They got the character wrong....*whine*

[Clearing the Eye]

Do you know, I had the funniest dream last night. I opened a thread and in it, the OP actually had the nuts to complain about Michael fucking Gambon.

"Nay!" said I, "'tis only a dream". And yet, here we are.

(Also, the thing about the Hobbits: they are older but they age slower, I'm sure. The real difference is that I'm pretty sure Gandalf appears at the Shire and talks to Frodo, and then several years later they set off upon their merry quest.)

snip

The films are adaptations of the books. They are adaptations because they are different mediums. Films cannot contain every single piece of iconography found in the books, at least not in their theatrical run. They filmed the Mouth of Sauron because Jackson did understand the relevance (he explains it himself when they talk about creating the scene), but shit gets cut. The folly/susceptibility of man is already covered by Boromir and his Pappy anyway. And the ring-wraiths. And Isildur. I mean yeah, it's a slightly different angle on it but it's pretty obvious why it got cut for the initial release.

As for us knowing Frodo and Sam were alright, that's a perfectly legitimate use of dramatic irony.

Dramatic irony? More like gross misuse of character and lazy writing. It was meant to be the final attempt by Suaron to cast doubt into the minds of the alliance - and using the fallen race of Gondor? It couldn't have been a more cold and epic moment, to come so far and be met face to face by your future, to look it in the yes (it did have eyes in the book) and be told everything you fought for is lost, and to still refuse to give up? It was the moment everything the book had been working towards came to a point the true meaning was crystal clear; it's not about winning and they didn't go there to win, it's about never, ever giving up for what you stand for.

 

[sextus the crazy]

I refuse to watch the Catch-22 movie for the same reason.

 

[Reaper195]

A friend of mine, we shall call him Dave, recently passed a comment on how the Game of Thrones books are by far superior to what the TV series could ever hope to achieve. Not ever having read the books, I just politely nodded; but I've set it upon myself to finish watching the series first before reading the books. This is because I don't want to point out all the wrongs and errors in each scene and characteristics that protagonists may have that were simply not evident in the novels.

I can somewhat understand where 'Dave' is coming from. Yeah, the series does take a few different paths and such, but that's only because there is such a disgusting amount of stuff in the books. Not to mention a lot of battle scenes were edited/cut entirely simply for budgetary reasons.

Personally, I've always considered movie/tv show adaptations of a book to simply be a different interpretation. Hence while the Dexter TV series is vastly different from the books, it's still one of the best TV shows I've ever seen and love it. And the books. The only time I've been truly disappointed was by the DooM movie. I thought the film itself was all right; nothing to write home about, but a decent action/sci-fi/horror flick. But on the other hand, I was incredibly disappointed that the entire supernatural aspect from the games had been completely removed and replaced with a virus. Yeah, not really a character, but you get what I mean.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

Every named cast member in Fantastic Four.
I've never seen a more fundamental misunderstanding of a franchise in my entire life.

I mean, yeah Batman & Robin is 120 minutes of total horse shit but it's at least evocative of the Adam West era Batman.

 

[uneek]

I think I can speak for any of the fans of the book when I say everyone in Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief.

Well, that's not fair. There was Grover and...Grover and...Grover.

OT: It's always best to do it the other way around. The thing about books is that they create unrealistic expectations in your head because of the lack of images. The next time it happens though, try looking for things you actually like about better in the adaptation. For example, in the aforementioned "The Lightning Thief" adaptation, while I'm still going back and forth on whether I liked it or not(right now I'm leaning on not), I like how they used the pearls to tie in the different locations they go to. I thought that was pretty clever.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Not really as I haven't read many books that have been adapted to film, except for LOTR, and even then I usually go into it with a mindset that it's probably not going to be exactly like the book/source material so I don't get all that worked up about it.

 

[Supertegwyn]

I think I can speak for any of the fans of the book when I say everyone in Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief.

I liked the movie/character characterization.

OT: None really. I don't like comparing different forms of art.

No point.

Had you read the books first?

Yeah I own the big box set of them. Although the books are better, I liked the movie.

 

[Jingle Fett]

I usually scoff at people who present the "books are way much better" approach to a criticism of a blockbuster (or relatively successful) movie.

A friend of mine, we shall call him Dave, recently passed a comment on how the Game of Thrones books are by far superior to what the TV series could ever hope to achieve. Not ever having read the books, I just politely nodded; but I've set it upon myself to finish watching the series first before reading the books. This is because I don't want to point out all the wrongs and errors in each scene and characteristics that protagonists may have that were simply not evident in the novels.

