SacredCow
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 04:26 PM
Original message |
What's the most disappointing movie based on a book you loved? |
|
I'll start with the movie adaptation of Stephen King's Apt Pupil...
|
theophilus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 04:28 PM
Response to Original message |
1. The recent Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy n/t |
mark414
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
8. bahhh the movie wasn't supposed to be a direct adaptation... |
|
and all the changes made were made by douglas adams himself...just like the radio show was different from the tv show was different from the book...
|
nuxvomica
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
19. A very disappointing version |
|
Edited on Sun Jul-09-06 07:58 PM by nuxvomica
The actors all seemed to be terminally uninterested in the material. There was no spark. I much preferred the British TV version with Zaphod Beebelbrox' rubber supernumerary head on the side.
|
theophilus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
44. My feelings exactly. The Brit T.V. version was serialized and could |
|
include so much. The books have a warmth about them that is impossible for me to describe and I'm not sure I even understand exactly why. Those who love the books just know what I mean. There were areas that could have been changed, like using ipods or cell phones instead of digital watches, etc. I don't like the decisions that were made. Mr. Adams wanted to see the project done, understandably. Anyway, as was said at the time....this is a nice version but certainly not the definitive one. Someone needs to serialize it again with today's "Battlestar" quality effects. Old Marvin and the original Zaphod's head concept need to be brought back, imo. It's all opinion, ain't it?
Life. You can loathe it. You can ignore it. But you can't like it.
|
Mayberry Machiavelli
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 04:28 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Dune, without a doubt. I actually liked Apt Pupil, I thought the film |
|
actually trimmed some of the excess out of King's story, but I like the story a great bit too.
I can't say I don't derive ANY enjoyment out of the perverse freakshow that is David Lynch's Dune, but compared to the book... sigh...
A college dorm mate used to recite long passages of dialogue between Baron Harkonnen and Piter, very loudly and with maniacal glee.
|
ikri
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
The directing is good and the acting is good but the story is terrible.
Why they wanted to butcher Dune is beyond me. There was no need to change it at all.
|
jpgray
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. I don't think the direction was particularly good |
|
The actors (and most were excellently cast) looked totally at sea with their dialogue for the most part.
|
baldguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
nosillies
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
72. Would you believe I watched this last night. |
|
It just really needed to be about four hours to be good, I think.
|
nuxvomica
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
20. I really liked that movie, except for the rushed ending |
|
I thought it was very stylish compared to most big effects movies and I got nearly the same powerful sense of wonder and intrigue as I did from the book. I also reduced my expectations knowing they couldn't fit everything from the book into one commercial movie, though the ending was out of line.
I also liked Apt Pupil, BTW.
|
smitty
(580 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 04:51 PM
Response to Original message |
3. "The Martian Chronicles" by Ray Bradbury |
|
It was a made for TV movie and it was awful.
|
LeftyMom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 04:52 PM
Response to Original message |
|
It wasn't a bad movie, but it lacked the heart of the book.
|
u4ic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 04:55 PM
Response to Original message |
6. I didn't love the book |
|
but the movie of Peter Strauss' Ghost Story was unbelievable cheesy...:rofl:
Swann by Carol Shields was another movie that could have been better (but had a wonderful cast).
|
ceile
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 04:55 PM
Response to Original message |
7. "queen of the damned" to start.... |
|
"interview" as well. Basically, any mystery/thriller I've read. Except for "The Birds" DeMaurie (sp)/Hitchcock. Rocked. So did "Constant Gardener".
|
Arkham House
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 06:50 PM
Response to Original message |
9. The Robert Mitchum "The Big Sleep"... |
|
...cripes--it takes place in *London*...
|
jobycom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. Didn't see that one. But it would be hard to beat the book or the Bogart |
jobycom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 06:54 PM
Response to Original message |
|
What they did to the ending should enter into their punishment phase on Judgement Day.
|
YankeyMCC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 06:56 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Well technically the only 'book' of that title is actually a collection of short stories it's clear the movie was an interpetation of "Caves of Steel" with aspects of the other stories thrown in.
If they hadn't tried to associate the movie with the Asimov robot stories I could simply say I mildly enjoyed the movie as a bit of holloywood fun but looked at as an interpetation of Asimov's robot stories it's pretty horrid.
|
reyd reid reed
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 06:56 PM
Response to Original message |
14. I couldn't even begin to list them... |
|
If I really love a book, I won't even try to see the film anymore. I've been disappointed far too many times...and even someone as hard-headed as I am can finally learn.
