Jurassic Park wasn’t the greatest novel ever, but it was fairly interesting from a science fiction point of view. The most interesting part of the book was how they created the dinosaurs, and it was pretty much glossed over in the movie in favor of really crappy acting, inane dialogue, and gratuitous special effects.
And when I saw Sphere, it made me wonder if they even read the book.
NO! The Shirley Temple version was terrible as compared to the book! It might have been a cute enough movie just on its own, but it wasn’t the Burnett story at. all.
Another thing that really sucks is when the adaptation purposely adds in some OBNOXIOUS political spin that makes me hate the people who made the movie with all my heart. IOW they aren’t putting something creative of themselves into it but rather changing the very core of the meaning of the book to reflect their own warped political agendas.
The most egregious and well-known example of THIS was “Little Women” with Sarandon, Ryder and Dunst. (90s) YUCK YUCK and YUCK. They went 180 DEGREES against some of the messages of the book and I was royally pissed off, esp because much of the book already had its own liberal political overtones that should have served nicely to satisfy the leftists in Hollywood. But of course it wasn’t good enough; they had to make it feminist and make the girls into leftist crusaders. PTOOOEY!
Sampiro - I have seen both adaptations of Watership Down; the animated one did at least get some of the feel of it; I shouldn’t fault it really. However, if anyone thinks that IS Watership Down they’ve missed a basketful of treasures - there’s just so much more.
Kobaltblu - I know what you mean; and you’re right - except for the fact that a few times it’s been a very rewarding experience and there was a period where they were trying to do better; so I thought that perhaps things were changing. Obviously not. I hear you on the Vampire chronicles and in fact am myself reading them over again. See what I haven’t said is that I DO read most of the books I am talking about several times; when I love a book, once is never enough. So after you’ve read something 3 or 4 times you’re kind of ready for a good adaptation of it, for a somewhat new experience of it. But you’re right, it probably will never match the movie in our heads. I did make a good call on The Green Mile - as I was reading it I said “If they ever make a movie of this, the only man who could play John Coffey is Michael Clark Duncan, that guy from Armageddon.” (He wasn’t a huge star at the time.) When I saw the ads I laughed my ass off because I think he might have written the part with Duncan in mind!
For the rest - thanks! I’ve been nodding my head and saying “Yep” along with almost all of you hehe. DRACULA in particular - I’ve always loved vampires, but you’ve never known Dracula until you’ve read the book. Well, that and Salem’s Lot (which was the same vampire.) 
Thanks for all the interesting contributions!
Always? Most of the time, yes, but not always. A good example of an excellent adaptation is The Godfather. Hell, some people think it’s better than the book itself (I tend to agree).
For you adaptation lovers, they’re making a TV mini-series (or perhaps just a TV movie) of A Wrinkle in Time, with the little kid from The Ring playing Charles Wallace Murphy. I know they won’t be able to match what I’ve been imagining.
The first movie I was disapointed in was Cujo I read the book when I was 11 and it scared the crap out of me. I didn’t understand all of it (sexual situations, etc.) but I understood the other parts. Then I saw the movie and was like - WTF!? Really, it’s not too bad of an adaptation. I just remember it being my first disapointment.
Since then, I have been of the mind that a book is a book and a movie about a book is just another movie that happens to be about the same thing as a book I might have read. I separate the movie from the book as being two different forms of media. They ellicit different sets of responses, emotions, etc., and you will never get the feel of a book by watching the movie.
With that being said, I would have to say that Fellowship of the Rings. Has come the closest to a “book feeling” movie that I have seen. I have been reading the trilogy (plus the Hobbit) for about 15 years now and it came very close to what I had in my little ol’ pea brain.
Didn’t like Two Towers as far as the adaptation went. It was less “book-ish” and more movie-ish than the first one. Like blowero said, it made me wonder if I had read the book. Still wasn’t too bad of a movie, though. The CGI on Gollum more made up for some of the artistic license they used in the rest of the movie.
The worst adaptation I’ve ever had the displeasure of watching was Congo. Bad, bad movie.
Fans of the “chick detective” genre of fiction have had a number of disappointments over the years (mainly in the form of promised adaptations that never come to fruition) but none so great as the disgusting pile of dreck which was sent to the public with the title V.I. Warshawski, ostensibly based upon one of Sara Paretsky’s novels featuring a detective by that name.
