Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

The 20 Most Extreme Cases Of ‘The Book Was Better Than The Movie’

“The Hunger Games: Mockingjay — Part 2” rolls into theaters this weekend, and if there’s one thing I’m not looking forward to it’s the inevitable “I liked the movie, but it wasn’t as good as the book” I’ll hear after the film.

You know how the traits in other people that make you the maddest are usually the ones that remind you about a part of yourself you don’t like? The “I liked the movie, but it wasn’t as good as the book” shtick is that for me. If I have a relationship with a book and it’s poorly done on the big screen, on some level, I’m galled. But on the other hand, not every movie can be “Watchmen,” and by now, I should be able to accept the nuance of adaptation, being an adult and all. On the whole, I’d argue that haggling over which is better, the book or the movie, is mostly pointless.

The operative word being “mostly.” Because there are extreme cases where book-lover rage is justifiable. Which cases? I pulled the Metacritic critic ratings of the top 500 movies on IMDb tagged with the “based on novel” keyword.1 I then2 found the average user rating of the source novel for each film on Goodreads, a book rating and review site.3 In the end, there was complete data for 382 films and source novels.

[bold][charts and analysis at the source][/bold]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11405/26/2020

Going WAY back, to a classic, but I really felt t his with "Gone with the Wind." Great film, of course, but I was quite disaapointed that so many things were not in the movie. But I was 14 at the time I (a) read the book; (b) saw the film, so I didn't really understand how hard it would have been to condense such a book. Ever since them, I've thought: whenever possible, see the movie FIRST; read the book second.

by Anonymousreply 111/19/2015

All of the Harry Potters. I appreciate having the world visualized on the screen, but those books were magical.

by Anonymousreply 211/19/2015

Not the most extreme, but "World War Z".

I liked the movie but the book was so much better.

The movie just took the title and the idea of the "plague" and made a movie.

The book was really a collection of tales of people encountering and dealing the the plaque from its first appearance, through the initial encounters, its spread, to the battles, to the decisions as to how to counter it.

There was no clean "vaccine" as in the movie.

The book had some bits that were scary, very sad or very moving.

Those I've given it to as a gift (who also liked the movie) loved it to.

by Anonymousreply 311/19/2015

Thats "plague", not "plaque".

by Anonymousreply 411/19/2015

Interview with a Vampire! Mainly because Mmes. Cruise and Pitt demanded that the characters get de-gayed.

by Anonymousreply 511/19/2015

Stephen King's "The Shining"

by Anonymousreply 611/19/2015

[italic]The Cat in the Hat[/italic] is the most extreme example.

by Anonymousreply 711/19/2015

All of the Bond films except "On her Majesty's secret service"

by Anonymousreply 811/19/2015

R8 = George Lazenby

by Anonymousreply 911/19/2015

R7 I agree with you on that. The movie was atrocious and not in the least bit funny of charming.

by Anonymousreply 1011/19/2015

Agreed r7.

by Anonymousreply 1111/19/2015

Many horror or suspense books--not that they were so great to begin with--but still.

It

by Anonymousreply 1211/19/2015

Doctor Zhivago. Before anyone threatens harm to me, it was a beautiful movie. Too bad it bore so little resemblance to Doctor Zhivago.

by Anonymousreply 1311/19/2015

Gone With The Wind. My mother always said it was a woman's story made into a man's movie.

by Anonymousreply 1411/19/2015

Bonfire of the Vanities.

Stinkeroo!

by Anonymousreply 1511/19/2015

The Hunger Games and Watchmen are your literary examples, OP?

