Kindle Forum banner

1 - 20 of 79 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
621 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So, what books became movies that disappointed you? I ask this not only because of the books-to-movie favorites question because I have just read The Other Boleyn Girl by Philippa Gregory with interest and then watched the movie...

Oh, dear, oh, dear!
A dreadfully disappointing movie!
I was really bothered by the device of having Anne and Mary look at the camera and talk to the audience...

But, the costumes were nice!
patrisha
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
Twilight.  I loved the books, just not the movie.  I think it was because I had already read all 4 books and it seemed kind of short.  I felt like it was missing something.     
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,391 Posts
I suppose we could all generate lists of such movies that entirely failed to live up to our hopes for books we liked or loved. But the one that immediately jumps to my mind is The Bridge on the River Kwai. The movie is actually quite good overall and in the spirit of the book, but then it "cops out" at the climactic scene and, at least for me, was so jarringly different from how things played out in the book that it ruined what otherwise would have been a fine movie.

On the flip side, I enjoyed the movie version of Neil Gaiman's Stardust more than I did the book. In fact, I never actually finished the book even after getting more than halfway through it, as it just never really grabbed my interest. The film, on the other hand, was able to entertain me, perhaps in this rare case actually benefiting from the need to condense the book down to the essential elements that could be squeezed into its time slot.

Then there is the strange case of the James Bond movies. In general, each movie normally shares little with the novel of the same title other than perhaps a few characters' names and maybe a location or two. Perhaps because the movies deviate so radically from the books, I find I can enjoy both (though it's been a long time since I read any of the novels).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,280 Posts
I didn't enjoy the Harry Potter movies, but I loved the books. I saw the first two movies but that's it.

L
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,676 Posts
patrisha #150 said:
So, what books became movies that disappointed you? I ask this not only because of the books-to-movie favorites question because I have just read The Other Boleyn Girl by Philippa Gregory with interest and then watched the movie...

Oh, dear, oh, dear!
A dreadfully disappointing movie!
I was really bothered by the device of having Anne and Mary look at the camera and talk to the audience...

But, the costumes were nice!
patrisha
I was so shocked at what they did to that movie, that when some women behind me had questions about the ending, I couldn't get the words out to set them straight.

Particularly shocking to me was the scene where Catherine goaded Henry into forcing Anne. Catherine was long gone from Court by then, and Henry never forced Anne. If I remember correctly, they were in Calais at the time.

There is no way Henry would have allowed the Boleyns to have any access to Elizabeth. In fact, she was raised at Hatfield, far away from the disgraced Boleyns.

Sorry for the rant. Yes, the costumes were very nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
Other Boleyn Girl, Philippa Gregory, definitely! Liked the book, because I don't mind some liberties in historical fiction. The movie was even less accurate, but much less entertaining. It was the type of movie that made me wonder when cast and crew realized that they were involved with a steaming pile of poo. They HAD to have known. I told my husband to give it away, just get it out of my sight. A few days later I saw it sitting on a table and asked him again to stick a FREE post-it on it and take it to work. He said I should give it to my friend, and I told him that I'd already told her all about it, and that I couldn't do that to a friend.

Anyone who is not a Tudor Geek, or who had not read the novel, would have to be confused over why Stafford was proposing to Mary when she supposedly was still married. What A Mess!

Love Dean Koontz's Watchers -- movie makes me want to gouge out my eyes.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. Yeah, book was still better.

Want to come up with one where movie was better.

OH!! Love S. King, but Shawshank Redemption is a better movie than it is a novella and I'd say much the same for Green Mile, only minus the word novella and using serial book experiment thingy instead. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,676 Posts
MichelleR said:
Want to come up with one where movie was better.

OH!! Love S. King, but Shawshank Redemption is a better movie than it is a novella and I'd say much the same for Green Mile, only minus the work novella and using serial book experiment thingy. :D
Except for the serialization thing (which I was warned about ahead of time), I like The Green Mile better as a book. Tom Hanks just didn't fit my idea of what's-his-name.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,762 Posts
The movie adaptations of Robert Ludlum's Bourne novels were more appealing to me but I'm not sure why. It may be only that I prefer the cold, efficient Jason Bourne character to the kinder, gentler David Webb.

After seeing the film adaptation of The Other Boleyn Girl, I passed on reading the book. Maybe I'll rethink that, although I'm generally intolerant of historical inaccuracies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:
Except for the serialization thing (which I was warned about ahead of time), I like The Green Mile better as a book. Tom Hanks just didn't fit my idea of what's-his-name.
I understand that, can see that.

I think it was an emotionally richer work than the King thing, and that's why I preferred it.

I was on the Amazon boards yesterday, and I was discussing the differences between Koontz and King, and why it amazes me how people keep comparing them. Yes, yes, I know I'm comparing them, but let's ignore that bit of hypocrisy, shall we?

