Everything they did to The Hobbit to make it into three bloated films.

The Bourne series

The percy jackson movie.... So bad.

Changing the end of Fight Club. The movie ending was a bit nonsensical for me in an already over the top story.

Child-me loved Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH. I was so excited to see it as a movie, The Secret of NIMH, but horrified that they changed the character’s name to Mrs. Brisby. Adult-me realizes there was probably some sort of trademark concern over the name, but still… worst change ever. Still mad.

Lynch's Dune making the "weirding way" into a sonic gun. I was really excited about a Dune movie. Then very disappointed. New one did it much better.

A lot of greed from the studios ruined the story of the book.

There are several fan cuts that remove all the extra nonsense and make for a much better viewing experience.

One iteration has the interesting extras that weren’t part of the original book moved into a separate short movie.

Much better than the bloated versions they released, with no ridiculous romance randomly shoehorned in…

Breakfast at Tiffany's is great as is.. (minus the horribly racist Mickey Rooney bit) but if they kept the Original ending it would have packed a gut punch.

“Whatever walked there, walked TOGETHER”

Ummm, I’m sorry how dare one miss the point so hard they think they can change Shirley “queen of the American gothic” Jackson’s last line of her masterful deconstruction of domesticity and heteronormativity and in the process actively undo everything they had spent 9 episodes building toward.

I truly do not understand the reason for making that last line change. It’s silly, it’s absurd, and it’s soft.

“Whatever walked there, walked ALONE” - Shirley Jackson, The Haunting of Hill House

I liked the LOTR. But I feel the scene where Frodo and Sam leave the Fellowship really changed the story. In the book no one sees them leave. Aragon et al, learn "some hobbits" were taken by the Orcs. They follow them, hoping it is Frodo... the freaking ring bearer. They don't wave him off with a smile.

Mina being in love with Dracula in the 1992 version. Dracula is a psychopath killer who killed a child, he was responsible for Lucy's death.

As much as Mina was in love with Dracula, she is not a stupid girl and her love for him would turn to hatred for everything he did wrong.

The Great Gatsby (2013) interprets Fitzgerald’s writing way too literally in numerous scenes. The inclusion of modern music to appeal to modern audiences was unnecessary as well.

edmond being illiterate in the count of monte cristo (2002), and to be a captain, he would have to know how to read, write and math, to deal with bureaucracy and accounting.

Mercedes not being a virgin in the middle of the 19th century and managing to marry an aristocrat, and Fernand does not love her.

Albert not suspecting that a stranger saved him with only a sword instead of calling the police.

The very obvious vendettas in the count of monte cristo, that not even a child would fall for them.

Edmond easily accepting the return of his enemy's wife. There are men who kill a woman for having sex with a random man, let alone the man who ruined his life.

Albert and Edmond suddenly and easily developing the father-son relationship.

The newest All Quiet on the Western Front movie. Critical scenes missing, setting changed, timeline during the war different. The ending is so, so different. Still a good movie, but not the book I read by a long shot.

Both Neil Gaiman's book Stardust and the movie were good, but there were two changes I hated.

First: >!The unicorn unchained the star. Tristan taking the chain off her, instead of leaving her alone chained up to a tree is a major plot point because that's when he started to see her as a person, instead of an object. It's later called out by another character that she wouldn't have helped him if he hadn't freed her. In the movie, though, he just ties her to a post and leaves her, and then a magic horse comes by and breaks it.!<

Second: the ending >!In the book, the witches realize The Star's heart belongs to another and stealing it wouldn't give them youth anymore. So there's a little chat between them, it's handled delicately, and when offered a position as king Tristan says "sure, when I get around to it" and spends several years heroing while his mother rules in his stead. In the movie, there's a big cinematic battle where Tristan fights the witches with a lightning cannon, rescues the damsel in distress, and then goes straight to being a prince in pretty clothes.!<

They both make for a more marketable movie, sure, but they're also directly in conflict with what made the book so special. As someone who grew up reading Cabell & Mirrlees, it felt like a betrayal of the story.

The Dark Tower. They tried to make it like marvel instead of Stephen king. Totally terrible.

My sister’s keeper changing/removing the major twist at the end of the book in the movie.

Stardust the movie is like 10 light years better than the book IMO but I see your point

Interestingly, Frank Herbert was a consultant on that production and he said at the time that he was quite happy with it.

The Eragon movie in its entirety

Hermione

World War Z.

The movie was a pretty entertaining. The book was on a whole other level.

He also got along with Jodorowsky. I suspect he really wanted Dune to make it big.

The first Maze Runner book and movie! Tell me, the book said, it never rains in the maze, that's part of the reason they knew it was fake? But then the movie absolutely DOES rain?! Or the whole ending sequence, each of them is completely different. Why?

in the same vein, I felt like the TV show absolutely butchered American Gods, which was extra disappointing because they got the casting exactly right.

+1. I can't even think of the book and the adaptation as the same thing except in title only. the thing was, the tv show wasn't bad. it just wasn't the novel. at all.

Yeah. It’s a fine show just not a great adaptation. If it used less of her text I might be able to separate the two more, but some of those quotes are quite jarring when used in the way they were. Idk. It’s just a strange one to me.

unpopular opinion but I actually like The Hobbit films. I didn't feel the extra story really hurt the source material. the plot with the necromancer was much better fleshed out (where as in the book I believe Gandalf like vaguely mentioned he was off fighting a necromancer NBD). the love story was a little meh but kili still died so 🤷‍♀️

The Scarlet Letter (1995) ... as I remember, the ending was completely changed. I was like... "wait, what??"

Lolita (1997) turns innocent 12 yr old Dolores into a teenage seductress who prays on poor Humbert Humbert

Screenwriters have egos and want to put their own mark on the material.

The filmmakers forgot the faces of their fathers on this one.

Still mad about it.

Oh my God, I haven't even seen this and I'm enraged.

I looked forward to this the moment I heard it was even in the works. Devastating to see where it ended up. It does make me think of the 90's miniseries of The Stand that I've heard was pretty good. I'll have to bump that up the watch list and see if it's worth its salt. Recently found out they released another adaption in the midst of the pandemic that was pretty middling.

It's been a minute since I've seen it, but the Lily James/Armie Hammer Rebecca doesn't depict their post-Manderley life nearly as bleakly as the book does, and I think that's important. >! Rebecca wins in the book. That needs to be shown. !<

More from a book to a Netflix series or whatever, but Little Fires Everywhere. They took a good mentoring relationship between teacher and student and turned it into a sexual/romantic one, and the power imbalance and the ick factor just skeeved me out. Why does every relationship in Hollywood have to be made sexual for it to mean something?

The Kubrick version was awful as well, but that could’ve been attributed to Hollywood censorship of the time. As a work of literature, good lord, such a great novel.

The nice part about this film is that it was bad enough to where I don't remember it. Hoping that Flanagan eventually does it justice.

That change was very disappointing. I know the book is often misunderstood, but that was a disturbing take on the filmmaker's part.

The first chapter of Two Towers they figure out the riddle immediately after Viking funeraling Boromir.

Only frodo would have taken the boat, only Sam woulda taken his pack.

“Our choice then,” said Gimli,“is either to take the remaining boat and follow Frodo, or else to follow the Orcs on foot. There is little hope either way. We have already lost precious hours.”

They follow Merry and Pippen knowing it’s not frodo and that frodo and Sammie are all alone.

Amazon's wheel of time. Took agency away from the male lead. Also all the men in the show are superfluous to it despite being 3 male leads. It's a disgrace. I can deal with narrative restructuring but it would have been almost exactly the same if the 3 main characters were literally not in the show.

I wanted to walk out of the theater

I just read the synopsis of the ending - what a ballsy move to muck it up that much. Whoa.

Southern Vampire series to True Blood. Not a movie, but they mucked it up so bad. Think what you will of the books, but the HBO translation first ignored key plot points and then went completely off the rails.

Gotta disagree here. I think its better to just view them as different beasts ….

Starship Troopers (the movie's only connection to the book was the title, and people killing large insects). I walked out of the film.

Interesting!

. . . but I still hate it :-)

Yes, that whole "Mina is the reincarnation of Dracula's dead wife" movie subplot was also not in the novel, as far as I recall.

I Am Legend. Wtf was that ending?

It's been so long since I read the novel (25+years) that I barely remember it. Maybe I should watch the series before re-reading the novel so I'm not disappointed.

Watched the 1930 film adaptation shortly after reading the novel and still vividly remember one scene: in battle, a soldier runs towards the camera and stumbles against a barbed wire fence right as a grenade explodes in front of him. When the smoke clears, >!his severed hands are seen still clinging to the fence!<.

I must’ve misremembered

I had always wondered about the title until I read the book, at which point it made perfect sense.

The movie was a run of the mill zombie flick. It completely gutted everything about the book that made it unique and fresh.

In the movie Aragorn actually talks to Frodo and agrees to let him go.

The Natural is a fun movie but sure takes liberties with the book’s story and particular ending.

Starship Troopers, the book was the granddaddy of modern military science fiction, Paul Verhoven turned it into a satire that completely destroyed the spirit of the book. Verhoven didn't even read the book. I will never forgive that.

Haven't seen the newer one, but the Hitchcock version changes >!Rebecca's death from being shot by Maxim to it being an accident. Apparently this was because of the Hays code, and the murder of a spouse couldn't go unpunished like he does in the book !<

Tauriel.

Exit to Eden The book is erotica by Anne Rice, which I read way too young. The movie comes out years later, a comedy, with Rosie ODonnell and Dan Aykroyd. I must of blocked out most of it, but those two in S&M outfits is burned into my brain years later. It seems like it was nothing like the book and not in a good way like the Shining. King book version vs kubrick movie version.

I Am Legend. Without a doubt. The story is completely changed and while I think the movie was good in its own right, it should not have been named the same as the book.

The screenwriters are never as good as the author

[removed]

I don't watch many movie interpretations but I think it was the two Percy Jackson movies that they made. Absolutely disgraceful, even the author agrees

Not to mention their inferiority complex of not being able publish their own works so the only way to write their wish fulfilment story is to ruin someone elses.

I would say that LOTR: ROTK has the worst differences in book vs. movie. Gollum actually manipulating Frodo into telling Sam to go home? That was the worst. Because Sam would never and they face Shelob together. I mean imagine you make it to Minas Morgul and travel around with Frodo and he just says:"Go home". I felt that was a bit stupid and given that the characters looked like teenagers, Frodo often comes off as way too whiny.

I have never read the book. I didnt know the ending was changed. How does the book end?

It is actually quite well done. I've watched it several times.

Best review ever!!

The ending of Harry Potter. Harry's final duel with Voldemort in the books was so good and so symbolic for many reason and the farce that happened at the end of the film just ruined it.

What was the twist?

The 90's The Stand mini series is way better than it had any business being. I remember watching it when I was younger and being enthralled. Production value was low and it's clearly very 90's but still really good.

The book >! doesn't depict it at all, IIRC. It just ends on them approaching the mansion on fire and were left to realize that all they have left is to be stuck with each other but then the remake has them jet-setting to Spain to live in a paradise. It was lame as hell. !<

I'm a purest so Arwen taking Glorfindel's place at the ford of bruinen

>!Anna dies, not Kate. It was supposed to be about life's randomness.!<

The movie took the traditional path. And it was dumb.

For me it’s the first Jurassic Park.

The beginning is the same. Everything after they went to the island is different and worse than it is in the Crichton’s book.

