# Books That became Movies that you Hated {or vice versa}



## patrisha w. (Oct 28, 2008)

So, what books became movies that disappointed you? I ask this not only because of the books-to-movie favorites question because I have just read _The Other Boleyn Girl_ by Philippa Gregory with interest and then watched the movie...

Oh, dear, oh, dear!
A dreadfully disappointing movie!
I was really bothered by the device of having Anne and Mary look at the camera and talk to the audience...

But, the costumes were nice!
patrisha


----------



## Reyn (Feb 10, 2009)

Twilight.  I loved the books, just not the movie.  I think it was because I had already read all 4 books and it seemed kind of short.  I felt like it was missing something.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I suppose we could all generate lists of such movies that entirely failed to live up to our hopes for books we liked or loved. But the one that immediately jumps to my mind is _The Bridge on the River Kwai_. The movie is actually quite good overall and in the spirit of the book, but then it "cops out" at the climactic scene and, at least for me, was so jarringly different from how things played out in the book that it ruined what otherwise would have been a fine movie.

On the flip side, I enjoyed the movie version of Neil Gaiman's _Stardust_ more than I did the book. In fact, I never actually finished the book even after getting more than halfway through it, as it just never really grabbed my interest. The film, on the other hand, was able to entertain me, perhaps in this rare case actually benefiting from the need to condense the book down to the essential elements that could be squeezed into its time slot.

Then there is the strange case of the James Bond movies. In general, each movie normally shares little with the novel of the same title other than perhaps a few characters' names and maybe a location or two. Perhaps because the movies deviate so radically from the books, I find I can enjoy both (though it's been a long time since I read any of the novels).


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

I didn't enjoy the Harry Potter movies, but I loved the books. I saw the first two movies but that's it.

L


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

patrisha #150 said:


> So, what books became movies that disappointed you? I ask this not only because of the books-to-movie favorites question because I have just read _The Other Boleyn Girl_ by Philippa Gregory with interest and then watched the movie...
> 
> Oh, dear, oh, dear!
> A dreadfully disappointing movie!
> ...


I was so shocked at what they did to that movie, that when some women behind me had questions about the ending, I couldn't get the words out to set them straight.

Particularly shocking to me was the scene where Catherine goaded Henry into forcing Anne. Catherine was long gone from Court by then, and Henry never forced Anne. If I remember correctly, they were in Calais at the time.

There is no way Henry would have allowed the Boleyns to have any access to Elizabeth. In fact, she was raised at Hatfield, far away from the disgraced Boleyns.

Sorry for the rant. Yes, the costumes were very nice.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Other Boleyn Girl, Philippa Gregory, definitely! Liked the book, because I don't mind some liberties in historical fiction. The movie was even less accurate, but much less entertaining. It was the type of movie that made me wonder when cast and crew realized that they were involved with a steaming pile of poo. They HAD to have known. I told my husband to give it away, just get it out of my sight. A few days later I saw it sitting on a table and asked him again to stick a FREE post-it on it and take it to work. He said I should give it to my friend, and I told him that I'd already told her all about it, and that I couldn't do that to a friend.

Anyone who is not a Tudor Geek, or who had not read the novel, would have to be confused over why Stafford was proposing to Mary when she supposedly was still married. What A Mess!

Love Dean Koontz's Watchers -- movie makes me want to gouge out my eyes.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. Yeah, book was still better.

Want to come up with one where movie was better.

OH!! Love S. King, but Shawshank Redemption is a better movie than it is a novella and I'd say much the same for Green Mile, only minus the word _novella_ and using _serial book experiment thingy_ instead.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

MichelleR said:


> Want to come up with one where movie was better.
> 
> OH!! Love S. King, but Shawshank Redemption is a better movie than it is a novella and I'd say much the same for Green Mile, only minus the work novella and using serial book experiment thingy.


Except for the serialization thing (which I was warned about ahead of time), I like The Green Mile better as a book. Tom Hanks just didn't fit my idea of what's-his-name.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

The movie adaptations of Robert Ludlum's Bourne novels were more appealing to me but I'm not sure why. It may be only that I prefer the cold, efficient Jason Bourne character to the kinder, gentler David Webb.