It’s hard to say that the movie was an adaptation that ruined a book, though, because the plot was this ridiculous, convoluted mishmash that took points from two different V.I. novels, made up some other stuff out of thin air and wound it all down to an ending that rivals The Firm for its brutal contrivance.
The saddest part of it is that the later books in the Warshawski series were much better written than the two which were carved and stitched together for the movie, and would’ve made great movies on their own without all the Hollywood fiddling. Unfortunately, the franchise is considered box office poison now. Sara Paretsky is also understandably chilled to the idea of further adaptations. It’s a loss to all of the fans of the series, but also the genre at large, because the V.I. idiocy has been a factor in the lack of film adaptations of the Sue Grafton’s alphabet series, Janet Evanovich’s “Stephanie Plum” novels and to a certain extent, Patricia Cornwell’s “Kay Scarpetta” series as well.
The Haunting just needs to be taken out back and shot. The Haunting of Hill House is one of my favorite books, a creepy ghost story in which you’re never quite sure if the house is haunted or if all the scariness is the product of the twisted psyche of one or more of the characters. Its mystery and ambiguity are what make it so effective.
The moviemakers apparently decided that nobody likes all that pesky ambiguity and made it into a special-effects extravaganza of a horror movie, with all the ghosts clearly and ridiculously explained. Although I have to admit that I did like what they did with the design of the house.
It’s all the more frustrating because there’s a very good old black-and-white adaptation of the book that they apparently didn’t want to take any inspiration from.
Well, I don’t like ambiguity either . . . or do I??
Just don’t see the film adaptations.
Until it was mentioned here, I didn’t know that there was a film version of Watership Down, and now I weep that some may judge the book based on the movie, no matter how good it is.
I’ve also decided not to see any of the Harry Potter movies, because no matter how good they are, I don’t think they could compare to how I imagine the settings and characters having read the books.
I’m a big fan of most of the Crichton books, but after having been burned time after time after time on the films, I’m not going back.
Besides, books give you what movies either cannot, or choose not to give you: the characters thoughts.
Technobabble (As Seen On Star Trek[sup]TM[/sup]) is just that–babble. It’s not scientifically accurate–and even worse, often the whole plot will hang on “reversing the polarity of the neutrino flux” or some other empty twaddle that makes no sense if you know anything at all about physics. Weak.
There are some movies (movies based on books, even) that manage to incorporate some good science into the plot. 2001 and 2010, for example.
But, then, I guess if you don’t know much about physics (i.e. you’re 90% of the film-going public), then it all sounds like technobabble, whether it’s right or not, so most filmmakers decide to either leave it out or fake it. It’s not worth the effort to get it right so that three geeks in the audience will say, “Oh my god, that’s actually correct!”
rjung, I was very ambivalent about Contact the movie. I was especially disappointed by the lame jabs it took at atheism. When I later read the novel, I was relieved to find that it is much more thoughtful and philosophical on the subject–and about everything else for that matter. If you have a chance sometime, though, watch the first few minutes of the film for the cosmic pull-back.
I only saw the movie, and I still need to read the book. For the most part, it seemed like the movie presented arguments for both sides, except:
Near the end of the movie, there is a strong implication that, since she can’t prove it happened, her experience is similar to those who experience religion, so I’m guessing that’s what you’re talking about.
So I take it the book doesn’t do that? It would seem out of character for Sagan.
In fact, Irving wouldn’t even take a “based on a novel by John Irving” credit. The film was “inspired by” his book. He still got the same money, I’m sure, but didn’t want to be blamed for this crime against cinema. It’s also worth noting that the movie is based on, or whatevered on, the first third or so of the book. There’s an awful lot of other stuff, mostly about Vietnam, that didn’t appear in the movie. I saw the movie before I read the book and I REALLY HATED IT. I’m not a huge fan of the book, but it was more interesting, at least.
I wasn’t nuts about the book’s ending- in fact I kept re-reading it to make sure I hadn’t misread it, but it grew on me. The things I couldn’t believe they left out of the movie, though, were
Hannibal’s memory palace- would have been a fantastic challenge that could have won an Oscar for cgi animaters
Hannibal’s flashbacks to WW2 Lithuania- that’s WHY he’s Hannibal
Mason Verger’s sister (at one point the producers were actually negotiating with a WWF wrestler to play the part- not being a wrestling fan, i forget which one)
The bones of Clarice’s father
The cameo by Senator Martin (filmed but not included on either the movie or the DVD)
The old gypsy woman looking into Hannibal’s eyes and then bathing the baby she was holding in holy water.