Good lord.

by Anonymousreply 1611/19/2015

The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter. Great casting but the book was just better.

by Anonymousreply 1711/19/2015

The French Lieutenant's Woman. Early Meryl who was fine but the script was horrible. The big reveal - not to be revealed here because it's a definite spoiler - was like, "Oh, yeah, really, where my cigarette?"

by Anonymousreply 1811/19/2015

I'm with [R13]. "Doctor Zhivago" is an epic beautiful to look at, but not the book at all. The book is about the failure of the Russian Revolution, as exemplified by the passionate idealist revolutionary Pasha, played by Tom Courtenay, who becomes embittered, murderous Strelnikov, and, in the book, ends up shooting himself, because he realizes he's a total failure. This is not even in the movie, though it's mentioned. (Curiously, the actors playing this role were the only ones to be nominated for awards: Courtnay for an Oscar, and the actor playing Pasha in the musical version of "Doctor Zhivago" this past year for a Tony.)

The movie, however beautiful, is just a big sprawling love story about how a man is trying to get to fuck two different women, and get away with it, with a smattering of guiltsachmerz to fill in the gaps.

But it is a beautiful film to look at.

by Anonymousreply 1911/19/2015

Agreed with Bonfire and Cat. Add Easlt of Eden (like duh...), and Angel Heart. Turned a truly original and scary book into just a mess.

by Anonymousreply 2011/19/2015

They should have changed the characters' names in the movie version of Doctor Zhivago, and called it "All That Snow." It would have been just as good a movie, and there wouldn't have been any nasty comparisons to the book.

by Anonymousreply 2111/19/2015

Oh, and Goodbye, Columbus was a much better book.

by Anonymousreply 2211/19/2015

I loved the Harry Potter movies and even though I assume the books were better, I never read them.

by Anonymousreply 2311/19/2015

"The Choirboys" by Joseph Wambaugh was a great book, but it got made into a ghastly movie. Same with "Sheila Levine Is Dead and Living in New York." Great book, terrible movie.

by Anonymousreply 2411/19/2015

[quote]It would have been just as good a movie, and there wouldn't have been any nasty comparisons to the book.

To be fair, R21, there's a very normal amount of expectation created when making a favorite novel into a movie. No need to call those who wanted to see the real Doctor Zhivago "nasty." You exposed yourself as a fangurl with that remark.

They should have written their own story, filmed it as beautifully as possible, cast the prettiest actors around, and added a lush score. That would have been far more honest.

by Anonymousreply 2511/19/2015

The Bible.

by Anonymousreply 2611/19/2015

"Nasty" was the wrong word, perhaps, R25. I did not intend to make any commentary about "those who wanted to see the real DZ." I'm not even sure what you're implying with "fangurl."

Within your set of friends, are you considered to be the biggest umbrage taker?

by Anonymousreply 2711/19/2015

Any of the Maeve Binchy books.

by Anonymousreply 2811/19/2015

Slaves of New York

by Anonymousreply 2911/19/2015

Planet of the Apes

Neither the original or remake were faithful to the book. The 1968 version was great, but the "Marky Mark" version wasn't, even though they were a little closer to the original book in that his visit to the Planet of the Apes was a different planet than Earth, but returns to Earth to find it with apes in charge. I suppose when they did the movies they wanted to invent their own surprise ending that readers of the book wouldn't expect.

by Anonymousreply 3011/19/2015

You know OP isn't the blog writer, right, R16?

by Anonymousreply 3111/19/2015

Clear and present danger

Anna Karenina

The Andromeda Strain

by Anonymousreply 3211/19/2015

Agree with The Shining and Interview With the Vampire being the two biggest book-to-movie disappointments ever.

Two books I loved as a teenager basically raped (sorry for the triggering word!) by filmmakers.

by Anonymousreply 3311/19/2015

Flowers in the Attic was one. Weirdly enough, I felt the film captured the book's tone and intent beautifully with the cinematography and Christopher Young's gorgeous score. It was just a few of the casting choices and the leaving out of several key plot points that upset me. Don't even get me started on that ending. Louise Fletcher was perfect, though. Apparently ,a lot more was shot but cut my the studio. I wonder if this still exists somewhere. I'd love a special edition.

The Lifetime movie managed to squeeze in just about all the events of the book into 90 minutes, but left out all the moments to breathe and allow the characters to take it in, which resulted in a super cold, dull film. If they'd been given a 2 hour slot, it would have fared much better. Oh, and if Heather Graham hadn't been cast.