After seeing the film adaptation of _The Other Boleyn Girl_, I passed on reading the book. Maybe I'll rethink that, although I'm generally intolerant of historical inaccuracies.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Except for the serialization thing (which I was warned about ahead of time), I like The Green Mile better as a book. Tom Hanks just didn't fit my idea of what's-his-name.


I understand that, can see that.

I think it was an emotionally richer work than the King thing, and that's why I preferred it.

I was on the Amazon boards yesterday, and I was discussing the differences between Koontz and King, and why it amazes me how people keep comparing them. Yes, yes, I know I'm comparing them, but let's ignore that bit of hypocrisy, shall we?

King is, by all accounts, a stand-up sort of guy. He had his substance abuse issues, but he's still married to his high school sweetheart and they raised some solid citizens. I can't stress enough that I know he's a nice dude, but his characters rarely touch me, because he seems to keep a distance from them and make them morally ambiguous. There are exceptions -- the part in Cujo about him being a good dog who was confused at why he was doing bad things, I could tear up just thinking about it -- Delores Claiborne, Rose Madder, the woman in The Gingerbread Girl, Danny in The Shining...

But all too often his stories miss the emotional mark for me until they become movies and the visuals bring it home. That's why Shawshank and Green Mile make me cry in a way they original stories didn't. He's also not afraid to kill some people!

Speaking of The Shining -- I did so, too, scroll up -- he once said that Danny would probably grow up to be a drunk who beats his kids, and that says a lot about the tone of his stories.

Koontz, on the other hand, is all emotional, all Root For The Good Guys! His endings are usually against-all-odds happy, and when he goes a different way


Spoiler



Stormy LLewellen


 it leaves me gob-smacked.

These two men are very different writers, who see the world in very different ways. I think King brings the brains and Koontz brings the heart.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Jeff said:


> After seeing the film adaptation of _The Other Boleyn Girl_, I passed on reading the book. Maybe I'll rethink that, although I'm generally intolerant of historical inaccuracies.


Phillipa Gregory's second best book. The best for me is _The Boleyn Inheritance_ where she covers Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard and Jane Rochford.

I wouldn't say that Gregory is inaccurate. She pretty much sticks to the known facts. What she does is take the gaps in the record and creates her own plausible theories, most notably in _The Constant Princess_.


Spoiler



Like you did when you placed Marina with Coronado.


 _The Other Boleyn Girl_ is a good book which was trashed into a lousy movie. And we know that the costumes would have no appeal for you.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

MichelleR said:


> Anyone who is not a Tudor Geek, or who had not read the novel, would have to be confused over why Stafford was proposing to Mary when she supposedly was still married. What A Mess!


Oh, yes, I forgot about that little gaffe. But then, I'm trying to forget I wasted $20 on going to see the movie. Although the hot dogs were good.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Jeff said:


> After seeing the film adaptation of _The Other Boleyn Girl_, I passed on reading the book. Maybe I'll rethink that, although I'm generally intolerant of historical inaccuracies.


Everybody will interpret it their own way, I suppose, but the book resonates more as a piece of fiction than history. The book makes Mary more innocent than she probably was and embraces one of the more controversial allegations against Anne Boleyn as if they were fact -- as she did in Constant Princess in regards to Catherine of Aragon -- but it was still a good read. If the history is a little distorted, the depth of emotion and character development come to the rescue. The relationship between the three siblings was a lot of conjecture, but the result was fleshed out characters.

The movie was ridiculously inaccurate, left out crucial details, and made the second half of events barely more detailed out than a montage scene from an eighties dance movie. As nuts as Henry was, he was not as bi-polar guy off his meds as the movie would suggest. He turned on Anne in record time, that's true enough, but not as depicted in the movie, and the drama of that story is always -- at least for me -- in Anne not realizing just how bad things were until the wheel was well in motion. The rape would have kinda given the game away. 

Anyhow, I can't guarantee you'll like the book, but it's worlds better than the movie.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

MichelleR said:


> The book makes Mary more innocent than she probably was and embraces one of the more controversial allegations against Anne Boleyn as if they were fact --


I know which part you are talking about. Anne was much too smart to fall into that trap. Anyone that could keep Henry dangling for seven years, has got to be pretty clever and inventive.


Spoiler



Even though Anne was desperate for a son, she couldn't risk giving birth to one that looked like a miniature Smeaton. A son that looked like a Boleyn was plausible, and that's something that she _might _have thought of. But no, I don't think she did it. That whole story is, I think, a product of Jane Rochford's spite, including the "monster" baby.


