• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    182 years ago

    I’m going to flip the spirit of the question and say that Michael Crichton’s Timeline movie adaptation is so bad that it falls into so bad it’s good territory. I own it on bluray, and we watch it at least once a year.

  • GarbageShoot [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Not a book and not a movie, but that Cabinet of Curiosities series adapted a couple of HP Lovecraft stories and it was fucking terrible. There were a couple of beats that were interesting, but generally it was very faithless and the changes were for the worse. There were some excellent episodes otherwise, but I can’t help but feel that they are just butcherings of much better stories that I haven’t read.

    Politically, it’s way less bad than you’d expect, I’d recommend watching it. One of the best episodes had – to someone as brainrotted as me – an incredible hybridization of classic horror and battle anime logic. That one was probably my favorite one, though there was one where the protagonist looks just like the Disco Elysium guy and kind of acts like him too, and it was fun.

    P.S. did you know that there are movie adaptations of Ayn Rand’s drivel? If you are masochistic, they might be fun to watch

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      There’s a old version of ‘The Fountainhead’ with Gary Cooper. It’s a good adaptation of the ideas, and is 8/10 as a movie. Cooper was a great choice for a Rand hero.

      I never saw the more recent adaptation of ‘Atlas Shrugged.’ Apparently they ran out of money by the time the second part came out and it looks terrible.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    292 years ago

    Not a classic for most people but zoomers will agree that Percy Jackson and the lightning thief was a tragedy.

    • /home/pineapplelover
      link
      fedilink
      10
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Hot take but I kinda liked the percy jackson movies. Yeah they could’ve been done better but it was one of my favorite series and to see some parts of it visualized and on the big screen is a cool experience. Still, I’m very excited for what Rick Riordan has cooked up with Disney right now.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        52 years ago

        Yeah the new Percy Jackson series has a lot of potential and good young actors who are more accurate in terms of characters age.

    • Samus Crankpork
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      It would have been so easy to do a straight up adaptation of the battle of Yonkers, narrated by Mark Hamill, his two following parts, and a few of the smaller stories here and there to flesh things out, too…

      At least it got the perfect audiobook adaptation.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        292 years ago

        It’s a perfectly fine zombie movie, but it only takes small elements from the excellent book. The book needs to be a TV series, made in a documentary style. I just pretend the movie is unrelated; it’s enjoyable as just a standard action movie with zombies in it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      72 years ago

      World War Z is absolutely a modern classic. You can just tell when people are going to be talking about a book a hundred or so years later.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years ago

        I agree on the basis that classics are defined by reception and not if they are any good or not, like how Birth of a Nation was for a while considered basically the best movie ever.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    102 years ago

    Don’t know if it counts as “classic”, but Mortal Engines comes to mind. The film cut out over half the book. I loved the book and got really excited for the film, but it was a massive let-down. They could’ve easily made the film twice as long, maybe more.

    • ssillyssadass
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      I decided not to watch that one when I saw the trailer show all the important moments of the book, the whole plot basically

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      When I went to community college, I’d arrive early to one theater class, and sitting there already (from a previous class, I believe) were two girls/women who somehow managed to fill 75% of their conversation, every time, with “Eragon was such a bad movie adaptation.”

      Which taught me that the movie was so bad they it genuinely hurt fans of the novel.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 years ago

      I was going to read Eragon with my kids, but then remembered how bad the movie was - and knew that they’d want to watch it after reading the books. So I haven’t read it with them. Might get around to it eventually.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      202 years ago

      Yeah. I guess this post is now about bad movie adaptations in general.

      You are 100% right about the Eragon movie. I loved those books as a kid and I was so excited for that movie and it was just so bafflingly terrible. It was like they didn’t even try.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      That was my first movie as a kid where I thought “wow, the adults really fucked up the retelling of the book, if this is what this is supposed to be”

  • Kalash
    link
    fedilink
    382 years ago

    I would say Rings of Power, then again it has basically nothing to do with any books and seems to be based on bad fan fiction.

      • MaggiWuerze
        link
        fedilink
        14
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        It is very loosely based on the appendages to the SilmarillionLOTR.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            I think they got permission to use a bit of material, especially from the earlier chapters about the two trees.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            8
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            They try to sneak some stuff in anyways though.

