peter Jackson was dragged in kicking and screaming years after preproduction started. it was destined to be a studio driven mess from the start

The hobbit movies should have fleshed out the dwarf characters better with all that extra time, give each of them a substory spread out over the trilogy so they would be more memorable. They did that with only one of the dwarves and it's a silly love triangle that barely goes into the character of said dwarf. With the movie we got, ask any average person directly after seeing the movies to name the dwarves, i bet hardly anyone can.

Warner Bros didn't want to make the Hobbit. They wanted to make another Lord of the Rings movie, and had to use the Hobbit for it. The Hobbit is very much NOT a Lord of the Rings story, despite the shared setting. Square book, round movie.

Also, they knew there wasn't enough content, but Warner Bros had to split the profits of the first movie five ways. They didn't have to do that for the second movie, and then they added a third to squeeze out even more.

Full CGI ruined the hobbit for me. The costume and make up work was so good in LotR. That and the whole movie operated as if in a physics-free zone. Nothing made sense.

I never watched the other two, I imagine they are just as bad.

See, I think the high frame rate would look great if what you were looking at was real. But what you're looking at is a room of actors in nylon beards and Martin Freeman in rubber feet.

And where did the spare barrel come from?

They lost me at what they did to my boy Radagast.

Those didn't happen. Go back to the animated movies.

The 1970s animated The Hobbit is a good adaptation, also the Tolkien Supercut version of the live action movie is watchable.

In defense of The Dark Tower... it isn't an adaptation of the books. It's a sequel. It continues the story in a way in which Roland finally breaks the loop.

It's funny the irony of I Am Legend, it is an allegory to an older society having to make way to a newer one, and somehow every time that's the story they can't do.

I read the book on a whim in high school. I think it was one of those random Barnes and Nobles finds. The ending was an amazing horror twist, with Neville realizing he's the monster and the audience realizing that they've been rooting for the villain The whole time, and the acceptance of the transition to the new society.

The only adaptation I've seen was the Will Smith movie which was generic zombie movie nonsense.

The DVD released with an alternate ending to the movie that acknowledges that the vampires have a society and that Smith's character is their boogeyman. I have not read the book, but my understanding is this is much closer to the book than the theatrical ending.

I only know of Will Smith version of "I am Legend". There are more?

The Omega Man (1971) is exciting and misses the point even further.

Appropriate, as the star of that movie usually did too.

When I went to community college, I'd arrive early to one theater class, and sitting there already (from a previous class, I believe) were two girls/women who somehow managed to fill 75% of their conversation, every time, with "Eragon was such a bad movie adaptation."

Which taught me that the movie was so bad they it genuinely hurt fans of the novel.

Yeah. I guess this post is now about bad movie adaptations in general.

You are 100% right about the Eragon movie. I loved those books as a kid and I was so excited for that movie and it was just so bafflingly terrible. It was like they didn't even try.

That was my first movie as a kid where I thought "wow, the adults really fucked up the retelling of the book, if this is what this is supposed to be"

I was going to read Eragon with my kids, but then remembered how bad the movie was - and knew that they'd want to watch it after reading the books. So I haven't read it with them. Might get around to it eventually.

Somewhere deep down I think I remember that book as great, the movie has to be horrible

oh god I remember this nightmare

I’ve been told that Artemis Fowl in the books is actually a nice and smart person. In the movie he comes across as an arrogant dick for a larger part.

Artemis Fowl was just bad, not just a bad adaptation. It was an incoherent mess. Felt like they left way too much on the cutting room floor for the finished product to make sense.

Asimov: "The 'robots take over the world' plot is overdone. I think humans would make robots intrinsically safe through these three laws."

Movie: "What if the robots interpreted the three laws in such a way that they decided to take over the world??!?"

The only good part of that movie was when Will Smith's sidekick was like "this thing runs on gasoline! Don't you know gasoline explodes?!"

I don't know what you're talking about, there has never been a movie adaptation of the book! Never!

Imagine if they did an anthology series... /drooling

For now I've got Pluto to look forward to.

I was so disappointed I just forgot of its existence until now.

I thought for sure this would be the top comment.

World War Z has NEVER been made into a film!

Was it that bad?

World War Z is absolutely a modern classic. You can just tell when people are going to be talking about a book a hundred or so years later.

Related in name only. I loved the book and got curious about the movie.

What a boring useless mess of tropes. Brad Pitt travels the world and saves everyone. There, I just saved you 90 minutes.

It's not even a bad movie. But it's only very tangentially related to the source material.

I partly expected that this particular movie would come up in such a thread, as most people seem to be quite disappointed by it. Sure it was different from what everyone expected, and it could have been much better. I still appreciate it though because, like all adaptations/versions of H2G2, it tells a slightly different story, with the same humour and satire that is characteristic of Douglas Adams. And the effects were quite nifty IMO. Too bad DNA did not live to see the completed film...

Luckily there's the radio series, books, TV show, comic, play, and game to get me through :-)

Don't forget the BBC TV series, it was not bad either ;-)

I agree. Mos Def and Zooey Deschanel really didn't pull their weight. Zaphod with only one head nearly the entire time was lame. The whole thing felt too "American" to me.