I did the same for Lord of the Rings. I saw the movies first, then read the books... apparently Frodo should have been 50 when the whole adventure thing kicked-off. I guess if I had read the books first, this would have affected my judgement of the film.

However, I had read the Harry Potter saga before watching the movies. I absolutely loved the movies for what they were... however, there was one character that bugged me. Dumbledore.

Richard Harris who played Dumbledore for the first two movies (before his tragic passing), I thought, absolutely, bloody nailed the role: stoic, methodical, mysterious with an air of unrivaled power. Just as I imagined him in the books...

...and then Michael Gambon took to the role. Whilst occasionally possessing some of the traits of the Dumbeldore I had grown to love in the books, he would at times crush my fanboy dreams. Random outburts: "Did you put your name in the goblet of fire!?!?" "Don't you all have homework to do!?!"

I just felt incredibly disappointed by either a) his performance or b) the direction he was given to fill the role. (Also, Dumbledore V.S Voldermort fight on screen was nipple-tinglingly amazing... but, I felt Dumbledore struggled too much).

TL;DR
So this is my question: "have you ever read a book and then been disappointed at how they portrayed the character on screen? And are you dreading any actors taking up roles for future book-to-screen releases?"
This is about your opinion on poorly, portrayed characters... not poorly portrayed films.

(If this thread has been done before, I apologise... but, I think it would be nice to have this update)

That part ("Did you put your name in the goblet of fire!?!?") is so bad it's actually become a meme between me and my friends. I mean Dumbledore is literally choking Harry when in the book it SPECIFICALLY says Dumbledore calmly walked over to Harry and asked him calmly.

What bugs me about the Harry Potter movies after #1 and #2 is that some things were spot on and some things were different...unnecessarily. Stuff that would have taken zero effort to keep original. For example, Dolores Umbridge was spot on perfect I think. But then Michael Gambon Dumbledore was not. Harry and Hermione's look was changed unnecessarily (shorter neater hair when it should have been messy; Hermione being like a sex symbol as someone else mentioned). The aforementioned Mad-eye Moody. And lots of little things like that which were just...off.

The director of #1 and #2 really nailed everything perfect or close enough. It was the one that replaced him that messed things up IMO...

 

[Gaiseric]

Every character in The Dresden Files TV show was off. Harry didn't even have the Blue Beetle.

It was only until I got to thinking of the show as an alternate universe was I able to enjoy it at all.

Also Ivan Isaacs in the Priest movie was the opposite of how he was in the manga. Which was a bummer 'cause a priest who sold half his soul to a devil to fight a fallen angel while useing a sawed off shotgun and a Tommy gun is much cooler than a super soldier type dude who only uses knives and fights vampires.

 

[Megalodon]

Dramatic irony? More like gross misuse of character and lazy writing. It was meant to be the final attempt by Suaron to cast doubt into the minds of the alliance - and using the fallen race of Gondor? It couldn't have been a more cold and epic moment, to come so far and be met face to face by your future, to look it in the yes (it did have eyes in the book) and be told everything you fought for is lost, and to still refuse to give up? It was the moment everything the book had been working towards came to a point the true meaning was crystal clear; it's not about winning and they didn't go there to win, it's about never, ever giving up for what you stand for.

How could they have done it better? As you said in an earlier post, in the book even the reader doesn't know what has happened to Frodo. That sort of suspense would have been impossible to pull off in the movie, as the splitting of the two stories would not have worked for a film.

 

[Woodsey]

Do you know, I had the funniest dream last night. I opened a thread and in it, the OP actually had the nuts to complain about Michael fucking Gambon.

"Nay!" said I, "'tis only a dream". And yet, here we are.

(Also, the thing about the Hobbits: they are older but they age slower, I'm sure. The real difference is that I'm pretty sure Gandalf appears at the Shire and talks to Frodo, and then several years later they set off upon their merry quest.)

snip

The films are adaptations of the books. They are adaptations because they are different mediums. Films cannot contain every single piece of iconography found in the books, at least not in their theatrical run. They filmed the Mouth of Sauron because Jackson did understand the relevance (he explains it himself when they talk about creating the scene), but shit gets cut. The folly/susceptibility of man is already covered by Boromir and his Pappy anyway. And the ring-wraiths. And Isildur. I mean yeah, it's a slightly different angle on it but it's pretty obvious why it got cut for the initial release.

As for us knowing Frodo and Sam were alright, that's a perfectly legitimate use of dramatic irony.

