Some movie adaptations don't make the cut

I have a love/hate relationship with movie adaptations.

I'm always excited whenever a book I love gets made into a movie, however, I am often disappointed because the film usually is not half as good as the book.

Some of the worst movie adapations I can think of.... American Psycho, Queen of the Damned, the Ruins...and a lesbian one: Lost & Delirious.

Some of my favourites: Fight Club, Stardust, Sense & Sensibility, the Crow 2: City of Angels (ok so it's based on a comic), and my all time favourite One flew over the cuckoo's nest.

---------------------------------------

Who doesn't blog these days?

I totally agree w/ Bridget Jones.  Loved the first movie, loved loved, the second book.  the second movie....eh.  Plus I thought they made Renee too big, I thought she was perfect in the first one.

I wish Hollywood would get that not all books are meant to be movies

I loved the Grinch film when I was a kid!

But now I see it and it creeps me out a tad.

Join for Raimy:

http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=22059764903

The adaptions of "The golden Compass" and "Eragon" both sucked, big time. ("Twilight" possible does, too. But I refuse to read the book or see the movie. *ducks and runs* )

"Inkheart" and the "Harry Potter" movies were okay,  yet not exceedingly wonderful ...

I don't think there's any way to objectively judge a film adaptation of a book you love. There's almost no way a movie can live up to a great book. I have never not been disappointed when a book I loved was brought to the screen. I loved The Hours, but I have no doubt I'd feel just like you if I had ever read the book. I think I saw Fried Green Tomatoes first and then read it, so I like the movie, though obviously I object to the de-gaying. My biggest disappointment was The House of Mirth starring Gillian Anderson. It's one of my all-time favorite novels, but the movie is just awful. I could hardly sit through it. Also, Mrs. Dalloway--why did anyone even try?

I also totally agree with Vanity Fair. That movie is really bad if you are very familiar with the book. On its own, maybe it would be fine.

I know Jessica Tandy's smile at the end has confused many into thinking that it's supposed to mean that she's Idgie.

But earlier in the movie she has dialogue about her backstory (all straight out of the book) that makes it quite clear she's not, unless Idgie married her own relative (brother, if I recall correctly).  Remember, she mentions her husband's last name was Threadgoode, so his identity wasn't changed.

Tandy's smile at the end is just supposed to be a "Yes, Idgie is still alive and kicking, isn't it wonderful?" moment.

FGT is what made me realise I was a lesbian! The book that is. But you're right the movie is a total let down. I saw the movie long before I read the book, and I had no idea it was supposed to be like a lesbian thing at all (of course when I saw the movie I had to be like 9 or 10, so I wasn't really looking for it) but when I read the book at 12 it all made sense. Fanny Flagg is such a wonderful writer, one of my favorites, and I think it is a shame, but pretty typical, that they can't replicate her talent in a movie.

Now that I think about it, my Mom was the major reason that I read Fried Green Tomatoes in the first place. On a family trip one time, before I had even read the book, she took us to the little site in Georgia where they shot the movie (don't go there its really gross! There were like giant cockroaches flying through the sky all over the freaking place). So that made me want to read the book more. So my Mom is the reason I realised I am a lesbian. That sounds sort of wrong. Haha I'm going to go tell her that!

Edit: Oh yeah and Cat in the Hat totally sucked ass! I saw it in theaters with my friends when we were all like 14. Even my easily entertained 14 years old mind couldn't even take it. It was seriously like torture. I actually fell asleep during it, and that never ever happens when I'm watching a movie especially if I'm in a theater.

Really, you cannot compare a book to its movie version.  There are just too many things that you CANNOT do in a movie (like stay internal).  Obviously, if you cast an actor as a character from a book you now have locked in how s/he looks.

Of course, if you make unnecessary changes (VERY subjective, natch) then you're going to have complaints (like the ending to Fried Green Tomatoes).  OTOH, sometimes changes need to happen.  Take for example all these comic book movies.  Some of these characters have been around since the 30s and need (or at least can handle) updating.

Changing Iron Man's origin from Vietnam to Afghanistan works.  Spider-Man's gadget-based webshooters to an organic webline hardly changes anything.  Spider-Man 2 is genius.

I think it's a very easy target to go after movie adaptations because so often the source material enters the realm of sacrosanct.  Yes, some adaptations are crap, but I think the movie would have been crap any way.

