Five Movies Hated by Fans of the Book

[@AlexPBenton]

In the book of The Giver, the people actually *did* see in black and white. Jonas gradually starts to see color throughout the book, and that’s why they portrayed it that way in the movie.

[@andrewbrasfield1104]

The worst thing a movie can ever do to a book is make it so that the movie poster is used as the book's cover, as opposed to the always superior original cover(s)

[@godzilloid]

There should be a job in Hollywood called a Book Smacker. If a movie diverts too far from the book, the Book Smacker hits the producer with a copy of it until they get it right.

[@largol33t1]

There will be a LOT of bodies to get rid of. LOL...

[@michaelpettersson4919]

@@largol33t1 The undertakers probably doesn't mind having more jobs...

[@bessarion1771]

Verhoeven would have had a concussion after making ST.

[@thefirm4606]

Me!!! I want that job 😂😂😂

[@jeffreygao3956]

No way!

[@Darthbelal]

IMO, the WORST book-to-movie adaptation has got to be "Clan of the Cave Bear" by Jean Auel. Ms Auel tried to sue the tar out of the movie producers after that masterpiece of trainwreck hit the theaters. If you haven't read the book, READ IT. If you haven't seen the movie, spare yourself the eye-bleed....

[@shirleytyler-szkolny6981]

OMG, YES!!! YES, YES, YES!! I was beyond disappointed with that abortion of a movie! And I'm SO GLAD to read someone else feels the same! Of course movies often have to compress and simplify to encompass the plot of a book, particularly a long one, but what that movie did was nothing short of desecration!

[@ChristChickAutistic]

This!!!! I love the Earth's Children series, I even named my daughter Ayla I love it so much, and the film was extremely disappointing, to say the least.

[@DanaStephenson]

Also my #1 book to movie disappointment… #2 is memoirs of an invisible man… I don’t blame Daryl Hannah but she is in both.

[@Palmieres]

For me it was John Carter. They took a character who, after a profound defeat found a new cause to fight for immediately after having arrived on a new planet, who fell in love (with both a woman and a place), decided to form alliances with previously hated enemies, and turned it all into a whiny "But I wanna go home!" brat. The first books starts with Carter's nephew telling us how he found his uncle standing in the dark of night with his arms stretched to the sky, begging the heavens to take him back to his Martian home and family. The movie just showed a reluctant fighter doing everything with a "but do I really have to?" attitude. He didn't take the entire story to understand this was where he wanted to be in the books, he embraced it right away and it's part of why the books sweep you away. The enthusiasm of the protagonist is exhilarating. The movie is just a continuous set of scenes of a protagonist who doesn't want to be part of this story. It doesn't work when your character has no drive. Glad it flopped.

[@reptomicus]

I saw it differently. Having embraced it made him a one note character, a Gary Stu. The movie version allowed Carter to grow. The events on Mars rekindled his earlier wartime character. He wasn't begging to go back to his family, his family is dead which made him cynical. His adventures on Mars cure him of that affliction.

[@blueberrypanquakes]

... but the black and white versus color thing in The Giver IS from the book. It's actually a pretty important aspect of Jonas's training - he gets mylar passed to him that allow him to see each color, one at a time.

[@andyhannon255]

Would you recomend the film to someone that has not read the book?

[@andrewbrasfield1104]

Yeah that's like the whole point of the story. I don't get why he mentioned that

[@michaelelsy2209]

I love Starship Troopers the book and film I know the film doesn't follow the book but I love the movie.

[@gerardhunt1890]

Remember the book was written in 59.

[@rmhartman]

the movie was not an adaptation of the book. they started with a script called "bug hunt at outpost 13". somebody noticed some similarities, they bought the rights, then, in a reversal of normal Hollywood practice, filed the serial numbers ON.

[@KingGiganTitanusROARKing]

@@rmhartmanyup. I haven’t seen the movie yet but I liked the book. Are there robot dogs in the film? Do the aliens (spidery things) wield guns? The fighting really only begins in earnest towards the end of the book. Should I watch the movie? I keep hearing it’s epic!

[@APthefirst]

@@KingGiganTitanusROARKing They lost the single most important piece of tech in the book, the powered armor. If you loved the book and want to watch the movie, just pretend it has nothing to do with the book.

[@RajaniIsa]

@@KingGiganTitanusROARKing The movie is an epic slasher flick vs giant bugs. Don't expect deep thought.

[@shoresean1237]

Dark Tower. It is like Richie from Happy Days tried to do a big epic film and failed to pick up on the lessons of filmmaking - oh wait, that's exactly what did happen.

[@saulhudsonbelg]

yop

[@riekivonwielligh6102]

Agreed

[@ANonymous-gr9fk]

I read somewhere that he changed it as more of a one-off tale. If you watch like that as opposed to a book comparison, it isn't nearly as bad.

[@RajaniIsa]

I think part of the issue is it's one movie based on a what, 7+ book series?

[@Dilligff]

That one angered me most. I'd waited decades for an adaptation and they butchered everything. I also felt it should've been done as an HBO series with a season devoted to each book.

[@conspiracypanda1200]

My Mum and Sister were head-over-heels for a series called Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. It's supposedly kinda like A Series of Unfortunate Events + Mary Poppins + X-Men. It ended up getting a movie adaptation and they went and watched the movie and... Well, they came back and told me all about it and it did _not_ sound good. It was darker and more violent than the book in exchange for loss of subtlety and substance, which shouldn't be surprising since it was directed by Tim Burton (post Alice in Wonderland). But also, apparently the children's powers were modified and/or swapped around for some reason? That, of course, ended up watering down or completely changing their personalities, meaning some of the main kids lost their agency in the story or had less interesting problems to struggle with as a result. Then you have Miss Pereguine herself, who got very Tim Burton-ized and became all weird and whimiscal when she was apparently supposed to be a stoic and calm teacher like Professor Xavier. Also, her entire backstory and issues with her own powers (or curse that existed outside her powers?) were apparently solved with no explaination at the end of the film.

[@precious_muse]

My least favorite adaptations are The Black Cauldron (they left out many of the best characters and simplified the whole book series, and the characters who were left in were more boring than the book characters) and A Wrinkle in Time (the special effects were disappointing, they left out some good parts, and there was no reason for Calvin to be there)

[@Subsaibot2526]

I got my mom into reading the giver series. She couldn't put them down. Then she finds out there's a movie and is really looking forward to it well when she finally watched it I asked if she liked it. She just looked at me and said no I sure didn't. And that's all she ever said about it.

