What's the most disappointing movie based on a book you loved?

[SacredCow]

I'll start with the movie adaptation of Stephen King's Apt Pupil...

[theophilus]

1. The recent Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy n/t

[mark414]

8. bahhh the movie wasn't supposed to be a direct adaptation...

and all the changes made were made by douglas adams himself...just like the radio show was different from the tv show was different from the book...

[nuxvomica]

19. A very disappointing version

The actors all seemed to be terminally uninterested in the material. There was no spark. I much preferred the British TV version with Zaphod Beebelbrox' rubber supernumerary head on the side.

[theophilus]

44. My feelings exactly. The Brit T.V. version was serialized and could

include so much. The books have a warmth about them that is impossible for me to describe and I'm not sure I even understand exactly why. Those who love the books just know what I mean. There were areas that could have been changed, like using ipods or cell phones instead of digital watches, etc. I don't like the decisions that were made. Mr. Adams wanted to see the project done, understandably. Anyway, as was said at the time....this is a nice version but certainly not the definitive one. Someone needs to serialize it again with today's "Battlestar" quality effects. Old Marvin and the original Zaphod's head concept need to be brought back, imo. It's all opinion, ain't it?

Life. You can loathe it. You can ignore it. But you can't like it.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

2. Dune, without a doubt. I actually liked Apt Pupil, I thought the film

actually trimmed some of the excess out of King's story, but I like the story a great bit too.

I can't say I don't derive ANY enjoyment out of the perverse freakshow that is David Lynch's Dune, but compared to the book... sigh...

A college dorm mate used to recite long passages of dialogue between Baron Harkonnen and Piter, very loudly and with maniacal glee.

[ikri]

5. Agreed

The directing is good and the acting is good but the story is terrible.

Why they wanted to butcher Dune is beyond me. There was no need to change it at all.

[jpgray]

10. I don't think the direction was particularly good

The actors (and most were excellently cast) looked totally at sea with their dialogue for the most part.

[baldguy]

23. David Lynch's Dune

[nosillies]

72. Would you believe I watched this last night.

It just really needed to be about four hours to be good, I think.

[nuxvomica]

20. I really liked that movie, except for the rushed ending

I thought it was very stylish compared to most big effects movies and I got nearly the same powerful sense of wonder and intrigue as I did from the book. I also reduced my expectations knowing they couldn't fit everything from the book into one commercial movie, though the ending was out of line.

I also liked Apt Pupil, BTW.

[smitty]

3. "The Martian Chronicles" by Ray Bradbury

It was a made for TV movie and it was awful.

[LeftyMom]

4. Contact.

It wasn't a bad movie, but it lacked the heart of the book.

[u4ic]

6. I didn't love the book

but the movie of Peter Strauss' Ghost Story was unbelievable cheesy...:rofl:

Swann by Carol Shields was another movie that could have been better (but had a wonderful cast).

[ceile]

7. "queen of the damned" to start....

"interview" as well.
Basically, any mystery/thriller I've read. Except for "The Birds" DeMaurie (sp)/Hitchcock. Rocked.
So did "Constant Gardener".

[Arkham House]

9. The Robert Mitchum "The Big Sleep"...

...cripes--it takes place in *London*...

[jobycom]

11. Didn't see that one. But it would be hard to beat the book or the Bogart

film.

[jobycom]

12. The Sun Also Rises

What they did to the ending should enter into their punishment phase on Judgement Day.

[YankeyMCC]

13. I, Robot

Well technically the only 'book' of that title is actually a collection of short stories it's clear the movie was an interpetation of "Caves of Steel" with aspects of the other stories thrown in.

If they hadn't tried to associate the movie with the Asimov robot stories I could simply say I mildly enjoyed the movie as a bit of holloywood fun but looked at as an interpetation of Asimov's robot stories it's pretty horrid.

[reyd reid reed]

14. I couldn't even begin to list them...

If I really love a book, I won't even try to see the film anymore. I've been disappointed far too many times...and even someone as hard-headed as I am can finally learn.

Just proves no one is unteachable.

[mac56]

15. Catch-22

There's just no way to make an accurate film out of that book, and they sure didn't.

[kwassa]

100. Agreed. The movie sucked big time by comparison.

Arkin is not Yossarian, among many other problems.

[BlueIris]

16. Smilla's Sense of Snow.

One of the best modern novels ever--so much potential for the book to be adapted into an excellent film and...it was just plain mediocre. In fact, even calling it mediocre is being generous. AAAAUUUGGGHHH. I'm still so bitter about that.

[flamingyouth]

18. Agreed.

Great book, bland film. Could have been soooo much better.

