# Worst butchery in turning book into movie? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 2, 2001, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413 "2001-12-02T03:32:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Kaitlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kaitlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaitlyn)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2001, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/61 "2001-12-03T23:35:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mojo \* > Agreed. “Where the Heart is” sucked hard for reasons that had nothing to do with changing the number “5” to “7”. > \*\* You’re only saying that because you’re not in touch with your feminine side. Among chick-flick devotees, this is one of the better recent entries (although “Return to Me” is the champ.) ---
**Author:** ![NetLord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NetLord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NetLord)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2001, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/62 "2001-12-03T23:44:25Z")
**Man in the Iron Mask**. Now countless kids will think Louis XIV was d’Artagnan’s illegitimate kid. Not to mention that m-lle La Valier [sp?] happily slept with the abovementioned Louis for some 11 more years. ---
**Author:** ![spiceprincess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@spiceprincess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spiceprincess)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2001, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/63 "2001-12-04T03:29:11Z")
let me add one more Flowers in the Attic by VC Andrews ugh! there are major elements of the book missing and the end is different. someone is killed that actually goes on to live in the next book! ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2001, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/64 "2001-12-04T04:44:26Z")
I do think that movies and books haveto be judged seperatly, and the fact that a movie is different than a book in some way is really not a valid critisism. However, sometimes you ahve a movie that takes all that is bad in a book and leaves out all that is good–I’m talking about those examples where depth and meaning are replaced by triteness and quickie-mass appeal (Hollywood’s habit of forcing happy endings comes to mind).And I do think there is a point where the movie is so divorced from the book, it is more honest to say “Inspired by”–not that there is anything wrong with one work of art inspiring another. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2001, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/65 "2001-12-04T17:15:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Number Six \* > \*\*Let’s take an example. Movie producer options a good book about a group of British POW’s in a forced labor camp and their resistance against a viscious camp commander. The entire book deals with the battle of wills, has virtually no action, and the work being done by the prisoners completely “off-screen”. > > The director and producers decide there isn’t enough action, so write in a daring prison escape by a cynical malcontent, hire a big-name American actor to appeal to American audiences, and make the off-screen forced labor the focus of the main body of the movie, reducing the content of the novel to an introduction for the added material. Finally, they add in a big action sequence to end the movie with a bang. > > Sound like a formula for disaster? This is the process that produced “The Bridge on the River Kwai”. A filmed version of the book would have been interesting, but it’s unlikely it would have been the masterpiece “Kwai” is. \*\* [/QUOTE] Number Six, I don’t disagree with you that excellent movies have resulted even when the original premise of the book has been radically altered. My point is that the result is NOT “Book Title - The Movie” “Bridge on the River Kwai” would have been equally excellent had it been titled “Escape from Japanese Prison Camp” or “Britsh POW Goes Obsessive” And while we can argue how far one can stretch the original premise before it breaks, I’d still argue that butchering the script by letting Romeo and Juliet live or by having the villain be brought to justice instead of escaping pretty much qualifies the movie for a different title. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2001, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/66 "2001-12-04T17:34:38Z")
Another vote for The Shining. I stayed up all night, with the lights on, reading the book. The movie was such a disappointment - particularly Shelly Duval. Her…monotone…and…wooden…delivery…of…every…piece…of…dialogue…was…so…annoying. Nicholson did a good job (I particularly liked the scenes with Lloyd the Bartender), but that was about it. Another big screwup, IMHO, was changing the roque mallet inton an axe. An axe is so passe’ - getting bludgeoned to death with a glorified croquet mallet, now that’s a great visual. ---
**Author:** ![Catamount](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/catamount/32/2840_2.png) [@Catamount](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Catamount)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2001, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/67 "2001-12-04T17:39:20Z")
If by “book” you mean “story”, then **The Little Mermaid**. Keeping with their long tradition of butchering classic fairy tales, Disney actually had the mermaid and her sisters _live?_ That’s bugged me ever since I saw the movie as a nine-year-old. When I heard Disney had made **Hercules** , I refused to see it. I knew from the start that all the good parts would be cut out. I wasn’t quite prepared for the complete changing-of-characters that went on, though. Note to Disney: stop it. Now. ---
