WORST films made from books

Ok, so I'm stuck on the book/movie thing. I'm making this new thread so as not to send the other two threads about books and film reeling into digression.

I thought that "The Cider House Rules" could have made a much better film. The focus of the movie didn't match that of the book--the relationship between the main character and the doctor. The nurses played a much bigger part in the book, as well.

"Sleepy Hollow"--what was that? Tim Burton turned this story into a cinematic joke, IMO.

"The Lord of the Flies"--my main gripe with this one is continuity. By the end of the book, the boys are ravaged by their surroundings, long-haired and underfed. Their appearance at the end of the movie is that of a group of boys who have had a long day of horseplay. The boy who portrayed Piggy did not give us the sense of intelligence that we get from the Piggy of the novel. I'm talking about the 1990 version by Harry Hook. I have not seen Peter Brook's 1963 version.

All I can think of for now...
[Edited by bodhigrrrl on 10-15-2001]

__________________
You get me slapped with a fine, you argue with the customers and I have to patch everything up, you get us thrown out of a funeral by violating the corpse, and then to top it off, you ruin my relationship. I mean, what's your encore? Do you, like, anally rape my mother while pouring sugar in my gas tank?

I saw the 1963 version of Lord of the Flies, but not the 1990 version (we had to watch the '63 version in Senior High School English class after reading the book. The 1990 version having not been made yet at that time). I didn't think it captured the story as well as could've been, either. Of course, it's been so long since I've seen it, I don't remember that much about it.

And I'll mention "Burglar" again (which was based on two of Lawrence Block's "Burglar" series books). The movie was so far away from the books as to be barely recognizable. Why bother to option the books if they aren't going to get anywhere near them (Personally, I don't see Whoopi Goldberg as a White Jewish Man or Bobcat Goldthwait as a petite blonde lesbian, but maybe that's just me).

I know there are others, but I can't think of any more off hand.

Practical Magic by Alice Hoffman ruined on the big screen. Yeesh!

And I'm sure that Lord of the Rings movie won't be any good.

To Kill a Mockingbird is recognised as a classic but for someone who adores every sentence of that book, it was a disappointment. But that will happen with any book that you love, the film version will have to cut parts out and with disastrous results usually.

Jurassic Park was a much better book than the movie, but I didn't read it until afterwards so I still loved the film.

I think if you read the books beforehand your love of the movie deteriorates. For one thing, you know all the twists and turns before they happen. That's why I won't read any of the Lord of the Rings until after the Trilogy. They'll obviously spoil it.

__________________
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.

I second that opinion, valbowski. If a movie is made from a book that I've loved or would like to read, I will most likely avoid seeing it. Just after I finished 'A Map of the World', the film version, starring Sigourney Weaver, was broadcast on tv. I purposely did not watch.

I've had the same experience in the transverse, seeing a movie and THEN reading the book it was based upon. I will generally favor the movie.

R

I would have to say that Phantoms, by Dean Koontz, which was turned into a movie was ok, but could've been much much more terrifying than what they made it to be.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

Any Stephen King novel is a disasterous movie,with the exception of his two short story adaptations(Shawshank Redemption,Stand by Me)and the Shining(kubrick)oh,and the Stand(T.V.movie).Firestarter,Christine,Maximum Overdrive,Salem's Lot,Insomnia,all were stupid.The Green Mile was alright I guess,it just couldn't touch the magical nature of the book,came close,but missed the mark.I haven't seen Hearts in Atlantis yet either.

nine times out of ten, the movie will suck in comparison to the book.
perfect example, midnight in the garden of good and evil. great, great book, wish i had written it.
the movie had potential, kevin spacey, john cusak, but after reading the book, i couldn't help but be disappointed.

I dunno, I don't usually feel the same way. I go into a movie with a different perspective. When I went into the Harry Potter movie, I told myself that it was going to have flaws, it was going to leave things out, and it was going to, even, have a few things that got me a little peeved at times...but I should take it for what it is: a less detailed, less in-depth version of the story, with lots of visual aids. I don't compare the two, because you can't. Watching the Quidditch match on screen was much better than reading about it, but in the book, you get to see what the characters are thinking easily, and you have room for more names to be dropped, and more of the Weasley twins, Fred and George.

As such, I'm not comfortable comparing the two except in some cases. It's okay to criticize a movie if it completely butchers the story of spirit of things, but if it has the same feel and remains true to the purpose/spirit of it all, I don't know that it's always fair to hate the whole thing because this was missing, or that was missing. Things WILL turn up missing in that translation, guaranteed. And yes, Ryan, we know you don't like LOTR (I pity you, dear friend, you have no clue what it is you're missing).