Just proves no one is unteachable.
|
mac56
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 06:57 PM
Response to Original message |
|
There's just no way to make an accurate film out of that book, and they sure didn't.
|
kwassa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-11-06 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
100. Agreed. The movie sucked big time by comparison. |
|
Arkin is not Yossarian, among many other problems.
|
BlueIris
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 07:24 PM
Response to Original message |
16. Smilla's Sense of Snow. |
|
Edited on Sun Jul-09-06 07:25 PM by BlueIris
One of the best modern novels ever--so much potential for the book to be adapted into an excellent film and...it was just plain mediocre. In fact, even calling it mediocre is being generous. AAAAUUUGGGHHH. I'm still so bitter about that.
|
flamingyouth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
|
Great book, bland film. Could have been soooo much better.
|
XemaSab
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 07:26 PM
Response to Original message |
|
"The Haunting."
Without a doubt.
|
Puglover
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #17 |
60. OMG....rent the 1st version |
|
with Julie Harris and Claire Bloom. Scared the shit outta me when I was a kid. It's still a great movie.
|
nuxvomica
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 08:13 PM
Response to Original message |
21. Worst case to me was "Fried Green Tomatoes" |
|
It's been a while since I read the book or saw the movie but I recall a fusion of two main characters into one that completely twisted the story. Plus the movie didn't have any recipes. :D
|
BlueIris
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #21 |
50. Yeah, that movie sucks. |
|
Which always grates on me as there was sooooo much potential there.
|
Rhiannon12866
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-11-06 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #50 |
104. I know. I loved the book and couldn't wait to see the movie. |
|
If they had just followed the book, they would have been okay, but they decided to fuse two of the main characters, which made no sense at all and completely changed everything...x(
|
Rhiannon12866
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-11-06 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #21 |
102. You missed my reply, LOL! That was my answer, too. |
|
Edited on Tue Jul-11-06 11:38 AM by Rhiannon12866
I just loved the book, but they mixed up the main character, Idgie, and the woman who was telling the story, Ninny. They were sisters-in-law and two separate and very different and important characters. I never understood why they did that, since it made no sense at all and ruined the movie for me...:-( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=5350857&mesg_id=5357860
|
leeroysphitz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 08:17 PM
Response to Original message |
22. Lord of the Rings, without the slightest doubt. |
|
I admit my expectations were pretty high but these films were garbage, one after another. I saw the first one at the theatre, rented "The Two Towers" but didn't finish it and downloaded Return of the King for FREE off of Usenet and did not get a quarter of the way through before deleting it...
If you are unable to "adapt" a masterwork of fiction, beloved the world over without HACKING IT INTO HOLLYWOOD GARBAGE then why must you do it?
But hey, that's just my opinion.
|
dubeskin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #22 |
54. It wasn't BAD, but it wasn't GOOD, n/t |
Phillycat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-11-06 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #22 |
95. I thought they were brilliant. |
|
And I loved the books so much I was sure I'd be disappointed by the movies.
|
CatholicEdHead
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 08:18 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Compared with the second book it was horrible. Fellowship of the Ring and Return of the King did follow their books somewhat.
|
ScreamingMeemie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 08:19 PM
Response to Original message |
25. I'm going to get slammed but I don't care...Kubrick's version of "The |
|
Shining". While scary, it took so many liberties and veered off from the book in so many stupid little ways that I become irritated. Stick with the story. It worked and was scary. And I am also one of the few who liked Stephen King's version. After all he wrote it. Although, when I first say it, the commercial interruptions wrecked some of the "scare factor". The DVD is horribly frightening. :hi:
|
miss_american_pie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
Mayberry Machiavelli
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
27. I agree. I just flat out liked the book much better. Jack's struggle is |
|
supposed to be an internal one, and you cast Jack Nicholson who plays it over the top from the word go.
|
Juffo Wup
(141 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
|
Nicholson played the character completely wrong. The topiary scene should have been included - that was the scariest scene in the book. I liked SF Channel version's better.
|
wildhorses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 08:23 PM
Response to Original message |
hippywife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 08:24 PM
Response to Original message |
|
The movie totally missed out on the depth of the book.
