Book to Movie?

[Moofin Bard]

I made this thread for people to comment on books that got turned into movies and how you hate them. I'll start.

1. Blood and Chocolate:
It's set in a different country, she ends up with the guy who dumps her for being a werewolf, and she ends up killing the guy she's supposed to be with.

2. Eragon:
This movie didn't even deserve to be called Eragon. The only thing that was the same was the name of the characters and the basic plot outline. I mean really. It was a disaster.

[kpenguin]

3. The Godfather.
The book was average, but overly cluttered. The film is an absolute classic, so much so that the book is unremembered.

[Mystic Muse]

4.Harry potter 3. it was just out of whack.

and I agree so much with Eragon.

[Gorgondantess]

Well, I mean, does anything deserve to be called Eragon? I mean, that's just mean.
....
Oh, right, sorry.:smallredface: I kid, I kid...
Anyhow, I usually just take book-to-movies with a grain of salt, but there was one that really pissed me off.
The Chocolate War.
For the whole movie, they did it f**king perfectly. I mean perfect. The acting was spot-on, the characters were great, it followed the plot precisely.
And then, at the end, the pivotal moment, they ruined the ending. There is little they could have done to make the ending worse. It didn't even make sense! People were doing things that completely went against their character! If it were just completely unfaithful to the book throughout I would've been ok- I kindof expected it- but because it was doing so well and had so much potential and then it ruined everything, I still watch the movie, but make sure to turn it off in the last 10 minutes and pretend it never happened. It's that bad. Even with movies where I flat out dislike the ending, I still watch it. But this was rape.

[Moofin Bard]

I see you feel strongly about that.


One movie I didn't mind so much was City of Ember. They followed the book very closely and I did like their casting very much. Bill Murray as the mayor? Come on that is too good. Sure it wasn't exact, but you can't expect movies to be because they have to have more entertainment value.

[Gorgondantess]

I see you feel strongly about that.

Yes, I do! Normally I don't care, because I expect it to suck, so I just pretend there isn't a movie, but it was a really really really good movie until the last 10 minutes.

Anyhow, speaking of book-to-movies, I've been considering going out to see Coraline- is that any good? Do note that it used to be one of my favorite books and I've read it several times, so...

[RabbitHoleLost]

There are two book-to-movies I thought were better as movies:
1) The Princess Bride
2) Phantom of the Opera

[Starscream]

I'm just going to mention Watchmen before anyone else does. There, now we can ignore it. You're welcome.

The Hitchhiker's Guide movie wasn't bad exactly, but it wasn't...vicious enough. British comedy should have bite. At least I got to stare at Zooey Deschanel for a while. If it had been Tina Fey I doubt I would have noticed anything else about the movie at all.

I personally liked Burton's take on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. As a book adaptation it is far more loyal than the old film (which didn't even use Dahl's brilliant poetry). A lot of people consider it a remake of the first movie (and don't like it as such), but really it is just a separate movie with the same source. The 70s film had one big thing going for it: Gene Wilder is awesome. Any second he's not on screen is wasted.

Other good Dahl books have been The Witches, Matilda, and James and the Giant Peach. They all had decent movies.

Twilight is a bad movie based on a bad series of books. I want the sequel to feature Buffy, Blade and Simon Belmont, please.

The made for TV Discworld adaptations have been pretty good overall. The live action version of Teatime is so good that I will forever see him that way whenever I reread the book.

The live action Grinch movie was... well it was two hours of Jim Carrey clowning around. That has entertainment value, but the Chuck Jones animated adaptation is such a classic that I hate to think of its place in our culture ever being challenged.

The other recent Seuss adaptations have been awful. Horton was a bore, and the Cat in the Hat was so bad that it canceled out all the humor that was the Austin Powers trilogy. And Love Guru canceled out any laughs from all three Shreks. If the next Mike Myers movie is bad enough to wipe out three decent films, that'll take care of both Wayne's Worlds, and leave him with a score of negative one. How did I get on a Mike Myers rant? Yeah, Seuss. I hear the Lorax is next. I hope it doesn't suck.

A Clockwork Orange was not that great a book. The movie was also not great, but it was not great by way of Stanley Kubrick. That has to count for something, right? I think both the book and movie are something everyone decides they like during college because it seems like the sort of thing college kids should like. I graduated college a month ago, so now I never have to watch it again.

Shawshank Redemption is way better than the book. So is Bladerunner. And Jaws. No connection between these three, I just didn't want to have three really short paragraphs. Lalalala.

The Thin Man was pretty good book. Then William Powell and Myrna Loy got a hold of it and were so incredibly awesome that even though the book never had a sequel, the movie had five of them.

To Kill a Mockingbird is one of the best books ever written. And one of the best movies ever filmed. Both the book and movie are the favorites of Superman. That's how awesome they are.

2001 is interesting because the book and the movie were made at the same time, and compliment each other. The movie is better, but if you want to actually understand what happened, the book does a good job of clearing it up.

The Exorcist may be the greatest horror film of all time. The book was okay.

The Great Mouse Detective took a series of forgettable childrens books that you haven't heard of, and actually made it pretty cool. Ditto The Rescuers. And Secret if Nimh. What is it with stories about mice?

Silence of the Lambs is way better than the book. For the other three movies in the series, the book is better.

I Am Legend was a good movie right up until the end, at which point the writers revealed that they either hadn't read the book or didn't get it. Actually they set up the "proper" ending all throughout the film, then changed it at the last minute. I imagine someone in a test audience said "That was good, but can we get rid of the part that made me think? Maybe an explosion instead. Explosions are much cooler than thinking". I mean that ending was the entire point of the story. And then they had the gall to put it on the DVD as the "Controversial Alternate Ending". Controversial? So making peace with one's enemies is more controversial than a suicide bombing?! [/rant].

I, Robot has one problem: the title. If they had called it Hardwired like they were planning to, I would have loved it.

The Last Unicorn is one of the best animated films ever. There, I said it. Now I must go and bench press a grizzly bear to reassert my manliness.

The Lord of the Rings movies rock. So do the books. The animated adaptations not so much.

[Moofin Bard]

I agree with both of those RHL.

And I haven't seen it yet. But it LOOKS like they did a good job.

EDIT: OOOH Lorax. They better not mess that up. That's my favorite.
And my school is doing Seussical as the musical this year. I'm excited.

[Tirian]

The Princess Bride is a really tough call. The movie had some phenomenal casting and direction, but think I still have to give the edge to the book. The Zoo of Death was a really cool segment that got left behind, plus you can't forget about the Reunion Scene. :smallbiggrin: A similar case where the novelization and screenplay seem to have been written simultaneously and it winds up being hard to choose is 2001.

Another movie that was better than its book was Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. (Not to be confused with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory :smallyuk:. Gene Wilder rules, Johnny Depp drools!) The movie versions of A Christmas Carol tend to be better than the source. My understanding is that James Bond movies are better than Ian Fleming novels (although they are often stretched so far that it would be challenging to call them adaptations).

But for the most part, yeah, I'm not on the sidelines cheering when Hollywood promises to read a book I like to me. I can read already kthxbye.

[Innis Cabal]

Anyhow, speaking of book-to-movies, I've been considering going out to see Coraline- is that any good? Do note that it used to be one of my favorite books and I've read it several times, so...

Yes, it was great. It moved a little swiftly, but other then that a grade B+ movie

[RabbitHoleLost]

The Princess Bride is a really tough call. The movie had some phenomenal casting and direction, but think I still have to give the edge to the book. The Zoo of Death was a really cool segment that got left behind, plus you can't forget about the Reunion Scene. :smallbiggrin:

I'unno. I think I just was not a fan of how it was written, but that's a personal preference, as always.
Rabbit never has a different reason other than "I just do. Nyah :smallyuk:"

:smallwink:

[Icewalker]

For Coraline, I haven't read the book and from what I understand it's a good bit darker than the movie, but the movie is still very good (dark enough that people who blindly brought very small children on the grounds that it was animated had to leave because it was too scary.)