[XemaSab]

17. Without a doubt

"The Haunting."

Without a doubt.

[Puglover]

60. OMG....rent the 1st version

with Julie Harris and Claire Bloom. Scared the shit outta me when I was a kid. It's still a great movie.

[nuxvomica]

21. Worst case to me was "Fried Green Tomatoes"

It's been a while since I read the book or saw the movie but I recall a fusion of two main characters into one that completely twisted the story. Plus the movie didn't have any recipes. :D

[BlueIris]

50. Yeah, that movie sucks.

Which always grates on me as there was sooooo much potential there.

[Rhiannon12866]

104. I know. I loved the book and couldn't wait to see the movie.

If they had just followed the book, they would have been okay, but they decided to fuse two of the main characters, which made no sense at all and completely changed everything...x(

[Rhiannon12866]

102. You missed my reply, LOL! That was my answer, too.

I just loved the book, but they mixed up the main character, Idgie, and the woman who was telling the story, Ninny. They were sisters-in-law and two separate and very different and important characters. I never understood why they did that, since it made no sense at all and ruined the movie for me...:-(

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=5350857&mesg_id=5357860

[leeroysphitz]

22. Lord of the Rings, without the slightest doubt.

I admit my expectations were pretty high but these films were garbage, one after another. I saw the first one at the theatre, rented "The Two Towers" but didn't finish it and downloaded Return of the King for FREE off of Usenet and did not get a quarter of the way through before deleting it...

If you are unable to "adapt" a masterwork of fiction, beloved the world over without HACKING IT INTO HOLLYWOOD GARBAGE then why must you do it?

But hey, that's just my opinion.

[dubeskin]

54. It wasn't BAD, but it wasn't GOOD, n/t

[Phillycat]

95. I thought they were brilliant.

And I loved the books so much I was sure I'd be disappointed by the movies.

[CatholicEdHead]

24. LOTR: The Two Towers

Compared with the second book it was horrible. Fellowship of the Ring and Return of the King did follow their books somewhat.

[ScreamingMeemie]

25. I'm going to get slammed but I don't care...Kubrick's version of "The

Shining". While scary, it took so many liberties and veered off from the book in so many stupid little ways that I become irritated. Stick with the story. It worked and was scary. And I am also one of the few who liked Stephen King's version. After all he wrote it. Although, when I first say it, the commercial interruptions wrecked some of the "scare factor". The DVD is horribly frightening. :hi:

[miss_american_pie]

26. I agree with you

:hi:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

27. I agree. I just flat out liked the book much better. Jack's struggle is

supposed to be an internal one, and you cast Jack Nicholson who plays it over the top from the word go.

[Juffo Wup]

30. Agree 100%

Nicholson played the character completely wrong. The topiary scene should have been included - that was the scariest scene in the book. I liked SF Channel version's better.

[wildhorses]

28. The Davinci Code

dunno why exactly...

[hippywife]

29. The Prince of Tides.

The movie totally missed out on the depth of the book.

[BlueIris]

52. Plus, setting it in 1991 instead of 1972 just destroyed

the parts of the story that are enjoyable as period epic, or rather, an epic that draws a lot of its interesting features from the tragicomic contrast between American society in '40s/'50s and that of the '60s/'70s in which Tom's character travels through his therapy. I love Nick Nolte's work in that, but--talk about making the focus too damn narrow.

[hippywife]

71. The narrow focus

was exactly my problem with it. The movie focused too much on the romance and not enough on the reasons that brought them to even meet. The incredibly deep and meaningful incidences of the past were brushed aside for the "romance." Plus I'm really not a Nolte fan.

[Va Lefty]

31. Most of King's stories don't translate to film very well

Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me the notable exceptions.
I loved The Stand but was very disappointed in the made-for-TV miniseries.

[XemaSab]

47. They changed Shawshank a LOT from the short story

It was a fine film, mind you, but they changed the story a lot.

The bridge scene in "Stand By Me" was filmed in Shasta county, CA.

[BlueIris]

91. What?

I could be losing my mind, but I didn't think the story was altered much at all. I noticed a few changes, but felt they were shrewdly made only for the purpose of making an excellent novella into an excellent screenplay. My copy of Different Seasons is packed away somewhere at the moment--what am I missing? I seriously don't remember "a lot" of alterations to King's work.

[XemaSab]

93. The major one I remember was changing Red's race

I thought it was a really odd change that sort of changed the character.

