this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
170 points (97.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43944 readers
518 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] Scrof@sopuli.xyz 128 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

The Hobbit. Probably not the worst movies with not the worst bastardisation (that'd be The Dark Tower for me), but I simply can't wrap my mind around the overbloated monstrosity that the Hobbit TRILOGY is. Like why would anyone do this, it felt like it's in the bag, they got Peter Jackson, they already made LotR to great success, why do we suddenly need wacky wheels with cartoon CG goblins in 48 FPS for some reason... It doesn't even match neither the tone of the book nor the tone of LotR movies.

[โ€“] jcit878@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)

peter Jackson was dragged in kicking and screaming years after preproduction started. it was destined to be a studio driven mess from the start

[โ€“] Konman72@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

If you watch the behind the scenes stuff it honestly is pretty impressive how competent the movies ended up being. Yes, they are terrible, but they could have been a lot worse. Peter Jackson made them watchable, at least.

[โ€“] Patariki@feddit.nl 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The hobbit movies should have fleshed out the dwarf characters better with all that extra time, give each of them a substory spread out over the trilogy so they would be more memorable. They did that with only one of the dwarves and it's a silly love triangle that barely goes into the character of said dwarf. With the movie we got, ask any average person directly after seeing the movies to name the dwarves, i bet hardly anyone can.

[โ€“] GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt 18 points 1 year ago

Not only does the love triangle not make sense, but it really only serves to erode the significance of friendship of Legolas and Gimli. They were supposed to be first friendship between an Elf and dwarf in a long time

[โ€“] blackbird@feddit.uk 17 points 1 year ago

Grumpy, Doc, Sneezy, I definitely forget the rest though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] Susaga@ttrpg.network 23 points 1 year ago

Warner Bros didn't want to make the Hobbit. They wanted to make another Lord of the Rings movie, and had to use the Hobbit for it. The Hobbit is very much NOT a Lord of the Rings story, despite the shared setting. Square book, round movie.

Also, they knew there wasn't enough content, but Warner Bros had to split the profits of the first movie five ways. They didn't have to do that for the second movie, and then they added a third to squeeze out even more.

load more comments (10 replies)
[โ€“] mdhughes@lemmy.ml 80 points 1 year ago (7 children)

"I Am Legend" has been made into 3 or more movies, none of which have anything like the book's ending.

The Last Man on Earth (1964) is dull and misses the point almost entirely, but almost manages the title line. Not quite.

The Omega Man (1971) is exciting and misses the point even further.

I Am Legend (2007) almost gets it. The vampires are competent. Will Smith's smarter than Neville of the book, but crazier. But then both endings fail to treat the vampires as a society.

[โ€“] axont@hexbear.net 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The original cut of the 2007 ended with Will Smith's character realizing he had been abducting and murdering conscious, aware creatures. The ending has the vampires doing a rescue mission, visibly terrified of Smith, and then he allows the one he abducted to rejoin her society.

Test audiences apparently didn't like it or didn't understand it

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] raptir@lemdro.id 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I read the book on a whim in high school. I think it was one of those random Barnes and Nobles finds. The ending was an amazing horror twist, with Neville realizing he's the monster and the audience realizing that they've been rooting for the villain The whole time, and the acceptance of the transition to the new society.

The only adaptation I've seen was the Will Smith movie which was generic zombie movie nonsense.

load more comments (5 replies)
[โ€“] Azal@pawb.social 15 points 1 year ago

It's funny the irony of I Am Legend, it is an allegory to an older society having to make way to a newer one, and somehow every time that's the story they can't do.

load more comments (4 replies)
[โ€“] fylkenny@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Because no one is going with the classic, I can mention Eragon.

[โ€“] OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[โ€“] Aidinthel@reddthat.com 19 points 1 year 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[โ€“] Inductor@feddit.de 58 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Not a classic book, but Artemis Fowl. Disney managed to confuse fans of the books and newcomers to the series alike by adding a McGuffin that was unnecessary, bringing the antagonist from the second book into the movie on the first book, and mangling the relations between the two main protagonists beyond recognition.

load more comments (5 replies)
[โ€“] MarsHardcore@lemmy.ml 58 points 1 year ago (11 children)
[โ€“] ch00f@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Asimov: "The 'robots take over the world' plot is overdone. I think humans would make robots intrinsically safe through these three laws."

