Books That Shouldn't Be Movies discussion

49 views
A Book that shouldn't be a movie...

Comments Showing 1-13 of 13 (13 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Lisa (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:18PM) (new)

Lisa (asilenna) | 3 comments is definitely TimeLine by Michael Crichton. I know alot of the time when a book is turned into a movie small things get changed like names, etc. But in the movie Timeline, one of the most important aspect of the storyline was the fact the character Chris was the son of the professor that went back in time. In the book, Chris' character is an undergrad student and in no way related to the professor. The book also changed the occupation and age of several of the main characters. I am glad I saw the movie first, because the book wasn't nearly as good.


message 2: by Lisa (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:22PM) (new)

Lisa (asilenna) | 3 comments I actually like the Harry Potter movies so far. But I also haven't read any of the books. (I tried to start the first one once and it took me almost 3 weeks to get even half way through chapter 1) so I really don't have any comparison that I can make. I guess it really depends on how deep your interest in the topic is. What are your takes on Stephen King movies vs. books and The Chronicles of Narnia movie vs. book? Would love to hear your feedback on these.


message 3: by Lisa (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:26PM) (new)

Lisa (asilenna) | 3 comments That is quite possible. I haven't read "It" yet, but do have it at home. Maybe that will be the book I read during my Thanksgiving break from school. The Shawshank Redemption was fairly close in book and movie, as was Pet Sematary. You had your basic changes that seem to occur with all book to movie projects. I agree with you that Stephen King rocks! No one can come close to his talent.


message 4: by Maggie (last edited Aug 25, 2016 02:09PM) (new)

Maggie Evans (unsaltysaltines) Harry Potter 4, hands-down, was the WORST movie adaptation of a book I've ever seen. I know that one practically back to front, and the movie missed most of the major points. I mean, it wasn't ALL about the Triwizard Tournament, people! WHAT HAPPENED TO THE HOUSE-ELVES? WHERE WAS WINKY?


message 5: by Deirdre (last edited Aug 25, 2016 02:16PM) (new)

Deirdre | 9 comments Mod
I enjoyed all of the Harry Potter books and have enjoyed all of the Harry Potter movies, because by the time I see the movie, the book is not fresh in my mind. I think making the movies will be increasingly difficult with the intensity of the later books and how critical minute details become later on in the series.

and I don't think the movie going public has the patience for the house elf story line, even though it grows more and more important.


message 6: by Kara (new)

Kara P.S. I Love You - haven't seen the movie, but I loved the book and think it'll be terrible simply because Hilary Swank is Holly.


message 7: by Alicia (new)

Alicia (dolphinsmile) | 1 comments I was very disappointed with White Oleander as a movie. And I loved A Walk To Remember, but then the movie...it was so shallow and didn't have anything to it, it was sweet, but it might as well have been a music video for all the story it told in comparison to the book. Mandy Moore was good in it, but the writing and the way things were set up, too much of a cliche typical teenage movie.


message 8: by [deleted user] (new)

Although I must admit that the books were far better than the movies I have to say, hands down, that the traslation of the books was done fairly well for the movies. Although the first movie was the best because it stuck to the plot more so than the other movies. Honestly I would have prefered a 4 hour film that stuck to the books more that a short 1.5 hour movie.

I do think it is completely unfair to say that the movies and the books were boring *cough* Wylie *cough, cough*. J.K.R. created an instant classic that will be loved by many generations to come. Even after the books die out, which they're not going to, they will be rediscovered like all great masterpieces are.

Although I will agree with some that they are hard to get into, once you get past the first chapters you're good to go. The books then zoom by. I can read the whole series in a week and finished the last book in 4 days (because I was visiting family) although I would've finished it in one.

Anyone out there who hasn't seen the movies or read the books, read the books first so you can fill in the gaps. Just a word of advice get through the first let's say 6 chapters before you drop the book.


message 9: by [deleted user] (new)

The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman has to be one of the worst adaptions into movie. The movie was under 2 hours and didn't explain the Dust at all and was majorly confusing (if you hadn't read the book). My dad couldn't understand it because as most of the important events happen through background info not dialouge which translated horribly to film.


message 10: by Saba (new)

Saba Twilight! yes I know the movie hasn't come out yet so I shouldn't prematurely judge. But based on the previews it looks pretty awful. I read the book it was pretty good, not fantastic so really it wouldnt work well as a movie unless they changed the plot drastically to make it more realistic.


message 11: by Saba (last edited Aug 12, 2008 10:50AM) (new)

Saba I would agree, p.s. i love you was v. disappointing


message 12: by Robin (new)

Robin (RWillis) | 1 comments I recently saw the adds for the movie "The Reader." Although I personally had a hard time getting into this book I thought it was really good ... I can't imagine thinking that making it into a movie is a good idea. I also agree with Wylie and Lisa about Stephen King's books ... great reads but most of the movies have been weak. I think the only good movie was "Shawshank Redemption." Wasn't too crazy about Pet Cemetary the movie but the book scared the heck out of me.


message 13: by Katie Davies (new)

Katie Davies Now that you have seen Twilight what do you think?



back to top