Bad Book to Film Adaptations - or I expected nothing and I’m still let down

[Red Hood]

It's especially not the Hobbit either, since Bilbo shouts that he's having an adventure more often than he does actually have one.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=XHb1i6ktm4I
It's sad that I can point to this ancient adaptation as a superior attempt. Peter Jackson's adaptation was a tryhard version of Lord of the Rings & that defeats the whole "biting off more than you can chew" aspect of the Hobbit. Every moment of those three movies revolves around building up the Lord of the Rings like it's an upcoming event that hasn't happened yet when the Hobbit should be treated as an isolated event. Peter did know that the origin of the One Ring was an afterthought to the Hobbit, right?

One of the great things about the Rankin-Bass Hobbit was that it looks like they really gave Tolkien's own artwork a good look before starting out, at least in regards to backgrounds. I think it helps for The Hobbit to be produced divorced from The Lord of the Rings, as Bilbo's adventure is told in a much more lighthearted and less grandiose style than LOTR. I like the contrast between styles of the Rankin-Bass Hobbit and Bakshi's LOTR. To me, that's a good way to illustrate how the stories differ.

Yeah. While bad, Lynch's Dune at least tried to stay true to the book. One of the problems with that move from my perspective is that the book was BIG and compressing all that to a two to three hour film will make it fall flat. With the new one coming out, it should be a multi-parter.

Apparently Lynch's original four-hour cut (not the extended TV cut) was much more coherent, and this is if I'm not mistaken the version Herbert approved of as well. Every adaptation is gonna take some stick from some fans for not being faithful, but I like what David Lynch tried to do, and I especially like his visualization of the universe and how mysterious he made a lot of it feel. The Sci-Fi channel series was arguably truer to the letter, but I felt it never tried to do anything fresh with the adaptation.

People complain about the flying fatman and the weirding modules but...I don't know, they're interesting touches.

And I mean Jodorowsky...has anybody sat through even a half of a Jodorowsky movie without being higher than a kite and thought it was in any way a coherent or interesting film? Dude is nuts. Granted I'm sure I would have liked Gurney Halleck being overdubbed by David Gilmour.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Never read the books but that movie gave me the impression that the books were crap.

That's what happens when you try and cut a saga of 7 400+-page doorstoppers into a 2-hour movie.

 

[Kiwi Jeff]

Jodorowsky's Dune would have been a worse adaptation than Lynch's. Just getting that out of the way.

It definitely wouldn't have been a good Dune, but I almost wonder if it would have been a more enjoyable movie if only for how crazy Jodorowsky's movies are.

 

[Chancroid]

Still have not seen a decent version of IT. I don't expect (or want) the most fucked up shit in that book to make an appearance, (12 year old gangbang, animal torture) but at least some more of his different appearances from the story (The crawling eye, frankensteins monster, flying leeches, giant shark in the canal, etc) rather than the old clown trope. Some parts of the new movie tried so hard to be edgy that it made me laugh.

I actually liked the original mini more, not even because of Curry....but that spider in the end ruined it for me, even as a kid.

Oh and as for The Dark Tower...lol.

 

[AnAccount]

The Hobbit Trilogy is so fucking atrocious as an adaptation, on so many levels (from the entire point of dwarves just being greedy jerks being ignored by making the Arkenstone a spooky evil rock to the butchering of Laketown and Bard's role therein to LEGOLAS OUT OF NOWHERE and the FUCKING DWARF ANTI-ARROW WHIRLIGIGS) that Peter Jackson should have his director credit for LotR stripped from him. Most of the last film felt like an adaptation of a Warhammer Fantasy novel (which, while that would be kind of cool, ISN'T Lord of the Rings).

I'm actually kinda sympathetic to Peter on this one. From what i've seen and heard he was essentially making the movie one scene at a time on the spot, which is insane for such a high budget spectacle that all released close together.