Movie: "What if the robots interpreted the three laws in such a way that they decided to take over the world??!?"

The only good part of that movie was when Will Smith's sidekick was like "this thing runs on gasoline! Don't you know gasoline explodes?!"

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[โ€“] Rusky_900@reddthat.com 57 points 1 year ago (8 children)

World War Z. Not a classic book, but still...Wtf.

[โ€“] cynar@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

World War Z has NEVER been made into a film!

load more comments (7 replies)
[โ€“] NutWrench@lemmy.world 52 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Easily "World War Z." What an utter waste of the source material.

[โ€“] braiseit420@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 year ago

Related in name only. I loved the book and got curious about the movie.

What a boring useless mess of tropes. Brad Pitt travels the world and saves everyone. There, I just saved you 90 minutes.

[โ€“] shapis@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's not even a bad movie. But it's only very tangentially related to the source material.

[โ€“] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah I thought that too. I saw the movie before I'd read the book and I was like "that was fine, I dunno what everyone's fussing about." Then I read the book and was like "...oh."

It'd be great to see the book done properly. I know everyone says it but a multi-part HBO-type show would be amazing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee 48 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Starship troopers. I say this not because the movie is bad (it's not, I think it's exactly what it meant to be and did it well), but that the movie and the book are thematically opposites. The book is very pro military authoritarian. The movie is a satire of that.

[โ€“] dolle@feddit.dk 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Doesn't that make it the BEST bastardization of the book then? :)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[โ€“] vis4valentine@lemmy.ml 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The many adaptations of the Iliad, none of them is gay enough.

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] luthis@lemmy.nz 42 points 1 year ago (12 children)

The Wheel of Time. I waited for reviews before watching it, so glad I never wasted a second of my life watching that piece of blasphemous garbage. Just stick to the source material, how fucking hard is it??? Apparently too hard for modern directors, they have to "fix" everything and make it appealing for a "modern audience." Bitch, I am the modern audience, and fuck you.

[โ€“] Landrin201@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Hard disagree here. I'm a rabid wheel of time fan who has read the books at least 6 times.

Ir would be downright impossible to "stick to the source" for book one (or really, any if them) and have it be good on film. It just wouldn't work on film, there is too much going on. The story would feel like it drags and is being forcefully stretched out, because the book is rather repetitive. That repetition works in a book because you are getting to read the characters inner thoughts, and in paper it adds tension that, for example, Rand and Mat are unsure whether the next place they stay will be full of dark friends.

But after the third time they get chased out by dark friends a TV audience would be like "OK they did this already get on with it." Repetition on TV gets boring FAST.

And the magic system is all kinds of messy in the books. They're diving into it a bit more now, but it's still got Tobe simplified for screen. You can't convey characters thoughts on screen, which basically neuters the whole system. The book is VERY exposition heavy, and that gets boring real quick on screen. Look at the LOTR theatrical VS extended editions. There is a reason that Bilbo talking about Hobbits at the beginning got cut. I like that scene, but it also is too much exposition to drop on the viewer right after the intro, which is also exposition. EOTW is like half exposition, and most of the books are at least a third exposition. That all has to get cut or reworked to be actually fun to watch without being super preachy. It's

Listen to Brandon Sanderson talking about the adaptation of Mistborm he has been working in for ages now. He has said that he had to make big, fundamental changes to the characters and story to make it work on film. He said his first draft was closest to the book, and that it was quite bad.

The biggest fuckup season 1 of the show did was not including the prologue. Idk why they cut it, it's such a good intro. Besides that, I thought they did alright. Season two has been much better so far, and has shown that they really do understand the core of this story and all of the characters in it.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[โ€“] chriscrutch@lemm.ee 42 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No one appears to have yet mentioned Forrest Gump. In the book he was a chess grandmaster who wrestled professionally and was an astronaut. Also, the book sucks.