Stephen King's IT could benefit from a new adaptation, but the studio's plans to make it into one film (unless it's 3+ hours) seems like it's setting it up to fail.

by Anonymousreply 3411/19/2015

Generally speaking, great novels never make equally good films, particularly if the novel's richness is based on a lot of content about characters' interior lives, or if it's a sprawling book that can only be reduced to a Cliff Notes version onscreen.

Mediocre or bad books usually make better movies because their very artlessness as literature translates well to the visual and action-oriented stories that work well in the theaters.

Getting to the OP's question, I would also vote for BONFIRE, INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE, plus Demi Moore's vesion of THE SCARLET LETTER.

by Anonymousreply 3511/19/2015

I'll go in the other direction and say THE HEIRESS is actually better than the book WASHINGTON SQUARE.

Should I explain why or save it for a future thread?

by Anonymousreply 3611/19/2015

Don't agree with you R36, but would be interested to know why. The movie is really an adaptation of the stage play adapted from the novel. The novel is different in many ways, though I do like the film and the play when they are well done.

by Anonymousreply 3711/19/2015

Catch-22

Up the Down Staircase

by Anonymousreply 3811/19/2015

[quote]Don't agree with you [R36], but would be interested to know why.

Mont. Gomery. Clift.

by Anonymousreply 3911/19/2015

Another vote for The Shining, and adding Sophie's Choice

by Anonymousreply 4011/19/2015

They ruined Serena. It was nothing like the book. I don't understand why they even called that Serena

by Anonymousreply 4111/19/2015

R27, I don't associate with the kind of people who deem people's opinions "nasty," so the subject has never come up. You elicited a negative reaction from me by saying another poster and I have nasty opinions because we don't love the sugar-coated movie version of Doctor Zhivago.

According to Cambridge Dictionaries Online, "Fangirls ​love ​shows not just for ​their good ​qualities but for the ​opportunities they ​provide to ​engage emotionally with what's on the ​screen." I'm suggesting you may have that kind of relationship with the movie version of Doctor Zhivago.

by Anonymousreply 4211/19/2015

Any adaptation of any F. Scott Fitzgerald novel. People should stop attempting it, it never works.

by Anonymousreply 4311/19/2015

Interview With The Vampire stunk. Bad Pitt's hair brush was the only thing used effectively and would have been the better inanimate object picked for the role but alas, they chose Brad.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4411/19/2015

Brooklyn, the current movie, from the book by Colm Toibin is for me better than the book. Had the book in my Ipad since the year it came out. Saw the movie a few weeks ago, so read it finally. The movie is extremely faithful to the book with a slight change at the very end but IMO is actually better, as the book is very low key and rather bland (the tone seems to be an experiment for Toibin, haven't read any interviews with him about it). The movie is so visually beautiful (with saturated colors and beautiful '50s production design) and Saoirse Ronan is so good and lovely in a very quiet way, that it is more vivid and more enjoyable, especially a very good and lively Julie Walters as her Irish Brooklyn landlady. See the movie, skip the book in this case!

by Anonymousreply 4511/19/2015

Tell me, did "The Hobbit" make the list?

Because if it didn't, the author didn't do his research.

by Anonymousreply 4611/19/2015

The Sheltering Sky

by Anonymousreply 4711/19/2015

R42, I didn't like the movie, either.

by Anonymousreply 4811/19/2015

The Shawshank Redemption

by Anonymousreply 4911/19/2015

Starship Troopers.

by Anonymousreply 5011/19/2015

The recent* film of Brideshead Revisited was a joke compared to the genius of the book.

*The 1980's production, however, did the book justice and more. If you're ever caught by ISIS and they ask you which ONE video you'd like to watch before they behead you, ask for the original Brideshead production from ITV. They won't give it to you, because GAYS, and will probably behead you sooner, but at least your last request will have been for THE BEST.

by Anonymousreply 5111/19/2015

Thanks for the recommendation R45, sounds like my kind of thing.

by Anonymousreply 5208/30/2016

[quote]Stephen King's IT could benefit from a new adaptation, but the studio's plans to make it into one film (unless it's 3+ hours) seems like it's setting it up to fail.