Lord of the Rings I thought was well done, but that's partially because I really never liked the books. Actually, that's not true, I never liked the middle of the second book, so much that I never finished it despite multiple attempts. Loved the rest. So I'm not one to compare, but I found the movies enjoyable but lacking in Tom Bombadil (as played by Eddie Izzard :smallwink: ) and the shire ending.

Let's see...other books to movies...

Haven't read The Princess Bride, still intend to...

Phantom of the Opera got a pretty solid amount of variation from what I understand. I haven't read the original, but my friend did in the original French, and said it had an interestingly simple tone (but I think he meant lexically, not story-wise). The (2004) movie is just entirely my favorite movie.

[Tirian]

I'unno. I think I just was not a fan of how it was written, but that's a personal preference, as always.
Rabbit never has a different reason other than "I just do. Nyah :smallyuk:"

:smallwink:

Yeah, that's probably pretty common. The writing style is very strange and overt, and if it doesn't work for you then it's going to bring the whole experience down. On the other hand, it takes a heavy suspension of belief to accept that Robin Wright is the most beautiful woman in the world, so neither side is completely perfect. :smallamused:

[Lord Seth]

2. Eragon:
This movie didn't even deserve to be called Eragon. The only thing that was the same was the name of the characters and the basic plot outline. I mean really. It was a disaster.So I've heard. I figure if it was an even bigger disaster than the book, I'm not even going to watch it to see how bad it was.

[Fri]

Other good Dahl books have been The Witches, Matilda, and James and the Giant Peach. They all had decent movies

I thought Dahl HATE the adatation of The Witches so much that he personally stood outside of theaters that's running it and shout at people to not watching it with a megaphone? Or is it something else

[Starscream]

I thought Dahl HATE the adatation of The Witches so much that he personally stood outside of theaters that's running it and shout at people to not watching it with a megaphone? Or is it something else

He hated Willy Wonka as well. A lot.

Apparently his problem with Witches was that they made the ending too happy. In the book the kid stays a mouse, but doesn't really mind. For the movie they added a pretty witch played by Jane Horrocks who turns good and changes him back.

I can sort of see his point. Witches are supposed to be inherently evil and despise children, not turn good and help them just because their boss is rude. And all she needs to do to fix him is point her finger and magical sparkles do the rest. No other witch in the film has shown any abilities that were like that. If they can transform people by pointing at them, what the heck do they need all those potions for? Even the one in the beginning with the disappearing snake seemed to be operating mostly with illusions.

Personally I liked the film. Anjelica Huston was awesome (even Dahl liked that they cast her), and the Jim Henson effects are great. And I thought the girl in the painting was genuinely frightening as a kid. The book doesn't make that part nearly as scary.

[LCR]

Apart from the Dahl movies mentioned above and To Kill a Mockingbird (Gregory Peck IS Atticus Finch), I really liked the Jeeves&Wooster adaption for television with Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie. It's quite true to the books and the actors are both a perfect fit in my opinion.

[Serpentine]

I think Princess Bride is a good example of what film-makers need to do to make a good adaptation of the book: Accept that they're not making a book, they're making a movie, with all the benefits and drawbacks that entails. The movie is great for snappy lines, sweeping scenery, exciting action and a particular type of humour. The book is great for characterisation, details, backgrounds and another type of humour.

A couple of reviewers here described Coraline as "a horror movie for kids". It's right :smalleek: Brilliant, though.

[pita]

The Harry Potter movies were even worse than the books.
Twilight the movie was better than Twilight the book, but that might just be because A. I'm a Robert Pattinson fan ever since I read his comments about twilight or B. I'm confusing it for Twilight (1998), the movie that had Reese Witherspoon naked.
My favorite book-movie adaptation is Deathnote. The book had a part that wouldn't work so well in the film, so they changed that part with one just as good, added a side character that improved to the film, had Light crossing the Moral Event Horizon at the end of movie one in a way that people would know he's the bad guy, while still making the character more human and more relatable. Also, they had L as odd as he should be, not fetish fuel ridden like he is in the manga. It's a shining moment of adaptation, and one of my favorite Japanese movies (Ran for the win!). I haven't seen part two yet, but my hopes are completely up, and I trust the makers of the movie.
Dexter doesn't count, because it's a TV show, but if you want to see how to adapt a mediocre novel into one of the best shows around, watch it and read the book. It's effing inspired. The same goes to True Blood, but on a lower level. The Sookie Stackhouse mysteries are trashy and fun, and so is the show. Dexter is intelligent and amazing, brilliantly acted, and with strong critical undertones that can be ignored by someone just looking for gory television. The novel is a comedy for misanthropes.
Watchmen is really the best job they could do under the circumstances. Zack Snyder has problems as a director, but he's probably the best action director there is and he cared. The few action scenes are beautifully crafted. There is no subtlety. And this was a movie that was screwed by production from the first moment. They were going to make it about the year 2009, until Zack Snyder told them not to. This movie was fought for, and it's the best comic book movie ever made, with the possible exception of Spiderman three, but that one was for comedy value ("My spider sense is tingling.. if you know what I mean" SO BAD IT'S AWESOME).

[Athaniar]

While the LotR movies were good, there are still the usual complaints, my #1 being that Jackson mistook Sauron for a huge eye and nobody corrected him.

[Eldan]

I didn't care so much about the eye. What annoyed me is that all hobbits in the movie were idiots or whiny, while I thought they were pretty cool in the books.

[orchitect]

Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH, I believe, can't be compared to the movie Secret of NIMH. They're too different. The book (Mrs. Frisby...) is more of a world building exercise and the movie has (way) more action and relies more on visuals (like how everyone remembers the creepy, dark, woods). Enjoy them both for what they are (and Mr. Ages!).

Eragon- never read the book, hated the movie. So cliche.

Harry Potter- love the books and love Emma Watson.

2001- never finished the book (what can I say, I was ten!)

Starship Troopers- The book is so much better. Progaganda yada yada yada! The movie sucks. And don't even bring up the Nazi thing...

Haha, Godwin's Law triumphs!!!

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Since all the ones I've hated have been mentioned, I'll throw out one I love. Though I am 26 years old A Series of Unfortunate Events is one of my favorite movies ever.

Narnia... I'm on the fence. I think they did well enough, and Susan is frankly smokin', but something still seems to be lacking. Think it may be Peter not knowing how to act to save his life. Also they don't stress how much people from this world change in Narnia. The kids suddenly just become mighty warriors overnight.



The Last Unicorn is one of the best animated films ever. There, I said it. Now I must go and bench press a grizzly bear to reassert my manliness
Hahaha, oh man, that made my morning. That so describes me. I'll have to use that imagery from now on.

[LCR]

I didn't care so much about the eye. What annoyed me is that all hobbits in the movie were idiots or whiny, while I thought they were pretty cool in the books.

And I've always pictured them to be ... older. They all looked like they were in their early twenties oder late teens, yet in the book they're 30+, if I'm not mistaken. But since there isn't exactly that much reference as to how old hobbits are supposed to look like, I guess this is just personal preference.

I also don't like the Potter movies, not because they're not well made (I think they are), but because they're so completely different from what I had imagined it while reading.

[Nerd-o-rama]

While the LotR movies were good, there are still the usual complaints, my #1 being that Jackson mistook Sauron for a huge eye and nobody corrected him.So what does Sauron look like, exactly? I was under the impression that he was disembodied and incorporeal; Jackson just felt he needed something to represent him.

[The Dark Fiddler]

4.Harry potter 3. it was just out of whack.