            Like, the whole “master smith discovers alloys” thing was a way to show the three elven rings being made of the different metals without directly referencing the Silmarillion describing them. When they pour out the “alloy” to make the rings they’re clearly made of different metals.

            But like, who was that for?

            Real huge lore nerds you just pissed off because Sauron wasn’t supposed to know about their existence or take part in their making? Him not knowing is why his plan didn’t work!

    • Digital Mark
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      But the thing is, Rings of Power is incredibly fun, because it completely ignores source, steals just enough character names & places to get Lord of the Rings fans excited, but it’s not boring. Lord of the Rings is about thousands of pages of walking.

      Galadriel is a WOMAN and therefore according to Professor Tolkien is useless. Show makes her the one badass in Middle Earth.

      I did hate the not-yet-Hobbits, that was not a good invention.

      • Kalash
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I can see how it could be entertaining. Much like watching a train wreck. But “fun” is taking it a bit too far.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        I have friends who are big time LOTR fans who absolutely hate it and didn’t get past the first couple of episodes.

        Me - who has no context around the whole thing - found it kinda entertaining :/

    • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 years ago

      That book is so amazing. The film is good, but it really is a bastardization of the book, which is way more interesting in its characterizations of both “Rambo” (i forget his name in the book) and the Sheriff

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    10
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Vampire$ -> John Carpenter’s Vampires

    I hate to admit it but it’s actually worse an adaptation than the Starship Troopers “adaptation.” Although admittedly I do like the JCV movie. I used to like Starship Troopers until I found out the director made a mockery of Heinlein on purpose because Verhooven is a jackass. Did you even read the book?

    Anyway.

    As I understand it there actually is a reason for this. Basically, a studio ends up with the rights to an IP, and they sit on it because they suck at the one thing they’re supposed to be good at. Then along comes somebody with a project idea, and the studio goes, oh that’s similar to something we already have in the pipe. Then they steal that idea, tweak the script to include at least one or two elements from the IP, claimants an original work and they don’t have to pay the original screenwriter, and churn out something that may or may not be any good, but is nothing like the IP, thus potentially making significant profits for the executives at the meager cost of pissing off the original IPs core fan base.

  • Doubletwist
    link
    fedilink
    162 years ago

    I have to imagine that Lawnmower Man is in the running. Talk about having nothing at all to do with the ‘book’ , (well, short story anyway).

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 years ago

      When I found the short it was based on I was all “cyber-gore here I come” and then I read it…

      I guess they both had a lawnmower?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      Agreed. It bears so little resemblance to the “”“source material”“” that they were legally required to remove all mentions of Stephen King from the film credits and promotional materials when it released on VHS.

  • UlyssesT [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    132 years ago

    A Wrinkle In Time was fucking insulting.

    I think it was much worse for people that actually liked the book.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      Agreed. I read it when I was in 5th Grade and thought it was wonderful. I noped out of the movie when Reese Witherspoon [?] turned into a flying carpet.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        72 years ago

        The book is actually very good for children’s literature. Its kid-friendly way of describing how wormholes work stuck with me.

        • meth_dragon [none/use name]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 years ago

          for me it felt like gaiman/ishiguro/murakami for kids

          the main impressions i have left of it are of trippy kaleidoscopic space fabric and someone in a jar; i distinctly recall being very frustrated that the author did not bother to explain in great detail exactly how the space witch went from being a star to being a space witch

          child me yearned for the spreadsheets

  • SanguinePar
    link
    fedilink
    262 years ago

    Oh, another one I just thought of - How to Train Your Dragon.

    The movies are fine, but they are so completely different from the books in almost every respect that it’s barely worth giving them the same name.

    The books are absolutely brilliant, especially the further you get into them. Would love to see them developed as a TV series that stuck to the style and messages of the books. Would likely need about 10 seasons though!

      • SanguinePar
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        I think there’s a series based on the movies, but not really on the books as far asni know.

      • SanguinePar
        link
        fedilink
        152 years ago

        Yeah, Cressida Cowell. It’s very different though, be warned. There’s a guy called Hiccup who is a Viking and has a dragon… And that’s about it :-)

  • SanguinePar
    link
    fedilink
    512 years ago

    Possibly controversial, but I thought the movie version of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy was a huge disappointment.