The funniest scene in the book with the little boy and his mother who pester Hannibal on the plane.
“Give me a bite Mr.!”
“I’d love to…”
Part of the reason may have been that SILENCE OF THE LAMBS was sufficiently different in some aspects that you had to choose whether you’re following the book or the movie. On the RED DRAGON DVD, the timeline given for Lecter in the extras, I was surprised to see, is lifted 100% from the books, even when it contradicts the movies.
In interest of fairness, I thought I’d mention two authors whose books benefitted from screen adaptations: One odd case, for me anyway, in which the movies were always better than the books are the adaptations of James Michener novels. The very long miniseries CENTENNIAL developed the characters far more than Michener’s “Old Testament meets property abstract” style of writing and actually made them people you care about instead of loosely collected names in a fictional genealogy. HAWAII, which only took about three chapters out of a 9 million page book, did the same thing, and other than that it’s hard to believe Max von Sydow, Richard Harris or Julie Andrews as New Englanders, they realized their characters perfectly. SOUTH PACIFIC, even with the sometimes syrupy music, was better than the book and the miniseries SPACE was incomparably superior. Not to speak ill of the dead (especially one who gave so much money to educational charities and funded so many professorial chairs), but he really supplied only half the genetic code of a masterpiece- in an odd twist, Hollywood supplied the other half.
A miniseries that fits the series of books PERFECTLY is the Awakening Land Trilogy; the books were written by Conrad Richter and the miniseries starred Hal Holbrook and Elizabeth Montgomery (with William H. Macy and Jane Seymour, before they were famous, in supporting roles). I’ve never seen that type of faithfulness to source material (especially in dialect and set design), and when they strayed it was seamless. It also introduced a new generation of fans (including me) to the largely forgotten but very talented Mr. Richter.
Back to the OP- ACCIDENTAL TOURIST. I loved the book and the movie was perfectly cast, but if you hadn’t read the book it would have made absolutely no sense.
blowero, my major disappointment was that while both sides were gamely permitted to introduce arguments, Palmer Joss was given the last world. I’ll box it to be safe:
“Prove that you loved your daddy! Nyaahh!! Take that!” Any atheist as smart as Ellie is supposed to be should have been able to respond to that easily–except that you can’t actually make a movie that advocates atheism, no, so his flawed analogy leaves her flatfooted.
Also, as you suspect, the endings are quite different.
I’m always infuriated by the ending of the movie.
First off, because there is some proof supporting Ellie’s account. The 18 minutes of static on the tape demonstrates that in Ellie’s frame of reference, a significant amount of time passed.
Since they hid the evidence from her, though, Ellie had no proof and she has to have faith that her experience was genuine–although, really, if she has unshakeable faith in what occurred, then what’s happened is that a rational, scientific person has Gone Over to the Other Side. You can’t really tell whether this is the case from the film, IMHO. If she hasn’t lost it by the end of the film, she should feel distain for those those soppy people standing out on the stairs with their “We believe Ellie” signs. She admitted that she wouldn’t necessarily beleive her own story, if it hadn’t happened to her, so why should the blind, unreasoning faith of these people be a reassurance to her? Again, it’s not easy to tell what she really feels at this point in the film, though I have the sinking suspicion that the filmmakers meant it to be touching. I think that the mass audience is meant to come away with the notion that Ellie’s “arrogant” atheism has been conquered by her experience, and that annoys the hell out of me. Either Ann Druyan was asleep at the switch, or she made some big compromises, or she isn’t much of an atheist herself, but she failed to protect Sagan’s message, IMHO.
Anyway, in the book, the whole trip is quite different, and the book doesn’t end nearly so abruptly after Ellie’s journey. She does what a scientist should do–she continues to seek evidence. You’ll have to read the book to find out what she discovers, if anything. 
The book is overall more thoughtful and less sappy than the movie–it’s a thinking person’s novel, whereas . . . well, I’m not sure what the film is supposed to be. The book has no romatic relationship between Ellie and Joss, which was a relief, especially after the total lack of chemistry between Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey really sabotaged that part of the movie. And of course the astronomy/admnistration stuff about getting funding and instrument time, and the way that the telescopes were used, much of which was wrong in the movie, was done differently in the book. Sagan was, after all, a working astronomer. 
Whew–that was long. If anyone has a reply, maybe there should be a Contact thread?