----------



## JimJ (Mar 3, 2009)

Leslie said:


> I didn't enjoy the Harry Potter movies, but I loved the books. I saw the first two movies but that's it.
> 
> L


The first two movies are the worst IMO. You should keep going, they get MUCH better starting with the third.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> And we know that the costumes would have no appeal for you.


You're confusing literary description of fabrics and fashion with actually seeing women wearing them.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

A picture is worth 10,000 words...


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

JimJ said:


> The first two movies are the worst IMO. You should keep going, they get MUCH better starting with the third.


The third movie was too artsy for me. All that clock symbolism. The fourth was very good, partly because there was a lot of action in the book. My big objection to the fifth movie was the wizards' duel in The Atrium. I just don't like Michael Gambon and he really let me down in that scene. I'm afraid the end of the sixth movie is going to leave me cold because of him.

But, what the heck, it's the Potterverse, so I'll love it anyway.



Jeff said:


> You're confusing literary description of fabrics and fashion with actually seeing women wearing them.


Or half wearing them. At least post something from the movie with a little something for the gals.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Or half wearing them. At least post something from the movie with a little something for the gals.


Yeah right. How many times has a thread been hijacked by a picture of the hunk of the month?


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Jeff is right -- the eye candy ratio is heavily slanted.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

MichelleR said:


> Jeff is right -- the eye candy ratio is heavily slanted.


Thank you, Michelle.

And Gertie, I could have posted this but didn't in deference to all you ladies:


----------



## Forster (Mar 9, 2009)

Oh my, I think I found some material for another kindle screen saver.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Jeff said:


> And Gertie, I could have posted this but didn't in deference to all you ladies:


Thanks for not posting that one, Jeff. Your restraint is to be commended.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

Green and gold, what team is that? The Philadelphia Eagles?

L


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Leslie said:


> Green and gold, what team is that? The Philadelphia Eagles?


There's green and gold in that picture?


----------



## Mollyb52 (Jan 4, 2009)

Great book, horrible movie.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Did you like the miniseries?


----------



## Silver (Dec 30, 2008)

Totally agree on "The Shining". Fab book turned into a piece of drek. How about "Watchers". One of my all-time fav books becoming a movie about... a boy and his dog?


----------



## CegAbq (Mar 17, 2009)

For me - I loved Hardy's Tess of the D'Urbervilles. I made the mistake of re-reading it just before going to see the movie- movie was very disaapointing.

Yes


NO:


----------



## CegAbq (Mar 17, 2009)

And because I loved this so much:


I refused to even see this (even tho' I love Meryl Streep):


----------



## jesspark (Jan 12, 2009)

Relic, by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child. Paramount made it into a movie, slapped a "the" in front of the title, completely cut some of the main characters from the story and killed off others that didn't die in the book, massively changed the "Museum Beast," and just generally ruined the whole thing. Oo, I get mad just thinking about it! Relic is one of my favorite thrillers, and it would've made an amazing movie it'd been done right. It was not done right.

Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park went through countless changes in its journey from the page to the silver screen, but, after my initial outrage (hey, I was ten when the movie came out; I had unrealistic expectations of book-to-movie faithfulness), I found that I could appreciate the film as an entity entirely separate from the book. Not so with Relic and _The Relic_. It's only been, like, twelve years, but I'd love to see _The Relic_ remade... especially considering that, by LEAVING OUT PENDERGAST, Paramount has wrecked its chances of adapting future Preston/Child novels. Then again, given their treatment of Relic, that's probably a good thing.

...Sorry. Got a little carried away, there.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

MichelleR said:


> Jeff is right -- the eye candy ratio is heavily slanted.


Have to agree with this.

In fact, I'm starting a new thread on this topic, lest I end up hijacking this one.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. It's the only HP movie I don't like (granted, I don't like Michael Gambon in any of the ones he's in, but that's a whole different story) It's my favorite book in the series, and I made the mistake of reading the book right before going to see the movie. There were so many changes, additions, omissions, I was severely disappointed.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

luvmy4brats said:


> Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. It's the only HP movie I don't like (granted, I don't like Michael Gambon in any of the ones he's in, but that's a whole different story) It's my favorite book in the series, and I made the mistake of reading the book right before going to see the movie. There were so many changes, additions, omissions, I was severely disappointed.


