NationStates Jolt Archive


Books You Liked Ruined By The Movie Version

Deep Kimchi
15-12-2005, 19:34
I'll start - Starship Troopers. I liked the book, and they just took the name and the idea of soldiers and bugs, and turned it into...

well, it was a Verhoeven film, so what did we expect. He admits that he never read the book at all.
Drunk commies deleted
15-12-2005, 19:37
Steven King's The Stand
Any movie based on H.P. Lovecraft's work
-Magdha-
15-12-2005, 19:37
I loved that movie, which shouldn't surprise anyone, considering my (former) nation's name. :D
Quaiffberg
15-12-2005, 19:41
Braveheart
Economic Associates
15-12-2005, 19:43
V for Vendetta whenever it comes out.
Gift-of-god
15-12-2005, 19:45
The Last Temptation of Christ. Scorcese usually rocks my boat, but I think it would be impossible for anyone to convey Kazantzakis' message of sacrifice through the film medium.

Dune. Though the visual effects*were awesome, the themes of hydrodespotism and predeterminism weren't addressed clearly, or at all.
Tactical Grace
15-12-2005, 19:47
Blade Runner. :rolleyes:

The historical context behind his world? The dysfunctional relationship he has with his wife? Half the kills? Come on. :mad:
Anarchic Christians
15-12-2005, 19:47
V for Vendetta whenever it comes out.

Damn straight. no way can you make a movie from thet.

All the War o the Worlds movies so far have sucked big-time too.
-Magdha-
15-12-2005, 19:48
Stephen King's It
Cannot think of a name
15-12-2005, 19:52
I'm leary of this notion that a movie can ruin a book. To my knowledge there has never been a deal to permanently rewrite any books to match the movie's interpretation. Required reading lists haven't been replaced due to movie adaptations.

There would be movie interpretations that didn't fit ones liking, perhaps didn't sufficiently reflect aspects of the book someone liked. But ruined? I don't see how.
Gauthier
15-12-2005, 19:54
Any movie based on H.P. Lovecraft's work

Ridley Scott's The Resurrected and Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness is the closest any movie's gotten to the atmosphere and spirit of Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos tales. On the other hand, the Reanimator series have well, taken on a life of their own. Jeffrey Combs will be identified with Herbert West for a long time, and he was even deemed the first Lovecraftian Actor in modern cinema.

-----

Now, the movie that ruined a good book.

The Scarlet Letter.

Need I elaborate?
Equus
15-12-2005, 19:56
If I expected movies to be like books, I'd be severely disappointed. So, instead I take the movie as a totally different story, even though there may be similarities.

Thus, I can like both Blade Runner AND Do Androids Dream Electric Sheep?. In fact, I like Blade Runner better, in many ways.

I also enjoyed both Starship Troopers. And both Lord of the Rings, although my roommate had real problems with the movie not sticking to the book script.

I was also okay with the I, Robot movie, although the book is lightyears better.

On the other hand, I refuse to watch War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise. From what I can see, it doesn't just suck because it's not like the book, it just...sucks. If there was no book, it would still suck.
Liskeinland
15-12-2005, 19:58
All the War o the Worlds movies so far have sucked big-time too. Agreed. I'm not going to see one in the cinema until one comes out which is actually set in Victorian England, like it's bloody well supposed to be.
Areop-Enap
15-12-2005, 20:04
Let's see-

I really enjoyed Queen of the Damned, (Though more for the set up of the next books) and they destroyed it in the movie. (Ruining the end so the next books make no sense what-so-ever, can you see Lestat being so depressed he'd want to die?)
Anybodybutbushia
15-12-2005, 20:08
The Cat in the Hat.

Timeline - Chrichton's book was so good and the movie was a huge letdown.
Pinzerino
15-12-2005, 20:08
all harry potters :(
Dododecapod
15-12-2005, 20:25
The Omega Man, though not a bad movie in itself, was so much inferior to I am Legend as to defy belief.

