Worst Page To Screen Adaptations

[soupytwist]

The problem is if you say The Hobbit is a terrible adaption due to all the extra characters and story then so is the Shawshank Redemption.

[Big Hath]

I've only seen the Jim Caveizel Count of Monte Cristo. Thought it was an entertaining film. But man is that a massive, complex book to adapt.

That's the one I was mainly referring to. If I was going in not having read the book, it would probably be a solid enough film. I just don't think it came close to doing the book justice, which would admittedly be incredibly difficult.

aside from the duel at the end, I am quite fond of that movie.

[The King in Crimson]

The problem is if you say The Hobbit is a terrible adaption due to all the extra characters and story then so is the Shawshank Redemption.

It could be a terrible adaptation but still a great movie.

[Prog Snob]

You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.

No, I'm really not. The movie is 5-10% book and the rest is added, changed, or unnecessary tweaks in character development. So, while the "core story" is still in tact, that says nothing for the rest of Tolkien's vision. If you think he didn't care about the finesse he put into developing his characters, then you should go read some of his biographies.

Like I said, the movies are fine as a standalone attempt at making The Hobbit. Tribute to Tolkien - NO.

[ariich]

I was expecting some actual bad films in this thread. Pretty much everything mentioned has ranged from decent to great.

Interesting question about what makes an adaptation good or bad, though. If something is intended as a straight adaptation but misses the mark, that's arguably not a good adaptation (even if it ends up being a good movie). But if something is intentionally adapted (the clue is in the word) to something a little different, I don't think that's in any way bad.

[The King in Crimson]

You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.

No, I'm really not. The movie is 5-10% book and the rest is added, changed, or unnecessary tweaks in character development. So, while the "core story" is still in tact, that says nothing for the rest of Tolkien's vision. If you think he didn't care about the finesse he put into developing his characters, then you should go read some of his biographies.

Yeah okay, I never said that but whatever. If you think they're the worst then okay, but I disagree. C'est la vie.

[bosk1]

You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.

No, I'm really not. The movie is 5-10% book and the rest is added, changed, or unnecessary tweaks in character development. So, while the "core story" is still in tact, that says nothing for the rest of Tolkien's vision. If you think he didn't care about the finesse he put into developing his characters, then you should go read some of his biographies.

Yeah okay, I never said that but whatever. If you think they're the worst then okay, but I disagree. C'est la vie.

Well, see, that right there shows your ignorance as to Tolkien's vision.  Tolkien would never, EVER use French in connection with fine literature.  Ever.

[The King in Crimson]

You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.

No, I'm really not. The movie is 5-10% book and the rest is added, changed, or unnecessary tweaks in character development. So, while the "core story" is still in tact, that says nothing for the rest of Tolkien's vision. If you think he didn't care about the finesse he put into developing his characters, then you should go read some of his biographies.

Yeah okay, I never said that but whatever. If you think they're the worst then okay, but I disagree. C'est la vie.

Well, see, that right there shows your ignorance as to Tolkien's vision.  Tolkien would never, EVER use French in connection with fine literature.  Ever.

Sorry. I just don't know how to say that in Quenya or Sindarin.

Guess I'll have work on that.

[bosk1]

[Prog Snob]

You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.

No, I'm really not. The movie is 5-10% book and the rest is added, changed, or unnecessary tweaks in character development. So, while the "core story" is still in tact, that says nothing for the rest of Tolkien's vision. If you think he didn't care about the finesse he put into developing his characters, then you should go read some of his biographies.

Yeah okay, I never said that but whatever. If you think they're the worst then okay, but I disagree. C'est la vie.

I actually didn't say you said anything, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you having a hard time adapting my words? 

[The King in Crimson]

You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.

No, I'm really not. The movie is 5-10% book and the rest is added, changed, or unnecessary tweaks in character development. So, while the "core story" is still in tact, that says nothing for the rest of Tolkien's vision. If you think he didn't care about the finesse he put into developing his characters, then you should go read some of his biographies.

Yeah okay, I never said that but whatever. If you think they're the worst then okay, but I disagree. C'est la vie.

I actually didn't say you said anything, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you having a hard time adapting my words? 

AHEM

[Prog Snob]

You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.

