Some Novels Shouldn't Be Made as a Movie

Recently, the most beautiful book I've read is The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey niffenegger. It is brilliant, and flows really well, but Hollywood would butcher it.

__________________
MY Myspace page
My Blog

Shop Smart. Shop S-Mart

My Reputation: Holy Crap, I'm Well thought of!!!?? I think we're going a little far here??

Da Vinci Code was pretty brutal compared to the book .

I just heard they are gonna make Ender's Game into a movie the only catch is that they are gonna combine it with Ender's Shadow. If this is the way they are going to go about it they are wrong to do they have a brilliant marketing gimmik sitting in their laps and a director with a spine that was willing to take a risk could pull it off very well.

The Davinci Code Hahahahaha

The movie was made for those who dont give a crap about reading.. like me.. which is why the movie was great.. i didnt even know there was a book till uhh just about 35 seconds ago when your post brought it to my attention.

the davinci code
i have to say.

Just about any Stephen King novel gets totally butchered when it's put onto the screen. Well, the horror novels, anyway. The broader stuff (Green Mile, Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me, etc.) seems to translate well, but the horror stuff isn't nearly as scary as the books.

I did enjoy the Gary Sinise rendition of The Stand, but that was mostly due to what I thought was good casting. Everyone was pretty much as I pictured them while reading. The book was still scarier.

__________________
Linda's Author Website
Linda's Amazon Author page

I agree Stephen King adaptations get butchered, but he is involved in the process of turning the books in to the films, so really he is butchering his own films!

__________________

I think it depends upon the book and its subject matter.

For example:
Shopgirl- the novel was good and meaningful but the movie was just drawn out and by the end I was tired of seeing Steve Martin prepare for sex (shivers). I could see where the movie was trying to be heartfelt but it just fell flat.

Lord of the Rings- I thought that came out beautifully. Peter Jackson really made the story into the epic it was supposed to be in novel form. I'm not saying that it had any less meaning than Shopgirl or any other novel for that matter but it wasn't the same. LotR had it's meaning hidden behind symbols.

My friend had read Hitchhikers Guide before the movie came out and he said it was awful. He protested the movie for so long. LOL.

ok i know almost every Stephen King book turns into a movie...but some shudnt have...alot that did sucked...lol IT for instance...the book was long but amazing...and the movie ruined it for me...i was gonna read the book again...but the movie made me not wanna...

__________________
"Hey, I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule." Randal Graves from Clerks.

The Shining is fantastic.... King hated it though... the whine ass.

__________________

if u compare the shining to the book...it sucked balls...

I have, and no it doesn't. Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is wonderfully crafted, expertly performed, and totally atmospheric. Also, comparing two diametrically opposed mediums is a fools errand. The written word is only part of the language of cinema, of which Kubrick had complete and total control. Mr. King, always too busy staggering around, toasted out of his mind, destroys any film he actually gets to take any control of. Good thing Kubrick didn't let this shlock slinger anywhere near the set. Don't get me wrong, it's a great book, and King has a few, but just because Kubrick's piece isn't exactly like the book, doesn't mean it, ummm, sucks balls. It's a great film, dripping with Kubrick's top notch style and signature. Give it another go, and forget about the book, unless it's reading time.

Or, if you prefer, you can watch the television adaptation of The Shining, with that guy from Wings, and that kid who looks like a plunger with eyes and a bowl cut. Now THAT sucked balls...

*****SPOILERS*****

nah man u got me all wrong...i love the movie...but it is nowhere near as good as the book....it shud have at least had the ****ing hedge animals...and where the **** did kubrick get the ****ing maze??? i liked the ending in the book where the building explodes and just b4 Jack dies he tells his son he loves him...thats a ****ing ending rite there...

i love the movie and respect kubrick...but i think that King;s version is alot better then kubricks

Lord Of The Rings
Harry Potter

if the movie "the hunted 2003" was originally a novel it shouldn't have pictured , or it could have done better as it's a good story i think

_________________________________________________________
watch the great "the exorcist 1973" movie clip
follow the link

OK. This is a great thread for me to greatly express my opinion.

Harry Potter Novels.

I am sure all of the Harry Potter fans out there are with me when I say that the movies are great, but they never cover enough of the story.

They could make a 300 hour movie and cover EVERY detail in the book and I would still sit there and watch EVERY minute. (ok, I'd pause it for bathroom breaks snacks and sleep of course) but yeah, I would watch AND possibly memorize every minute.

And there ends my rant. *Whew*