Whether it be the casting, changed storyline, commercialisation or whatever, which movies have failed to live up to the book? I didn't like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I didn't like it's major story change with the whole "rescue Trillian from the Vogons then go to a planet , meet characters and embark on a storyline that aren't even in the book", even though Douglas Adams (the author of HGTTG) wrote it himself for the movie. Also the choice of Moss Def as Ford was not a good one, he got ther character all wrong, and how Zaphod's heads are so that you only see one at a time was an unnecessary change. Oh, and the Vogon's voices, particularly the piss-weak, pansy-sounding "Resistance is useless" Vogon. And the ending was changed to fit a typical American "guy gets the girl" ending, even though Arthur and Trillian didn't develop a romantic relationship until Mostly Harmless, I think, if at all. And I felt that the unique storytelling of Douglas Adams was lost. /rant
I don't think the movie is all that bad really, it's not as funny as the TV series but it's still fairly watchable. I wouldn't say the "guy gets the girl" thing is an American idea, it's more a Hollywood, tabloidesque, appeal to the masses thing. There are some independent film companies in America that don't churn out the generic stuff, they're just not as well known. One of the worst translations for me in recent years was John Travolta's stab at Mission Earth, which has none of the atmosphere of the books and doesn't even remotely follow the plot. Nevertheless, I still watched it a couple of times anyway.
H2G2 the movie was lame. They managed to get almost everything wrong. Marvin was also much too cute and cuddly. It sucked. Can't think of any other lame adaptations right now, but I'm sure I will...
The H2G2 movie was alright, just a bit bland. Edit: The Harry Potter films come to mind for let-downs. I'm not a huge fan of the books, but I still enjoy them. The three Potter films I've seen felt to me like straightforward, through-the-motions adaptations with little else to them, churned out under an obligation to expand the franchise more than anything else. Not terrible films, though.
The only Harry Potter movie I found bad was the fourth one. It was completely screwed up. And do not let me go on about Eragon. The book might not have been that great, but the movie killed it.
I felt the HG2TG movie missed the feel of the book by a long way, although I still quite enjoyed it. I think the Harry Potter films are painfully Hollywoodised. Although I enjoy them, I think one of the things that stands out about JKR's work is the natural feel of her dialogues and her realistic characterisation - and those things both get completely hashed in the films. I saw Nanny MacPhee recently, which I thought was a relatively successful adaptation of the Nurse Matilda books, which I loved as a child.
I usually don't like movies based on books because of all the stuff they leave out. I know they can't include everything with some books but sometimes I think they could do a better job of choosing what to leave in and what to leave out. I saw HG2TG and Eragon before I read the books and I liked both even though there are a lot of differences. The Harry Potter movies I think are good if you haven't read the books but since I have read them many many times I can pick out everthing that's missing, but I'm still going to see the 5th one when it comes out tomorrow. I heard they wanted to leave Kreacher the house elf out but JK Rowling wouldn't let them because he becomes and important character later. Sahara is another movie that left a lot of stuff out, but Matthew McConaughey isn't bad to look at so I still like it. The only movie I've ever liked as well as or more than the books was A Series of Unfortunate Events. They missed a lot of stuff making one movie out of the first 3 books, but the books have a depressing feel to them and Jim Carrey makes Count Olaf funny.
I thought the opposite - that if you hadn't read the books, you would struggle to follow some of the plot details. Mind you, I tend to struggle to follow the plot details of most films I watch, so there you go.
I've not read the HP books but I followed the films fine. I'm gonna see all the films before I pick the books up I think to avoid disappointment. And then the books will be really cheap. :smile:
Well, to be honest, if you go to a film expecting to see the book you're going to be very dissapointed. A film is not a book. At best, it should be a representation of the book. Seeing characters you know portrayed by actors, and sticking to the basic plot. If you want the book - read the book. Edit: Portions of this post copyright C Jordan 2007
Still, a good book deserves to be made into a good film, if a film is being made at all. Sometimes that even works when the film takes the books idea and gives it a twist of its own, away from the actual storyline of the book. Some films based on books have even been criticized for being too much of a synopsis of the book, instead of being a piece of work on their own. I know in most cases, the film can never equal the book in detail, and depth, but - I think a bad film is a shame on its own, but a bad film that had a good book to work with even more so.
To be honest, I thought 'Master and Commander' was superior. I couldn't get on with the Aubrey novels; one of them problems was that the books gets bogged down in the detail of ship-board life etc, to the detriment of the story; in the film they could show that without it holding up the plot.