[qnr]

32. The Far Pavilions n/t

[idgiehkt]

33. Cold Mountain. And I haven't even seen it.

But casting Nicole Kidman in that was a travesty. I felt like Ashely Judd was the only one that could pull it off convincingly. Nicole Kidman is a wuss, and Ava was a bad-ass. Plus the trailer made me scream...they plugged it like a war movie "they tried to take his town..." That was infuriating. That book is anti-war, and Inman is a deserter..about one of the battles, his character says "he might as well have put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger for all the good it did." ARGGGHH, grumble, kvetch. But anyway, one day I will see it just for Renee Zellweger's performance as Ruby and fast forward through the other stuff.

[Patiod]

99. And try to ignore that everyone has bleached teeth

thoughout the entire war.

Yes, they wear some fetching smudges on their cheeks (to indicate that they're done hard work) but the teeth stay blindingly white. EVERYONE has blindingly white teeth. Did the makeup people never hear of the stuff that can be painted on to tone down the Hollywood Smile look?

Nicole Kidman put me off the movie as well. Too many pretty people in it (although Rene Zellweger was a darn good Ruby)

One of my all-time favoite books, and I wish I hadn't seen the movie now.

[Tikki]

34. The Postman..........n/t

[Glorfindel]

35. Disney's version of "The Jungle Book"

The ultimate, horrible butchery of a beloved classic of my childhood. There's a special spot in hell waiting for everyone involved with this travesty.

[TrogL]

36. Pretty much any "Biblical" movie

Most are rampant heresy. The remainder are cloyish and boring.

[begin_within]

37. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"

The movie completely missed the viewpoint of the books narrator (Chief Broom) and his progress from paranoid schizophrenic at the beginning of the book to free and clear thinking individual at the end. The movie was like a comic-book version of the book, and Ken Kesey hated the movie.

[SacredCow]

63. Oh, yeah...

I forgot about that one, but it didn't fit my original post because I saw the movie before I read the book. I thought the movie was decent until my junior year in high school, when I read the book and based my yearly project on it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. Oh, good call!

I was appalled at what they did with the movie.

[Blue_Tires]

38. i'm still waiting for a proper adaptation of

The Great Gatsby

[WindRavenX]

89. Same here

:thumbsup:

[Ron Green]

39. "The Exorcist"

by William P. Blatty. I was so terrified reading that book that I was afraid to turn out the lights and go to sleep. When they made it into a movie, it was a pale shadow of the book, in my opinion. The characters were not well developed, and mere cinematic grossness took the place of the pure horror of Blatty's book.

[tjdee]

40. The SCARLET LETTER. How in the hell do you screw with Hawthorne?

They changed the ending, made Robert Duvall some kind of weirdo....it was awful times 500. Really bad. Poor Nate H. would have been devestated.

I should have known it would be a disaster with Demi Moore as Hester Prynne... a shame. Gary Oldman was a perfect choice for Dimmesdale and did a great job as usual.

[maveric]

41. "The Choirboys".

A great read by Joseph Wambaugh about rowdy LAPD officer. The movie was one of the worst I've ever seen.

[NMMNG]

42. "Clan of the Cave Bear"

Also Flowers in the Attic

[liberaltrucker]

43. Gone With the Wind

Clark Gable and Vivian Leigh notwithstanding, the flick
came nowhere doing justice to Ms Mitchell's outstanding
narrative. MHO, of course.

[bedazzled]

45. the mists of avalon - they made it into a TV MOVIE

and a soap opera to boot.

tragic, really, though angelica huston was a good casting choice (the only one, near as i could see...)

[wickerwoman]

46. The Three Musketeers

all 900,000 film adaptations are horrible. It's like a cold-blooded slap in the face every 5 or 6 years.

The book has been popular for hundreds of years and it's not *that* hard to film. So why do they insist on going completely off the rails after page 50? And they always get great casts and then totally squander them.

[Writer]

48. One of the greatest myths in our culture...

is that a book translates directly to film. They are two different media with two different dimensionalities. One cannot "copy" the other.

[swag]

"Lolita," "Myra Breckinridge"

[swag]

49. "Lolita," "Myra Breckinridge"

[RoyGBiv]

51. IT

The movie sucked wind.

I still occasionally have nightmares because of the book.

I also have nightmares about the movie, but they're the kind of nightmares I also have about Superman III.

[spacelady]

55. No Doubt. eom

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. Did you see the full length movie?

It was a two-part TV movie that's been deeply cut to two hours for the video. I don't even think they show the whole thing anymore.

The first two hours was done fairly well, actually. The second half went down hill fast, especially the climax.

I guess that's to be expected though. How are you going to film a pre-teen sex orgy?

[RoyGBiv]

82. Yeah ...

I saw it when it aired and had high -- too high -- expectations. I tried watching the video version and never made it through.