I'll go even further and say every Harry Potter that isn't 1 or 2. Especially Half-Blood Prince (although that might be because its the one I saw most recently and remember most). Deathly Hallows has a chance, because it's going to be in two parts. Still not holding high expectations.

This leads me into commenting on the upcoming Percy Jackson and the Olympians movie. It's being directed by Chris Columbus, the director of Harry Potter 1&2, so I have hopes for this. Of course, with how much I enjoyed the series in book form, I'm also a bit less than enthused; I don't want to see it ruined.

[Telonius]

Practically all of Shakespeare: the plays are much better than the scripts.

I would comment on the live-action version of the Earthsea trilogy, but my brain reports that no such atrocity ever happened.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Practically all of Shakespeare: the plays are much better than the scripts. Isn't that the nature of theater, though? It's meant to be performed. That's probably why so many students dislike studying Shakespeare; they spend all their time studying the scripts and often don't even get to see them performed, which misses out on at least half of what makes a play, perhaps 2/3.

[Serpentine]

I mostly didn't like the Harry Potter 1 movie. The acting was pretty terrible, and the effects were AWFUL! That Quiddich match... ugh. Made my eyes swell up.

Telonius: Go track down the script to your favourite movie. Then try to tell us that the script should somehow be better.

[AstralFire]

Actually, for Shakespeare specifically you can make a good argument because he was a better poet than he was a playwright - reading is easier to analyze and follow than watching along.

Now Cyrano, there's a play that's good to read but you have to see performed, as a movie or as a play.

[Serpentine]

Has anyone turned Shakespear plays into novels? I don't mean a "reproduction" or an "interpretation", like plays or movies. More a... translation, I guess. A literal transcribing of it into novel form, meant for reading. If'n you know what I mean...

[Telonius]

Telonius: Go track down the script to your favourite movie. Then try to tell us that the script should somehow be better.

Go track down your twenty closest schools, and tell me how many of them study the plays rather than the scripts. :smallwink:

[Serpentine]

I never studied the plays or the scripts, though I have seen several that my father has been in. But from what I've heard from people who did study Shakespeare, it was far better when they did see at least one performance of it, or at least got up and read it out loud.
They're not meant to be read. Simple as that *shrug* And I believe we're discussing the enjoyment quality of, if you will, written vs. performed versions, not their value as a topic of analysis (though we could be).

[Athaniar]

So what does Sauron look like, exactly? I was under the impression that he was disembodied and incorporeal; Jackson just felt he needed something to represent him.
I'd say like he looked like in the War of the Last Alliance, as seen in the first movie's introduction.



Starship Troopers- The book is so much better. Progaganda yada yada yada! The movie sucks. And don't even bring up the Nazi thing...
While I've never read the book, the movie is one of my two favorite movies ever. Opinions differ, I guess. And I think I read somewhere that the movie wasn't even originally intended to be a filmatization of the book.

[Eldan]

And I've always pictured them to be ... older. They all looked like they were in their early twenties oder late teens, yet in the book they're 30+, if I'm not mistaken. But since there isn't exactly that much reference as to how old hobbits are supposed to look like, I guess this is just personal preference.


That too. Also, at least in the book, it appears that Gandalf returned only a few days after Bilbo's birthday, and that the entire thing in the Shire took, perhaps, two weeks. Which would still make Frodo over thirty, which could correspond to about 20 in human years, though.

[Berserk Monk]

4.Harry potter 3. it was just out of whack.

and I agree so much with Eragon.

How about every movie after the first. Granted, I only read the first four books, but I didn't like half the stuff they cut out: they skipped most of the beginning of the book and left out the ending when the kids go home.

[WalkingTarget]

So what does Sauron look like, exactly? I was under the impression that he was disembodied and incorporeal; Jackson just felt he needed something to represent him.

From Tolkien's letters:

"...in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructible form their power must be far greater when actually physically present. ...the form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic." (this part of this letter is about a theoretical confrontation between Sauron and somebody who has claimed the Ring, so it's post-Second-Age).

"It is mythologically supposed that when this shape was 'real', that is a physical actuality in the physical world and not a vision transferred from mind to mind, it took some time to build up. It was then destructible like other physical organisms. ... After the battle with Gilgalad and Elendil, Sauron took a long while to re-build, longer than he had done after the Downfall of Numenor (I suppose because each building-up used up some of the inherent energy of the spirit...)"

Gollum also mentions that his black hand has four fingers, implying that by the time of his capture Sauron had taken on a body again.

This doesn't get away from the problem that Sauron doesn't actually appear in the main-sequence of the story and Jackson needed something impressive to point to and say "Here's the villain, isn't he scary?!". This also dovetails into the movies' position that Sauron instantly goes poof when he loses the Ring in the first place (and is faster than explaining otherwise). It's a shortcut they took and I don't hold it against them too much.

[Mauve Shirt]

The third Harry Potter movie was very pretty, and pretty fantastic until the end where they cut out the 5 minutes of exposition that were a huge plot point in the book. And the rest have gone downhill from there.

I also get a little peeved at The Wizard of Oz, it skipped a lot of the book's trippiness.

V Yes! Exactly! The origin of the Tin Man is the best part!

[Serpentine]

And the terrifying violence. Don't forget the terrifying violence.

[Lord Seth]

Isn't that the nature of theater, though? It's meant to be performed. That's probably why so many students dislike studying Shakespeare; they spend all their time studying the scripts and often don't even get to see them performed, which misses out on at least half of what makes a play, perhaps 2/3.The main problem with seeing the plays without reading them is, well, the Early Modern English. The text will usually come with footnotes so you can understand things that you might not normally get, plus if you didn't get a line you can re-read it, whereas in a play it's gone after it's spoken.

[Tirian]

He hated Willy Wonka as well. A lot.

He can go suck a lemon. The reason we all still know Roald Dahl's name is because the 1971 movie was so awesome, and the movie was so awesome because David Seltzer's rewrite is so much better than the original book.

The 2005 movie was more "faithful", but it had to hang an industrial-strength lampshade on the fact that the "competition" was five children being exposed to death-traps that were specifically designed to take out four of them. (Some critics seem to claim that Dahl's vision of Wonka was a kindly man who was just too eccentric to realize how dangerous his factory was, but as a child growing up on this book that has always seemed highly disingenuous.) Charlie isn't virtuous, he's just too poor to afford the sort of vices that get on Dahl's nerves. Is the point that any child could be the heir to the most magical chocolate company in the world as long as he isn't a fattie, a gum-chewer, or a television watcher? Seltzer deserves huge props for testing Charlie too, first with a death-trap that might appeal to a child with four bed-ridden grandparents, and more importantly by not saving his family by selling the prototype Everlasting Gobstopper to "Slugworth" even after being screwed out of the consolation prize.

I don't want to go through line by line of each of the quotes and songs that got rewritten, but I do love that Wonka became a guy who quoted classical poetry at the drop of a hat. If Dahl thinks that he ever wrote anything as beautiful as "So shines a good deed in a weary world," then he is sadly mistaken.

[mangosta71]

I actually don't care for the movie adaptation of Phantom of the Opera. That's probably because my older sister is a culture hound so I grew up listening to the Broadway and London casts and thus had an expectation of what it should have sounded like. The Phantom is a tenor, and they cast him in the movie as a tone-deaf baritone. The movie Christine doesn't have anywhere near the range that she needed. On stage, with a cast that can sing, it's an amazing production.

Jurassic Park was at least a hundred times better as a book than the movie. A big part of that was that it ended. The book didn't leave room for all of the increasingly nonsensical sequels. The atmosphere was filled with real danger. There were a lot more characters, and being a main character didn't guarantee survival in the book like it did in the movie.

