in this movie. Total schmaltz, especially the scene where Ponyboy has a vision of Johnny after his death saying he needed to rescue those kids, and that’s what it’s all about. Actually, Johnny just reacted instinctively without even thinking in saving them because he always did the right thing; he wasn’t looking for heroism or glory. The inclusion of this scene made it seem as if the director wanted to jerk on the tearstrings of the audience. 

As bad as this was, the Tim Burton version of Alice in Wonderland was worse. Injecting adult humor and sexual innuendo into a children’s story was the lowest I’ve ever seen a movie version of a book sink to.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep? by Philip K. Dick was a great book, but the movie version had one of the all time cheesy Hollywood endings.  Some people might love it, but all I remember from opening night is the bad taste of cheese in my mouth.


----------



## 65404 (Nov 28, 2012)

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but Eragon. I read the book in just a week which is something rare for me but I loved it. I was so looking forward to the movie and when I watched it I wanted to punch the Producers it was so bad... so... bad.


----------



## jaimee83 (Sep 2, 2009)

The World according to Garp, Prince of Tides & Bonfire of the Vanities come to mind.  Loved the books, the movie sucked.


----------



## Carrie Rubin (Nov 19, 2012)

I love the book "Memoirs of a Geisha," but I wasn't as impressed with the movie. It wasn't a bad movie; it's just I suppose I had something else in my mind. We create our own images when we read, and when a movie presents something different from what we've conjured and loved, it can be a bit jarring.


----------



## mistyd107 (May 22, 2009)

Low Kay Hwa said:


> _My Sister's Keeper._
> 
> The ending is changed!!
> 
> Friends who did not read the book like the movie, though.


have to TOTALLY agree with this NEVER has a movie adaptation ticked me off as much. Changing the end totalled messed with the whole freakin point of the book


----------



## Dani Collins (Jan 14, 2012)

I can only think of movies I love: 

P&P (the BBC series - wait, I actually hate the Keira Knightly version so there, I've got one.  And I've only seen it once so I shouldn't be too harsh, plus I'm comparing it to the miniseries which I've watched about a hundred times, not the book--which I've read about thirty times.)

I understand About A Boy was better as a book, but I tend to only read romance and they're rarely adapted. Maybe things will change now that Hollywood is realizing women can be just as dedicated to their Bellas and Katnisses as men are bonded to their Bonds.


----------



## gljones (Nov 6, 2012)

rm663 said:


> For me it's "Dune"
> 
> 
> 
> Dave


I second that! I would put Dune up there with some of the greatest books ever written regardless of Genre. When I saw the movie I was absolutely stunned at how bad it was. I can still remember sitting in the theater as the audience actually started laughing at some of the hideously bad scenes with the characters whispering to each other.


----------



## neaughea (Dec 15, 2012)

twilight...ugh. Hunger Games..again ugh. The Twilight movies totally ruined the books for me and the Hunger Games was just a disappointment.


----------



## Kristine McKinley (Aug 26, 2012)

I actually liked The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that Disney put out, so I was excited about Prince Caspian since it was possibly my favorite in the series but I ended up walking out of that movie I hated it so much. 
I didn't like the first 4 Harry Potter movies at all, in fact I actually fell asleep in the theater when we saw Harry Potter 4
I liked the books Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code code but I knew they should never be made into movies, there was too much that you couldn't convey with dialog, it had to be read.
I could sit here and list so many movies but I won't, most of the time if it's an adaption of a book I've read and loved I have to go into it and really separate the two. If I can set the book aside and how much I loved it I can normally give the movie a chance and sometimes I end up liking them because they're able to say something that couldn't be said in the book.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

K. A. Jordan said:


> Sorta in this vein - Andre Norton's 'Beast Master' was made into a series.
> 
> EWWWW YUCK!!!


Boy, do I remember that. Worst EVER!


----------



## MartinStanley72 (May 17, 2011)

Ah, the list is almost endless but I'll just quote a few of my personal hates: Dune, Christine, Payback, I Am Legend, Red Dragon (Manhunter was far better), Bonfire of the Vanities, The Running Man (brilliant book - horrible film), The Black Dahlia. 

Duffers one and all.


----------