[@jgamer2228]

Wait the giver is a series? I didn’t know that. Thought it was just the one book

[@powerofk]

For me, I would go with "The Wizard of Oz.". I love the book (it's one of my favorite books of all time). I can't stand the movie. First, Judy Garland was too old for Dorothy - who's supposed to be no older than 10. Dorothy's age in the book makes her whining tolerable. But in the movie, I just want to yell at her to grow up. Also, they made the introduction in the movie to be at least a third, if not a full half, of the movie. The introduction in the book? A two-page chapter. This meant cutting out anything and everything that really gave any character development to Dorothy and her friends. The Scarecrow grows from falling into every hole on the path to actually being the one to find solutions to their problems. The Tin Man is shown to be so emotionally sensitive that he cries over dead ants. And the Cowardly Lion protects the group in dangerous situations more than once. But with the extended intro, these incidents were minimized.

[@RobertMorgan34]

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy from 2005 broke my heart. What a travesty and a shame it didn't make this list.

[@jeremyusreevu237]

That movie was alright.

[@SimonMoon5]

Yeah, I felt that the movie-makers didn't realize that Guide was a comedy. They took out all the jokes! Or, rather, sometimes they left the set-up for the joke but not the punchline. (I think I remember them leaving in the line, "Its unpleasantly like being drunk" but left off the lines "What's so unpleasant about being drunk?" "Ask a glass of water." ) And it's weird because the TV adaptation was just about perfect (though with limited special effects), so it's not like HGttG couldn't be filmed.

[@OhmyPeteWhole]

@@SimonMoon5 I think they were expecting the fan base to finish the jokes just like Rocky Horror Picture Show. Fan base nerd fail? Maybe.

[@Kornknealious]

@@SimonMoon5 HHG is impossible to make as a film. Lots of jokes were long and drawn out that needed to be set up during the acutal story.

[@seanmcdonald5859]

@@SimonMoon5 i spent 5 minutes trying to remember when i posted these comments . . . . . .

[@mudkipzforlife]

I would really love to see an opposite to this potential series, a "x movies loved by the fans of the book", finding movies that were extremely accurate and faithful to the source. I feel like that would be nice since most times you hear about movies of books, at least in my perspective, its always people complaining about how unfaithful it is, how it was terrible compared to the source (not counting the movies mentioned in this video since they deserve to be in here for a reason)

[@thebookwasbetter3650]

Thats a good idea. Stay tuned, I might take you up on that suggestion!

[@SimonMoon5]

Or possibly movies that were loved for NOT being faithful to the source. Like "The Princess Bride". The book was good. The movie was incredible. But the movie changed a LOT from the book.

[@RictusHolloweye]

I wonder if Bladerunner and the book would count. I know they're vastly different, but even the author thought the movie brilliantly captured the intention of the book and improved upon it.

[@ellagoreyshorrorstories7524]

@@SimonMoon5 Gotta intersect that with how many adaptations are William Goldman adapting his own books!

[@thewkovacs316]

@@SimonMoon5 goldman wrote the screenplay...he made the changes....that is why it works

[@snowdenwyatt6276]

"The Giver is widely considered the first YA dystopian novel..." NOT. EVEN. CLOSE. Yikes. I'm no expert on the genre and even I know of one significantly earlier than this: William Sleator's "House of Stairs" (1974). I was in fourth grade when some sadistic TA in gave it to me to read "because you like Sci-Fi". I would be massively surprised if there weren't any older than that one either. edit: not to mention that many consider 1984 (written in 1948) to be YA. There's a reason it's usually assigned reading in High School...

[@newguy371]

You also have Anthem by Ayn Rand written in the 30's. I had to read that for English class.

[@jeremyusreevu237]

@@newguy371 Same.

[@damonroberts7372]

The first of John Christopher's Tripods trilogy books ("The White Mountains") was published in 1967, that's definitely young adult dystopian fiction.

[@johnpotts8308]

"The Chrysalids" by John Wyndham was published in 1955, and that's definitely a YA Dystopia (implied to be a post-Nuclear Apocalypse).

[@ellagoreyshorrorstories7524]

@@johnpotts8308 I read (and really enjoyed) that one in high school, and I agree that it could be considered YA, given the age of the characters and the way the book is written. That said, YA as a classification/genre is something of a newer idea. A lot of books that are considered "classics" weren't really written with a young audience in mind, they were just books. It's the marketers, publishers, and librarians who have decided that it's a children's book or a YA book or whatever.

[@mountstneonstudios]

The picture of David Spade as Brad Pitt almost made me choke.🤣

[@1987MartinT]

The best theory I can come up with for why Verhoeven did what he did with Starship Troopers is that a story about a state that is this militarized, and where some people living in said state aren't citizens, might read like fascism if you're from a country that's been occupied by Nazi Germany. But if Verhoeven did read it as fascist I'm fairly certain that Heinlein never meant it as such. Heinlein comes off, to me at least, as a person who wrote what he meant. And so much of what he wrote goes against fascism.

[@hypnosifl]

One part of the book that reads pretty fascist to me is the biological justification for war with the Bugs, implying it doesn't even matter who were the original aggressors (and in fact I don't think the book ever gives us any history on how the war started), and that it would be folly to try to make any kind of peace agreement even if the Bugs were willing, so the only possible end to the war is one race wiping the other out. Here's the section I'm thinking of: "Check of proof: Is it possible to abolish war by relieving population pressure (and thus do away with the all-too-evident evils of war) through constructing a moral code under which population is limited to resources? "Without debating the usefulness or morality of planned parenthood, it may be verified by observation that any breed which stops its own increase gets crowded out by breeds which expand. Some human populations did so, in Terran history, and other breeds moved in and engulfed them. "Nevertheless, let’s assume that the human race manages to balance birth and death, just right to fit its own planets, and thereby becomes peaceful. What happens? Soon (about next Wednesday) the Bugs move in, kill off this breed which 'ain’ta gonna study war no more' and the universe forgets us. Which still may happen. Either we spread and wipe out the Bugs, or they spread and wipe us out-because both races are tough and smart and want the same real estate."

[@ravensthatflywiththenightm7319]

Verhoeven always struck me as easily triggered and unable to read between the lines. He had a similar reaction to Robocop. He read the script, got triggered, tossed it in the bin. But then his wife took it out of the bin, read it, and SPELLED IT OUT TO HIM, which was the only reason he ultimately decided to direct it.

[@rmhartman]

the movie was not an adaptation of the book. they started with a script called "bug hunt at outpost 13". somebody noticed some similarities, they bought the rights, then, in a reversal of normal Hollywood practice, filed the serial numbers ON.