Simon Birch is so loosely based on A Prayer for Owen Meany that you can hardly say it's an adaptation.  More like "inspired by,"  and they changed the ending.

How about a piece on GOOD adaptations.  Let's try to be constructive here.  It's so easy to take pot shots at other people's work.

I thought that "Marley and Me" was a great book....and a disappointing movie.  I realize that Marley and Me is not the "Gone with the Wind" of our time.  But I read it twice and laughed and sobbed my way through it both times.

And yes, I sobbed my way through the movie, too.  But I felt that the book did SUCH a great job of establishing the relationship between a man and his dog.  The movie was about a family...oh, and by the way there's a dog in the corner chewing on something. 

WOW, I can remember the first time watching FGT and thinking theres more to Idgy and Ruth then they are showing. Felt it in the tree scene. . .that made me go to the library and check the book out. . then bought it. ha!

Para falar a verdade nao me lembro a primeira vez que vi o filme TVF mas foi a mais de 10 anos, sempre tive uma fascinaçao por este filme, em 2004 comprei o livro, que devorei em menos de 2 dias, desde entao leio religiosamente nas minhas férias de verao, mas o que gostaria de salientar foi a minha total decepcao ao ler o livro e descobrir que o filme que eu tanto venerei era ''uma mentira'', me senti meio que traida, pra mim a unica coisa equivalente entre o livro e o filme é alem do nome das obras o nome dos personagens, porque o resto...

I'm a big Nick Hornby fan and have mixed feelings about the movies based on his books. I loved High Fidelity, thought About A Boy was ok and didn't really like either Fever Pitch movies.

As a music nut and a John Cusack fan, I'm pretty biased when it comes to High Fidelity. I thought the movie was great. Jack Black was actually funny and I loved the music store banter between the three guys. It's probably one of my favourite movies.

I like that About A Boy has Hugh Grant in a role that isn't his typical goofy nice guy, although it's not far from that. There were a few scenes in the book that were hilarious and also were fairly important to the story that were either incredibly downplayed or left out. I guess I just liked the book too much. The movie was cute but my expectations were probably too high. (and yay Toni Collette!)

I liked the UK version of Fever Pitch with Colin Firth better than the US version with Jimmy Fallon (and baseball, not soccer). Again, I think my expectations were too high. I probably would have liked them more if I hadn't read the book. 

I honestly can't think of one book where the movie came close to doing it justice.  I've stopped watching them and prefer to just re-read the book (self-admitted book snob).

The magical aspet of reading a book is destroyed when you watch the movie.  The characters are destroyed and lose that feel of familiarity, plot lines are dropped as they're deemed inconsequential (which further destroys the characters), and the film maker is unable to capture the mood and back scene appropriately.

My biggest peeve about movie adaptions is when they completely alter the story to make it more Hollywood (i.e. Fried Green Tomatoes, any James Patterson book, etc).  If the book is good enough to be made into a movie, then the characters, plot and ending is good enough not to be screwed with.

Harry Potter

The Golden Compass

Dune (ALL movie versions suck)

The Kite Runner

I liked the storytelling flow of the book, even with the heaviest material.  But the movie had no feeling- felt like I was watching a quick skit and not what could/should have been an incredibly moving picture.  Missed opportunity.

I haven't read the book, but I loved Fried Green Tomatoes.  Idgies's theme is so haunting....it made me cry.  And Jessica Tandy's character reminds me of my grandmother - gutsty, candid, and warm.  I loved how she empowered Kathy Bate's character.

I agree that there's much more subtext than text in the movie, and, after having watched it about a month ago, I'm wondering if there subtle visual clues to referencing Idgie's sexuality, via gender expression - yes, they're two unrelated things, intended for lesbians in the know in the audience.  During one scene the camera zoomed down to show a totally random shot of Idgies shoes - boots and argyle socks - then cut back to her again.  Early 90's butch fashion, perhaps?  And Idgie doing drag for the annual vaudeville show.  And then there's the look on Ruth's face during while Idgie's procuring honey for her...   