The lord of the rings movies had years of pre production, any modern AAA movie has at least a year or so, apparently he had literally none, as everything that came during the pre production was cancelled.

here. he had a pretty brutal time as did most of the them (It was the same people from the previous trilogy)
The studio just entirely dropped the ball hard on pre production and he essentially did the equivalent of a freestyle rap tolkien movie adaption.

I think it's shit too. But peter seemed if anything Passionate, overworked and just way to big of a task for him to do at all well, he really got screwed over as did most of the people working on it.

 

[MuuMuu Bunnylips]

While bad, Lynch's Dune at least tried to stay true to the book.

About the only thing he got right in that steaming pile were the character's names.

"Weirding modules". Christ on a motorcycle, is kung fu too foreign a concept for you to grasp? Because that's basically what weirding was - an incredibly fast, incredibly powerful martial art.

 

[Chancroid]

Whose idea was it to put a dick joke in the hobbit trilogy?

 

[MasterDisaster]

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Visually it looked really good but subtle, tongue in check humor doesn't translate well to a script.

 

[Red Hood]

About the only thing he got right in that steaming pile were the character's names.

"Weirding modules". Christ on a motorcycle, is kung fu too foreign a concept for you to grasp? Because that's basically what weirding was - an incredibly fast, incredibly powerful martial art.

Sonic weapons are an actual SF and real world concept. If you can tell me how a movie made in 1984 could convincingly portray flash-stepping kung-fu and not look fucking ridiculous, make your own damn movie.

But if you want the Jodorowsky version where Rabban and his army shit on the palace steps to insult Duke Leto and Jessica turns an impotent Leto's blood into jizz to create Paul, sure. That's your prerogative.

Related: I wish we had Mad on the Internet ratings in here.

 

[Clop]

I thought the title was about bad books that were turned into films. Might as well run with that for now, since I hate Stephen King's writing style (likely an unpopular opinion, I know) and anything that was directed by him onto the big screen is cringe while adaptations made by other directors feel like someone gave a shit.

Technically this still counts because King's film adaptations - in my opinion - are really bad book-to-film adaptations.

That godawful adaptation of Guardians of Ga'hoole directed by Zack Snyder. Sure, the animation was gorgeous but wow did they rip the heart and bones out of a great book series. It's not that hard--WW2 with owls. The books are dark, violent, and full of emotional peril. The movie was a generic soulless action/adventure story with the bare basics of world-building.

And good lord. Whoever thought to insert a friggin' Owl City song during a montage sequence deserves a horrible, awful punishment.

I never read the books and only saw the movie because a then-girlfriend demanded it. It was one of the dumbest movies I'd seen, and I wasn't even aware it was an adaptation until now. It certainly explains why a lot of stuff on the screen felt like they were in a rush, which made it feel like a chore to watch.

 

[Red Hood]

I thought the title was about bad books that were turned into films. Might as well run with that for now, since I hate Stephen King's writing style (likely an unpopular opinion, I know) and anything that was directed by him onto the big screen is cringe while adaptations made by other directors feel like someone gave a shit.

Technically this still counts because King's film adaptations - in my opinion - are really bad book-to-film adaptations.




I never read the books and only saw the movie because a then-girlfriend demanded it. It was one of the dumbest movies I'd seen, and I wasn't even aware it was an adaptation until now. It certainly explains why a lot of stuff on the screen felt like they were in a rush, which made it feel like a chore to watch.

My feelings on King is that he's a hit and miss writer who becomes vastly more tolerable when his editor has the balls to step in and cut out reams of dumb shit. With that in mind, my favorite King adaptations aren't necessarily faithful to his work, because who fucking cares if it is? IDGAF that Kubrick changed a lot of The Shining because it's an excellent, well-made horror movie that stands the test of time.