[@lukedalton]

@@ravensthatflywiththenightm7319 the big problem for someone that had grown up under nazi occupation is that the book has a lot of fascist undertone, maybe for an american or english is not evident but basically the backstory of how the current human goverment in the book has come to power is how the fascist Italy come to be and how Benny took power. I read the book as a child and liked it very much but once i started study history the paralles where clearly evident; a coincidence? Probably but from here (Italy) it look like MinCulPop (Ministero della Cultura Popolare) propaganda

[@robertlocock5636]

@@ravensthatflywiththenightm7319 Verhoeven directed the film via the lens of actually living through and surviving a world war as a civilian, where as Heinlein wrote his book based around an romanticised view of "earnt" citizenship based on his experiences within the American military, as an officer. The two view points could not be further apart, but both works stand on there own merits.

[@peterwoodhouse4314]

Around the 9-min mark: "Fans hate it... when Hollywood treats the source material with contempt...dumbing down themes," Paging virtually all superhero movies! Jack Kirby's genius, for one, has been ill-served by the 'Hollywood knows best' arrogance.

[@mr.hi3219]

Percy Jackson is an amazing book series and shaped many people’s pre-teen years. The movie is like the younger brother who stole the XBox controller and broke it while raging in COD at 3am.

[@manticore5733]

Fortunately the author is heavily involved in the new Disney series adaptation... the movie I saw and thought it was okay, then I read some of the books as my eldest has read them 2-3 times... and boy is it so different in pacing and characters and actually has a plot!

[@Unqualifiedmedicalperson]

As someone who considers The Great Gatsby to be one of their top 10 favorite books, I absolutely LOVED the Baz Luhrman version.

[@ryanknebel4912]

I love both the book and movie too. I was shocked to see it on this list. I thought the over the top aesthetic goes well with Gatsby's character just trying to be so much bigger than he is.

[@gageperuti5519]

I'll admit, I hated that version the first time I watched it, even more so when I read the book. Then, years later, I gave it another shot, and while it still isn't great, I like it fine now.

[@censusgary]

Maybe you know the book so well, that you can appreciate an improvisational version of it. I feel that way about certain Shakespeare plays. I loved “Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?” which was very, very loosely based on “The Odyssey.” The changes from the original were all creative and fun.

[@SewTubular]

Another Book / Movie combo that have essentially nothing to do with each other is Philip K. Dick's book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" and director Ridley Scot's movie "Blade Runner". In the book : A catastrophic world war has left Earth radioactive and barely habitable. Animal life has nearly been wiped out. To encourage people to move to other planets, the U.N. supplies each emigrant with a lifelike android servant. Most people have taken the offer, but a few remain on Earth. The “regulars” can marry and travel freely. The “specials” (people who are damaged by radiation) are not allowed to reproduce or to leave Earth. Ownership of an animal is a status symbol. Rich people own the rare real animals, while poor people have to settle for lifelike fakes. Rick Deckard owns an "electric sheep" as a fake status symbol representing his life. Electric animals will simulate sickness, so Rick has to call for a fake vet truck to come to his house to treat his fake sheep. The symbolism of Fake vs Real, appears many times throughout the book, including a point in the story where Rick accidentally works at a fake police department without knowing it until a month later. If I had to estimate, I would say that about 2 percent of the book's story is in the movie. They are both good ( especially the final Director's version of the movie ), but they feel like very different stories. I wish that the book could be made into a streaming TV series, as it would take at least 50 hours to tell the whole story from the book.

[@xanderunderwoods3363]

I agree with you on everything except for the fact that the original narrated 1982 Blade Runner movie is by far the best, all of the others are hot garbage because they're not narrated. I mean imagine Shawshank Redemption without the narration. It sets the tone and creates the atmosphere as much as the music does, and without it the film just seems hollow. Also I am a science fiction noir writer so I might be slightly biased lol.

[@philiprice7875]

a friend of mine said to me blade runner is based on "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" me being a SF fan for 50 years just said NO

[@mackereltabbie]

I'd say the movie is "inspired by" the book: imagine someone reading the book, then having a vivid dream after eating too much Stilton that night, and then trying to film the dream

[@maggieg.recommendsandrants3081]

The Artemis Fowl adaptation was a sacrilege! The plot of the novel was tailor-made for a movie adaptation and yet they managed to completely screw it up!

[@informationknower917]

YES, it was practically a different story.

[@midnightcreepstudio49]

I can’t believe you didn’t mention I Am Legend. They’ve tried three times to do a movie and failed worse and worse each time.

[@dandyx12]

The Starship Troopers book was of a different time, American Exceptionalism was looking a tad shaky in the late 50's as the high of being the "goodies" in WW2 was getting murky is the face of things not going too well in Korea and South East Asia, and the book sort of reflects that, and I think a faithful take would have been a very talky movie, and I suspect late 90s f/x weren't really up to the opening or closing action bits, maybe a long form telly show with current f/x could give it a go, but the movie was most likely the best that could be hoped for at the time

[@smartalek180]

That is a rly interesting take. Not one I can agree w/ (sorry!), but definitely respectable & defensible -- if u don't know abt the making of it. Verhoeven hated the book, never even finished reading it, & just used it as a skeleton upon which to hang his utterly unrelated anti-nazi satire. Mind u, I LOVE the movie, but only bcs in my mind, it's not "Heinlein's Starship Troopers," but something else entirely (that unfortunately shares the name). The book is brilliant, and I hope someone makes a real movie of it someday -- that and "Moon is a Harsh Mistress," only even more so.

[@cabellero1120]

The Hobbit is a wonderful novel. an adventurous story about a hobbit who ventures out into middle earth to retrieve treasure and a precious stone for the dwarves. The film trilogy was garbage

[@silverhurst7241]

The 1988 adaptation of Isaac Asimov's most wonderful story "Nightfall" is far and away the worst I can think of. It is the only movie I've ever gone to see where all of the audience left during the opening night showing, and it wasn't a small crowd. I was one of the last to leave and I barely made it to the half way point. Never heard of the movie? There is a good reason why, and you can count yourself among the lucky majority for never having to suffer through it. My local theater even pulled it sometime during it's first week. If you haven't read the story you are really missing out on a true gem.

[@anonygent]

Never knew there was a movie.

[@rmhartman]

I think there was also an outer limits (one of the revivals, not original) episode for this

[@donovanmedieval]

Zoot suits are from the '40s.