 As a movie on a deep friendship between women, I think it worked very well. So many movies treat female friendships superficially, so I still think it was unique and revolutionary in that sense.  Just wish that it had been more open about the book.   Here's a link to part of a book discussing Ruth and Idgie's relationship and its allusions to the biblical Book of Ruth.  Had no idea, but it's interesting.   http://books.google.com/books?id=lu-hXPqGJsMC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=idgie+ruth+i+love+this+woman&source=web&ots=AvGUXA_xmz&sig=vY1Vh1nBeSdsTm8vsBgDcaWmBPU&hl=en&ei=K5-LSaKPJonOsAPsz8H-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

"Who's Antoine? And why do you have his cookbook??" 

"The Scarlet Letter" has to be the all time worst...Demi Moore as Hester, Gary Oldman as Reverend Dimmesdale (even more ?!), and an ending where they run away together, Hester tears off her "A," and they drive off into the sunset. It's like a bad parody of a Hollywood adaptation. Wrong on so many levels.

I might be in the minority, but I also really missed the storylines that were cut out of FGT of Artis, Jasper, and Smokey.

I know that in a film version you can't add in everybit and they were a logical cut to focus on the main storylines, but re-reading FGT (which I just finished last night) I remember how much I loved the non-linear storytelling. 

Because that's how we tell stories... bits here and there and pieces we forgot. 

I especially miss the full fleshed (pun intended) out character of Eva Bates. Instead she's almost cut out for an easier and earlier introduction of Ruth. 

When I watch the movie I just have to focus on the pauses because it seems in the fiml version of FGT that the Marys did most of the storytelling in the silence. I think the scene by the River is the one that comes to mind the most. 

And then I know that if I want the full story to go back to the book where nothing is cut out and I can see all the nooks and crannies of the characters that made them breathe more from the pages.

Till this day I am very irritated at what they did to the memories of Felice and Lilly and of their relationship. That movie sucked, rushed over everything and Felice doesn't even look close to the real one.

Then again the book Aimée and Jaguar is a real life documentary, where a lot of the magic is conveyed in their authentic, poetic letters to eachother (and Felice's real poems!) and tales of real life witnesses. My little rotten heart cries every time I read of their despair, especially at the end, when Jaguar is captive :( R.I.P. But still, a movie attempt could be done so much better!

Another book filmatisation I have mixed feelings about - The First Wife Club, starring my favourite ladies Diane Keaton, Bette Midler and Goldie Hawn. The book is very depressing, focusing on lonely women, anal sex, and the drab 80s - and the movie is very light and delightfully comedic, so I naturally prefer it - except one thing: in the book there is a lesbian! (straight woman turns gay!) and it's one of the leads! The Brenda character, the one played by Bette Midler in the movie! In the movie Brenda is straight and they made a young sidekick daughter lesbian instead - she gets 2 lines  and she's gone again. Then the First Wives end up having fun in a lesbian bar for a moment, but that's just another 2 seconds of comical relief for the hets... How could they!! Could you imagine the awesome BETTE MIDLER exploring her love and sexing up her tall, butch attorney lady the way she did in the book?

As for Fried Green Tomatoes goes, I admit, I saw the movie when I was very young and liked it immensely. The atmosphere of southern states is pouring out of the screen, and even butchered and de-gayed it's still a good and interesting story (very different from all the Indiana Jones and Jurrasic Parks of the time). Plus it has a quartet of great actresses playing it all out, introducing Towanda and focusing on great female "friendships". I didn't understand the lesbianism yet (I was too young and too closeted I guess) but even then I felt "weird" watching the scene in the kitchen where they schmear eachother with produce and the tension builds.. how could they not eat eachother's faces right there and have a naughty roll in the flour on the floor? My straight mum was much sharper and picked up on the lesbianism right from the start (when they meet as grown ups) when she watched it with me :-D Only later I found the book, with the love spelled out, which was a pleasant surprise.. but I still have a very big weakness for the movie. And I must admit I skipped the pages where Fannie goes on and on about side characters, such as the young black boy who goes to the big city and becomes a criminal or whatever.

I also agree on the Hours, without reading the book, but having read Virginias "Ms Dalloway". The Hours must be one of the most boring and annoying movies ever made. Whenever it shows up on the telly, I mute it and just wait impatiently for seeing Nicole's nose kiss her sister (Miranda Richardson, the magnificent queenie of Black Adder!) and for Julianne to kiss Muriel (I forget the actresse's real name;).

