Most disappointing movie from book?

[darkenedsoul]

I'm as big a David Lynch fan as anybody, but a 150 minute version of Dune just wasn't going to succeed, no matter who directed it.

As Lena said, the Sci-Fi Network version was a lot more faithful to the book, and despite the fairly low budget visual effects I thought it was very good.  The sequel by the same people, not quite as good but still not bad.

As previously posted, didn't care for patrick stewarts character, his sister was quite fine as was his daughter. I have both the Sci-Fi's versions on DVD. I also snagged the extended edition of lynch's when it finally came out. Mind boggling at times if you don't pay attention to the monologue/thoughts in the movie. Still I think Lynch's was interesting. I certainly loved the long version when I first saw it on the tube. But since PS is in there I figured I'd like it. Hey, I liked the version of Moby Dick too with PS in it. But Peck was the MAN in the original.

[Scott M2]

DUNE

But Dune isn't that bad. I've never read the books though so I can't compare them.

I would rather have seen the movie before reading the book - but that goes for so many book/movies.
The title and the cover kept me away from reading the book for many years, as I'm not fond of
"trudging across the desert/tundra" books, but when I finally picked it up, it kicked right in to mind-games
and political intrigues and I was drawn right in. The movie seemed like such a comic book afterwards.
Definitely give the first book a try and see how you like it.

[drone on]

Re: Stephen King books to movies...

The Shining is a great book and great movie. I didn't understand the comment that Kubrick omitted the "feel" of the book.  I read the book first and it scared the shit out of me.  So did the movie.  The book was actually creepier, though, and there were a few things from the book I wish had been shown in the movie, but it was a pretty faithful adaptation I thought.  I always tell people they don't make scary movies anymore (especially since this film)..  What has happened to the horror genre? All you get nowaways is graphic violence...Anyways, The Shining is along with 2001: A Space Odyssey in my top five of all time, just a masterpiece of filmmaking IMHO.

Ditto for The Dead Zone, great book great movie.  Christopher Walken was perfect for that role! 

[Scott M2]

Re - The Shining

I found the hedge animals increasing activity to be the scariest part of the book
(perhaps because I was reading that part on Halloween night)
but they were replaced with the hedge maze - which was a BIG disappointment for me.
Again, if I hadn't read the book first...

If the film was made today, I suspect some CGI hedge critters would be no big deal to conjure up.

I sure loved those segments with the kid tooling around the hotel on his trike.
That's the power of a movie adding something to a book.

[mgriffin]

The Shining is a great book and great movie. I didn't understand the comment that Kubrick omitted the "feel" of the book.  I read the book first and it scared the shit out of me.  So did the movie.  The book was actually creepier, though, and there were a few things from the book I wish had been shown in the movie, but it was a pretty faithful adaptation I thought. 

The book was very much a story of the supernatural, and King emphasizes that Jack, the main character, is falling under the influence of the hotel itself.  There are spirits or forces influencing Jack and his family.

Kubrick downplayed all that and made it a story of an alcoholic, mentally unstable writer who becomes violent toward his family and eventually psychopathic.  The stuff that was supernatural in the book is here seen as the hallucinations of a crazy man.

[drone on]

Wow, I don't get that one...Kubrick "downplayed the supernatural"  I heartily disagree.  From the moment Nicholson gets the job, he states, "It's almost like I've been here before."  He was a former alcoholic, never drank during the movie (he sits at the bar and talks to ghosts but they removed all the alcohol from the bar before the family moved in for the winter).  That was one of the strengths of the movie, how they put this idea that Nicholson's character was mentally unstable to begin with (alcoholic and violent toward his family).  But all kinds of supernatural stuff was happening to the son (seeing dead people), and in the end the wife sees all the ghosts in the hotel and she isn't crazy or an alcoholic.  And don't forget the films final shot, the close-up of the old photo on the wall where you see Nicholson among all the other "dead" people, almost as if the hotel "claimed his soul" and made him a part of it.  Mike, you should watch it again, the remastered "Kubrick Collection" DVD is amazing with a documentary Kubrick's daughter did during filming of the movie.....