Dramatic irony? More like gross misuse of character and lazy writing. It was meant to be the final attempt by Suaron to cast doubt into the minds of the alliance - and using the fallen race of Gondor? It couldn't have been a more cold and epic moment, to come so far and be met face to face by your future, to look it in the yes (it did have eyes in the book) and be told everything you fought for is lost, and to still refuse to give up? It was the moment everything the book had been working towards came to a point the true meaning was crystal clear; it's not about winning and they didn't go there to win, it's about never, ever giving up for what you stand for.

Yep, all of which is still in the film without the character, it's just delivered differently. Either Gandalf or Aragorn voices the fact that they're probably not alive, but they'll still do whatever they can because it's all that matters.

It's a film, you have to be economic with stuff like that, and I'd say the Mouth of Sauron was handled particularly well with that in mind (i.e. by not appearing at all originally). Most of your complaint seems to be, 'he wasn't in the film'.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Legend of the Seeker. I started by watching the first episode of the TV series. Was alright, nothing really jumped out as weird, and nothing special either. Then I learnt it was based on a series of books called the Sword of Truth. Since I love to read, I started doing just that. They could not have gotten the series more wrong if they tried. The TV series was a mockery of the books.

 

[chadachada123]

Scott Pilgrim VS The World was a big one for me.

Not only does Michael Cera only somewhat fit Scott's personality, the girl that played Ramona totally was not like I had pictured at all. Everything about the film version was just vastly inferior to the graphic novel version.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Also, to play off of your LotR point, one thing that really did bug me is, no matter how irrelevant the time difference was in the book, the fact that they didn't convey it in the movie was just confusing. They make it appear like Gandalf rides off to Minas Tirith, studies the entire history of the One Ring, and returns to The Shire in the course of a few days. Also, while it didn't bug me, Aragorn in the books was always rather assured in his possession of the throne of Gondor, and for the movies they flip-flopped it around so they could give his character a personal turmoil to overcome.

Of course, the LotR movies did get a lot of those little things mixed or changed around, but it's not really all that surprising considering what they were working with. And I still love them, enough to have the extended editions of all three films.

I think the changes that messed with my head the most where some of the more extreme rewrites. The films aren't any worse for it, but it does get a little confusing when you put them both side by side.

For instance, the elf that takes frodo to rivendell when he was poisoned was a completely different character, who they replaced with Arwen, although all the lines she says are identical to the one spoken by the male elf in the book.

(My memory isn't doing me any favours right now, so excuse the way I describe some of this.)

Also... The battle of helms deep from the films bears little resemblance to what was written in the books...

(There's a few other things but they are mostly omissions, like the scouring of the shire, and Tom Bombadil)

Still, it's not bad, just, confusing. XD

 

[Don Savik]

Scott Pilgrim VS The World was a big one for me.

Not only does Michael Cera only somewhat fit Scott's personality, the girl that played Ramona totally was not like I had pictured at all. Everything about the film version was just vastly inferior to the graphic novel version.

As a fan of the movie and books, I think this pretty much covers most of whats being discussed on this thread. Books leave more to the imagination. I mean, we have elaborate descriptions of the characters, but what one person imagines might not be the same as another person, so when the movies come out, everyone is confused why they didn't look like they "should". Its happened to me before as well.

I mean, Scott Pilgrim has pictures, but everyone IS chibi, so the real life actor portraying it still makes the point valid.

 

[Blunderboy]

I think I can speak for any of the fans of the book when I say everyone in Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief.

Think that's bad? The Jurassic Park book and movie could almost be considered separate stories entirely.

Spoiler: Jurassic Park The Movie

A Kindly old man who just so happens to run a multimillion dollar genetics company wants to use new technology and science to let the world experience the wonders of Dinosaurs. He invites several people to his "Dinosaur Theme Park" including famous Paleontologist Alan Grant, a stubborn, tired man who doesn't like children. His lovely assistant Ellie. Along with a cowardly, annoying lawyer that is more worried about "price" then if the people were happy. Ian Malcolm, a mathematician who's skeptical about the park's safety regulations and theorizes that if the dinosaurs get out, many people's lives will be at risk. Finally, he brings his beloved grandchildren to show them the wonders of the park and give them the joys of seeing dinosaurs!

Unfortunately, meddling from a greedy scientist results in the Dinosaurs getting loose. A few people die, including the park's game warden Robert Muldoon, the Lawyer, and the Scientist himself. Luckily through courage and tenacity, the remaining people on the island escape to safety! The old man is regretful that his park put people's lives in danger, and vows to insure the Dinosaurs are protected and no one has to lose their lives to his park again!

