What is you worst book to film transfer!

malc30 said:
The Keep = Top book crap film.
Click to expand...

As in Michael Manns "the keep"? If so I want the hour and a half of my life back. I can't ever imagine that story being any good!

What year was this "nothern lights"? I have looked on imdb but didn't know which one it was.
 
Arjun806 said:
All of the Harry Potter books. I grew up reading them so I really like him, but I hated the films, especially the latest one.
Click to expand...

Agree.

I was obsessed with the Harry Potter books as a kid, absolutely loved them. But Daniel Radcliffe is just such a monumental annoyance that I can't even bear to watch any more of the films. He single-handedly ruins them all for me.
 
Ziggy said:
Godfather and The Shawshank Redemption.





But really Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.
Click to expand...

I was going to say virtually all Stephen King books except for those adapted by Frank Darabont (Shawshank, Green Mile and the Mist) and Misery.

In my opinion Shawshank is one of the very few films that isn't a very poor comparison to the book.
 
People always seem to have problems with how closely a film adaptation sticks to the book, apparently even Jurassic Park veers quite a bit away from the book.

I don't really see the problem most of the time. Most books, if adapted to the letter, would be so utterly dull on screen. A Scanner Darkly kept pretty close to the book it was based on, but then that book was quite short.

So long as you get a good film out of it though, i.e. Bourne, who cares?
 
Chimerical said:
People always seem to have problems with how closely a film adaptation sticks to the book, apparently even Jurassic Park veers quite a bit away from the book.

I don't really see the problem most of the time. Most books, if adapted to the letter, would be so utterly dull on screen. A Scanner Darkly kept pretty close to the book it was based on, but then that book was quite short.

So long as you get a good film out of it though, i.e. Bourne, who cares?
Click to expand...

I don't mind when the film they make works while keeping with the spirit of the storyline.

But when they change everything bar the title, and throw in some loosely related plot-line, then it gets on my nerves.

For example Angels & Demons, other than the title, some character names, and the fact it takes place in the Vatican they changed 90% of the plot-line, changed sequences of events so much that it didn't make sense, swapped characters around, removed entire characters that were integral to the storyline, removed pretty much the entire point of the book, changed the finale, the characters backgrounds, etc etc etc. So in the end it was just a complete mess.

It was like the 'Super Mario Bros. The Movie' of the Book->Film conversion world.
 
I read the godfather before watching the film (one of my favourite books ever, absolutely brilliant!), and didn't really enjoy the film that much because of it.

Didn't think the film was bad by any means, but you miss so many of the subtle nuances that make the book great.

HHGTTG for me, but mainly because I read all 5 books about 10 times each and the film just didn't feel right. Mos Def didn't convince me as Ford and WTH were they thinking having an american play trillian.
 
+`1000 for I Am Legend. God what a difference it is from the book.
The Shawshank Redemption has obvious differences like red being red haired and irish lol, but not read the book so what else is different?
For Lord of the Rings I agree that Sarumans death was stupid, Faramirs entire character was changed to a greedy idiot instead of a selfless wise person. I can forgive the films removing the whole Tom Bombadil section as I have no idea how they would have portrayed him, but I CANNOT forgive them removing the scouring of the shire! Thats half the point of the story. The point is that while you are off fighting a war for all the things you love these things are changing to become unrecognisable while you're away.
 
Arjun806 said:
All of the Harry Potter books. I grew up reading them so I really like him, but I hated the films, especially the latest one.
Click to expand...

I thought they did the films pretty damn well, they're not Lord of the Rings geeky and don't put off people who haven't read the books. The films capture the humour and magic that the books convey imo.

I've not seen the 6th film yet, but I really enjoyed all the others
 
oxygene said:
For Lord of the Rings I agree that Sarumans death was stupid, Faramirs entire character was changed to a greedy idiot instead of a selfless wise person. I can forgive the films removing the whole Tom Bombadil section as I have no idea how they would have portrayed him, but I CANNOT forgive them removing the scouring of the shire! Thats half the point of the story. The point is that while you are off fighting a war for all the things you love these things are changing to become unrecognisable while you're away.
Click to expand...

This is the point though. Even The Lord of the Rings couldn't get it right.

The fact is though that a book is written by one person in a room whereas a film adaptation such as LoTR costs hundreds of millions of dollars, involves a cast & crew of hundreds, sets need to be built, costumes, makes-up for the all the fantastical creatures, etc. and it takes years to make. There is always going to be something lost amongst all that. Always.

The problem is books are overrated in the first place. A lot of novels I've read are far too long with too much padding (like The Godfather) so cutting out massive sections for a film is a point of necessity.
 
Chimerical said:
The problem is books are overrated in the first place. A lot of novels I've read are far too long with too much padding (like The Godfather) so cutting out massive sections for a film is a point of necessity.
Click to expand...

In your opinion... from my standpoint films are over-rated as they're too short and because of this sometimes plot holes form.
 
I tend not to compare books to films as books are a very personal experience - the best books will illicit different responses from everyone who reads it, which is also why people feel so strongly if they don't agree with a filmed interpretation. I don't believe it is ever possible to completely recreate a book in film apart from short stories purely down to the length the film would need to be to recreate every scenario in a 500 or so page book.

For example I understand the fury that was produced by I Robot (Will Smith does like getting involved in the controversial ones!) as the die-hard Asimov fans thought it raped the novel, but for me it was simply a new story based on the world of the book and although it wasn't a great film I enjoyed it nonethless.

There are also other problems with book adaptions in terms of what can be allowed to be filmed (without risking the film being banned), for example in the novel Misery, by Stephen King, the 'number-one fan' actually cuts one of the writer's feet off with an axe and blowtorches it dry, whilst the film had her breaking his ankles with a sledge-hammer. I can only imagine that this change was made partly because the ankle-breaking was easier to produce on the screen, but also because the book scenario would've been too horrific and wouldn't suit the tone of the film.

I guess a lot of it comes down to how much emotional investment you have in a book, and I've also noticed that it doesn't matter so much if you read the book after you've seen the film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom