Young Writers Society

Nicholas Spark’s book the last song was actually really good. When I found out Miley was acting in it I was super upset. I decided that the movie would be ruined, and I was right. They completely butchered the movie, I turned it of 40 minutes in. The acting was terrible and they turned Ronnie’s character into a baby. They took out tons of scenes, it was just bad. I really hate when they can’t just follow the book more.

A Series of Unfortunate Events. Too odd, without the same quirky humor as the books. Of course, a good portion of that humor came from Snicket's narration style. But still, I think they could have made the movie much more entertaining.

DaSpetsnaz wrote:The first Percy Jackson book. It is a great book, and they made the movie God-awful. They added some things called magic orbs which came in the book at the very end of the book and they put them in at the beginning. They also had to fight monsters not seen until later books. I have to say, don't see the movie.

The Black Cauldron. I loved that movie. I thought it was awesome. Then I read the book and discovered that Disney screwed it up. I mean, sure, Gurgi is cute in the movie, and it's very sacrificial of him to hop in the cauldron, which is somehow compassionate enough to not kill him, but...he doesn't even touch the cauldron in the book. Some other guy does. And he dies.

Every single one of them.

(Eragon deserves a shining mention (and I don't mean shining in a good way.))

The only exceptions are Disney movies and Bridge to Terabithia.

Ian McEwan's "Enduring Love".

Booker Prized author and extremely well written novel, but the movie starring Daniel Craig fell flat and changed the ending. Mind you, it was kind of inevitable since the whole of Enduring Love as a novel relied on a stream of conciousness that made the reader question narrative reliability, so once that was in a 3D world you genuinely couldn't achieve the same effect. 'Least not in this movie.

I agree with Percy Jackson. They didn't even MENTION Clarisse! Ergh... the Percy Jackson movie always gets me started. I'm going to mention a TV series, if that's okay? Pretty Little Liars. I know, I know. They basically got the whole thing. Oh and if you're reading the series right now.... SPOILER ALERT! But Ian didn't kill Ali! ALI killed Ali! And they didn't make Mona the first A, heck they didn't even HAVE a first A! They didn't even spend a lot of time on Wren! Wren was a slightly big part of the first part! And what about all the fights Spencer and Melissa have? They mention literally two (or three, I forget) of these! Even the little tiffs are important! It shows how messed up their relationship is! And what about Star Power? That plays a big role about the messed up family relationship too. Urgh... I think I'm done though.

Well that's really all I have to rant about right now....

~Hugs,
HappyDays

Of course everyone has read it but I have to say it anyway. Charlott's Web. Also I agree with everyone elses statements with Harry Potter.

I have to say that the film of the first Percy Jackson book annoyed the ever-living heck out of me. The movie has almost NOTHING to do with the book. At all.

Other than that, I'd probably have to say that the movie they made of The Dark is Rising is the most terrible movie that I have ever seen. The book is great, but the movie is just awful. It is painful to watch, and has nothing to do with the book.

Sorry if I repeat, I'll admit I haven't read most of the posts yet. I could go on and on and on, as almost every time the book is a billion times better than the movie. I'm not sure why I force myself to read the books then see the movies, but I do it every time. So, my two biggest that I haven't seen mentioned (but maybe were because I didn't read much of this).

Blood and Chocolate is the biggest one that makes me mad. I adored that book, my only complaint being that it was too short. I recommended it to everyone, and everyone else loved it When I heard they were making a movie, I was thrilled. Then I saw the movie. My goodness, can you butcher a story any worse? So many details were wrong, and the ENTIRE ending was changed. The reason this particularly annoyed me is that the ending explains the whole title. By changing it, the title point becomes moot.

The last one that particularly annoyed me was Dear John. I loved that book, nearly cried at parts (I know, laugh away haha I didn't used to be so terrible about crying over books/movies), and thought it was great. The movie was awful. Pure awful. The ending the changed making it almost a terrible ending. It really made me mad. Also, I felt no emotion. I think the actor and actress did a terrible job of portraying the emotions.

I read the book The three musketeers, I saw the old versions and stuff of the movie. I also read Ramona and Beezus But I never saw the movie. Diary of a Wimpy Kid, my all time favorite. I can't think of any others, now.

