Young Writers Society

Can this work with TV shows too? Oh well, if it doesn't then you can throw tomatoes at me Pretty Little Liars. Ugh. What horrid garbage. In the first 4 minutes of it, I already hated it. ALI WENT MISSING IN 7TH GRADE NOT WHEN SHE WAS 16.


Sorry, I have no where else to vent..all my friends loved it. D:

Easily the worst movie adaption I have ever seen is The Lovely Bones. Absolutely loved the novel, absolutely despised the movie. The plot/timeline was all wrong. It didn't even make sense. Although the actor who played Susie captured her pretty well.

I also agree with Harry Potter. The casting for the characters was fantastic, but when condensing a five hundred page novel into two and a half hours, you definitely miss something.

I would have to say Eragon. I saw the movie first and was all, "this is cool I guess."
A year later I read the book then watched the movie again and realized how incredibly crap the movie is.

Also, Ella Enchanted was a book first too. I actually like the movie and the book both. They aren't really alike except with the characters' names and a few of the events. The book is funny and just a generally good novel about finding yourself. It's like Cinderella with a twist. The movie takes the twist to the extreme and it's good. It's just a bit of a different story line.

Also, Ella Enchanted was a book first too. I actually like the movie and the book both.

Ditto, EAHailstone! I love the book, and the movie's cute too, but they totally ruined it. It could have been a great movie if they'd followed the book beyond the names of the characters.

A Girl and Five Brave Horses (by Sonora Carver). This book ended up being the movie, "Wild Hearts Can't be Broken", which was absolutely nothing like the book.

The book is a true story of a girl (Sonora Carver) who gets a job riding diving horses at fairs across America during the Great Depression. It's a wonderful story and so well written that it keeps you reading in bed way past curfew, it's a shame they didn't follow it more closely when they made the movie.

A more recent entry to this... Bridge to Terebithia.

They fairly well ignored the author's story and put in some nice special effects.
If you want a movie adaptation of this book, try the old BBC version.

I'd like to say all. But specifically Twilight Saga (I like the books, but no I don't have a "team" or any of that junk), Some Harry Potter, and sooo many others! I despise movies when there's a book!

Alright ill try to be quick but as this being my first post i would like to introduce myself. Hi i'm Noah I'm 13 and I wrote my first poem which got a 4 and a half rating on Authorstop.com in fourth grade i love poetry and I'm just starting writing stories again. I would probably have to say twilight i didnt much care for the book but it was actually pretty good for the genre but the movie actually ruined it. It wasn't bad but Edward had no emotion Jacob barely made any difference and there was to many plot holes.

My opinion is that EVERY book is better than its movie. I've yet to be proven wrong.

The movie that I think changed TOO much for my liking was Percy Jackson. The books are fantastic, but the movie... it seemed to me like a parody...

I didn't like it.

The Vampires Apperintice. I loved the book very much. It was dark, it was suspenful, it had dry humor but the movie dosappointed me.

*Sigh*

The Unbearable Lightness of Being
The movie (for the older audiences) was ABYSMAL and seemed more like a 3rd grade book report. The book (not necessarily for older audiences) quickly became one of my top 3 favorites.

Okay, okay, but books>movie is easy. How about we also get some suggestions where the movie is better than the book?

Lord of the Rings (the books were an absolute chore)

The film version of The Color Purple is quite terrible in several aspects, but most especially in that it almost entirely eliminates the sexual relationship between Celie and Shug, reducing it to a single ambiguous scene of a rather platonic kiss. The sexual fulfillment that Celie felt with Shug was one of the novel's strongest focal points, but, as usual with Steven Spielberg's work, it was whitewashed in the film to reduce the risks of mainstream audiences not liking the film. Whoopi Goldberg did an excellent job as Celie, and Oprah was surprisingly good as Sofia, but that film was a wasted opportunity.

I find the Harry Potter films to be dull and completely lacking in cinematic innovation. Terrible acting from the kids, and such wonderful revered British actors and actresses are wasted in bit parts. The books are great, the films are useless. Cormac McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses is a great book turned into a terrible film. There's so many terrible film adaptations of good books!

Now for the opposite idea, movie versions being better than the books, I can't say I think that's ever happened, but I do believe some films are as good as their literary sources:

I find the film adaptation of Annie Proulx's short story Brokeback Mountain to be a complete masterpiece. It does everything a literary adaptation should do: stay true to the story's themes, tone, and mood whilst simultaneously expanding the story for film and enriching the scene both visually and emotionally. Brokeback Mountain does that. The short story itself is outstanding, and while I wouldn't say the film is necessarily "better," it most certainly stands alongside it. The film adaptations of Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men and Tennessee Williams' A Streetcar Named Desire are also quite terrific. Had it not been for Vivien Leigh's haunting, riveting performance as Blanche DuBois in Streetcar, I doubt the play would be as iconic as it is today.

Michael Cunningham's The Hours is a beautiful, lyrical novel, and it also seemed like one impossible to adapt to film. The production crew of the film version tried their best, and I think they did justice to the material in many ways. The casting was excellent; Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, and Meryl Streep are three of the greatest actresses in film, and they certainly vivified Virginia Woolf, Laura Brown, and Clarissa Vaughan. In the end, though, The Hours is just so literary and introspective that the beauty of it, the uplifting yet depressing aura that it wields, is impossible to fully explore in film. So it was a good attempt, but not wholly a success.

And that was quite a long, rambly post! I couldn't resist blathering on because cinema and literature are my two greatest passions.

I love all the Harry Potter books, but I hated the third movie. Maybe it was the new director.. but I don't know! I understand what you guys mean about the fifth one! And in the fourth one they completely missed the girl house elf that helps Barty Crouch Jr. escape... Over all there's just too much to fit into a movie! I'm always glad when I've read the book before the movie, because in some of the Harry Potter's there's just no connection between the dots! Oh and in the sixth movie, they burned the Burrow!??! How are they supposed to do the seventh movie now?

I would have to say A walk to remember....The movie was amazing but so was the book....So i guess it would be a tie.

Twilight, the movie was not the best though it was great! I just preferred the book.
Percy Jackson and The Lightning Thief, the movie was brilliant but Annabeth wasn't the same and there was no Clarisse! The book in my opinion was much better!