lexiepiper Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 It has been mentioned but the film of 'PS, I love you' was just awful, I enjoyed the book and I think they lost a lot of it with the film, it was lacking, and the fact they changed the setting to America and Gerard Butler's awful awful awful irish accent. I completely agree, why did they move it to America!? That seemed so pointless to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephanie2008 Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 I completely agree, why did they move it to America!? That seemed so pointless to me I think that was just to broaden the audience maybe. If it is set in America, maybe they think more people will watch? I wasn't impressed though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mia Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 If we're going to allow graphic novels/comics, then Judge Dredd has to be mentioned as a terrible film. Other than that, I've always hated The Shining, for the same reason someone else gave, that my favourite parts of the book were left out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andibody Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 The original, big-screen version of The Day of the Triffids from 1962 was truly terrible. Anybody that has read John Wyndham's masterpiece will understand that it is much more than a tale of marauding plants. However, that's the only element the film-makers were concerned with. It's hard to understand why anybody would want to make a film version that wasn't faithful to the novel, given how striking and original it was. Huge plot changes were made and none of them for the better. Characterization is paper thin and the whole thing looks remarkably cheap and shoddy. People have told me that the BBC serial from the early 1980s did the story far more justice but I have yet to see it. Apparently a new TV version has also been announced. Oh, what a great little book that is! Thanks for the reminder. Agree with you re film... was hard to take it seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peacefield Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Other than that, I've always hated The Shining, for the same reason someone else gave, that my favourite parts of the book were left out. Exactly, Mia! I was also disappointed to see that Jack Nicholson didn't portray Jack Torrance at all how I saw him in the book, or Shelly Duvall for that matter either. Torrance seemed to have a much harder struggle between being a good man and getting dragged into the whole evilness of the hotel in the novel, and his wife I thought was stronger in the book. Duvall just portrayed her as a meek whiner. And poor Halloran in the movie? Don't get me started... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andibody Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 I think all of Australia cringed when the Americans did a film adaption of Colleen McCullough's "Thornbirds". Agggghhhh! Too scary. I really felt sorry for the couple of dozen sheep the used to shove around from shot to shot to enhance the feeling of being on an Outback Station (farm). Even the sheep seemed to be embarrassed to be there. I saw an interview with McCullough - not a happy camper about it and swore never to sell the rights to her books without having control, if ever at all. I believe her kindest comment re the film was "stupid". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tabbykat Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Surely PS I Love you or Confessions of a shopahlic have to be on this list? They are so dire, yet the books were fab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankie Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Surely PS I Love you or Confessions of a shopahlic have to be on this list? They are so dire, yet the books were fab. I haven't seen PS I Love You but I totally agree with you on Confessions of a Shopaholic. I've read the books many times but I was disgusted with the movie. It wasn't funny at all, like the books are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuggleMagic Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I saw PS, I Love You the other day. That irish accent was AWFFFUUUUUL! I started the film thinking well, the good thing is he gets bumped off at the beginning of the story so I don't have to put up with the accent for much longer and that is very bad considering the story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankie Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I saw PS, I Love You the other day. That irish accent was AWFFFUUUUUL! I started the film thinking well, the good thing is he gets bumped off at the beginning of the story so I don't have to put up with the accent for much longer and that is very bad considering the story Oh poor you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Book Fiend Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I refuse to watch films based on books that I love as I find that I can never read the book in the same way again afterwards. The people from the film start to creep into my head and replace my idea of what the characters look like etc (does that make sense or does it make me sound crazy?) Before I made this rule I watched Interview With A Vampire. Don't get me wrong, it's not a terrible film, but it's a FANTASTIC book. I just find that a film will never compare to a book that you love, and you spend the whole time thinking "well I wouldn't have cast them in that role...." so I just don't bother! However, what really annoys me is when they turn a book into a film, and then start putting pictures from the film on the cover of the book! Drives me crazy!!! Or, as in the case of Northern Lights, they changed the name of the film to The Golden Compass (why oh why?) and then on the cover of the book afterwards they started writing 'The Golden Compass' in really big letters across the middle, and 'Northern Lights' in tiny letters at the top. Makes me so mad! