SciFi and Fantasy eBook Club discussion

Title says it all, and we know it's a fairly hackneyed topic. But I stumbled on this book, John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood for free on Amazon (link below), and it kind reawakened some old wounds. They can't all be translated seamlessly from page to screen like Princess Bride (I love both the movie AND the book, even for the variances between the two!!!). When I first saw the previews for John Carter, I was really excited because I enjoyed the book series by Boroughs and I thought it would be an easy movie to make. However, I'm infamously bad at picking movies to see in the theater, so my husband and I did not go. And the movie faded away into nothingness. Apparently this was yet another example of my poor taste in picking movies.

I know The Hobbit is another movie translation that's fresh in everyone's minds. I suppose there might be 3 movies worth of material. Running With Scissors is another movie that had surprisingly little to do with the book.

What are some of your LEAST favorite movies from books?

http://www.amazon.com/John-Carter-God...

Actually, I thought John Carter was pretty good. Once you realize that is is not all based on A Princess of Mars but several of the Barsoom books...and updated a bit for modern audiences. Unfortunately, I think it would be quite a waste of money to try to make some of those old Science Fiction books into movies but NOT update them due to advances in technology that date those books. Fantasy books don't have that same problem...in fact, the the opposite is true. I hate seeing fantasy movies with people acting and talking like they just stepped out of Modern Days Two of my least favorite books to movies are both Robert Heinlein books....The Puppet Masters and Starship Trooper. In the case of the former, I believe the producers simply took the cheap way out...on the latter....the translation from book to screen totally missed the point of the book. (In fact, the only thing worse than Starship Troopers was movies 2 and 3.....ugh.)

As far as I know, talks are still going on to put two of David Weber's creations on the screen....the Dahak trilogy and the Honor Harrington series. I think they are some what stalled due to Weber's insistence to remain in control :)

DUNE was a terrible movie, much worse than the book.
THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN sucked on the screen, even though the graphic novel is superb.

The list of sci-fi/fantasy books that were not worth seeing in the movie theater is probably much longer than the list those that are must-see. :-)

'I am legend' book was and still is brilliant but the film versions were simply terrible. btw im not including 'night of the living dead' in film versions even if it is basically a rip off of i am legend.

What? I loved the Will Smith version of Legend

Either version of The War of the Worlds gets my vote. The 1953 film is not bad, but too Americanised (sorry); Spielberg's effort is just painful to watch. I'd love to see a version that is faithful to the Victorian-era setting of the book; it could have a real steampunk flair to it.

Charles wrote: "The list of sci-fi/fantasy books that were not worth seeing in the movie theater is probably much longer than the list those that are must-see. :-)"

I think that is true of all Hollywood movies, and not limited to science fiction or fantasy. It's very hard to think of a case were I enjoyed both the movie and the book. There was a short, low-budget, silent, and B&W film of "Call of Chutulu" that was pretty good and pretty true to the story, and that's about as close as it gets for me to liking both the book and the movie.


I know there will be could be a lot of kickback, but I hated Blade Runner. I saw it on opening night in 1982 and and couldn't get over how hokey the ending was. It kept me from reading Philip K. Dick for twenty years.

nice dart steph, im not sure what's more painful watching tom cruise in war of the worlds or shutting my finger in a car door.
A future bad book to film conversion will be 'world war z'.

Steph wrote: "Either version of The War of the Worlds gets my vote. The 1953 film is not bad, but too Americanised (sorry); Spielberg's effort is just painful to watch. I'd love to see a version that is faithful..."

To be fair(?), the '53 movie was probably mainly inspired by the Orson Welles radio broadcast of 1938 than on the H.G. Wells novel -- and that broadcast would not have had near the impact it did in the US if they had done the fake reporting as if it were from Victorian England. ;-)

I would commiserate with Ursula K. Le Guin, whose Earthsea books have twice been maltreated on video.

The first time was a made for TV (SyFy) two-part movie, Earthsea. The adaptation faced some commercial challenges, most notably a total lack of female characters in A Wizard of Earthsea. Their solution was to bring in Tenar from The Tombs of Atuan and try to stir the two plots together, inevitably creating an entirely new story for Tenar. (The other problem was more tactical, since the gods Tenar serves in Atuan are worshiped in total darkness; SyFy apparently felt the sounds of footsteps and breathing on a totally black screen would not be quality television. :) Le Guin herself complained about the whitewashed cast, though again I presume that was a cynical, commercial decision on the part of the producers.