[โ€“] Mothra@mander.xyz 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I haven't watched or read it. Are you saying the movie is better than the book in spite of bastardizing it?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[โ€“] qyron@sopuli.xyz 33 points 1 year ago (5 children)

"Do Androids Dream of Eletric Sheep"

You'll probably recognize it as Blade Runner but the film took so much liberty the author allowed a good friend to write three sequels in order to harmonize the book with the movie.

Also "Starship Troopers".

[โ€“] Algaroth@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I can give Starship Troopers a pass though. Making it into a satire of fascism works better than it being straight up fascist propaganda. The book is basically a social experiment and people who read books will most likely get the point. People who don't read on the other hand...

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[โ€“] alokir@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Not a classics, but:

  • American Gods: they made unnecessary changes and introduced unnecessary filler plotlines until it felt like a drag to watch. The book already explored social issues, but the showrunners decided to dial it up to 100 and spoonfeed it to the audience at the expense of the actual plot.
  • Ready Player One: they dumbed down the whole thing about hunting keys and portals, removed tons of important worldbuilding details, made pointless changes that ruined the spirit of the books. They should have made it into a series instead of a movie.
[โ€“] mdhughes@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (5 children)

What made me mad at RP1 movie was they put the Easter Egg in Atari Adventure. Which is mentioned in chapter 0 of the book, and again in the fake town (not put in the movie) because it's so obvious, nobody who cared about games at all would hide anything there.

And no Tomb of Horrors.

Instead Spielberg put a bunch of lame movie references in, because he's too senile to understand the game references.

And the actors are far too pretty for the "but you're beautiful inside" plot.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[โ€“] theKalash@feddit.ch 28 points 1 year ago (9 children)

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[โ€“] pokexpert30@lemmy.pussthecat.org 27 points 1 year ago (12 children)

The foundation series by apple is pretty bad.

How bad? The absolute best part is a part not present at all in the books (the Cleons). Everything related to the book is bastardised, imo.

load more comments (12 replies)
[โ€“] chutapues@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[โ€“] shugosha@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

The Dark Tower. I don't get what that was, the books were far richer.

[โ€“] AssholeDestroyer@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The Gunslinger. It was supposed to be more of a continuation of the books but it just sucked all around.

load more comments (4 replies)
[โ€“] craigevil@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Dune. The Wheel of Time series on Prime.

load more comments (13 replies)
[โ€“] ch00f@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] qbus@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Any visual media that you've seen after you've read the source book. A better way to look at it. It is which movie was better or as good than its book.

Jurassic Park was a better movie than the book. The Martian the movie was as good as the book.

load more comments (7 replies)
[โ€“] willowisp_42@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Eragon. They really fucked up so much about the book!

load more comments (2 replies)
[โ€“] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

"The NeverEnding Story" should never have been made into a movie. It's almost ironic. Every time a child watches the movie instead of reading the book, that's an opportunity lost.

load more comments (3 replies)
[โ€“] Zuzak@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm sure it's not the worst but I felt like the adaptation of Watership Down changed the tone/message compared to the book. Now granted the infamous violence is present in the book (though seeing it is more visceral than reading about it). But in the book there's a nice story at the end where Hazel is injured (iirc) and is taken in by a little girl and her parents who take care of him while he recovers before releasing him back to the wild (which only adds to his legend, of course).

Removing this bit, the only positive interaction with a human, makes the message feel more like, "Humans are bastards and inherently anethma to the natural world, which is also a brutal war of all against all even down to the cutest softest creatures." It just makes you feel bad, whereas the book might make you feel bad at times but it also offers an example of what you can do right. It's kind of a pet peeve when a work with environmentalist themes falls into that line of "Humans are the problem and there's nothing you can do but feel bad about it."

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] axont@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The two adaptations of Watchmen have both missed the point. The Zack Snyder movie treats the characters like gods rather than deeply flawed losers and weirdos.

The HBO series is better, and does get very close, but collapses from a meandering plot and glorifying cops

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next โ€บ