Book based movies that never got it right.

[Mofo Rising]

I really liked "The Mist," but I will agree that the ending was kind of pointlessly shocking.

To add to the list, almost every adaptation of a Kurt Vonnegut book. There's one movie I think is great, "Mother Night." "Slaughterhouse-5" was kind of weak in my opinion. The "Breakfast of Champions" movie is execrable, and "Slapstick (of Another Kind)" is the worst movie I have ever seen, by a very, very large margin.

[Flick James]

I really liked "The Mist," but I will agree that the ending was kind of pointlessly shocking.

To add to the list, almost every adaptation of a Kurt Vonnegut book. There's one movie I think is great, "Mother Night." "Slaughterhouse-5" was kind of weak in my opinion. The "Breakfast of Champions" movie is execrable, and "Slapstick (of Another Kind)" is the worst movie I have ever seen, by a very, very large margin.

Agreed fully. Vonnegut does not translate well to the screen. Mother Night however is a big exception. Brilliant film. But then, there were no sci-fi elements and the central theme, "be careful what you pretend to be because in the end you ARE what you pretend to be," was a simple enough theme to communicate. Plus, whoever made it was successfully able to express Vonnegut's quirky way of communicating that theme. I loved the little cameo of Kurt as one of the passers-by on the busy New York street as the central character, wonderfully played by Nick Nolte, was frozen for hours having no idea what to do next with his life.

[bob]

The Scarlet Letter (1995).

[WildHoosier09]

When I was a kid I loved the Michael Creighton book "Congo". It was an amazingly good book, I was excited when the movie came out but they changed everything about it to the point that it was almost un-recognizable. One of the things you miss out on with Creigton on screen is all the amazing lessons that get taught during the book. Reading Creighton's books could almost qualify as course credit for a college science class because of all the detail he goes into during the books (One of the few authors of fiction who lists peer reviewed journal references at the end of his books in support of all the research that went into the book). The movies generally suck though: "Congo" tanked because it was absolute trash; "Sphere" did probably the best of all to try and follow the book and they did a reasonable job except emphasizing the fact that the one woman down there does in fact have absolutely zero sex appeal and she goes way more crazy in the book than in the movie but the premises held similar, "Jurassic Park" 1 (not sequels) somewhat missed the point of the book which wasn't about the adventure but rather a warning about commercialization of advanced technology; "The 13th Warrior" is based on an amazingly great Creighton book with a crappy title "Eaters of the Dead" and somewhatish follows the book except for the arab narrator in the book is no Antonio Bandaras, in fact he barely manages to kill maybe 2 fiends during all the battles of the book and admitadly sucks at all forms of fighting. There are a few redeeming qualities, the book gives extremely detailed descriptions of viking culture.
Creighton especially translates poorly to screen though the books are amazing.

[Couchtr26]

The Running Man by Stephen King. The book is so different from the movie in so many ways and even though I enjoy the movie I'll take the book.

Actually, that is probably my most enjoyable book by King.  I enjoy the story and think it would have held up rather well as a thriller.  Just I like how limitless the choices are from the book.  Anyway you can survive for one year with a built in you have to send a one hour tape everyday (I believe it was daily).  The story more in tone with most people and their thoughts as well as more an everyman in the story.   However, the movie has its charm.

[Ted C]

Solo

An "adaptation" that completely ignored the main points of the book (Weapon by Robert Mason).

[Allhallowsday]

Most of Stephen King's stuff . . . .

Whaddaya mean??     The movies only improve on KING.   

[Allhallowsday]

Most of Stephen King's stuff . . . .

Good call. Stephen King just doesn't translate well to the screen.
Anybody who has read It knows damn well it's not even possible to reproduce it on celluloid in any way that makes sense, so instead of what It really was we get just a giant spider (big whoop). Granted it was a t.v. miniseries, but still.  Also, some of the darker themes and scenes just couldn't make their way into a screenplay without it becoming an NC-17. But Tim Curry was good as Pennywise.

Tommyknockers, oh my God. No commentary necessary.

The Mist. That movie really p**sed me off. First, the horrible CGI was bad enough. Then the ending. What the f**k were they trying to do? The book ends ambiguously, with the ones who escaped heading off into the mist listening to radio transmissions from the real world giving them hope but with no idea what direction they're heading or if they ever get out alive. What was wrong with that? Instead we get that bulls**t ending with the guy killing everyone including his own son to give them a quick death, followed by him being rescued and living with it. It p**sed me off because it came across to me as an attempt to give the film more closure with a cop out excuse of making it more edgy. Keeping the ending as it was would have at least made the entire thing a little more watchable because the developement wasn't terrible despite the bad CGI. As it ended I just wanted to throw something hard at the director.

TOMMYKNOCKERS is a terrible book!!   I'm flabbergasted.  