Still, I'm with Cannot Think of a Name - books can't be ruined by a bad film, just done in an inferior way.
Teh_pantless_hero
15-12-2005, 20:28
Starship Troopers times infinity.
Sinuhue
15-12-2005, 20:30
I'll start - Starship Troopers. I liked the book, and they just took the name and the idea of soldiers and bugs, and turned it into...

well, it was a Verhoeven film, so what did we expect. He admits that he never read the book at all.
All of them. I don't think I've ever seen a movie version as good as the book...which is why I generally try to avoid them. It doesn't ruin the book, it just annoys me. And if I really like a movie, and know there is a book out there, I avoid reading the book if I haven't already.
Megaloria
15-12-2005, 20:32
Peopl need to learn to separate the reading from the watching. Of xourse you can never get the same feel from the original medium and the eventual incarnation from the other medium. When you go from book to movie, details must be abandoned for the sake of time (Many of these things should have been made as HBO-esque miniseries), and when you go the other way, well, who here reads movie novelisations?
Willamena
15-12-2005, 20:33
I have yet to see 'The Three Musketeers' done well. The movie would have to capture the rural cleverness of D'Artagnan, the nobility of Athos, the scheming of Aramis and the loyalty of Porthos in the context of the story told correctly.
Amoebistan
15-12-2005, 20:39
Movie novelisations can be... well, decent.

I'm thinking of Asimov's "Fantastic Voyage", a novel based on the movie. The book's better, I think, because it doesn't cater as much to the visual distractions of Raquel Welch (who was very cute in a skin-tight wetsuit).

Novelisations of video games also suck, although the suckage is uneven. Jeff Grubb's "Liberty's Crusade", for example, actually has a fair to good storyline, even though it's very poorly written.
Sinuhue
15-12-2005, 20:42
I have yet to see 'The Three Musketeers' done well. The movie would have to capture the rural cleverness of D'Artagnan, the nobility of Athos, the scheming of Aramis and the loyalty of Porthos in the context of the story told correctly.
I'd say the same of the Count of Monte Cristo. But you just don't have the time in a movie to delve so deeply into the characters. Which is why I will never ever abandon reading.
Cannot think of a name
15-12-2005, 20:51
I'd say the same of the Count of Monte Cristo. But you just don't have the time in a movie to delve so deeply into the characters. Which is why I will never ever abandon reading.
I don't think anyone makes a movie adaptation thinking, "There, now no one will have to read the book." Usually, they love the book and hope people will read it more after the movie comes out.
Deep Kimchi
15-12-2005, 20:53
I'm thinking of Asimov's "Fantastic Voyage", a novel based on the movie. The book's better, I think, because it doesn't cater as much to the visual distractions of Raquel Welch (who was very cute in a skin-tight wetsuit).

There's that part where they all go swimming, and antibodies attack them and attach themselves to Raquel.

The scene where the men are pulling the antibodies off of her chest is priceless. I wonder who wrote that into the script.

"Ok, Raquel, you hit your mark here, and fall down, and act like you're in pain."

"Guys, you'll leap on her, and pull this stuff off of her breasts."
Kellarly
15-12-2005, 20:59
I'm thinking of Asimov's "Fantastic Voyage", a novel based on the movie. The book's better, I think, because it doesn't cater as much to the visual distractions of Raquel Welch (who was very cute in a skin-tight wetsuit).

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/sf-story/images/Voyagefantastique_Woo/03.jpg

Yup...
Dododecapod
15-12-2005, 21:11
I'd say the same of the Count of Monte Cristo. But you just don't have the time in a movie to delve so deeply into the characters. Which is why I will never ever abandon reading.

Have you seen Gerard Depardieu's mini-series version? I found it very faithful.
Keruvalia
15-12-2005, 21:14
I am deeply dissappointed by the whole Thomas Harris thing.