As a child I knew the book by heart. I was so looking forward to watching the movie… and I was so disappointed by how they butchered the story. Up to this day I can’t enjoy this movie, despite its great special effects. Some of my favourite actors star in it and it’s still just an abomination for me.

I remember being outraged at the end of two movies.

1. The Firm by Grisham - can't remember the ending in either the book or the movie, but I recall that I was not happy with the way things were changed in the movie. Wait, now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not sure it was they ending that was actually changed or events throughout the movie that were not in the book.
2. The Horse Whisperer - this one I do remember the ending of the book, which they did not follow at all in the movie.

I have learned that if I really enjoy and love a book and they make a movie, I DO NOT watch it.

He didn't like everything about the film. He was vocal about how the ending completely contradicts his message: "Paul was a man playing god, not a god who could make it rain." In fact according to a later book making it rain would >!doom the entire spice trade!<. So maybe the sonic gun was another aspect he wasn't a fan of.

Watch “The Omega Man” with Charlton Heston, made in the early 70s. It is much truer to the book, but still not exact.

[deleted]

I dunno that it was significantly more crap than the book.

In the book of the Firm, he swindles about 10 Million bucks from the Mafia, shops them, gets the feds to spring his brother from jail and they escape into the Caribbean. None of that bollocks about telling the Mafia they have been defrauded of tax and leaving their employ alive and without consequences.

Hands down World War Z and The Dark Tower. They made 2 completely unrelated films but insisted they were the same story as the books.

Yes - your memory is better than mine! Also a significant change to the story.

I gotta say, I actually liked the changed ending. Cause i think I makes it just that much sadder that he knew it was over, and it hit a little harder for me.

Wrinkle in time. Loved the book, hate the movie.

Agreed. Made me mad that the book had so much world-building potential and explored some interesting themes. Then some Hollywood execs had all of that in their hands and just obliviously crapped out some forgettable cash grab.

Fight Club the book was so different than the movie. While good, the movie didn't truly grasp how fucking crazy he was and that Tyler existed only because of meeting Marla.

Even if it was a little on the nose at times, I did like the new ending, in and of itself. I just think the original book ending is a little more layred and thought provoking. I will be the first to admit, however, that the book ending is better for a book, and the new movie ending is a better, more cinematic way to end a movie.

The decision to make John Hammond into a cuddly grandpa figure in Jurassic Park... it made nearly every decision he makes wrt the park damned near inexplicable.

[deleted]

>I Am Legend. Wtf was that ending?

Test screening audience approved. Can't have a movie without the hero saving the day and getting the girl.

P.s. I love you. 15 years ago and I still think about how bad they did on that movie.

Maybe not the worst, but the film version of I Am Legend is nothing like the book. The film is fine as entertainment if you don't know the original, but the ending of the novella is far superior.

So much in the Godfather, Johnny Fontane getting cut to a bit story, shifting the focus from Tom Hagan, basically turning Vito's early life into a flashback, making Michael the main character. So many sins.

Yeeeeeeeees! finally. I watched it the day it came out, and....It's not that it was abd, it's that it was dissapointing. I feel the filmakers tried focusing on scenes that were sure to cause an impact that they cut out super important and poignant scenes. I felt that it would've been a great WW1 film on it's own, but not that great as a rendition of hte book.

>Stardust

Honestley...love the film.

Even if it was a little on the nose at times, I did like the new ending, in and of itself. I just think the original book ending is a little more layred and thought provoking. I will be the first to admit, however, that the book ending is better for a book, and the new movie ending is a better, more cinematic way to end a movie.

Have to agree. There are few things from the film adaptations I don't like (yes, even if they're not 100% book accurate), but not Glorfindel hitted hard. Maybe Because I didn't like Liv Tyler's Arwen that much...

Yeeeeeeeeees! Love the memes, would you like to know more? but I remeber that after I read the book I just couldn't watch the film. The whole love triangle, how Rico just casually becomes an officer NO FREAKING ARMOURED SUITS....a mess.