How many great improvements on KING are there on screen??  Hmm, well, lets start with the first one, CARRIE, a great BRIAN DePALMA movie, and I have no opinion whether or not that film improved on KING's book, since it's one of the few I've not read!!     However, I read most of the books of the next 15 years up to 'round 1990, and THE SHINING, SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION are both enormous improvements over the original material. 

[Nightowl]

Actually, that is probably my most enjoyable book by King.  I enjoy the story and think it would have held up rather well as a thriller.  Just I like how limitless the choices are from the book.  Anyway you can survive for one year with a built in you have to send a one hour tape everyday (I believe it was daily).  The story more in tone with most people and their thoughts as well as more an everyman in the story.   However, the movie has its charm.

I've read 2 of the Richard Bachman (aka Stephen King) novels and found them both to be enjoyable.

[Trevor]

The films made of the books The Eagle Has Landed and Von Ryan's Express were IMO just plain bad ~ if you saw the films without reading the books, the films were pretty OK I guess.

[Killer Bees]

I am legend.

****SPOILER ALERT***


I watched the movie before I read the book.  The altenate ending where he survives with the girl and kid was better than him killing himself with the bombs.  I never understood why he did that - what purpose did it serve?

I really didn't like the book at all.  It was lame and stupid, even though Matheson wrote well.  Why did he rail against the women "showing" themselves to him? Has the guy never heard of m@sturbation?  And they gave him time to get out of town.  Why did he just stay there for A WHOLE YEAR and then let them come and take him away?  The character just didn't vibe me at all and I didn't like him in the least.

In this instance, I think the movie was infinitely more interesting than the book.

[Killer Bees]

Most of Stephen King's stuff . . . .

Whaddaya mean??     The movies only improve on KING.   

I agree with you for most of King's work, AHD  But I read Duma Key about a year ago and I was blown away by how good and un-King like it was.  There was no verbosity, no running off on navel gazing tangents, no repetitive phrases, and the book got right to the point and the story moved along at a cracking pace.

I very much enjoyed Duma Key to the point where I was telling anybody who would listen (and some who didn't!) all about it and how they had to read it.

[Trevor]

In this instance, I think the movie was infinitely more interesting than the book.

The Charlton Heston version [The Omega Man] had a great line where Neville comes home and says to his image on the TV screen "Hi, big brother. How's your ass?" 

[Allhallowsday]

Good call. Stephen King just doesn't translate well to the screen.
Anybody who has read It knows damn well it's not even possible to reproduce it on celluloid in any way that makes sense, so instead of what It really was we get just a giant spider (big whoop). Granted it was a t.v. miniseries, but still.  Also, some of the darker themes and scenes just couldn't make their way into a screenplay without it becoming an NC-17. But Tim Curry was good as Pennywise...
The Mist. That movie really p**sed me off. First, the horrible CGI was bad enough. Then the ending. What the f**k were they trying to do? The book ends ambiguously, with the ones who escaped heading off into the mist listening to radio transmissions from the real world giving them hope but with no idea what direction they're heading or if they ever get out alive. What was wrong with that? Instead we get that bulls**t ending with the guy killing everyone including his own son to give them a quick death, followed by him being rescued and living with it. It p**sed me off because it came across to me as an attempt to give the film more closure with a cop out excuse of making it more edgy. Keeping the ending as it was would have at least made the entire thing a little more watchable because the developement wasn't terrible despite the bad CGI. As it ended I just wanted to throw something hard at the director.

I thought IT was an overlong book that devolved into self-indulgence.  However I do like the first half of the TV miniseries... and I loved TIM CURRY as Pennywise.     I thought the ending was not too much dumber than the book.  I didn't watch THE MIST TV movie, or TOMMYKNOCKERS, but I read that last book, and didn't like it much.  On the other hand, THE DEAD ZONE is a book I really love and I thought the screen adaptation was okay.    I really like THE GREEN MILE, but I've not read the book. 
I really was a STEPHEN KING fan.  I got over it. 

[RCMerchant]

The film IT was laughable-not scary at all. The only good part about it was Tim Curry. The book was good. BUT actually-I find that Kings made for TV movies are crap. The filmzations (that a word?  ) done buy good directers are classic. King is a good writer-but like has been said-his work doesnt translate well to the big screen. MISERY,the SHINING,The SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION,CARRIE,STAND BY ME and the GREEN MILE are exceptions.(Actually-thats not a bad track record. I did like the movie PET SEMATARY better than the book. 1408 was a scary story I think was an excellent movie. CUJO too. Kings writing is touch and go for me. Dream Catcher-the book-was good half way through. I LOVED Tommyknockers-the book-the movie lost it.I hear there remaking the Dark Tower series...cant see how-it's an overlong epic story. I read some of the series in jail...good jail reading...but I generally dont like seralized stories.
Oh-I liked MAXINUM OVERDRIVE. Great cheezy movie.

Weird-I love BAD movies-but not bad books. Hmm.That means something....but Im not sure what.