 

[Clop]

My feelings on King is that he's a hit and miss writer who becomes vastly more tolerable when his editor has the balls to step in and cut out reams of dumb shit. With that in mind, my favorite King adaptations aren't necessarily faithful to his work, because who fucking cares if it is? IDGAF that Kubrick changed a lot of The Shining because it's an excellent, well-made horror movie that stands the test of time.

The Shining is one of those things that, like I mentioned, is made by someone other than King and therefore manages to actually do stuff with King's concepts. I love The Kubrick's Shining. Kubrick gave a shit.

I've heard as a kid that King got paid by amount of text, which led to him writing utterly pointless drivel between actual story, and that his short stories were actually really super good quality. Whether it's true, I have no idea, but I tend to trust the booksmart folk.

 

[Chancroid]

I thought the title was about bad books that were turned into films. Might as well run with that for now, since I hate Stephen King's writing style (likely an unpopular opinion, I know) and anything that was directed by him onto the big screen is cringe while adaptations made by other directors feel like someone gave a shit.

Technically this still counts because King's film adaptations - in my opinion - are really bad book-to-film adaptations.




I never read the books and only saw the movie because a then-girlfriend demanded it. It was one of the dumbest movies I'd seen, and I wasn't even aware it was an adaptation until now. It certainly explains why a lot of stuff on the screen felt like they were in a rush, which made it feel like a chore to watch.

Even though I cited his books in my post I am -not- a fan. Anything I like of his was done while he was coked up. Post coke King writes himself into his own books, then blames the fans when the series turns into a pile of shit. His idea of an "expanded" version of his books (like The Stand) is to add as much disturbing sexual themes into them as he can.

I really enjoyed the first 4 Dark Tower books, but could not make it through his cleaned up second half.

Hmm...bad books into a film? I like Graham Mastertons The Manitou. It was turned into a movie with Tony Curtis. It is about a lady who gives birth to a stunted native american shaman through a huge tumor on the back of her neck. I really like old paper back type stuff.

 

[Red Hood]

The Shining is one of those things that, like I mentioned, is made by someone other than King and therefore manages to actually do stuff with King's concepts. I love The Kubrick's Shining. Kubrick gave a shit.

I've heard as a kid that King got paid by amount of text, which led to him writing utterly pointless drivel between actual story, and that his short stories were actually really super good quality. Whether it's true, I have no idea, but I tend to trust the booksmart folk.

Eh, paid-by-the-word is a pretty old thing. I don't think that's necessarily the case with King- if you notice, his longest books were written at the height of his drug addiction. As RedLetterMedia put it "IT, by Stephen King with co-author cocaine". He was stupid popular through the 80's and I think this gave him some clout to the point that he could put all the shit he wanted into his doorstoppers.

King's biggest talent is that he's prolific, which is good for a publishing company once you get popular. "Oh, people like my books? Here's 9000 more pages of me vomiting up a combination of cliches and my weirdo drug fantasies".

As for his short stories: they vary in quality. Some are good, some are bad. The Mist (which is more of a novella) is just right for my tastes.

 

[Chichan]

I haven't read the novella Hellbound Heart, but i'm sure it's movie counterpart Hellraiser falls into the same adaptation trappings even though Clive Barker directed it. It's about demons into extreme forms of bdsm, but it couldn't show the racier sex that was in the novella considering at the time apparently spanking wasn't seen as very vanilla as it is now also being torn to shreds with chains might up the rating. Not to mention the titular demons don't make an entrance til the latter half of the movie. Then Hollweird proceeds to fuck it into the dirt with countless sequels even more asinine and shitty as the next and not because of the effects I like 80's/90's b horror especially The Evil Dead.

 

[Graffiti canvas]

It's sad that I can point to this ancient adaptation as a superior attempt. Peter Jackson's adaptation was a tryhard version of Lord of the Rings & that defeats the whole "biting off more than you can chew" aspect of the Hobbit. Every moment of those three movies revolves around building up the Lord of the Rings like it's an upcoming event that hasn't happened yet when the Hobbit should be treated as an isolated event. Peter did know that the origin of the One Ring was an afterthought to the Hobbit, right?