[@SpamEggSausage]

thank you! glad somebody besides me noticed this!

[@toddhanzlik1516]

Christopher Paolini's Eragon. I watched the movie first, and I loved it, so I read the book and was horrified at the movie adaptation. Almost 2/3 of the book's content is missing or so severely altered as to be unrecognizable.

[@debiconner6377]

I agree 100%. They screwed it up so bad, the other books couldn't be done.

[@cherylmoreau924]

I'm sorry, no zoot suits in the 1920's. About 3 decades off. This is why no one can make a good version of The Great Gatsby. They think they know what everybody looked like then and how they acted. No.

[@dpcnreactions7062]

The two that bother me the most are Ender's Game and Inferno. Enders Game felt too rushed and maybe it should have been split into two movies to effectively convey the mood of the book. Ender was younger in the book as well. As for Inferno, the ending was changed so the virus was stopped. In the book, the virus gets out at the end and Robert Langdon realizes that it's not the end of the world but life will need to change to face a new future. The movie stops the virus and gives up a happy , Unoriginal ending.

[@dryb3301]

Right? ??? Why would they stop the virus, it's the whole point of the book. I was devastated when I watched the movie. I wanted the virus to spread and see how it would change the world. .

[@jeffreyrobinson3555]

Some books just don’t translate well to movies. I’m a real fan of Dune, but even after the third movie I’m convinced it just can’t be made into a movie. Starship troopers the same, a deeply philosophical work turned in to a action story

[@TheSamLowry]

Fans of "Starship Troopers" hated or didn't even grasp that Verhoeven was mocking the fascism inherent to the novel. And when J. Michael Straczynski kept being told to rewrite the script for "World War Z," he asked a producer in frustration why they bothered to buy the rights to the novel if they weren't going to use it, and was told "We wanted the title."

[@lisafernley3810]

A tv movie in Britain Goodnight Mister Tom is a wonderful story. The producers left out chunks of the book, ignoring major characters and their stories.

[@henrykujawa4427]

My favorite fictional character is Simon Templar, "The Saint". Crazy enough, my 1st exposure was the 1939 George Sanders film, "THE SAINT STRIKES BACK". I couldn't make heads or tails of it. I then got hooked on "RETURN OF THE SAINT" with Ian Ogilvy, and later, "THE SAINT" with Roger Moore, who I realized wasn't half the actor Ogilvy was. (YEAH, I SAID IT.) But then I saw "THE SAINT IN NEW YORK" (1938) with Louis Hayward, and I suddenly "got" the appeal of the character more than with any of the later interpretations. When I started reading Leslis Charteris' books, it turned out, Hayward was the ONLY actor who managed to capture the inherent craziness of the guy. So then I read the novel "Angels Of Doom", which became my favorite novel I have ever read. After, I went back and re-watched "THE SAINT STRIKES BACK", which was-- allegedly-- adapted from it. IT'S A PIECE OF S***. Totally-incoherent, and Sanders-- one of my favorite actors-- does a horrible job in it. His follow-up, "THE SAINT IN LONDON"-- adapted from a short story-- was a complete turn-around, and I now think of it as the best Saint film ever made. But "...STRIKES BACK"-- that I rate as the single WORST Saint film out of 162 of them (9 features, 120 Roger Moore episodes, 26 Ian Ogilvy episodes, 1 Andrew Clarke unsold pilot & 6 Simon Dutton tv-movies). Yeah, IT'S THAT BAD. Crazy enough, 3 movies later, "THE SAINT TAKES OVER"-- also with Sanders-- is a remake of "STRIKES BACK", but manages to capture the feel and themes of "Angels" far better, right down to the climax where the cops overhear a confession over a planted microphone and radio transmitter. By the way... the Val Kilmer movie is a farce. I always knew the so-called "origin" story in there had nothing to do with anything Charteris ever wrote. But it wasn't until this year I found out the truth. "THE SAINT" (1998) is really an adaptation of the novel "The Lone Wolf" (1914) by Louis Joseph Vance, about his character "Michael Lanyard". Both Vance & Charteris should be turning over in their graves over that. Somebody should have been SUED over it.

[@garybobst9107]

Starship Troopers. The movie was a different story than what was published.

[@jamiebeebe9606]

Been saying that for years about World War Z, the title is the only thing the Movie and Book have in common.

[@Alverant]

The Starship Troopers movie had a different take on the same subject of the military take-over of society where you're not a citizen unless you get brainwashed into the right politics and be willing to be treated like disposable cannon fodder. The movie and TV series were better, it's just too bad the TV series never got an ending.

[@JoseMorales-lw5nt]

Meanwhile, may I present a story that was turned into a cinematic phenomenon in the horror genre.... yet still considered inferior to its original literary counterpart. The story? FRANKENSTEIN. Fans of the Mary Shelly classic will attest to the glory of the original story, THE PROMETHIAN MAN! Yet ask film fans about this schism and they'll usually say LOVE THE FILM, NOT TOO BIG ON THE BOOK. Thoughts, KZbin viewers?

[@Cynchronicity7]

I loved the book, or at least the versions that I’ve read. The movies can be a decent chuckle or thought exercise.

[@TheRavenheart66]

Another book to movie adaptations that I would also add would be: Blood and Chocolate by Annette Curtis Klause. The only things the producers did correct was use the characters correct names and if the character was human or not. One of the main take always from the story was don’t change who you are (or really how you act) just to fit in. With the changes they made to the film that message is taken out.

[@Bargle5]

In both the Divergent and The Maze Runner trilogies, the 1st movie was a decent adaptation, but the following two weren't. I remember seeing an interview with the director of the 3rd Maze Runner movie and him claiming it was closer to the book than the 2nd movie had been. He lied. The Divergent series got so bad, they didn't finish the story.

[@bessarion1771]

I loved the book Starship Troopers. The movie was an anti-military parody of that book (the book was very pro-military). The aliens and military "tactics" were so bad, they were laughable. I remember people booing and laughing in the theatre I went to - they must have been the book fans also...

[@tessat338]

F. Scott Fitzgerald is buried at a Catholic church in the middle of my city, Rockville, MD. It is one of the few local churches that actually has a grave yard. Modern churches don't in this area. People come and leave bottles of alcohol, flowers, little tchotchkes, and trinkets on the top of the grave marker.

[@thebookwasbetter3650]

Thats pretty cool. In my area his house has a plaque but not much fanfare. Just a quiet street.

