The awesome books turned into bad movies rant thread

[Gormagon]

Hello people, this is a thread for you to rant and rave and discuss the many great and enjoyable books that have been brutally assaulted and butchered by various directors and miscellaneous other people involved in movie production. I can name a few right off, Percy Jackson and the Olympians-The lightning thief.makes the top of my rant list easily. Well not the worst movie I have ever seen (30,000 leagues under the sea takes the cake there. Not 20,000, 30,000.)it was to the book as a piece of oxidizing iron to a refined gold ingot. They cut about 60% of the colorful and unique details, stole some stuff from Sea of monsters,(the second book.) and they changed the main story line of that book to something that made no sense in the movie, as well as destabilizing the entire main premise of the great prophecy involving a child of the big three reaching 16. The dude they got to play Percy Jackson looked 15, in the book he was 12.

They also butchered a childhood favorite of mine when they remade Clash of the Titans.(There is a novelization form of COTT, I own one.) Awesome effects and graphics, completely crapped out story line. That remake had so much potential.


Well I have not read the books, I heard(And observed in the movie with how rushed it was.)they did the same with Eragon.

The only two examples I can think of for a successful books into movies transition are-LOTR and HP.

Now I open it up to the peoples, any book series you want to rant about being ruined? Or discuss what they should have done.

I do not mind people talking about non Scifi/Fantasy book series ether, for example I have heard people say that Anne of Green Gables was very different then the books and not very good.

[DigiFluid]

The Lost World springs immediately to mind. Awesome book, but what the bloody fook were they thinking when they made that movie?

Others:
- Alice in Wonderland (Tim Burton)
- Beowulf (Zemeckis)
- Bicentennial Man
- The Cat in the Hat (Mike Myers)
- Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Tim Burton)
- Dune (David Lynch)
- The Grinch (the Jim Carrey abomination)
- I Am Legend (Will Smith)
- I, Robot (Will Smith)
- The Time Machine (2002)
- Troy



Many comic movies and in particular, video game-to-movie adaptations are so offensively bad that they're in a category all their own so I haven't bothered with them here.

[Gormagon]

Some of those I have not read or seen, however out of them I liked Tim Burtons version of Alice and Charlie, different from the books yes, but I still liked them. I like Tim Burtons stuff in general anyways.

Beowulf, I only saw it once, and I have only read the original tale once, but I remember it was different from the written story.

Dune, I need to finish the books.

Bicentennial man, I have only seen the movie, so I cannot really comment. Same with I am legend and I, Robot. I liked all of them, but I have not read the book forms. I did not know that they had book forms. Or forgot. But now I am curious to see how bad the movies were compared to the books.

Lost world, Agreed. Not as good as the book. JP 3, I do not think MC even wrote that one.

The time machine, the 2002 version I thought it was a different take then the book, but not bad but it was a number of years ago that I saw it. Like Tim Burtons Alice or Charlie, a different version of the story, not totally like the book, but still interesting and enjoyable in my opinion. Sort of like different versions of Greek mythology, different takes on the same subject. Some I like more then others but most are at least interesting.

Why exactly did you not like those movies as compared to the books?

Also fellow forum users if you may please include your reasons why you do not like the movie version of books.

[Pytheas]

Kind of depends on what you mean. Do you mean how different it was from the book, or how bad the movie was? Or even how bad the movie was in relation to the book?!

In the first case, and slightly in defence of the film, I, Robot was never meant to follow the book exactly it just borrowed the title of the Asimov's short stories. I actually quite liked the film, but it was a rather dumbed-down feature-length version of Asimov's several explorations of the Three Laws. Also, The Lord of the Rings trilogy didn't exactly follow the books: more obviously so in The Return of the King.

In the second case, Northern Lights (which became The Golden Compass for the Americans because your publishers think you're stupid, like how they assumed you all don't know what a "philosopher" is so changed the name of the first Harry Potter book, now the entire world has to put up with a title that makes no sense) or The Da Vinci Code. With the latter, I actually preferred Angels and Demons, though that's not saying much.

Generally, I actually prefer the Harry Potter books to the films. In fact, I'm not a big fan of the films, even post-Prisoner of Azkaban. Controversial, I know, but whilst the last few were good, each film was saved by the acting of the adult actors and the special effects. Plus, they changed a bit too much for me - just the style of things in the film seemed more like they were being viewed through American-tinted glasses. Well, I can't complain too much; they did inject some much needed pazazz into the British film industry.

[Gatefan1976]

I'm still wondering what they sneeched from sea of monsters for PJ.
Yeh, the age thing was annoying, but I'm sure they will just redact the prophecy to make it work anyway.

[fumblesmcstupid]

I love the Stephanie Plumb books by Janet Evanovich, I have all of them.

The Movie.....a HUGE turd!

[Coremae]

Kind of depends on what you mean. Do you mean how different it was from the book, or how bad the movie was? Or even how bad the movie was in relation to the book?!

In the first case, and slightly in defence of the film, I, Robot was never meant to follow the book exactly it just borrowed the title of the Asimov's short stories. I actually quite liked the film, but it was a rather dumbed-down feature-length version of Asimov's several explorations of the Three Laws. Also, The Lord of the Rings trilogy didn't exactly follow the books: more obviously so in The Return of the King.

In the second case, Northern Lights (which became The Golden Compass for the Americans because your publishers think you're stupid, like how they assumed you all don't know what a "philosopher" is so changed the name of the first Harry Potter book, now the entire world has to put up with a title that makes no sense) or The Da Vinci Code. With the latter, I actually preferred Angels and Demons, though that's not saying much.