Conan the Barbarian is vastly superior as a movie than the book, but that's due solely to the amazing soundtrack. If you're looking for a movie that you just want to watch for the music, it's one you don't want to miss. As long as you don't actually, you know, watch it. :smalltongue:

The Bourne trilogy movies beat the books. The books are pretty convoluted and don't make a lot of sense.

On Harry Potter, I like that the movie cut all the crap about SPEW out of the fourth. I enjoy both forms, but I think I have to give the prize to the books overall.

I'll second the point about The Last Unicorn. Or third, or whatever incremental value we're up to now.

Starship Troopers the book was pretty cool. I wasn't able to really enjoy the movie because I'd read it and had strong preconceptions about little things like the MI wearing power armor and the bugs being intelligent.

LotR is a fantastic setting, but I have a hard time reading Tolkien's writing style. I would have liked the movies to be a bit more faithful to the books, but I like the way the movies turned out. Except for the ending. And the bit near the beginning where the hobbits found their weapons. That needed to be in the movie. Btw, Frodo turned 33 (the age of majority, as 18 in most current human societies) on Bilbo's 111th birthday. Assuming the rate of aging is constant, a hobbit's average lifespan of about 100 would be roughly equivalent to a human's being around 50, which is perfectly reasonable in a medieval fantasy setting. It also fits with the whole not seeing any really old people around - Theoden looks to be in his 40s, and he's the oldest human around besides the wizards who extend their lives magically.

[Lord Seth]

Still on Shakespeare: The best adaptations of his plays are ones that are only based on the source material rather than just a recital. Throne of Blood (based on MacBeth) was an awesome movie, but it didn't have any of the original dialogue from MacBeth. Well, that may have been because it was in Japanese, but still.

There was also West Side Story, but that was a movie based on a play based on Romeo and Juliet, so I'm not sure if it works for the purposes of "movies based on Shakespeare plays."

[Nerocite]

I thought Holes was a pretty good movie, and was pretty faithful to the book.

Starship Troopers is the best. Period.

[Icewalker]

Oh, I have one other thing to bring up. Colorshock, my friend's novel, which I have a link to in my sig, is crazy and interesting but would work hugely better as a movie just because it can get hard at times to visualize because it's so intense. Maybe having synesthesia would help, but it's still amazing.

[Rappy]

Jurassic Park: the Lost World. The movie was...a mess. It's as if they only barely skimmed the novel and hatched a plot based on what they decided to remember. Why was InGen the villain group and not Biosyn? Where were the camouflaged carnotaurus? Why no Arby or doc Thorne or any of the Biosyn crew? Why no philosophical musings on cloning's ethical and moral values (okay...I'll admit that aspect might have been better left out)? Etc, etc. And if they kept to the novel, the world might have been spared from the travesty of Jurassic Park III.

Dinotopia. That three-part miniseries-movie-whatever thing was just...ugh.

[AstralFire]

He can go suck a lemon. The reason we all still know Roald Dahl's name is because the 1971 movie was so awesome, and the movie was so awesome because David Seltzer's rewrite is so much better than the original book.

I didn't really like that movie, and I grew up reading Roald Dahl extensively. Matilda, BFG and Fantastic Mr. Fox being my favorites.

[factotum]

Seeing Sauron as just a giant eye isn't a mistake exclusive to Mr. Jackson--I have David Day's "A Tolkien Bestiary" and it says the same thing; I believe it pre-dated the films by a long way, too (although it was republished at around the time they came out...can't imagine why :smallbiggrin:).

As for film adaptations, bit of an obscure one, this, but "To the Devil a Daughter" (based on the Dennis Wheatley book of the same name) was by far and away the worst adaptation I've ever seen--it was as if the writer had looked at the title and cast of characters and then gone off on their own without any reference to what happened in the actual book!

[WalkingTarget]

Btw, Frodo turned 33 (the age of majority, as 18 in most current human societies) on Bilbo's 111th birthday. Assuming the rate of aging is constant, a hobbit's average lifespan of about 100 would be roughly equivalent to a human's being around 50, which is perfectly reasonable in a medieval fantasy setting. It also fits with the whole not seeing any really old people around - Theoden looks to be in his 40s, and he's the oldest human around besides the wizards who extend their lives magically.

Yeah, and of the hobbits in the Fellowship, Frodo was the oldest (middle-aged at 50, being played by an 18-year-old Elijah Woods) and Pippen was the youngest (being 29 and still, essentially, a teenager for hobbits played by a 32-year old Billy Boyd). They pretty much ignored the ages given in the books for the purposes of the movies.

Theoden was one of the things that annoyed me about the books. I enjoyed Mr. Hill's performance for the most part, but the way they screwed with the character ages got to me here more than elsewhere. Theoden was 71 in the books and the actor playing him in the film was in his 50s. While reading I never considered Theoden to be prematurely aged by a spell or something, he had just had Grima take more and more responsibilities from him until he was convinced that he was too old to do much of anything ("Oh, let me take care of that, sire. You go have a nice rest."). Gandalf didn't so much remove a spell that had been laid on him as remind him that he was strong. Somebody like Richard Harris would have been better for the age of the character as written (if somebody at that age would have been physically able to do the things that an actor playing Theoden would have been required to do). Of course, if it wasn't magic then Jackson wouldn't have been able to put in the special effects shot where the scraggly old man's beard turned into a somewhat untrimmed goatee in a few seconds. :smallsigh:

[Tirian]

I didn't really like that movie, and I grew up reading Roald Dahl extensively. Matilda, BFG and Fantastic Mr. Fox being my favorites.

Ah. I went on to Great Glass Elevator and Witches, and found that the theme of all of it was nasty mean-spiritedness, and moved on (to The Phantom Tollbooth, which really would be well-served by a remake of the 1970's film). I'm not saying that Dahl is a bad storyteller, just that he has blind spots that can be addressed by a good script doctor. I'm also not saying that the 1971 movie is flawless, although it's pretty darned good and better yet if you fast-forward between the Candy Man song and Gene Wilder's entrance.

[Moofin Bard]

Dinotopia. That three-part miniseries-movie-whatever thing was just...ugh.

Ugh god don't get me started. That thing was so bad I wouldn't even want it in my trash. Wentworth Miller kinda sucks.


ONTO ANOTHER SUBJECT!

How do you guys think Where The Wild Things Are is going to turn out? I've seen the previews and they look pretty good.

[Zevox]

So what does Sauron look like, exactly? I was under the impression that he was disembodied and incorporeal; Jackson just felt he needed something to represent him.
In his true form, he is. He is an Ainu, a god, and does not have a single true physical form, but is rather a being of spirit. Tolkien described physical forms for the Ainur as being like clothes for you and I, except that they can create them at will.

So basically, he is a shape-shifter, capable of assuming any physical form he wishes - with the restriction that, after the fall of Numenore in the Second Age, he lost the ability to take on forms with a pleasant appearance to the eyes of Men. Now, the Eye of Sauron does appear in the books, in the Mirror of Galadriel incident, as well as when Frodo wears the Ring while sitting on the seat at the summit of Amon Hen, just before the Breaking of the Fellowship. My one complaint with the "Eye" motif in the movies myself is that they stuck it on top of Barad-Dur, Sauron's tower in Mordor. That is most definitely not anything like how Tolkien described it, and takes the whole "Eye" thing too far, in my opinion.

Though I was more annoyed that they had the Army of the Dead win the Battle of Pelennor Fields. That battle was supposed to be won by humans, without any supernatural aid save for Gandalf's brief contest with the Witch-King. That was part of what the events of the War of the Ring were setting up - an age of Middle Earth in which Elves, Dwarves, and supernatural forces receded from the world, and Humans came into rulership of Arda.

Zevox

[grolim]

Wow, 2 pages and no one has mentioned one of the worst: Dune. It was beautiful special effects for the time sure and the casting WAS great, but there is no way that sould have been linked to the book. Way too much time spent on minor stuff that was in the book and wholesale cutting of crucial plot points.