[@etierik]

Mine would be -The Neverending Story, or how to turn the most profound postmodern fantasy into meaningless kiddy stuff -Northern Lights / The Golden Compass: You can't end a movie before the story is over And you can't swap Norway and Svalbard if geography matters in a movie -A Wrinkle in Time: Well, neither version got it right -Lolita: The book is brilliant because it gets the reader to sympathize with a terrible child predator. Both film adaptations,esp. the first one, make the girl a teenager, so the whole point is gone. -The entire Harry Potter franchise, maybe with the exception of the 3rd one. Harry Potter in the books is insecure and clueless, so you can identify with him. Movie-Harry is a Hero. That just doesn't feel right. And they make too much of a spectacle out of all the special effects.

[@thebasedgodmax1163]

the whole point of the Kubrick Lolita is not at all gone. VN literally wrote the screenplay, and it only changes Dolores' age by about 2 years.

[@music_and_other_random_thi1330]

I liked the older version of A Wrinkle in Time because it was accurate, but the movie itself wasn't great. The Harry Potter movies were fun, but some stuff just irked me.

[@PotrzebieConolly]

@@thebasedgodmax1163 In the book she was 12. Sue Lyon appeared to be playing a 16 year old.

[@rbarnett3200]

The Harry Potter books are awful. The films were a significant improvement based on terrible starting material. With the exception of the first two films which are also both awful.

[@philiprice7875]

@@thebasedgodmax1163 i look at lolita as a morality tale. be careful what you wish for. HH got his wish got to mess with a young girl lost his fortune his liberty then at the end when saw Lolita as a piece of trailer trash, he lost his dream

[@badkittynomilktonight3334]

Missing: The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Disney crapped all over the book, the radio series, and the BBC TV series all at once. Long time fans LOATHED it, myself included.

[@hopec1653]

The very worst was Darkest Minds. The book was so deeply abounding in background, plots and character profiles, I felt like I knew these kids, and even tho it was targeting young readers , I loved it and I am over 60. The movie just plain stunk without one redeeming quality.

[@frednone]

My worset adaptions are 'Raise the Titanic' and Beowolf, I mean they took one of the greatest hero's of Mideivil literature and turned him into a narsacistic blowhard. For movies that diverged from the book my favorites are V for Vendeta, where they basically flipped the story 180 degrees but still told an enjoyable tale, and the James Bond Series. If you respect the fans, you can get away with a lot.

[@TheRatt96]

For the Giver I didn't mind the black and white turning to color but what I hated was the action scenes, the book didn't need action scenes, it was about the emotions of receiving and knowing that the memories we don't want or do want are needed to give us humanity.

[@Xth3Z]

Many books are simply too rich in content for a single movie. They should be adapted as a series of episodes, like GoT and many other productions did. You can see this especially with some series being shrunk down to a movie for theatres. Good examples for this would be "Das Boot" and "Shogun". Great series but bad movies, because a lot of context is missing.

[@largol33t1]

Maybe but when it's OBVIOUS that the producers didn't even bother to read the book that's when the viewers take offense and switch off the TV/DVD player. Look at the "Witching Hour" show that's coming out. They won't even use the correct name for the main character. Her husband is a major character in the book but doesn't even show up in the mini-series! I won't bother watching it.

[@philiprice7875]

agree the TV series "edge of darkness" was fantastic so when they said was going to do a movie from it i thought how are they going to condense 7 hours into 90 mins? then film came out and i saw it did not

[@matityaloran9157]

2:05, to be fair at the beginning of the book, the characters aren’t shown any colour either. Jonas discovers the concept of colour later on

[@billsalesses2797]

I grew up in St.Paul and started working at The Lexington (Lex) in high school. None of those photos are of the Lex. I only bring it up because August Wilson used to come in for lunch.

[@thebookwasbetter3650]

It absolutely is! It was closed down for renovations for a long time then reopened in 2017. The pic in the video is the lounge area. They also have a full dining room, bar and a rooftop patio. They got a pretty good before and after pics on their website: thelexmn.com/then-now/

[@billsalesses2797]

@@thebookwasbetter3650 That explains it, as I was last there in 2009. Please accept my apology.

[@PotrzebieConolly]

The worst offenders I can think of at the moment are, I, Robot - which is the complete opposite of Asimov's book. The Jason Bourne movies - which only use the title and character name of Ludlum''s novels. A forgotten one is Shepherd of the Hills. I saw the 1940 film with John Wayne and Betty Field, and enjoyed it. I then read IMdb user reviews and found that everyone who had read the 1907 book hated the movie because of the drastic changes. I own the book but haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

[@oatlord]

People would be better to just accept that a movie and a book aren't going to be the same and shouldn't really be compared.

[@karlkarlos3545]

Nobody criticised Pleasantville when it came out. It's still very well regarded. What are you talking about?

[@SpamEggSausage]

thank you, I love that movie!

[@erikthompson619]

As a vehement anti-Conservative, I absolutely love the way Paul Verhoeven took one of the most rightwing books imaginable and turned it into a snickering satrirization of everything that the original set out to glorify. "Starship troopers" is a masterpiece of a movie, right up there with the director's other masterfully satirical classic "Robocop".

[@LadyhawksLairDotCom]

I had to stop reading the book because it made me sick to my stomach. Interesting to learn why. ;)

[@Kornknealious]

If you were really open minded, sane, rational and civil, you wouldn't be anti conservative..

[@ianwaynemcdonald]

While I realize that the adaptations of Stephen King books are, as a general rule, terrible, what they did to the Gunslinger series was criminal.

[@rmhartman]

the movie "starship troopers" was not an adaptation of the book. they started with a script called "bug hunt at outpost 13". somebody noticed some similarities, they bought the rights, then, in a reversal of normal Hollywood practice, filed the serial numbers ON.

[@daveweston5158]

So, I'm curious; How do/did people feel about 'A Wrinkle in Time', 'The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy', and/or 'I,Robot'?

[@largol33t1]

I've read "Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy" and can't believe the author gave his approval to that garbage. I'm glad that killed off the chances of any more movies within that book series.

[@anonygent]

I, Robot essentially had nothing to do with the book whatsoever. I don't know why it had that title.

[@SimonMoon5]

@@anonygent What happened with I, Robot was this (iirc): The writer had written a script that nobody wanted to make. The studio got the rights to adapt "I, Robot" and let the writer write the script. The writer erased the title of his script nobody wanted to make and penciled in the title "I, Robot". And that's how that movie got made.

[@anonygent]

@@SimonMoon5 I believe it.

