What book was a total disaster when made into a film?

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by bertold

Book-Faramir vows to not be tempted by Isildur's Bane and keeps his word, movie-Faramir not only makes no such vow, but immediately falls prey to the Ring literally seconds after encountering it.

I agree - this was a very, very bad error (and one that spoils the logic in the film ..)

Book-Denethor has the nobility of a great ruler before his reason succumbs to his cares and worries (even Pippin thinks of him as more like to Aragorn than to Boromir); by contrast, movie-Denethor is a corrupt, demented imbecile from the get go. He can also run a quarter of a mile while on fire, but I try to pretend that scene never took place.

Hmm, I really didnt think that positive of Denethor. Granted, he's more of a laughing stock in the film, but I didnt feel he was treated unjust.

The Council of Elrond becomes a shouting-match

Hasnt been much more in the book

Treebeard has to be tricked into attacking Isengard

Annoying, yes - but would you prefer watching Ents talk for days?

Elrond Half-Elven is portrayed as a racist pig

Hmm, I didnt feel the elves are painted unjust - bunsh of ignorant racist, the whole lot of them

Movie-Gimli lacks any of the original character's wonderful traits and is simply the butt of a crapload of stupid jokes.

Agreed.

even Arwen, for Pete's sake, is introduced onscreen by bringing a blade up to her fiancee's throat

I agree that Arwen is one of the worst failures of the film.

And the most beloved character of all, Gandalf, is not immune to Jackson's idiotic treatment either. He beats the hell out of Denethor with his staff, for example, in one of the most despicable scenes in the entire trilogy of films.

Oh well, how to paint an exorcism?

He goes to confront Saruman after he was defeated by Treebeard not to extend a chance for Saruman to turn from evil and onto a path to redemption (as does book-Gandalf), but to get the skinny on Sauron's next move.

Agreed.

Note, too, that the changes mentioned above are only a fraction of what Jackson did wrong in these movies. I could really go on for hours on this topic, but I fear that even the above is too long for a single post.

It is not

I personally believed the films to be better then I expected any movie to be (e.g. I really loved Gollum, Boromir and Shelob). It's not the book (can you spell ghosts bringing down elephants (sorry, forgot the english name and I dont think the german one would be known )) but its a nice work in its own rights.
There are some laughable scenes or bad decisions (e.g. Arwen, Legolas skating down a stair on a shield, Liv Taylor, Saurons Eye with its searchlight, Arwen, Orks in Moria, Arwen, ...), there are some grave mistakes, there are some things that really could have been done better - but there are also many positive differations from the book (e.g. leaving out Bombadil) - because you simply cannot take a book and paste it 1:1 into a film.

[Bev]

How about the truly awful adaptation of John Wyndham's The Day Of The Triffids, or Margery Allingham's The Tiger In The Smoke in which they left out Albert Campion the book's Detective completely ?
Thank the lord that they decided not to film "Hide My Eyes" as the plan was to have Cliff Richard play Campion....I can just visualise him bursting into song whenever he found a body..ugh

Bevis

[Jill75]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

I would say... Any movie made from a book you would have previously read.

Most books have a descriptive that can not be done justice to in visual. Others are too long to fit in the alloted 2 hours a movie can last... and on and on...

This is one reason why I think the Harry Potter and LOTR series was so disappointing for me. It has so much effects and story to feature in the movie that not all can be placed within 2 hours.

Well so then it was good enough. But then if you have read the book before you have watched the movie it will be disappointing then watch the movie first then read the book afterwards.

[EowynCarter]

I guess to enjoy a movie adaptation you need to forget the books a little while.

Starship troopers is nice as a movie. Then that's the point of view of someone how didn't read the books.

The lotro movies are nice enough, if you can forgive the changes. Same for the Harry pottter ones. Though I didn't like 4 at first, that anoying habit of Newell's to swhitch from scene to scene without transition.

[bertold]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Annoying, yes - but would you prefer watching Ents talk for days?

There was no need to show them debating for days, but letting them make the decision without being tricked was necessary. And the whole trick idea was done very poorly anyway. First they debate for a long time on whether to go to war or not. Then they decide not to. Then Pippin tricks Treebeard into going near Isengard and seeing the devastation. And what happens after that? A single cry from Treebeard is enough to overrule their carefully made decision and immediately then and there attack Isengard! It's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Hmm, I didnt feel the elves are painted unjust - bunsh of ignorant racist, the whole lot of them

Movie-Elrond has very little to do with book-Elrond. Book-Elrond did not think Men were weak and couldn't be trusted.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Oh well, how to paint an exorcism?

First, you are talking about Theoden. I was talking about Denethor. Gandalf beat him with his staff when Denethor called for surrender at Minas Tirith. Second, there was no exorcism in the book! This whole notion of Theoden possessed by Saruman is a silly invention of Jackson's dreadful imagination.

Originally Posted by tirsales

you simply cannot take a book and paste it 1:1 into a film.

