User Avatar Image

Bad movie book adaptations...

posted by benzelz on - last edited - Viewed by 295 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
  • I haven't read the book, but I'm pretty sure that the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake of the older movie is nothing what Roald Dahl thought up of..

  • Well, in a way it is up to the whole "Your parents can't come, thing."


    Now I'd Say the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, but calling any incarnation of H2G2 an adaptation would be entirely wrong. Every bit of every incarnation had things to separate it from the others. Adams wanted that stuff in the movie. And that is what convinced me that the Hitchhikers movie was actually pretty good

  • Oh yeah, there's also a movie supposedly coming out sometime in 2011, based on the book of the same name, It's Kind of a Funny Story.

    Now, I absolutely love that book and I wouldn't be lying if I said it's my favorite book I've ever read. So, I expect this movie to not flunk and not be straight to DVD as well. If the movie is closely intertwined with the book, I think it should be shown to a LOT of people.

  • @Remolay said: Well, in a way it is up to the whole "Your parents can't come, thing."


    Now I'd Say the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, but calling any incarnation of H2G2 an adaptation would be entirely wrong. Every bit of every incarnation had things to separate it from the others. Adams wanted that stuff in the movie. And that is what convinced me that the Hitchhikers movie was actually pretty good



    I hate you. I hate every fibre of your being. THAT was not an adaptation, THAT was excrement on a silver screen and you know it.

  • The hitchikers file wasn't thaaaaat bad! it'd be hard for anyone to make a film from such a well loved series but I think they made a good effort on it! especially with their choice of actors, felt they brought the characters out pretty well.

  • I'm still waiting for my Tom Bombadil.

    Just sayin'. <.

  • A good majority of the Bond films. Yes, there are some that do stay close to the books and do it well (From Russia with Love, Goldfinger) and there are also some that are decent films with their original storylines (Goldeneye), its the ones that use the title of Fleming's works then don't bother to use Fleming's stories, or unforgivably alter the story drastically, that irritate me.

    They got it back in the right direction with Casino Royale (the middle part of that is basically a modern adaptation of the book and is fantastic, with explodey stuff tacked on either side), but lost it again with Quantum of Solace. Basically all the Roger Moore films are a terrible injustice to the original books after which they are named. Live and Let Die is the only one that keeps some semblence to the novel.

    Moonraker stands out as the worst. A travesty of a film made to cash in on Star Wars; the book is all about a former SS commander wounded in the Battle of the Bulge, who's managed to infiltrate Britain as a philanthopist, offer it a new nuclear deterrant system, but plans on nuking London. Great stuff. Given the current debate about renewing Trident in the UK, they could pull off a decent modern intepretation of that, but I'm sure the Broccoli estate will continue to butcher Fleming's works.


    Also: Bourne films. All resemblance to original novels ends past the point that Bourne is hauled out the water with bullets and a bank number in his back and amnesia. I want Carlos the Jackal! Though the Bourne films were entertaining in their own right.

  • @BoneFreak said: I haven't read the book, but I'm pretty sure that the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake of the older movie is nothing what Roald Dahl thought up of..



    if you're referring to the johnny depp movie, it was actually almost a word-for-word adaptation of the book, the narrator in that film was basically quoting the book throughout the entire movie, and the oompa-loompa musical numbers were pulled directly from the book as well

    book: http://www.roalddahlfans.com/books/charsongs.php#Augustus
    movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiMpTzd0Gqo
    (they pass over some of the versus because it's a fairly long poem)

    the only difference took place at the end when they started talking about willy-wonka and his father, but other then that it was MUCH more faithful to the book than the older musical ever was (musical was HORRIBLE when compared to the book btw)

    as for my most hated movie adaptation of a book, I don't hesitate in saying that The Wizard of Oz was the most vile, overraited movie ever...

    Imagine that they took the book, ripped it up, trew it on the ground, mixed upp all the pages, then removed half of the pages and burned them, and the remaining half of the story was left behind... that is what the wizard of oz is... every part o the plot is either put into the wrong place, or warped entirely to a point where it's almost unrecognizable... and they dropped half the book from the movie which is inexcusible because it's a short book to begin with

    the dropped parts are some of the best parts, some segments dropped were, the field mice, the river, the color scheme of oz, the dainty china country, the hammer-heads, the good witch of the north, most of the journey to the wicked witch of the west's castle and most of their adventure there, most of the encounter with the wizard, jellia lamb, and the entire backstory of the winged monkeys...

    finally, to end my critique, Oz was a REAL place in the books, in fact, in book 6 of the series (it's a 40 book series) dorothy and her aunt and uncle go to live in oz permenently... the one, single reason i despise the movie so adamantly was because of how it ended... they acted as if oz was not a real place and that it was all just a dream... this was the ultimate betrayal towards an Oz fan, the fact that it was just waved off as a dream and crushedthe hopes and dreams of the child watching... historically this film was targeted towards an audience of children during the depression and they didn't want to "fill their heads with fantasy and nonsense" but it just kills me that, when children really needed an escape, when they really needed to have some fantasy, it was wrenched away with the line "and you were there, and you were there"

    xDD sorry if i rambled too much... it's just one of my favorite subjects =D

  • the chocolate war movie totally changed the ending of the book. not in a good way at all

  • Leave it to Tim Burton to make a nearly word-for-word adaptation and then tack on a subplot about a negative relationship with one's father.

Add Comment