[@Kornknealious]

@@largol33t1 Mr. Adams tried many times to make HHG into a movie.. for decades. The fact that he wrote many versions of the script ...and chose the one with Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent is mostly okay. If you actually listened to the radio show and read the books, there is a HUGE sprawling epic that they had to condense into 2 hours. I love what Adams changed for the movie. It was written as a radio show ...and he had to do a lot of changing formats to make it work.

[@electronron1]

I was disappointed that in the movie version of fantastic voyage they left the submarine and doctor Michaels body inside Benes. Even if they were reduced to dust they would still grow to full size. The book addressed this by Grant stabbing the white blood cell and getting it to follow them to the eye where they were all extracted, placed on the floor and Benes was quickly removed from the operating theater.

[@302Diane]

The book was based on the movie. Asimov changed some things to correct the more obvious plot holes.

[@liljenborg2517]

One of the most egregious adaptations ever was Disney’s The Black Cauldron. The movie completely misses the point and story of the book. If the people at Disney had simply changed the names of the characters, they could have distributed the movie without crediting or paying Lloyd Alexander a penny, and he wouldn’t have been able to sue them for stealing his story.

[@toob1979]

_The Prydain Chronicles_ is a great YA series to get kids interested in high fantasy. The books aren't door stoppers like _LOTR_ or _Dragonlance_ which can intimidate young readers with their size. _TBC_ is a mash-up of the first two novels. It omits a MAJOR character from the book version of _TBC_ and has way too much of Gurgi acting cute.

[@dandyx12]

Indeed, wee me was so grumpy at the time and I couldn't quite understand why they didn't just do the book(s) as was, rather than muddle things about, but 40 odd years later it seems Hollywood never learns as my Nephew was equally miffed when they buthered Artimis Fowl

[@liljenborg2517]

@@dandyx12 True. And they _really_ butchered Artemis Fowl. Here's hoping _something_ happens and they don't fail at Percy Jackson (the way Fox did). In BOTH cases there could have been an awesome series of exciting movies, instead of just a bunch of flops.

[@SuperMoviemaster21]

@@liljenborg2517 Again, I actually love the Percy Jackson movies way more than the books. They actually make more sense and are more grounded and focused, that’s way too unbelievable Not to mention cheesy and unrealistic for them to be that young and going off to war/going cross country. Makes a lot more sense to age them up and have a few more believable and natural they would be doing that kind of thing. Plus it also takes out a lot of unnecessary nonsense from the books Like the Minotaur Wearing Fruit of the Looms [I mean why?] And the Hydro wearing a bib etc. plus the movies actually emphasized Percy and Co. having ADHD which the box never did aside from just stating that they did, all just words [yeah I know it’s a book obviously but you get what I mean? He doesn’t really emphasize or showcase how their ADHD/dyslexia applies to/Affects them, which the first movie In particular did way better]

[@TheTonyahawk]

A book that I really liked but despised the movie would be Steve Alten's The Meg. Jason Statham didn't even come close to my expectation of Jonas Taylor and that doesn't even scratch the surface of my complaints.

[@thereisnosanctuary6184]

Forest Gump the novel was worse than movie. Goes into space, lands on cannibal island.

[@RictusHolloweye]

The Running Man. When the Scharzenegger movie first came out I refused to watch it because I could tell from the trailers it was going to diverge heavily from the Stephen King story. A couple of years ago I finally relented and watched it. I was correct.

[@ellagoreyshorrorstories7524]

If there's ever a book that NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS to be adapted again and made into a TV show, The Running Man is it! Can you imagine? A dystopian world with a huge disparity between rich and poor citizens. Diseases that were eradicated coming back because of anti-vaxx propaganda (polio in the book). A game show host as a major politician and big corporations making government decisions. Everyone glued to a screen. "Reality TV" and instant fame is the only way anyone can get ahead. Oh, and at the end of it all, a plane flies into a building. Eesh, King was prophetic with that one!

[@RictusHolloweye]

@@ellagoreyshorrorstories7524 - Even the most pedantically accurate movie conversion would be denounced as a partisan attack in today's world.

[@KatieSteedArt1]

Can I just add "the devil all the time" by Donald Ray Pollock. Netflix killed it dead. It was absolutely awful.

[@legacy1X]

World War Z is my favorite book. I'm talking I have a copy to read and another copy signed by Max Brooks. When I heard they were making a movie out of it I was excited. When I heard that it was Brad Pitt's company that is taking the helm of it I knew it would be destroyed.

[@katholmes7112]

They made Fine Things by Danielle Steele into a tv movie and it sucked. The book is heartbreaking, especially when the protagonist's wife is dying of cancer. But the film focused on her abusive ex trying to gain custody of the kids after she died. Even though it focused on that, it even turned him and his legal battle with the protagonist into a complete caricature of the story. I hated it.

[@Skunktrain42]

Michael Crichton's Sphere. To be fair, I don't think there is a way to make a good adaptation but this film was a poor attempt anyway. Sharon Stone and Sam Jackson were bad casting decisions, most of the mysteries had all the clues cut for time, and the claustrophobic dread between action sequences fell flat because the runtime didn't give the film time to breathe. Tack on overly obvious clues for the one thing that did get any and stripping out the philosophical core and the only thing the movie is good for is spoiling the book.

[@nealheder]

Nothing angers me more than "I am Legend". I could understand all the bigger than life bullshit, because, well, you know, 'murica. But the ending ? How could you change it ? IT'S WHAT GIVES THE BOOK ITS TITLE. What makes the story interesting. It felt like watching Romeo and Juliet getting married or the Titanic avoiding the iceberg.

[@sorenthefilmbrony]

Have you seen the alternative ending? It's much closer to the book's themes.

[@nealheder]

@@sorenthefilmbrony Yes, I saw it, and you are right, it's a bit better, it has a deeper implication... but it stills lacks this awful revelation at the end of it all, which has an Epic vibe and, at the same time, a core shaking capacity. It has this philosophical stance too, that good is not always what you think it is, that time may overcome whatever you represent, that you can be a thing of the past and a monstruosity without ever changing, just because the world around you changed. It's so profound and mindblowing at the same time, the book being just a preparation for this big reveal. It is definitely one of my favourite books, and I was really ready to see it "blockbusted"... but nope. Other movies before and after captured this vibe much better, IMO. The book ending was rough, inevitable and the best part was the realization of the protagonist as well as the acceptance of his own fate. I was so pissed of when exiting the theater....

[@jonathanwalker4937]

I recommend the last man on earth. It's the adaptation from the 60's it alters a few things here and there but it ends with the death of the main character as the original story did.

