Books I Loathed discussion

225 views
Loathed Books-Better movies?

Comments Showing 1-39 of 39 (39 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (lmulls) I read The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold in 2009, and to be honest, didn't quite loathe it as much as a lot of people seem to have. In any case, I admit parts of it were downright WEIRD. Anyhoo, I saw the movie adaptation Friday night, and LOVED it. I thought it was so much better than the book--a rarity for, I would think, most people. So, is there any other books that you have read and hated, but liked the movie version of? Can include any type, tv movie, theatrical release, etc etc etc.


message 2: by stormhawk (new)

stormhawk I thought The Davinci Code was a better movie than it was a book, largely because they left out some tedious bits that frustrated me.


message 3: by Randi (new)

Randi (The Artist Formerly known as Guitar Chick) (guitarchick) | 79 comments ON the Lovely Bones- While I haven't seen or read it, Peter Jackson is one of the best directors out there, and he did the movie. So therefore, I can see why the movie would be better.


message 4: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (lmulls) Anna wrote: "stormhawk wrote: "I thought The Davinci Code was a better movie than it was a book, largely because they left out some tedious bits that frustrated me."

I had the opposite reaction actually. Altho..."

His name is Silas, I believe.


message 5: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (lmulls) The character is Silas, I looked up who the actor is, and I believe it is Paul Bettany?


message 6: by [deleted user] (new)

Angels and demons was a better movie than the book. Though, this is most likely due to my boredom with Dan Brown's writing style. Reading Brown's work is a lot like reading a movie script, just enough detail to tell you the story.


message 7: by Emily (new)

Emily  O (readingwhilefemale) | 76 comments I loved the movie for Stardust by Neil Gaiman, but the book was actually pretty bad.


message 8: by Randi (new)

Randi (The Artist Formerly known as Guitar Chick) (guitarchick) | 79 comments I've heard a lot of people didn't like the Pincess Bride book.


message 9: by Vanessa (new)

Vanessa | 84 comments You are correct Guitar Chick. I read the book but it didn't grab me the way the movie did.

I really preferred the film version to the book for The Color Purple. The vernacular in the book was hard to follow (granted, I read it as a teenager so I might better appreciate it now) and the main character was so childlike that the sex scenes made me squeamish.

I've never seen any of the Dan Brown movies. I was sick of hearing about him long before they came out. Although I did enjoy the book The Da Vinci Code in a trashy novel kind of way.


message 10: by [deleted user] (new)

Jaws.

Peter Benchley's writing isn't bad per-say, I just don't think he tells a good story here. The big one was that I didn't like the characters in the book as much I did in the movie.
In the book, Matt Hooper has an affair with Ellen Brody. This relationship came off as tacked on to add more pages to a thin storyline. Martian is supposed to be this good cop but is completely clueless to the obvious. Quit, my favorite character from the film, isn't portrayed as a nut case fisherman after his big game. Instead, he is this ocean riding redneck to fires beer cans into the ocean.
There is so much going on in the book would think author has ADD. Not only is a shark eating people alive (as the author portrays as an instrument of divine justice), but there is a rapist on the loose and most of the towns officials are connected to the mafia.
To me, divine justice on upper middle class people who were born into privilege is just a goofy premise. Eat the rich?

The movie was leaps and bounds better than the book.


message 11: by Vanessa (new)

Vanessa | 84 comments Oh, I totally forgot Jaws. What a perplexing, disappointing mess I found when I finally read this. As far as the book goes, the prime story is Mrs. Brody affair with Matt Hooper. Snore.

(but there's payback: the shark eats Matt Hooper. Cheaters are tasty.)

Don't bother reading this. It's terrible and almost nothing like the movie. I'd even recommend Jaws 3D instead.


message 12: by [deleted user] (new)

Jaws 3D hahaha! Damn, that's good.


message 13: by Randi (new)

Randi (The Artist Formerly known as Guitar Chick) (guitarchick) | 79 comments I love both Lord of the Rings book. I honestly think they're equal in greatness.


message 14: by Vanessa (new)

Vanessa | 84 comments Both or all three?

I liked both the LOTR books and the movies, although I felt a certain amount of dread before seeing the first one. They did a good job of excising some parts of the books too (Tom Bombadil anyone? Didn't think so) and keeping the narrative flowing. I liked how they moved Shelob to the end of Two Towers so the second film ended on a cliffhanger. I think Shelob doesn't show up in the books till Return of the King.