The "kids" part, basically the first part, wasn't horrible, and I did think Tim Curry made a good Pennywise. I was disappointed in all the adults, with the possible exception of Mike.

And, yeah, that part at the end wouldn't even have made it into a not-for-TV movie.

I read the book the first time my freshman year of college, over several days, mostly in the halls and siderooms and stairways of an old library that had been built in the early 20th century. There was a lot of nuance to the book that wasn't even attempted in the movie, and while I realize a book of that depth could never be made into a movie that did it complete justice, what they did with it changed the story for me. As one example, when reading the book, I understood, without any doubt, why these kids got together again as adults. In the movie, the motivation just wasn't there on the same level.

[spacelady]

53. Yah, that was bad. My pick is "Watchers" by Dean Koontz &

"Running Man" by Srephen King.

[patricia92243]

92. Watchers was my first Koontz book and I was so excited when I found out

there was a movie too. I got over my excitement. :(

[dubeskin]

56. Chronicles of Narnia: THe Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe.

I love the books. I hated the movie. It was too much of a LOTR remake but not as good in my opinion.

[XemaSab]

64. More focused on special effects than plot

n/t

[grannylib]

73. I agree...some of my favorite parts of the book were left out of the movie

And while I realize that it was made for families, and to appeal to very young children as well as adults, it really lost something in the film version.

My youngest daughter, age 19, has never read the book and she loved the movie.
It wasn't as bad as I had feared, but not nearly as good as I had hoped.

[XemaSab]

81. It was a very pretty movie

But they added some stuff like the battle scene that really wasn't in the book just to show off the CGI.

I thought the worst scene was at the Stone Table. The CGI totally overwhelmed the importance of the scene.

I've had similar problems with a few movies lately (Star Wars 1-3 and a couple of the Harry Potter movies) where the director tried WAY too hard to overwhelm the viewer with CGI when something a bit more understated would have worked much better in the context of the film. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.

[enigmatic]

57. "The Music Of Chance"- Paul Auster

The book is in my top 10, but the film suffered from horrible casting in the leads and scenes not in the book. I want someone to try this again...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Music_of_Chance

[Maud]

58. Ragtime

The 1981 film version of the EL Doctorow novel was one of my greatest disappointments. The book was wonderful and I couldn't wait for the movie to come out, but when it did I could barely understand what was going on--and I'd read the book. Heaven help those who hadn't. Wish someone would do a remake of this, the book deserves better.

[Puglover]

59. Salems Lot

It was horrible....HORRIBLE. :scared:

[Fox Mulder]

61. Queen of the Damned.

The book was great...the movie wasn't good...but it wasn't bad, either.

The soundtrack kicks ass, though.

[Cathyclysmic]

62. The Perfect Storm

Just sucked. The movie just could not capture what a mess it was.

When the movie came out, I dragged a bunch of people and went to the local drive-in, talking the movie up the whole time. I had to do some apologizing.

[RedStateShame]

65. "About A Boy"

Loved the Nick Hornby novel, but they decided, I guess, they didn't need the Kurt Cobain suicide sub-plot, which was rather important in the structure of the novel.

[philosophie_en_rose]

68. I loved the book and the movie.

Considering that the movie was made many years after Kurt Cobain died, it did make a little sense to cut the subplot.

However, the replacement scene (the talent show) was inextricably cheesy.

[Z_I_Peevey]

66. Simon Birch aka

"A Prayer for Owen Meany"

Whatta load of hooey that movie was, and what a terrific book.

[vssmith]

85. The movie strayed so far from the book it was barely recognizable

[NewWaveChick1981]

67. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

I hated the way Alfonson Cuaron did that movie. He's a talented director, but not for that subject matter. Too much wasted time in the movie, and too many important things left out.

[fishwax]

77. i really liked that one

i think it was much more of a challenge to adapt than the first two (if for no other reason than the length), but I thought he did a nice job. Based on my own informal polling of friends, family, etc., though, I'm in the minority with that opinion :)

[Rhiannon12866]

98. That was my favorite of the "Harry Potter" books and I thought the movie

was okay... I was disappointed, overall, in the casting of the kids, Harry and Hermione. But by the time I saw this movie, I'd gotten used to them. But I do agree that too much that was important was left out of this one...:-(

[Guy Fawkes]

69. V for Vendetta

I'm a big fan of the comic- it's dark and serious, not at all like the movie. Is the movie bad? No- but in light of the book, it isn't very good, either.