"Red Dragon" actually kept me enraptured and very tense through the majority of the book, but both Manhunter and Red Dragon came up lacking.

"Silence of the Lambs" was nearly as intense as "Red Dragon", but in came the gorgeous element of the teacher/pupil aspect of Hannibal Lector that was missing from the film.

"Hannibal" wasn't very tense, but it had an engrossing story into Hannibal's past as well as into his thought processes. We finally get to see him as a free man and we get to watch the build of sexual tension and finally true romantic relationship between Lector and Starling. The movie, well, suddenly Lector's now more of a stalker and they really, really screwed up the brain eating scene.

Harris is doing a new Lector novel which I'm sure will get brutalized in film.
Vetalia
15-12-2005, 21:21
The original Dune movie. Too long, with mediocre performances and failed to capture the deeper meanings behind the book. And it had Sting in it, wtf is that?

I'm just glad they never did any of the others. I'd cry if there was a Lynichian rendering of God Emperor or Chapterhouse...
Katzistanza
15-12-2005, 21:54
Timeline - Chrichton's book was so good and the movie was a huge letdown.

Beat me to it.

Most of Crichton's stuff that gets movie-ized
Lifthia
15-12-2005, 21:56
The original Dune movie. Too long, with mediocre performances and failed to capture the deeper meanings behind the book. And it had Sting in it, wtf is that?

I'm just glad they never did any of the others. I'd cry if there was a Lynichian rendering of God Emperor or Chapterhouse...

I'm with you on that, although they way he skipped some parts of the book was pretty clever. If I recall, though, David Lynch pretty much disowned the movie, after the final-cut.

Maybe some of the prequels could work? They're poorly edited and not much happens, perfect for a modern-day hollywood film :)
Secret aj man
16-12-2005, 09:42
I'll start - Starship Troopers. I liked the book, and they just took the name and the idea of soldiers and bugs, and turned it into...

well, it was a Verhoeven film, so what did we expect. He admits that he never read the book at all.

for me..it was clear and present danger...damn they butchered that book.:confused:
Baran-Duine
16-12-2005, 09:53
Let's see...
Congo, Timeline, Jurassic Park, Jurassic Park - The Lost World, Rising Sun, Clear and Present Danger, Patriot Games, The Sum of All Fears

Edit:

Timeline - Chrichton's book was so good and the movie was a huge letdown.
Can't forget that butchery, the only one of Crichton's books that was butchered worse in the transition to film was Congo

Also Interview with a Vampire and Queen of the Damned
Saint Jade
16-12-2005, 09:53
I would definitely have to say Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Cuaron had no clue what he was doing. No clue whatsoever.
Delator
16-12-2005, 10:03
Can't forget that butchery, the only one of Crichton's books that was butchered worse in the transition to film was Congo.

You forgot Sphere, which in my opinion is Crichton's best book, but was a godawfully terrible movie (despite the excellent casting).

I'd sacrifice a testicle for a well-done, true to the book version of Starship Troopers! :p
The Similized world
16-12-2005, 10:10
Agreed. I'm not going to see one [War of The Worlds] in the cinema until one comes out which is actually set in Victorian England, like it's bloody well supposed to be.It came out earlier this year. I seriously doubt it's possible to get ourside the UK though, interwebnet or not. Though it just might be possible to get it for free, if you know what I mean.

Sadly it's shit. But it is a fair effort considering it was shot on a budget you wouldn't be able to buy a pack of fags for... Ok, I think it was around 1000£ but that's still not enough to pay for nifty stuff like actors & such.

You have been warned.

Still, it beats the scientology WoTW.
Baran-Duine
16-12-2005, 10:18
You forgot Sphere, which in my opinion is Crichton's best book, but was a godawfully terrible movie (despite the excellent casting).