Ron even more

It's not changed It's rather removed all together. In HP and the Half Blood Prince, the memories about Voldemort's past

That was like the whole point of the book, and the film removed them to focus on teen romance instead

Not a movie, but the Witcher. Whenever they keep to book plot, the series is good but they just messed up the lore with them nonsense monoliths, yen loosing her powers, that baba yaga shit and much more... They had a blueprint for sucess but were so arrogant that they thought they could do better. Kind of sad we are not getting a good adaptation so I guess I'll just munch on popcorn and watch how the whole thing crumbles to the ground. The prequel series is already an abysmal mess

I actually liked the movie more, I guess because I saw it prior to reading the book? Gave the book full rating on goodreads for I realise the impact it had but for a modern reader it doesn't stand so tall in its own right IMO. I'd have to look up my review to recall precisely what my issues were but it was mostly the pseudoscience and some worldbuilding stuff.

What about her?

i hate the change in faramir’s personality in the lord of the rings movies. one of my favorite characters in the books, so complex and likeable, turned full douchebag in the movies. i know he is redeemed by the end but it was so unnecessary

It shouldn't have been a movie, it should have been an anthology series on cable or a streamer.

Miss. Peregrine's home for peculiar children

I remember watching the movie in college with friends and I was so pissed at the ending while my friends thought it was a good movie. They didn't understand why I was so pissed with the ending of the movie.

I completely agree! And no armored suits! I might of been able to forgive the script if they had put in the suits and the orbital drops. That was so cool in the book.

I loved both the book and audio production. The movie, no.

The ending of Cujo.

The movie had an alternate ending that at least was closer to that of the book's.

The latest Persuasion. Horrendous.

I don't agree. I consider that movie a great film that I've seen several times, and I've read the book at least a couple of times. Lolita starts out being a temptress, she was never innocent, that everything has gotten out of her hand is something else. Humbert would never have started anything if she hadn't shown a bit of intent, and it's worth noting that I'm talking about what happens in the story, good or bad. She always used him, first to escape from her mother and then to get his money and so... she was never innocent. And Lyne's movie is great and totally faithful to the book.

I disagree. There are movies that are better than the books and there are others that, even though they are different from the book, are just as good.

Lol no kidding. Just call it will smiths adventures with vampires. There is absolutely no point to the book without the ending. I usually don't care what movies do to books but this one was upsetting.

Yeah, if heard that too. Sad endings can suck, but that's the whole point of the book. To see things from a different perspective, to see the hero isn't always a hero, and on and on. I've really gotta let it go but man it frustrates me lol

I think we have a difference of interpretation.

I dont believe Humbert is perfectly honest to the court with everything he says about Dolores. I believe he interpreted things as "sexual"" because of his perversion. I dont see Humbert as a reliable narrator.

At the very least, she is older in the film than in the book. Also, I think her outfits were a little too revealing, but I'm not too privy to French fashion.

Postman by David Brin. Great book, lousy movie. They left out the whole subplot about the women!

Maybe in some cases I think that the book is the essence of the author

Jumper by Steven Gould. What the ever loving heck was that movie?

The attack in Snyder's Watchmen being fucking batteries AND Dr. Manhattan just fucking off instead of telling Veidt that "nothing lasts."

God that movie made me shit my pants and barf

Great Call!! Books were great, the attempt at the movie was absolutely poo!!!! ruined the possibility for the rest of the books to become movies.

Troy leaving out the gods. Or, if you want to argue for that being necessary for modern audiences, the leaving out of Pyrrhus.

This might be a controversial one, but I think American Sniper as a film really didn't respect the book that much.

It's not Rashomon, so we're going to have to assume that everything Humbert says is what really happened, and he, for good or bad, did nothing with her, no matter how interested he was, until she kissed him when he left the summer camp where she had already lost whatever innocence she had left. And all that, if I remember correctly, also happened in the novel. That's why I disagree with your first comment. And I understand that we are not judging the characters, but if there was any change between the novel and the movie, which there was not.