The second time, Tales from Earthsee became the debut of tyro anime director/writer Goro Miyazaki, son of the legendary Hayao Miyazaki of studio Ghibli frame. Goro apparently decided to pick pieces out of all the novels: a gebeth-like being from A Wizard of Earthsea, Tenar from The Tombs of Atuan, Arren & Cob from The Farthest Shore, Theru from Tehanu, and an ending from The Other Wind, together with copious original ideas. (In fact the only book I don't think he plucked something from was the titular Tales from Earthsea itself.)

Ugh, I heard those were horrible. A great LeGuin adaptation however is the LATHE OF HEAVEN production that ran on public television about 20 years ago. Wow, that was amazing.

Greg wrote: "...I know there will be could be a lot of kickback, but I hated Blade Runner. I saw it on opening night in 1982 and and couldn't get over how hokey the ending was. It kept me from reading Philip K. Dick for twenty years..."

I liked the original, but I saw the director's cut for the first time just a few weeks ago and it didn't seem nearly as good (I liked Harrison Ford's voice-over in the original!). It might be because I read the book between seeing the two versions and the book is far better.

Two words.... Battlefield Earth.

Steph wrote: "Either version of The War of the Worlds gets my vote. The 1953 film is not bad, but too Americanised (sorry); Spielberg's effort is just painful to watch. I'd love to see a version that is faithful..."

That would be so cool but I think the ending makes that story too flawed. The Victorian setting would make it ore watchable though.

Shane wrote: "'I am legend' book was and still is brilliant but the film versions were simply terrible. btw im not including 'night of the living dead' in film versions even if it is basically a rip off of i am ..."

That movie is so strange in that the first half is amazing and the second half is garbage. I need to read the book to see how it ends.

Clay, if you say the most recent John Carter of Mars movie is decent, I'll see it. I saw a SyFy version on Netflix that was just bad not too long ago, so bad I didn't even finish it. I remember reading the Barsoom series thinking that it should be an easy movie to make and fun to watch, so imagine my surprise when I was SO disappointed by the movie on Netflix.

G33z3r wrote: "I would commiserate with Ursula K. Le Guin, whose Earthsea books have twice been maltreated on video.

The first time was a made for TV (SyFy) two-part movie, Earthsea. The adaptation faced some c..."

WAIT A MINUTE. Wait just a damn minute. I read The Farthest Shore in, like, 7th grade when my English teacher let us take a free book from her library to keep. I still have it and occasionally think of it with very fond memories. Are you telling me that there is an entire series?! I had never even thought of it. And of course there is a crappy film adaptation. Of course.

And I concur the Dune movie was crap. There is supposedly another version in development. We can hope, right?

I haven't yet seen I,Robot, and to be honest, I'm afraid to. There's just no way it will be Asimov-level awesome. Especially because I am so in love with Elijah Bailey, and I don't want Hollywood poisoning that.

Jennifer, I know the one you are talking about! That one I think is actually called A Princess Of Mars and stars an ex-porn star as Dejah Thoris. Really bad. The newer movie...named John Carter, is actually pretty good. As are the special effects. The Tharks....the thoats...the white apes...all well done.

Jennifer wrote: "I read The Farthest Shore in, like, 7th grade when my English teacher let us take a free book from her library to keep. I still have it and occasionally think of it with very fond memories. Are you telling me that there is an entire series?"

Well, you have a real treat in store for you, then. The Farthest Shore is actually the 3rd book in the original Earthsea trilogy, which begins with A Wizard of Earthsea and its sequel, The Tombs of Atuan. Some 25 years later, Le Guin returned to Earthsea with Tehanu and The Other Wind, which take place several decades after the first trilogy. Finally, there's Tales from Earthsea, a collection of short stories and novella that cover the early history of Earthsea before the original trilogy. The five novels are all excellent.

Yes, you must run, do not walk, to your nearest library and get out WIZARD OF EARTHSEA. It surely is there, since it was an award winner and is a mainstay of YA lists.

I hit up Amazon as soon as I read this thread and already have Wizard of Earthsea waiting for me as soon as I wrap up the Hyperion series! And I told my sister, who is also pleased to know that Farthest Shore has other books before it, which helps explain why it seemed to pick up after a lot of missing background story!

Just an FYI, I do believe Wizard of Earth Sea is our selected fantasy read for April...or is it March? No, it's April. Elizabeth Moon's Sheepfarmer's Daughter is the March read.

Jennifer wrote: "I haven't yet seen I,Robot, and to be honest, I'm afraid to. There's just no way it will be Asimov-level awesome. Especially because I am so in love with Elijah Bailey, and I don't want Hollywood poisoning that. "

I loved Asimov's I robot books - much more than the Foundation series. I enjoyed the Will Smith movie. I isn't the novels. But it isn't bad either.

Jennifer wrote: "as soon as I wrap up the Hyperion series!"

Not to sidetrack but that series left me an emotional mess. Until the day I die, if I ever meet Dan Simmons, I will punch him in the nose for the ending.

Jennifer wrote: "I haven't yet seen I,Robot, and to be honest, I'm afraid to. There's just no way it will be Asimov-level awesome. Especially because I am so in love with Elijah Bailey, and I don't want Hollywood poisoning that."

Elijah Bailey isn't in the movie at all; Smith's character is Del Spooner. In fact, the title, Susan Calvin, positronic brains and the Three Laws are about the only things in common with Asimov's books. I'd approach the movie that way, as essentially original fare.

Just adding to the opinion that the recent John Carter (2012) movie was a decent movie and got a lot of unnecessary flak. It suffered from being an unknown classic for most movie viewers. Audiences didn't know Princess of Mars was from a century ago and inspired later novels and movies so people thought it was unoriginal.

As for movies that utterly failed, I would add The Golden Compass (2007). It was a fairly linear adaptation that did little to capture the essence of the book. That's the irony of book adaptations in my opinion. The closer you stick to the source material the more often the worse the adaptation.

Yes, that's a very common complaint. A movie is NOT a book, and making a movie from a book is not just a question of filming all the scenes and sticking it onto a screen. A good book based movie will be its own artistic achievement, taking all the best bits of the book and cinematographicizing it (boy, is that a word?!). Many of the Harry Potter films fail in this way, as did WATCHMEN.
That's why I'm willing to give Peter Jackson a good long leash with his Tolkien adaptations.

Actually, TLOR movies were pretty danged close to the books. I know I was a trifle upset, at first, with the parts they left out....Tom Bombadil, the Old Forest, Merry and Pippin and the Ent-Draughts, The Return to the Shire and the Deaths of Saruman and Grimma Wormtongue.... But then I got to thinking that these items, while working real well in the books, probably would do nothing for the movies. It will probably always be the case that movies will leave out some details that can be found in the books. This is probably a good thing. Even after all these years and the numerous times I have read the books, I STILL discover something i missed when I re read them. Little things that make the reading interesting...but would probably cause the movie to drag.

That is a good point, that the movie can't tell everything in the book, and should rather be viewed as the screenwriter's, producer's and director's combined visions of the story. And every person will read into something differently. Especially if the book has a lot of depth with layers of meaning. It's which layers caught the team's attention most, and works best with the screen adaptation.

When going to a movie, especially an adaptation of a book, you can't go in expecting the same experience you got from the book. I think the movie needs primarily be appreciated as visual art, and even along the lines of interpretive dance. Movies are more a visual art. Not to say a lesser art form, just a different ball game. So I'll also give a lot of leeway for creative license.

Dune, for example, is not Dune. It's still an interesting movie, and I'll even say I like it. But it is not Dune. I can understand why they felt like they had to change some details of the book to adjust to the screen (Like Bene Gesserit being psychics instead of hyper attentive). I also understand the TV series creative license with Far Eastern inspired design (I did not like the TV series, though, and didn't get very far into it). But some movies just fall flat (Princess of Mars, the 2009 version. WHY, GOD, WHY?!), while others succeed in creating a lovable adaptation (Princess Bride!!!)

Also, I am a little bitter about Bombadil being left out of the LOTR movie. That said, I'm pretty sure the films were more than long enough without him! I just don't know how I feel about The Hobbit being 3 movies long. I really enjoyed the first movie, but I thought it stretched it out more than was really necessary, and I'm afraid that they'll emphasize the parts they could've glossed over a little quicker, and then breeze through the parts that could really use more detail. On the other hand, Thorin is gorgeous. And a part of me is more than okay with watching 6 hours of him being dashing.

Lastly... I,Robot doesn't even have Elijah Bailey? I don't know if I'm happy or upset. Do they at least live in the domed Cities?

Sorry I ramble.