When Stephen King dies, we might see some better adaptations of his stories. He was so angry about The Shining that he got a death grip on any movies made from his books and he will never let go. He may be a writer many enjoy, but he is not a good judge for what makes a story come alive visually.

by Anonymousreply 5308/30/2016

Surprised not to find the following great books ruined by Hollywood:

The Bonfire of the Vanities

Strip Tease

Running With Scissors

by Anonymousreply 5408/30/2016

The World According to Garp. Robin Williams was miscast.

by Anonymousreply 5505/21/2020

Even Cowgirls Get the Blues.

Queen of the Damned.

by Anonymousreply 5605/21/2020

The Lost Weekend. The ending was changed when it was made into a movie, ruined it completely.

by Anonymousreply 5705/21/2020

Catch 22. It never should have been made into a movie.

by Anonymousreply 5805/21/2020

The Girl on the Train

by Anonymousreply 5905/21/2020

The cinematic version of Dawson’s 50-Load Weekend fails to capture the thematic patterning and character development that the book so richly yet subtly achieves.

by Anonymousreply 6005/21/2020

R60 there’s a book version?

by Anonymousreply 6105/21/2020

Seriously, what’s with the bumping of old threads? You couldn’t even find these threads in a normal search, they’re so old. Have we run out of stuff to say that we have to recycle? R55, how on earth did you even find this thread?

by Anonymousreply 6205/21/2020

I often find really old threads when I am watching a show or movie and Google it with datalounge added in. I like to see what was said about it or the actor etc. I watched celebrity big brother recently and did that and got a bunch of threads about celebrity big brother and also threads about/that had the name of the individual players in other things.

by Anonymousreply 6305/21/2020

"Ragtime." The movie pretty much ignored two-thirds of the three communities and chose to focus on the Coalhouse Walker story. The musical did a much better job of maintaining all three story lines.

by Anonymousreply 6405/21/2020

Two books I'd love to see made into movies if only because they'd cause religious heads to explode. They are both by Robert Heinlein. The first is "Strange in a Strange Land" the second "Number of the Beast." If I ever become rich I'd finance the first one.

by Anonymousreply 6505/21/2020

J.G. Ballard's Crash was waaay better than the movie. But Lynch's Wild at Heart was a way better movie than the source material.

by Anonymousreply 6605/21/2020

R45: If they changed the very end it can only be better. I loved 3/4 of the novel (and i generally hate novels where a romance is in the middle), the last part of the novel was a big dissapointment for me.

The name of the rose is a case where the movie is good but they simply can't translate what makes great the novel.

The truth is the book is generally better. Most cases of the opposite are bad books with a good plot (like John Grisham's novels)

by Anonymousreply 6705/21/2020

Shining Through - The book is about a bilingual legal secretary during WWII who winds up working as a secretary at the OSS. This involves some soap opera and intrigue. She goes on a mission undercover in Germany and is in waaaaaaaaay over her head, but because she's smart and capable, she gets out some good information and survives the mission.

So, when casting the movie, they cast then It-Girl Melanie Griffith to play a smart, bilingual New Yorker who manages to survive in WWII Berlin. The story was completely changed and involved giving her a potential Nazi officer love interest played by Liam Neeson.

[quote]The film was neither a commercial nor a critical success. The Razzie Awards declared Shining Through the Worst Picture of 1992, with Melanie Griffith being voted Worst Actress (also for her performance in A Stranger Among Us) and David Seltzer for Worst Director. It also received nominations for Michael Douglas as Worst Actor (also for Basic Instinct) and for Seltzer in the category of Worst Screenplay. The film holds a 44% rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 16 reviews.[10] Audiences surveyed by CinemaScore gave the film a grade of "B+" on scale of A+ to F.

