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

[Drake]

Originally Posted by netseeker

My wife and i found the movie a very big disappointment too.
"Solaris" was a disappoinment too, i love the book by Stanisław Lem, but not the movie.

The new version as a movie clearly sucks, cause they have twisted the story badly.
BUT there is a wonderful old russian adaption of the book which is great.

OH and the EARTHSEA miniseries absolutely sucks.
I love the books by Ursula K. LeGuin, but I couldn't watch that trashy stuff.

[krisk]

as far as the LOTR, Harry Potter and Narnia, I knew that they couldn't be the book, so I just discarded that expectation and went in and watched with a child's sense of wonder.

[bertold]

Originally Posted by krisk

as far as the LOTR, Harry Potter and Narnia, I knew that they couldn't be the book

Of course. Everybody knew that they couldn't be the books. But that doesn't excuse the fact that they were bad.

[yvanleterrible]

A story has the capacity to stir up images long buried in the psyche of a reader. The same story will inevitably be viewed differently from one person to the next. A movie is the representation of images from a group of people coupled to existing sets and geographies.

When you see a movie made from a book you've already read, it is possible that it will not meet expectations.

As an example, I saw the first two Harry Potter movies before reading the books from which they were inspired. I say inspired because it's the best movie translation from text one can expect. I loved them. My children who brought me to see the movies persuaded their jaded, prejudgemental father to read the series.
As I read through them, I thought that the rythm written in the stories was much more human and credible than the one imposed by the movies.(Why do movies go at such frenetic velocities) Now that I have my mental images from the books, the latest movies were far less appealing.
The opposite is also true, as I kept reading the coming sequels I was made to see the faces of the actors portraying what I read in my mind.

In conclusion, I rather see the movie or read the book but not both.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

A story has the capacity to stir up images long buried in the psyche of a reader. The same story will inevitably be viewed differently from one person to the next. A movie is the representation of images from a group of people coupled to existing sets and geographies.

When you see a movie made from a book you've already read, it is possible that it will not meet expectations.

As an example, I saw the first two Harry Potter movies before reading the books from which they were inspired. I say inspired because it's the best movie translation from text one can expect. I loved them. My children who brought me to see the movies persuaded their jaded, prejudgemental father to read the series.
As I read through them, I thought that the rythm written in the stories was much more human and credible than the one imposed by the movies.(Why do movies go at such frenetic velocities) Now that I have my mental images from the books, the latest movies were far less appealing.
The opposite is also true, as I kept reading the coming sequels I was made to see the faces of the actors portraying what I read in my mind.

In conclusion, I rather see the movie or read the book but not both.

That's an interesting point you bring up, about having a mental picture of the characters in your head. I feel the same way about book covers that have photographs or realistic illustrations of the main characters. I hate the imposition of having that mental picture in my head while reading, and will avoid a lot of books because of those front covers.

[krisk]

Originally Posted by bertold

Of course. Everybody knew that they couldn't be the books. But that doesn't excuse the fact that they were bad.

I didn't think that any one of them were bad. there were at least two miserably done animated Hobbit films. THOSE were bad.

given the state of film making I think they did just about as well as could be expected. sure, in the LOTR the story was retold to some extent, but that did not detract from it being a visual feast to amaze, and the essence of the story was told.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

That's an interesting point you bring up, about having a mental picture of the characters in your head. I feel the same way about book covers that have photographs or realistic illustrations of the main characters. I hate the imposition of having that mental picture in my head while reading, and will avoid a lot of books because of those front covers.

I totally agree. There was a time when I used those images as a reference to what the book would be about. After a few hyped up pictures with no correlation to the reading, I sort of zoned them out and tried to avoid them. Ebook readers help in that respect.

[Uzumaki]

The Golden Compass

[bertold]

Originally Posted by krisk

given the state of film making I think they did just about as well as could be expected. sure, in the LOTR the story was retold to some extent, but that did not detract from it being a visual feast to amaze, and the essence of the story was told.

I agree that it was a visual feast, but I vehemently disagree that the essence of the story was told.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

The opposite is also true, as I kept reading the coming sequels I was made to see the faces of the actors portraying what I read in my mind.

That's, thankfully, not something I've ever experienced. But after having heard Stephen Fry narrate the first Harry Potter on radio, Dumbledore will always have his voice in my head. The same with Penelope Keith and Agatha Raisin.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

That's an interesting point you bring up, about having a mental picture of the characters in your head. I feel the same way about book covers that have photographs or realistic illustrations of the main characters. I hate the imposition of having that mental picture in my head while reading, and will avoid a lot of books because of those front covers.

Another of the benefits of ebooks - the covers are a lot less obtrusive!

Going back to Harry Potter briefly, there was one thing that really, really irked me, and that was the platform they used at Kings Cross. OK - on the plus side, it was actually filmed at Kings Cross. But on the minus side, it was filmed in the wrong part of the station (OK - the older part where the filmed is more picturesque than the new train shed where platform 9 3/4 actually would be).

And yes, I realise just how sad that makes me sound, but the only reason I know that is because I travelled through the station for a few years on my daily commute!