Saturday, September 6, 2014

Sunday Musings: September 7 2014


I'll go out and make the assumption...everyone I know has at some time said 'book was better than the movie' or 'never should have been made into a movie'.

Which book do you think should never ever be...or should not  have been...made into a movie? Why?

We'll visit the opposite of this conversation later ;)

DAWN KNOX, author

The film I was most disappointed in was 'Hogfather' based on the book by Terry Pratchett. I have loved all the Pratchett books I've ever read but I think using my imagination to interpret the books is much more effective than watching somebody else's interpretation. I feel quite disloyal saying that I wasn't keen on 'Hogfather' as Terry Pratchett is one of my favourite authors. I wonder what he made of the film?

Clan of the Cave Bear by Jean Auel. I loved this book when I was a teenager... and the movie was a huge disappointment. I believe it was considered a "box office flop". From what I understand, the author wasn't happy with the movie either and fought to win back the rights.

MEG AMOR, author

Aloha everyone.

I was most disappointed in the long awaited Evanovich movie based on the Stephanie plum series.

It felt like whoever did the casting hadn't read the book. And the characters are so well known it jarred and I badly. Stephanie was a - yeah okay. Morelli was the wrong coloring all round. Ranger lacked the sensuality he's known for. Lula was the only that hit the mark. Grandma mazur was a nightmare. Her look was wrong. The way she acted. They didn't even get a car right who plays a role in itself. A 53 powder blue Buick called Big Blue. They had a weird 70s car.

I mean. Come on. Even apartment was all wrong. Evanovich has a clear description in every book of her characters, apartment, parents house, Big Blue. You would have had to work hard to get them wrong. But they did.

When I first saw LA Confidential I thought it was a great film - as did the critics who hailed it as a return of noir and a masterpiece.

Then I read the book and had my mind blown by James Ellroy, and suddenly the movie looked second rate by comparison - I couldn't even watch it all the way through any more and turned it off while I yelled at the TV about the pointless changes they'd made.

The man himself has a new book out this month - I'm drooling with anticipation.

Hands down in my opinion, The DaVinci Code should never have been made into a movie.  It was too complex a story to do it justice and then the casting was a total disappointment.  I love Tom Hanks, in certain roles, and as a hunky professor on the trail of historical clues that isn't one of them.  Hollywood took a great plot/story, made it boring, and cast the wrong actors in the roles.

My two cents worth!!


I think the book Battle field earth probably should never have been made into a movie. Or at least split up into two movies ( that seems popular now days) The story in the movie was a long way off from the book. It typified the saying - The book was better.


I was extremely disappointed with The Mortal Instruments:City of Bones. I gobbled up the first five books in the series prior to seeing the movie (a good move on my part!) and was looking forward to seeing the story play out on the silver screen.

Sadly, they changed the plot of the story, and damaged Clary's character arc when Jace rescued her, instead of her saving herself (as she had in the book, which set up a HUGE part of the story.)

I really wish Ms. Clare had had more say in the final product, as I think with her input they would have gotten it right.

RACHAEL ELIZABETH KOSINSKI, author – soon to be released Historical romance

Has anyone else seen The Giver that just came out?? Now, I read the Lois Lowrey classic in seventh grade (spoilers ahead). Being twelve and reading about people killing off babies and not being allowed to see in color was eye-opening stuff, and the book's story about learning from history and "equality" being taken and twisted into something wrong has always stayed with me, but the 2014 film? What the heck! The supposed-to-be twelve-year-olds were in their twenties, they 'roided up the love story (which was not even that important in the book) and threw in a bunch of Hunger Games-esque technology. It wasn't a horrible film on its own, per se, but I was not a very happy cinema goer. :(

My fav fiction books of all time are CSLewis' Chronicles of Narnia and JRR Tolkien's LOTR. I've seen all the versions I know of, and own several. It bothers me when some great parts are left out and also when Hollywood adds scenes not in the books or develop secondary and tri(what's the word?) characters into major chases tears.

Don't mess with awesome!

Dear reader, thank you again for joining us and we’d love to hear from you. Keep smiling and have a fun week. Never stop believing. See you next Sunday…nothing better than being cozy in bed with some Musings.

If you have a question or comment you’d like us to muse upon, do not hesitate to contact me Christine Steeves-Speakman  at


Kenneth Hicks and Anne Rothman-Hicks said...

Another great topic, Chris. I've never seen a movie that was as good as the book. I think that a book creates a link between the writer and the reader's imagination that the movie can't equal.

Kim Baccellia said...

I read 'The Giver' and loved the book. The movie wasn't as bad as I'd feared. Yes, they upped the ages of the protagonists but overall? Not a bad movie.

John B. Rosenman said...

Yes, a great topic. I've seen so many lousy or mediocre movies that don't measure up to the really good or great novels or stories they were based on. The problem is, often I forget them as soon as I leave the theater or take them out of my player.

The first movie DUNE was mediocre or just plain bad. There was a second movie which was better. The first movie tripped over its internal voice-overs and was self-consciously stylized. Often when you see a mediocre movie, you can't put your finger on what precisely makes it lame or dull. You just know it is. It doesn't feel good or sparkle.

Ender's Game . . . well, it was somewhat fun. Harrison Ford was serviceable. But this was a Hollywood film made for entertainment whereaa the original was so much more.

King's Under the Dome. This may not precisely fit the question. They've made it a series for TV. It started out okay but junked it up with things which weren't in the book, and as so often happens, they are not an improvement.

ChrisChat said...

Thanks for dropping by. I have to admit, I liked/enjoyed The Lord of the Ring movies and The Hobbit more than the books.

I just can't get into the books. I love quest fantasy genres, but these books bored me.

Yup, I'm going to get slammed for this one ;)

Rochelle Weber Author said...

I don't know. I have to say, Peter Jackson did an excellent job with LOTR. Less so with The Hobbit. That really did not need to be three movies. It wasn't that long. He did, however, leave out a major stop from LOTR. Before they meet Gandalf, Frodo and the hobbits take a shortcut and they meet Tom Bombadill and Jenny, and they spend the night with them. Jackson left out that whole section, which angered many purists.