With all of the “worst” threads running around, I got thinking about bad, bad movies made from really good books. The one that springs instantly to mind is “Timeline”…a great Michael Crichton read that was one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. I think they spend maybe $250 on lumber for the sets. Terrible…
Spot
Pick a Steven King book that has been made into a movie. Chances are it was no good (with a few exceptions).
Bright Lights, Big City
.
A Prayer For Owen Meany…One of my top 3 favorite books, but a crap movie. I think the movie was called Simon Birch, or something like that…
I thought the Green Mile was pretty pretty good. Of course that could have been one of “the exceptions.” Steven King is an excellent storyteller. There is one of his books called The Colorado Kid that is just surprising and intriguing. There is always something dark about his stores that I love. His true horror stuff I can live without though.
This thread is a little confusing to me. For instance, I liked The Lord of the Rings movies and I thought they were pretty good, but they were terrible compared to the books. As a Tolkien snob, I really had to pretend that they were not related at all in order to enjoy them.
Bernie
“As a Tolkien snob, I really had to pretend that they were not related at all in order to enjoy them.”
Same thing with the Bourne movies. In themselves, they are really good movies, but they hardly bear even a passing resemblance to the books. Kind of depends on what the criteria is for a “good movie based on a book.” Does it have to match the book closely? Or does it just have to be related to a book, and be a god movie on it’s own?
Yeah, there were too many changes in the LOTR for seemingly change’s sake to really suit me. They were very well done movies, but I never understood some of the changes from the books.
Spot
I wouldn’t say it was the worst movie ever, but ‘I robot’ was an abomination of the book. Other than the movie having robots, there was nothing even similar to the book. It’s like the movie writers didn’t even read the book at all.
His books are great, but did you see “Christine” or “Pet Semetary”?? Bloody awful. He has had a few good movies made from his books (the Green Mile, Hearts in Atlantis, Stand By Me, and a maybe one or 2 others).
I may go and see 1408 to see which category it falls in.
The Constant Gardner.
“Pick a Steven King book that has been made into a movie. Chances are it was no good (with a few exceptions).”
You read my mind. The Green Mile is one of the exceptions and I’ll tell you why. It actually followed the book damn near word for word. The majority of crappy Steven King movies came out of his early career when the movies did not resemble his books. I think in his early career he was probably struggling for money and whored out his books for movie options with no control. Once his money was made he didnt green light it unless he had control. I saw (or read cant remember) an interview with him where he was talking about his “recent” (long time ago now,) deal with ABC for direct to TV movies and how he liked it because it was a better fit for him (I read at the time he had more direct control).
Enter 1408 actually not a bad movie (originally a S.K. short story turned movie staring John Cusack). Almost all of the original story is there, but there is a lot of stuff in the movie not in the book. I think that King was given the option on the movie and basically said ok and turned over the control because as a short story it didnt have enough meat for a movie and he didnt have enough invested to demand control and put more time into it. Please note that this is not an indictment just what I think happened.
As for the LOTR trilogy, I dont think they could have made the movies any other way. You could have made a trilogy of each book alone there was so much info in each one.
I think it is almost a given that a great book will make a mediocre movie at best. Not because of the format but rather the restrictions. How much would each LOTR movie cost of they had filmed everything in the book? How long would each film had been? I am a fan of 3 hour films (when done right) but really how successful (regardless of how well done) would the LOTR have been had each film been 4-5 hours long?
… Breakfast at Tiffany’s.
Carl King
My biggest beef with the LOTR series was that Peter Jackson turned Gimli into a comic relief character, too much time was spent on the Ents, and not enough on Saruman. But overall, I liked the movies. In some ways I preferred them to the books (sacrilege, I know) only because Tolkein had a very difficult to read style, and trying to keep the story straight in your head while he’s bursting into song all over the place gets kind of confusing.
Wasn’t Tom Bombadil in the LOTR books as well? Or was he in the Hobbit? In any case, I liked his character, shame that he wasn’t in the film.