Harry Potter!!! And the Percy Jackson series...They totally killed my like for it all when the movie came out

For me, Wuthering Heights (the book) was better than the old black and white movie. Although I haven't seen the whole movie (just sequences), I can bet that The mists of Avalon book was also better than the movie.

The first Percy Jackson book. It is a great book, and they made the movie God-awful. They added some things called magic orbs which came in the book at the very end of the book and they put them in at the beginning. They also had to fight monsters not seen until later books. I have to say, don't see the movie.

For me there's one and the only book.

In university our professor of English Literature gave us one book, so to say "to read and discuss".
That was "The Painted Veil" by W. Somerset Maugham. For most of people with book is just one of the great amount of oldies, that are not worth reading, of vice versa are worth reading. Well for me personally, that book was something magical, something in it captured my attention and heart. I've read it from cover to cover at one evening.

But on the one hand, the story itself is pretty plain. The characters are not something outstanding. They are really common. They are ordinary people.

But on the other, it's pretty amazing, and if you read it attentively you'll see the inner world of the characters, you will feel what was going on in their hearts.

So, i've read it and i was overwhelmed with joy and many other emotions.

And than one day found a movie. "The painted veil" with Edward Norton and Naomi Watts. Edward Norton is such a cutie, that i just couldn't not watch the movie So i did. And after it, i had a feeling that now those characters were like a family to me. They (I mean the actors) showed the main characters as i've imagined them. And even better.

Well, what can i say. It's a good book, and a good movie. And i do recommend you to read it first and than to watch the movie. I have a feeling that you'll like both. But if you like the book more, than you're like me

Well, I usually complain about books being far better than their movie counterparts. Harry Potter, A Series of Unfortunate Events and the like are a few examples. I guess the better question (since it's rarer) are what movies are better or at least as good as their books.

Nicholas Sparks, for me, is one of the worst writers ever to become a best selling author. He does however hack a good storyline for a good movie. A Walk to Remember was a stupid book but it made a good movie, so did Dear John and Message in a Bottle.

I LOVE the Narnia books. But I was really surprised about the movies. I'd rate them just as good as the books. They missed some parts, true. But they were excellent interpretations.

My sisters keeper, P.S. I love you, the notebook ... they're all good films, but all 3 changed the book plot drastically (2 changed the ending, one changed the place it was set to a completely different continent)
I think P.S. I love you lost its charm when they set it in New York.
by the way, I know they're all really cliché books AND films but I still love them

This has happened to me plenty of times.
Books:
Hoot
Inkheart
Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief
Harry Potter
Narnia

Great books make great movies.(but the books are better though )

Being a S.K fan, i could rattle off numerous movies that were absolute rubbish to the book.

Nonetheless.

IT, is my favorite book by him and i bought the movie (5 dollars haha) and i just couldn't get over how crummy it was.

Also, The Shining. "Here's Johnny," wasn't in the book. And there was no maze in the novel!

HARRY POTTER series, Twilight saga, PERCY JACKSON.

I love the novels more than the movies.

Percy Jackson and The Olympians : The Lightning Thief. I REALLY LOVE THE BOOKS and Rick Riordan is a genius. I was pretty disappointed when the movie was totally different. Percy Jackson was supposed to be 12 years old but Percy in the movie was around 17. They also took a LOT of major characters. Oh well. At least Logan Lerman's really cute, so that's okay. XD I just wish they didn't change the characters that much. T_T

OMG! Most books really. I hate directors and producers that kill the whole story of an amazing book!
Here's my mini list of The Films I Wanted To Cry About Because They Killed The Whole Story:
*Eragon (and I love that book, it was one of my inspirations for writing fantasy)
*All Harry Potters
*And All the Twilights (and I haven't even read the books!)

Well, that's all I can be bothered to think up! Oh, one film that was better then the book though - P.S I Love You (but only because I love Gerard Butler...what a fitty!!)

I have a few, but i think the worst is the Twilight series. They murdered it! ll the books are way, way better!
Also Eragon, the book is sooooooooooooooo much better, are they all like that?!
Although i didn't get along with the book The Fire Theif, i didn't read enough of the book to dislike the movie. This time (Only) i liked the movie more than the book.

'city of ember' was awful.

