Books ruined by movies (and vice versa)

After having a conversation about the HP movie, i just had to talk about more. I have only seen 2 book movies that weren't an insult to the book (Holes, and HP1) Are there any more good book movies out there?

Holes I agree with, although I can't say the same about HP1. There's just something about mediocre young actors... Eh. Anyway. I thought The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants wasn't a bad adaptation; both could be enjoyed as separate entities.

Two pretty big book-turned-movies are coming up: The Hunger Games which just signed with Lionsgate, and the upcoming novel If I Stay by Gayle Forman (publication date: April 2, 2009), to be directed by Catherine Hardwicke of Thirteen and Twilight fame. I'm nervous about Hunger Games because I LOVE the book so much, but Suzanne Collins is adapting her own book to the screen, so that should be good. If I Stay was a great read, and I admire Hardwicke's work, so I'm interested to see how that'll turn out. Both of these movies are slated to come out sometime in 2011.

The Hunger Games is coming out with a movie? YAY! This is why I signed up for Library Thing. Although it will probably be pretty gruesome.

Howl's Moving castle is one of my favorite movies but I didn't care for the book as much. That could be because I saw the movie first but oh well.

I loved Twilight the book but was completely disappointed by the movie. The movie's only saving grace is that it's so bad it's funny.

I always cite The Princess Bride and The Wizard of Oz as two movies that were actually better than the books. Of course, die-hard fans of either of those books will disagree with me on this point.

There are several movies of books that I enjoy watching, but usually they're not movies based on books I absolutely love -- I find it hard to distance myself from the book enought to enjoy the movie in that case.

I do think the Lord of the Rings movies are as enjoyable as the books, though I do miss a lot of the things they had to leave out.

I've pretty much hated all the books that have been turned into movies. The first Harry Potter was OK..the others:S They were pretty horrible:D I've read holes and seen the book, but it was such a long time ago that I don't exactly remember how it was.

The movie Dune, while not perfect, was very close to the book.

7: Which one?

Both were very different than the book. The Lynch movie almost unrecognizably so. It was also an awful movie without regard to whether it was faithful to the book or not.

#5 ... I'd say The Wizard of Oz was not only better than the book, it's the greatest movie ever made. The failure even to nominate Margaret Hamilton for Best Supporting Actress is the most egregious omission in the Academy's entire history (and, in all respect to Hattie McDaniel's break-through win, Hamilton deserved the Oscar even more).

There are loads of movies that are far better than the books (it's just that the books were often so bad, or at least forgettable, that no one even remembers them). For an excellent book, though, where the movie is even better (and keeping this to YA), the example I always cite is Bridge to Terabithia. I'm deliberately keeping this vague, to avoid SPOILER, but at the climactic moment, there's a look of surprise on the face of one of the characters, which just communicates itself far more powerfully visually than anything that Katherine Paterson could possibly have described in words.

I didn't know anything about Paterson until I saw the movie, and I'm glad I saw the movie first because of the shock value of the climax, and it was that look-on-the-face that was especially effective.

The new Bridge to Terabithia was OK...
The old one sucked on ice. It was so bad, it was funny. The old was more amusing, and I would rather watch it, even though the new one was better...

I didn't care for the new movie of Terabithia (haven't seen the old). It seemed so sanitized to me, with the "FAMILY FRIENDLY" label a little too prominent. Don't get me wrong, I adore young adult and children's fiction and I'm not someone who enjoys gratuitous adult themes, but there was something too prepackaged about Walden's film of the story.

Re: Bridge to Terabithia -- That's a case where I probably love the book and the movie equally (speaking of the recent release by Walden Media here). Both are heartbreaking, so I wouldn't want to watch or read the story often, but I felt that the movie stayed true to the book on important points.

I haven't seent the film; the secret of moonacre (based on the little white horse but apparently everything bar the names have been changed. I hate it when films are like that, don't directors realise that there's a reason the books were popular in the first place?

Though it isn't young adult (unless used as a weird bedtime story), The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (F. Scott Fitzgerald) movie was infinitely better than the book. I mean, infinity times ten. I've never felt that way about a film adaptation before, but I guess hell has officially frozen over. The movie got me invested in the story and its characters. The book left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

i really enjoyed City of Ember, the book, so i was a little afraid to watch the movie last night. but i actually enjoyed it a lot. there were a few things i thought it was pointless to have changed from the book, but it was a really good companion to the book.

another couple of movies that are slightly different than the book but still just as wonderful are The Secret Garden (1993, directed by Agnieszka Holland) and A Little Princess (1995, directed by Alfonso Cuarón), both by Francis Hodgson Burnett.

i concure about Wizard of Oz. i do like the book, but it just can't stack up to that movie.

i was blown away by the movie Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy but i DID NOT enjoy the book (perhaps because i read it after seeing the movie).

15: My feelings on The Hitchhiker's Guide are completely opposite yours, but perhaps that's because I read the book before seeing the movie :)

I think it definately matters whether you read (and liked) the book first or read (and liked) the movie first.

The Hitchhiker's Guide - read it first, liked the book alot, thought that the movie was "ok" - good effort but didn't quite do it for me.

The Wizard of Oz - movie first, liked them both, but the book has sequels!

The Princess Bride - movie first, loved it! But I REALLY like the book as well - for completely different reasons. After reading the book I acquired several more books by William Goldman and was sorely disappointed - they ran from bad to AWFUL - how can that even happen?!

A Little Princess - book first, very good. The movie didn't make too much of an impression - I've seen it but don't remember much about it.

Harry Potter #1 - book first - I enjoyed it, the movie was fine but I didn't feel the need to see any of the sequels but have read 1-6 of the books (waiting for 7 to come out in paperback)

Lord of the Rings - huge fan of the books, enjoyed the movies immensely - very well done from this fan's standpoint. I agreed with the editing of the sections they chose to leave out.

Some I haven't seen mentioned:

I, Robot - I enjoy Asimov, the movie had NOTHING to do with the book and wasn't very interesting to boot.

Starship Troopers - I'm a big Heinlein fan and like this book, I don't think that the movie was very reflective of the book at all, but I maintain a (very) minority opinion that it was a fun SF film for the "camp" alone (this movie was just about universally panned by fandom - it wasn't what they wanted)

Series of Unfortunate Events - The Bad Beginning - movie first - I enjoyed it and was inspired to seek out the books. I enjoyed the first few books I read - then the formula got a little old.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

Series of unfortunate events was good unti the 8th, where it was so repetitive, it was boring...

the last one was good too, since it was DIFFERENT!