I'd sacrifice a testicle for a well-done, true to the book version of Starship Troopers! :p
I didn't think that sphere was that bad, 'course it wasn't that good either but at least it seemed to make an effort to follow the book
Delator
16-12-2005, 10:20
I didn't think that sphere was that bad, 'course it wasn't that good either but at least it seemed to make an effort to follow the book

I haven't read or seen either in a while, but I remember that Crichton gave up on trying to write the screenplay because he didn't think the book would ever work as a film.

I tend to agree with him.
Baran-Duine
16-12-2005, 10:24
I haven't read or seen either in a while, but I remember that Crichton gave up on trying to write the screenplay because he didn't think the book would ever work as a film.

I tend to agree with him.
That's pretty true of all of his books, they go into way too much detail for film, although the adaptations would all probably have been better if he had ensured that he had input in the process - Congo and Timeline couldn't possibly have been worse
Cannot think of a name
16-12-2005, 10:38
V for Vendetta whenever it comes out.
Damn straight. no way can you make a movie from thet.

I disagree, I think that that movie would translate into a really impressive movie. Even in the trailers one of the lines that really stick from the book translated well, "Did you think that you could harm me? There is nothing but ideas beneath this cloak, and ideas are bulletproof." I think I messed that up a bit. I've bought the book three times and have lent it out three times and never get it back. Kind of like On the Road. Though with the latter I should see that coming...

I don't neccisarily have faith in the Wachowski brother's ability to do that, and the director is a total unknown quantity. I'm leary, to be sure. But I think that the text translates well, and comics are the easiest since both comics and film are visual mediums.

I'm going to reserve judgement (but remain a little skeptical) until I see it. I don't know why it got pushed back, so I don't know if I should be concerned or not. (I had heard that they where going to take out the blowing up of Parlament, which I don't know how...the Guy Fawlkes mask wouldn't make much sense after that...)
I V Stalin
16-12-2005, 12:44
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I mean, come on! Did they think something along the lines of: 'Yes! Adams is dead! Now we can just come out with some half-assed effort that'll rake in the money, and piss off anyone who's ever listened to or read the series!'

And I second Queen of the Damned.
Jjimjja
16-12-2005, 12:50
I'll start - Starship Troopers. I liked the book, and they just took the name and the idea of soldiers and bugs, and turned it into...

well, it was a Verhoeven film, so what did we expect. He admits that he never read the book at all.

No movie lives up to the book. EVER:(
The Abomination
16-12-2005, 13:09
Any attempt to put a Tom Clancy book on film. I mean, hell, Clear and Present Danger sucked big time all the way through, but if they had just included the bit at the end of the book... you know, helicopter... three miniguns... desperate last minute extraction... it might have at least been entertaining. As it was, it was GODAWFUL.
Anarchic Conceptions
16-12-2005, 14:23
Braveheart

That was a book?

All of them. I don't think I've ever seen a movie version as good as the book...which is why I generally try to avoid them. It doesn't ruin the book, it just annoys me. And if I really like a movie, and know there is a book out there, I avoid reading the book if I haven't already.

I have to disagree. The Manchurian Candidate, (1962), was pretty good. In fact I would go so far to say that it is one the best films ever made.

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I mean, come on! Did they think something along the lines of: 'Yes! Adams is dead! Now we can just come out with some half-assed effort that'll rake in the money, and piss off anyone who's ever listened to or read the series!'


Didn't Adams partially write the script for the film (until he died, obviously), and push for a film adaptation?

So if part of the reason was a cynical attempt at money making, Adams is/was partially culpable.
Royal Harbingers
16-12-2005, 14:38
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I mean, come on! Did they think something along the lines of: 'Yes! Adams is dead! Now we can just come out with some half-assed effort that'll rake in the money, and piss off anyone who's ever listened to or read the series!'

WHAT????? You didn't like this movie. You must be insane (fiddles with e-meter) Yes, definatly insane.

As much as I loved them (and I can't believe no one has mentioned them), The Lord of the Rings was a terrible adaptaion. Compared to the book, it was a paltry little thing, and what they "added" was horrible.

