NationStates Jolt Archive

The title explains everything.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The films actually lead you to believe the books aren't boring crap, which they, alas, are.

The title explains everything.

Is this film adaptations of shitty books? Or is it shitty film adaptations of books?

Is this film adaptations of shitty books? Or is it shitty film adaptations of books?
the first one

Is this film adaptations of shitty books? Or is it shitty film adaptations of books?
It's a mystery.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The films actually lead you to believe the books aren't boring crap, which they, alas, are.

I beg very strongly to differ. Though I'll trust that you did, I'm honestly baffled as to how anyone could find LOTR boring...

I beg very strongly to differ. Though I'll trust that you did, I'm honestly baffled as to how anyone could find LOTR boring...
one song taking up 10 pages? and its in elvish?

Is this film adaptations of shitty books? Or is it shitty film adaptations of books?

In other words, is it "The Da Vinci Code," or is it the animated version of "Lord of the Rings"? :p

one song taking up 10 pages? and its in elvish?

Unless your copy of the book has really, really tiny pages, there are no songs/poems in Sindarin or Quenya that are even remotely close to that long. The only songs in either language I can think of offhand that occur within the pages of the book itself are the Lay of Luthien, of which Aragorn quotes only a very small portion, A Elbereth Gilthoniel, and Namarie/Galadriel's Lament, neither of which take up more than half a page, tops. (Geeky? Me? Pssssh.) :p

Besides, it's not as if one can't easily skip past the songs if one doesn't like them.

Godfather. Excellent movie, pretty bad book by comparison.

All of them.

I, Robot, mostly because it was a robot movie that tacked a few bits of Asimov on.

The Passion of the Christ.

I, Robot, mostly because it was a robot movie that tacked a few bits of Asimov on.

Though its many a year since I read the book, I seem to recall that the main bits that were present were "Isaac" and "Asimov", along with the title in the credits.

What part of "all of them" does anybody disagree with?

All the Harry Potters were shit, the Lord of the Trilogies borked some stuff, Starship Troopers said "What book?" Etc etc.

What part of "all of them" does anybody disagree with?

All the Harry Potters were shit, the Lord of the Trilogies borked some stuff, Starship Troopers said "What book?" Etc etc.
The part that isn't a critical assessment and just posturing in the same vien as "all tv sucks" or "the only good authors are dead authors" that takes no critical evaluation but provides the speaker with the illusion of sophistication.

The part that isn't a critical assessment and just posturing in the same vien as "all tv sucks" or "the only good authors are dead authors" that takes no critical evaluation but provides the speaker with the illusion of sophistication.
I can always outline the problems if you want..

Though its many a year since I read the book, I seem to recall that the main bits that were present were "Isaac" and "Asimov", along with the title in the credits.

Well, they also talked about the three laws, and threw in the name 'Susan Calvin'.

The Passion of the Christ.
you win

I can always outline the problems if you want..
I'm sure you can. In the same way that the 'kill your television' crowd does. Doesn't make it actual criticism, just gain saying that takes up more time.

The James Bond movies. They completely butchered the books... Literally, they took random bits and pieces from different books and put them in a single movie. As an example, Live and Let Die; the clawed dude wasn't in the book at all, the keelhauling scene was in the book but ended up in For Your Eyes Only, Felix was fed to a shark complete with the "He disagreed with something that ate him" joke but that ended up in License To Kill, etc, etc... James Bond himself was watered down from a cruel, brooding, nearly sociopathic, cold blooded killer to a bloke endlessly emitting corny one liners.

Sean Connery, though an absolutely fantastic actor, never really fit the part. Roger Moore doesn't even deserve to be mentioned and if he must then it should only be with utter disgust. Brosnan's don't really count because they are too modern and to far removed from the original books. Sad thing is Timothy Dalton was probably the closest the movies had to a real James Bond.

Of course, a lot of people don't even realize there ARE James Bond books. A shame.

Interview with a Vampire.

Decent movie. Terrible book.

I, Robot, mostly because it was a robot movie that tacked a few bits of Asimov on.

Unfortunately, you're thinking the wrong way. I, Robot was a great set of short stories, but as soon as I saw the previews it was clear that the movie "based" (very, very, very loosely) on it was going to be a PoS that would utterly fail to live up to Asimov's writing... which is why I've never bothered to see the movie.

The Passion of the Christ.

This thread is dead. Gravlen just won it.

I disagree with every opinion expressed in this thread.

I disagree with every opinion expressed in this thread.

Ah, a true critic.

I'm sure you can. In the same way that the 'kill your television' crowd does. Doesn't make it actual criticism, just gain saying that takes up more time.
What bullshit.

Timeline.

What bullshit.
Kind of what I'm saying, really.

The Relic, horrid movie adaptation. I mean jebus, they kept a few character names and changed everything else.

The book is great though.

Come to think of it the list of decent book to movie adaptation is shorter. Jurassic Park (original) is quite good in book and movie form with some differences but overall very close.

Timeline.
Um, I think you have things confused here. We're talking about the books being shitty, not the movies--though the movies could also be shitty, depending. Timeline was an excellent book. Damned sight better than that shit they offered up as the movie.

