What's the worst movie adaption ever of a really good book?

Answer 1

That crappy TV version of Stephen King's IT.

Answer 2

I have 3.

The Bourne Identity by Robert Ludlum (the novel was quite thrilling, the movie was pathetic and left out the other main character!! it changed the entire premise of the book!)

Hearts in Atlantis by Stephen King (the novel was a four-part story spread over 40 years and the lives of several friends. The movie only gave the first part, which was only the background into the rest of the story! I was very disappointed.)

The Queen of the Damned by Anne Rice (the book was well-written, intriguing, flowed with the rest of the series, flowed by itself as well, and kept my undivided attention; the movie didn't make any sense at all, wasn't well thought out, the acting was sad.)

The best novel-turned-film I would say was Stephen King's "Dreamcatcher." The movie went right along with book, almost to the letter. Fantastic!

Answer 3

"Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" was by far the worst adaptation. It tried very hard to be everything it should be, but failed at most of them. Zaphod's hidden head and arm could have been done with CGI to get the real image of the character.

Other close contenders:

"Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire"-granted way too much for just one movie, but the entire film series has butchered the books to make the movies under 2.5 hours in length.

"Alice In Wonderland" starring Kate Beckensdale. This was a turd of a show. I really like Kate, honest; but this movie makes you want to slap her. She is much more impressive in the "Underground" movies and "Serendipity."

"The Jungle Book"-Disney's live action adaptation starring Jason Lee and John Cleese lacked clear narration for younger viewers. At least the cartoon version had fun music and reminded the audience of the plot.

"The Firm"- Tom Cruise plays the young hotshot lawyer in this adaptation of John Grisham's novel. Too much of the book was cut unnecessarily.

"Starship Troopers" Good cast, but strayed too far from the book.

Answer 4

Without any question or shadow of a doubt, the Harry Potter series so far.

Even with special effects, I felt that Daniel Radcliffe and friends' acting was wooden and forced. The teachers at Hogwarts (Profs. McGonagall, Snape, and others) seemed not to be as expressive and as colourful as their book counterparts. In addition, even Voldemort in The Goblet of Fire wasn't as bad as I hoped for him to be. Ralph Fiennes was just trying too hard to be as bad as he can, but ends up feeling like a cross between Darth Vader and Dick Dastardly.

I liked Richard Harris as Professor Dumbledore in The Sorceror's Stone, but Michael Gambon comes across as a bit too gruff and a bit too rough to be the kindly, grandpa-like persona that is Dumbledore. Another small thing: the set of Hogwarts didn't look as big and as impressive as it was described in the book, especially the mess hall-like Great Hall.

But the worst bit about the movie which let me down was that it just wasn't as good as the book. What I liked about the Harry Potter series was the way that J.K. Rowling managed to bring the characters to life, to convey their inner feelings with aplomb and with appropriate style. She took the English language and added some Felix Felicis to make it dance and jump and cry and laugh all at the right places. Unfortunately, the movie just could not express all the nuances and subtleties of Rowling's work. The soul of the book has been taken out and sterilized in the movie, with added special effects chintz. Moreover, the best bits of the book have been cut out for the movie. No matter how much Chris Columbus and Alfonso Cuaron try to fill in the gaps, they just cannot replace the events that Rowling has turned into little chunks of delightful reading for Harry Potter readers.

That is the shortcoming of the Harry Potter movies, and for that I will not hesitate to say that it is a big, big disappointment.

Answer 5

People it has to be THE SCARLET LETTER! Even Demi Moore the actress said, in all her glory, that the people who watch won't be able to tell the difference because odds are they haven't read the book. The truth is not only is the end different but the story line is completely altered they just used the same names. IN movie Eragon it stil had the generally conecepts and so have the other ones listed. Trust me read the book then watch the movie. You'll wonder why it was even deemed worthy to share it's title!

Answer 6

I'm tempted to say that most Hollywood movies are poor adaptions of the book, but the one that stands out most is "Sleepy Hollow" starring Johnny Depp and Christini Ricci. It's a good movie, but I love Washington Irving and the original story is a cute, humerous, rich ghost story. The movie was bloody and violent, yet was well done (Tim Burton is magnificent). So, since it conflicted me the most being a good movie, yet a terrible retelling of a story by a great writer (my favorite) I was torn and can't watch the movie without mixed feelings. That's my vote.

Answer 7

Worst ever I think we have to go back to 80s and 90s maybe before

I agree clan of the cave bear by jean m ariel was poorly adapted

Also check out day of the jackal- the original and the remark both suck the big one

Pet cemetary is rodinary at best

hitchhikers guide to the galaxy was shockingly ordinary

and predator sucked the big one....only kidding, just thought i would rile you up... lol

of late the davinci code was not all it was cracked up to be.

anyway my thoughts

Answer 8

"The Queen of the Damned", adapted form the book by Anne Rice. It-was-so-horrible!

"Starship Troopers", adapted from the book by Robert Heinlein. That one didn't even resemble the book in any way!

"The Mists of Avalon", the tv movie adapted from the book by Marion Zimmer Bradley. It was just simply pathetic.

Answer 9

The Clan of the Cave Bear, starring Darryl Hannah.

It didn't follow the book worth anything, and the characters were all wrong.

I love the book series, and felt that they did it horrifying damage when they made that thing they called a movie.

Answer 10

It was never a book, but the movie adaptation of Arlo Guthrie's hilarious, 25-minute anti-war song, "Alice's Restaurant," (1969) was awful!

Answer 11

From what I've heard about it, probably the most recent film version of "The Scarlet Letter." I've never seen the movie (I don't think I could stand it!), but I've read the book several times. The descriptions I've seen of the film indicate that it deliberately subverts all of Hawthorne's intentions.