Name some..."The Hunger" was a GREAT book
whose story lost a lot when it became a film.

Also "Flowers in the Attic".

Books are destroyed 99.9% of the time when they are made into movies. Movies cannot compare to a book... books require imagination and the images and settings are formed in you mind. Movies often times change significant parts of the book and sometimes even completely change the ending, as in the case of "Hannibal."

Stephen King's books are regularly ruined when they try to make movies out of them.

EXCEPT FOR:

The Shawshank Redemption
The Green Mile
Stand By Me

As far as horrible disappointments go:

Franz Kafka's "The Trial" - Why would you ever change one of the greatest endings ever??? "He loved Big Brother." The alteration of the ending, along with the copious alterations of the book ruined it.

George Orwell's "1984" - what the fuck was up with that ending??? Kafka did not write it that way... it made me mad. Why the ridiculous set as well...?

Thomas Harris' "Hannibal" - they completely and totally changed MOST of the things from the book... the COMPLETELY RUINED the ending.

Stephen King's "Hearts in Atlantis" - they only did part of the first section of the book, "Low Men in Yellow Coats." The movie should not have been called "Hearts in Atlantis."

I will stop with these examples, but there are many, many more, as movie studios will stop at nothing to destroy literature and package it in such a way as to please a certain demographic rather than being true art.

?
[This message was edited Sat Mar 1 3:12:37 PST 2003 by IstenSzek]

origmnd said:

I have to agree with you there, on both...Flowers in the Attic! OMG, I loved the entire series of books, and went to the movie and... Absolutely horrible.

I would have to say that movies based on the books of Stephen King, whom I revere as one of the masters of writing, tend to get destroyed when they are made into movies. The fact that they feel (not sure who is responsible) humor must be a part of the film, chopped apart the fear built up in the imagination while reading his books. I think the one truest to the book was The Dark Half which followed the book rather closely. The worst? Although I found it quite entertaining, the award goes to Pet Semetary, which had way too much corny humor.

I dislike the television versions even more.. The one that got hit the hardest was It. Run over a series of days - it lost its meaning. What was so very gripping in the book, turned out to be laughable on the screen. It's been a while, so it's hard for me to get too specific.



Had to add I agree with IceNine's post of the other three Stephen King movies that were well made.
[This message was edited Wed Oct 23 5:07:30 PDT 2002 by LaVisHh]

IceNine said:

I agree. Many times I have a read a particular book, and eagerly anticapted the movie only to be disappointed. Somehow the screen adaptaion suffers, usually in an effort to promote commercial gain for the movie.

IceNine said:[quote][...]quote]

Funny how we were both thinking Stephen King movies!

Also, why are the British always portrayed as villains in movies? or tea swilling and limp wristed


[This message was edited Wed Oct 23 5:22:48 PDT 2002 by Lleena]

Lleena said:

Because we are an evil people...

My vote goes to "Midnight In The Garden of Good And Evil" - hysterical book, not so funny film.

IceNine said:

I'd agree with the above statement, but have to ask what about The Shining? Admittedly, I think it has a very different feel from the book, but a great movie, nonetheless. (OK, other than the fact that the little kid held up his finger everytime he said Redrum..) But Jack Nicholson? And Shelly Duval? I had many, many a nightmare as a child about those twins roaming the halls of the hotel!

Since Stephen King was already mentioned... how about:

Interview With A Vampire and Queen of the Damned


I agree that most books are ruined when made into a film.

It has been a while but they really screwed up Peter Straubs' Ghost Story and John Irvings' Hotel Newhampshire.
[This message was edited Wed Oct 23 7:15:13 PDT 2002 by rdhull]

AzureStar said:

Well, I agree with you On Queen, but I really liked Interview. They really didn't change anything major, and they left in the really good stuff.

?
[This message was edited Sat Mar 1 3:12:52 PST 2003 by IstenSzek]

QUEEN OF THE DAMNED... the flick was kool,
but had very little to do with the book.
KISS THE GIRLS... ditto

origmnd -- GREAT TOPIC. ...

I would have to say that some of the Tom Clancy novels that were turned into movies have been ruined. Sorry ahead of time if anyone has not seen or read these books -- SPOILERS. Case in point --

Hunt For Red October -- movie is a little different than the book, although this movie was enjoyable. Out of all the Clancy novels turned into movies, this one remains mostly true to the book. The novel had a major plotline with the British assisting in the seach for the October, but in the movie, the British are not even mentioned. Ryan is a military analyst, and not part of the CIA -- yet.

