|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:54 pm
Disney ruins everything. I got my hands on a book of the Grimm Brothers' Fairy Tales, and couldn't believe how...."sanitized" everything had been. Blood and Chocolate was also ruined. Dracula, Frankenstein and a few others were mangled by various people as well.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:34 am
I agree they had to cut a few things from the LOTR movies to save time (and the films were still epic in proportion anyway), but personally, I'd have liked to see the encounter with Tom Bombadil and his lady-friend (who to this day I suspect was an entwife). I do need to reread the books.
Prisoner of Azkaban.. ouch. I let myself get excited looking forward to seeing the werewolf, and they completely blew it. Never again.
The true thorn in my paw when it comes to books-versus-movies is the Jurassic Park trilogy. The changes between print and film in the first movie were excusable, up to a point. Annoying, but understandable. Mr. Crichton failed with The Lost World, though. Failed me, at any rate. Bringing back dead characters at random is something I'd expect to see in a third-rate crappy fanfic, not from a professional writer of his caliber. Bringing them back without even an explanation of what plot loopholes they might possibly have fallen through, well..
I'll never own that book. The first one? Yes, own it and have just about read the covers off of it. Second one, nope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:48 am
You know how you go to a book-based movie and there's that angry person shouting and throwing popcorn at the screen? Yeah...that's probably me sweatdrop Somehow, if I watch the movie first, then read the book I don't find the movie quite as terrible...not sure why. Like in Ella Enchanted stressed The only thing they DIDN'T change was that her name was Ella, her mom died, Char was the prince, and they lived in Frell!! GAAHH!!!
Anyway, the only movies I've really liked were Bridge to Terabithia, The Chronicles of Narnia, Lord of the Rings, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and Saphira from Eragon. Wait...nope, only Saphira.
You want some senseless changes? Bridge to Terabithia: They switched Jesse and Leslie's haircolor! Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Marvin's eyes were red, not green. The Chronicles of Narnia: Mr. Tumnus had a lion tail, not a goat tail. How else could he hang it over his arm? (this one has loads, I'll name a few) Eragon: Silver palm...that means SILVER PALM not dragon tattoo/burn!! Saphira grew up, she didn't get hit by a lightning bolt and came back adult! When Saphira was born was ok, but what's up with the feathers? She's a dragon, not a velocerator(they grew wings and evolved into birds)! Farthen Dur...Where was it!? Not to mention the fact that there WERE NO DWARVES, which is weird since we are in a dwarven kingdom stare , Saphira learned to breath fire at the end of the battle, not the beginning, What the hell was with that demon shadow that Durza rode?!?! He was on foot in the book! And no scar? That's half the next book/movie (if any) thrown out right there! And the begining to the next one as well! They didn't even have the Star Rose for Saphira and Arya to break, no Ra'zac were seen (actually seen up close and personal) during the run through the woods, and even if they were, they weren't beat down with a BUSH! Whaa? Where the heck did that come from?! And loads more, but too much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 4:04 pm
I don't bother with the movies anymore. They piss me off. Now I just stick to books and movies that weren't books.
Has anyone mentioned the numerous Stephen King books that were turned into movies? Misery had a few inaccuracies, and Christine was also a bit shy of the book.
They left out Tom Bombadil!! Ah! talk2hand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:53 am
red_moon_wolfess I agree, Harry potter was slaughtered as a movie. Lord of the rings however was supriseingly accurate; all that could be included was, rember the movie was at least 2 hours long so cut them some slack with Tom Bombadil and all! Besides, that leaves us book-lovers with something to brag about in Lord of the rings trivia. 3nodding However there is one particular book that has recently been ticking me off in theators.... Eragon The first book was fair but the movie killed it. They changed so much about the book it may as well have been a whole seprate story. My main complaint being that we are two books into the series and hardly know anything about King Galbatorax asside from his name and the fact that he is a dragon rider; yet the first half hour into the movie we are walking through the guy's frikkin castle! WHAT THE HELL MAN?! scream
But, the thing that pissed me off about that movie was the elf-chica part. In the book she's all like "you're stalking me... that's kinda creepy... go away... I'm old enough to be your ancestor!" And they make her all cute, coy and "maybe we'll see each other again" in the movie! What the hell? Retarded-ness! Anyone who read the books knows that she's not into Eragon, yet the film makes you think that she is!
Dea-chan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:01 pm
To the comment on Stephen King... has any of his novels been adapted to film well? No! His short stories make excellent movies, and T.V. series. Examples being: Storm of the Century, Rose Red, Secret Window.
However, his novels into movies? Terrible. Take The Shining for example. My absolute favorite Stephen King book, aside from IT. It is one of the creepiest books I have ever read... as in, I was curled up in a ball, scared shitless, while reading. (Notice that I continued reading...) But the movie? Retarded. That's all I'm going to say on that.
Pet Cemetery... same thing. IT, same thing. In Kujo, in going from book to movie, instead of the dog being like "oh look it's the boy... I love the boy... but... must... bite..." to just a rabid dog running around. In Carrie, they don't get into what makes the book so good... the fact that it isn't a story. It's comprised of a lot of "interviews" and "articles" from after-the-fact.
(*le sigh)
That'll be all... I'll stop ranting.
Dea-chan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 5:24 pm
I agree with the Stephen King complaint, have no opinion on Eragon or Lord of the Rings, and disagree with the Harry Potter inclusion. Need I remind anyone that J.K. Rowling sits there on the set and guides them through those damn Harry Potter movies? Yes, books are the author's voice. But so are those stupid movies. Personally, I hate both the Harry Potter books and the movies. They're written for a young audience and while I enjoyed them in 2nd grade, I wouldn't be caught dead reading them now. The movies are no better. I have a vendetta against fantasy in general, but Harry Potter really gets my goat. You can't blame it on bad directing either, since the author of the books is sitting right there!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 5:27 pm
Dea Mariella To the comment on Stephen King... has any of his novels been adapted to film well? No! His short stories make excellent movies, and T.V. series. Examples being: Storm of the Century, Rose Red, Secret Window.
However, his novels into movies? Terrible. Take The Shining for example. My absolute favorite Stephen King book, aside from IT. It is one of the creepiest books I have ever read... as in, I was curled up in a ball, scared shitless, while reading. (Notice that I continued reading...) But the movie? Retarded. That's all I'm going to say on that.
Pet Cemetery... same thing. IT, same thing. In Kujo, in going from book to movie, instead of the dog being like "oh look it's the boy... I love the boy... but... must... bite..." to just a rabid dog running around. In Carrie, they don't get into what makes the book so good... the fact that it isn't a story. It's comprised of a lot of "interviews" and "articles" from after-the-fact.
(*le sigh)
That'll be all... I'll stop ranting.
Dea-chan It and The Shining were catastrophes as movies. I suffer from clorophobia but It couldn't possibly bother a person that isn't afraid of clowns. I have to skip the ending when I watch it because that horrible spider-thing is just awful. The Shining is quite possibly the scariest book I've ever read, and that movie was bad too. I think with modern movie advancements they could be improved, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:06 pm
Still, The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption were both amazing films.
As to Crichton... he holds no position as a writer of any caliber in my eyes. Especially after I read State of Fear (which was a while ago...). Pretty much, somewhere in the middle of the book some random professor or whatever tells the main character everything he needs to know, and then he disappears and is never seen again. What the hell is that, Michael?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:01 am
Once again, the Harry Potter topic will arise. The books were good; I still don't know that I liked the last one though. The most accurate movies would have to be the first and second. I was mortified. I saw it with my dad and he said it was good but he ahd no idea what was going on. He just liked the big Death Eater fight. I saw an ad and this horribly inaccurate movie is getting four stars and "Best Movie of the Summer"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:53 pm
Anyone else furious that in the Harry Potter movie, Fred and George didn't create a swamp, but a bunch of fireworks instead? It was totally lame! I can set off fireworks and I don't have magic!
I'm also a big one for being upset when the movie and the book aren't the same but I have to admit that I liked the way the movie The Count of Monte Cristo was done. The ending was totally different from the book but it made a good movie anyhow... I think that's the only movie that I've ever liked that was done off of a book though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