I also thought the original Dune was great (and I've read the book at least six times). You have to remember that the book is something like 500 pages in length. There is so much that just can't go in. As for HP and the PA, I thought it was the best one so far.

There's no acounting for taste.
Falhaar2
16-12-2005, 15:19
As far as I know, no movie has ever "ruined" a book. Just because an inferior adaptation (key word here) may result, it in no way diminishes the quality of the book.
Cannot think of a name
16-12-2005, 15:23
As far as I know, no movie has ever "ruined" a book. Just because an inferior adaptation (key word here) may result, it in no way diminishes the quality of the book.
That's what I've been trying to say...

If you've let a movie 'ruin' a book for you, you're not a very strong reader or don't have a very strong imagination...
Fenland Friends
16-12-2005, 15:25
Bonfire of the Vanities.

I just don't know why they bothered........:mad:
Saint Jade
16-12-2005, 15:56
As for HP and the PA, I thought it was the best one so far.

There's no acounting for taste.

Did you even read all the books in the series? He skipped out major plot points and messed up the whole timeline of events. Plus the whole Lily Evans/Remus Lupin unrequited love crap was pathetic. Point me to one spot in any of the books where he even mentions Lily without reference to James and I'll eat this post. I will admit he did get the feel of Hogwarts down though. Small consolation for the mess he did of the plot. And yes it is my favourite book of the series so far.

Even the start was completely wrong. Harry would not have been doing magic in his room. He would have been expelled from Hogwarts. The lighting of a wand is considered magic.
Bodies Without Organs
16-12-2005, 15:59
Agreed. I'm not going to see one in the cinema until one comes out which is actually set in Victorian England, like it's bloody well supposed to be.

Good enough for you?

http://www.pendragonpictures.com/WOTWKEY.html
Areop-Enap
16-12-2005, 15:59
Peopl need to learn to separate the reading from the watching. Of xourse you can never get the same feel from the original medium and the eventual incarnation from the other medium. When you go from book to movie, details must be abandoned for the sake of time (Many of these things should have been made as HBO-esque miniseries), and when you go the other way, well, who here reads movie novelisations?

Funny thing is that I can accept that. Take Interview with a Vampire- really, they left out alot of important things, miscast key roles (Antonio Bandares doesn't look like a 16 year old, with red curly hair, who really looks alot younger than 16.)

But they kept true to the *feel* of the book.

Like The Lawnmower Man, I actually liked that better than the original story. And The Horse Whisperer- totally changed the end, but the book's ending ruined the entire story for me.

It's when they take a book, and even if they change the story- they aren't true to the feel of it- that really ticks me off. Except in my example of Queen of the Damned. It's in a series of books, so changing the end of it, makes it really hard to do the others. Same thing with Interview's end. They changed the ending of it so that a huge part of Queen of the Damned would have been redone to make it work. They just threw it all out the window.
Tagmatium
16-12-2005, 16:13
I think the whole War of the Worlds thing is odd. It's set in a Victorian England, yet when ever it's made into a film its moved to a present-day USA (I know, targetting the audience they're most likely to get the most money out of). But the point is, if modern day technology came up against the Martians in the book, the Martians would be annihlated. The British soldiers in the book only had Maxim guns, rifles, cavalry and artillery to combat the Martians. A modern fighter-jet would piss all over them.
Skibereen
16-12-2005, 16:16
The Devil's Advocate

Even Al Panchino couldnt save and couldnt do the Character of John Milton justice.

The book was a small time paperback never was famous.
I read it years before, with a n awesome ending--not used in the film I might add.

Then they went and used Keeanu for the lead role--bleck!!

Charlize Theron did an excellent job as the Wife but thqat was really the only good thing to be said.
Zolworld
16-12-2005, 16:40
Agreed. I'm not going to see one in the cinema until one comes out which is actually set in Victorian England, like it's bloody well supposed to be.

