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 ?

@squashyhat Can't imagine where you got your name from
Ds (who loved the book) put up with it until the end. Apparently it was a 1950s seaplane. He was vocal. Very vocal. He said it was so rubbish that he wondered if they'd decided to add time travel to it, and it might have been better if they had. Luckily there was only another couple of (older) people in the cinema who thought he was hilarious (and had a point)

@SallyLovesCheese To me the important thing is following the basic plot but keeping with the spirit of the original story. So for the Swallows and Amazon adaption they took an original story about a group of children who were friends competent on a boat and camping, making up stories to have fun in 1930, and changed it to a group of quarrelsome children who hadn't a clue about anything outside and had to deal with a spy-in 1940.
I could have coped with the spy and the 1940s setting, if the children had been the original children who loved camping and boats and didn't spend most their time arguing.

So, yes, you may need to change things, but ask yourself at each change: Is this what the original characters would do in that situation, and does this situation fit in with the rest of the book. Like the ice waterfall scene in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Peter tries to protect his family by standing in front, Susan wants to give up to protect her family, and Lucy is thinking of others. It fitted in well.

If you really want to see a complete change in narrative, read Stephen Kings's short story "The Lawnmower Man" and then watch the movie "based on the story". Literally the only thing they have in common is that they involve a man that mows lawns at some point. (tbf I actually enjoyed the movie, the story is probably un-filmable and I guess they wanted to stick King's name on it)

I really enjoyed Netflix’s Virgin River. When I realised there were books, thought I’d try some. Books are totally different they’ve basically taken some characters and loosely based the TV show on that. The books are also quite badly written in a Mills & Boon kind of way, but I confess to them being my guilty pleasure.

I deliberately don’t watch films based on books I’ve read normally though as I’m usually outraged that they’ve missed large chunks out or changed stuff.
I don’t mind doing the opposite though. If I watch a film, and enjoy it and later find out it was based on a book I’ll go find the book to read. The books are usually much better than the film.

Almost always, but Mothering Sunday, the brilliant Graham Swift novel, is the exception - it was pitch perfect for me and most of the audience, from what we heard afterwards.

@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER wow - have to disagree here. Atonement is my favourite book of all time and I thought the film was just dreadful.

The only time I have thought that's not the case is with The Handmaid's Tale (albeit a series not a film). Love the series

The Dark is Rising is my favourite book series, I've loved it since I was a child.

I haven't seen the film. I read what they'd done to it and refused to watch it. It's banned in my house.

Similarly, my kids hate the films of Percy Jackson.

I can't even read the book again as the film annoyed me so much. There was no need to change it.

DH and I were talking about this yesterday.

We both think that jaws was a better film. Abnd highly respect Peter Benchley's work on shark conservation.

I like the Harry Potter films enormously. I enjoy the books as well, but kind of think the films distilled it all.

My bookclub plan to go to Where the Crawdads Sing. I was a bit meh about the book, and hope the film is not too sensationalist.

I usually find the film a big disappointment after reading the book but in this case it was the other way round. I loved ‘The best exotic Marigold hotel’ when it was a film so thought the book would be great. It wasn’t. It sucked. How they ever made a credible film out of that (IMO) pile of rubbish is beyond me. The imagination needed to turn that book around is staggering. Hats off to the imagineers on that one.

Children of Men. Clive Owen totally wrong and they buggered up the whole story.

I came on to say The Dark is Rising, too.
That film is a travesty and a disgrace.
I waited years for it to be filmed, imagining something not dissimilar to the Harry Potter films, with excellent detailed sets, British actors and no shitty firework-like special effects. Not to mention following the story and including the old names and lore of the British isles.
Christopher Lee was still with us then and if ever an actor fit the role of Merriman, it was he.
Instead, we got that unspeakable mess, Americanised and formulaic.
I am still furious about it and would long for a remake, only I have little faith that it would be any good. The only hope would be if a director who was also a fan of the books got hold of it…

I agree that One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest was a good adaptation of the book.

Oh and YY to The Remains of the Day. It is an excellent adaptation.

The Quiet American with Michael Caine is exceptional also.

So many, so now I won't see the film if I've read the book.
One that always springs to mind is 'War Horse' as the book is from the narrative of the horse, which is the important part, the film is just a film about a horse.

Sometimes it’s almost perfect though, eg Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy with Gary Oldman. And Colin Firth was just right as Bill Haydon.

Standard.

The books are ALWAYS better than the films.

Genuinely ridiculous, wasn't it?

The new Reacher series on Prime tho - does him absolute justice 👌

I very, very rarely watch film/ tv adaptations as they usually do something to annoy me, even if they are not downright awful.

Great ones offhand are most of the Mechant Ivory ones (Room with a View, The Remains of the Day, Howards End spring to mind), The English Patient and I really loved the tv adaptations of Normal People and the recent BBC Northern Lights ones. I also love the BBC 80s adaptations of books like The Children of Green Knowe, The Box of Delights and the Narnia ones - they were all done really well.

However, and I know it is controversial, but I did really enjoy the Greta Gerwig Little Women - it was the first adaptation that made the Laurie/ Amy/ Jo storyline make sense to me so I liked that interpretation.

The Lord of the Rings and Hobbit films are abysmal - just awful.

And me! I was absolutely fuming

Almost every time. Ex used to say to me if we were choosing a film, 'is it a book? Have you read it?' and if so he wouldn't watch it with me because it wasn't worth the ranting.

Agree with The Beach, Memoirs of a Geisha, Captain Corelli's Mandolin in particular. I'm sure there are more recent examples too, though watch far fewer films these days somehow.

I really quite liked the film of Brooklyn even though I wasn't so keen on the book by Colm Tóibín, so it happens that way sometimes too. Although I think I saw the film first, maybe that's why.

Oh yes, My Sisters Keeper gave me the absolute rage. Such a puddle of predictable mediocrity compared to being emotionally slapped and shocked by the book's unexpected twist at the end. I also hated that they omitted the lawyers back story. He deserved better than that movie cardboard cutout.
Please read the book.

For me, I think it was The Lovely Bones and Girl on a Train that were ruined for me.

GOAT basing it in outskirts of NY (NJ) as opposed to London made it not work so well for me!

I agree with you about Brooklyn, the film version is much better than the book.

I Capture the Castle is another one, Topaz has red rather than white/flaxen hair!

Funnily enough, The Handmaids Tale has really grown on me. The adaptation of Alias Grace stays quite close to the book too.

I wish they'd do Rosamond Lehmann's Invitation to the Waltz and the follow up The Weather in the Streets - as I really think they'd translate well to the big screen. Similar to Downton Abbey in writing.

Out if interest, I will add the perspective of someone (me) one of whose novels was ‘Hollywooded’.

First they buy an ‘option’ which means they have the exclusive right to turn it into a film for (IIRC) 3 years.

My literary agent said at the time that if they ever did actually make it, they’d set it in Ohio and I’d hate it! (The book was set wholly in the U.K.)

But they did make it. The contract I had to sign was about 10cm thick and meant I was signing away all film rights throughout the entire universe for ever. I am not exaggerating here. You get to call any of the shots only if you’re a massive seller like JK Rowling.

I didn’t exactly hate it, but it was disappointing. I thought that their fairly substantial changes did absolutely nothing for the storyline and IMO one of the principal actors simply wasn’t right for the character I’d created.

I know I was very lucky to have been ‘Hollywooded’ at all, but would add (in case anybody’s wondering - someone’s bound to be!) that what they paid me, although obviously very welcome, was nothing like a life-changing sum.