[quote]Roger Ebert wrote in the Chicago Sun-Times, "I know it's only a movie, and so perhaps I should be willing to suspend my disbelief, but Shining Through is such an insult to the intelligence that I wasn't able to do that. Here is a film in which scene after scene is so implausible that the movie kept pushing me outside and making me ask how the key scenes could possibly be taken seriously."

[quote]Janet Maslin wrote in The New York Times that the first three-quarters of Susan Isaacs' book "never made it to the screen," including Linda Voss's love affair and marriage to her New York law firm boss, John Berringer. "David Seltzer's film version of Shining Through manages to lose also the humor of Susan Isaacs' savvy novel. Even stranger than that is the film's insistence on jettisoning the most enjoyable parts of the story."

[quote]The film is listed in Golden Raspberry Award founder John Wilson's book The Official Razzie Movie Guide as one of The 100 Most Enjoyably Bad Movies Ever Made.

It was while doing press for this movie that Griffith made her infamous comments about not having been aware of the Germans doing bad things to the Jews during WWII until she made the movie.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6805/22/2020

I've been mad about adaptations since I saw The Wizard of OZ. Those shoes were not red in the book, and the 7 year old gayling I was was terribly undone about it all.

Donna Tartt's The Goldfinch was a recent egregious example.

by Anonymousreply 6905/22/2020

(I see I posted upthread...years ago)

by Anonymousreply 7005/22/2020

Pet Sematary - both times.

by Anonymousreply 7105/22/2020

Maybe a bit obscure. The Dark is Rising, a classic children's fantasy novel written more than 35 years ago (and well before anything Harry Potter, the fans of which had the gall to accuse Cooper of ripping HP off).

Move to 2007, and The Seeker, it's godawful movie adaption. Not even some strong cast members (Christopher Eccleston, Ian McShane, and Frances Conroy) can save this thing, and it is a knife in the heart to anyone who grew up reading the books.

At least the reviews seemed to agreed (14% at Rotten Tomatoes, for example)

by Anonymousreply 7205/22/2020

I'll cast my votes along side "The French Lieutenant's Woman," "The Interview with eh Vampire," and "The Bonfire of the Vanities."

Though, a couple of years ago, I re-read "The Bonfire of the Vanities" and the book as at least as much of a piece of crap as the movie.

My all-time worst adaptation of a book: "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil." Clint Eastwood had no idea what the book was about, so he directed a movie about his misunderstanding."

by Anonymousreply 7305/22/2020

Dune. A thousand times Dune. I'm hoping this movie breaks the curse

by Anonymousreply 7405/22/2020

Camelot was terrible.

by Anonymousreply 7505/22/2020

I definitely agree about the abomination that was the movie version of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. Lovely lovely book; awful, mediocre movie.

by Anonymousreply 7605/22/2020

Queen of the Damned

by Anonymousreply 7705/22/2020

Notice that 95% of the adaptations in the list are chick flicks - The Last Song, Safe Harbor all that Frau crap.

by Anonymousreply 7805/22/2020

I have to disagree with [R32] about The Andromeda Strain. One of my favorite books, and a brilliant screen adaptation. The audiobook version demonstrates just how difficult it is to adapt that novel, and the film managed to include almost all of it with very few changes. The main one, the gender of one of the characters, in no way detracted from the story.

Similarly, I thought the Harry Potter books were extremely well-adapted from the source material. Goblet of Fire, in particular, was a masterful job of condensation. After reading the book I wouldn't have thought it possible to make a coherent film with a running time under five hours, but they did it.

For me, the worst adaptation was Raise the Titanic. The film literally stops halfway through the book! It was woefully miscast, and directed in such a plodding manner that there was no suspense at all. The film's only redeeming value was the score by John Barry.

