Whats the worst film adaptation of a book you've seen?

Question

For me it has to be the Harry Potter series! Those 3 kids are pathetic, really truly scary, forget voldermort the acting is enough!! Not to mention the way the films are strung together, the bits from the book selected for portrayal. Makes the books look farcical rather than the intriguing stories they are (yes I eventaully gave into reading them at 22 and loved them, despite having resisted for so long due to having a anythin that popular must be trash mentality). If id watched the films first, id have burned the books, used them as wallpaper, done anything rather than read them! Just goes to show how much a film can ruin a story and that books are way way better! Got to thinking there must be loads of films that fit this category, theyre atrocious but the original book/series they were adapted from was excellent.

Answer 1

i think most books that are adapted for film or television are let down big time. despite all the special effects and the casting of "names" in leading roles the camera fails to capture the imagination and involve the watcher quite as well as a good book does. the best adaptation in my opinion was "watership down" and the worst was, also my opinion, "christine" by stephen king.

Answer 2

I disagree I love the Harry Potter movies and the actors are great and very talented of course they cant put everysingle thing that is in the book other wise we be watching a 11 hour movies geez as for the worst book turned film I would have to say any danielle steel movies the books are wonderful but in the films they use such fake actors and I imagaine what the people would look like in the books and on film they look so different from my imagination lol its a joke people

Answer 3

The Fountainhead was an awesome book, but the film absolutely sucked. The book was over 600 pages long, but the movie was less than 2 hours long. Not only that, but the actors were terrible, even Gary Cooper. It was painful to watch.

The Harry Potter movies were a let down too, but it seems like it's the best that they can do.

Answer 4

You must remember, there is only so much time and copy right issues to deal with in film making.

For me, the WORST film adaptation was "The Shepherd of the Hills". The book was completely wonderful. John Wayne starred as the main character. The character in the book good, but in the film he was bad. They reversed all the characters and the film was just awful. Almost made me hate John Wayne!

And, I disagree with your assessment of the actors in the Potter series.

Answer 5

Jaws. In the book the shark was just doing what sharks do, but the film turned it into some kind of serial killer with intent.

Ooh, I forgot how much I hated Blood Work with Clint Eastwood, totally changed the story cutting out a hole section of plot, changing who the killer was!
The only good thing about it is how Michael Connelly incorporated the film into his later books, which makes me wonder if it was intentional all along!

Also Kiss the Girls/Along Came a Spider casting Morgan Freeman as Alex Cross who is described as looking like Muhammad Ali in his prime!

Answer 6

I'm going to have to go with The Running Man. Now don't get me wrong I like the film but it is practically nothing like the book (which is a far more interesting and darker story). I think that if the film had ended the way the book does then it would have been one of Arnie's finest moments.

Answer 7

I'd have to say Stephen Kings' "Cujo". Because in the book you understood the illness from the dogs point of view. But in the film all you so was an ever growing sicker animal who became a killing machine. No validation for the dog and why he acted like he did. I also didn't like the double ending. If they are going to make a film version of a book they should stick to the story line, don't change it.

Answer 8

For me it has to be Angela's Ashes by Frank McCourt. The book tells the story of growing up poor in Ireland years ago. Many people experienced that. The film was just dreary and depressing. For all the bad times the people of Ireland had at the time, they had plenty of good times aswell and the film, unlike the book, doesn't portray that.

Answer 9

I think the film called 'Bloom' which was based on James Joyce's 'Ulysses' was terrible, terrible casting, especially that moron they cast as Buck Mulligan, and Stephen Rea, although a great actor, was such a bad choice for Leopold Bloom.

I suppose the fact that they called the film Bloom as opposed to Ulysses gave them some freedom, but it still doesn't take from the fact that it is a terrible film and represented Joyce's work in such a trivial light.

Answer 10

Queen of the Damned. That film took so many liberties with the original book and just ruined an excellent story.