|
BlueIris
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #29 |
52. Plus, setting it in 1991 instead of 1972 just destroyed |
|
Edited on Mon Jul-10-06 02:53 AM by BlueIris
the parts of the story that are enjoyable as period epic, or rather, an epic that draws a lot of its interesting features from the tragicomic contrast between American society in '40s/'50s and that of the '60s/'70s in which Tom's character travels through his therapy. I love Nick Nolte's work in that, but--talk about making the focus too damn narrow.
|
hippywife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #52 |
|
was exactly my problem with it. The movie focused too much on the romance and not enough on the reasons that brought them to even meet. The incredibly deep and meaningful incidences of the past were brushed aside for the "romance." Plus I'm really not a Nolte fan.
|
Va Lefty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 08:41 PM
Response to Original message |
31. Most of King's stories don't translate to film very well |
|
Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me the notable exceptions. I loved The Stand but was very disappointed in the made-for-TV miniseries.
|
XemaSab
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #31 |
47. They changed Shawshank a LOT from the short story |
|
It was a fine film, mind you, but they changed the story a lot.
The bridge scene in "Stand By Me" was filmed in Shasta county, CA.
|
BlueIris
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-11-06 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #47 |
|
I could be losing my mind, but I didn't think the story was altered much at all. I noticed a few changes, but felt they were shrewdly made only for the purpose of making an excellent novella into an excellent screenplay. My copy of Different Seasons is packed away somewhere at the moment--what am I missing? I seriously don't remember "a lot" of alterations to King's work.
|
XemaSab
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-11-06 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #91 |
93. The major one I remember was changing Red's race |
|
I thought it was a really odd change that sort of changed the character.
|
qnr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 08:43 PM
Response to Original message |
32. The Far Pavilions n/t |
idgiehkt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 09:22 PM
Response to Original message |
33. Cold Mountain. And I haven't even seen it. |
|
But casting Nicole Kidman in that was a travesty. I felt like Ashely Judd was the only one that could pull it off convincingly. Nicole Kidman is a wuss, and Ava was a bad-ass. Plus the trailer made me scream...they plugged it like a war movie "they tried to take his town..." That was infuriating. That book is anti-war, and Inman is a deserter..about one of the battles, his character says "he might as well have put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger for all the good it did." ARGGGHH, grumble, kvetch. But anyway, one day I will see it just for Renee Zellweger's performance as Ruby and fast forward through the other stuff.
|
Patiod
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-11-06 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #33 |
99. And try to ignore that everyone has bleached teeth |
|
thoughout the entire war.
Yes, they wear some fetching smudges on their cheeks (to indicate that they're done hard work) but the teeth stay blindingly white. EVERYONE has blindingly white teeth. Did the makeup people never hear of the stuff that can be painted on to tone down the Hollywood Smile look?
Nicole Kidman put me off the movie as well. Too many pretty people in it (although Rene Zellweger was a darn good Ruby)
One of my all-time favoite books, and I wish I hadn't seen the movie now.
|
Tikki
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 10:17 PM
Response to Original message |
34. The Postman..........n/t |
Glorfindel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 10:22 PM
Response to Original message |
35. Disney's version of "The Jungle Book" |
|
The ultimate, horrible butchery of a beloved classic of my childhood. There's a special spot in hell waiting for everyone involved with this travesty.
|
TrogL
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 10:33 PM
Response to Original message |
36. Pretty much any "Biblical" movie |
|
Most are rampant heresy. The remainder are cloyish and boring.
|
begin_within
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 10:34 PM
Response to Original message |
37. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" |
|
The movie completely missed the viewpoint of the books narrator (Chief Broom) and his progress from paranoid schizophrenic at the beginning of the book to free and clear thinking individual at the end. The movie was like a comic-book version of the book, and Ken Kesey hated the movie.
|
SacredCow
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #37 |
|
I forgot about that one, but it didn't fit my original post because I saw the movie before I read the book. I thought the movie was decent until my junior year in high school, when I read the book and based my yearly project on it.
|
HiFructosePronSyrup
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
|
I was appalled at what they did with the movie.
|
Blue_Tires
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 10:37 PM
Response to Original message |
38. i'm still waiting for a proper adaptation of |
WindRavenX
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #38 |
Ron Green
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 10:41 PM
Response to Original message |
|
by William P. Blatty. I was so terrified reading that book that I was afraid to turn out the lights and go to sleep. When they made it into a movie, it was a pale shadow of the book, in my opinion. The characters were not well developed, and mere cinematic grossness took the place of the pure horror of Blatty's book.
|
tjdee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 11:01 PM
Response to Original message |
40. The SCARLET LETTER. How in the hell do you screw with Hawthorne? |
|
They changed the ending, made Robert Duvall some kind of weirdo....it was awful times 500. Really bad. Poor Nate H. would have been devestated.