Patroit Games -- don't get me started. There is more to it in the book and the movie. First off, a splinter group of the IRA attack the Royal Family (Prince Charles and Diana??) in the book, while in the movie it's like the Royal Family's cousins. Sean Miller's demise (dies in the Chesapeake Bay in the movie) DOES NOT die in the water in the novel. Jack Ryan tracks him down over the bay and then Sean actually dies on a military site. There are some other things omited/condense from the book

Clear and Present Danger -- it does take place in South America; Admiral Greer does die in the book and movie (but the movie goes into the death scene at the end of the movie/climax). Ryan, who is afraid of flying, mans a turret gun on a helicopter to help free Mr. Clark and Clark's troops in a HURRICANE. The hurricane plotline is not in the movie. And I am pretty sure Cutter is killed on the streets of Washington DC, instead in the movie as you see Cutter pleading with Ryan to reconsider.

and finally ...

Sum of All Fears -- This movie, as I have heard, totally is different. I have yet to see it, but I know for a fact that the "enemy" is NOT the Russians. In the book, Arab terrorists cultivate an unexploded warhead (from the Middle East war) into an atomic bomb. The terrorists take the atomic device and expolode it in DENVER at the NFL Super Bowl outside the domed stadium, killing the Vice-President of the United States and other government types. In the movie it is the Russians who purchase a warhead on the black market and discharge the atomic device during the Super Bowl, in a domed stadium but in BALTIMORE. In all respect, I understand why this was done -- changing the evil from Middle Easterners to Russians. On-going war on terrorism as well as Russia has always been part of the United States' past (cold war).

Another difference in the film is that the movie's Jack Ryan has gone back in time and is an unmarried CIA analyst, not the book's version of Ryan, who is the right-hand man to the National Security Director.

Oh, and one thing the movies do not go into is that Ryan is a heavy drinker and "so-called infidelites" of his marriage. There is a plot point in Executive Orders, which came out in 1996, where Ryan has been seeing a woman after work. Finds out (and the reader knows this) that the reporter/investigator did not understand that the woman Jack has been seeing was a widow of a co-worker of his who was killed in action rescuing troops at the end of Clear and Present Danger. The reader knows that Ryan has been "helping out" the woman and her children financially because after the "classified/top secret mission" death of the widow's husband in Columbia. It is a major turning point in the Jack Ryan series, something that deals with expose' and public office. Jack kept this "financial relationship" a secret from his family and the media wanted to expose Ryan as an adulterer in high public office.

I am in the middle of reading Rainbow Six and then The Bear and The Dragon. I have a ton of other Clancy-side stories (Op Center / Net Force ) and they are all good. Don't get me wrong, I like when Clancy movies are put on the silver screen, but I justwish they would remain true to form. Thank goodness, Lord ofThe Rings and Harry Potter are by the book. ...

origmnd, nice again, great topic. Venting over. ...
[This message was edited Wed Oct 23 9:33:11 PDT 2002 by a2grafix]

The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton

Simon Birch w/ch was supposed to the from A Prayer for Owen Meaney by John Irving.

JediMaster said:

Interview With A Vampire was 100% better than Queen of the Damned, but I feel a movie never does a book justice, no matter how well it was brought to film. You miss out on all of the little things that only a book can bring to you... thoughts of the characters, background, etc.. I don't think that you can ever really "know" a character on film, as you can through reading a book.

I will say that the only film that didn't totally ruin it for me was "To Kill A Mockingbird". I enjoyed both the book and the film.

Queen of the Damned - an insult to Anne Rice.

Interview with a Vampire - not as bad, but not extremely good.

Silence of the Lambs - good movie, but not as good as the book

Any Dean Koontz book - they just can't act that kind of fear

Gone with the Wind

The Color Purple


I know there's more, but these are just off the top of my head.

You can tell that Queen of the Damned had a smaller budget to work with than Interview with a Vampire. The special effects weren't all that special.

FreeChild said:

I like this movie (and "Rumble Fish" is a masterpiece imo)

jnoel said:

I liked the movie too, just thought it didn't do the book justice.

"Dead Zone" is a (very) good movie too no?

off topic
[This message was edited Wed Oct 23 14:15:24 PDT 2002 by jnoel]

jnoel said:

Cronenberg did a fine job on that one!

I think that The great "Dracula" movie is yet to come,the first half of the Coppola's version was excellent imo but the rest , at the end Dracula is a romantic guy , I want darkness and blood + an open ambiguous end, no stupid dialogues about eternal love.

jnoel said:

Yes,I wholeheartedly agree with you.I didn't like
how they called itBram Stoker's Dracula when
it wasn't nothing like the novel.There was no love
story with Dracula and Mina Harker,just Dracula
making vampires in London.Hollywood has no respect for
books.