Of course not. A 1:1 conversion would not only be impossible, it would be boring and unwatchable. But the problem with how far Jackson deviated from the source material is that he butchered most of the characters and, what's worse, completely twisted and perverted the main themes of the book in order to accommodate his action flick format. He obviously has no understanding of the book and its characters. If he did, he wouldn't have come up with the whole Frodo-Gollum-Sam and lembas scene. He wouldn't have had Faramir take Frodo to Osgiliath*. He wouldn't have made Arwen into Xena the Princess Warrior. He wouldn't have made Eomer a second rate nobody, Treebeard an easily tricked fool, Gimli a pathetic clown, Legolas a blond, effeminate buffoon. He wouldn't have sent the Elves to Helm's Deep, since that was so utterly against one of the main themes of the book. And so on, and so forth.


* One of the most startling things about this whole scene was not that Faramir took Frodo to Osgiliath, but that he let him go later. He witnesses a scene in which Frodo is willing to very easily give the Ring up to a Nazgul showing no self control whatsoever, yet thinks that the Ring will be safer with him none-the-less! It's just all too horrible to comprehend.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by bertold

There was no need to show them debating for days, but letting them make the decision without being tricked was necessary

I agree - but still I dont consider this an "oh so bad error" - it spoils some (relevant) context about the Ents, but its easier to understand in the short timespan of a film.

Movie-Elrond has very little to do with book-Elrond. Book-Elrond did not think Men were weak and couldn't be trusted.

You refer to the beginning of the film and Elronds flashback? Then I agree. Isnt it Elrond who said that the age of the humans is beginning?

First, you are talking about Theoden.

OH MY GOD ... Shouldn't write stuff like that when I'm tired..

I was talking about Denethor. Gandalf beat him with his staff when Denethor called for surrender at Minas Tirith.

My apologies - I really have forgotten this scene..

Second, there was no exorcism in the book! This whole notion of Theoden possessed by Saruman is a silly invention of Jackson's dreadful imagination.

Yes, I know - but again it is very hard to put the livid and complex world of Tolkien into a film. I was annoyed when I first watched the movie at this scene - because it makes much more sense (with Grima) to consider Theoden as a ruler who just listens to bad advice then to imagine him being under direct influence of Saruman (why would he need Grima then? He is not the type to settle for unneeded help (neither in the book nor in the movie...).
But then - I can imagine that it is much harder to portray the real story, so I guess the change was not only to get it more action-like. And then its a change I can somehow forgive .. it still annoys me, but it doesnt spoil the fun of watching the movie - it is not the book, but its a nice movie in its own rights.
(Though I, still, much prefer Boromir over Aragorn).

Of course not. A 1:1 conversion would not only be impossible, it would be boring and unwatchable. But the problem with how far Jackson deviated from the source material is that he butchered most of the characters and, what's worse, completely twisted and perverted the main themes of the book in order to accommodate his action flick format. He obviously has no understanding of the book and its characters. If he did, he wouldn't have come up with the whole Frodo-Gollum-Sam and lembas scene.

Agreed. But the development Frodo takes is hard to follow in the film - it spans 6 books!

He wouldn't have had Faramir take Frodo to Osgiliath*. He wouldn't have made Arwen into Xena the Princess Warrior.

I understood that it was Liv Taylor who wanted this change?

He wouldn't have made Eomer a second rate nobody, Treebeard an easily tricked fool, Gimli a pathetic clown, Legolas a blond, effeminate buffoon. He wouldn't have sent the Elves to Helm's Deep, since that was so utterly against one of the main themes of the book. And so on, and so forth.

Oh god, I forgot about the Elves in Helm's Deep .. The Elves are gone, its the age of the humans - where the hell did the Elves come from?
*shudders*

One of the most startling things about this whole scene was not that Faramir took Frodo to Osgiliath, but that he let him go later. He witnesses a scene in which Frodo is willing to very easily give the Ring up to a Nazgul showing no self control whatsoever, yet thinks that the Ring will be safer with him none-the-less! It's just all too horrible to comprehend.

Agreed - not withstanding the problems to get back to Mordor from Osgiliath w/o delay and getting noticed. Apart from that: Faramir is openly betraying his father in this scene - much more so then in the book.
AND Faramir is stronger then Boromir - the book makes this very clear (Boromir frees himself of the ring in the end but falls victim to him first, Faramir has no need to free himself - as he didnt fall victim).

Seems like I really have suppressed some of the more annoying changes in the film
Still I believe that "as a film in its own rights" it is a nice one - I had fun watching the movies. It's not LOTR, but it is nice. And the CGI is astonishing.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by tirsales

But then - I can imagine that it is much harder to portray the real story, so I guess the change was not only to get it more action-like. And then its a change I can somehow forgive .. it still annoys me, but it doesnt spoil the fun of watching the movie - it is not the book, but its a nice movie in its own rights.
(Though I, still, much prefer Boromir over Aragorn).

This is one reason I hardly really like film adaptations from books. Most of the times, things have been left out (too slow) or put in (to pick up the pace). The first make me feel I miss things (slow paces can be beneficial in books, to let the events sink in) or make me feel the story had to mangled to add in that love scene/fight scene just to keep people interested.