**Author:** ![NetLord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NetLord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NetLord)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2001, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/68 "2001-12-04T18:51:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SpazCat \* > \*\*If by “book” you mean “story”, then **The Little Mermaid**. Keeping with their long tradition of butchering classic fairy tales, Disney actually had the mermaid and her sisters _live?_ That’s bugged me ever since I saw the movie as a nine-year-old. > > When I heard Disney had made **Hercules** , I refused to see it. I knew from the start that all the good parts would be cut out. I wasn’t quite prepared for the complete changing-of-characters that went on, though.\*\* Hey, is there a single classic fairy tale Disney did **not** butcher? Well, maybe the biblical ones went relatively intact… ---
**Author:** ![dragongirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b38774/32.png) [@dragongirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dragongirl)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2001, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/69 "2001-12-04T19:30:16Z")
Raise the Titanic. Great book. Horrible movie. ---
**Author:** ![DavisMcDavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dfb087/32.png) [@DavisMcDavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavisMcDavis)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2001, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/70 "2001-12-04T20:25:09Z")
_The Life & Loves of a She-Devil_ by Fay Weldon, transformed into the Roseanne Barr vehicle _e-Devil_ The ending in the book (SPOILER ALERT) had the lead woman undergoing total body plastic surgery and turning herself into the spitting image of the woman her husband had an affair with. She also touched on the “Disney-fication” of the original “The Little Mermaid” story, saying that the little mermaid didn’t necessarily want legs, but “the part where they joined together on the top” and that after getting leg, “every step was as if she trod on nails” which is what happens to the protagonist. (/SPOILER ALERT/) The ending in the movie removes all the original ending and just has Rosanne Barr gaining self-esteem. SNOOZE. The movie _Return To Oz_ kinda butchered the book(s) - it was a mushing together of the second book in the series, _The Marvelous Land of Oz_ together with _Ozma of Oz_ mainly because Dorothy wasn’t in the second one and doesn’t reappear until the third book, so they re-wrote the whole story to mush it all together, as well as leave out the sex-change operation in the second novel. Okay, it’s a spell, not an operation, but the whole part where Ozma is a boy who learns he’s really a princess was removed from the movie. Which kinda sucks, because the average boy watching that movie probably wished he could grow up into a beautiful princess \\ ---
**Author:** ![DavisMcDavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dfb087/32.png) [@DavisMcDavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavisMcDavis)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2001, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/71 "2001-12-04T20:44:27Z")
…that should be “the Roseanne Barr vehicle _She-Devil_,” not _e-Devil_. Oopsie. ---
**Author:** ![Phelan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a183cd/32.png) [@Phelan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phelan)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2001, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/72 "2001-12-04T21:20:57Z")
A great book called War Of The Rats which was made into a horrible movie Enemy At The Gates, is my choice for a book that was butchered by the movie. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/73 "2001-12-05T00:12:08Z")
Two things: First War of the rats was not the book that was made into enemy at the gates. Enemy at the gates was the book that was turned into the movie. War of the Rats was incredibly good though. I was sad to find out later that the never found each other. ANYWAYZ MY VOTE FOR WORST BUTCHERY IN TURNING A BOOK INTO A MOVIE IS… Watchers all four of them. Granted Dean R. Koontz isn’t the best author alive, but can SOME one please explain to me why for godsake COREY HAIM was cast as Travis Cornell??? ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/74 "2001-12-05T00:58:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Number Six \* > \*\* > > I understand that among people who aren’t Stephen King fans, the Stanley Kubrick version of _The Shining_ is generally thought of as a good horror movie, but I can’t see it. I liked the miniseries (where’s the damn DVD already) with Stephen Weber was much better. But I recognize that I cannot see it just as a movie. > > \*\* Oh, but it is on DVD…in the UK. A truely grrr-worthy marketing flaw there. However, I’ve seen it on Ebay on VCD, which is supposed to work in a lot of DVD players (including mine) but I haven’t picked it up yet. I would really like to see this be marketed in the US on DVD because it is one of my favorite mini-series ever(even if Danny is 7 instead of 5 and still not in school) and much better than the orginal “adaptation.” **Bless the Child** is the worst adaptation by far that I’ve ever seen. I’m convinced that the screenplay writers decided to just thumb through the book before writing the script. ---