I learned my lesson after Prisoner of Azkaban. I probably wouldn't have liked it anyway, but reading the book just before seeing the movie made it worse.

Heather, we agree about Gambon. One of us will have to start a Half-Blood Prince thread after July 11. I'm almost afraid to see the movie, but I'll be there at the first showing on the first day. I know you'll be there for the midnight showing, but I can't make it until the daytime.


----------



## KindleKay (aka #1652) (Jan 20, 2009)

OK, while there are hundreds of movies based on books that I hated, only one comes to mind where I hated the BOOK but ADORE the movie:

*Bridget Jones' Diary*

I, literally, have watched that movie about 200 times and could quote it to you. The actors were good, the soundtrack is pheominal and the romance factor is hot, in my opinion....  There is something about it that just connects with me. So I read the book with my past experience that books are always better than the movie, right? WRONG! Oh, my gosh, the book was bloody AWFUL! I did finish it but I still don't know why.....


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> I learned my lesson after Prisoner of Azkaban. I probably wouldn't have liked it anyway, but reading the book just before seeing the movie made it worse.
> 
> Heather, we agree about Gambon. One of us will have to start a Half-Blood Prince thread after July 11. * I'm almost afraid to see the movie*, but I'll be there at the first showing on the first day. I know you'll be there for the midnight showing, but I can't make it until the daytime.


 Just go in not expecting much. I refuse to let myself get worked up/excited about the movies anymore. I'm less disappointed that way.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

luvmy4brats said:


> Just go in not expecting much. I refuse to let myself get worked up/excited about the movies anymore. I'm less disappointed that way.


Good advice. I try to watch them as something separate from the books. I'm glad that they decided to split DH into two movies. It might make a difference.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Silver said:


> Totally agree on "The Shining". Fab book turned into a piece of drek. How about "Watchers". One of my all-time fav books becoming a movie about... a boy and his dog?


What? You didn't like the part where the love interest in the book became the de-aged hero's mother in the movie?

Someone needed time on a therapist's couch.


----------



## Neekeebee (Jan 10, 2009)

One of my favorite books. Terrible movie. (And I really _like_ Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman!)

N


----------



## Forster (Mar 9, 2009)

I actually enjoyed the book quite a bit, the movie however, horrible.


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

jesspark said:


> Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park went through countless changes in its journey from the page to the silver screen, but, after my initial outrage (hey, I was ten when the movie came out; I had unrealistic expectations of book-to-movie faithfulness), I found that I could appreciate the film as an entity entirely separate from the book.


Unlike _Lost World_, too. And I guess they just pulled III out of.....


----------



## Andasibe (Dec 28, 2008)

Ohh.. Memoirs of a Geisha was so disappointing as a movie.  I put off family Christmas Eve to see it, and regret it still.  THAT is a book that did not translate well.  One of my all-time favorite books.


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

KindleKay (aka #1652) said:


> OK, while there are hundreds of movies based on books that I hated, only one comes to mind where I hated the BOOK but ADORE the movie:
> 
> *Bridget Jones' Diary*
> 
> I, literally, have watched that movie about 200 times and could quote it to you. The actors were good, the soundtrack is pheominal and the romance factor is hot, in my opinion....  There is something about it that just connects with me. So I read the book with my past experience that books are always better than the movie, right? WRONG! Oh, my gosh, the book was bloody AWFUL! I did finish it but I still don't know why.....


I love Bridget Jones' Diary too, and I think I've seen it almost that many times, but I've never read the book and don't plan to.

For me, one of the worst movies was Frank Herbert's Dune. I read the whole series between college semesters one year, then had a chance to see the movie when it first came out. I couldn't believe what they'd done to the ending in what was supposed to have been an adaptation of the first book.


----------



## jesspark (Jan 12, 2009)

marianner said:


> Unlike _Lost World_, too. And I guess they just pulled III out of.....


What? You mean they made than one _Jurassic Park_?  I prefer to pretend they didn't.

(Similarly, in my world, there are only _three_ Indiana Jones films, thankyouverymuch. I wouldn't even see the fourth.)


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

jesspark said:


> (Similarly, in my world, there are only _three_ Indiana Jones films, thankyouverymuch. I wouldn't even see the fourth.)