The hitchhickers film was awful. Really really awful. I loved the books and the TV series was great. I don't see how they could have messed it up so badly. The tricia and arthur thing annoyed me the most. Never in the books were they involved. They managed to get every characters personality wrong, I think zaphod's personality was furthest away from how he's normally portrayed. Because of the differences between the books, tv series and radio I could have handled some changes to the plot but it went to far.
Adams reportedly included the tricia/arthur relationship because of the very fact that it was going to be a hollywood movie. Movies need romance. Zaphod received an update to make him more contemporaneous with the times. When the radio show was originally aired, Zaphod was a burned out surf bum type character. the 70's burn out stereotype has faded somewhat and a vapid, clueless stereotype was used instead. this isn't to say that i liked the changes that much, but just to say that there were reasons behind them. Also, since Adams himself made the changes, or at least planned them, then there is a definite legitimacy to them. doesn't mean they were the right changes to make (though that becomes a personal opinion to each of us) though.
For me there was one important part missing from the H2G2 film. This ultimately was important in the book, because this was when the answer to the ultimate question would have been given. This was the point in time that the mice had waited for. This was the reason for the Earths existence. IMO. And also, I've sat in that, and many other cafes (that have come after that one) in Rickmansworth and I still haven't had any inspiration. One day though.
HG2TG was quite disappointing as a film but watchable. I loved the books & original radio series. It is the only series I have ever liked on radio apart from the Goon Show. It appeared to me that Adams had to keep re-writing the script to get the film off the ground and thusly deviated so much from the original storyline. I was also annoyed that they never included Marvin's best line which he said often in the radio series, something like "And me, with this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side." It was funny every time.
Another film I was annoyed with was Hannibal. The ending in the film is totally different to that in the book. Apparently the director did not like Thomas Harris' version, so just made up his own!
Well, no, but if you're looking for that particular answer in cafes in that area, you have to be a girl to fit the bill, seems logical to me...
I don't see why it has to be a girl. Surely anyone can be in the right place at the right time to be sought out by inspirations. Anyway, I know girls that have sat in those cafes too and nothing has come of it, Except maybe a numb arse and dead legs from the hard seats.
Oh LAMJ !! :sad: I just meant that if you wanted that particular except of the book to materialise, it would have to be a girl, in a cafe, in Rickmansworth. That's all :sad:
Silence of the lambs and Hanibal are the only movies I like more than the books. I have the books and think there ok but find them too crude at times. The glimpses into what hanibal is thinking at some points ruin his character for me.
Same here, actually. Hannibal the movie was actually better than the book. And in the case of Silence of the Lambs, the movie was at least on par with the book, and an excellent example for a good book-to-movie-transition. In the books, especially Hannibal, you had that creepy feeling that even in the case of a novel about a serial killer, the author could suffer from the Mary-Sue-syndrome.
Mary Sue is alive and well and living in Hollywood. I got to watch The Puppet Masters last Sunday as well as a couple of older films, the Beast from 20,000 leagues based on a Ray Bradbury story and a Dracula movie starring Christopher Lee. The only thing that saved Puppet masters was Donald Sutherland. The most dissappointed I have been with the book-to-movie thing was "Simon Birch" based on a Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving, that just didn't work for me. If I hadn't read the book I might have been able to enjoy it better.
As long as you realise I didn't invent the joke, it's a line from the movie that was mentioned... though, I have to admit, it was my favourite line. irate:
And done surprisingly well, I thought! How long do you think Russell Crowe practised that bit so they could get the scene done in one take and not have to keep re-doing it? My late step-father loved the novels (and I thought it was O'Brian, not Aubrey - am I thinking of the wrong series?) precisely because they showed so much detail of life on board ship. He enjoyed the film but was unhappy with certain details that he thought were unrealistic - in particular, the level of noise, which he said would not be allowed on a Navy vessel, as it would be impractical. It's bad enough trying to get a command heard over the sound of the boat, the wind and the waves, never mind sailors clattering about with buckets and cannonballs and what have you.