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawr Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) Exactly, Mia! I was also disappointed to see that Jack Nicholson didn't portray Jack Torrance at all how I saw him in the book, or Shelly Duvall for that matter either. Torrance seemed to have a much harder struggle between being a good man and getting dragged into the whole evilness of the hotel in the novel, and his wife I thought was stronger in the book. Duvall just portrayed her as a meek whiner. And poor Halloran in the movie? Don't get me started... This is a ramble, but i thought i'd add something to the debate, and my friend Peacefield and i always clash over this By my avatar you might have guessed i find The Shining a fantastic piece of work (film and novel). Okay, i agree with how disappointing it can be, that it is not very true to the novel and the novel's genius like the adaptation of say, Misery, was. Though there is plenty of inspiration from the story within the film, enough for me personally to be satisfied. But, i disagree with a lot too. King commented that the film was 'cold' and that it was like a beautiful car, but without a reliable engine to make it purr along (or something along those lines). Which is true with respect that it was his own creation, but he should be flattered that someone as intelligent as Kubrick decided to create something so fantastic from his work and realise that it is a totally different interpretation. They are both brilliant. Kubrick was a very different director from the 'norm' and very clever with his work. I think he could have made a mere 'adaptation' in his sleep if he wanted to. He loved King's premise, so built on top of that foundation for his own purposes and means. The Shining (film) is full of hidden messages, social commentaries on America, the theme of communication and isolation, the digital media age versus the written media age, and the concepts of such things as labyrinths (hence the change from hedge animals to a hotel maze), duplicity, and the unconscious mind with references to Freudian theories. It's such an amazingly complex and clever film. It's like a whole metaphor of a maze in itself; there are so many levels to it. Once you start to realise things and see the meaning behind the film, it becomes a LOT more frightening than you consider at first glance - in fact, most people are annoyed at the lack of action - but this is the point. The story is not the focus of the film, it's the things which don't happen and what isn't shown or explained. It's a film which makes you really think, and just gets inside your mind and disturbs you the more you dwell on it. Like, you actually get lost yourself in that maze of the film. There are deliberate 'mistakes' embedded in it, to add to that disorientating feel. For example, Jack's typewriter actually changes colour in one scene and stays that way for the rest of the movie. Also, the chairs at the bar (where Jack is 'talking' to Lloyd) change position after Jack walks into the Gold Room, as if inviting him a way in). Of course, it could be fairly 'obvious' that these are actual continuity errors, but with someone as meticulous as Stanley Kubrick and with the content of the film he desired to create, it's unlikely. There are a lot more. With the Overlook, nothing is ever static or 'certain'. We barely ever get a clue as to what is causing this, is he actually going crazy? Why? Is he being possessed? What by? Does he actually see these ghostly inhabitants of the hotel? Or is Kubrick suggesting that Jack is insane from the very outset, by the way he includes mirrors in such scenes? The scariest part of this film, to me, is the moment where Jack is just staring out of the window, his demented face illuminated by the impending snowstorm, and his eyes roll up slightly and the hint of a smurk begins to etch across his face, you just wonder what the hell is he hearing or seeing in his mind. That is one of the most frightening parts of a movie i have ever seen. Edited September 24, 2009 by Rawr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuggleMagic Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I refuse to watch films based on books that I love as I find that I can never read the book in the same way again afterwards. The people from the film start to creep into my head and replace my idea of what the characters look like etc (does that make sense or does it make me sound crazy?) Before I made this rule I watched Interview With A Vampire. Don't get me wrong, it's not a terrible film, but it's a FANTASTIC book. I just find that a film will never compare to a book that you love, and you spend the whole time thinking "well I wouldn't have cast them in that role...." so I just don't bother! However, what really annoys me is when they turn a book into a film, and then start putting pictures from the film on the cover of the book! Drives me crazy!!! Or, as in the case of Northern Lights, they changed the name of the film to The Golden Compass (why oh why?) and then on the cover of the book afterwards they started writing 'The Golden Compass' in really big letters across the middle, and 'Northern Lights' in tiny letters at the top. Makes me so mad! I'm with you on this one. I never get the movie tie-in book cover incase people think I am only reading the book because of the film :s I know I shouldn't worry about what other people think but it is such a cheap ploy to sell books Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuggleMagic Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 This is a ramble, but i thought i'd add something to the debate, and my friend Peacefield and i always clash over this By my avatar you might have guessed i find The Shining a fantastic piece of work (film and novel). Okay, i agree with how disappointing it can be, that it is not very true to the novel and the novel's genius like the adaptation of say, Misery, was. Though there is plenty of inspiration from the story within the film, enough for me personally to be satisfied. But, i disagree with a lot too. King commented that the film was 'cold' and that it was like a beautiful car, but without a reliable engine to make it purr along (or something along those lines). Which is true with respect that it was his own creation, but he should be flattered that someone as intelligent as Kubrick decided to create something so fantastic from his work and realise that it is a totally different interpretation. They are both brilliant. Kubrick was a very different director from the 'norm' and very clever with his work. I think he could have made a mere 'adaptation' in his sleep if he wanted to. He loved King's premise, so built on top of that foundation for his own purposes and means. The Shining (film) is full of hidden messages, social commentaries on America, the theme of communication and isolation, the digital media age versus the written media age, and the concepts of such things as labyrinths (hence the change from hedge animals to a hotel maze), duplicity, and the unconscious mind with references to Freudian theories. It's such an amazingly complex and clever film. It's like a whole metaphor of a maze in itself; there are so many levels to it. Once you start to realise things and see the meaning behind the film, it becomes a LOT more frightening than you consider at first glance - in fact, most people are annoyed at the lack of action - but this is the point. The story is not the focus of the film, it's the things which don't happen and what isn't shown or explained. It's a film which makes you really think, and