What?! I didn't know that. Any particular reason why, Ryan? Not that this applies to Ryan, but I had this friend that was so set on being an " individual ", that he was against anything mainstream. Even songs on the radio, I know he HAD to like, he wouldn't like it because OTHER people liked it. It got to the point where he was only listening to obscure oldie music and underground movies, just so he could be fond of something no one had ever heard of. It was like some sort of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

Sades, I love ya'. I know *EXACTLY* the type you mean...exactly. So terrified of something potentially thinking they might just be "normal" in some way. Always different just for the sake of being different...or simply because of the terror they feel when they think of actually doing something that the rest of the crowd is doing. The best philoshopy is not to worship the crowd, nor avoid it. If you want to do something, even if it's partially because you notice that the whole crowd is enjoying it, then there's no shame in that. I, too, get quite annoyed by people who always go out of their way to be unique: if you have to strain for it, it's all a ruse.

Anyway, I don't think Ryan is like that at all...because he seems to like plenty of mainstream things. I was venting about other people...even though Ryan has me damn confused with his complete lack of interest in both Harry Potter and LOTR.

Well I'm not the least bit interested in Harry Potter, but LOTR drives me crazy with anticipation!

Here's what I say about mainsteam. It's all about your tastes. That alone will set you apart. No need to go full extreme either way. I don't have respect for the bandwagon jumpers as much as the people who won't particapate at all. Both are cowardly. One is a fear of not belonging, and the other is a fear of blending in.

I cannot comment on Harry Potter, haven't having seen the movie or read any of the books, BUT I WILL!!

These books have our country and many others entranced. I cannot honestly see any Hollywood film doing their justice. From what I gather, the author did not have any idea that these books would have such an impact. She wrote them (well, the first one, anyway,) for readers old and young to have a magical experience through a child's eyes.

When I heard that HP was being made into a movie, I thought to myself: there goes the ruin of the heart of another novelists' dream, and the minds' eye vision of many a reader.

And I am NOT looking forward to LOTR. No way could any film maker, besides perhaps Terry Gilliam, could bring Tolkein to life and do justice to what this young (at the time,) reader conjured as she read.


I am grateful to Chris and this forum for the opportunity to share my opinion on these matters. I humbly admit that I give a rats' patootie.

*cheese*
Rhonda

Aw man, how can any Potter fan, or LOTR fan, NOT want to see these movies? The key, IMO, is to go into them expecting flaws, and expecting holes, and other such things. Just enjoy them for what they are...and take in what I certainly found true with Potter, and what I will likely find true with LOTR: at the very least, you'll get to see some amazing things come to life...vivid images, and such. It's well worth it.

Oh, and actually, Rowling did have an idea that they'd do quite well. I don't know if she anticipated THIS incredible billion-dollar industry (well, roughly, at this point). However, she had planned to write all 7 before she wrote the first one, and did expect them to make her reasonably famous...I'm just not sure HOW famous.

Don't kid yourself T. She knew...she knew after the sucess of the first one. Don't think those movie offers weren't pouring in early, very early.

Yes, after the success of the first one, but I took her meaning to be that she didn't know originally. Besides, it took a little while after that one hit the bestsellers list in Britland to make it's way to the US...and movie offers on books are not as plentiful in the UK, seeing as how movies make more money in the US than anywhere else, USUALLY (there are exceptions).

I really doubt that she expected a billion dollar industry after one book. If I had a bestselling book, my first concern would be making sure I was able to do it again, because if I couldn't, the whole thing would be over with, most likely.

I thought Cider House was terrific....Ditto for Sleepy Hollow. What are your problems with them?

I have to (OMG!!!!!!!!!!) agree with Steve: I thought "Sleepy Hollow" had a great look, feel, and all-around tone to it. I'm not one of those Johnny Depp nuts (I think he's very much over-rated), but he was perfect for the part. Well cast, great sets, great direction (and ya'll know I'm not a Burton fan...so I must really mean it).

T, how do you manage to make these horrible statements once in awhile? Johnny Depp over-rated? What?! He is so under-rated! Look at his phenominal performances in Donny Brasco and Blow. What about his earlier work in What's Eating Gilbert Grape? He definately doesn't get the praises he deserves. I think the critics still think of him as some teen idol. I don't know why you don't like him though, T.