Sampiro, I will contradict myself and say that the adaptation of The Awakening Land was superb. I would never have read the book if it hadn’t been for the movie. It is one of those things I find my mind drifting to at moments of mental inertia.
blowero, my major disappointment was that while both sides were gamely permitted to introduce arguments, Palmer Joss was given the last world. I’ll box it to be safe:
“Prove that you loved your daddy! Nyaahh!! Take that!” Any atheist as smart as Ellie is supposed to be should have been able to respond to that easily–except that you can’t actually make a movie that advocates atheism, no, so his flawed analogy leaves her flatfooted.
Also, as you suspect, the endings are quite different.
I’m always infuriated by the ending of the movie.
First off, because there is some proof supporting Ellie’s account. The 18 minutes of static on the tape demonstrates that in Ellie’s frame of reference, a significant amount of time passed.
Since they hid the evidence from her, though, Ellie had no proof and she has to have faith that her experience was genuine–although, really, if she has unshakeable faith in what occurred, then what’s happened is that a rational, scientific person has Gone Over to the Other Side. You can’t really tell whether this is the case from the film, IMHO. If she hasn’t lost it by the end of the film, she should feel distain for those those soppy people standing out on the stairs with their “We believe Ellie” signs. She admitted that she wouldn’t necessarily beleive her own story, if it hadn’t happened to her, so why should the blind, unreasoning faith of these people be a reassurance to her? Again, it’s not easy to tell what she really feels at this point in the film, though I have the sinking suspicion that the filmmakers meant it to be touching. I think that the mass audience is meant to come away with the notion that Ellie’s “arrogant” atheism has been conquered by her experience, and that annoys the hell out of me. Either Ann Druyan was asleep at the switch, or she made some big compromises, or she isn’t much of an atheist herself, but she failed to protect Sagan’s message, IMHO.
Anyway, in the book, the whole trip is quite different, and the book doesn’t end nearly so abruptly after Ellie’s journey. She does what a scientist should do–she continues to seek evidence. You’ll have to read the book to find out what she discovers, if anything.
The book is overall more thoughtful and less sappy than the movie–it’s a thinking person’s novel, whereas . . . well, I’m not sure what the film is supposed to be. The book has no romatic relationship between Ellie and Joss, which was a relief, especially after the total lack of chemistry between Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey really sabotaged that part of the movie. And of course the astronomy/admnistration stuff about getting funding and instrument time, and the way that the telescopes were used, much of which was wrong in the movie, was done differently in the book. Sagan was, after all, a working astronomer.
Whew–that was long. If anyone has a reply, maybe there should be a Contact thread?
The Shirley Temple version of “A Little Princess” is jaw-droppingly wrong in every single particular. I threw shoes at the screen.
I had to turn off “The Power of One” about 15 minutes into it. It was so bad I almost cried.
I know we always argue on this one, and I realize it’s a huge departure from the book, but I think it’s a perfectly defensible change based on the differences between the film and print mediums. Clancy’s novel was over 900 pages; he had plenty of time to delve into the intricacies of a three-part consipracy taking place on multiple continents. The filmmakers had but two hours in an image-dominated medium.
What critics of the switch from Middle Eastern to European terrorists never tell us is (i) how they could film Clancy’s story as written and still make the film both comprehensible and well-paced, or (ii) how, if they discarded European elements entirely in favor of solely using the Middle Eastern terrorists, they could plausibly plot the movie to lead up to a conflict with Russia at the end.
This is one of those cases where filming the book as written would result in a sluggish and confusing movie. Critics of the switch should really consider the feasibility of what they want included before they whine over changes to Clancy’s plot.
WHOAH! Now THAT could be interesting! See, see all you who have advised I not watch adaptations, what happens? I hear that a book I freaking LOVE is coming to film and I get goosebumps with all the possibilities; I HAVE to see them. I love Wrinkle in Time so much; how could I possibly not see something that has to do with it? Hmph.
That boy fits the image of Charles Wallace all right, but he’s much too old. HOWEVER, the character was completely unrealistic to begin with, so I don’t mind that. I mean come on…he was FOUR? (Reminds me of Dean Koontz’s child characters; someone who’s never had nor known a child and writes them like miniature prodigy adults.)
They could really explore the book’s themes politically couldn’t they? I mean the groupthink and such? Only thing is they’ll either mean eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil corporations or eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil conservatives and not what it should really be - communism/Stalinism. That’s one problem with Hollywood; they’re so leftist they can’t think straight.