Its pretty sad when I read a really good book that I could read over and over again, then a movie comes out, and its horrible.
2007-01-04 14:08:36 · 15 answers · asked by Amy 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
ERAGON, one of the best books ever written and one of the worst movies made!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I saw it two weeks ago and I am still really mad about it.
2007-01-04 14:16:58 · answer #1 · answered by Stacers 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The translation process to film is generally just too complex to come off well. Too many cooks spoil the broth and all that. No film can really match the pacing and unique intimacy of reading a book, but no book has the immediacy of film. Its almost mere happenstance that the two ever mix at all.
However, a few work out from time to time. "To Kill A Mockingbird" was very close to the mark, as was the left-field war film "Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence," from the book by Laurens van der Post. It starred David Bowie and was very well rendered, leaving out only a closing scene at the end with a woman in a club.
The real trick is this: does the director use the book AS the script, or do screenwriters take the framework and do as they please? If the former, you have a real director. If the latter, s/he's just a movie-maker.
2007-01-04 22:40:40 · answer #2 · answered by gamerathon 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil , by John Berandt . The movie didn't do it justice ; but it was still fun to see some of the original landmarks where some actual scenes occurred . Lots of history involved besides the true story .
After reading the book , I had to visit Savannah several times over ; and people from all over the world still do-according to the tours surrounding the book .
2007-01-05 22:29:12 · answer #3 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"The Horse Whisperer" comes to mind. The book was so wonderful I had to ration myself to just 15 pages a day. When the movie came out, I couldn't wait to see the characters I had grown to love. Yecchhh! Robert Redford played himself (again) and the movie concentrated on the love affair of the 2 adults instead of the healing of the little girl. Boo! Hiss!
2007-01-05 00:35:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"I Know What You Did Last Summer" (based on a book of the same name by Lois Duncan)
and John Carpenters "Vampires" based on the novel "Vampire$" by John Steakly)
The only thing those two movies even have in common with the novels they are based on is the name of the characters...and even some of those are different!
I was most disappointed in "Vampires" because the whole time I was reading the book I was thinking, "This would be a great movie" but when I watched the movie they only reason I even KNEW it was based on the book was because of the main characters name.
2007-01-04 22:52:04 · answer #5 · answered by Noner 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Polar Express and How the Grinch Stole Christmas (Jim Carrey version) are great examples of that! The books are some of my all time favorite kids' books and the movies sucked!
2007-01-04 22:14:28 · answer #6 · answered by ubiquitous_mr_lovegrove 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For an old one read and see "The Stranger" by Albert Camus.
For a contemporary title try: "Bonfire of the Vanities" by Tom Wolf.
2007-01-04 22:13:51 · answer #7 · answered by Richard L 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Alex Cross (James Patterson) novels are better than the movies have been, though the movies weren't terrible.
2007-01-04 22:16:34 · answer #8 · answered by fdm215 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Timeline by Michael Crichton
Memoires of a Geisha
2007-01-04 22:35:54 · answer #9 · answered by Jess 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My biggest are movies based on Stephen King novels. Christine, Cujo, and Pet Sematary stick out. I know there are more.
2007-01-04 23:25:02 · answer #10 · answered by Isthisnametaken2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Almost all of them. A movie can rarely conjur up the fertile images of a good writer coupled with your own imagination.
2007-01-04 22:27:22 · answer #11 · answered by megalomaniac 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