Thought that the book "City of Ember" was much better than the movie. The movie had bad actors and it was just plain awful. Thats really all i have ti say... Toodles!!!

I actually liked The Lovely Bones movie and not the book, to me it was quite boring and uninteresting past the 100th page. But hey, that's just me

Avalon High-The movie and book were both terrible, so I guess they cancel each other out?

I so appoligize for that greusome fact above, but it is true.

DragonWriterFanatic wrote:Everything, but most especially... harry potter 6 . It's NOTHING like the movie, to me.

The Last Song by Nicholas Sparks had me crying like a baby, but the movie was HORRID! Not just because it had Miley Cyrus in it either, and she didn't suit the role anyway.

The Lovely Bones was so much better to read than to watch. I don't think it's possible to do both, not for me at least because I tend to become entirely frustrated if they are not similar.

LOTR for sure, but that's just because I'm a geek. Maybe if they made it into a long looong series they could get all the happenings into it. And Arwen sux.

Everything, but most especially... harry potter 6 . It's NOTHING like the movie, to me.

Inkheart. This movie was bad. Worse. Beyond worse. Worse than beyond worse. None of the actors suited the parts, it was terribly acted, and - WHAT ON EARTH DID THEY DO TO DUSTFINGER????

Harry Potter all round!!!
The movies just can't hope to justify the books. But Rupert Grint was a good find - don't we all love European boys with outrageous facial expressions?
I cannot stress how much I love those books. I am way before the number one fan. They are my LIFE.
Yes, it's that sad.
Eragon - duh. The movie was awful.
Narnia. I actually liked the ancient version better than the newer one, even though the special effects were rubbish. The acting was better. And, as with Harry Potter, no movie could ever live up to those books.
Inkheart. This movie was bad. Worse. Beyond worse. Worse than beyond worse. None of the actors suited the parts, it was terribly acted, and - WHAT ON EARTH DID THEY DO TO DUSTFINGER????
I'm not sure about The Lord of the Rings. I adore both the books and the movies - alongside HP, they are my identity - and I really can't decide which is better. It infuriates me how the movies sidetrack sometimes from the original plot, but all the same - they make me cry. Not ashamed to admit it.
If they make a Deltora Quest movie, I shall avoid it with every ounce of determination I posses.
That's basically it. I'll probably think of some others later on, but there it is.

There is more than one lonesome dove. I mean there is the rest of the series in the movie version. I have never read the book...

A. S.

Lonesome Dove. This is the best book ever. The movie was pretty impressive how it followed the story exactly. The reason why I loved the book more was because it took longer to read, whereas the movie version had only about four hours of enjoyment. Also, the book is where I first met the characters and the little town of Lonesome Dove; where they really stole my heart.

I know! Like me... brown eyes, blondeish brown hair, maxish attitude... I'd be perfect for the part of max! Just get a cute guy to be Fang, please, not some random weenie.

Calligraphy wrote:

twiggers wrote:They are probably going to slaughter the Maximum Ride series... Apparenly they wanna use the girl who played Bella and the dude who played Edward as Max and Fang. If they do I'm going to march my self on over to James Patterson (and the screenplay peeps) and give them a serious talking- to. Write on...

That is horrible!

I'm going to avoid the maximum ride movies like the plauge.

Inkheart.

All the Harry Potter movies after the fourth.

Eragon was a rubbish book, but the movie was worse.

Percy Jackson, they tried to modernize and sexualize everything.

Narnia movies, and yes, a Series of Unfortunate Events.

The Golden Compass was terrible.

They're going to make a Tales of the Otori movie, I don't know whether to laugh and cry.

And that Artemis Fowl movie, can you believe Eoin Colfer said they were gonna compress the first two books together? Words fail me...

TIGERSPRITE

twiggers wrote:They are probably going to slaughter the Maximum Ride series... Apparenly they wanna use the girl who played Bella and the dude who played Edward as Max and Fang. If they do I'm going to march my self on over to James Patterson (and the screenplay peeps) and give them a serious talking- to. Write on...

The Series of Unfortunate Events. They killed it when they made the movie.

emoinpink wrote:Also, they're making Artemis Fowl into a movie, which I shall avoid like the plague. You'd think writers and directors would know when their books will make crap movies, but no. I will also avoid the CHERUB movie like smallpox.