**Author:** ![Kat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b19c9b/32.png) [@Kat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kat)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/75 "2001-12-05T01:55:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by NetLord \* > Hey, is there a single classic fairy tale Disney did **not** butcher? Well, maybe the biblical ones went relatively intact… Nope. ---
**Author:** ![Kaitlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kaitlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaitlyn)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/76 "2001-12-05T03:38:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*\*Originally posted by kunilou \* > > Number Six, I don’t disagree with you that excellent movies have resulted even when the original premise of the book has been radically altered. My point is that the result is NOT “Book Title - The Movie” > > “Bridge on the River Kwai” would have been equally excellent had it been titled “Escape from Japanese Prison Camp” or “Britsh POW Goes Obsessive” \*\* Would either of those titles have been better than “The Bridge on the River Kwai”? The title, as is, is perfect for this movie. > [@](#): > > \*\*And while we can argue how far one can stretch the original premise before it breaks, I’d still argue that butchering the script by letting Romeo and Juliet live or by having the villain be brought to justice instead of escaping pretty much qualifies the movie for a different title. \*\* Certainly it qualifies for a different title, as does an entirely faithful adaptation. But, IMO, it doesn’t _require_ a different title. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/77 "2001-12-05T05:15:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Hey, is there a single classic fairy tale Disney did not butcher? Why limit it to fairy tales? _Pocahantas_ showed Disney is capable of butchering history just as readily. ---
**Author:** ![DavisMcDavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dfb087/32.png) [@DavisMcDavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavisMcDavis)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/78 "2001-12-05T15:20:05Z")
I have to admit I’ve not seen either, but I understand that the movie “Up Close And Personal” which was originally supposed to be about Jessica Savitch and was based on the book “Golden Girl” is quite unlike anything that ever happened in Jessica Savitch’s life. I have personally only read the book by one of the authors of the screenplay (\*Monster; Living Off the Big Screen \* by John Gregory Dunne) It’s really an interesting book telling how the oringal story of a coke-addicted news anchorwoman was turned (with Disney’s help, of course) into a semi-happy romance where she no longer dies, even though the actual woman was dead. It’s like if you did “the James Dean Story” but he survives the car wreck. Why not? It’s happier that way! ---
**Author:** ![TelcontarStorm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3ab097/32.png) [@TelcontarStorm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TelcontarStorm)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/79 "2001-12-05T19:02:00Z")
What Astro said.Where the hell did that weapon come from? A Gift for the Boys, but you really have to be an Art Buckwald fan to appriate it. 😉 . My nod goes to Clear and Present Danger. A Tom Clancy adaptation.I believe the production metting went something as follows… " The first 150 pages are just back story.Out " " Jack has to go to South America. In" “Hey! don’t you think it would be cool to have Jack leave his card at the dope dealers front door? In” “Isn’t it about time that Jack and Clark did lunch? In” “MY GOD! We have to kill someone! Let’s leave one behind.In” Just how much abuse can one book take? This should have said,Inspired by a book by Tom Clancy NOT Based on a book by Tom Clancy. (How much money does Jack have in his checking account anyhow?)Clancy’s Hunt for Red October came over quite well though. Now, with Sum of All Fears soon coming out I’m afraid of the butchering it might take. Anything, and I do mean anything, that modivates someone to read the originals is OK by me.Noone can reasonably expect a movie based on a book to not be changed for the time constraints of the screen.If a movie does not live up to your expectations, remember you can always haughtly respond,“The book was better” and generaly be right! Let’s all say it together now…“THE BOOK WAS BETTER!” Now do you feel better? . In anticiaption of future posts on the subject, there will be NO Complaining about Bakshi’s LotR! ---
**Author:** ![Zanshin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e274bd/32.png) [@Zanshin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zanshin)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413/80 "2001-12-05T19:08:36Z")
For me, it’s gotta be ‘Clear and Present Danger’ by Tom Clancy. Now I realize you can’t take a 900-page book and turn it into a 2 1/2-hour movie without losing something in the translation, but for chrissakes, they completely mutilated the story in order to fit it into the movie! It looked like someone took the book, threw it into a Mixmaster, set it to ‘frappe’, took the resulting pieces of paper and glued them together randomly to create the script. John Clark (my favorite character in any Clancy novel) went from a competent CIA agent to a burned-out drifter. Ding Chavez became a cipher; no dialogue, no personality. Ryan was never down in Bogota during an RPG attack, fer cryin’ out loud! I was completely pissed off when I saw the movie. Other Clancy adaptations were atually pretty good (I liked the ‘Hunt for Red October’ and ‘Patriot Games’ movies) but CaPD was just a steaming hunk of horse poop. I wonder, however, what I would have thought of the movie if I hadn’t read the book first, whether I would have liked it or not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-butchery-in-turning-book-into-movie/96413.md?page=5)