No, I'm really not. The movie is 5-10% book and the rest is added, changed, or unnecessary tweaks in character development. So, while the "core story" is still in tact, that says nothing for the rest of Tolkien's vision. If you think he didn't care about the finesse he put into developing his characters, then you should go read some of his biographies.

Yeah okay, I never said that but whatever. If you think they're the worst then okay, but I disagree. C'est la vie.

I actually didn't say you said anything, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you having a hard time adapting my words? 

AHEM

AHEM

[The King in Crimson]

You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.

No, I'm really not. The movie is 5-10% book and the rest is added, changed, or unnecessary tweaks in character development. So, while the "core story" is still in tact, that says nothing for the rest of Tolkien's vision. If you think he didn't care about the finesse he put into developing his characters, then you should go read some of his biographies.

Yeah okay, I never said that but whatever. If you think they're the worst then okay, but I disagree. C'est la vie.

I actually didn't say you said anything, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you having a hard time adapting my words? 

AHEM

AHEM

Okay. Never said anything even close to the sort so not sure why you're focusing on it but whatever helps you sleep at night dude.

[Prog Snob]

Bourbon and hobbit porn. As long as we're going to butcher Tolkien's vision, might as well make it worth it, right mate? 

For the record, you didn't have to say it. You made an excuse for the movie as if the differences were only minor - something to do with the "core story" being in tact. So, my insinuation that you clearly don't get the characters (from the books) is pretty much spot on. For the Tolkien family to be disgusted by the movies and how they interpreted the story, they must have really butchered it. They weren't this vocal about the Lord of the Rings movies.

[Loop]

I'm a huge fan of the DT series. I've reconciled the differences that I know that they're going to make by looking at it as a different level of the tower. Of course, we all might be pleasantly surprised by the end result. August can't get here soon enough.

Love this interpretation. I have a friend who's fuming about the changes (I'm not bothered, just looking forward to more DT in any form), but I'm going to suggest he looks at it this way.

The whole series is very close to my heart. DT7 reliably makes me bawl like a baby.

[jammindude]

I feel like the only human being left on planet earth who has even *heard* of these incredibly non-PC books....but as a young teenager, I was totally engrossed by the Gor series written by John Norman.   (a barbarian world on the other side of the sun where all men are like Conan, and all women are pleasure slaves......but there's more to it than that).   The series actually started off as pretty decent "sword and sandal" adventure stories....but about 8 books in it started to degrade into WAAAAAYYYY too much "all women secretly yearn to be owned" philosophy and it just got to be boring.

There was an attempt at 2 films, one with Jack Pallance, and I believe the other had Oliver Reed???   But they were both absolutely AWFUL.  One of them was even (deservedly) riffed on Mystery Science Theater 3000.   Seriously some of the worst films ever made, and only vaguely touch on the source material.    I honestly don't think you could do such a film that was faithful to the source material....the source itself was once viewed as harmless male fantasy fun, but in today's overly PC society, the books would most likely be effectively banned if more people even knew they existed. 

[ZirconBlue]

Lucifer, the TV show. The comic it is based on is epic, weird, and cerebral that features time travel, dimension hopping, multiple different gods and goddesses from different pantheons, eldritch horrors, amongst other things. The TV show is an urban fantasy police procedural. It jettisons anything and everything that's unique about the comic in favor of cases of the week.

All this is true, yet I still think it's a great show.

[Nekov]

Hmmm, based on what I read I would say Blade Runner qualifies for this. The movie leaves out tons of important things and has things that never happened in the book. That being said, it's still a fantastic movie, one of my all time favorites.
And on that matter, every adaptation from a Philip Dick book to a film is bad. Same thing with the movie adaptations for Lovecraft books, not that they miss the point a lot but those movies are so freaking bad

[Nekov]

I just remembered, I robot is by far the worst adaptation of them all. It's a bad movies that really misses Asimov's point completely.

[Prog Snob]

I just remembered, I robot is by far the worst adaptation of them all. It's a bad movies that really misses Asimov's point completely.

Oh, but the point of the author isn't what matters according to this thread. As long as we load it up with lots of special effects and it brings in millions of dollars, it's considered a great adaptation.