The only decent movie adaptation of the books were the first two Harry Potter movies. Nigh exact on par with the books, with only wee hints of details altered or removed, they were splendid for that.(Say what you will about the Harry Potter books or movies; I'm talking about the accuracy of the adapation.) I've never seen any other movie adaptation manage that, and I want to see more do it. I'm sick of them changing so much and calling it the same thing. The Indian in the Cupboard became this horrid not-even-worth-being-made-for-T.V. Americanized crap. We already covered Timeline. Starship Troopers we all know was crap. And I'm sure there are dozens more not coming to mind at the moment.

Point is, whenever I see a movie adaptation of a book, I want to see the movie follow the book exactly, as much as possible in a movie. That's the whole idea, methinks, and changing it just doesn't make sense to me.

snip

Ah, okay. WHen I read the title it mislead me - I thought it meant Shitty "Book to Movie" Adaptations as in mediocre attempts at turning a book into a movie.

"Carrie" comes to mind. The movie is definitely a classic horror film for a reason, but the Stephen King book is weak in a variety of ways. And, as much as I hate to admit it, the "Lord of the Rings" books did get tiresome, at times, but the movies were amazing.

Somebody mentioned the "Harry Potter" books/movies. The way I see it, the first four books are easily the best of the series, but the movies are quite mixed. Movie 1 was a decent exercise in translating book to screen, Movie 2 crossed the borderline from decent to mediocre, Movie 3 captured the spirit and feel of the books and actually had style (Alfonso Cuaron = good director), and Movie 4 was a colossal mess of epic proportions of what unfortunately is the strongest and most exciting of the stories.

What I find interesting is that The Half Blood Prince seemed to be a bit more stylish and physical than explaining the environment, almost as if Rowling changed her style so it would be more adapatable to the movie.

"Carrie" comes to mind. The movie is definitely a classic horror film for a reason, but the Stephen King book is weak in a variety of ways. And, as much as I hate to admit it, the "Lord of the Rings" books did get tiresome, at times, but the movies were amazing.

Somebody mentioned the "Harry Potter" books/movies. The way I see it, the first four books are easily the best of the series, but the movies are quite mixed. Movie 1 was a decent exercise in translating book to screen, Movie 2 crossed the borderline from decent to mediocre, Movie 3 captured the spirit and feel of the books and actually had style (Alfonso Cuaron = good director), and Movie 4 was a colossal mess of epic proportions of what unfortunately is the strongest and most exciting of the stories.
See, I don't entirely agree. I thought the first two movies captured the spirit exquisitly, and the third movie is where it fell apart. The fourth, though, I agree completely. Utterly horrible. And, what a shock, my family and ex-girlfriend(now just friend) still ate it up like it was cinimatic genius. ~_~

The Half-Blood Prince was rather low-quality compared to the rest of the books in my opinion, especially the way it delved randomly into literally fangirlish points, like the absolutely suddenly out of nowhere Ginny/Harry romance. What the CRAP was up with that? Of course, the Harry Potter books were never FANTASTIC literature, but they were an enjoyable read, and the sixth book disappointed quite much. I suspect the seventh will also disappoint.

Kind of what I'm saying, really.
Your opinion consists of dismissal of any possible argument by the opposition and then summarily declaring yourself the winner based on your own dismissal.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The films actually lead you to believe the books aren't boring crap, which they, alas, are.
Rarely have truer words been spoken.

See, I don't entirely agree. I thought the first two movies captured the spirit exquisitly, and the third movie is where it fell apart. The fourth, though, I agree completely. Utterly horrible. And, what a shock, my family and ex-girlfriend(now just friend) still ate it up like it was cinimatic genius. ~_~
They ate it up? Yuck...I mean, honestly. And even with Voldemort was? Ugh...the big scene with old Voldy was crushingly disappointing.

The Half-Blood Prince was rather low-quality compared to the rest of the books in my opinion, especially the way it delved randomly into literally fangirlish points, like the absolutely suddenly out of nowhere Ginny/Harry romance. What the CRAP was up with that? Of course, the Harry Potter books were never FANTASTIC literature, but they were an enjoyable read, and the sixth book disappointed quite much. I suspect the seventh will also disappoint.
For the most part, I liked the sixth book a lot better than the fifth, although I must admit, the Ginny/Harry romance was kind of a big W.T.F. moment. If the seventh book sucks, though, or, in fact, if it isn't one of the best of the series, I will be crying in my beer. The way the movies seem to be going, I don't expect the film translation to be much better, if this is the case. I'm losing hope in the film series, big time.

Your opinion consists of dismissal of any possible argument by the opposition and then summarily declaring yourself the winner based on your own dismissal.
Now that's how to argue.

Your opinion consists of dismissal of any possible argument by the opposition and then summarily declaring yourself the winner based on your own dismissal.
When the argument is "What part of 'they all suck' don't you understand" I don't really need to bring out the "A" material. There's no real need to argue with it because it's not real criticism. Any argument would be pointless, futzing the details of something thats faulty from the begining. Just pat yourself on the back for being sooo sophisticated without the effort of forming any actual criticism, I just don't want to waste the time watching you contort your arm to do it.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The films actually lead you to believe the books aren't boring crap, which they, alas, are.
So true.