My biggest beef with the LOTR series was that Peter Jackson turned Gimli into a comic relief character
Agreed to a point. Gimli was sort of a comic relief in the books. Not like the movie (i.e. dwarf-tossing).
too much time was spent on the Ents,
In my opinion, the Ents were one of the key figures in the book, that marked a huge turning point in the whole story.
**In some ways I preferred them to the books (sacrilege, I know) only because Tolkein had a very difficult to read style, and trying to keep the story straight in your head while he’s bursting into song all over the place gets kind of confusing. **
I can understand what you mean. When I read them the first and even second time, the songs and poems were hard to get through. In fact the story itself could do without them. But…to fully appreciate Tolkien and what he accomplished and to grasp the symbolism, you have to have it. If you really wanted to appreciate it, I would recommend reading The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and The Books of Lost Tales (I & II). They really help to fill in the blanks that the songs and the poems fill. What a lot of people don’t realize is that Tolkien didn’t just write a story, he created a world that had history and characters that impacted that world whose stories are never told in the mainstream books. The thing is, the story told in LOTR is so good as a stand-alone that it hardly needs all of the background. Tolkien is the complete master of fantasy. His mind was totally amazing.
**Wasn’t Tom Bombadil in the LOTR books as well? Or was he in the Hobbit? In any case, I liked his character, shame that he wasn’t in the film. **
Tom Bombadil was indeed in LOTR. He is probably the most enigmatic character in the Tolkien world. I almost didn’t see the last two movies because of his absence in the first. This is when I had to step back and take a deep breath.
I’m sorry for the rant, but I am a complete nerd when it comes to this. I don’t go around wearing elf ears or anything, but still I am a Tolkien snob.
Bernie
As for the LOTR trilogy, I dont think they could have made the movies any other way. You could have made a trilogy of each book alone there was so much info in each one.
I would have recommended making 6 movies (like the books are actually divided into) each being 2 1/2 hours long. But it likely would have not been sellable to as wide of an audience. The full appreciation really only comes after reading the books after the third or fourth time. Most people don’t have that kind of patience.
I understand…I just don’t like it!
Bernie
Same thing with the Bourne movies. In themselves, they are really good movies, but they hardly bear even a passing resemblance to the books. Kind of depends on what the criteria is for a “good movie based on a book.” Does it have to match the book closely? Or does it just have to be related to a book, and be a god movie on it’s own?
I was lucky that I saw the movies prior to reading the books. Actually, I have never read the Bourne books, but the other Ludlum books are so fantastic I can only imagine that the Bourne books must be equally as good.
Bernie
I think that is one of the things that makes the books hard to read. Because each book is divided into 2 parts (basically Aragorn’s advetures and Frodo’s adventures) it makes it quite difficult to follow the timeline. It really does take about 3 readings to know what is going on.
As far as the Ents go, yes they were key. But I dind’t think that their role translates well into film. Yes their role was critical, but it could have been done in less time.
The other part that REALLY bothered me, which I though was one of the most important parts of the book, is how Saruman and Wormtongue ended up terrorizing the Shire in the closing chapters of the Return of the King. That was a HUGE omission from the films.
The other part that REALLY bothered me, which I though was one of the most important parts of the book, is how Saruman and Wormtongue ended up terrorizing the Shire in the closing chapters of the Return of the King. That was a HUGE omission from the films.
Don’t even get me started about the omission of the Scouring of the Shire. YEESH! This was what the story was really about, and there aren’t a lot of people who get that. The omission was actually foreshadowed in the the Fellowship when Frodo is looking into the Mirror of Galadriel. In the book, Galadriel gives Sam the gift of magical soil from Lothlorien so he can regrow the plants in the Shire thus perpetuating the magic of the Elves into the Fourth Age of Middle-Earth. Obviously Sam didn’t need the soil since the Shire was ruined because Saruman didn’t quite make it out of The Two Towers.
Oh well, the books are great.
Bernie
“I dont think they could have made the movies any other way.”
Sorry didnt finish the though in my head. I dont think they could have made the movies any other way and had as much commercial success. I didnt mean to imply there was no other way possible to make the movies, or that there wasnt a better way.