Spoiler: Jurassic Park The Novel

A greed, egotistical old businessman who runs a multimillion dollar genetics company wants to use new technology and science to make millions off of the millions of people who'd pay to see real, live, dinosaurs. He invites several people to his "Dinosaur Theme Park" in hopes of getting an endorsement. Including famous Paleontologist Alan Grant, a young, handsome man who enjoys seeing children become interested in Dinosaurs and "the ancient world". His lovely assistant Ellie. Along with a lawyer that is rightfully worried about the expenses of the park. Ian Malcolm, a mathematician who's smart enough to be cautious about the Park's safety, he predicts that there will be an untold amount of people killed if things go awry. Finally, he brings his Grandchildren, he needs to gauge how the "Child Statistic" would react to the park after all!

Predictably, meddling from a greedy scientist results in the Dinosaurs getting loose. A countless members of staff die, the Lawyer, Ian Malcolm, even the greedy old man himself! The only people who managed to survive were those who actually had experience dealing with dinosaurs, including Robert Muldoon, Grant and Ellie, and luckily the children! The park is firebombed by the military, and the company's plans of building a new park are foiled. Unfortunately, it seems that not all the dinosaurs are killed, and the world will most likely never be the same again.

While the movie is a somewhat scary family adventure flick, the novel is very realistic and bloody.

Oh I agree completely. I love the books, though I was slightly confused by The Lost World book, which is clearly a sequel to the film JP and not the book.
I also love that in neither book do they shy away from the science of it all.

 

[woodaba]

Ha! All of this is fucking peanuts compared to The Witcher TV series. What. In. The. Fucking. Fuck.

 

[FlameAx]

Legend of the Seeker. I started by watching the first episode of the TV series. Was alright, nothing really jumped out as weird, and nothing special either. Then I learnt it was based on a series of books called the Sword of Truth. Since I love to read, I started doing just that. They could not have gotten the series more wrong if they tried. The TV series was a mockery of the books.

I've seen that show the producers said they intentionally took the characters and stories to a different direction because it would've been boring to the bookreaders to anticipate everything, or something like that

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

The 1995 Judge Dredd movie. Dredd shouldn't take off his helmet. Every single fucking thing about that film was wrong (except for Max Von Sydow). Still, apparently that's fixed in the new one coming out... and it's screenplay is done by Alex Garland *squee*.

snip

Hell even Denethor got slightly shafted, in the books his madness being a result of gazing into the plantir for too long to try and come up with effective strategies against Sauron, which Sauron made sure he only saw the how powerful his armies were, thus becoming sure of how hopeless the fight against Sauron would be. He never however did a Saruman and considered changing sides though, just lost hope in ever being able to win.

Not as major as Faramir, but it did mean he lost a bit of nuance.

There's a lot of that kind of thing missing from the films, but I tend to let them off because they couldn't have fitted it in to three films; I think that the films are about as good as they could have been, if they tried to cram everything it wouldn't really have worked.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

snip

Hmm, book to movie adaption aye....

Only one choice in this for me, Eragon. The movie was a bloody abomination that was so bad and did things so wrong that they would literally have to do another first movie because they wouldn't be able to make a proper second movie if they didn't(What was done with the Ra'Zac).

It was obviously a stupid and careless cash grab, that shows that director/producers that want to put their own spin on things, should never be given control of such projects. If they are going sacrifice the look of major things because of money, they might as well give up/stop until they have the money to do it.(The Urgals)

Spoiler: Urgal pic from the actual guide to the book series.

Spoiler: What they looked like in the movie.

Spoiler: Why this happened.

Original concept art showed Urgals almost exactly as described in the book, but director Stefen Fangmeier said that it either would have to be a lot of make up or a lot of money. He also said he wanted to do them a little differently. When the Urgals were established he was considering placing CGI horns on them but in the end he said it wasn't necessary to do so. The change of the Urgals made some fans considerably angry.

Apparently nothing like the description means "a little differently" to him. But anyway, the man was a moron and should have been fired immediately if those thoughts were known during the making of the movie. "Some" fans angry, is an understatement.

Come to think of it, I haven't watched a movie since that was based off of something I already read, because I don't want to see crap like that happen again.

For the future, I don't know if it actually got off the ground, but making a movie series or a large TV movie series was in the works for one of my favorite fantasy book series, "The Lost Years of Merlin" by T.A. Barron. Though the last news I heard about, a while back, wasn't very promising, which was that the person given the job of writing the screen plays was an Oprah show writing proofreader.

Yeah, exactly the kind of person I want writing my fantasy story screen plays ~sarcasm~