You missed out. It was pure Indy fun.


----------



## jesspark (Jan 12, 2009)

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> You missed out. It was pure Indy fun.


Nah... I'm happy in my own little world where the last movie ended with our heroes literally riding off into the sunset. In my Indiana Jones flicks, prairie dogs don't pop up out of the Paramount logo, no one nukes a fridge, and the monkeys aren't CG. 

(My husband saw it. He now wishes he'd had my restraint.)


----------



## crca56 (Dec 20, 2008)

all of them. i understand that you cannot put all the info that is in a book into a 2 hour or less movie, but if a book is good enough to turn into a movie, and you do not have time to include that material why do you have to include stuff that's not there to start with?  it reminds me of a sign in an old used book store that i went to    never judge a book by its' movie.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Inspired by this thread I've spent an entire day watching _The Winds of War_ for perhaps the tenth time. (One more disk to go.) I remember talking about it before but it really is so good that I hope you will forgive me if I mention it once again:

 Sadly, the book is no longer available for Kindle: 

Edit: I should have made it clear that this was a TV mini-series now on DVD. The sequel, _War and Remembrance_ is equally good. 
Edit 2: I should have also made it clear that this was visa versa and not a movie that I hated.


----------



## VictoriaP (Mar 1, 2009)

luvmy4brats said:


> Just go in not expecting much. I refuse to let myself get worked up/excited about the movies anymore. I'm less disappointed that way.


Or don't go at all. Harry Potter 1 & 2 were bad enough, but at least they vaguely resembled the books (compressed for time, of course). Three was so bad I literally walked out of the theater & threw up....OK, the migraine I got from it had something to do with that. Still one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

And Rowling's excuse against ebooks is that it takes away from the feel of the stories themselves? Frankly, she needs to take her head out of her a** & realize that she did far more of a "disservice" to her precious books by allowing such crappy films to be made from them.



jesspark said:


> What? You mean they made than one _Jurassic Park_?  I prefer to pretend they didn't.
> 
> (Similarly, in my world, there are only _three_ Indiana Jones films, thankyouverymuch. I wouldn't even see the fourth.)


LOL--I'm even worse, there's only ONE Indy movie in my universe, and it's the third one. Mmmm....Sean Connery.



crca56 said:


> all of them. i understand that you cannot put all the info that is in a book into a 2 hour or less movie, but if a book is good enough to turn into a movie, and you do not have time to include that material why do you have to include stuff that's not there to start with? it reminds me of a sign in an old used book store that i went to never judge a book by its' movie.


Bingo. I don't think I've ever seen a movie I've liked based on a book I've already read. Books have so much more depth to them.

And my personal least favorite--The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The book is fabulous, the movie is horrid. I have to wonder though if it would have been better or worse if Adams had survived to have more of a hand in it. I still haven't been able to watch the whole thing, I'm so irritated by it.


----------



## RangerXenos (Mar 18, 2009)

I was also disappointed with 'Memoirs of a Geisha' as a film, and I loved the book.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

VictoriaP said:


> ...And my personal least favorite--The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The book is fabulous, the movie is horrid. I have to wonder though if it would have been better or worse if Adams had survived to have more of a hand in it. I still haven't been able to watch the whole thing, I'm so irritated by it.


The low-budget BBC mini-series was much more enjoyable to me.


----------



## Rhiathame (Mar 12, 2009)

The first book made into horrible movie that crossed my mind was Sum of All Fears. It bore so little resemblance to the book that they really should have just given the movie a different name. I understand that there were all kinds of rights issues related to it but...ugh!


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I have to stop reading these boards at work!


----------



## danfan (Apr 17, 2009)

Most books to movie are a disappointment to me - too much left out or changed.

The only King ones I've liked were those from novellas and short stories, as the 2 hours was usually enough to get everything in, although a few longer ones are good too (Misery, Delores Claiborne, Green Mile). Shorter ones like The Mist, Shawshank, Carrie etc are very good.
The Shining was appalling, IMO. I fell asleep I was so bored. Jack Nicholson was just OTT stupid.

HP movies have been alright but I hated the last one, except the scene near the end where


Spoiler



Voldemort possesses Harry


. The worst was the complete de-characterization of Ron & Hermione. I hoping the next one isn't torture to sit through.