Annnd, that's my nerd outpouring for the day.


message 15: by Randi (new)

Randi (The Artist Formerly known as Guitar Chick) (guitarchick) | 79 comments I meant both movies and books.


message 16: by Helena (new)

Helena I loved the short story ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’ by F. Scott Fitzgerald, but it really left me wanting a bit more. I wouldn’t say that the movie was better- but it satisfied my need for ‘more’ out of the story.


message 17: by David (new)

David (tediousandbrief) | 4 comments I didn't entierly loath Sarah Water's Tipping the Velvet, but the ending turned me off as being too simple and a bit trite. The BBC 3-part series was much better, especially in the ending.


message 18: by Randi (new)

Randi (The Artist Formerly known as Guitar Chick) (guitarchick) | 79 comments Why does it seem the BBC does a lot of things better? I've seen a lot of peoplep in different places around the world prefer BBC adaptions more.


message 19: by David (last edited Feb 25, 2011 07:48AM) (new)

David Well the BBC are good at the costume drama stuff. 'War and Peace' in about 1970 was pretty good, though having seen the Bondarchuk version since it looks wooden and underpopulated, but a groundbreaker at the time nevertheless.

Henry VIII with Ray Winstone was excellent, portraying him as a gang leader and brute rather than the usual divinely anointed monarch bilge.

The last decent adaptation I watxched was Vanity Fair a few years back, with that woman from 'The Camomile Lawn' playing Becky Sharrp very wittily.

I don't care for Jane Austen adaptations because they all seem to look the same and have Alison Steadman as a dizzy aunt or something.

My indulgent English teacher at school gave me top marks once for originality when I handed in an essey on 'What I like about Jane Austen's Emma' and I wrote 'Nothing'.

I did point out that despite there being a pan-European war going on at the time the only inkling you get of it is men turning up to balls in uniform, and all they seem interested in is passing surreptitious love letters and choosing to dance or not dance with earth-shattering consequences for the ladies involved, who just sit round darning socks or something and dreaming about marriage to someone with a thousand pounds a year, shit for brains and the emotional empathy of a brick. The women in Tolstoy are another matter entirely.

Colin Firth as Mr Darcy just made me sick. But he was quite good playing an upper class twat in 'The King's Speech' I must concede.


message 20: by David (new)

David (tediousandbrief) | 4 comments @ David

I've yet to be able to finish a Jane Austen novel, so your teacher praising you for that paper made me smile!

It wasn't so much the costume drama that I liked better in that they changed the story around a bit and especially the ending. Tipping the Velvet the film's ending was totally different from the book and better.


message 21: by [deleted user] (new)

:) I have never personally met a man who likes or enjoys Jane Austin. Never! One of my male friends told me that all the men in her novels are insipid fools only interested in being fops without a backbone. So, David x2, not surprised.

I happened to like Tipping the Velvet. Sarah Waters is quite daring.


message 22: by John (new)

John | 20 comments At the risk of having someone question my masculinity, I am a) a male, and b) a Jane Austen lover . . . especially Emma and Sense and Sensibility. (I hated Pride and Prejudice though . . . I do not understand the appeal of Mr. Darcy!)

Back to the topic: Appalloosa was much better than the book which suffered from Robert B. Parker's flat, dialogue-heavy style. The movie made the book's story much more interesting (by streamlining it).


message 23: by Ellie (new)

Ellie (elliearcher) Sherri-I never thought about it until I read your post, but what I like best about Darcy (&, for that matter, in another Austen, Emma) is that he is able to change. He's not a cardboard figure-even rarer for a male character, I think, but self-reflective & beneath the surface rigidity, able to think about his impact on others.
Of course, that may make him less than "masculine" but somehow I don't think so. I think that's what makes him interesting & ultimately attractive. :)


message 24: by Ellie (new)

Ellie (elliearcher) That was beautifully put.


message 25: by [deleted user] (new)

John wrote: "At the risk of having someone question my masculinity, I am a) a male, and b) a Jane Austen lover . . . especially Emma and Sense and Sensibility. (I hated Pride and Prejudice though . . . I do no..."