[Erts]

Has no one mentioned Fight Club? It's actually really good, even the author said it was better than the book. And the ending was better than in the book.

[pita]

Starship Troopers- The book is so much better. Progaganda yada yada yada! The movie sucks. And don't even bring up the Nazi thing...

Holy missing the point Batman!
I'm going to quote a very intelligent, if very dead, person.

I'll say that the Starship Troopers film in incredibly underrated and tragically misunderstood. It is an action film. Space opera. Military sci-fi flick. A heavy handed, anti-imperialist commentary. A satire. And utterly brilliant black comedy. The film works on every level you want it to work on. I mean you have plastic barbie dolls and pretty boys fighting bugs for christs sake. Body parts flying everywhere. Oceans of blood and gore. Doogie Howser as a NAZI stormtrooper. It had hilarity written all over it. You had a global utopia. One world government. Everyone pretty, wealthy, happy and patriotic. Yet kids are being duped to fight pointless wars and die in the millions while multiple amputee grizzled vets are cheering them on. Mothers cheering on their kids as they crush cockroaches. Newsreels right out of WW2 propaganda shorts.

Wooden acting and bad dialog? That's all part of the package. They're not characters, they're props...exaggerated caricatures. If anyone was given good lines and gave a strong performance, it'd kill the humorous, satirical effect. This film is a true Verhoeven masterpiece. Arguably better than Robocop.
I don't see any bad language, but the guy had some sort of internet Tourettes syndrome, so the language filter might find something that I didn't.

Fight Club was excellent but I didn't read the book, so I can't say anything about the adaptation. Wasn't too happy with the ending, with him shooting himself in the head and surviving.

[Erts]

Fight Club was excellent but I didn't read the book, so I can't say anything about the adaptation. Wasn't too happy with the ending, with him shooting himself in the head and surviving.

Lots of people don't get what happened there...
He didn't shoot himself in the head. He shot himself in the cheek, and this convinced the "Tyler" part of his head that the narrator was dead, and therefore, Tyler was also dead.
It was a weird bit of mental gymnastics to convince himself Tyler was dead, but pretty creative for spur of the moment.

[WalkingTarget]

Lots of people don't get what happened there...
He didn't shoot himself in the head. He shot himself in the cheek, and this convinced the "Tyler" part of his head that the narrator was dead, and therefore, Tyler was also dead.
It was a weird bit of mental gymnastics to convince himself Tyler was dead, but pretty creative for spur of the moment.

Or...
it wasn't necessarily creative; he actually tried to kill himself and screwed it up (and the bullet just tore his cheek open). However, this self-destructive act itself, and the fact that the narrator was able to do it when his "eyes are open", means that Tyler is no longer necessary and so that persona "dies". It's a complex scene and you can read it in several ways. That's part of why it's interesting.

I've read the book and seen the film and I agree with Palahniuk that the film is better.

[Blackjackg]

Nuts, I was hoping I'd be the first to mention Jurassic Park. I actually loved both the film and the book, even though they were very different. Maybe because they were very different.

[Erts]

Or...
it wasn't necessarily creative; he actually tried to kill himself and screwed it up (and the bullet just tore his cheek open). However, this self-destructive act itself, and the fact that the narrator was able to do it when his "eyes are open", means that Tyler is no longer necessary and so that persona "dies". It's a complex scene and you can read it in several ways. That's part of why it's interesting.

I've read the book and seen the film and I agree with Palahniuk that the film is better.

Still is a good book.
Interesting thought. So either he defeated Tyler, but Tyler's goal still came about; or Tyler became absorbed.

[Gorgondantess]

I don't want to go through line by line of each of the quotes and songs that got rewritten, but I do love that Wonka became a guy who quoted classical poetry at the drop of a hat. If Dahl thinks that he ever wrote anything as beautiful as "So shines a good deed in a weary world," then he is sadly mistaken.

So true. I completely agree; nothing can beat the 1971 Gene Wilder Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.


As for Fight Club... am I the only person who thinks that the book was just slightly better than the movie? The prose style was fantastic, and while Edward Norton's narrations were spot-on, it just didn't encompass all of it.


I actually don't care for the movie adaptation of Phantom of the Opera. That's probably because my older sister is a culture hound so I grew up listening to the Broadway and London casts and thus had an expectation of what it should have sounded like. The Phantom is a tenor, and they cast him in the movie as a tone-deaf baritone. The movie Christine doesn't have anywhere near the range that she needed. On stage, with a cast that can sing, it's an amazing production.

Are you kidding me? The only reason Sarah Brightman was cast as Christine was because she was banging Webber.:smallannoyed: She'd've been better cast as Carlotta- she may have some range, but her voice is terrible. Emmy Rossum was far, far better. On top of that, Webber himself said that when his original idea of the Phantom was with a more rock voice, not a tenor, and that Gerard Butler was spot on.[/rant]

[pita]

I think Target's evaluation is more accurate, but it still made the scene kinda stupid.

[Erts]

I think Target's evaluation is more accurate, but it still made the scene kinda stupid.

Either way, it's preferable to think Tyler comes back later.

[The Dark Fiddler]

How do you guys think Where The Wild Things Are is going to turn out? I've seen the previews and they look pretty good.

I'm extremely cautious with this, as well as Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. I don't get how they can make such short books into full-length movies.

[Fin]

I have read and loved 'The Stand' by Stephen King but I have never seen the mini-series. Can somebody please let me know if it is worth a watch, cause it looks quite good, if a little dated now, but its a loooong watch so I don't want to be disappointed in the end.

[Jalor]

I personally think the Fight Club book was better than the movie, but that's just me.


A Clockwork Orange was not that great a book. The movie was also not great, but it was not great by way of Stanley Kubrick. That has to count for something, right? I think both the book and movie are something everyone decides they like during college because it seems like the sort of thing college kids should like. I graduated college a month ago, so now I never have to watch it again.
Blasphemy! A Clockwork Orange was an excellent book, and the movie is about equal in quality. It doesn't compare with Full Metal Jacket, but then again not much can compare to Full Metal Jacket.


I, Robot has one problem: the title. If they had called it Hardwired like they were planning to, I would have loved it..
I'd have to agree there. Asimov himself said he hated stories about robot rebellions, and wrote I, Robot as a deliberate subversion.

[kpenguin]

No one else loves The Godfather?:smallfrown:

[Hell Puppi]

I have read and loved 'The Stand' by Stephen King but I have never seen the mini-series. Can somebody please let me know if it is worth a watch, cause it looks quite good, if a little dated now, but its a loooong watch so I don't want to be disappointed in the end.

It's.....decent? They kept decently well to the book, but I just love the book a lot more. It's the little differences that count. Plus most of the actors are...yeah. Just watch the first episode and if it doesn't kill you go ahead and watch the rest.
That and I just can't take the guy the used as Flagg seriously. I can't fear a man in a mullet. :smallsigh:

Also, I loved The Last Unicorn.

Fight Club? I think they did the best they could, really. Do I like the book more? Yes. Do I think they could do a better movie? Hecks no.
((Also on a side note I really liked the theory that the Narrator from Fight Club is really Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes, Tyler is Hobbes and Marla is Susie Derkins. Think about it.))

[Starscream]

I didn't really like that movie, and I grew up reading Roald Dahl extensively. Matilda, BFG and Fantastic Mr. Fox being my favorites.

Matilda was my fave, but Mr. Fox was excellent too. Never really got around to reading BFG.


Ah. I went on to Great Glass Elevator and Witches, and found that the theme of all of it was nasty mean-spiritedness, and moved on (to The Phantom Tollbooth, which really would be well-served by a remake of the 1970's film).

I think the fact that his books could be a bit nasty and mean-spirited was what made him a fantastic storyteller. I was a voracious reader as a child, and plowed through pretty much the entire children's section of my library.

