Have you ever read the book and then seen the film

[Bunty55]

and been so disappointed with the way they completely changed the narrative ?

Not only that.. but then the miscasting of the actors obviously chosen for their fame and not their suitability ruining the picture you have in your head and the story ?

The only film I have seen that did justice to the book was 'The Constant Gardener'

I think the Hunger Games films were very close to the books.

P.S I love you. Absolutely ruined it!
The Horse Whisperer. Totally changed the ending!

The sole exception was Atonement, where I’d read the book only a very few weeks before seeing the film, and couldn’t fault how they’d done it.

TV dramas are often the worst. The ITV Miss Marple remakes were an abomination - sexed up and buggered about - couldn’t hold a candle to the Joan Hickson versions.

The golden compass

The latest version of Little Women. Nothing like the book and the casting of the sisters was dire, no resemblance to each other whatsoever.

The Firm. The book is waaaay better and there's a whole chunk where the story is completely changed.

The guy who wrote The Eiger Sanction was so incensed by its adaptation as a film that he slagged it off in a footnote in a subsequent book. Funnily enough that one hasn't been made into a film.

The BBC did an adaptation of The Thirteenth tale one Christmas. The book is brilliant, my friend and I love it, it’s one of our favourites. The BBC adaptation was awful, you didn’t get the the cosy feel of some of the characters and they just ruined it. I’ve always been wary of them since.

Nearly always.

Worst one was children of men. Dreadful, walked out before it finished.

Oh yes.

Children of God - I'd wiped the film from my memory.

An obscure one where the book was about a journalist who was investigating a fertility Dr who attempts to kill the journalist who is in hospital for a routine op.

The 'big discovery' is that the Dr is taking the fetus of women requesting an abortion and 'transplanting' it to women with fertility issues.

They made it into a 'made for TV film' and took out the abortion / transplant - so the Dr attempts to murder the journalist for no apparent reason.

On the other hand I think Sean Bean as Sharpe was good, in the books he's a dark haired Londoner and they had lined another actor up, I think one of the McGann brothers.

When the original author of the books adapts the later books to fit the TV show you know they are doing something right.

Frequently frequently frequently. The only exception to this rule that I can think of is the 39 Steps. A pretty duff book, but a decent film.

Almost ever time I see a film following reading the book I'm disappointed . EXCEPT - Carrie, IT, The shining. All excellent films.

Yes, though sometimes the other way round, saw the film first.
Call me by your name was changed a bit, but I loved both book and film, sane with The Client.
Brokeback Mountain is based on a short story and the film did it justice, completely.
I also loved both book and film of Never let me go.

Oh yes. I loved One Day as a book and couldn't wait to see the film. What a pile of boring crap. They totally ruined it.

The saccharine adaptation of an overrated book: The Book Thief.

The film manufactures a romantic relationship between Leisel and Max, and the ending that had the now-aged Leisel in Manhattan, when in the novel it's Sydney.

Oh yes, the film wasn't a patch on the book.
One day was shit anyway, both book and film and the other one that name escapes me, the Irish one where she dies and leaves the letters behind.

Yep, totally agree with that.

I'm enjoying 'the time traveler's wife' that's on TV at the moment, I think they have done a good job on it.

The only one I know where the film was better than the book was, "Fever Pitch".

We were just chuntering in another thread about the differences between book and film of Sleeping with the Enemy. The book is a lot spikier and interesting with lots about class in America and the interaction with sexism. The film makes it all about rich people because it means they can film in a pretty house and pretend that money doesn't give you a lot more options.

Chocolat by Joanne Harris

I think the catholic church must have bought the rights so they could change the plot beyond recognition. It ruined it.

One where the film is as good as the book is To Kill a Mockingbird with Gregory Peck. Other than that films are mostly worse. My 8yo DD is just realising this, as we read a Harry Potter book then watch the corresponding film in order- upon reading a bit a night for 6 months + to complete one book, and then snuggling down to watch that film as a treat when reading is complete she was so confused at a) how fast it all went and b) “what about the bit where…?”

Frequently. Watched the Hobbit trilogy recently. DS2 gets really grumpy with me because apparently I ALWAYS moan in films about the book being different/better.

An obvious one that springs to mind is Marley and Me.
In the book the main guy is a happily married family man. In the film there is a constant narrative that he feels trapped and bored by family life.