// those harper seals are biaaatchesss - Bridget McManus //

The movie itself wasn't bad, but it falls short of the book in so many ways. I thought the made-for-TV version that came out a few (more than a few?) years back was much more faithful to the book.

Actually, I think most Stephen King adaptations have been ridiculously bad when compared to the books they're based on. Most of them are entertaining to watch, and IT scared the hell out of me for years, but comparatively? All bad. With the exception of Stand By Me. And maybe Shawshank Redemption. But I found the movies to be more memorable in both cases, so eeeeeh, I don't know.

White Oleander.

I loved this book.  Then i watched the movie.  I was thoroughly disappointed.  I've been disappointed about others, and now i just don't watch movies adapted from books i appreciate.  like memoirs of a geisha. and kite runner

and i agree, the movie fried green tomatoes was just boring compared to the book. Idgie and Ruth were both far more interesting characters than the movie let them be.

Yep, all the Harry Potter films were massive disappointments for me. Not because I thought they were bad (okay, the child actors were shoddy, apart from Rupert Grint), but that they omitted so much of what was beautiful about the books. Seriously, if they thought that kids wouldn't sit through an extra long film, make it a two-parter a'la 'Kill Bill'. Double-dipping = double the profits.

Daisy Miller - one of the all-time worst films ever made.

King Solomon's Mines (Sharon Stone, Richard Chamberlin version) is nothing short of a train wreck.

Monkey Bone (based on Kaja Blackley's 'Dark Town' - a graphic novel) was a shocker.

Scarlett Letter with Demi Moore was awful but, sadly, no worse than most of her films (that casting choice seems so hilarious now).

Beowulf (latest version). To be trumped by a Christopher Lambert film that bears no resemblance to the original text is quite a feat. This film managed it.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Pure, unadulterated rubbish.

V for Vendetta - Hugo Weaving is the only saving grace (sorry Natalie) 

From Hell. Equally disappointing - we can only pray that Watchmen doesn't suffer a similar fate. 

Too many others to name. 

The Shipping News is the first one that comes to mind.  I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but the movie just left me scratching my head. 

I've also avoided seeing The Stone Angel and The Robber Bride because I liked the books so much.

The Secret Life of Bees. I loved the book and invisioned the story quite clearly. I haven't seen the movie, but the commercials show me enough not to go there.

Another book, a lesbian classic I'd say, is the novel, Desert of the Heart, which with all it's literature excellence really lost so much in the movie adaptation, Desert Hearts. It's subtle, but even the title change reveals the loss of the nuance of the story that made the novel exceptional. With that said, I loved the movie and have likely watched it at least a couple dozen times, and it was an important story to do commercially, but they aren't the same.

I think  The Hours is a stunning movie. I read the novel in an afternoon and enjoyed it but the screenplay did the story so much justice. Mrs Brown: "It was death. I chose life.", Meryl Streep and Allison Janney as a couple!!! Wow. Deep story. Wonderfully executed.

It drives me crazy about Fried Green Tomatoes, and if it helps, the two main actors were right there wanting to tell the love story between the two characters. Timing apparently. It's kind of a shame that it wasn't produced a bit later because with those two and the energy and willingness to play it, it would have been so wonderful. The extras on the anniversary edition DVD is so worth watching--it's all explained. It is one of my favorite movies, so it's really a shame that each viewing is mixed with disapointment in that it hides an essential element of the truth.

Worst adaptation ever: Even Cowgirls Get the Blues. Excellent Tom Robbins book (chock full o' lesbians!), awful movie (painting Keanu Reeves orange and pretending that it makes him look native american).

There has only ever been one book-to-movie adaptation where I thought the movie actually surpassed the book, and that was Silence of the Lambs. Jodie Foster brought a lot to that part.

but there is one that really sticks out in my mind as being great: "Misery." I thought Kathy Bates's portrayal of Annie Wilkes was amazing! Most of the adaptations of Stephen King's stories are shyte, but this one really stands out as a good one.

Oh, and I agree with everyone on the whole "Fried Green Tomatoes" thing. The book is a fast easy read, but it really goes in-depth with all the characters, and especially with Ruth and Idgie's relationship. I love the part (in the book) when Ruth comes back and talks to Mr. and Mrs. Threadgoode, telling them (paraphrasing here) that she was a fool to leave Idgie in the first place, and that she will never leave her again. I sigh every time I read that (and the passage from Ruth in the Bible).