I should have known it would be a disaster with Demi Moore as Hester Prynne... a shame. Gary Oldman was a perfect choice for Dimmesdale and did a great job as usual.
|
maveric
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 11:11 PM
Response to Original message |
|
A great read by Joseph Wambaugh about rowdy LAPD officer. The movie was one of the worst I've ever seen.
|
NMMNG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 11:19 PM
Response to Original message |
42. "Clan of the Cave Bear" |
|
Also Flowers in the Attic
|
liberaltrucker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 11:20 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Clark Gable and Vivian Leigh notwithstanding, the flick came nowhere doing justice to Ms Mitchell's outstanding narrative. MHO, of course.
|
bedazzled
(584 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-09-06 11:37 PM
Response to Original message |
45. the mists of avalon - they made it into a TV MOVIE |
|
and a soap opera to boot.
tragic, really, though angelica huston was a good casting choice (the only one, near as i could see...)
|
wickerwoman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 12:45 AM
Response to Original message |
|
all 900,000 film adaptations are horrible. It's like a cold-blooded slap in the face every 5 or 6 years.
The book has been popular for hundreds of years and it's not *that* hard to film. So why do they insist on going completely off the rails after page 50? And they always get great casts and then totally squander them.
|
Writer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 12:57 AM
Response to Original message |
48. One of the greatest myths in our culture... |
|
is that a book translates directly to film. They are two different media with two different dimensionalities. One cannot "copy" the other.
|
swag
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 01:17 AM
Original message |
"Lolita," "Myra Breckinridge" |
swag
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 01:17 AM
Response to Original message |
49. "Lolita," "Myra Breckinridge" |
RoyGBiv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 02:46 AM
Response to Original message |
|
The movie sucked wind.
I still occasionally have nightmares because of the book.
I also have nightmares about the movie, but they're the kind of nightmares I also have about Superman III.
|
spacelady
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #51 |
HiFructosePronSyrup
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #51 |
76. Did you see the full length movie? |
|
It was a two-part TV movie that's been deeply cut to two hours for the video. I don't even think they show the whole thing anymore.
The first two hours was done fairly well, actually. The second half went down hill fast, especially the climax.
I guess that's to be expected though. How are you going to film a pre-teen sex orgy?
|
RoyGBiv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #76 |
|
I saw it when it aired and had high -- too high -- expectations. I tried watching the video version and never made it through.
The "kids" part, basically the first part, wasn't horrible, and I did think Tim Curry made a good Pennywise. I was disappointed in all the adults, with the possible exception of Mike.
And, yeah, that part at the end wouldn't even have made it into a not-for-TV movie.
I read the book the first time my freshman year of college, over several days, mostly in the halls and siderooms and stairways of an old library that had been built in the early 20th century. There was a lot of nuance to the book that wasn't even attempted in the movie, and while I realize a book of that depth could never be made into a movie that did it complete justice, what they did with it changed the story for me. As one example, when reading the book, I understood, without any doubt, why these kids got together again as adults. In the movie, the motivation just wasn't there on the same level.
|
spacelady
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 02:53 AM
Response to Original message |
53. Yah, that was bad. My pick is "Watchers" by Dean Koontz & |
|
"Running Man" by Srephen King.
|
patricia92243
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-11-06 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #53 |
92. Watchers was my first Koontz book and I was so excited when I found out |
|
there was a movie too. I got over my excitement. :(
|
dubeskin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 03:07 AM
Response to Original message |
56. Chronicles of Narnia: THe Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. |
|
I love the books. I hated the movie. It was too much of a LOTR remake but not as good in my opinion.
|
XemaSab
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #56 |
64. More focused on special effects than plot |
grannylib
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #64 |
73. I agree...some of my favorite parts of the book were left out of the movie |
|
And while I realize that it was made for families, and to appeal to very young children as well as adults, it really lost something in the film version.
My youngest daughter, age 19, has never read the book and she loved the movie. It wasn't as bad as I had feared, but not nearly as good as I had hoped.
|
XemaSab
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #73 |
81. It was a very pretty movie |
|
But they added some stuff like the battle scene that really wasn't in the book just to show off the CGI.
