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 ?

Time Travellers wife was the first thing that came to my mind... the book is so much more interesting and gritty. I agree the film is trash compared to the book!

The recent TV version of Handmaid's Tale

Just awful

I totally disagree that the film version of The Shining is as good as the book. It was just a vehicle for Jack Nicholson and missed out the scariest part where the topiary animals stalk the boy.
I read Forrest Gump after seeing the film. It was a bloody terrible book...none of the charm and ultra grubby and depressing It's rare to find a film as good as a book and like hens teeth to find one better.

I absolutely hated the BBC 1995 version, and I turn it off if it ever appears on my TV! Colin Firth was good, but everyone else was terrible, or miscast, or both.

Alison Steadman was especially bad. Mrs Bennet was meant to be silly, not a roaring fishwife. I thought Brenda Blethyn did it much better in the film version.

I am a big reader and cinephile and never understand how angry and snobby folk get over film adaptations. They are completely different forms with completely different commercial considerations and audiences.

Probably my favourite film adaptations are Regeneration, Atonement, and Persepolis.

If your priority is absolute faithfulness to the book then you just need to avoid the film. Long-form television often has a better shot at this, e.g. Morse.

TBITSP is widely loathed by Holocaust education specialists. I cannot fathom its popularity as an upper KS2 reader.

If the opportunity arises always always watch the film first then generally you enjoy the film and then the book too.

But One Day (the book) was also a pile of boring crap. No idea why it was as popular as it was.

What annoyed me most about the film was they had her throwing a different book in the river - for absolutely no reason that I could fathom.

Will have to disagree about Sharpe because I get irritated with the later novels, to me Sharpe always be the scarred Londoner, and Harper the huge Irishman. They got the characters completely wrong on TV.
I remember the terrible adaptation of Watership Down the BBC did a few Christmases ago, I gave up in disgust when they changed the characters completely- even changed the sex of one of them from a buck to a doe.
The film they made of Swallows and Amazons in the 1970s was pretty true to the book, I couldn't have watched the jazzed up revamp, would have irritated me too much.

😂
I would have thought it almost impossible to make a film worse than that book. I couldn't get past chapter three, it was so badly written...

The Shining was a good film, but they missed the bit in the book where the possessed father manages to find his real self for a few seconds and desperately tries to warn his son to run. It's a moving moment in the book, but in the film he is simply an evil, terrifying monster.

One Day. Read the book on holiday about 12 years ago, loved it, then watched the film - dire. Ruined it for me.

IT
The book was fab, the film and remakes didn't quite hit the same spot.
Agree pet cemetery.

Spoiler for those who haven't read the book.
Schindler's list for me. I watched the film first. Loved it. Then read the book. I cried more at the book than I did with the film. I understand the girl in the red coat making a statement in the film, but in real life she survived.

Almost always. That's why I rarely watch films.

Not just films, the beeb do it too. Years ago, watched To serve them all m'y days, and then read the book and found that one of his Twins didn't die in the crash that killed his wife.

It is a rambling, bloated hot mess. King was coked off his tits when he wrote it and by god can you tell. It is a good example of a novel which benefits from ruthless editing in the screenplay. The 2017 adaptation of the first part was excellent.

One film I have watched that really did justice to the book was The Pianist.

As for Harry Potter, I thought the film was better than the book but I have only seen and read the first 2.

Most films of books I have read just disappoint me so much!

Remains of the Day was an excellent film and captured the book really well.

I didn't see the film because the trailer had warned me not to, but I think Jim Caviezel, the way he looked when he was young and in 'The Count of Monte Cristo' was something like my picture of Captain Corelli.

The Beach was my first thought. After reading and loving the book and was looking forward to the film, I absolutely hated it.

upinaballooon : Wow ! Having googled Jim in TCoMC, I completely agree .

I’d always imagined Ioan Gruffudd ( in his Hornblower days ) as the perfect Antonio, but no longer ….!
Though Penelope Cruz looked much as I’d expected Pelagia to be .

Time travellers wife by Audrey Niffenegger. Lovely book, had me captivated.

Film was very disappointing.

Luckily a series has been made and it's true to the book and very well done. It more than makes up for the film.

Really? I loved the book, enjoyed the film (although it missed loads of crucial stuff!) But I tried one episode of the series and couldn't get into it!? Found the interviews boring and pointless! 2 family members continued watching and said it was so disjointed and nowhere near the book they gave up a few episodes in! Perhaps I need to give it more time? X

THIS.... I was so cross.

So was Jodi Picoult, I saw an interview she gave about it once.