A close second is Escape to Witch Mountain. The original novel for young readers remains a classic, but it has been filmed several times with diminishing results. No one seems to trust the source material at all! Why film a novel and change the characters, setting, and plot? The first Disney film is enjoyable on its own, but it bears so little resemblance to the novel that it's really a separate entity.

by Anonymousreply 7905/22/2020

[quote]I've been mad about adaptations since I saw The Wizard of OZ. Those shoes were not red in the book, and the 7 year old gayling I was was terribly undone about it all.

They were silver in the book. Why the change? One word: Technicolor.

by Anonymousreply 8005/22/2020

Billy Lynn's long halftime walk. I'm still mad that Ang Lee was able to do a good movie of a crappy novel like Life of Pi and failed completely to make a great novel like Fountain's one into a decent film

by Anonymousreply 8105/23/2020

R74: I doubt it. I read recently an article that blasted Villeneuve for some of the changes he did. The writer said directly that the director didn't understood a thing of the novel if he thouht those changes were necesary

by Anonymousreply 8205/23/2020

r80, yes of course, but a 7 year old has their devotions.

by Anonymousreply 8305/23/2020

Every single attempt to film "Jane Eyre" and "Peter Pan"

Curiously, though, I found the Potter films better than the books, as Rowlings plotting was wonderful, the actual writing was staggeringly, you should pardon the expression, charmless. The films stuck closely to the books but supplied the magical patina the writing lacked. Rowling is inventive, but she's no Nesbit, MacDonald, Burnett, Stevenson, or Kipling. In this case, my vote went to the films.

by Anonymousreply 8405/23/2020

Terrific books / crapwad movies include:

Sophie's Choice

The French Lieutenant's Woman

Out Of Africa

Heartburn

The Bridges Of Madison County

Postcards From The Edge

The Devil Wears Prada

(You're all seeing the pattern here, right?)

by Anonymousreply 8505/23/2020

"Little Women" - the casting is never right and the films are not comfortable with the 1860s pious New England pious, women's happiest fate is as a loved wife and mother "on the shelf" and the constant theme of others before self.

by Anonymousreply 8605/23/2020

^*pious New England patriarchy

by Anonymousreply 8705/23/2020

[quote]Donna Tartt's The Goldfinch was a recent egregious example.

I tried to watch the movie on Thursday. It's free now if you have Amazon Prime. I couldn't take 15 minutes of it.

by Anonymousreply 8805/23/2020

The goldfinch never was a good material for a film, maybe for a tv show but the novel is too long and the plotting is too vague to make a good film of it

by Anonymousreply 8905/23/2020

The Mysteries of Pittsburgh

by Anonymousreply 9005/23/2020

R90 Everytime a movide decides it's a good idea to change the sexual orientation of a main character you know it's going to be a crappy film

by Anonymousreply 9105/23/2020

The Great Gatsby

Pat Conroy's The Prince of Tides

Richard Price's The Wanderers & Bloodbrothers

Thomas Hardy's Jude the Obscure, Tess of the d'Urbervilles & Far from the Madding Crowd

Slaughterhouse-Five

Moby-Dick

Pet Sematary

by Anonymousreply 9205/23/2020

A Beautiful Mind. The movie stripped the book of all the complexity of John Nash’s life. It’s a remarkable story but Nash was incredibly cruel to the people in his life — he was not redeemed by the love of a good woman.

by Anonymousreply 9305/23/2020

[quote]Every single attempt to film "Jane Eyre"

That may be true but I have a soft spot for the 40s version. Orson Welles was creepy as hell as Mr. Rochester and Joan Fontaine was her Rebecca mousy-best as Jane.

Just love it b/c Liz Taylor has a bit part in it and you can see immediately she will be star. I saw the movie and did not know she was in it, kept thinking "who is that little girl." Well, I checked the credits and was very surprised.