That's why mini-series are generally more succesful, as they have the time to leave that slow scene in and don't have to rush through the story.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Seems like I really have suppressed some of the more annoying changes in the film
Still I believe that "as a film in its own rights" it is a nice one - I had fun watching the movies. It's not LOTR, but it is nice. And the CGI is astonishing.

LOTR was an awesome movie, if you never read the books.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

That's why mini-series are generally more succesful, as they have the time to leave that slow scene in and don't have to rush through the story.

Yes and no - most mini-series I know have quite low budgets. This is not neccessarily a quality-killer, but it (often) stops good CGI or SFX. And I really loath bad CGI or (especially) SFX - better none then bad.
I repeat - this does not have to mean that a mini-series is bad. Some mini-series have enough money, others dont need a lot of (expensive) CGI or SFX, others somehow make do with what they have (which is more astonishing then making a good film with lots of money) - but quite a few of them fail.

LOTR was an awesome movie, if you never read the books.

Or if you can forget the books while watching the movie.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Yes and no - most mini-series I know have quite low budgets. This is not neccessarily a quality-killer, but it (often) stops good CGI or SFX. And I really loath bad CGI or (especially) SFX - better none then bad.
I repeat - this does not have to mean that a mini-series is bad. Some mini-series have enough money, others dont need a lot of (expensive) CGI or SFX, others somehow make do with what they have (which is more astonishing then making a good film with lots of money) - but quite a few of them fail.

They generally fail on budget, not on the story... While most movies fail on story rather than on budget... And I personally dislike the second more than the first...

And some books should never be shown on screen...

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

I would say... Any movie made from a book you would have previously read.

Most books have a descriptive that can not be done justice to in visual. Others are too long to fit in the alloted 2 hours a movie can last... and on and on...

I disagree. Both of the Narnia movies were wonderful.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I disagree. Both of the Narnia movies were wonderful.

I would disagree - OTOH I didn't even like the books, so the movie perhaps was a very good adaption

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by tirsales

I would disagree - OTOH I didn't even like the books, so the movie perhaps was a very good adaption

What do you think of the movie version of The Neverending Story?

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

What do you think of the movie version of The Neverending Story?

Hmm .. its some years since I last read the book or saw the movie - but I liked it very much. Even thinking of either movie or book has a nice touch of childhood *reminiscent smile*
But I never analysed how many mistakes are between movie and book.

[bertold]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Yes, I know - but again it is very hard to put the livid and complex world of Tolkien into a film. I was annoyed when I first watched the movie at this scene - because it makes much more sense (with Grima) to consider Theoden as a ruler who just listens to bad advice then to imagine him being under direct influence of Saruman (why would he need Grima then? He is not the type to settle for unneeded help (neither in the book nor in the movie...).

Saruman needed Grima for two reasons: one, to provide him with information of the goings on in Theoden's court (he was, basically, a spy), and, more importantly, Grima influenced Theoden (in accordance with Saruman's will) through constant brain washing and (probably, although not explicitly stated) use of drugs, which Saruman himself would not be capable of administering.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Agreed. But the development Frodo takes is hard to follow in the film - it spans 6 books!

Sure, but the whole scene was just silly. Not necessary at all.

Originally Posted by tirsales

I understood that it was Liv Taylor who wanted this change?

I wouldn't be surprised one bit.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Agreed - not withstanding the problems to get back to Mordor from Osgiliath w/o delay and getting noticed.

It's even sillier when you realize that the entire plan formed during the Council of Elrond hindered on two things: secrecy and the (correctly) assumed notion that Sauron was incapable of imagining anyone wanting to destroy the Ring rather than use it for themselves. So what does Jackson do? He puts Frodo with the Ring right on the border of the Enemy. And then Frodo flaunts the Ring to a Nazgul! What the hell?! Sauron had more than enough information at this point, to come to the correct conclusion about the enemy's plans.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Still I believe that "as a film in its own rights" it is a nice one - I had fun watching the movies. It's not LOTR, but it is nice. And the CGI is astonishing.

Oh I agree that the movies look great. And there are some wonderful moments in them. But I doubt they'd all amount to more than an hour, at most, yet the whole debacle lasts 12 hours. The most annoying thing about it all is, that it really could have been a great set of movies. Scenes like Gandalf's sacrifice in Moria prove that wonderful moments based on the book could be created on-screen by this team. They just chose to go in a different direction, which is a shame.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by Bev

How about the truly awful adaptation of John Wyndham's The Day Of The Triffids, or Margery Allingham's The Tiger In The Smoke in which they left out Albert Campion the book's Detective completely ?
Thank the lord that they decided not to film "Hide My Eyes" as the plan was to have Cliff Richard play Campion....I can just visualise him bursting into song whenever he found a body..ugh

Bevis

I never saw Tiger in the Smoke - and am very glad of it now!

I did rather like the Campion mini series - Peter Davison made a good Campion. I really can't see Cliff Richards in that role :shudders: