Worst Fantasy Book Adaptations?

[Martini Sigil]

Without having read the book.... Ender's Game was an abysmal movie...

[eyenon15]

I thought Where the Wild Things Are was horrible on film.

[LordStoneheart]

I thought Where the Wild Things Are was horrible on film.

Agreed. That one usually my go-to worst film of all time.

[RenlyIsNotRight]

Without having read the book.... Ender's Game was an abysmal movie...

While I personally wouldn't call Enders Game an "abysmal" movie it was definitely vastly inferior to the book.

If we're on the subject of sci fi though...Timeline by Michael Crichton. Love the book but god the movie is almost unwatchably bad at points.

[The Unborn]

Seventh Son was garbage.

[LordStoneheart]

Without having read the book.... Ender's Game was an abysmal movie...

With having read the book and reading the author's comments about the adaption, I'd say its about as good as it ever could have been. The style is just not "action movie" oriented.

Same with TMNT; it's the best version so far but will always look bad because, well, look at the title. I doubt there's a way to make that concept critically acclaimed in anything but a comic.

[Mladen]

What madness drove people to name "Stardust" in this thread? The movie was so beautiful and I really liked it.

The Hobbit was just ill-conceived. Especially the third part. It was so bad that even Galadriel wasn't able to save it.

Golden Compass was idea that got lost in translation. It was really bad. And Eragon was hilariously awful.

I am also not huge fan of the Narnia movies. And HP was awful in 5th,6th and 8th part.

As for "Legend of the Seeker", two words: guilty pleasure :)

[HexMachina]

I cant really comment on Stardust actually. I love it, really I do, but I cant judge whether its a good adaptation or not without having read the book. I think its a great film though.

I never thought of the Narnia movies. I guess they arent very good movies, but as far as adaptations go they aren't awful, despite some changes.

ETA: The Golden Compass, eww. Even some great castings (Daniel Craig as Lord Asriel, Nicole Kidmann as Mrs. C) couldnt save that monstrosity. At the end it was as though they just gave up and decided; "meh, lets not even try and give this film a proper ending, we've ran long enough already."

[LordStoneheart]

Actually, I always cite The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe as an example of how an adaption can be like 99% faithful to the books. Things weren't really changed. Things we added because of how little was in that book. As HEM said, they may or may not be good movies, but I'll be damned if the first one isn't an example of a great adaption.

[HexMachina]

Yeah, tLtWatW was definitely a great adaptation that was surprisingly faithful to the book material. Sure, they gave focus to some areas not in the books (the Battle, for example) but thats just expected of the film industry. Fairly good adaptation (which I quite liked, when.it came out actually, but its definitely one of those films where you really do need to be the target audience to like it)

[wolverine]

Agree that Stardust was great. Really a lot of fun.

My pick: Dune. Great book, unwatchable movie.

[wolverine]

It's hard for me to count Eragon since I thought the film was far superior to the book (not really a compliment since they are both terrible). At the very least it took less time to plow through, which has to count for something.

There is one exception to this. Beowulf (1999) with Christopher Lambert. It's undeniably a B-movie, but Seven Hells it's fun.

Well, put Rhona Mitra in a medieval revealing cat suit and I will watch anything!

[Veltigar]

This one is really good (2005) -- a UK, Canadian and Icelandic co-production, that states upfront it's loosely based on the poem. Highly recommended.

Yeah, I would count that as one of the bad ones :p

But even the show version of Game of Thrones is better than Peter Jacksons version of The Hobbit.

The sad truth.

Also, I'm only really a casual Harry Potter fan, and I thought most of the movies were okay, but the one based on the sixth book that was basically "Puberty: The Movie...And Snape Killing Dumbledore" was kind of cringeworthy at points.

I hate that sixth film. Like, I hate it with a passion. There are some good moments, but fucking hell, all the Harry+Ginny moments were loathsome.

Well, put Rhona Mitra in a medieval revealing cat suit and I will watch anything!

Even the Last Ship? :p

[lady narcissa]

I read Stardust shortly after the movie came out. The only change I recall being made was the very end...an afterward to the main story. The book version was bittersweet and the movie was changed to be more happy. I didn't mind the change as I thought each version worked for its medium. But other than that a pretty faithful adaption of the book.

Same with the first two Narnia movies which were incredibly close to the books. They did change a bunch of things in the third movie which I didn't like but not enough to nominate it as the worst adaption of a fantasy book.

[eyenon15]

I read Stardust shortly after the movie came out. The only change I recall being made was the very end...an afterward to the main story. The book version was bittersweet and the movie was changed to be more happy. I didn't mind the change as I thought each version worked for its medium. But other than that a pretty faithful adaption of the book.

Same with the first two Narnia movies which were incredibly close to the books. They did change a bunch of things in the third movie which I didn't like but not enough to nominate it as the worst adaption of a fantasy book.

My small complaint about the Stardust movie is that gathering over the Wall where Tristan father meets the princess is a huge event that only happens every 9 years and people are allowed to go over the wall for it

[polishgenius]

I thought Where the Wild Things Are was horrible on film.

I think Where The Wild Things Are is a fantastic movie. But it's kinda difficult to call it an adaptation, seeing as the book is about 100 words long. It's, like, 'inspired by'.

Also, the movie isn't really for kids. Certainly not for the same age range the book is.

Also, why are people suggesting that a good adaptation is one that keeps everything exactly the same plot-wise, regardless of how good it is, rather than one that gets the overall impression across properly?

Like the Harry Potters. The first two actually harm themselves by trying so hard to get everything in, while not actually putting much care into the charm or the like that really makes Harry Potter. The later films are far better adaptations despite, and in some cases, because of changing stuff.

[Son Of The Sea Wind]

Of the top of my head, I can only think of the Hobbit trilogy right now. Three bad to terrible films (I assume, I couldn't muster the courage to submit myself to the third one).

In my humble experience, you saved yourself a lot of agony. Definitely not a bad film but the best way I can describe it is as the Mass Effect 3 of the Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth films.

[RedEyedGhost]

Also, why are people suggesting that a good adaptation is one that keeps everything exactly the same plot-wise, regardless of how good it is, rather than one that gets the overall impression across properly?

Because this is a ASoIaF forum and because ASoIaF fans are petulant that AGoT is not exactly the same as ASoIaF. Just a guess.

[HexMachina]

I think Where The Wild Things Are is a fantastic movie. But it's kinda difficult to call it an adaptation, seeing as the book is about 100 words long. It's, like, 'inspired by'.

Also, the movie isn't really for kids. Certainly not for the same age range the book is.

Also, why are people suggesting that a good adaptation is one that keeps everything exactly the same plot-wise, regardless of how good it is, rather than one that gets the overall impression across properly?

Like the Harry Potters. The first two actually harm themselves by trying so hard to get everything in, while not actually putting much care into the charm or the like that really makes Harry Potter. The later films are far better adaptations despite, and in some cases, because of changing stuff.

I thought the first two HP films were pretty good adaptations actually. I felt they did capture the feeling of the first two books, which was much more child-like/innocent than the later novels, but with the second film and book having the darker aspects of the Chamber of Secrets too.

And I would say a good adaptation does need to stay as true to the source material as possible. Whether that makes it a good film is a different matter though. It might be a great adaptation, but an atrocious film, imo

[Howdyphillip]

I think that I am the only one that did not like the movie Stardust. I thought it was overtly cheesy and did not know whether to take itself seriously, or go tongue in cheek. Oh well...