Other Bad Book Adaptations

In all fairness to Peej, I'm not sure his Hobbit movies exactly stand out as bad adaptations (and apart from whether or not you were liked them as movies, I don't see how anyone could argue they were good adaptations). There have been others, arguable equally as bad. I can think of three other examples:

• How the Grinch Stole Christmas — Jim Carrey put on an uncomfortable suit and yellow contact lenses for for...this? Idiot. Couldn't even watch the whole thing. Just seemed unbelievably dull and pointless.
  
• The Cat in the Hat — Did the makers of this movie not know this was a children's book?
  
• Where the Wild Things Are — Couldn't make it past the first 20 minutes.
  

Any others?

I should also qualify that these examples are just opinions. Apologies to anyone who enjoyed them. Though, again, as far as being adaptations, they're all a pretty far cry from the books they're based on.

harry potter 4 and 5.

Interesting

any Harry Potter film that David Yates made was destroyed. Utterly. He killed the magic with his dull pedestrian hand.

Norc wrote:harry potter 4 and 5.

I'd like to make that 3, 4, 5 and 6

Treasure Island, two part mini-series from 2012. Posted my review of it in another thread, but it's right up there with DOS

i think 3 was the best, but i can agree with the rest Ringo.

Hm. I didn't think any of the HP films were terrible, though I thought HP1 was fairly dull (I've never caught more than a few minutes of Cos). I'm not really enough of a fan to argue the point, though I'll readily agree that the books are much better.

1 and 2 were the best, and 3 was the most artistic and probably the critics favourite.

I'd like to add the Chronicle of Narnia movies to the list, at least the first two (didn't see the third). Admittedly, I haven't seen the second one, but I've heard enough to make a judgment on it.

the first one was good i think, but the rest dear lord.. they suck. they could've been soooo much better..

Mrs Figg wrote:1 and 2 were the best, and 3 was the most artistic and probably the critics favourite.

I liked 3 a lot when I saw it in the theater. It was also my favorite book at the time.

Well, it doesn't help when you change director just about every movie.

Didn't they have 3 widely different locations for Hogwarts just in the first 3 movies as well?

It might have been better going with Terry Gilliam as director as JK Rowling originally wanted.

I hear many people liked the third HP film, but I thought it was horrible when I first watched it, and when I rewatched it a few years later I could but agree with myself. It's not DOS, I'll give it that much, but my god did they miss the mark. It suffers from much of the same that films 4, 5 and 6 do - rush, rush, rush and unecessary changes and omissions. I don't want to make this another "ringo's rant over HP films" thread, though, so I'll zip it before I do

Terry Gilliam? that would be.. something els.

Bluebottle wrote:Well, it doesn't help when you change director just about every movie.

Didn't they have 3 widely different locations for Hogwarts just in the first 3 movies as well?

It might have been better going with Terry Gilliam as director as JK Rowling originally wanted.

Now that would have been interesting!

Yeah, I find it interesting to think about how that might have turned out.

I think she loved his movies like Time Bandits and Brazil. (Both rewritten by Michael Palin if I rember correctly.)

If he had stayed for the entier 6/7 movie run it would have been infinetly preferable, even if the movie company originally wanted a more blockbuster style director.

Time Bandits was written by Palin and Gilliam, but Brazil was written by Gilliam and two other people.

well when Brazil was made Gilliam was on top of his game, but recent films by him have really sucked.
I think Chris Columbus got the casting nearly perfect for HP, so he gets credit from me for that.

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen was a good movie.

I've been surprised that people found HP1 to be dull - I think it captured the gentle magic of the book perfectly. Maybe the gentleness of it made it dull?

I Robot can't even count as an adaptation as far as I'm concerned. I don't think it was such a bad movie, but had almost nothing from the book, especially the intellect.

To me, the direction of Chris Columbus made it dull.

halfwise wrote:I've been surprised that people found HP1 to be dull - I think it captured the gentle magic of the book perfectly.  Maybe the gentleness of it made it dull?

The first film is my favourite. The castle is alive, the magic is there and all in all it doesn't treat the book like shit.

Fahrenheit 451 is a terrible adaptation, and a terrible movie.

the first one is best because it is innocent. and the book is thin.