Bill Nighy was fantastic though.

It's a mess of a movie, but it's also the only version of the story where some bits of Adams' original material actually ended up being seen — namely Humma Kavula and the Point-of-View Gun.

I'm just the opposite. I enjoyed the movie but not the book.

It was terrible!

I found the book over the top and a cringy "penguin of doom" "I'm so random" style of humour. I don't get that series

Hard disagree here. I'm a rabid wheel of time fan who has read the books at least 6 times.

Ir would be downright impossible to "stick to the source" for book one (or really, any if them) and have it be good on film. It just wouldn't work on film, there is too much going on. The story would feel like it drags and is being forcefully stretched out, because the book is rather repetitive. That repetition works in a book because you are getting to read the characters inner thoughts, and in paper it adds tension that, for example, Rand and Mat are unsure whether the next place they stay will be full of dark friends.

But after the third time they get chased out by dark friends a TV audience would be like "OK they did this already get on with it." Repetition on TV gets boring FAST.

And the magic system is all kinds of messy in the books. They're diving into it a bit more now, but it's still got Tobe simplified for screen. You can't convey characters thoughts on screen, which basically neuters the whole system. The book is VERY exposition heavy, and that gets boring real quick on screen. Look at the LOTR theatrical VS extended editions. There is a reason that Bilbo talking about Hobbits at the beginning got cut. I like that scene, but it also is too much exposition to drop on the viewer right after the intro, which is also exposition. EOTW is like half exposition, and most of the books are at least a third exposition. That all has to get cut or reworked to be actually fun to watch without being super preachy. It's

Listen to Brandon Sanderson talking about the adaptation of Mistborm he has been working in for ages now. He has said that he had to make big, fundamental changes to the characters and story to make it work on film. He said his first draft was closest to the book, and that it was quite bad.

The biggest fuckup season 1 of the show did was not including the prologue. Idk why they cut it, it's such a good intro. Besides that, I thought they did alright. Season two has been much better so far, and has shown that they really do understand the core of this story and all of the characters in it.

They even ignored Brandon Sanderson who offered free advice on how to write the story FFS. Even the show runner had the gall to say he's a fanboy of the series.

I liked it, as long as I looked it at as an interpretation rather than an exact translation.

Just watch the Prime "x-ray" animated shorts. That's the perfect preamble to the books reread.

To be fair, Wheel of Time may be one of those garbage in, garbage out scenarios.

And don't get me started on black unbearded female dwarves who have no need for melanin underground.. what the fuck.

Doesn't that make it the BEST bastardization of the book then? :)

somewhere in the distance, the Blue Oyster Salad Bar music starts playing

Haha I would put both of those at the top of my list of movies that were actually much better than the books.

Do Androids Dream of Eletric Sheep felt so flat to me, I think it probably didn't age well. The animal obsession didn't land for me, I guess it's supposed to be an allegory for material obsession, since the animals are more for showing off than being actual pets, but it just seemed to slap you in the face with it like many of the very not subtle metaphors. The main character is also just dull as hell and walks straight into dangerous situations or traps without a second thought, but it always works out for him because plot armour and the androids either just comply for some reason or they're so incompetent that it doesn't matter. It wasn't a fun book imo and it's themes were so obvious that it didn't "make you think".

Starship Troopers (Book) was just hoorah military propaganda. The movie did such a good job of making fun of it and turning into a ridiculous over the top satire.

I’m beyond the debate over the Starship Troopers book vs movie. Both are very much being their own thing, and I am able to enjoy them both.

The knife training scene in each summarizes the different approach they have.

I highly recommend scifi fans read Starship Troopers and Forever War back to back. I consider them complimentary books regarding the nature of war, and government.

Was my first thought, as well. I saw the movie first and hated it, glad I stumbled across the book at some point and found one of my now favourite authors.

Electric Sheep is the first book I thought of when I read the thread title.

I'm pretty indifferent on Blade Runner. It's got a great soundtrack and aesthetic, but as an adaptation of my favorite SF book of all time I can't stand it.

I haven't watched or read it. Are you saying the movie is better than the book in spite of bastardizing it?

the book as an audiobook is good

Forrest was a POS and he was a bum because he knew it!

What made me mad at RP1 movie was they put the Easter Egg in Atari Adventure. Which is mentioned in chapter 0 of the book, and again in the fake town (not put in the movie) because it's so obvious, nobody who cared about games at all would hide anything there.

And no Tomb of Horrors.

Instead Spielberg put a bunch of lame movie references in, because he's too senile to understand the game references.

And the actors are far too pretty for the "but you're beautiful inside" plot.

Ready Player One was a good adaptation of a mediocre book into a mediocre movie.

Both of these.

American Gods really pissed me off though if they had stuck to the books it could have been an amazing series with great characters and weird but fun storylines in a unique setting. But they added too much stuff and there was a total mess with the show runners leaving so it all sort of fell apart before one of the best plot lines of the whole story.

I kinda want to rewatch it again someday though…

Ready Player One: they dumbed down the whole thing about hunting keys and portals, removed tons of important worldbuilding details, made pointless changes that ruined the spirit of the books. They should have made it into a series instead of a movie.