[@nealheder]

@@jonathanwalker4937 That is the movie I had in mind when I wrote about movies which better captured the meaning of the book, thanks !

[@princeofcupspoc9073]

I think people have a misconception. The problem is NOT changing the story. It never was the story. A producer has some derivative drek of a script he wants to make. They search around for a recognized name to attach to it. And that's for one reason only. It saves on marketing. Braveheart was never supposed to be about the actual characters or events. AI was never about the Azimov stories. There are so many...

[@debiconner6377]

My list of movies that prove some directors don't read: Clan of the Cave Bear Eragorn Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. Cat int the Hat

[@michaelkeith8992]

Battlefield Earth was horrible. I don't think anyone involved with the movie had ever seen the book, let alone read it! It should have been a 2 or 3 part movie to do this huge book justice.

[@ellbo2]

Interesting video, I liked hearing the differences between book and novel, and despite not reading or seeing the film I was aghast at them. It would be cool to hear what the author also thought of the film. Some are pretty vocal.

[@TheTonyahawk]

Stephen King and The Shining comes to mind.

[@etherealtb6021]

I loved Lurhman's Gatsby! I thought it perfectly captured Fitzgerald's style. It isn't perfect, but as you said, better than the 70's one.

[@bluetarantulaproductions6179]

Ready Player One. I enjoyed the movie, though it didn't hold a candle to the masterpiece that was Ready Player One by Ernest Cline. The basis of the book is basically if you take Charlie and the chocolate factory and mixed it with Tron and Mad Max. Read the book first, then watch the movie and you will see what I mean. Just for the love of God, don't read "Armada" by Ernest Cline, it just sucks.

[@thereisnosanctuary6184]

LoL. I loved the David spade pic while mentioning brad pitt

[@thebookwasbetter3650]

Hey it's an easy mistake to make: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j2O4fqp6iJaZirc

[@zerobyte802]

From what I’ve heard, The Lawnmower Man should be in the discussion of farthest diversion from source material. Never read it so I don’t know just how far it went…

[@Dilligff]

As someone who grew up on Stephen King novels, pretty damn far. But oddly enough I enjoyed the movie and its premise. Like World War Z they should've just had the bawls to make it its own thing instead of trying to capitalize on a name it had no right to bear.

[@stephennootens916]

He did sue to take his name off of it.

[@cabellero1120]

Stephanie Meyer's novel, The Host was a great read. It told the story of an extraterrestrial organism trying to survive in a hostile world. It also learned to value its human host. The film adaptation made it a " teen romance" the producers tried to make it more like Twilight! In the book, Melanie is about 15, Her boyfriend/ bodyguard is about 25. In the film, they're both teens! The film is centered more on her " love life" than her struggle to survive in a world which is hostile and cruel!

[@teleiosdawyz4044]

I can't remember the book/film name anymore. It was based on a Tom Clancy book. Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) takes on a Columbian dope dealer. The first 120 or so pages of the book are gone, the film begins at that point Ryan has a diner with John Clark. These two running characters didn't meet untill several books later. They had Ryan show up at the dealer's front door. Didn't happen in the book. I'm sure there was more but I like to forget abominations such as this.

[@KnordRW]

Clear and Present Danger. And YES, that movie sucked so so so much, it made me really mad. But, they couldn't have made it accurate to the book and had Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan either - because Jack Ryan isn't even in the book until the last third or so, other than a few mentions.

[@seaninness334]

I think, for every critic of the film Bonfire if the Vanities, you really should read The Devil's Candy (TDC). It's a really great look behind the scenes at movie making SPECIFICALLY about the adaptation of Bonfire. I've always been a harsh critic of Brian DePalma but I finally cut him some breaks after reading TDC. I can't recommend that book enough.

[@gageperuti5519]

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. The second they skipped the Quidditch World Cup match, I knew we were in trouble. The book is my favorite in the series. The movie feels rushed, cuts out way too much, and makes stupid changes to what it keeps. Out of all the films in the series, it's probably the one I've watched the least and it still irritates me to this day.

[@gageperuti5519]

Also, how are the Hobbit movies not on this list? Tons of people hate those movies for all the changes to the book.

[@cynicalafflictional1725]

Chocolat. I had the book for five plus years. I thought that Johnny Depp was the priest...it was hot. Then I watched the film and it actually ruined the book for me. 😪

[@Kornknealious]

Most books should never be made into a movie as they are filled with amazing prose, descriptions of people, places, things, smells and feelings that cannot be captured on film. Chocolat is one of them.

[@mariaaguadoball3407]

I read the book first and I really like the movie. They're different, but I don't mind the changes.

[@susanscott8653]

I saw the movie before I read the book. Love the movie (even if they can't tell the difference between a wallaby and a kangaroo) and hated the book. 🤨

[@paulbitgood2117]

I must disagree on one point, Peter Jacksons The Lord of the Rings trilogy was well done and although some changes were made, they made enough sense, however the Peter Jackson The Hobbit trilogy was an affront to the book. No reason for three movies, no reason to bring a dead character back to life to "chase" Thorin. A thoroughly terrible adaptation.

[@matabe3381]

Thanks for mentioning starship troopers, Enders Game is up there with terrible portrayals as well

[@thebookwasbetter3650]

I didn't I'd like Starship Troopers since the movie looked so corny. Then I finally picked it up and found I really enjoyed the book. I even did a video on it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fnW6hIKhh8yMhKc

[@matabe3381]

@@thebookwasbetter3650 might as well skip the amazon rings of power, they didn't even pretend to try, but Eragon is getting another shot if you are familiar

[@brentlloyd7908]

I always thought that World War Z was just a coincidence in title because it in no way resembled the book.

[@htim8997]

I am a big fan of the novel of Starship Troopers, but I don't mind the movie. It's not as good as the novel, but it isn't awful. However, there are two movies that I saw and liked a lot, enough to find the books; and now I can't watch the movies because I get too angry over of how completely they gutted their source material. First is Hopscotch. The second is Blade Runner. Logan's Run is a really bad adaptation, too, but at least it's stylish and it has Jenny Agutter.

[@fabrisseterbrugghe8567]

The Baz Luhrman version of Gatsby is brilliant.

[@MitchellTF]

So...can you find five movies loved by fans of the book?

[@Gracelivinglife12]

I read the giver when I was in the 8th grade for a school assignment (I'm a 10th grader now), and I never knew that there was a movie adaptation of it until I saw this video.