The Rankin-Bass production from '76 managed to get all the important bits of the story and did them pretty well. Whoever did the storyboarding for that deserved an Oscar for not trying to stuff too much shit in between the highlights. And as dated as it is, some of the music from it is iconic. Even South Park has used themes from it. I'd much rather watch the Rankin-Bass.

I'm actually kinda sympathetic to Peter on this one. From what i've seen and heard he was essentially making the movie one scene at a time on the spot, which is insane for such a high budget spectacle that all released close together.

The whole trilogy was marred from the beginning. Lawsuits were flying everywhere because people wanted more money from the LOTR Trilogy. So the environment around the movies was already fucked between IP owners and studios.

Jackson was on board working with the original director Guillermo del Toro but del Toro had no real love or knowledge of Tolkin lore what so ever. So all sorts of shit got crammed in. Progress was slow, shit wasn't happening and then Guillermo del Toro up and bailed on the project because he thought MGM studios was going to go bankrupt and didn't want to waste his time anymore.

If that wasn't enough, The familiar landscapes of New Zealand for production were fucked because of the LOTR Money grab too and were up in the air / off limits during production at times as well.

The whole project was a shit show of Hollywood Jews (Yes, Weinstien was Jackson's Producer) trying to milk money from the story from the get go.

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Visually it looked really good but subtle, tongue in check humor doesn't translate well to a script.

The old british TV series was better. If you haven't watch it, you should.

 

[Dolphin Lundgren]

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Visually it looked really good but subtle, tongue in check humor doesn't translate well to a script.

I liked it for three reasons- the guy who played Zaphod Beeblebrox, Stephen Fry as the Guide, and Bill Bailey's whale scene. Otherwise you're right. In this case, the old show was better.

 

[XE 600]

I Am Legend is one that disappointed me. I fucking love the book, it was the first book that I read that I genuinely enjoyed but the movie was nothing like the book and they even couldn't get the ending right eventhough Robert

Spoiler

kills himself just like in the book but unlike in the book, Robert doesn't realize that he's the monster to everyone else. Though the alternate ending did keep this theme but seriously, fuck that movie.

The Hobbit Trilogy is so fucking atrocious as an adaptation, on so many levels (from the entire point of dwarves just being greedy jerks being ignored by making the Arkenstone a spooky evil rock to the butchering of Laketown and Bard's role therein to LEGOLAS OUT OF NOWHERE and the FUCKING DWARF ANTI-ARROW WHIRLIGIGS) that Peter Jackson should have his director credit for LotR stripped from him. Most of the last film felt like an adaptation of a Warhammer Fantasy novel (which, while that would be kind of cool, ISN'T Lord of the Rings).

Honestly, I say this as a big fan of the book, I actually thought the first Hobbit film is the best out of the Peter Jackson middle earth films. Though the second movie was fucking terrible and whilst I enjoyed the third one it was pretty forgettable. They clearly tried to make it three movies because the Lord of the Rings was three movies. I think they should have stuck to their original idea of making it into two movies instead of trying to force a romantic love triangle into the movie (though I did kind of like the character of Tauriel, but the love triangle was pretty obviously forced in) and stretching out the last few pages of the book into an entire movie.

 

[Tasty Tatty]

Althuogh not technically a movie, Game of Thrones. The original books are about how hard is to destroy human spirit and the search for identity; the show is misery and rape porn.

 

[ApatheticViewer]

Less Than Zero is legitimately the worst

The book is all about the culture of nihilism and decadence in LA. It ends on a snuff film and the lead losing his friend to prostitution

The movie decides the entire thing was a cheesy anti drug message (despite everyone in the book continuing to snort cocaine and pop xanx)

To this day that movie has destroyed the reputation of the book. It turned a scathing critique of hedonistic excess into drugs are bad m'kay