King is, by all accounts, a stand-up sort of guy. He had his substance abuse issues, but he's still married to his high school sweetheart and they raised some solid citizens. I can't stress enough that I know he's a nice dude, but his characters rarely touch me, because he seems to keep a distance from them and make them morally ambiguous. There are exceptions -- the part in Cujo about him being a good dog who was confused at why he was doing bad things, I could tear up just thinking about it -- Delores Claiborne, Rose Madder, the woman in The Gingerbread Girl, Danny in The Shining...

But all too often his stories miss the emotional mark for me until they become movies and the visuals bring it home. That's why Shawshank and Green Mile make me cry in a way they original stories didn't. He's also not afraid to kill some people!

Speaking of The Shining -- I did so, too, scroll up -- he once said that Danny would probably grow up to be a drunk who beats his kids, and that says a lot about the tone of his stories.

Koontz, on the other hand, is all emotional, all Root For The Good Guys! His endings are usually against-all-odds happy, and when he goes a different way
Stormy LLewellen
it leaves me gob-smacked.

These two men are very different writers, who see the world in very different ways. I think King brings the brains and Koontz brings the heart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,676 Posts
Jeff said:
After seeing the film adaptation of The Other Boleyn Girl, I passed on reading the book. Maybe I'll rethink that, although I'm generally intolerant of historical inaccuracies.
Phillipa Gregory's second best book. The best for me is The Boleyn Inheritance where she covers Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard and Jane Rochford.

I wouldn't say that Gregory is inaccurate. She pretty much sticks to the known facts. What she does is take the gaps in the record and creates her own plausible theories, most notably in The Constant Princess.
Like you did when you placed Marina with Coronado.
The Other Boleyn Girl is a good book which was trashed into a lousy movie. And we know that the costumes would have no appeal for you. ::)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,676 Posts
MichelleR said:
Anyone who is not a Tudor Geek, or who had not read the novel, would have to be confused over why Stafford was proposing to Mary when she supposedly was still married. What A Mess!
Oh, yes, I forgot about that little gaffe. But then, I'm trying to forget I wasted $20 on going to see the movie. Although the hot dogs were good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
Jeff said:
After seeing the film adaptation of The Other Boleyn Girl, I passed on reading the book. Maybe I'll rethink that, although I'm generally intolerant of historical inaccuracies.
Everybody will interpret it their own way, I suppose, but the book resonates more as a piece of fiction than history. The book makes Mary more innocent than she probably was and embraces one of the more controversial allegations against Anne Boleyn as if they were fact -- as she did in Constant Princess in regards to Catherine of Aragon -- but it was still a good read. If the history is a little distorted, the depth of emotion and character development come to the rescue. The relationship between the three siblings was a lot of conjecture, but the result was fleshed out characters.

The movie was ridiculously inaccurate, left out crucial details, and made the second half of events barely more detailed out than a montage scene from an eighties dance movie. As nuts as Henry was, he was not as bi-polar guy off his meds as the movie would suggest. He turned on Anne in record time, that's true enough, but not as depicted in the movie, and the drama of that story is always -- at least for me -- in Anne not realizing just how bad things were until the wheel was well in motion. The rape would have kinda given the game away. :)

Anyhow, I can't guarantee you'll like the book, but it's worlds better than the movie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,676 Posts
MichelleR said:
The book makes Mary more innocent than she probably was and embraces one of the more controversial allegations against Anne Boleyn as if they were fact --
I know which part you are talking about. Anne was much too smart to fall into that trap. Anyone that could keep Henry dangling for seven years, has got to be pretty clever and inventive.
Even though Anne was desperate for a son, she couldn't risk giving birth to one that looked like a miniature Smeaton. A son that looked like a Boleyn was plausible, and that's something that she might have thought of. But no, I don't think she did it. That whole story is, I think, a product of Jane Rochford's spite, including the "monster" baby.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
690 Posts
Leslie said:
I didn't enjoy the Harry Potter movies, but I loved the books. I saw the first two movies but that's it.

L
The first two movies are the worst IMO. You should keep going, they get MUCH better starting with the third.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43,324 Posts
A picture is worth 10,000 words...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,676 Posts
JimJ said:
The first two movies are the worst IMO. You should keep going, they get MUCH better starting with the third.
The third movie was too artsy for me. All that clock symbolism. The fourth was very good, partly because there was a lot of action in the book. My big objection to the fifth movie was the wizards' duel in The Atrium. I just don't like Michael Gambon and he really let me down in that scene. I'm afraid the end of the sixth movie is going to leave me cold because of him.

But, what the heck, it's the Potterverse, so I'll love it anyway.

Jeff said:
You're confusing literary description of fabrics and fashion with actually seeing women wearing them.
Or half wearing them. At least post something from the movie with a little something for the gals.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
Jeff is right -- the eye candy ratio is heavily slanted.  :)
 
1 - 20 of 79 Posts
Top