[mgriffin]

I own the Kubrick collection DVD box,  I've seen Kubrick's film a dozen times at least, and I believe the film was very different from the book, de-emphasizing the supernatural elements.  I didn't say there were no supernatural elements in the film, I said the film shifted the balance away from the supernatural influence, toward "raging, abusive alcoholic psychopath on a rampage"

The final shot with the old photo with Jack Torrance in it was the only nod given by Kubrick to the substantial content in the novel about the history of the Overlook hotel and the bizarre events that had happened there over the course of the hotel's history.  There's a big section in the novel about Jack finding an old scrapbook or a bunch of pictures, and reading stories about these events that make it clear there's a sort of "possession" going on.

A good argument could be made that Kubrick's film is better than King's novel, but it's a difficult argument to say that Kubrick didn't change the story substantially.  Would you disagree less heartily if Stephen King said nearly the same thing about Kubrick's film that I just said?

[drone on]

I know King didn't care for the film, and I did think the book was "better" in terms of being more detailed, more psychologically in-depth, and even creepier than the movie.  That's the problem with books to films, the films are usually an adaptation and/or edited version of the book, so it's probably not fair to say which is "better".  As a stand alone film, if you saw it without having read the book (I read it back in 1982! before I saw the movie), it's still a great achievement in the horror genre, one of the few genuinely scary (IMO) movies made to date.  Kubrick's films in general (as I'm sure you'd agree, Mike) are pure genius regardless of the screenplay/story for his visual enigmatic quality which few have been able to hold a candle to. 

[judd stephens]

Really a short story, not a book, but my vote goes to Johnny Mneumonic.  I didn't see it mentioned yet, and it was a pretty lame version.

[Seren]

I don't read a lot anymore so many of the films mentioned I've not read the book. I have read Northern Lights and agree that the ending was "Noooo, you can't do that!!!!", which was brilliant. I think it must be very, very difficult to film a book as (not including any particular studio's ethos and the need to recoup huge amouns of money) one person (or small group of people) is putting their own imagination, as inspired by the book into 'reality'. When I read a book I get a whole reality open up in my mind, including  smells and touch - which cannot be replicated in a film, so it's unlikely any book can be recreated 'faithfully' and meet my own imagination.

Even 2001, in which the book and film were developed together, had it's limits. the book 'The lost worlds of 2001', if I remember right, had numerous scenes in it that were unfilmable at the time and so did not make either of the official film or book - so 2001 did not even meet the authors imagination and he was in on both....

However, Hollywood remakes and shit versions etc can really suck

[Scott Raymond]

  My vote is for League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen. The only things the two have in common are the title and the names of a couple of the main characters. The resemblance stops there. It's an ok movie if you don't read the book. The main difference is that the book makes sense. Yechh....

Scott Raymond
WVKR-FM

[Seren]

I've been re-reading Northern Lights, I have to admit I did not realise how much they had changed the book....enjoying it immensely and have forgotten about comparing it to the film so that is good.

[drone on]

Re: The Shining

I just bought the 2-disc special edition of The Shining and watched all the extras, watched the film with commentary and without, and have come to the realization Mike G. was right about the movie being different from the book in that the film is more psychological and less a ghost story.  Mike pointed out that Jack Torrance, in the movie, has an underlying hatred of his family and killing them is not necessarily prompted by the ghosts.  Actually someone interviewed in the extras pointed out how both Jack and Danny have the gift of "the shining," yet Danny uses it more as a warning whereas it feeds Jack's already psychologically embedded issues.  This is a very interesting realization for me considering this is my favorite film of all time.  I now look at it in a whole new light, and actually appreciate it more now.  This version of the film, presented in widescreen, looks amazing, and the extras are very much worth re-buying the movie.  The commentary is by one of Kubrick's cameramen on the film and we get lots of interesting insight into different shots/angles, and the other commentator adds his fascinating remarks about the movie's story itself.  There's a brief interview with electronic legend Wendy Carlos talking about music she did for both Clockwork Orange and The Shining.  Anyone know if the music from the opening sequence is available on CD?