Why is it that Hollywood has to take a perfectly good book and completely ruin it by making it in to a movie? Why do authors allow them to do this? Can you think of a single book that was adapted to a movie that was as good as or better than the book? Greg hates watching movies with me when I've read the book first, because I always yell at the TV when the story doesn't follow the book. I can't help myself.
Here are a few I was disappointed in:
Harry Potter - just watched Goblet of Fire on Friday night. They left out characters, put characters in where they didn't belong, skimmed over some of the most important points in the book. It was awful. If I hadn't read the book, I would have been totally lost and thought the whole thing was really stupid. Wasn't entirely thrilled with the other ones that came before it either. For a movie they were fine, but as an adaptation of the books themselves, they sucked.
Hitchhikkers Guide to the Galaxy - Just watched this one this weekend along with G of F. Way to make it weird, folks.
Absolute Power - Um, the guy died in the book? You can't just let him live in the movie! Well, I guess you can when he's played by Clint Eastwood.
Princess Diaries - Completely changed from the book. The only thing that stayed the same was the general premise...Ordinary girl finds out she's a princess. And Princess Diaries 2? Never happened in the books at all!
I don't have high hopes for Da Vinci Code when it comes out, either. Tom Hanks is not my idea of Robert Langdon AT ALL. I'm not entirely sure who is, but it's not T.H.
Oh, and while we are on the topic, WHAT did they do to Phantom of the Opera? And why? Couldn't they have just filmed it as a stage production without having to add all the weird extra stuff? I do have to admit that scene in the beginning where they go from the shabby old theater in black and white to the new clean theater in color is VERY cool.
No comments:
Post a Comment