And a far too great percentage of what I read was tinkly-wee garbage with all the conflict of a Care Bears tea party. I'm not saying I was a Matilda as a kid, but I was bright enough to know when I was being talked down to.

Dahl's books were never afraid of being too scary, or portraying adults as less than paragons of virtue who had all the answers, or acknowledging that some kids (maybe even the readers) were rotten little brats who had it coming.

All the great fairy tales were full of nastiness and conflict. And all the stuff I was expected to read was full of bunnies who got lost but found their way home and learned a valuable lesson about why independent thought is bad. Except Dahl's.

[Squidmaster]

On the topic of hobbit age, I thought that, in the book, Frodo was much older then the other hobbits. (50, or hobbit middle age, compared to thirties, or hobbit teens/young adults.) However, in the years between getting the ring as a young adult, and leaving for Rivendale at age fifty, Frodo didn't age physically because he possessed the ring, so he looked almost the same age as Sam, Merry and Pippen. Like how Bilbo looked middle aged at 111 years old (very old for a hobbit, I assume like late eighties/early nineties in a human.) Or Gollum living for 500 years, though he didn't look to good at the end.

On another note. I liked I Am Legend, the book, and thought the movie was good up until he met the woman and her son. After that it was to different and missed the point of the novel.

[RabbitHoleLost]

I actually don't care for the movie adaptation of Phantom of the Opera. That's probably because my older sister is a culture hound so I grew up listening to the Broadway and London casts and thus had an expectation of what it should have sounded like. The Phantom is a tenor, and they cast him in the movie as a tone-deaf baritone. The movie Christine doesn't have anywhere near the range that she needed. On stage, with a cast that can sing, it's an amazing production.

Either way, its leagues better than the book.
Which was...ugh.

[Serpentine]

Btw, Frodo turned 33 (the age of majority, as 18 in most current human societies) on Bilbo's 111th birthday. Assuming the rate of aging is constant, a hobbit's average lifespan of about 100 would be roughly equivalent to a human's being around 50, which is perfectly reasonable in a medieval fantasy setting. It also fits with the whole not seeing any really old people around - Theoden looks to be in his 40s, and he's the oldest human around besides the wizards who extend their lives magically.Mmm... Not really. It was not uncommon for people in pre-modern ages to live until 60 or 70 or more. The average was brought down because most/many children died before they made it to their teens. Once they got through that, they were quite able to live 'til a ripe old age. Depending on specific periods and places, of course.
"Age of majority" is tricky. I'd actually argue that it's more like 20ish in much of modern society - here, 18-year-olds can drink and watch porn, but they're still pretty much just considered "dumb teenagers" (with exceptions :smallwink:). On the other hand, LotR is in a Medieval-based setting, and in much of the Medieval world "majority" could be more like 15...
In any case, I think that 111 for hobbits would be something similar to, say, 85+ for Medieval Earth - very exceptional, but not quite exceptional enough for people to do more than speculate on supernatural causes.

I finished reading I, Robot, and I've gotta say, I disagree with this idea that the movie is a travesty. Okay, they probably shouldn't have used the name, it's so dislocated from Asimov. However, I can easily see points of inspiration in the book, and I don't think the intent is at all far off. I think the movie does very similar things to the book, although Asimov did them much more subtly. I doubt Asimov would agree, but I even think it wouldn't be horribly out of place if it were a story from the book - except, of course, for the explosions and murder and the like, and the fact that in the book deviation from the Rules always went wrong, while adherence to the Rules (almost) never did, whereas in the movie it was deviation from the Rules that went right and adherence that went wrong. Pretty much the only differences between what the Machine in the movie did, and what the Machines of the book did (in the last story) were that the former used force, while the latter used manipulation and deception, and as a result the former was resisted and defeated, while the latter went unnoticed.The point (from the point of view of the Machines) was the same, even if that of the plot was very different.
In any case, the movie was perfectly good, too different from the books to really be considered a good or bad "adaptation", and only benefited from the bits it took from Asimov *shrug*
Incidentally, considering Susan's horror and outrage when she discovers that the 1st Rule had been slightly tampered with in one group of robots, can you imagine how she'd react to the Rules being made optional?

[pita]

No one else loves The Godfather?:smallfrown:

Nobody's READ the Godfather.

[Ravens_cry]

Nobody's READ the Godfather.
I have. It was interesting seen the parts in the movie, play out in word form. It's also funny about what was removed. The woman that man was having intercourse with at the wedding? She gets her own sub-plot.

[Jimorian]

I'm extremely cautious with this, as well as Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. I don't get how they can make such short books into full-length movies.

It's generally better for a movie to be adapted from shorter material, because then you can add the elements you need to work in the different media rather than taking away bits that are important to the story, but are hard to film.

A novella is just about perfect, since it's rich enough in detail to provide a good foundation, but doesn't have much in the way of subplots that are usually the first thing to get cut in adaptation.

Children's books generally fit this pattern pretty well.

[mangosta71]

As I said, those were my preconceptions because I grew up listening to the Broadway version. Sarah Brightman may not have the best voice, but the part calls for range. I forget who played Christine in the movie, but I cringed at the end of the titular song when the last note was two octaves low.


On top of that, Webber himself said that when his original idea of the Phantom was with a more rock voice, not a tenor, and that Gerard Butler was spot on.[/rant]

The tenor sounded better imo. That's probably due in large part to the stage Phantom actually having an expressive voice (which is absolutely essential for someone whose facial expressions can't be seen because he's, say, wearing a mask) whereas Gerard's was extremely flat. There was very little variation in volume or tone. Had I not been familiar with the stage production, I would have had no idea what the character was supposed to be feeling.


Either way, its leagues better than the book.
Which was...ugh.

I suppose that's still true. But I'll take the stage version over the movie any day.

[paddyfool]

Not much love for Phillip K **** here, other than Bladerunner (where, agreed, the film was much better than the book). For his other adaptations, A Scannar Darkly was nicely done and true to the book, whereas Minority Report was pretty meh and Total Recall was fun-but-silly, although I haven't read the book behind either so I can't comment on the adaptation.

Dracula and Frankenstein probably deserve their own thread, they've inspired so many movies.

Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility... uh, I'm going to stop now for fear of forfeiting my manliness license. (But they were OK). :smallsmile:

Lawrence of Arabia was an absolutely classic telling of T.E. Lawrence's autobiography Seven Pillars of Wisdom which actually persuaded me to read the book.

I'm told Braveheart is pretty true to a 15th century epic poem (http://www.scottishradiance.com/bookreviews/bharry.htm), although a long way from actual history.

There are lots of others, sadly, where I've seen the movie and never read the book, from 10,000 leagues under the Sea and Gone with the Wind to Atonement and The English Patient. There are some others, more happily, where I've read the book but never watched the movie after hearing bad things about it, such as the much discussed I, Robot, Beowolf, and probably others I'm forgetting.

One thing I've never read in my life is a book based on a movie. I've read one book based on a TV show (Neverwhere), but that's about it. Are these ever any good?

[Moofin Bard]

Beowulf.
Terrible.
It shouldn't be called Beowulf.
Because that's not even what happened in the poem.

[Erloas]

I liked A Clockwork Orange, both the book and the movie. There were some changes, but at this point I can't think of any major ones, but its been a long time since I've read the book or watched the movie.
I know when I first watched it, it was more interesting for the crazy look and feel (and the occasional boob). It wasn't until I was older and watched it again (and possibly after reading the book) that I realized it was a political commentary on a possible future that never happened.
Some things that were changed out of necessity but changed some aspects of the point trying to be made. Like for instance the two girls he brings home from the record shop shows the promiscuity of the culture. It sends a lot different message when the girls in the book were like 12-13 instead of the 18-20 that they were in the movie. The main characters also were supposed to be 14-16 years old instead of the 20ish they were in the movie. Which makes the capitol punishment seem a lot different too. Of course a lot of the stuff done in the movie simply couldn't be done with actors less then 18, so you can't really fault them for the change.