Generally, I actually prefer the Harry Potter books to the films. In fact, I'm not a big fan of the films, even post-Prisoner of Azkaban. Controversial, I know, but whilst the last few were good, each film was saved by the acting of the adult actors and the special effects. Plus, they changed a bit too much for me - just the style of things in the film seemed more like they were being viewed through American-tinted glasses. Well, I can't complain too much; they did inject some much needed pazazz into the British film industry.

Speaking of J.R.R. Tolkien, there is some controversy concerning the hobbit movie being split into three parts. Don't know why everyone's bugging though, the book as it was wasn't all that enjoyable, and Gandalf was infinitely cooler to me than those blasted hobbits. So I would like to see his side mission.


And seeing as how Tolkien explained later what Gandalf was doing, and of how the council especially Galadriel kicked major @$$, I for one would want to see why it is, that of all the elves living at that time Galadriel was the most feared. Hell, she destroyed Dol Guldur, even after Sauron dumped a ton of his power into it. Can't wait to see that battle in the Hobbit trilogy.

Truth be told, I hated the Lord of the Rings books and the hobbit book even more so, and if I had to choose a great fantasy writer I would choose David and Leia Eddings. They were the best fantasy writers hands down; with the right mixture of adventure, storytelling, and grandiose themes and settings. But the Lord of the Rings movie, especially the part where Gandalf falls into the abyss, was absolutely epic not to mention it shattered you emotionally. In the book Gandalf said fly you fools and then was gone; meh. The Rankin Bass cartoons of years ago was more epic than the bloody books. But, Tolkien lore as a whole is the best anywhere. And i for one wishes I was talented enough to write the modern tales that leads up to his realm's armageddon, where morgoth is released from the forever dark and eventually slaughters mankind. Another that blew me away was learning that middle earth was essentially Morgoth's one ring, where the discord he sowed in the world took a sizable portion of his power. and of how he used the last of his power to create even darker things of middle earth. Wouldn't that be an epic movie. Wish Peter Jackson told Morgoth's story.

[WingedPegasus]

I'm not a big fan of the way the Narnia movies were handled after the very first one. They weren't bad, but I think they could've been better. I wish they would've made A Horse and His Boy, though....that was my favorite of the books.

- The Grinch (the Jim Carrey abomination)

Don't hate me, but I found that movie quite funny. (It might help to have first seen it under or around age ten. )

And seeing as how Tolkien explained later what Gandalf was doing, and of how the council especially Galadriel kicked major @$$, I for one would want to see why it is, that of all the elves living at that time Galadriel was the most feared. Hell, she destroyed Dol Guldur, even after Sauron dumped a ton of his power into it. Can't wait to see that battle in the Hobbit trilogy.

Now that could be super-duper awesometastic. I'm looking forward to these movies so much.

[Morbo]

Basically Michael Crichton's entire library:
Sphere is my favorite book ever. Movie was wretched.
Congo is so good. Movie made me want to eat babies.
Timeline was also fantastic. Movie had Paul Walker. Enough said.
The Lost World rivaled Jurassic Park in goodness. Movie was clearly written by a 3 year old on crack.
Only the original Jurassic Park movie was somewhat redeemable.

I have to totally agree with the OP, the Percy Jackson movie was atrocious. They made them all 16, instead of 12, and eliminated the entire premise of the entire 5-book series: the titans.

I never read I, Robot or I Am Legend, but I know both of those movies were so, so, terrible.

I know there are more but that's all that pops into my head at the moment.

[Everlovin]

I have to agree with much of what's been mentioned. Anything I don't automatically agree with is due to lack of reading the book/watching the movie.

I would add Disney's Black Cauldron. My favorite childhood books turned into an abomination. None of the characters were right. The plot was all wrong. Nothing was redeemable in the movie.

[DigiFluid]

Sphere is my favorite book ever. Movie was wretched.

Ugh, I forgot about Sphere. Amazing book, craptacular movie.

[Ukko]

The Lost World springs immediately to mind. Awesome book, but what the bloody fook were they thinking when they made that movie?

Others:
- Alice in Wonderland (Tim Burton)
- Beowulf (Zemeckis)
- Bicentennial Man
- The Cat in the Hat (Mike Myers)
- Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Tim Burton)
- Dune (David Lynch)
- The Grinch (the Jim Carrey abomination)
- I Am Legend (Will Smith)
- I, Robot (Will Smith)
- The Time Machine (2002)
- Troy



Many comic movies and in particular, video game-to-movie adaptations are so offensively bad that they're in a category all their own so I haven't bothered with them here.

Troy? Seriously? The Iliad is basically just one big bloody battle with Achilles throwing a tantrum. They did well with that one.

[jelgate]

Books are always going to be better than a movie. Think about it. A book author has almost no limits to what he or she can write. It is not the same with movies. Their are limits in budget, time, and some things are just impossible to do in technology terms

[Morbo]

Books are always going to be better than a movie. Think about it. A book author has almost no limits to what he or she can write. It is not the same with movies. Their are limits in budget, time, and some things are just impossible to do in technology terms

i've always said this as well.
BUT
that doesn't mean they have to completely change integral and important concepts/scenes in a movie.

Just using The Lost World as an example. i find it offensive they are even allowed to say that movie was based on the book. the whole thing was different. different characters. different events. different STUPID events. i'm pretty sure the only scene in the movie that was in the book was the trailer/cliff scene - but they changed that too, so just the general idea was there.

it also offends me that michael crichton allowed them to positively destroy his book that way. but $$ talks i suppose.

[Krichton]

Battle Royale, the film, was awful. I couldn't even finish it.