I will grant that some very good movies have been made out of bad books, but in this case, as Cat Fight pointed out, they barely need to adapt the book to get a screenplay, so any hope of greatness is gone. I may be a decent movie, in that it is fast paced (less that 24 hours in all, I think), has a couple of location chages, and several twists and turns (which as readers we all figured out, but in a movie may still be effective). It would need excellent dialogue and some good casting to rise above the storyline, and I have no faith in Hollywood’s current ability to write good dialogue or to cast with an eye towards character development rather than box office appeal.
Horrible book: Dreamcatcher
Horrible movie: Dreamcatcher
And I’m a SK fan.
They’re accusing him of plagerising from a work of non-fiction? How can one plagerise facts or academic theories? If I write a work of historical fiction based on a biography of, say, George Washington, have I plagerised that biography. Be nice to cite the person as a source, but still, if I don’t say that the theories are my own, it doesn’t seem like I’ve done anything illegal.
Bad books = anything by Tom Clancy (not the plot just the writing style), however, they usually turn into fairly good films.
I have a total hijack spoiler question for Kallessa
[SPOILER] If men can only experience God by having sex (with women, not other men) and all the Grand Masters took part in those orgy ceremonies, how can Leonardo be a Grand Master, since he was gay?
And if Jesus wasn’t divine, how did Mary Magdalene become the Holy Grail by having his kids? And why do we care?[/SPOILER]
The book inspired me to collar random people on the street and shout, “Have you read The Da Vinci Code? Don’t read The Da Vinci Code!” Terrible writing, enormous plot holes, and bad research. Marvelous combination. And, as someone here pointed out, Sophie has ‘A haunting, mysterious gait’. I think that means she scuttles sideways and hides behind parked cars.
Anyway, sorry for the hijack. It’s just that mentioning that book makes me froth at the mouth. I’ll get better eventually.
No one has mentioned Skipping Christmas by John Grisham(sp?) that is now, I think, Christmas With The Kranks?
The book was mediocre at best, and I only finished it because it was so short and I kept hoping there would be a payoff at the end that would make it worthwhile to read. There was no payoff and it wasn’t worth reading.
I have not seen the film, but the previews alone lead me to suspect they have taken the worst elements of the book and run with it.
I hate the book as much as you, too. And what saddened me the most is that the people around me, people who are normally very intelligent, raved on and on about what “genius” this book was. I think they were replaced by Pod people. I must not sleep or they’ll get me too. 
Another thing that irritated me was how Sophie was supposed to be this genius with codes and such, studying hard since she was a young girl. Yet at the onset of the easiest clues she’s stumped. Her grandfather made those clues thinking she’d figure them out. Obviously he was wrong and she needed a man’s help.
That’s the book/movie I thought of when I read the title of the thread. When I read the book, which was God-awful, all I could think of was that it was like reading a Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay screenplay. The only good thing about reading it was that it gave me foreknowledge to stay the hell away from the movie when it came out.
Bad book: The Horse Whisperer. As a movie, it was absolutely unwatchable. I broke my own cardinal rule; I threw away a book. I refused to give it away to anyone. They might read it. :eek:
“Is it Hebrew? Or some ALIEN CODE WE DON’T KNOW?”
[frantic yelling at the book]
“No, you stupid wouldn’t-know-her-head-from-her-ass-cow, it’s English written backwards!!! English!!! Backwards!!!”
[/fyatb] *pantpant
I did keep yelling at the book the whole time and even threatened to throw it out the window at one point. Frothing at the mouth doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Concerning the OP, I’ll second, third etc. Timeline. Awful book, the less said about the movie the better. Another example is The 13th Warrior which wasn’t that interesting to begin with and wasn’t much improved by Antonio Banderas.
An old professor of mine had some fairly pointed remarks on Language Log about Mr. Brown and his writing…
Dan Brown Still Moving Very Briskly About
Renowned Author Dan Brown Staggered Through His Formulaic Opening Sentence
Bad book: Bridges of Madison County
Bad movie: Bridges of Madison County
Now, I know many praised Clint Eastwood for rising above the material and producing something with more subtlety and wit, but still, would you watch it again?
AFAIK, Du Maurier was a very successful author, and Rebecca was a best-seller (it had already been made into a radio play by Orson Welles). In that case, Selznick bought the book and hired Hitchcock to direct, so it was not as personal a project as most of Hitchcock’s works.
Hitchcock also did not care for Jamaica Inn – he had problems with the plot – but he had been hired by Charles Laughton. Laughton was the producer and star, so you had the same situation as with Battlefield Earth – the actor called the shots, since he hired the director. Hitchcock had already been hired by Selznick at the time, so he held his nose and did a perfunctory job. It’s usually considered his worst film.
As for an addition to the list:
Memoirs of an Invisible Man – I tossed the book across the room, since its hero was such a dolt. And when the movie came out, it starred Chevy Chase. :rolleyes:
The Hunger is one of my favorite two-star movies. I watched it many times in my student days, fascinated by how so much work from so many talented people failed to produce a movie that was actually good. It’s not truly bad, just relentlessly mediocre.
I figured the novel must be better, so I ordered it through the library. It turned out to be one of the worst books I have ever read. I don’t know how it compares to other bestselling horror fiction of the 1980s, but it sucked harder than its vampiric protagonist.
The screenwriters somehow managed to write a script that remained faithful to the source material while at the same time correcting many of its major flaws – most notably the ridiculously stupid behavior of characters described as being intelligent. And the story flaws that did exist in the script (such as a subplot that is given great significance early on, then suddenly abandoned and never mentioned again) came directly from the novel.
Perhaps, but it made for one of the most amusing titles I’ve ever seen in French:
L’Homme qui murmurait à l’oreille des chevaux
Or The Man Who Murmurs into the Ears of Horses. Just brilliant.
But not a great book. The Name of the Rose is a far more satisfying read.
Can’t agree with you on thsi one, Mo. The book (which strangely enough was passed to me by someone who I met on holiday) was garbage. I summarised it as “Jesus lives in Montana and commits adultery”. The film, though, was much better altogether, helped to a large extent by the scenery, and also by replacing the crucifixion scene at the end.
That’s what I thought. I mean, even Jesus ate with sinners of the worst sort, iirc. (1) Even if my grandfather had murdered someone, after thirty years I’d be really tempted to find out what happened – people have been unjustly accused before, and if I loved him that much I’d listen a bit. Everyone deserves someone to trust them. (2) So, my grandfather had sex. I admit, I really, really don’t want to see that. But I sort of guessed that he had. It seems… implausible that he wouldn’t have had, somehow 
(3) And if I WAS so convinced of his evility, why would knowing that that WAS part of some cult AFTER ALL, make it BETTER?