I thought the worst scene was at the Stone Table. The CGI totally overwhelmed the importance of the scene.
I've had similar problems with a few movies lately (Star Wars 1-3 and a couple of the Harry Potter movies) where the director tried WAY too hard to overwhelm the viewer with CGI when something a bit more understated would have worked much better in the context of the film. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
|
enigmatic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 03:16 AM
Response to Original message |
57. "The Music Of Chance"- Paul Auster |
|
The book is in my top 10, but the film suffered from horrible casting in the leads and scenes not in the book. I want someone to try this again... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Music_of_Chance
|
Maud
(22 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 04:09 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Mon Jul-10-06 04:10 AM by Maud
The 1981 film version of the EL Doctorow novel was one of my greatest disappointments. The book was wonderful and I couldn't wait for the movie to come out, but when it did I could barely understand what was going on--and I'd read the book. Heaven help those who hadn't. Wish someone would do a remake of this, the book deserves better.
|
Puglover
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 06:47 AM
Response to Original message |
|
It was horrible....HORRIBLE. :scared:
|
Fox Mulder
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 07:15 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Mon Jul-10-06 07:39 AM by Fox Mulder
The book was great...the movie wasn't good...but it wasn't bad, either.
The soundtrack kicks ass, though.
|
Cathyclysmic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 07:32 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Just sucked. The movie just could not capture what a mess it was.
When the movie came out, I dragged a bunch of people and went to the local drive-in, talking the movie up the whole time. I had to do some apologizing.
|
RedStateShame
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 08:35 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Loved the Nick Hornby novel, but they decided, I guess, they didn't need the Kurt Cobain suicide sub-plot, which was rather important in the structure of the novel.
|
philosophie_en_rose
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #65 |
68. I loved the book and the movie. |
|
Considering that the movie was made many years after Kurt Cobain died, it did make a little sense to cut the subplot.
However, the replacement scene (the talent show) was inextricably cheesy.
|
Z_I_Peevey
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 09:21 AM
Response to Original message |
|
"A Prayer for Owen Meany"
Whatta load of hooey that movie was, and what a terrific book.
|
vssmith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #66 |
85. The movie strayed so far from the book it was barely recognizable |
NewWaveChick1981
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 09:23 AM
Response to Original message |
67. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban |
|
I hated the way Alfonson Cuaron did that movie. He's a talented director, but not for that subject matter. Too much wasted time in the movie, and too many important things left out.
|
fishwax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #67 |
77. i really liked that one |
|
i think it was much more of a challenge to adapt than the first two (if for no other reason than the length), but I thought he did a nice job. Based on my own informal polling of friends, family, etc., though, I'm in the minority with that opinion :)
|
Rhiannon12866
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-11-06 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #67 |
98. That was my favorite of the "Harry Potter" books and I thought the movie |
|
was okay... I was disappointed, overall, in the casting of the kids, Harry and Hermione. But by the time I saw this movie, I'd gotten used to them. But I do agree that too much that was important was left out of this one...:-(
|
Guy Fawkes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 09:35 AM
Response to Original message |
|
I'm a big fan of the comic- it's dark and serious, not at all like the movie. Is the movie bad? No- but in light of the book, it isn't very good, either.
|
LynneSin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 09:36 AM
Response to Original message |
70. John Irving's Cider House Rules |
|
Edited on Mon Jul-10-06 09:38 AM by LynneSin
to be honest, perhaps the reason it totally sucked was the fact that Charlize Theron was horribly wrong for the part. In the book, Candy (the character that Theron played) came across as almost pure in her love for Homer even though she was also still in love with Wally, who was presumed dead in the war. The movie made Candy look cheap & horny and even though Candy was sexually active she was never either of those things.