Considering Liz didn't take acting seriously, except for one or two occasions, I can only attribute to her allure as a love affair between herself and the camera.

by Anonymousreply 9405/23/2020

R93: It's difficult to be redeemed by the love of a good woman when you are gay (no matter how many mental gymnastics he did to deny it)

by Anonymousreply 9505/23/2020

Speak for yourself r95

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 9605/23/2020

Bonfire of the Vanities. I was in love with that book and thought DePalma was an interesting choice. But the movie was just terrible. You wonder why directors take material that obviously they love and manage to turn into something completely different. I thought Sherman McCoy should have been played by William Hurt. He has that wasp look and the Master of the Universe attitude. I did like Kim Cattrell's scene where's she trying to explain to her daughter what her dad does for a living. Melanie Griffith should never attempt a southern accent.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 9705/23/2020

Mighty Mouse ("Here I come to save the dayyyyyyyy!")

Superman (the original TV programme, and dumber than shit)

Mister Ed (dumber than just about everything else mentioned)

by Anonymousreply 9805/23/2020

^*Apologies - that was meant for the Stupid Films You Loved Anyway thread.

R98

by Anonymousreply 9905/24/2020

The Horse Whisperer was a phenomenal book, then the movie was... meh.

by Anonymousreply 10005/24/2020

"Anna Karenina" owns this thread.

No one EVER does justice to the extraordinary breadth of observation of personal human anguish Tolstoy presented in the novel.

They always turn it into a soppy tragic love story where Anna and Vronsky suck all the air out of the room, and Levin's spiritual struggles and his and Kitty's relationship are just filler; more lately it always turns into a feminist tome about the oppression of women by patriarchy.

by Anonymousreply 10105/24/2020

R101- I don't know if you've seen the lengthy BBC miniseries version from the 1970s, but you would've hated that as well.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10205/24/2020

Lord Of The Flies

by Anonymousreply 10305/24/2020

R102 - I remember it, actually, and yes, I hated it. Nicola Pagett, Eric Porter (who also got to play Soames Forsyte, husband to another unhappy wife, Irene), and Stuart Wilson, looked right but it lacked the breadth of the book.

It isn't possible to get the breadth of the book, because Tolstoy's gift was to be able to put himself in his characters' emotional shoes, so a great deal of what occurs is interior.

Film doesn't do well with transfers from interior to action . . .

by Anonymousreply 10405/24/2020

"Film doesn't do well with transfers from interior to action . . . "

This is why "The Great Gatsby" will never work as a movie.

So many of the characters are mistaken or deluded about each other, and you can't put someone's delusions on film. The camera shows the characters as the shallow twats they really are, not what the others hope or believe they are.

by Anonymousreply 10505/24/2020

Queen of the Damned was a terrible movie but the book is not much better. It's probably the weakest of the Vampire Chronicles. 3000 years asleep and all she could come up with was kill all the men? I'd love to see a really faithful adaption of The Vampire Lestat. It's probably best suited for a limited run series than a 2 hour movie.

The Shining was never meant to be a real adaption of the novel so it gets a pass. Most of King's novels have been made into horrible films. Apparently he sells the rights to his short stories to film students for $1 which is pretty cool.

by Anonymousreply 10605/24/2020

The problem with King's adaptations (and i'm not talking about the Shining which in my opinion is a total faliure becasue Kubrick simply didn't care about the characters of the novel) is that some things that work incredibly well on the novel doesn't translate well to film. Some scenes that give you chills when you are reading them are laughable in images.

That's probably the reason the less blood the better the adaptation

by Anonymousreply 10705/25/2020

Every Stephen King adaptation except the Green Mile and Stand By Me.

by Anonymousreply 10805/25/2020

American Psycho. Book was amazing, but I walked out of the movie. Horrible.

by Anonymousreply 10905/25/2020

Forrest Gump in the novel was an asshole.

by Anonymousreply 11005/25/2020

Slightly off-topic, the novel Wicked was a colossal bore. while the stage adaptation was entertaining.

by Anonymousreply 11105/25/2020

Tried reading wicked three times before giving up r111. Like you say, the stage adaptation was incredible

by Anonymousreply 11205/25/2020

I love Wicked the novel and was only mildly entertained by the musical.

by Anonymousreply 11305/25/2020

The Cider House Rules

by Anonymousreply 11405/26/2020
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!