What movies or television series do you think most differed from a print version of same?--Al

-- Al Schroeder (al.schroeder@nashville.com), July 20, 2000

Answers

Off the top of my head, very definitely "Prince of Tides," a marvelous book which was totally ruined by the movie. The movie as a stand-along story was fine, but if anybody loved the book (as I did), they can't possibly enjoy the movie--essential elements were left out and the entire focus of the story was shifted from the memories of the children to the interaction with the psychiatrist (not surprisingly, since Streisand was the director).

Another movie I was very sorry to see made was "The Hobbit." I loved the books and had my own vision of what all of those creatures looked like--and now I can't even remember the creatures which were born in my own mind because I've seen the movie and the books with pictures from the movie, etc.

OTOH, I felt "Gone With the Wind" was wonderfully true to the book, especially in its choice of Clark Gable as Rhett Butler.

-- Bev Sykes (basykes@dcn.davis.ca.us), July 20, 2000.

I think I will be thoroughly disappoint when Harry Potter movie comes out! This book makes your imagination sour and it will be hard act for any director fill that cup. I would have liked if Spielberg did the directing but now that Chris Columbus of Home Alone fame will be directing. I have very little expecation. Then again that can be a good thing. Low expectation I mean.

-- Karenna (momoe@bigfoot.com), July 20, 2000.

The Matt Helm tv series. All they kept was the name. Starship Troopers was a leetle bit off the mark.

-- Colin (ethilrist@prodigy.net), July 20, 2000.

The first thing that comes to mind is the dreadful film version of Charlie & the Chocolate Factory. I know, I know -it is beloved. And I will admit that it was a pretty darn good movie - until the end. The ending of the movie completely compromises the point of the book. The point of the book is that at the end when Charlie is the only one who hadn't done anything bad, he gets the factory. Well, in the movie he DOES something bad (fizzy lifting drinks) and he still gets the factory. Why? Cause he says he's sorry and gives his everlasting gobstopper back? I'm sure Agustus Gloop would have apologized if he had known his apology would be accepted so easily. It completely ruined the movie for me.

In general Roald Dahl doesn't seem to translate well. I thought "James & the Giant Peach" was a rather lame movie and got so many things wrong it was hard to watch.

Don't get me started on "Jurassic Park."

A comment to the "Prince of Tides" I think it is possible to love the book & the movie. I did. I thought the movie did a great job of the parts of the book it did. I just think it missed so many stories. But I don't think it was a bad adaptaion. Just a hard book to adapt.

Finally, to comment on the Harry Potter comment. I am sick that Chris Columbus is the chosen director. Naturally, I was rooting for Terry Gilliam. Now HE would have made a wonderful movie. But, I am trying to remain open-minded.

That's all. On a separate note, there are plenty of movies which I think were great adaptations of their source, but that's another topic.

ally

-- Ally (ally3223@aol.com), July 20, 2000.

For me, Forrest Gump. I wasn't as in love with the movie as a lot of people, but I did enjoy it. The book, on the other hand, I thought was aweful. One of two movies ever I thought were better than the book. (The other is The Wizard of Oz, just because it's so visual.)

And I really fear for the Harry Potter movies.

-- Amanda (missdufour@hotmail.com), July 20, 2000.

My college minor was in children's literature. I'm a fan of Robert Cormeir's young adult novels, and was incensed when the movie changed the ending of "And I am The Cheese". The whole point of the book, the ideas it was trying to evoke, and the message it was sending, is ruined if you change the ending! Arg! But I suppose that's true of most typical "Hollywood Endings."

-- AJ (joijoijoi@hotmail.com), July 20, 2000.