Although I never read the Harry Potter books and think I've only mostly watched the first movie, I had just read the other day that originally Rowley wanted Terry Gilliam to be the direction instead. However the studio wouldn't let him direct it. It would have been very interesting to see what he would have done with the movies.

LOTR I liked the movies more. To be fair, I never finished the books. I'm not sure how far I got into the second book but it never had the draw to want me to finish it or the series. I absolutely hated Tom Bombadil too, I was so glad they removed him from the movies. It didn't surprise me later to read that Tom Bombadil was a character from some other short stories that he just stuck in LOTR, the character didn't seem to fit and just grated on me. In fact I really didn't care for the was most of the characters were written and I think their modifications in the films worked better.

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy movie was ok, but it was a disappointment from the amazingness that the books where. Of course when the source is that great its hard to live up to it.

[RandomNPC]

Ok, they have failed a good number of the book to movie adaptions to be sure. But if you call the new willy wanka movie a closer/better/anything else positive adaption, you need your noggin checked out. Try reading a few Oots to clear your head or something.

All I ask is If you want to complain about a bad movie that didn't do justice to the book, first ask yourself if it was a decent enough stand alone story. If you want a list of things that weren't in the movie that were in the book so you can label the list "why the movie sucks" I've got a few harry potter fans you should talk to, but the movies still convey the story.

[Ravens_cry]

I liked Carrie, both the original and the remake.
Which is interesting as Stephen King is not the kind of author I get into.

[Muz]

I have read and loved 'The Stand' by Stephen King but I have never seen the mini-series. Can somebody please let me know if it is worth a watch, cause it looks quite good, if a little dated now, but its a loooong watch so I don't want to be disappointed in the end.

It's worth a watch, but I've seen it both before and after reading the book (well, mostly (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118153)), and when I saw it after, I was a lot more conscious of how they just seemed to be touching base and checking off plot points in the book. 'Tis rather condensed. Though I suppose that's what happens with most adaptations, isn't it?

Oh, and regarding Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I read the book when I was a kid. Loved it. Then I saw the movie and was p*ssed because they ripped out the poems for those annoying songs.

[Toastkart]

I finished reading I, Robot, and I've gotta say, I disagree with this idea that the movie is a travesty. Okay, they probably shouldn't have used the name, it's so dislocated from Asimov. However, I can easily see points of inspiration in the book, and I don't think the intent is at all far off. I think the movie does very similar things to the book, although Asimov did them much more subtly. I doubt Asimov would agree, but I even think it wouldn't be horribly out of place if it were a story from the book - except, of course, for the explosions and murder and the like, and the fact that in the book

There were definite inspirations from the book, even from the Robot Detective series, I wouldn't disagree there. However, given the differences in tone and intention on part of the robots is precisely what makes it a travesty. It would be a good movie if it weren't titled I, Robot and I think that a movie of I, Robot that followed most of the short stories would be an excellent movie.


I'd have to agree there. Asimov himself said he hated stories about robot rebellions, and wrote I, Robot as a deliberate subversion.
This is why the movie I, Robot was such a let down.

I would also second Jurassic Park and the Lost World. Both were phenomenal books that lost something in transitioning to movie format. Most of the time when I hear complaints about Jurassic Park people are talking about how you couldn't actually clone dinosaurs that way, and they totally miss the significance that 8-9 chapters of the book were titled 'control'.


Wow, 2 pages and no one has mentioned one of the worst: Dune. It was beautiful special effects for the time sure and the casting WAS great, but there is no way that sould have been linked to the book. Way too much time spent on minor stuff that was in the book and wholesale cutting of crucial plot points.
Out of curiosity, are you referring to the David Lynch Dune or the Sci Fi Dune? I thought both had their merits and their faults, but I prefer the Sci fi Dune because it has better pacing and better acting for the main characters. That and Barbora Kodetova is friggin hot.

[AstralFire]

There were definite inspirations from the book, even from the Robot Detective series, I wouldn't disagree there. However, given the differences in tone and intention on part of the robots is precisely what makes it a travesty. It would be a good movie if it weren't titled I, Robot and I think that a movie of I, Robot that followed most of the short stories would be an excellent movie.

As someone with no investment in this, having read little Asimov and never seen the movie in question - a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

THERE. I QUOTED ROMEO AND JULIET.

Ugh. I hope you're proud of yourself... Razzafrazzinmelodrama....

[Jamin]

The Chocolate War.
For the whole movie, they did it f**king perfectly. I mean perfect. The acting was spot-on, the characters were great, it followed the plot precisely.
And then, at the end, the pivotal moment, they ruined the ending. There is little they could have done to make the ending worse. It didn't even make sense! People were doing things that completely went against their character! If it were just completely unfaithful to the book throughout I would've been ok- I kindof expected it- but because it was doing so well and had so much potential and then it ruined everything, I still watch the movie, but make sure to turn it off in the last 10 minutes and pretend it never happened. It's that bad. Even with movies where I flat out dislike the ending, I still watch it. But this was rape.

What did they make it happy because all I learned form that book was to be an evil person who hurts people. I hated the ending of that book. If the movie had a happy ending then more power to them

[Serpentine]

There were definite inspirations from the book, even from the Robot Detective series, I wouldn't disagree there. However, given the differences in tone and intention on part of the robots is precisely what makes it a travesty. It would be a good movie if it weren't titled I, Robot and I think that a movie of I, Robot that followed most of the short stories would be an excellent movie.Like I said, they probably shouldn't have used that name. However, it was not even written as an adaptation of an Asimov book - it was a complete original, and was bounced around for years until finally someone grabbed it, polished it out with some Asimov, renamed it and - possibly most important of all - made it. It would not, I think, have been made at all if they hadn't taken on Asimov influences. I believe these Asimov elements made the movie better, and there are enough of them that I think it would have been wrong to not acknowledge it. They probably shouldn't have used the name, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a good movie, and it's generic enough that I don't really see why it's such a big deal.

[Ravens_cry]

Let's say someone wanted to make a fantasy movie. It's a good enough script in itself, but then they decide to add a few elements, like Hobbits, characters named Frodo Baggins and Sauron, and a ring that turns you invisible. Then they decide to call it 'The Lord of the Rings'.
Yeah, think how well that would go over.

[Serpentine]

Well, for starters, that'd be out-and-out plagiarism, what with the character name theft and all (you could make that same argument for the Three Laws, but I suspect that that's become a pretty ingrained staple in a lot of sci-fi). For seconds, that still wouldn't have any impact on the quality of the movie. A fantasy about an invisiblifying ring set in a grand world of incredible age and detail and with other elements taken from the book Lord of the Rings but telling a completely different story would be justified in acknowledging Tolkein's influence (though ill-advised in taking the actual title), and still a perfectly good film.

[kpenguin]

Beowulf.
Terrible.
It shouldn't be called Beowulf.
Because that's not even what happened in the poem.

I disagree with this, so much, first and foremost because Beowulf was never intended to be a faithful adaption of the epic poem, any more than Wicked was intended to be a faithful adaption of the Wizard of Oz

The intention was to deliberately subvert the story.

[Serpentine]

It was a fun movie, and it caused me to want to read the poem (with knowledge of the (subversive) changes they made).
I think that's a pretty good accomplishmens *shrug*

Although... Why did they use someone else's body, rather than Jolie's? Is perfection not good enough anymore? :smallconfused:

[Ravens_cry]

Well, for starters, that'd be out-and-out plagiarism, what with the character name theft and all (you could make that same argument for the Three Laws, but I suspect that that's become a pretty ingrained staple in a lot of sci-fi).
Wasn't their a character named Susan Calvin in the film? (checks) There was.

