User Avatar Image

Bad movie book adaptations...

posted by benzelz on - last edited - Viewed by 480 users

Here, you can talk about a movie that has the worst adaptations to the book ever.



I LOVED the Percy Jackson movie but it was soooooooooooo different to the book!!!

43 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • The Stand. Enjoyable enough, but even at six hours in length, everything that made the book great was chopped out.

  • Youth in revolt was a funny movie that had good casting and represented the characters really well but it doesn't hold a candle to the book.

    There should be a counter discussion on good books that made good movies.
    Case in point Jaws and Jurassic Park.

  • A Series of Unfortunate Events. The acting was pretty good but the directing could have been better, less reliant on CGI, and they condensed three books into one movie.

    Also The Relic. I can not begin to express my disappointment with this one. Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child are better than Crichton on his turf, but this movie was made as a cash in, and worst of all it left out the MAIN CHARACTER of the book and the biggest legitimate reason to read the book in the first place. The main character of that book and its subsequent sequels is a badass, and frankly they really dropped the ball on this movie.

  • Bad book adaptations are so common that, honestly, they quickly fade into being background noise in the universe. It's the great adaptations, and the ones that are greater than their source material that stand out amongst the crowd.

  • @Rather Dashing said: Bad book adaptations are so common that, honestly, they quickly fade into being background noise in the universe. It's the great adaptations, and the ones that are greater than their source material that stand out amongst the crowd.

    Not Harry Potter. Those movies are terrible compared to the books, yet they're still stupidly popular.

  • @Hayden said: Not Harry Potter. Those movies are terrible compared to the books, yet they're still stupidly popular.


    I don't see how the Harry Potter films are especially notable. Sure, like the entire Harry Potter franchise, it has the one notable feature of being incredibly well-marketed. But also like the whole Harry Potter franchise, it has nothing else notable about it. It's a poor book adaptation just like any other, and it doesn't really stand out. That it was adapted from an originally mediocre book rather than a classic and that it obtained large amounts of cash is, well, not really important in terms of what it actually is.

  • I'm going ot have to note one I haven't seen, but from what I've heard the movie for Children of the Corn is the worst adaptation of anything ever. And yet it still got 6 sequels.

  • Not exactly a movie, but there was a TV show of "Flashforward" that had nothing to do with the book except that everyone on Earth has a vision of their future.

  • Lord of the Rings. The films were good, but I preferred the books. There was quite a bit missed out in the film, but it still worked.

  • I'd like to do a twist to the topic:
    Usually film adaptations of books are worse than the original book, but what happens the other way around? I mean book adaptations (novelizations) of films.
    I've read eight novelizations (the six Star Wars films plus the Clone Wars movie, and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom -the old one by James Kahn, not the new one that appeared when The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was released), and I think that mostly are cheap merchandise, although they add new scenes that aren't on the movies (mostly scenes that are on the original script but were cut from the final edition).
    The only book I trully think that is way better than its movie is Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

Add Comment