I agree with this. Books and movies are completely different media. What makes a good book does not make a good movie, and vice versa. If you take a good book and try to make a movie that follows every detail exactly, you will get a movie that will please the book's die-hard fans, but is likely to be confusing and/or boring to the rest of the movie-going population. If you take a good movie and turn it into a book with a plot that follows the plot of the movie exactly, you are likely to get a book that would seem shallow to the average fourteen year old. With a book, the audience gets all its sensory input from the written word, and nothing else. Therefore, the plot has to have a certain level of complexity to keep the audience interested (assuming a reasonably intelligent audience). With a movie, sensory input comes from the written word (the script), the spoken word (the way the actors express the script), non-verbal communication among the actors, sound and visual effects. There is so much sensory stuff going on that the audience needs to interpret (in a limited period of time - with a book, you can read as quickly or slowly as you wish) that you will just confuse and stress out your audience if you make the plot as complex as the plot of a very good book (unless the audience consists of the people who already know the plot by heart).
I thought the LOTR films was the way to go. I once struggled through the first LOTR book then lost the will to live, but I found the films very watchable and much more easy going.
I thought one of the most interesting things with the book/video transition of Master and Commander was that it completely left the love interest out of the movie. If I remember correctly, there is a large portion of the book dedicated to Jack Aubry's dealings with a certain lady friend at the beginning and end of the book. I don't remember the film even making mention of it. There again I've read the book two or three times and only seen the movie once. (It was a blind date. My first and last. That is not how I wish to spend an evening, wondering when it would be polite to go to the bathroom and run away. Enjoyed the movie though.) One of the movies I'm worried about is Neil Gaiman's Stardust novel that is being made into a movie. It has some really big names in it. Also, the Dark is Rising series is being started.
I just started Stardust, it is amazing and I can see a decent movie from it. but from what I've read on Neil Gaiman's blog even he doesn't get too excited about movies until filming actually begins, there are so many pitfalls for movies being made.
Stardust opens here in the US next month. The date is August 10. I'm really hoping that it will be a good show.
I can name only one book where the movie was better. The Princess bride which I loved the movie of, was a total stinker in book form. And I'd been so happy to find the book with the expectation that it would be better than the movie. Not so. The movie captured the story-telling nature of the movie and the overall humour SO much better than the book. This book turned me off so much that I saw in the book store a sequel to the Princess bride and I didn't buy it and will not read it. Such a disappointment. I though HG2TG was OK, bland not as funny as it should be, but OK.
You didn't like The Princess Bride as a book,Spiky? It is one of my very favorite books of all time and most of my favorite parts were left out of the movie, though I do love the movie. Maybe it is a generational thing. My brother in law read the book after he saw the movie and he likes it a lot too. He likes being able to put the faces from the movie on the characters he sees in his mind. I think they did a wonderful job casting that movie.
Children of Men was a much better movie than a book. It told a much more powerfull story. The book, while excellent in it's own right, was a slight dissappointment after the movie. Fight Club is the best book to movie, in my mind, they compliment each other really well.
"Forrest Gump" was a complete change from book to movie. I read an interview with the author several years ago and he had tried to sue the movie company to have them change the title. (I think that's the way it went, but not entirely sure. He was pissed off anyway, I do remember that correctly) I enjoyed the movie and the book almost equally. I had seen the movie before reading the book and remember hearing Gump's voice completely differently in my head than the way Tom Hanks sounded.
Nope... the movie had flow and the actual interaction between pop and grandson was much better in the movie than the strange premise as laid out in the book. The book just jumped around but the movie had a flow that was missing from the book.
I still love the idea of Humperdink calling his step mother E.S. for short because he had only ever heard of an Evil stepmother and she didn't even make it into the movie, He wasn't quite as awful in the book either. I guess it has been too long since I read the book or watched the movie. Forrest Gump the book doesn't have very much in common with Forrest Gump the movie, except a fairly generic feeling. I like them both. I don't think they could have translated that book any better then they did, though. It is just way too outrageous. the sequel is about as good but I can't see them being able to make a movie out of it any more then they could have made a sequel to M.A.S.H. the movie out of the book sequels. There had already been too much divergence, the books bear no resemblence at all to the television series, by the way.
not sure if these count but the let downs for me were the sharpe movies/series bernard cornwells books were brilliant and i believe that it would not have extended the length or budget to include the portions of story that were missing
I have to agree with Spiky and weatherwaxeslovechild about both The Princess Bride and the Sharpe TV movies - although, at least Sean Bean put a face to the name for me. I could never quite picture him. The Bone Collector was the one that did it for me. I don't think I've ever been so disappointed in a movie. Too many differences for me to be happy with.