You are truly masculine. I admire your taste and your willingness to tell us. Thank you. I take it back, now I know a man who enjoys Austin.

When my husband read this thread, he reminded me that he liked Austin, because she had the nerve to write the way she did at a time where women were not heard. That, she opened the way for the rest of us. So there. :)


message 26: by Dfordoom (new)

Dfordoom | 16 comments Emily wrote: "I loved the movie for Stardust by Neil Gaiman, but the book was actually pretty bad."

I've never really understood the Gaiman cult.


message 27: by Dfordoom (new)

Dfordoom | 16 comments now I know a man who enjoys Austen

I'm male and I like Jane Austen too.


message 28: by Dfordoom (new)

Dfordoom | 16 comments Daphne du Maurier's novella Don't Look Now is pretty awful, but Nic Roeg's movie version is superb. And du Maurier's short story The Birds is fairly mediocre while Hitchcock's film version is a masterpiece.

Oddly enough du Maurier's novel Rebecca is extremely good. Perhaps not quite as good as Hitchcock's movie, but still very good.


message 29: by Victoria (new)

Victoria Arthur | 5 comments Little Women

I hated that book, I didn't like the movie all that much either but it was better ... In my defense I read this book when I was 13 therefore I might have had pink glasses on looking at the world and I haven't had the courage to read it again over 12 years later but I will...


message 30: by [deleted user] (new)

Emily wrote: "I loved the movie for Stardust by Neil Gaiman, but the book was actually pretty bad."

I also loved the movie but after trying some of his other books I gave up on him.


message 31: by Eva (new)

Eva (evar23) I have to say that I LOVED A Walk to Remember and The Notebook movies but HATED the books.

I felt both those movies had great character development and really good stories and when I read the books (which are supposed to be better than their movie counterparts) I thought they felt flat, unimaginative and just downright boring..

Don't know if this has happened to anyone else...


message 32: by Marva (new)

Marva Isaac wrote: "Wizard of Oz... *shivers* weird book.

I'm suprised no one's said lord of the rings, I personally perfer the books but I know of a fair number of people who prefer the movies..."


I was just about to say LotR. I read the Hobbit and was bored senseless. I didn't bother with the rest. Not too crazy about the original attempt at the Hobbit animated (I think there was more than one).

The LotR movies by Peter Jackson were must see spectacularly wonderful great.


message 33: by Courtney (new)

Courtney (romeo_and_ghouliet) | 3 comments I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on this one, but Interview with the Vampire. I hated the book. I can't say I lurve the movie, but I like it well enough.


message 34: by Poppy (new)

Poppy Square (poppysquare) Eva wrote: "I have to say that I LOVED A Walk to Remember and The Notebook movies but HATED the books.

I felt both those movies had great character development and really good stories and when I read the book..."


Eva, I agree with you on The Notebook. That movie is one of my all-time favorites! I usually read the books before watching the movies because the books are ALWAYS better (I thought), but NOT this one. I was very disappointed after reading the book. I felt like I never connected and the passion just wasn't there.


message 35: by Phillip (new)

Phillip (jeeveswooster) The Movie "Doc Hollywood" starring Michael J. Fox was better than the book it was based upon: "What? Dead Again?" by Neil B. Shulman.

"Doc Hollywood" was a cute little movie with quirky characters in it. "What? Dead Again?" is without a doubt, among the worse books that I have ever read.


message 36: by Geordie (new)

Geordie | 4 comments Emily wrote: "I loved the movie for Stardust by Neil Gaiman, but the book was actually pretty bad."

I thought the book was decent, 3-star-ish, but the movie blew it out of the water.


message 37: by Lori S. (new)

Lori S. (fuzzipueo) | 78 comments Courtney wrote: "I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on this one, but Interview with the Vampire. I hated the book. I can't say I lurve the movie, but I like it well enough."

Both the book and the movie are snoozers, but at least the movie moves fairly quickly.


message 38: by Helen (new)

Helen (helenlikestoread) | 2 comments Randi wrote: "I've heard a lot of people didn't like the Pincess Bride book."


The og book had sooooo much filler. Then I decided to read the most common one, the rewrite which supposedly removed the filler. And then like half of that was the author talking about his wife.
It was truly horrible.


Girl with the Blue Flower | 7 comments The Series of Unfortunate is a good book but the movie drew people in better and is more funny :<


back to top