There have been two adaptations of Animal Farm, one animated, one animatronic. And both felt compelled to fuck around with the story to make it more uplifting.
Damnit, the brilliance of the opriginal story was that it was dark and miserable and horrific. That’s what living under communism does to people… er, animals!
The Invisible Man (1933)
This was nothing like the book. I had seen the movie many times before I read the book and was astounded how much better the book was.
For those who haven’t read the book, I’ll put a spoiler box here:
*** The movie never mentions the fact that Jack Griffin (the title character) was an albino. This made Jack Griffin think that he was well on his way to invisibility to begin with.
*** The movie blames Griffin’s insanity on the fact that one of the ingredients he used was monocaine. (fictitious - and not mentioned in the book) Griffin was totally insane anyway. Example - when he became invisible, he waited for his inquisitive landlord (& family) to sneak into into his apartmnet, locked them in and then set the house on fire. - NOT a nice guy.
*** The movie left out all of the scientific details - optics, refraction indices, etc.
My advice - read the book.
Responding to a point I don’t think is a spoiler…
Here’s a point where movie writers just can’t win. If they leave in the scientific details, it’s technobabble, and people complain (see Star Trek). If they leave it out, then they’re not being cerebral enough, or faithful to the book, and people complain.
This is the version of The Little Princess that I have. It’s not that bad and is very true to the book (no Boer War!)
I’ve read the whole Anne of Green Gables series several tmes over, and while I like the first movie, I’ve got issues with its sequel. I like books 2, 3, 4 just fine on their own, thankyouverymuch. The sequel isn’t bad, so much as just wrong.
I’m.a.dork
Let’s put a period at the end of that frist sentence and spell “tmes”, “times”, shall we?
What really threw me off reading the book for the first time (after seeing the movie) is that McMurphy is described as a beefy, red-haired Irish man. Totally opposite from what Nicholson looks like.
Dracula by Bram Stoker is a book where most the movies can’t get the plot to match the original material. Sure, the results may be somewhat entertaining (I didn’t mind the Bela Lugosi version), but it’s kind of disapointing to see it so different. Coppola’s 1992 version got the closest, but he had to throw in where Dracula is some romantic anti-hero, when in the book he’s pure evil.
Oops, let me restate: Coppola’s 1992 version got close (it wasn’t the closest; I believe a BBC version was closer)…
Forgive me. 
Clan of the Cave Bear was the very first book that popped into my head when I saw this thread title. I don’t think I would have read Jean Auel’s books if I’d seen the movie first.
Well, there’s Simon Birch, which was based on John Irving’s A Prayer For Owen Meany but took enough liberties that Irving wouldn’t let them use the title.
It seems that everyone who has not read the book loves this movie, while everyone who has read the book hates the movie.
amarinth, The Wizard of Oz is a great example of a movie that ruined the book. The movie made many changes, few if any of them (IMHO) for the better (like the stupid “it was all a dream” ending).
Which one of the two versions did you see? I’ve seen the 1970s cartoon animation but not the new one and I’ve wondered if it was an improvement.
Books whose movie adaptations I particularly disliked included CIDER HOUSE RULES (which condensed the plot from two generations to two years) and THE FIRM (which cut the fantastic and thrilling escape odyssey from the book).
I refuse to watch the movie. As readers of this board may recall, this is one of my all time favorite books. There’s just no way to make it into a movie and do it justice.
That aside, Memoirs of An Invisible Man sucked as a movie (especially the “happy” ending) but the book was not too bad.
MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL. Eastwood flat out trashed the book; what’s with all the Lady Chablis screentime? The book wasn’t a whodunnit (there was never a question of whether Jim Williams was the killer, the question was ‘exactly what happened?’) or a trial novel, plus the trial(s) were completely different in book and movie.
I’m surprised I’m the first here to mention the most recent example, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which made hash out of my favorite graphic novel of recent years.
Congo.
Way up toward the top of this thread a certain poster called
" Jjinn
Banned "
said that LOTR had a worthless linear plot. Now I can accept someone not liking my favorite book. I really don’t care. But why exactly are linear plots worthless???
I’ve read Clan of the Cave Bear, and I don’t see how a movie could ruin that book.
My nomination is “Bicentennial Man”.
ehhhhhhmmmm maybe I am a spoilsport BUT I don’t go to adaptations for:
1 No movies is as good or as sexy as the movie in my head.
2 Adaptations Always SUCK.
3 If I wanted to enjoy the series I’d read the book again.
I saw “Queen of the Damned” hated it… reread all the books had an enjoyable experience after all.
So Anniee, maybe you should just stop setting yourself up for disappointment.
Wolf_meister, I am assuming thats the H.G. Wells book? I havent read it but it sounds like his style.
Oh, that one was good. As good as “Clan of the Cave Bears.” Comedian Paula Poundstone, about Darryl Hannah, said “I know she’s pretty, but do they have to put her in a movie? Can’t they just put her picture in a corner of the screen? She just doesn’t have that talking and walking thing down!”
If you’ve read Midnight, it doesn’t have any real plot, per se. It’s an episodic snapshot of different characters in the city of Savannah, and how their lives intersect and cross. I recall the “Card Club” scene as an amazing example of the social structure of the area. It would’ve been impossible to portray on-screen and be interesting.
Here’s an obscure one: “Stones for Ibarra,” a fiction National Book Award for Harriett Doerr, that does the same thing for Mexico. The book is beautifully, sparingly written, with an economy of prose that outlines the complicated lives of the villagers and how the newcomers from America react. ** Ruined.**
A friend of mine I invited to watch with me first got bored, then hostile, then took lines out of the show and made fun of them. Poor Glenn Close!
Here’s a different choice: “Fountainhead.” I love Ayn Rand, Patricia Neal, and Gary Cooper, and the casting would seem to have been ideal; more so because Neal and Cooper became lovers during filming. The heavy-handed imagery! Neal twists in lust while in her daydream, construction worker Cooper drills into rock. Gawwwd!
Everyone in the theater laughed so hard one person fell off the seat.
Worst adaptation ever, hands down — Breakfast at Tiffany’s.
I would love to see notes from the script meeting.
“There wasa guy and a girl in the book. Let’s have them fall in love. Nevermind the guy is pretty obviously gay in the book. And nevermind having the girl stay at end changes the whole meaning. I smell box-office gold.”
I would have to say hands down the worst movie adaptation of a book is Hannibal . When the credits started rolling, you would not have believed the profanities (physucal and verbal) I threw at that screen. Never have I been so angry at a film.
The book (IF YOU’RE INTO THAT KIND OF THING) was an incredibly beautiful end to the Hannibal trilogy. I could not think of a more perfect ending. But the movie…that *$!#@& movie completely changed the ending, the entire POINT of the whole story! Not only that, but left out vital character backrounds, switched the order of the story around. Basically, just completely bastardized what Harris created to make a more watered down, mass friendly, piece of garbage that leaves room for a sequel, which thankfully they didn’t make.
I’m not even a huge fan of the Harris novels. I enjoyed them immensely and repected his masterful story craftsmanship. And it’s because of that I am appaled at what those producers did to his vision, his creation. It sickens me.