When the argument is "What part of 'they all suck' don't you understand" I don't really need to bring out the "A" material. There's no real need to argue with it because it's not real criticism. Any argument would be pointless, futzing the details of something thats faulty from the begining. Just pat yourself on the back for being sooo sophisticated without the effort of forming any actual criticism, I just don't want to waste the time watching you contort your arm to do it.
I have no need to waste words on some one who has formed his opinion prior to hearing any argument.

I have no need to waste words on some one who has formed his opinion prior to hearing any argument.
We seem to be in agreement, then. You don't want to go into it and I don't want to hear it.

Semanticly, though, the statement is a little odd. Of course I already have an opinion, so do you. That just seems silly. It's not a matter of 'winning,' this isn't debate class. For me it's calibration, how much weight I'd give. I wouldn't take hair style advise from a guy with a mullet in the same way I'm not prone to give much creedance to a critique that starts off with "what part of 'they all suck' don't you understand?" There's no win or lose there, really.

We seem to be in agreement, then. You don't want to go into it and I don't want to hear it.

Semanticly, though, the statement is a little odd. Of course I already have an opinion, so do you. That just seems silly. It's not a matter of 'winning,' this isn't debate class. For me it's calibration, how much weight I'd give. I wouldn't take hair style advise from a guy with a mullet in the same way I'm not prone to give much creedance to a critique that starts off with "what part of 'they all suck' don't you understand?" There's no win or lose there, really.

I am going to make a movie based on this post.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The films actually lead you to believe the books aren't boring crap, which they, alas, are.

you sir have no taste, those books are great reads. you just have no imagination

Lord of the Rings are pretty much the basis for most of the fantasy books and video games out there. Not only that but it's great literature. But people don't like Shakespeare, either. Either you appreciate great literature or you don't.

Oh man, too many bad books have made the screen. One of my all time shitty-book-to-shitty-movie favorites is:

The Rainmaker (still can't decide which is worse, book or movie...they are both in the very, very low regions)

As for DaVinci Code. I do regard it more as a screenplay than a book. The skill he applied was writting on paper how people perceive a movie. Which has two main advantages: 1. even people who can't past 3 pages of a real book finish this one and 2. the studios save money as they don't need to hire the author or a script writer to adapt. Win-win-win for author, studios and booksellers; loose for the quality of the written art.

Though its many a year since I read the book, I seem to recall that the main bits that were present were "Isaac" and "Asimov", along with the title in the credits.

The inadequacies of the I, Robot adaptation fade into total obscurity when compared with the monstrosity that was Nightfall. Asimov must have had the constitution of an ox not to die of embarrassment when that steaming pile of crap was released.

As for other bad adaptations, I'd say both Rising Sun and The Sum of All Fears (and particularly the latter) were inexcusable PC perversions of great stories.

"Jaws" By Steven Spielberg. The original book is total crap, but the movie adaptation is a masterwork.

Harry Potter. they lead you to believe that the books arent boring crap, even though they are.

you sir have no taste, those books are great reads. you just have no imagination
Reading Tolkien is like eating sand. There's lots and lots of the stuff to work through, but it's really, really bland.

Point is, whenever I see a movie adaptation of a book, I want to see the movie follow the book exactly, as much as possible in a movie. That's the whole idea, methinks, and changing it just doesn't make sense to me.
And I think it's complete waste of time even to try to make a movie that follows the book exactly. You have to cut several characters and events off. These 2 medias do not work similarly. IMO Kubrick has proved that you don't have to follow the book too closely and you can still make incredible films.

Battlefield Earth! Shitty book, absolutely atrocious film, mental unstable author. Am I winnar?

midsommer nights dream - with calista flockheart... complete twoddle

.. and the de vinci code

"Jaws" By Steven Spielberg. The original book is total crap, but the movie adaptation is a masterwork.
That's the one I had in mind too.

I beg very strongly to differ. Though I'll trust that you did, I'm honestly baffled as to how anyone could find LOTR boring...
It is! I wish Tolkien would have learned how to write excitingly!

Well, they also talked about the three laws, and threw in the name 'Susan Calvin'.

The characted they named Susan Calvin was not the Susan Calvin I read about.

They took elements of the stories and patched them into a single story and claimed it was "based on". Rather wooly, but there's not really any other way of doing a movie of a book of shorts.

Overall I didn't think it was too bad, except for the use of Calvin's name. That annoyed me.

Book -> film is usually a nightmare. However, there's been a lot of movies based on philip k dick's stories. i.e. take the concept and make a story out of it. Which is not a bad thing in Dick's case since his books are unreadable toss with a good concept thrown in somewhere amongst the drug-crazed babble.

And as for starship troopers - the title was based on the book. Not a lot else.

Any Stephen King book ever made into a film.

Reading Tolkien is like eating sand. There's lots and lots of the stuff to work through, but it's really, really bland.

Exactly. Minutiae and volume are not replacements for style and actual storytelling.