I Am Legend - Richard Matheson.

The movie was a fun vampire blockbuster but I think the novel is much better. I wouldn't actually describe it as a story about vampires though as it focuses more on loneliness and the loss of hope. There's a very touching couple of chapters about a dog that are particularly heartbreaking and extremely well written.

The obvious one: Harry Potter. All of them. There was no way books those thick were going to make good movies. I suppose I like the movies, but the differences between the books and the movies were so big, it's like they're telling two different stories.

Two movies I haven't actually seen but I can tell they're terrible: Inkheart (book by Cornelia Funke) and Eragon (book by Christopher Paolini). Even just watching the trailers almost ruined the books for me.

The Golden Compass (based on Northern Lights by Philip Pullman) was alright, but because of the ending and the depth of the writing and content, it was never going to make a decent movie.

Also, they're making Artemis Fowl into a movie, which I shall avoid like the plague. You'd think writers and directors would know when their books will make crap movies, but no. I will also avoid the CHERUB movie like smallpox.

Ella Enchanted I actually liked better than the book! I don't really admire Gail Carson Levine much as a writer, and the movie was cute and funny and something I can watch with my kid sister while eating popcorn with too much butter. Loved it.

I think that's about it. Oh, but I'm sure Tomorrow When The War began will be brilliant! I really think authors and Hollywood bigwigs need to learn what books will make great movies and which ones will Just. Plain. Suck. Is it really that hard?

magnusbanefan13 wrote:The Series of Unfortunate Events. They killed it when they made the movie.

Darren Shan definitely, I loved the books, but then the film, was just awful, not just as a a film, but as a representation of the first three books, introducing characters too early, and some characters were just plain portrayed wrong!

My friends all agreed with me on this, very disappointed!

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!

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.

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?

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.

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 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 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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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:

I'm gonna go out on a branch here and say Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird".

Yes, I am fully aware the movie is a classic. But I watched the movie when I was 7. I left in the middle of the movie because I didn't understand a thing. In eighth grade, I read "To Kill a Mockingbird", fell in love with it, rented the movie and loved it. But I do think this is one of those "movies-where-you-have-to-read-the-book-beforehand". And for some reason that annoys me.

And come on, as sexy as Robert Duvall was as Boo, he didn't quite make the cut for me. The child actress who plays Scout was very good. Gregory Peck was second for me.

My two cents! I take my leave.

magnusbanefan13 wrote:The Series of Unfortunate Events. They killed it when they made the movie.

Lonesome Dove! My absolute favorite novel ever. Believe it or not, I read the entire series before taking to the television screen, award winning or not. I believe Robert Duvall played an excellent Augustus McCrae, but the Comanche villain, Blue Duck, was just not the same in the movie than he was in the book.

the best-selling novel. "DEAR JOHN" it's better actually than the movie. It's more interesting and informative about the love between two persons falling in love than of the book.. wahahahah! but the movie's nice, anyway but still, I love the book!

The fifth Harry Potter movie. Considering that was my favorite of the series, I was very disappointed.

Every single book i have ever read that has been made into a movie.

All of them.

magnusbanefan13 wrote:The Series of Unfortunate Events. They killed it when they made the movie.

Jurassic Park, a visually revolutionary movie, but the book is just so much more mesmerizing and deep.

The Series of Unfortunate Events. They killed it when they made the movie.

My pick is "Ghost Writer," I love the book! But the movie misses alot! That book is so amazing. I love Harry Potter too but I didn't read the books that much, so I don't know if it was better than the movie.

The Secret of NIMH.

This story is by Patrick C. O'Brien. Bascially the
plot is about a farm community of rats, mice and other animals.

Unfortunately the folks at MGM thought they had to bring in
a magic necklace and a villain who was supposed to be dead: Jenner.

Hi! For me it was mostly Harry Potter, because the movies missed so many events which happened in the books

The fifth Harry Potter.
I know that it is similar but in the film they have missed bits out, like Ron and Hermonie being prefects. But I suppose that the book is rather thick and you can't fit it all into a film that isn't to long.
The film is good but the book is better, same as every book that has been turned into a film.

Who's next?