[Starscream]

I do think that I, Robot was a good movie. Will Smith is always great, the action was good, and most importantly, the story actually held together really well. Not many recent SciFi films can say that.

Asimov's writings were a very important theme throughout, and a lot of the his ideas are prevalent. This I like.

But the title! Argh! I know that studios have been trying to make I, Robot into a movie for years (it should be a miniseries in my opinion), but that's just inexcusable. This isn't even a case of a short story being loosely adapted, there is literally nothing in common with the book except for some general ideas.

And if you go into a book store now and buy a copy of I, Robot, Will Smith will be on the cover, along with the tagline "One man saw it coming" even though nothing like that is in the book. It's just frustrating.

The only other thing that angers me is Dr. Susan Calvin. She's an important character in the Robot mythos, and is very deliberately described as an old, unpleasant, and not at all attractive woman. So needless to say in the film she is a sexy thirty year old with none of the personality traits of her namesake. Once again they took the name of something Asimov created and applied it to something completely different.

Why? At least people have heard of the title I, Robot even if they have never read it. It might entice a few people to buy tickets. But only people who are already fans of his work will know who Dr. Calvin is. It couldn't have been a big selling point that a character with that name was in the movie, and it would further alienate the fans who were already upset about the title/plot discrepancy.

[Serpentine]

And if you go into a book store now and buy a copy of I, Robot, Will Smith will be on the cover, along with the tagline "One man saw it coming" even though nothing like that is in the book. It's just frustrating.Forgot about that... Yeah. BAD idea >.<

I didn't realise about Susan Calvin. Another bad idea, indeed.

Basically, my view is this: The movie I, Robot is not an adaptation of the book I, Robot, it merely incorporates some of its themes. As such, it should especially be considered on its own merits. What can, and should, be heavily criticised is all the attempts to tie the movie in with the book, which was incredibly ill-advised, although there was enough inspiration from the book that it should certainly have been acknowledged in some way.
The title and using the name Susan Calvin were Very Bad Ideas. But the movie itself was very good, and not, I think, un-Asimov.

[pita]

I have. It was interesting seen the parts in the movie, play out in word form. It's also funny about what was removed. The woman that man was having intercourse with at the wedding? She gets her own sub-plot.

SHHHH NOBODY HAS READ THE BOOK.
I realize that some people have read the book, but I understood the book was way too long. Hell, I thought the movie dragged on a bit.

[Thufir]

Basically, my view is this: The movie I, Robot is not an adaptation of the book I, Robot, it merely incorporates some of its themes. As such, it should especially be considered on its own merits.

This is pretty much what I think. But it's very difficult to judge the film on its own merits when it's named after a book to which it bears almost no resemblance.
In some ways, these are the kind of adaptations which annoy me the most, because it's a case of them snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Acknowledge that it has nothing to do with the book, change the title and the names of Susan Calvin and Alfred Lanning, and it would be a good film.
As it is, NERD RAGE.

Same goes for Tales From Earthsea. The few bits they included from the Earthsea books really detracted from the (Completely unrelated) story they were telling.


One I actually like: Stardust. It's a much simplified version of the story in the book, but it's basically the same idea, and it all hangs together nicely. Better than it would have if they'd tried and failed to be completely faithful to the book.

[Cathalis]

Actually, Asimov did not hate robot rebellions, he found the robot stories about evil robots boring, because there was no depth.

One of the last short stories Asimov wrote, called ". . . that thou art mindful of him," is about two robots, George 10 and George 9 who are tasked with helping the current robotics crew with creating a better society for humanity. Through their discussions with each other they decide that they too are human, but they are a better class of human, and invent the laws of humanics. The last line of the story is "At all costs, the Georges and those that followed in heir shape must dominate. That was demanded, and any other course made utterly impossible, by the three laws of humanics."

Asimov himself stated that he thought it was an interesting idea that was never done properly in his youth.

Also, I believe taking the idea of the three laws and extrapolating them to robot revolution would have appealed to Asimov. He invented the three laws, and then set about his life writing stories than in one way or another subverted or manipulated the laws into something humans did not expect.

One further piece of proof that Asimov did not hate robot revolution comes in the short story called "Robot dreams." It is about a robot who dreams of a human who comes to free the robots from their burdens, a human who comes to lead the robots to a new life. Susan asks the robot if he knows who the human is, and the robot replies the human is himself. Susan shoots the robot, as it is dangerous to have a robot that considers itself human. Here we not only see Asimov again writing about revolution, but also the basis for sonny dreaming about being the thing to lead the robots to a better life.

There are plenty of other instances in the movie that reflect or pay tribute to Asimov's stories, such as one robot hiding in amongst several identical robots, but they do not all come from, nor are they a good reflection of, the central stories of I, Robot.

What I'm really getting at here is that, while they should have used a different title, if you take away the big action scenes, the movie is really true to the ideas Asimov used for his stories. Also, remember this movie is not actually based on I, Robot, the credits merely say the movie is suggested by Isaac Asimov.

Anyone who bothered to read all of that, thanks :)

[Lord Seth]

The movie I, Robot wasn't even originally an adaptation. It was a standalone story called Hardwired. They basically took the concept, rewrote it, and threw in some references to the original book, most likely to make it sell better. It's probably just better to judge it on its own merits. It's actually a pretty good movie, it just really isn't an adaptation.

[Fin]

Great movies that are not the best adaptations/title thefts of books they are based on.

Anyone notice that Will Smith is a recurring variable?

Of books to films I know he has been involved in of the top of my head there are;

Bagger Vance - Good film but I haven't read the book
I, Robot - Same as BV
I am Legend - Good film and I loved the book to!

I personally hope he continues because all three of these films are good so I am not to worried about the fact that they don't all represent their books too well. I am happy to credit the book with inspiration of a good yet irrelevant movie :smallsmile:

[AstralFire]

Bagger Vance itself is an adaptation of the Bhagavad Gita.

[Moofin Bard]

Hey guys.

I just remembered a book to movie I refuse to see because of the previews.

That movie is Inkheart.

I don't dare see it lest I start yelling at the screen.

Anyone know if it was good or not?

[Auroragriffon]

I saw Inkheart, it was an okay movie, not bad, not great- kind of mediocre, but fun for kids (in my opinion, anyway). I’ve never read the book, so I don’t know how it compares.

One book to movie adaptation I dislike is Howls Moving Castle by Diana Wynne Jones. The movie was directed by Miyazaki, and in its self, not a bad movie, it just wasn’t the book. Miyazaki took the setting and character names and used them in his own story, basically. This is a shame, because Jones is a wonderful storyteller (I highly recommend her!).

[pita]

Remembered today: American Psycho. Amazing amazing movie. The book kinda dragged for me, and it was hard to follow. The movie was absolutely brilliant.

[Ravens_cry]

I saw Inkheart, it was an okay movie, not bad, not great- kind of mediocre, but fun for kids (in my opinion, anyway). I’ve never read the book, so I don’t know how it compares.

One book to movie adaptation I dislike is Howls Moving Castle by Diana Wynne Jones. The movie was directed by Miyazaki, and in its self, not a bad movie, it just wasn’t the book. Miyazaki took the setting and character names and used them in his own story, basically. This is a shame, because Jones is a wonderful storyteller (I highly recommend her!).
The same,I hear, could be said of the Studio Ghibli adaptation of Tales of Earthsea (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTales_f rom_Earthsea_(film)&ei=rAyHSv6SJ4SksgP80_ShBw&rct=j&q=earthsea&usg=AFQjCNH9bZigP3khwDWFoIetLuX0PKQ9DA). A good enough movie in it's own right, but definitely not the Earthsea in the book.