I think Ms. Theron is a very talented actress but this was just not a good fit and ruined the movie since the romance triangle between Candy, Homer & Wally was a major part of the plot. However, I did think that the casting for Wally (Paul Rudd), Homer (Tobey McGwire) and especially Dr. Larch (Michael Caine - he won an Oscar for the role) were good decisions
|
fishwax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #70 |
78. i thought the movie sucked |
|
haven't read the book, though ...
|
ploppy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 07:00 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Loved the book - did not love the movie at all!!
|
RFKHumphreyObama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 08:00 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Almost all the adaptations of the John Grisham novels -although "The Rainmaker" was not OK
Almost all the adaptations of Roald Dahl's novels -especially "Matilda" and "The Witches". Look, if you've already got a good storyline than don't ruin it for the movie and don't create uncessarily sugary plot lines
The adaptation of Melina Marchetta's novel "Looking for Allibrandi" -somehow it didn't translate well onto the big screen, the characters were disjointed and the plot not developed to its full potential. I'm in the minority here because the movie was widely acclaimed
"Misery" by Stephen King was quite good but it's always a concern when you want to see a side character (the Sheriff) wanting to be saved more than the main character
|
MrSlayer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 08:01 PM
Response to Original message |
80. Tie between LOTR, American Psycho and the Hitchhiker's Guide. |
|
All were terribly disappointing to me. Sacrilegious even.
|
AlCzervik
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 08:33 PM
Response to Original message |
83. the latest one--The devil wears Prada, either read the book or see the |
|
movie but do not do both.
|
cedahlia
(883 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 09:44 PM
Response to Original message |
84. "Girl" (based on Blake Nelson's book of the same title) |
|
The movie should have been called "Pile of Shit", because that's what it was. Goddamn murdered the book. Wanna know how bad it was? TARA. FUCKING. REID. was cast as Cybil. Cybil, the complex, passionate, feminist, punk rock star, and vital inspiration to the book's main character Andrea. Ugh...I don't know if I've ever been quite so infuriated by a movie. Well, okay, I was probably more infuriated by "I Spit on Your Grave." Hey! The tagline for the movie "Girl" could have been "I Spit on Your Book." :puke: :puke: :puke:
|
pitohui
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 10:04 PM
Response to Original message |
86. endless love by scott spencer |
|
hands down worst movie of all time and it destroyed a good writer's career really altho he years later had a nice come back w. the rich man's table
|
SoCalDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 10:05 PM
Response to Original message |
MamaBear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 10:25 PM
Response to Original message |
88. Updike's The Witches of Eastwick |
|
I thought the screenplay just missed the point and Cher didn't do i for me.
|
antigone382
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-10-06 10:54 PM
Response to Original message |
90. "The Scarlet Letter" with Demi Moore... |
|
They took the central theme of guilt and redemption that was the entire point of the book, threw it out the window and replaced it with some cartoony shit where Hester is almost hanged until the preacher comes to save her in a wagon during an Indian rebellion and they ride away into the sunset...They tried to turn it into "The Crucible" meets "Dances with Wolves." It was just such total cheesy hollywood bullshit. I had to re-read the book after I watched that load of crap just to make sure I hadn't totally missed something.
Then again, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised.
|
lavenderdiva
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-11-06 10:56 AM
Response to Original message |
94. 'Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil'.... |
|
This John Berendt book was wonderful and I was eagerly anticipating the movie. However, once Clint Eastwood got a hold of it, and twisted the story, changing characters and events, it was a wreck. And then he had to go cast his daughter as one of the main characters.
|
blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-11-06 11:20 AM
Response to Original message |
96. Carl Hiaasen for both--"Striptease"--hilarious adult novel turned into |
|
a colossal waste of time unless you enjoy worshipping Demi Moore's ego and overacting (I don't); the book is just pee-your-pants funny; and his YA novel "Hoot."
He's such a terrifically funny writer, it's a shame what Hollywood did to his work (probably because he makes such terrific fun at plastic people with overinflated senses of importance).
|
Rhiannon12866
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-11-06 11:25 AM
Response to Original message |
97. "Fried Green Tomatoes." |
|
If you saw the movie first, then you might not have had a problem with it. But, if you read the book first, as I had and my roommate did, the movie was a huge disappointment. The book is a classic. But they changed things in the movie that were at the heart of the story. My roommate was prepared to just walk out... And I was very disappointed. :-(
|
Spaceman Spiff
(176 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-11-06 11:34 AM
Response to Original message |
101. The last two "Harry Potter" movies |
|
have disappointed me. There just wasn't enough Quiditch (sp?) in either one. I fact, I think the next movie should be "Harry Potter and the Ninty Minute Quiditch Match". Now I would watch that!
|
Taverner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-11-06 11:39 AM
Response to Original message |
103. "Hotel New Hampshire" by John Irving |
|
They turned a bittersweet sad book into a horrible brat pack movie - and Jodie Foster should have known better!!!
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 11th 2024, 10:07 AM
Response to Original message |