As for historical dramas, I'm not much good at remembering historical events so I wouldn't know in books or films which is accurate. I always assume that Hollywood takes a lot of liberties & isn't too concerned with accuracy.


----------



## RangerXenos (Mar 18, 2009)

NogDog said:


> The low-budget BBC mini-series was much more enjoyable to me.


I had forgotten about the 'Hitchiker's' movie, I agree, it was pretty bad. The BBC mini-series was fun. The NPR radio series was excellent.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Debra Purdy Kong said:


> I love Bridget Jones' Diary too, and I think I've seen it almost that many times, but I've never read the book and don't plan to.
> 
> For me, one of the worst movies was Frank Herbert's Dune. I read the whole series between college semesters one year, then had a chance to see the movie when it first came out. I couldn't believe what they'd done to the ending in what was supposed to have been an adaptation of the first book.


You should check out the SciFi Channel mini-series. It was actually pretty good!


----------



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

NogDog said:


> The low-budget BBC mini-series was much more enjoyable to me.


Agreed.

One of the more horrible adaptations of a book to movie has got to be _The Keep_, an incomprehensible movie made from an F. Paul Wilson book that I enjoyed. Even having read the book (a while ago, to be sure), I wasn't sure quite what was going on.

Mike


----------



## TheAutomaton (May 20, 2009)

I posted this in some other thread, but I have one that goes the other way. I LOVE the movie Forrest Gump, so naturally I had to read the book. Stupidest book ever written. I'm glad that someone read that piece of trash and saw that there was actually a worthwhile story in there, just waiting to be re-written.
That is the only example I can think of where a movie so thoroughly outshone the book it was "based" on.


----------



## crca56 (Dec 20, 2008)

the postman  david brin


----------



## loriltx (Jul 17, 2009)

I've never seen a movie that could equal the book but the two that come to my mind right now without giving it too much though are Message in a Bottle (Nicholas Sparks) and My Sister's Keeper (Jodi Picoult).  I refuse to go see The Secret Life of Bees for fear they have changed it drastically.


----------



## Cuechick (Oct 28, 2008)

I have to disagree with a few other posters, I thought the movie version of _The Shinning_ was a huge improvement over the book. The end of the book was just silly and I loved the twist the film put on it. I also try to keep my expectations low and not compare too much between the two, if possible. I also remember hating _Practical Magic_ when it first came out, I had loved the book too which I had read not long before. Then I saw it again recently and liked it quite a bit. I think sometimes you just need separation to appreciate the movie versions. Though the Boylen movie is just flat out horrible, time will never help that one!


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

I saw _*A Beautiful Mind*_ before I read the book. Realized after I read the book that the movie was misleading and had made up things not in the book. Loved the book.


----------



## BrassMan (Dec 8, 2008)

Jeff said:


> The movie adaptations of Robert Ludlum's Bourne novels were more appealing to me but I'm not sure why. It may be only that I prefer the cold, efficient Jason Bourne character to the kinder, gentler David Webb.


It was the screenwriter, say I: Tony Gilroy. He improved the novels a lot. He also did _Michael Clayton_ and _Duplicity._

Book and movie equally good, in my opinion: _Out of Sight_.


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

Pretty good book:



Pretty bad movie:


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

Reyn said:


> Twilight. I loved the books, just not the movie. I think it was because I had already read all 4 books and it seemed kind of short. I felt like it was missing something.


I think it's cuz the lead actress can't act.


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

Mollyb52 said:


> Great book, horrible movie.


The movie is fantastic--just not as an adaptation of the book. Taken on its own merits, it's a great example of Stanley Kubrick's masterful film making. However if you examine it in the context of the book, the story COMPLETELY misses the point. The central crux of the book is totally missing. But as a standalone work, it ranks up there as one of my favorites.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

geko29 said:


> The movie is fantastic--just not as an adaptation of the book. Taken on its own merits, it's a great example of Stanley Kubrick's masterful film making. However if you examine it in the context of the book, the story COMPLETELY misses the point. The central crux of the book is totally missing. But as a standalone work, it ranks up there as one of my favorites.


I agree that the movie is another example of Kubrik's genius. Having not read the book (apparently I'm one of those rare people for whom Mr. King just doesn't do anything), I can't compare it...maybe that's a good thing in this case?