I went into the theater expecting it to be not so great, and it still managed to disappoint me.

There’s a book for rings of power??

But the thing is, Rings of Power is incredibly fun, because it completely ignores source, steals just enough character names & places to get Lord of the Rings fans excited, but it's not boring. Lord of the Rings is about thousands of pages of walking.

Galadriel is a WOMAN and therefore according to Professor Tolkien is useless. Show makes her the one badass in Middle Earth.

I did hate the not-yet-Hobbits, that was not a good invention.

I love the series and I love the books. It's just not for book purists but they've made a really good take on the universe and it's also beautiful.

Do you think the show itself is bad or is it just bad as an adaptation of the book?

The Cleons aren't even in the book!?? What the...

The most recent episode had opened an interesting path of exploration. I'm hopeful, but they are bound to twist it somehow.

Then Sea of Monsters ended up being worse somehow.

Hot take but I kinda liked the percy jackson movies. Yeah they could've been done better but it was one of my favorite series and to see some parts of it visualized and on the big screen is a cool experience. Still, I'm very excited for what Rick Riordan has cooked up with Disney right now.

TIL How to Train Your Dragon is originally a book. Thank you.

Isn't there literally a TV series for it? I could have sworn I've seen it at some point

Fight Club. I actually enjoyed the dumbass movie doesn't-work-that-way ending more than the mental break of the main character in the book.

I got this.

Ready Player One.

The movie was a pretty entertaining Sci film that took the overall concept/plot of the book and then did its thing.

The book was like a Sci fi incel fan fiction. Like an incel white night wet dream.

Reading the book first had me almost skip ever seeing the movie, but the movie wasn't nearly so cringe.

I think all Hunger Games films worked better than the books

And to think I was so excited to see Elba play Roland. What a disappointment.

As a very long time reader of the Dark Tower series, I was super excited to see what they would do with it. I couldn't watch more than 5 minutes before I had to shut it off, it was just so fucking BAD.

It wasn't an adaptation of The Gunslinger

I both agree and disagree on Dune.

True, Lynch’s version did the book no justice. But, gosh, is a guilty-pleasure of a movie for me.

I’ll judge Jodorowsky’s version when it’s done.

the recent dune film or the 80s one?

I haven't seen the old one but I liked the new one.

I haven't read the wheel of time. The Amazon series is certainly uneven but I've enjoyed it so far

I never read the book but I agree the movie was absolute rubbish

I loved that book growing up and was so excited when the movie was coming out (on my birthday!)

To this day, that movie is the only one I legitimately walked out of. It was such a terrible adaptation.

I'm a huge reader, massive... like, I spent up until I was about 29, 30 or so going to the library every week or two and getting 10 books out every time (That was the most you could get). I'd have read them all, and be champing at the bit to go back well within the week... it was a regular trip for us to go.

I've never actually read the Never Ending Story, and I loved the movie... one of my favourite childhood movies.

Going to have to give it a read...

YES! I read the book a long time before I saw the film and was so disappointed when I finally got around to watching it. And then I know people who read the book years after seeing the film and didn't like it, because it was so different to what they were expecting. And that's such a shame, because the film just doesn't have the same depth to it.

Agreed. It bears so little resemblance to the """source material""" that they were legally required to remove all mentions of Stephen King from the film credits and promotional materials when it released on VHS.

When I found the short it was based on I was all "cyber-gore here I come" and then I read it...

I guess they both had a lawnmower?

That. Is a deep cut, and yes.

I should really read those, as I really enjoyed those movies (the earliest ones more than the later ones, admittedly). What's so different about the movies?

Those movies are good.

Yeah. And Hunchback of Notre Dame was similarly disappointing.

It had an ending. This is unacceptable!

So true. Michael Ende was a total genius and the book has to be filmed again. It has so much potential for surreal dreamy landscapes, morphing sceneries, psychedelic images...

I understand, but I grew up with that movie, and it's entrenched in my psyche. I still love it. Discovering the book was an absolute treat. It's so special!

I commented the same >_< The stories of Michael Ende and Astrid Lindgren are in my opinion supposed to be experienced as books.

I decided not to watch that one when I saw the trailer show all the important moments of the book, the whole plot basically

After binging the 12 books over the holidays, I've made an attempt to watch the movie adaptation. It couldn't be that bad, could it?

It was much worse. Possibly the worst movie I have ever seen.

I LOVED that book! It was one of the books that helped me learn English as a kid. The movie was an utter mockery of it and I don't even know what the fuck they were thinking with the sequel.

The movie was great, so I suppose that only says good things about the books!

I didn't know it is a book. I liked the movie though.

I should probably add it to my list then!

So here me out.

• A story by Harlan Ellison.

• Adapted to screen by Frank Miller.

• Directed by Paul Verhooven.

This way it can be assholes all the way down.

There's a movie?!? That has to be a multi-season TV series to be enough depth.

So bad the Dr. Seuss's window forbade them from ever doing another live action Dr. Seuss movie lol

Really needs a do-over with modern special effects.