But the Tom Cruise movie was still good. People get too preoccupied with titles. If it had a different name people would just say it was a great sci fi film. The Italian Job got slaughtered too, even though it was an okay film which shared a title with a better one.
Exetonia
16-12-2005, 16:54
Ok for me, any Chrichton novel and im sorry to say i think Jurassic Park is the most butcherd.... How much stuff did they miss out. Compare the length of the film novelisation to the actual book and well, your missing umm, more than 3-400 odd pages :O... a lot of it could have gone into a movie. No screw that, it should NEVER have been made into a movie...


I liked Dune, not a scratch on the book but still a good movie just the same..

Hitchhikers guide... Well i dont like it because they screwed up or missed out so much of the dialogue. that was best left as a tv series...

and then Carrie... i mean what the hell... it completly misses the suspense etc and replaces it with gore gore and more gore.... a truley crappy movie..
Tagmatium
16-12-2005, 17:02
I've read nearly all the Hitch Hikers guide books, and I have to say the series of books really goes down hill after the first one. I've attempted to read the the last one twice, but I really can't get my head around it, so I usually give up. My favourite character has got to be the Ruler of the Universe. I'm sorry to say I haven't seen the film, but I want to. I think Adams did write the majority of the script, and did want a film version.
Rambhutan
16-12-2005, 17:09
Then sometimes it is the other way around. I thought Monty Python's Life of Brian was much better than the book it was loosely based on.
Deep Kimchi
16-12-2005, 17:11
That's what I've been trying to say...

If you've let a movie 'ruin' a book for you, you're not a very strong reader or don't have a very strong imagination...
Ok, let's say "offend" rather than ruin.

There's nothing that offends me more than taking a novel I like, making a movie out of it, and when I pay the money to see the movie, I find that the movie has absolutely no connection at all with the book, other than the title and the names of a few character - the rest of the movie might as well be a terribly written parody of the meat of the novel.
The Similized world
16-12-2005, 19:19
That was a book?I thought it was a legend?I have to disagree. The Manchurian Candidate, (1962), was pretty good. In fact I would go so far to say that it is one the best films ever made.Holy shit yes! It's much, much better than the book. And the book is very great.Didn't Adams partially write the script for the film (until he died, obviously), and push for a film adaptation?

So if part of the reason was a cynical attempt at money making, Adams is/was partially culpable.D. Adams had been trying to get the project done for more than 10 years. Each time agreements were made, the various studios ended up jumping ship, because Adams wanted more than just theoretical creative control.
I'm not saying the studio jumped on it because the poor guy died, but having seen the movie, it's not a possibility I can exclude. Of course, it's always possible that Adams delivered a horribly pathetic script. But I doubt it somehow.
Kiwi-kiwi
16-12-2005, 19:47
Ok for me, any Chrichton novel and im sorry to say i think Jurassic Park is the most butcherd.... How much stuff did they miss out. Compare the length of the film novelisation to the actual book and well, your missing umm, more than 3-400 odd pages :O... a lot of it could have gone into a movie. No screw that, it should NEVER have been made into a movie...


Personally, what I found most screwed up about the Jurassic Park movie was the near complete rewriting of half the characters' personalities.

An amusing bit though is that JP3 decided to use elements from the original book that had been left out of the first movie.
The Black Forrest
16-12-2005, 19:53
The original Dune movie. Too long, with mediocre performances and failed to capture the deeper meanings behind the book. And it had Sting in it, wtf is that?

I'm just glad they never did any of the others. I'd cry if there was a Lynichian rendering of God Emperor or Chapterhouse...

Did you see the TV version they did? Really good. The next one was eh! But the first one was good!
AllCoolNamesAreTaken
16-12-2005, 19:59
I actually liked Starship Troopers. If you think of it as an entire different entity from the book, you can enjoy both. But I saw the movie first. If I had read the book first and had expected something from the movie, then I would probably have hated it as well.