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

NogDog said:


> I agree that the movie is another example of Kubrik's genius. Having not read the book *(apparently I'm one of those rare people for whom Mr. King just doesn't do anything),* I can't compare it...maybe that's a good thing in this case?


I guess we are an n of 2. I don't like S. King either and here in Maine, that's almost sacrilegious!

L


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

You can put me in the "ambivalent" about King column.  I've tried reading one or two of his books when I was stuck at my brother's house with nothing to read (this was, obviously, pre-K ).  I couldn't get into the books and had no problem leaving them half read when I left.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> You can put me in the "ambivalent" about King column. I've tried reading one or two of his books when I was stuck at my brother's house with nothing to read (this was, obviously, pre-K ). I couldn't get into the books and had no problem leaving them half read when I left.





Leslie said:


> I guess we are an n of 2. I don't like S. King either and here in Maine, that's almost sacrilegious!
> 
> L


Well that makes me feel a little better, as I feel I'm in pretty good company with you two.  But then I've often marched to the beat of a different drummer (usually in 7/4 or 13/, so I'm sort of used to it.


----------



## akpak (Mar 5, 2009)

You might as well ask "What movies *didn't* foul up on translation from the book(s)?"

There are far more good book/bad movie than good book/good movie or (heaven forbid) bad book/good movie.

That said, Anne Rice's Exit to Eden was probably the worst offender I've ever seen. Wow.

Edit: Yes, I did mean Exit to Eden


----------



## Cuechick (Oct 28, 2008)

akjak said:


> You might as well ask "What movies *didn't* foul up on translation from the book(s)?"
> 
> There are far more good book/bad movie than good book/good movie or (heaven forbid) bad book/good movie.
> 
> That said, Anne Rice's East of Eden was probably the worst offender I've ever seen. Wow.


Don't you mean "Exit to Eden"?


----------



## joanne29 (Jun 30, 2009)

they made clan of the cave bear into a movie and the movie was horrible. I believe Jean Auel sued them over the horrific job they did in making her book into a screen play. The book however is my all time favorite


----------



## Addie (Jun 10, 2009)

The Count of Monte Cristo.
I loved the book, and I thought the film completely missed the point. Much too convenient, ending in that nice, gift-wrapped packaging. Very Disney, not Dumas.


----------



## jrector (May 24, 2009)

THE BEACH by Alex Garland was a fantastic book, but the DeCaprio movie was terrible.


----------



## Aravis60 (Feb 18, 2009)

The movie version of the book _Ella Enchanted_ by Gail Carson Levine was just awful. I sometimes use the book as a read-aloud with my students because I love the positive female heroine and the fairy tale connection, but the movie version was just bizarre. Pretty much the only thing that the book and the movie had in common was the characters' names and Ella's curse. And they even managed to make the curse more of a joke than anything else for most of the movie.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

NogDog said:


> Well that makes me feel a little better, as I feel I'm in pretty good company with you two.  But then I've often marched to the beat of a different drummer (usually in 7/4 or 13/, so I'm sort of used to it.


You have more company here... Read one and one-quarter of his books, decided that was enough, thanks. I'm sure he's an excellent writer; it's just that the subject matter didn't appeal.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

akjak said:


> That said, Anne Rice's Exit to Eden was probably the worst offender I've ever seen. Wow.


I'm so glad that I read a review that said there was very little left of the original book, which stopped me from going to see it. The idea of turning that into a campy comedy <shudder> -- what were they thinking??


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

AddieLove said:


> The Count of Monte Cristo.
> I loved the book, and I thought the film completely missed the point. Much too convenient, ending in that nice, gift-wrapped packaging. Very Disney, not Dumas.


Welllll.... IMO pretty much anything that gets Disneyfied suffers.... you could take the original stories of most Disney movies and add them to this list.


----------



## Keith Melton (Jul 22, 2009)

I was disappointed in the movie The Golden Compass. Philip Pullman's book was far better.

Also, Bram Stoker's Dracula by Coppola was a huge let down compared to my book-fueled imagination. He must have been off his game, because I have great respect for him. Yet, gliding, hair bun Dracula just makes me laugh...and the use of sets for exterior shots...WHY, Coppola? Why? Were you trying to control the lighting? Just shoot in Romania. It's a _beautiful _ country. <boggles>


----------

