varana
Boomstick Coordinator
Posts: 149
|
Post by varana on Sept 27, 2006 14:35:32 GMT -5
Has there ever been a worse book to movie transission than League og Extraordinary Gentlemen? Forcing anyone who have actually read any Alan Moore to watch this thing must surely be called a violation of the Geneva convention.
|
|
|
|
Post by blinkfan on Sept 27, 2006 14:56:12 GMT -5
Christine was a horrible adaptation. If they had been closer to the book the movie would be genuinley creepy. Although they probably didn't have the special effects for the time it still dosen't explain why the chose to make George Le Bay the guy who sells Arnie the car (in the book he helps Dennis unravel the mystery and is one of the protaganists). The movie just adds more reasons why I feel that John Carpenter is over rated.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarOpal on Sept 27, 2006 16:21:46 GMT -5
Okay, while I'm pretty sure no one's even heard of the movie or the book The Moonspinners, it has to be the worst adaption of a book ever. The movie itself (the question of adaption aside) is a thing of grotesque beauty. The fact it has someone like Eli Wallach attached to it makes it even better. I mean it is just so entertainingly awful, it's hard to describe.
But then we get into the actual book adaption. Seriously, Disney could've saved the licensing fee and just change the title. Except for the fact that it takes place in Greece and has stolen jewels, it is completely different. I mean everything else, character names, their backgrounds, the inclusion of completely new characters - it's a mess.
Howl's Moving Castle is a pretty poor adaption as well. I saw the movie first and there were parts that I thought to myself, 'Well that felt tacked on.' Read the book and, whatta' ya' know? it was tacked on.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheOogieBoogieMan on Sept 27, 2006 18:20:57 GMT -5
I'd say the Jurassic sequel, the Lost World, is among the worst. The book was fun, possibly moreso than the first book, but the film is really an adaptation in name only; Spielberg and company basically put the book through the shredder and made up their own half-assed story.
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Sept 28, 2006 12:09:15 GMT -5
I'd agree, OogieBoogie, but I'd also add that the more I read Crichton's stuff, the less I like it.
I reread Jurassic Park and The Lost World over the summer, and I read Timeline last year. PHEW. Not books that stand up to much scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ms. Jellybean on Sept 28, 2006 13:50:14 GMT -5
One of the most tepid (not worst, because it's the only attempt at this particular novel so far) book-to-movie transitions that I've ever forced myself to sit through was the made-for-TV version of "The Mists of Avalon." And yes, even though I know that there's some people here who dislike that book, I'm one of the die-hards and I love it. And watching what I considered a good story be so poorly translated to the screen was not pleasant.
But please. If one is going to attempt capturing an epic novel (or at least very long one) in a movie... please study Peter Jackson. I don't know what the man did, but he did it with LOTR. If only someone could do the same with "Mists."
Oh, and I abhorred the film versions of the first two Harry Potter books. They could have done so much better with the both of them. Sometimes, I think, a director has to take a few creative liberties to make sure that a movie remains faithful but entertaining. Sorceror's Stone and Chamber of Secrets were, sadly, not so.
|
|
eatmyshorts
Ghostbuster
"Do you like-a-da Fat Boys?"
Posts: 536
|
Post by eatmyshorts on Sept 28, 2006 17:08:09 GMT -5
Hitchiker's guide.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheOogieBoogieMan on Sept 28, 2006 18:27:27 GMT -5
Oh, and I abhorred the film versions of the first two Harry Potter books. I thought the second one was decent, but yeah, I hated the first Harry Potter movie. You know a film doesn't have much of a chance when it has to rely on special effects and the acting capabilities of three 12 year-olds. |
|
|
|
Post by blinkfan on Sept 28, 2006 18:30:16 GMT -5
I dislike all the Harry Potter books.Sorry Lissa, I prefer Lotr and the Narnia books much better.
|
|
sunsetryder
Mini-Mutant
I swear, my username has nothing to do with James Bond.
Posts: 9
|
Post by sunsetryder on Sept 29, 2006 16:29:44 GMT -5
Howl's Moving Castle is a pretty poor adaption as well. I saw the movie first and there were parts that I thought to myself, 'Well that felt tacked on.' Read the book and, whatta' ya' know? it was tacked on. As a fan of both the director Hayao Miyazaki and the author Diana Wynne Jones, I wish I could disagree with you- but the sad truth is yes, yes, it is a terrible adaptation. Not only is there stuff tacked on aplenty, but they made Michael (not Markl- Disney obviously didn't hire anyone who actually knew Japanese to translate that.....) about ten years younger, Sophie seems incredibly bi-polar (to me, at least), and we see not one instance of Howl harrassing any women other than Sophie, who doesn't really count. There are other things, but since I find the movie entertaining, I'm not going to list all of them. ("Biiiiiiirdman- TO THE RESCUE!") Cheaper By The Dozen. Why did they even bother to use the name of a perfectly good book? All the two have in common is a family of twelve kids. Ella Enchanted. (shudders) Pink.....everywhere...... Disney once again manages to take a potent part of my childhood and transform it into some bloated disgusting freak of nature. Once again, there's only the barest resemblance of the original. And the characters have become really annoying. |
|
|
|
Post by Spiderdancer on Sept 29, 2006 16:34:21 GMT -5
Ella Enchanted. (shudders) Pink.....everywhere...... Disney once again manages to take a potent part of my childhood and transform it into some bloated disgusting freak of nature. Once again, there's only the barest resemblance of the original. And the characters have become really annoying. LOL. I just thought the whole concept was disturbing, though the Red Guards cracked me and Sib1 up. Good thing all the teenage boys around her are fictional, because real ones would figure it out in ten seconds and the movie would undergo a drastic rating change. |
|
|
|
Post by StarOpal on Sept 29, 2006 19:24:13 GMT -5
*spit take*
|
|
Lordmoon
Boomstick Coordinator
Posts: 174
|
Post by Lordmoon on Oct 1, 2006 1:46:36 GMT -5
A Sound Of Thunder. Boy, talk about streching 5 pages worth of story into a 90 min movie. No wonder that thing was shelved for years.
I actually enjoyed that movie. I've never read the book and as a stand alone film I thought it was rather fun. I loved the party scene with the giants in which Ella does Queen.
The movie really reminded me of The Princess Bride (my favorite movie of all time) interms of how light hearted it was.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarOpal on Oct 1, 2006 14:06:51 GMT -5
Hound of the Baskervilles, the one with Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. I'm not going to say the movie was bad, because it is rather entertaining. But as an adaption it has very little to do with what happens in the story. I mean the tagline is, "The Most Horror-Dripping TALE EVER WRITTEN!" Huh?
Of course anything with Edgar Allen Poe loosely attached. The worst has to be The Raven though. Yeesh.
As someone who has never read the book, I got the feeling Ella Enchanted couldn't decide what sort of movie it wanted to be. Like it would drastically switch back and forth from Ever After to Shrek. At least that's how I felt, and The Princess Bride is my all time favorite movie as well. But I think I'll give the book a chance.
|
|
eatmyshorts
Ghostbuster
"Do you like-a-da Fat Boys?"
Posts: 536
|
Post by eatmyshorts on Oct 1, 2006 14:20:21 GMT -5
Yeah, the sound of thunder was horrible.
|
|
