Book Adaptations Brought To Film

[kpkelley]

Warning due to the nature of this thread there will be spoilers.

I was curious as to what book to film adaptations pissed members off the most.

Personally for me it was Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire. They destroyed that adaptation before the opening credits by showing Barty Crouch Jr. in the house by the cemetary. That took the mystery out the scenes at the Quidditch world cup. They completely ignored that Barty Crouch Sr. was supposed to have been imperiused throughout, he might have noticed that the son he kidnapped from prison went missing.

[savage1984]

How about iRobot or I am Legend. Both completely different then the book.

[Slec]

Things get lost when you compress a book into a movie. The books are always better as a result (plus you imagine the whole thing, you don't see it through someone elses eyes).

Can't have a thread like this without the Bourne movies and books being brought up. They really only share the title names, and the "spirit" of Jason Bourne from the first book. Everything else is PURE hollywood.

[savage1984]

yeah... that's just it. I love books and movies. Books that become movies should never be compared with each other unless the author is the screenwriter (eg. The Princess Bride). I think it happens way too often, but it's inevitable as we all must always compare to something better.

This film was great, but it was no (insert iconic film of a period).

You can never win.

[cajmoyper]

Originally Posted by Slec

Things get lost when you compress a book into a movie. The books are always better as a result (plus you imagine the whole thing, you don't see it through someone elses eyes).

Can't have a thread like this without the Bourne movies and books being brought up. They really only share the title names, and the "spirit" of Jason Bourne from the first book. Everything else is PURE hollywood.

Completely disagree more with the part that because things are lost, books are better than the movies. LOTR lost absolutely boring parts and the movies because of it are so much better. I can't remember being more bored from reading a book.

[Slec]

Originally Posted by cajmoyper

Completely disagree more with the part that because things are lost, books are better than the movies. LOTR lost absolutely boring parts and the movies because of it are so much better. I can't remember being more bored from reading a book.

Those movies are absolutely ruined for me. Had a weekend where we watched them and my sister-in-law proceded to tell us EVERYTHING that was different between the two. I'm with Savage, you can't really compare books and movies. With LOTR you get into all kinds of things like Literary type stuff... "he was creating a world" type stuff. To each their own...

I watch movies to be entertained.

[JJ]

Congo.

I mean, mein Gott in Himmel...what a horrible film. I wish they would re-make it, it could've been a great suspense thriller, not the punchline it is now.

That is the one that upsets me the most, I've made my peace with the Potters and the others.

[Rob71]

Almost anything based off a Stephen King or HP Lovecraft book. Minus Re-Animator, The Green Mile, and Shawshank Redemption of course.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by savage1984

yeah... that's just it. I love books and movies. Books that become movies should never be compared with each other unless the author is the screenwriter (eg. The Princess Bride). I think it happens way too often, but it's inevitable as we all must always compare to something better.

This film was great, but it was no (insert iconic film of a period).

You can never win.

I was thinking more like how movies change things from books that serve no purpose or detract from the film. Decisions that are made to translate something from one medium to another are inevitable, but changes that detract for no apparent reason annoy me.

In the LOTR they wrote two scripts b/c they had originally agreed upon making two movies. When they got the greenlight to expand it to three movies, they had to rewrite the middle chapter from portions of the first and second. Consequently they needed to create pacing and structure for the second film, because they couldn't find appropriate markers in the novel that fit with the pacing. Thusly they created the scenes at Osgiliath to bring action to Frodo's story and a climactic conlcusion to his journey in the second film.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by savage1984

How about iRobot or I am Legend. Both completely different then the book.

for me I Robot still worked though. that book wouldn't have made sense as a movie. A series of vignettes I guess? I'd have seen it but it wouldn't have performed well.

haven't read I Am Legend but I do wish they had made it "right"... loved Smith but the movie was weak and I'd love to have experienced the book version that way.

[Stephie_is_a_dork]

I usually prefer the books, but still enjoy the movies. My imagination is awesome.

That being said, I like the Harry Potter movies (except the 2nd) a lot, but they have WAY too many omissions due to time constraints. I would LOVE to see this as a series someday. Each book/year at Hogwarts could be 1 season. There may be issues with budgets for a project 7 seasons long and comparisons to the Daniel Radcliffe movies, but it could be an AMAZING anime in the hands of a capable director and animators.

More recently, the movie The Other Boleyn Girl was a boring movie adaptation of a fascinating book. Quite disappointing.

I wish more books were made into series to allow all the richness in detail and major plotlines and characters of the books.

[AaronSCH]

I remember reading Stephen King's "The Shining" in a single weekend and being very disappointed by Stanley Kubricks adaptation. My attitude towards the film has changed somewhat over the years and I can appreciate the brilliance of Kubrick's vision. The television adaptation which attempted to stick a bit closer to King's version was absolutely awful. I still hope someone will attempt to bring Stephen King's masterpiece, "The Stand" to the big screen. It is so epic in scope that a studio could easily make a two or three picture series from the novel. The television version wasn't all that bad but I don't think it did King's work justice.

I wish someone in Hollywood would wake up and finally bring Caleb Carr's excellent crime novel, "The Alienist" to the big screen. Alienist was the former term used for a psychiatrist appointed as an expert on the mental competence of principals appearing before a court of law. The novel is a psychological thriller set in late 19th century New York City. In order to catch a serial killer, police commissioner Theodore Roosevelt puts together a secret forensic team that includes New York Times journalist John Moore, police secretary Sara Howard, the Detective Sergeants Isaacson, and the "alienist" himself, Dr. Laszlo Kreizler. Within the pages of this book, the reader follows this unlikely team in an investigation that takes them from the poorest neighborhoods of the Lower East Side to the wealthiest mansions of Fifth Avenue. It is hands down the best book I have read in the last ten years and Mr. Carr's follow-up, "The Angel of Darkness" would make an excellent sequel.

Either David Fincher or Neil Jordan would be well-suited to bring this tale to the big screen. How about Daniel Day Lewis as Doctor Kreizler?