The same can be said for The Stand. The movie/mini-series was ok on its own, except that ultra-lame hand of god setting off the nuke. But, again, I saw the movie first, then read the book.

On the other hand, Dune, and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, were TERRIBLE when compared to the books. But, suprise suprise, I read the books first. So maybe that is the key. If you read the book first, the movie will never be good enough.
The Parkus Empire
16-12-2005, 20:05
I'm leary of this notion that a movie can ruin a book. To my knowledge there has never been a deal to permanently rewrite any books to match the movie's interpretation. Required reading lists haven't been replaced due to movie adaptations.

There would be movie interpretations that didn't fit ones liking, perhaps didn't sufficiently reflect aspects of the book someone liked. But ruined? I don't see how.
When a movie is based off a book, there is usually superfluous writing that does not relate directly to the story, this is generally removed to save time and money. Trouble is, when I see a movie based on a book, they usually removed my favorite part because it was not essential to the story. I put the quote to state that I concur with it's argument by the way.
The Parkus Empire
16-12-2005, 20:10
I actually liked Starship Troopers. If you think of it as an entire different entity from the book, you can enjoy both. But I saw the movie first. If I had read the book first and had expected something from the movie, then I would probably have hated it as well.

The same can be said for The Stand. The movie/mini-series was ok on its own, except that ultra-lame hand of god setting off the nuke. But, again, I saw the movie first, then read the book.

On the other hand, Dune, and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, were TERRIBLE when compared to the books. But, suprise suprise, I read the books first. So maybe that is the key. If you read the book first, the movie will never be good enough.
I saw "Jurassic Park." I then read the book. If, it had been visa versa, I would have, in fact, been disappointed by the movie. But due to the fact I viewed the movie before reading the book, I love 'em both.
Didjawannanotherbeer
17-12-2005, 00:31
I know lots of people have already said essentially the same thing, but I'm going to add my two cents' worth anyway.

Good books are often turned into mediocre movies. A good portion of them are truly terrible, but occasionally the filmmakers stay faithful to the feel of the book (if not the entire plot).

I watched "Blade Runner" not long after I had read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and I hated it - with a passion. But 10 years later I gave it another go, and I decided I would just forget about the plot of the book and take "Blade Runner" as a totally separate creation that just happened to share a handful of elements with Phillip K Dick's novel. And whaddaya know? This time I really liked the movie, and have seen it several times since.

That's the trick, I think. These days whenever I see a movie that is based on a book I've read, I assume right from the get-go that they're going to throw out my most cherised plot elements. It makes it much more likely that I'll enjoy the movie.

That said, I still thought "Starship Troopers" was appalling - both as a movie in its own right and definitely as a movie based on a book. It totally missed the point.

Frankly, though, I rather enjoyed the 2005 "War of the Worlds", and was even surprised when they kept the book's ending. I thought the bits they changed were appropriate to the fact of the changed setting (and I don't mind if they move the setting of a story, so long as they keep the feel). Other parts made sense in terms of tightening the story to fit into movie length, such as the sort-of combination character of The Artilleryman and Nathaniel in that guy hiding out in his basement (I forget his name in the movie, but that's only 'cause I'm terrible with names). What WotW did was to keep the feel of H G Wells' story - the particulars aren't as important if you learn to dissociate the movie from the book.

As for LOTR - for those who say they didn't like how bits of plot were removed, you should watch the extended versions on DVD. A lot of the missing scenes were filmed, but cut from the theatrical release due to length. The movies flow much more like the books when viewed as the extended versions (make sure you've got a whole day to spare, though).

Okay, so my two cents has turned into twenty dollars and change... *shrug* Too bad. :)
Jester III
17-12-2005, 00:38
Not exactly a book, my reaction to League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was: "Die motherfuckers, die!". That was the most awfull adaption of a comic i ever saw. I loved the graphic novel, but the flick sucked golf balls through a garden hose.