just gets inside your mind and disturbs you the more you dwell on it. Like, you actually get lost yourself in that maze of the film. There are deliberate 'mistakes' embedded in it, to add to that disorientating feel. For example, Jack's typewriter actually changes colour in one scene and stays that way for the rest of the movie. Also, the chairs at the bar (where Jack is 'talking' to Lloyd) change position after Jack walks into the Gold Room, as if inviting him a way in). Of course, it could be fairly 'obvious' that these are actual continuity errors, but with someone as meticulous as Stanley Kubrick and with the content of the film he desired to create, it's unlikely. There are a lot more. With the Overlook, nothing is ever static or 'certain'. We barely ever get a clue as to what is causing this, is he actually going crazy? Why? Is he being possessed? What by? Does he actually see these ghostly inhabitants of the hotel? Or is Kubrick suggesting that Jack is insane from the very outset, by the way he includes mirrors in such scenes? The scariest part of this film, to me, is the moment where Jack is just staring out of the window, his demented face illuminated by the impending snowstorm, and his eyes roll up slightly and the hint of a smurk begins to etch across his face, you just wonder what the hell is he hearing or seeing in his mind. That is one of the most frightening parts of a movie i have ever seen. I really enjoyed reading this. I have read The Shining four or five times and you have made me want to read it again. I have to agree with you - Jack Nicholson was perfect as Jack Torrance but I also found his wife quite annoying. Jack Nicholson scares the life out of me now. I cannot forget what he is like in that film. I just see him as a nutcase now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 The shining is unusal in that I think it's a really good film & a really good book, but they're nothing like each other! My vote for worst film is another Stephen King - a short story this one - The lawnmower man. It bears NO resembelance! Ian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carm Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Endless Love- the book was terrible, the movie even worse and the song was the worst of the three Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peacefield Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 As always, Rawr, you are very articulate and convincing in your posts. We still disagree, however, and I won't hold it against you . Too bad I didn't see the film before I read the book - maybe then I wouldn't have such conflicted head about the whole thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawr Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Haha i'm glad you all enjoyed reading it, i go off on a bit of a wander sometimes when i write about things i'm interested in. I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone, just expressing what i find positive about something, but, i do totally understand why people dislike the film - as sometimes if you like something, you don't want it changed, so i can see both sides Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mia Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 King commented that the film was 'cold' and that it was like a beautiful car, but without a reliable engine to make it purr along (or something along those lines). Which is true with respect that it was his own creation, but he should be flattered that someone as intelligent as Kubrick decided to create something so fantastic from his work and realise that it is a totally different interpretation. They are both brilliant. Kubrick was a very different director from the 'norm' and very clever with his work. I think he could have made a mere 'adaptation' in his sleep if he wanted to. He loved King's premise, so built on top of that foundation for his own purposes and means. Rawr, your post was very interesting but it has not swayed my opinion for the reason highlighted above. What I mean is, (and this is obviously just my opinion), that if you are adapting a book for film, you should stay as true to the book as possible. It is one of my greatest pet hates when people adapt a book and the film is completely different. If you're using the same title, make it like the book! Otherwise, quite frankly it's a damn cheek to nick someone else's ideas and then "re-imagine" them. If Kubrick wanted to do a "haunted hotel" film, I'm sure he could have come up with his own ideas rather than cherry-picking King's. If it's a totally different interpretation, like you say, it shouldn't have been called The Shining. Just my two pennorth! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawr Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I agree it shouldn't have been called that title and he could have taken influence's from King's novel, though i guess he didn't want to disrespect King by basically plagiarizing his ideas without consent i guess He just thought it was too good an opportunity to pass up i think and King righted Kubrick's 'wrongs' when he produced his own adaptation, so there's now two versions which all can enjoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautifuldisaster7 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Hands down Harry Potter films...especially the Half-Blood Prince...I get so excited for the movies and almost all disappoint. The HBP didn't even have the same ending as the book really...I hope they do well with the 7th and 8th movies but I won't get my hopes too high:lol: Diana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuggleMagic Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Hands down Harry Potter films...especially the Half-Blood Prince...I get so excited for the movies and almost all disappoint. The HBP didn't even have the same ending as the book really...I hope they do well with the 7th and 8th movies but I won't get my hopes too high:lol: Diana same here. Very dissapointed in HBP unfortunetly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicola Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 After watching Eragon Last night, I can safely say that this is the most dreadful book adaption I've ever seen......EVER!!!!! A waste of a good 90 minutes and Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawr Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I didn't even bother watching the film adaptation of Eragon as i'd heard so much about how terrible it was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fi. Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 After watching Eragon Last night, I can safely say that this is the most dreadful book adaption I've ever seen......EVER!!!!! A waste of a good 90 minutes and Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.