That I understood but it doesn’t work in real life. In the book you can picture it one way and it was not as lame assed as hearing it come out of a real human being. When I think of someone who is mildly retarded I don’t ever picture hearing that imbecility. At least none of the people I have dealt with ever sounded that way.
Moonraker, though it’s a stretch to say the movie is based on the book, considering what a perversion it was.
Gotta be Jurassic Park. Took a really interesting sci-fi novel and turned it into a crappy, “Gee, look at all the boss dinosaurs”, vacuous piece of shit.
Honorable mention to Sphere. I found myself wondering if they actually even looked at the novel.
I’m going to go with ivylass… The TNT attempt at Mists of Avalon was an all-out rape of one of my favorite novels. Even the great casting choices of Julianna Margulies and Angelica Huston in the lead roles couldn’t save the script, which was most likely written on used cacktail napkins and mixed up in someone pocket at the laundromat, then dropped on the sidewalk and maybe spit on a few times before being picked up and made into a TV movie. Yuck.
[hijack]ivylass, if you haven’t read it already, Diana Paxson’s series “The Hallowed Isle” is every bit as good as Bradley’s Mists of Avalon, possibly better. It’s one of the rare Arthurian retellings that manages to change quite a bit of the “traditional” story, but still gets most of it right from a thematic standpoint. And Paxson’s grasp on the history is, if anything, better than Bradley’s was. The series is four books, but they’re all under 200 pages, so it’s a relatively easy read. Highly recommended.[/hijack]
The Stand was weird… it started out really strong, but gradually devolved into utter stupidity. The first installment was almost perfect (I loved the “Don’t Fear the Reaper” sequence at the beginning… pure King), but the fourth was horrible.
Hmm…I really enjoyed Monte Cristo the movie, though I’ve not read the book. Maybe it should be regarded as a separate work?
And I thought the movie Starship Troopers was deeply flawed, but nowhere near as bad as the novel, which is one of the two worst works of fiction I’ve ever read (Jesus Christ the Vampire being the other).
I’ll have to go with the horrifyingly stupid live-action version of The Little Prince as my personal anti-favorite.
Daniel
I’ll agree with Blowero that Jurassic Park was a bad movie of decently entertaining book. However, Jurassic Park II was a stupefying movie of an atrocious book, so that one wins out.
Brave New World
Apparently not. This is one of my favorite books. When I read that is was to be “adapted”, I had serious doubts. Hell, even John Irving took his name off the project. He ended up with a “Inspired by the novel…” credit.
Inspired? Only in that both pieces of work involved humans doing things.
Whoever produced The Firm must have had a copy of the novel that was missing, oh, the last four hundred pages or so.
They could have at least wiped the remaining crap off the ending after they pulled it out of their collective ass.
'Nother vote for Starship Troopers here.
What the hell was that? I’ve read the short story, and just seen clips of the film. Was anything more than the title carried onto the screen?
Oh, and another vote for Battlefield Earth.
But the thread title is quite clear: “Worst movie based on a book,” not “least accurate adaptation.” “Battlefield Earth” is the worst movie ever put on celluloid, and it’s based on a book, so it wins.
Well, it might not be as bad as “Highlander II,” but that was an original `screenplay.’
MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL- while I can see why somebody who never read the book might enjoy the movie, to those who did read the book it was awful.
THE SCARLET LETTER (Demi Moore version)- the book begins with Pearl having already been born; in the movie, it’s halfway over before she’s even conceived, and among other nice touches Hester actually jokes with Dimsdale about being a witch? The ending is completely changed and there’s a nice witch hunt subplot to boot.
Monte Cristo (the movie) misses the whole point, and come on, Albert is Edmond’s son? Sounds like a soap opera.
Gotta vote for Simon Birch. I loved A Prayer for Owen Meany and was horribly horribly disappointed.
One of the weirdest movie’s I’ve ever seen.
Note to self: don’t hit submit so fast!
The title, and a very brief scene (a minute or two in the film) in which a lawnmower being controlled psychically chases someone through their house and chops them up.
Other than that, the film had nothing to do with the story. I have to admit, that was a pretty egregious abuse of King’s story, but I don’t even acknowledge the idea that the movie Lawnmower Man was based on the story at all. It’s like saying Black Knight was based on A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.
King himself apparently agrees with this idea, as Lawnmower Man is the only film he was moved to have his name removed from. He sued New Line after its release, and they removed his name from any further mention of the film.
So, in a very real sense, Lawnmower Man isn’t even a bad adaptation, because it isn’t based on the story that shares its title at all.
I have a hands-down, absolute, no one will ever convince me otherwise entry for this one:
Bright Lights, Big City.
One of my all-time favorite novels. Funny. Poignant. Amazing use of second person narrative. A book that actually PUTS you into every scene and makes you feel it.
Then the author himself adapts a screenplay and it ends up staring Michael J. Fox, Kiefer Sutherland and (I think) Phoebe Cates. Suckfest from beyond the moon.
The very idea of turning a second person novel into a movie is ridiculous, and I don’t think it could have been handled more badly than it was here.
I see that it’s redundant, but I only opened this thread to scream SIMON BIRCH! at the top of my lungs.
I knew that it would suck when I read an interview with the unmentionable director in which he explained his motivations for removing all references to the vietnam war. To paraphrase, “That was like… such a long time ago, and stuff. It’s not really relevant to anyone anymore.” Also not relevant – anything resembling subtext or leitmotif.
I don’t think John Irving’s disavowal of the film was nearly strong enough. There should have been legal proceedings, and they should have resulted in his being allowed to kick Mark Johnson in the nuts in some sort of a public context.