    Luckily there’s the radio series, books, TV show, comic, play, and game to get me through :-)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years ago

        I’ve not read the book. I swear theres some weird curse on my copy, because every time I sit down to read it some major shit hits a fan.

        But I loved the movie, and the only disappointing thing with regard to it is that it didnt do well enough to get the sequels made.

        • themeatbridge
          link
          fedilink
          32 years ago

          That was Catch-22 for me. Every time I had a free moment to read it, some random, horrible thing would happen. First, a garbage disposal exploded, next time my work truck ran into the back of a bus, and then finally I got fired from my job as an appliance installer for reading books on the job.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      192 years ago

      I partly expected that this particular movie would come up in such a thread, as most people seem to be quite disappointed by it. Sure it was different from what everyone expected, and it could have been much better. I still appreciate it though because, like all adaptations/versions of H2G2, it tells a slightly different story, with the same humour and satire that is characteristic of Douglas Adams. And the effects were quite nifty IMO. Too bad DNA did not live to see the completed film…

      Luckily there’s the radio series, books, TV show, comic, play, and game to get me through :-)

      Don’t forget the BBC TV series, it was not bad either ;-)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      102 years ago

      It’s a mess of a movie, but it’s also the only version of the story where some bits of Adams’ original material actually ended up being seen — namely Humma Kavula and the Point-of-View Gun.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      82 years ago

      I found the book over the top and a cringy “penguin of doom” “I’m so random” style of humour. I don’t get that series

      • themeatbridge
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I would imagine that it’s tough to go back to a book that defined humor for a generation of readers, spawning copycat jokes and stories across the world. Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog, per E.B. White, nobody is that interested and the frog dies. So I won’t go into why Adams’ writing is considered some of the funniest literature in modern history, but I will say two things:

        First, none of it is actually random. It might seem random, but that’s just how it looks from your limited perspective. That’s part of the beauty in the stories, things come back around later. It’s a story centered around a literal improbability generator, and yet everything exists for a reason (even if that reason is to be a cosmic punchline).

        Second, I would suggest you don’t compare it to the overwhelming number of pale imitations. There are famous, successful authors who learned to write humor reading the HGttG, and for every one of them there are thousands of untalented failures who think “lol so random” is all it takes to be funny. To complain about how Adams’ writing reminds you of stupid cliches is like complaining about how a Van Gogh painting looks like hotel art.

        The last thing I’ll say is you don’t have to like the books. Taste is subjective, and you might not find the books funny. That’s OK. Read something that makes you laugh, makes you think, and makes you want to keep reading. But if you say you don’t understand why something is enjoyable to everyone else, you’re going to get long-winded rants from internet strangers who care very deeply about the thing you don’t understand. You don’t have to read those, either. I probably should have started with that bit.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 years ago

          Dude this is such a lame reply. I gave my personal opinion of the book and you wrote a whole condescending lecture of hand wavy arguments about how my opinion is apparently objectively wrong and then had the gall to follow it up with:

          The last thing I’ll say is you don’t have to like the books. Taste is subjective, and you might not find the books funny

          Yeah, no shit. I didn’t like the book and frankly I don’t need your permission to not like the book.

          • themeatbridge
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            Except you didn’t say you didn’t like it, you said you didn’t get it, and proved you didn’t get it with an invalid criticism.

            Hope the rest of your day is as pleasant as you are.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              I found the book…

              This is my opinion, I do not need you to validate my opinion. Surprised you managed to finish the book when you couldn’t be bothered to actually read my comment. Go be a condescending twat elsewhere.

              • themeatbridge
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                I don’t get that series.

                Also you. I’m sorry about your memory problems. Maybe that’s why you struggled with the books? At least maybe you’ll forget about me and fuck off.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      112 years ago

      I agree. Mos Def and Zooey Deschanel really didn’t pull their weight. Zaphod with only one head nearly the entire time was lame. The whole thing felt too “American” to me.

      Bill Nighy was fantastic though.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        72 years ago

        Zooey was definitely meh, but Mos Def was amazing imho. Especially considering it was his first acting role iirc.