This thread is about the gross misrepresentation of books by movies! Name the one movie you've seen about a book you've read that HORRIBLY changes it. You know what I'm talking about. You read a book you like and get hyped up when you hear they're making a movie about it. Then you see the movie...and it is waaaaay different/worse than the book. Here's where you post the movie/book names and how they were worse than the book. Mine is Eragon. I mean...they changed/chopped off...sooooooo much! I was really disappointed in it. I mean, a few changes are okay. But the list goes on and on. They didn't mention Orik or the Twins, they changed Murtagh hugely, they changed Brom's method of death to a more dramatic(and stupid) thing, and they totally misrepresented Roran and Saphira. All I can say is, if they're making a movie about the second book: 1. I am so not watching it 2. They are gonna have serious problems about the crucial bits they chopped off of the first one. I guess it was a good movie. But I went into that theater expecting the book...and I got a totally different thing, and a huge disappointment.
Harry Potter books are so long that some movies should have been made into two parts. They all disappointed me because of the amount of detail left out of them. And I agree, Eragon was grossly misinterpreted.
I'd have to say Starship Troopers. The book itself prompted many political and philosophical veiws. These ranged from anti-communist to the belief that social resposiblilty is about being perpared to make sacrifice. It also made several refs. to military history and science, some of which propmted real life research. It won the Hugo award in 1960 for best Novel.
The 1997 adaptation relied on nothing but killing bugs in as grotesque way as possible and outrageous special effects.
I'll have to go with eragon, with shoddy acting and not so hot actress for the female elf... I was quite disappointed. The movie hardly followed the story line and the lighting in some places were kind of bad in my opinion.
Probably the first and second Harry Potter movies. The third was good, fourth was ok. The fifth I actually liked. I didn't think Eragon was too bad, don't really know why people complained so much.
I'd have to say Eragon because it cut alot of stuff out. and...
with shoddy acting and not so hot actress for the female elf... I was quite disappointed. The movie hardly followed the story line and the lighting in some places were kind of bad in my opinion.
Eragon because the book is very well written, but in the film much it cut so many stuuf out. The film is also very bad played and Ayra and Durza do not look very well Book:1 Film:4-5
Ima say twilight, I havent read the books and I dont intend to, but jesus that movie was the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. And I loved the lord of the rings, those are my favorite movies of all time, such epic movies dude =D
As people have said, Harry Potter movies. The first 2 were decent but the last 3, especially the fifth, are totally inaccurate. They got a new screenwriter in 5 so that's why it was so different, no Hogwarts music, changed Dementor looks, and absolute no quidditch when that was a big quidditch year! Ron started playing as Keeper for god sakes!
well i think the reason for harry potter movies being horrible, and the first few being good is probably just because the books keep getting longer and longer, so there are many more details so those get cut out because it would just be an extremely long movie.
Eragon. I mean they cut so much out and skipped around so much that I had no idea what was going on!
Also, I thougt that the the HP movies could have been better. They should have either made them longer or made them in multiple parts, like "movie four, part 2!"
