If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mental Floss)   Authors who hated the movie versions of their books   (mentalfloss.com) divider line 160
    More: Interesting, human beings, Jack Torrance, Anne Rice, Catcher in the Rye, Bret Easton Ellis, Alec Guinness, Gene Wilder, best actress  
•       •       •

13245 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 23 Jun 2012 at 4:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



160 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-23 02:30:02 AM
I thought for sure I'd see Alan Moore on that list.
 
2012-06-23 02:30:46 AM
FTFA: 1. Disney's Mary Poppins might be a cherished childhood memory for a lot of us, but for author P.L. Travers, it was a complete slap in the face. Despite having script approval, Travers' edits were largely disregarded. Travers loathed the movie's animated sequences and was perturbed that Mary Poppins' strict side was downplayed. After some heated meetings, Travers reluctantly approved. She would have been shunned from the star-studded premiere had she not shamed a Disney exec into an invite. The 65-year-old Travers spent most of the movie crying and ultimately refused to let Disney touch the rest of the series.

It sounds like Ms. Travers was beaten soundly on a regular basis when she was a child.
 
2012-06-23 02:41:18 AM
I prefer to judge The Shining as a standalone work rather than compare it to the book. This also applies to Clockwork. Neither of the films are true adaptations but they sure as sh*t stand apart as great works. But yeah, I certainly understand why the original authors would object. Hell, Kubrik's version of Clockwork basically lops off the entire ending of the book.

I recently watched A Clockwork Orange on a serious AV system I helped install for a friend. The Wendy Carlos soundtrack alone is worth the price of admission. In The Shining, the hotel and the oxygen-sucked-from-room way it's filmed is still one of the creepiest achievements in movie history. So while the authors' might be upset, there's no denying the artistry of these flicks when judged on their own merit.
 
2012-06-23 02:44:15 AM
Did they cash the royalty checks?

Then I bet they loved the movies.
 
2012-06-23 05:27:17 AM
Stephen King has been sucking the movie paycheck cock since Carrie. The Shining was a better movie than the book, and he probably can't stand THAT. The movies that kept close to the book - Christine, Maximum Overdrive, Salem's Lot, Cujo, The Dead Zone, etc. were OK, but they come off as schlocky.

His books that were later adapted and successful while still keeping true were done by Frank Darabont, who managed to expand the story while still improving it somewhat. Green Mile, Shawshank, and The Mist all benefited from his touch. King didn't have shiat to do with that - Darabont made it all work.

King is a good author, but he should leave the movies to people who know better.
 
2012-06-23 05:28:09 AM
Unsurprisingly,Stephanie Meyer isn't among them.
 
2012-06-23 05:30:52 AM
I was expecting We Were Soldiers and Sum of All Fears. I cannot stand the movie versions after reading the books.
 
2012-06-23 05:32:38 AM

Apos: Unsurprisingly,Stephanie Meyer isn't among them.


That would assume that you call Stephenie Meyer an author.

Ghastly: I thought for sure I'd see Alan Moore on that list.


DNTRFA, but yeah, I thought the same thing.
 
2012-06-23 05:36:59 AM
to be fair, the book version of forrest gump is hilarious.

the movie is stupid baby boomer swill
 
2012-06-23 05:41:22 AM
well...it was a bit overly commercialized but shiat, man....fried chicken! secret herbs and spices!

media1.break.com
 
2012-06-23 05:47:25 AM

Lsherm: Stephen King has been sucking the movie paycheck cock since Carrie. The Shining was a better movie than the book, and he probably can't stand THAT. The movies that kept close to the book - Christine, Maximum Overdrive, Salem's Lot, Cujo, The Dead Zone, etc. were OK, but they come off as schlocky.

His books that were later adapted and successful while still keeping true were done by Frank Darabont, who managed to expand the story while still improving it somewhat. Green Mile, Shawshank, and The Mist all benefited from his touch. King didn't have shiat to do with that - Darabont made it all work.

King is a good author, but he should leave the movies to people who know better.


The thing with King books is that they're all so intertwined via the Dark Tower references, and those usually get axed or changed - so in his eyes you're not getting the full story. Quite frankly, there is a ton of subtle shiat in his books that most producers/directors/screenwriters just write out of the script entirely.
 
2012-06-23 06:15:20 AM

DeathByGeekSquad: Lsherm: Stephen King has been sucking the movie paycheck cock since Carrie. The Shining was a better movie than the book, and he probably can't stand THAT. The movies that kept close to the book - Christine, Maximum Overdrive, Salem's Lot, Cujo, The Dead Zone, etc. were OK, but they come off as schlocky.

His books that were later adapted and successful while still keeping true were done by Frank Darabont, who managed to expand the story while still improving it somewhat. Green Mile, Shawshank, and The Mist all benefited from his touch. King didn't have shiat to do with that - Darabont made it all work.

King is a good author, but he should leave the movies to people who know better.

The thing with King books is that they're all so intertwined via the Dark Tower references, and those usually get axed or changed - so in his eyes you're not getting the full story. Quite frankly, there is a ton of subtle shiat in his books that most producers/directors/screenwriters just write out of the script entirely.


IIRC In Cujo the movie the mom and kid live, while in the book they both die.
 
2012-06-23 06:31:33 AM

Lsherm: Stephen King has been sucking the movie paycheck cock since Carrie. The Shining was a better movie than the book, and he probably can't stand THAT. The movies that kept close to the book - Christine, Maximum Overdrive, Salem's Lot, Cujo, The Dead Zone, etc. were OK, but they come off as schlocky.

His books that were later adapted and successful while still keeping true were done by Frank Darabont, who managed to expand the story while still improving it somewhat. Green Mile, Shawshank, and The Mist all benefited from his touch. King didn't have shiat to do with that - Darabont made it all work.

King is a good author, but he should leave the movies to people who know better.


I'd pay to see a Darabont Running Man movie.

/and it rained fire twenty blocks away...
 
2012-06-23 06:37:10 AM

Lsherm: Stephen King has been sucking the movie paycheck cock since Carrie. The Shining was a better movie than the book, and he probably can't stand THAT. The movies that kept close to the book - Christine, Maximum Overdrive, Salem's Lot, Cujo, The Dead Zone, etc. were OK, but they come off as schlocky.

His books that were later adapted and successful while still keeping true were done by Frank Darabont, who managed to expand the story while still improving it somewhat. Green Mile, Shawshank, and The Mist all benefited from his touch. King didn't have shiat to do with that - Darabont made it all work.

King is a good author, but he should leave the movies to people who know better.


The Dead Zone is up there with The Shining in terms of creepiness. And it's one of Walken's best roles. Salem's Lot also scared the snap out of me when it first aired on TV. Better than "ok". But perhaps not great works.
 
2012-06-23 06:47:06 AM
FTA: Stephen King probably made movie buffs cringe when he said he hated what Stanley Kubrick did to The Shining. "I'd admired Kubrick for a long time and had great expectations for the project, but I was deeply disappointed in the end result. ... Kubrick just couldn't grasp the sheer inhuman evil of The Overlook Hotel. So he looked, instead, for evil in the characters and made the film into a domestic tragedy with only vaguely supernatural overtones.

That seems to be a strange qualm with the film. I've seen The Shining a dozen times and not in one viewing did I ever think to myself that it was Jack Torrence that was evil and not the Overlook itself. Jack simply seemed flawed and mentally susceptible to the suggestions of the hotel.

...and I feel Anne Rice's pain for what they did to Queen of the Damned. The Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned are deserving of at least two well produced movies to tell that story.
 
2012-06-23 06:49:22 AM
No Catch-22?

And the book "One flew over the cuckoos nest" is infinitely better than the movie.
 
2012-06-23 06:54:35 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Did they cash the royalty checks?



You can't blame Groom for being mad: he sued for the 3% net profits his contract promised him, which he hadn't received because producers claimed that by the time they took out production costs and advertising and promotional costs, the movie didn't turn a profit.


Forrest Gump

didn't turn a profit.

Hollywood accounting!
 
2012-06-23 06:59:46 AM

Petit_Merdeux: FirstNationalBastard: Did they cash the royalty checks?



You can't blame Groom for being mad: he sued for the 3% net profits his contract promised him, which he hadn't received because producers claimed that by the time they took out production costs and advertising and promotional costs, the movie didn't turn a profit.


Forrest Gump didn't turn a profit.

Hollywood accounting!


Partly his fark up. His contract promised him a part of the net profit. What retarded lawyer agreed to that? It's a piece of the gross or fark you.
 
2012-06-23 07:06:52 AM

Ghastly: I thought for sure I'd see Alan Moore on that list.


The article is about authors. You know, people who write books.
 
2012-06-23 07:13:34 AM
Well Steven King did a more faithful version of The Shining as a TV miniseries with the guy from Wings and it was hilariously bad. I like a few of the movies on that list. Interview with the Vampire was great and it sucks that they didn't do proper sequels. I liked American Psycho a lot too. All three of those were better than the books. And fark Forrest Gump. I hated that farking movie and not just because it beat Pulp Fiction for best picture, although that's part of it. So maybe the book was better.

And they're never doing a faithful movie adaptation to The Running Man. For one thing people would be comparing it to The Hunger Games now and people might still get upset about a movie that ends with the main character flying a plane into a building.
 
2012-06-23 07:27:01 AM
I dont think Christine stayed particularly close to the novel.
 
2012-06-23 07:28:33 AM
I haven't seen the movie version of American Psycho (I know, I know), but the book felt like every character was talking like Napoleon Dynamite when he decided to use italics for every other word of dialogue. I can imagine this translated better to film.

DeathByGeekSquad: The thing with King books is that they're all so intertwined via the Dark Tower references, and those usually get axed or changed - so in his eyes you're not getting the full story. Quite frankly, there is a ton of subtle shiat in his books that most producers/directors/screenwriters just write out of the script entirely.




I disagree with the idea that it's references to the Dark Tower that get axed, or that even that all of them have references to that story. King's problem is that he frequently is in need of an editor to cut down his book as he seems to get too bogged down with the details. Movies based on his books tend to suffer from the same problem as most of them very literally translate the books to film, so everything just feels goofy (see: Dreamcatcher.); the only exceptions to this are the movies based off of his non-horror books (i.e. Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me, etc.).



MayoSlather: FTA: Stephen King probably made movie buffs cringe when he said he hated what Stanley Kubrick did to The Shining. "I'd admired Kubrick for a long time and had great expectations for the project, but I was deeply disappointed in the end result. ... Kubrick just couldn't grasp the sheer inhuman evil of The Overlook Hotel. So he looked, instead, for evil in the characters and made the film into a domestic tragedy with only vaguely supernatural overtones.

That seems to be a strange qualm with the film. I've seen The Shining a dozen times and not in one viewing did I ever think to myself that it was Jack Torrence that was evil and not the Overlook itself. Jack simply seemed flawed and mentally susceptible to the suggestions of the hotel.



I find it odd because I got the exact opposite impression King got from Kubrick's film: I felt like Kubrick made Jack's psychosis less about him dealing with personal issues and more about a generic ghost story, while King's story was mostly the other way around. Even on its own merits, I thought Kubrick's Shining was mostly goofy.
 
2012-06-23 07:44:14 AM

CPT Ethanolic: No Catch-22?


I can't remember reading that Heller hated it.
 
2012-06-23 07:58:04 AM

FeedTheCollapse: I haven't seen the movie version of American Psycho (I know, I know), but the book felt like every character was talking like Napoleon Dynamite when he decided to use italics for every other word of dialogue. I can imagine this translated better to film.


Go see it, you won't be disappointed....

/ the film is much better than the book
 
2012-06-23 07:58:41 AM

FeedTheCollapse: I find it odd because I got the exact opposite impression King got from Kubrick's film: I felt like Kubrick made Jack's psychosis less about him dealing with personal issues and more about a generic ghost story, while King's story was mostly the other way around. Even on its own merits, I thought Kubrick's Shining was mostly goofy.


Jack didn't start out crazy at all in the movie. Maybe King confused Jack being crazy to Jack (Nicholson) just being Jack (Nicholson). Maybe the movie could have used another 1/2 hour to make Jack's decent into madness a little more gradual but it's a feature film, what can you do.
 
2012-06-23 07:58:48 AM
No one has mentioned Stephen King's remarkably low opinion of the movie The Lawnmower Man. The legal wrangling about it was so convoluted that I ended up writing an article about it for my law school paper.

/CSB
 
2012-06-23 08:02:56 AM

Forbidden Doughnut: FeedTheCollapse: I haven't seen the movie version of American Psycho (I know, I know), but the book felt like every character was talking like Napoleon Dynamite when he decided to use italics for every other word of dialogue. I can imagine this translated better to film.

Go see it, you won't be disappointed....

/ the film is much better than the book




it's been sitting on my DVR for a little while. I'll check into it. The book had a germ of a good idea, just kind of bad execution. The "is it reality or fantasy?" ending didn't really work either.
 
2012-06-23 08:04:56 AM
King is right. I've never once watched The Shining without thinking Nicholson was bats from the go.
 
2012-06-23 08:11:29 AM

FeedTheCollapse: it's been sitting on my DVR for a little while. I'll check into it. The book had a germ of a good idea, just kind of bad execution. The "is it reality or fantasy?" ending didn't really work either.


MOVIE SPOILER

The movie is sort of ambiguous as well because Bateman really does freak out and sees things towards the end. But it works best if everything is real until his freak out. And I suppose if you count the straight to video sequel with Mila Kunis and William Shatner as canon (and why wouldn't you?), then it was all real.
 
2012-06-23 08:13:03 AM
If you mention Michael Mann (The Keep) to F Paul Wilson, he'll strangle you.
 
2012-06-23 08:13:08 AM
...Tom Clancy hated the film version of The Hunt For Red October so badly that he damn near took his name off it. On the other hand, he took so much money for leaving it alone that every Clancy movie afterwards got bent completely out of shape and he never said a word.
 
2012-06-23 08:20:14 AM
DeathByGeekSquad

The thing with King books is that they're all so intertwined via the Dark Tower references,

so much retcon bullshiat.

TDT was a minor book in the SK world till he made it into "Twilight" and went on a media blitz saying this was his final work before retirement.

You newcomer to TDT series demonstrate how easy it is for ad companies to sway simple minded fools.
 
2012-06-23 08:23:52 AM

OnlyM3: TDT was a minor book in the SK world till he made it into "Twilight" and went on a media blitz saying this was his final work before retirement.




I wouldn't go that far, but it is false that The Dark Tower is tied into all his works; especially since King highlights which books directly tie into The Dark Tower. I do think King's rush to finish them is what caused the last 3 books to be subpar, nor do I think he intended them to be nearly as meta as the final results dictate.
 
2012-06-23 08:26:41 AM
No mention of Ted Geisel?

/There is a reason most of the movies were not made until after he died...
 
2012-06-23 08:32:41 AM

johnnygew: No mention of Ted Geisel?

/There is a reason most of the movies were not made until after he died...


anything in particular before his death? All the stuff that came out afterward was pretty atrocious, though.
 
2012-06-23 09:06:59 AM

Dibikad: King is right. I've never once watched The Shining without thinking Nicholson was bats from the go.

To be fair, Jack Torrence is an alcoholic with a history of abuse in the book. He decides that the time alone will be good for his already strained relationship.


Liverboy: No one has mentioned Stephen King's remarkably low opinion of the movie The Lawnmower Man. The legal wrangling about it was so convoluted that I ended up writing an article about it for my law school paper.

Beyond the name of the short story, they have nothing in common. Of course, I'll bet that didn't stop King from cashing the check.

Frederick: IIRC In Cujo the movie the mom and kid live, while in the book they both die.

It's only about the kid. Movie, kid lives. Book, kid dies, mom freaks the fark out and destroys dog. Of course in the book, the dog is actually a character we read as suffering from the effects of rabies.


/too early to fark with the formatting of my response
 
2012-06-23 09:14:29 AM

Liverboy: No one has mentioned Stephen King's remarkably low opinion of the movie The Lawnmower Man. The legal wrangling about it was so convoluted that I ended up writing an article about it for my law school paper.

/CSB


The movie may have been particularly bad, but it's still better than two hours of some fatass eating turf like he's some sort of perverted sheep.
 
2012-06-23 09:29:02 AM

Usurper4: If you mention Michael Mann (The Keep) to F Paul Wilson, he'll strangle you.


As well he should.The book is probably my favorite horror story and the movie is a travesty.
 
2012-06-23 09:31:14 AM
Never understood how King was not happy with The Shining film. I won't say the film was better than the book, they were both very good. The Shining is one of my favorite films. Does King really believe the television adaptation with the dude from "wings" was better? Agree with CTP that One flew over the cuckoo's nest was way better than the film.
 
2012-06-23 09:38:13 AM
The story of Travers and her struggles with Disney over 'Mary Poppins' is currently being made into a movie. Emma Thompson stars as Travers with Tom Hanks playing Walt Disney.
 
2012-06-23 09:39:08 AM
Peter Benchley was all pissed off that Jaws made people want to kill sharks. Although he was probably more pissed that the film was infinitely better than his shiatty book.
 
2012-06-23 09:41:15 AM
Ursula K. LeGuin was Severely Displeased with the miniseries of A Wizard of Earthsea, and I can't say I blame her one bit. They get at least two main characters' names wrong, FFS. And they make the hero white and the nation of antagonists non-white, when it was the other way around, and very much on purpose.
 
2012-06-23 09:54:43 AM

FeedTheCollapse: johnnygew: No mention of Ted Geisel?

/There is a reason most of the movies were not made until after he died...

anything in particular before his death? All the stuff that came out afterward was pretty atrocious, though.


From more than one biography:
Dr Seuss also wrote the musical and fantasy film The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T, which was released in 1953. The movie was a critical and financial failure, and Geisel never attempted another feature film.

It was said that only the voice of Boris Karloff gained his acceptance of The Grinch...I'm sure he would have hated the Jim Carey version as much, if not more than most of us do...
 
2012-06-23 10:00:16 AM
i'm surprised they didn't list the movies where the original authors actually took their names off the credits. if i remember correctly, dean koontz took his name off of the movie hideaway cause it was so bad.
 
2012-06-23 10:08:41 AM
Lsherm:
I found the dead zone to be a good movie also

Stephen King has been sucking the movie paycheck cock since Carrie. The Shining was a better movie than the book, and he probably can't stand THAT. The movies that kept close to the book - Christine, Maximum Overdrive, Salem's Lot, Cujo, The Dead Zone, etc. were OK, but they come off as schlocky.

His books that were later adapted and successful while still keeping true were done by Frank Darabont, who managed to expand the story while still improving it somewhat. Green Mile, Shawshank, and The Mist all benefited from his touch. King didn't have shiat to do with that - Darabont made it all work.

King is a good author, but he should leave the movies to people who know better.
 
2012-06-23 10:11:24 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Did they cash the royalty checks?

Then I bet they loved the movies.


You don't get a royalty check when your book is adapted into a movie, save in some very rare instances when you get a cut of the profits (and that's exceedingly rare). You get paid up front, before the movie is made, and in most cases have not even a shred of input into the final product.

I don't know if you've ever created something, but if you have, I'm sure you'd understand how disappointing or irritating it might be to see someone completely shred, or at least misinterpret, your work, especially if that adapted vision becomes the one the public knows. For many artists, it's not about the money. A check won't wipe away that disappointment. They'd sooner see the movie not have been made and in turn not get that check than take the money and see their baby butchered.
 
2012-06-23 10:19:06 AM

dickfreckle: I prefer to judge The Shining as a standalone work rather than compare it to the book. This also applies to Clockwork. Neither of the films are true adaptations but they sure as sh*t stand apart as great works. But yeah, I certainly understand why the original authors would object. Hell, Kubrik's version of Clockwork basically lops off the entire ending of the book.

I recently watched A Clockwork Orange on a serious AV system I helped install for a friend. The Wendy Carlos soundtrack alone is worth the price of admission. In The Shining, the hotel and the oxygen-sucked-from-room way it's filmed is still one of the creepiest achievements in movie history. So while the authors' might be upset, there's no denying the artistry of these flicks when judged on their own merit.


Which, by the way, is the whole point of an adaptation. A book is a book. A film is a film. Two totally separate things. A film should tell a story in a very different way.

In a book, everything needs to be spelled out. Literally. Because all you have is words.

In a film, things can be eluded to without being mentioned literally.
 
2012-06-23 10:22:57 AM

DeathByGeekSquad: The thing with King books is that they're all so intertwined via the Dark Tower references, and those usually get axed or changed - so in his eyes you're not getting the full story. Quite frankly, there is a ton of subtle shiat in his books that most producers/directors/screenwriters just write out of the script entirely.


Those references to The Dark Tower -- initially no different than, say, J.J. Abrams penchant for using the same fictional brands in his movies and TV shows until King retconned them into being part of a shared continuity -- are hardly essential to King's books and are among the last of reasons why there have been so many unsuccessful adaptations.

(If Abrams one day does a show that claims all those fun Easter Eggs referring to this brand of cola and that brand of cookie and this corporation and that airline were really part of a much larger story he was telling all along, are people going to buy into that, too?)
 
2012-06-23 10:28:16 AM

downstairs: In a book, everything needs to be spelled out. Literally. Because all you have is words.


I disagree pretty strong. Everything certainly does not have to be spelled out. Many of the greatest works of literature explicitly don't do that. You can trust your audience with subtly, allusion, vagueness, and implication just as much in print as you can on film.

The two mediums absolutely tell stories in different ways, I don't disagree with that at all. You're right on target. There are aspects of film language that you just can't do on the page, and vice versa. Each medium demands different pacing, information is delivered in a different way, film can (and should) use shortcuts the written word cannot, and so on.

But you paint the written word as being somehow less capable of subtlety than film. I'd strongly disagree with that.
 
2012-06-23 10:34:49 AM
Dean Koontz is surprisingly absent. Every single movie based on his work ended up as complete garbage. It's too bad, some of his books could have made for an excellent film.
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report