re: Worst book to film adaptation

quote:

---

And as much as I like Kubrich's movie, The Shining, it is a terrible adaptation. That being said, the one that King directly oversaw in a made for TV production, it was very close to the book but made for a shitty movie.

---

Which begs the questions: What makes a good book adaptation?

Is it faithfulness to the actual sequence of events, settings and characters? Or faithfulness to the ideas?

I'd argue for the second, which makes The Shining quite successful, and maybe even an improvement.

quote:

---

Dream Catcher by Stephen King

---

SSDD. This movie blew and so did the book. Same with Tommyknockers.

To Freauxzen's point, I agree that staying true to the premise and idea of a book is more important than the facts and events of the book. Stephen King didn't agree, but that's why his version of The Shining in film ended up being complete shite.

King's non-supernatural movies end up turning out fairly well, in film. This includes Stand By Me, Misery, Dolores Claiborne, Shawshank, and even Green Mile (despite it's supernatural theme with John Coffey). Many of the other films King has done just come across as cheesy, but truthfully, it matches his writing style.

I'd like to nominate The Golden Compass. Loved those books as a kid and was jizzing all over myself when I heard a movie was coming out.

After seeing the movie, I rioted

quote:

---

Maybe I need to watch it again, I just remember thinking it was really bad the only time I watched it. FWIW the book is old as shite and pretty boring as well.

---

I thought it was horrible when I saw it in theaters


***************SPOILERS***************




















The son not being dead at the end? Are you fricking kidding me?

quote:

---

quote:
Dune - terrible.



SUCH a bad movie, such an AWESOME book!

---

When they gave away the ending of the book at the start of the movie... my jaw dropped.

Having read this entire thread I need to make a point:

- Posters in this thread need to separate "Bad Film" from "Bad Adaptation".



I found it really funny that one poster had a gripe over the ending of Speilberg's War of the Worlds in a thread about adapting books to film. It's the direct adaptation from the book. (I hate how people try to justify a bad ending by pointing to the deus ex machina, but that has been discussed ad nauseum)

Of course The Shining is going to come up here. I have read and seen The Shining, and I can without a doubt say that the film is better than the book. I can also say that the film is a poor adaptation of the book. That is a good thing.


To hit upon what other posters have said and to bring it a little further: the success of a book to screen adaptation may come from the story's ideas rather than the content being followed meticulously. I think it's important to acknowledge that.

Also and lastly, whoever said Dune was not a good adaptation needs to rethink what they said. I found it very close to the book. It captured the inner dialogue well.

quote:

---

Also and lastly, whoever said Dune was not a good adaptation needs to rethink what they said. I found it very close to the book. It captured the inner dialogue well.

---

Taking some of the inner dialogue doesn't equal a good adaptation. The addition of the weirding modules, the absence of Paul's marriage and the birth and death of Leto... pretty major changes. And then the rain on Dune... even Herbert said that Paul was a man playing God, not a god who could make it rain.

Plus the addition of Lynch's gross-out scenes.

A perfect cast and a wasted opportunity.

A Prayer for Owen Meany. Simon Birch was a film loosely based on the novel. John Irving wouldn't allow them to use the books name because the adaptation was so different (or something like that).