[LynneSin]

70. John Irving's Cider House Rules

to be honest, perhaps the reason it totally sucked was the fact that Charlize Theron was horribly wrong for the part. In the book, Candy (the character that Theron played) came across as almost pure in her love for Homer even though she was also still in love with Wally, who was presumed dead in the war. The movie made Candy look cheap & horny and even though Candy was sexually active she was never either of those things.

I think Ms. Theron is a very talented actress but this was just not a good fit and ruined the movie since the romance triangle between Candy, Homer & Wally was a major part of the plot. However, I did think that the casting for Wally (Paul Rudd), Homer (Tobey McGwire) and especially Dr. Larch (Michael Caine - he won an Oscar for the role) were good decisions

[fishwax]

78. i thought the movie sucked

haven't read the book, though ...

[ploppy]

74. The Power of One -

Loved the book - did not love the movie at all!!

[RFKHumphreyObama]

79. Quite a few

Almost all the adaptations of the John Grisham novels -although "The Rainmaker" was not OK

Almost all the adaptations of Roald Dahl's novels -especially "Matilda" and "The Witches". Look, if you've already got a good storyline than don't ruin it for the movie and don't create uncessarily sugary plot lines

The adaptation of Melina Marchetta's novel "Looking for Allibrandi" -somehow it didn't translate well onto the big screen, the characters were disjointed and the plot not developed to its full potential. I'm in the minority here because the movie was widely acclaimed

"Misery" by Stephen King was quite good but it's always a concern when you want to see a side character (the Sheriff) wanting to be saved more than the main character

[MrSlayer]

80. Tie between LOTR, American Psycho and the Hitchhiker's Guide.

All were terribly disappointing to me. Sacrilegious even.

[AlCzervik]

83. the latest one--The devil wears Prada, either read the book or see the

movie but do not do both.

[cedahlia]

84. "Girl" (based on Blake Nelson's book of the same title)

The movie should have been called "Pile of Shit", because that's what it was. Goddamn murdered the book. Wanna know how bad it was? TARA. FUCKING. REID. was cast as Cybil. Cybil, the complex, passionate, feminist, punk rock star, and vital inspiration to the book's main character Andrea. Ugh...I don't know if I've ever been quite so infuriated by a movie. Well, okay, I was probably more infuriated by "I Spit on Your Grave." Hey! The tagline for the movie "Girl" could have been "I Spit on Your Book." :puke: :puke: :puke:

[pitohui]

86. endless love by scott spencer

hands down worst movie of all time and it destroyed a good writer's career really altho he years later had a nice come back w. the rich man's table

[SoCalDem]

87. Hawaii...n/t

[MamaBear]

88. Updike's The Witches of Eastwick

I thought the screenplay just missed the point and Cher didn't do i for me.

[antigone382]

90. "The Scarlet Letter" with Demi Moore...

They took the central theme of guilt and redemption that was the entire point of the book, threw it out the window and replaced it with some cartoony shit where Hester is almost hanged until the preacher comes to save her in a wagon during an Indian rebellion and they ride away into the sunset...They tried to turn it into "The Crucible" meets "Dances with Wolves." It was just such total cheesy hollywood bullshit. I had to re-read the book after I watched that load of crap just to make sure I hadn't totally missed something.

Then again, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised.

[lavenderdiva]

94. 'Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil'....

This John Berendt book was wonderful and I was eagerly anticipating the movie. However, once Clint Eastwood got a hold of it, and twisted the story, changing characters and events, it was a wreck. And then he had to go cast his daughter as one of the main characters.

[blondeatlast]

96. Carl Hiaasen for both--"Striptease"--hilarious adult novel turned into

a colossal waste of time unless you enjoy worshipping Demi Moore's ego and overacting (I don't); the book is just pee-your-pants funny; and his YA novel "Hoot."

He's such a terrifically funny writer, it's a shame what Hollywood did to his work (probably because he makes such terrific fun at plastic people with overinflated senses of importance).

[Rhiannon12866]

97. "Fried Green Tomatoes."

If you saw the movie first, then you might not have had a problem with it. But, if you read the book first, as I had and my roommate did, the movie was a huge disappointment. The book is a classic. But they changed things in the movie that were at the heart of the story. My roommate was prepared to just walk out... And I was very disappointed. :-(

[Spaceman Spiff]

101. The last two "Harry Potter" movies

have disappointed me. There just wasn't enough Quiditch (sp?) in either one. I fact, I think the next movie should be "Harry Potter and the Ninty Minute Quiditch Match". Now I would watch that!

[Taverner]

103. "Hotel New Hampshire" by John Irving

They turned a bittersweet sad book into a horrible brat pack movie - and Jodie Foster should have known better!!!