[@creativewritingcorner]

I love the Starship Troopers book AND film. They're just two completely different properties, one pro-war, one anti-war. (Heinlein was a socio-political chameleon; read Starship Troopers, you'd think he was a militaristic fascist; The Roads Must Roll, a democratic socialist; The Puppet Masters, an anti-communist; Stranger in Strange Land, an anarchic hippie; The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, a libertarian individualist; and so on. He also had some odd views on sex, even by modern standards, and that played a role in a lot of his books.) Luhrmann's Great Gatsby is entertaining, but it's way off in some of its characterization and themes. Nick Carroway (played by Toby Maguire) in particular is screwed up in his motivations, and since he's the narrator of the story, his interpretation of events colors everything we see. Thus, the themes that shine through in the book get all muddled in the film, and we're left wondering what the point could be (beyond a simplistic "rich people bad" conclusion). For me, I've rarely seen a worse adaptation than Stephen King's The Dark Tower. The secret behind the mystery that drives a 7-book series - "What IS the Dark Tower?" - gets answered in voice-over within the first three minutes of the film, killing any suspense or tension before the story even gets started.

[@mackereltabbie]

I didn't get "anarchic hippie" from Stranger In A Strange Land, I got "contempt for weakness and parodic levels of sexism", completely on-brand for a right wing libertarian

[@seantaggart7382]

Ahem All readers of rick riodren please stand then quickly sit down

[@Mrpredator-w5m]

I don’t like books. It’s always so confusing to me without pictures. Most movies I don’t even know the book existed or read it. Sooooo movies are better to me!

[@thebookwasbetter3650]

I used to feel this way too. I think it stemmed from books they assigned in school which didn't interest me much. They felt like work to read so I never read anything for leisure. And the classics like Dickens and Shakespeare are pretty challenging if you are young and new to reading. I wish they had more young adult when I was in high school. But my advice to you is to read what you love and you'll love what you read. Don't make the mistake of thinking you have to read Moby Dick or Jane Austen to be a good reader. Read something easier like Harry Potter. They are wonderful books. Or if you have a hobby, political views, or historical/famous people you like, pick up books about those subjects. If you do this you will love what you read and it won't feel like homework. When I click on your account and playlist I see you like Star Wars. There are many Star Wars books to enjoy. I even did a book review on a Star Wars book. Here it is - kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHTYh6mvl7F0o7c Eventually your reading skills will improve you will challenge yourself with something more difficult like the classics. Give reading another try and good luck!

[@pauljanetzke]

Watchers by Dean R. Koontz being butchered by Jon Hess(director), Bill Freed(screenplay) and Damian Lee(screenplay)

[@ellagoreyshorrorstories7524]

That one had several terrible adaptations!

[@benjauron5873]

Before watching, I tried to guess what the five picks were. I nailed two, WWZ and Troopers, two I never heard of, Giver and Bonfire (though Bonfire sounds really interestinhg) and as for Gatsby, I read the book in English class, and I hated it, so I never had any desire to watch the movie. The three I thought would make the list but didn't were Dune (David Lynch version of the movie), The Natural and Patriot Games (or any number of other Tom Clancy novels).

[@teabearchurchill5600]

Dune's redeeming virtue is the attention that was given to the design work and the soundtrack. The visuals far exceed any other attempt to bring Dune to screen. I mean, just compare the costuming between Lynch's version and the SciFi Channel miniseries version, or from Jodorowsky's Dune. Comparatively they look like clownshows.

[@benjauron5873]

@@teabearchurchill5600 Oh, I definitely hold Lynch's Dune in the highest regard. I think he did the best job anybody could do condensing Dune into a three/four-hour movie. Indeed, watching his movie as a kid was what inspired me to read the book! However, he did change some plot elements that he didn't have to, like, weirding modules? WTF? And the way it ended, I thought was great, but completely different than how the book ended. I can see fans of the books getting upset with that. Hopefully Villaneuve's Dune will stay closer to the source material.

[@teabearchurchill5600]

@@benjauron5873 Well, Villaneuve's Part 2 is supposed to concentrate on Chani as the POV character so my hopes are failing already.

[@benjauron5873]

@@teabearchurchill5600 You've got to be shitting me...

[@teabearchurchill5600]

@@benjauron5873 I wish I were.

[@trentkasprzak2144]

Percy Jackson for sure, nothing from the books was in the movie and the actors were in their teens when Percy Jackson is suppose to be 12

[@TheCkent100]

Michael Crichton's "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" was a horrible "adaptation", and I use the word adaptation extremely loosely. The primary antagonist in the book is completely missing from the movie. The primary plot is missing, instead they substituted a completely idiotic plot about bringing the dinosaurs to San Diego. It's not even hinted that live dinosaurs will be brought to the mainland at all. Only a few scenes from the book made the movie. Several subplots are also ignored.

[@brettcoster4781]

For me, the Kevin Costner version of The Postman is my most disappointing version of a really great novel, David Brin's version. It was not only much too long, but missed all of the major points of the novel. Another disappointing screen version is The Day of the Triffids movie (1963 or so), so much so that I wrote a letter of complaint to the TV channel that put that movie to air here in Melbourne, Australia, when I was 12 or so (1973), after having negotiated a very late night bedtime with my parents so I could watch it. So thoroughly disappointed.

[@frothymcmead]

My favorite book is Beowulf. Hated all of the movies. Stop trying to drum up sympathy for Grendel and his mother. Stop trying to force a sex scene or a love triangle into the story. Stop trying to turn Beowulf into a brooding melancholy anti-hero. Just stop.

[@Elora445]

It's not a favorite or anything, but indeed. I enjoyed the movie even though I, at the same time, went "WTF just happened???". It doesn't have much in common with the original story except for the names.

[@chaostheoryxxx]

I think The Stand by Stephen King was amazing especially the uncut and unedited version but the movie left a lot to be desired.

[@dryb3301]

I think only good movie adaptations of his books were the greenmile and shawshank redemption Others were all bad imo. It was particularly bad, they ruined the whole character specifics and developments

[@samdryden7944]

Not a movie, but the tv adaptation of Under the Dome was terrible.

[@patricknoonan3610]

CS Lewis chronicles of Narnia. It went down hill after, the first one very fast. Prince Caspian is 13. He is that age for a reason. Do your re-search Disney. It wasn't your story to F%#k up.

[@SpamEggSausage]

the movie version of Prince Caspian also left out some of the best parts of the book

[@peccatumDei]

A big thumbs up for including Starship Troopers on this list. If they had given the movie a different name I could have enjoyed it for the farce it is, but to divert so far from the original story, is a slap in the face to Robert Heinlein's estate.