I'm going to nominate Impostor from 2002 which is based on the brilliant Philip K Dick short story of the same name.

I know this first appeared in Astounding magazine way back when, but I read it in "Handful of Darkness" and I'm going to hold onto that.

It's a real shame that the film was so bad, as it had film adaption written all over it - especially with the twist at the end.

The other short story that I really liked from that collection was Colony. I'm surprised it hasn't been turned into film or a SciFi one off story at least.

I ROBOT, and DUNE to some extent, fall off the rail on the other side: the movie guys just picked it up and ran off into the distance, without paying much attention to the written work at all. Many Philip K. Dick movies are like this -- does BLADERUNNER really have anything to do with the work of that name? The studios just bought the rights up to a cool title, and then made whatever movie they wanted .

Brenda wrote: "I ROBOT, and DUNE to some extent, fall off the rail on the other side: the movie guys just picked it up and ran off into the distance, without paying much attention to the written work at all. Many..."
Agree 100% add to this Running Man (Arnie's take on Bachman/King book) same title different story line.

This one is a preemptive strike as the film isn't out yet but...

I have a feeling that the movie version of Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card is going to be a fail... which grates on me because i really like the Ender Saga as a whole. I reckon the film might do OK as it will be a a topic a lot of younger audience will think is exciting, but i don't know how true to the book its going to be. I feel the book has a lot of more adult themes (i understand YA's can connect with these themes a well.) in it rather then just the "battling of kids" i dunno if that will be dropped for a more action based film.

OSC is heavily involved in the conversion from book to film though so maybe i will be wrong. As i will definitely go and see it i would rather be pleasantly surprised then disappointed.

May have stayed up until 2 AM to finish A Wizard of Earthsea in one sitting. Thank you bringing that old series back from my childhood for me to finish.

One that I hated was A Sound of Thunder. I loved the original short story but the movie felt like they had 100 pages of script to fill out so they wrote whatever came to mind at the time. Horrible.

Any Tarzan movie, hands down takes the cake.

The anime version of E.E. Doc Smith's Lensman (bring a bag)

Ralph Bakshi's VAGUELY animated Lord of the Rings, both halves. (do not watch with a loaded gun in the house)

Rankin Bass' animated The Hobbit (Why, Lord, Why?)

The problem adaptations always have is that those who love the story in its original form can be so weddded to it, that they find it hard to make allowances for the sort of changes that are often necessary when switching medium (I count myself guilty, too). I find I have few qualms with stage adaptations, for some reason.

I try to take consideration of the medium - but it's often easier said than done.

I've yet to see a decent film made of the King Arthur story - John Boorman's Excalibur came close (as did Monty Python!), but to me no one's really nailed it.

On the flip side, I thought Village of the Damned (1960) was as good as the The Midwich Cuckoos and the film I think had a more dramatic ending.

You reminded me One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. Great movie, and tried like hell to follow the book. Its been a few hears since i read the book or saw the movie, granted. i remember there were some annoying variances, but cant remember what, now. But I think I'd categorize it as a success rather than fail.

The book is narrated by the Native American, Chief. And it's one hell of a mind bomb, separating the true events from Chief's hallucinations. Philip K Dick would be impressed.

Awesome book, awesome movie--and the actors on that one were a good part of why it worked.

I think I've been fortunate in that most of the novels that my favorites, most haven't yet been turned into movies. (Except for LOTR but they truly did do a great job with that)

One weird example I can think of where a short story inspired a very different kind of movie would be "Flowers for Algernon" and the movie "The Lawnmower". Very weird movie.

Two words. Starship Troopers. Granted, I haven't seen it since it came out, and I'm only just now reading the book. But sis the movie have anything really to do with the books other than the idea of humans at war with a giant bug alien species? I don't understand how the movie claims to be "based" on the book instead "poorly inspired by" the book.

The thing is that Hollywood can option the novel, which then gives it the right to use the title. Then they can write a script that has no more to do with that novel than PRIDE & PREJUDICE. There is nothing to stop them unless the contract gave the author some input, and such contracts are surpassingly rare. The only one I have ever heard of is J.K. Rowling's right of veto over matters relating to the Harry Potter movies.

Just to be a bit different to a few who have posted here - one of my favourite movies of all time is…Blade Runner, without the awful voiceover!

Last night I finished watching the two-part version of Kate Mosses’ ‘Labyrinth’…truly awful and four hours of my life I will not get back. It’s such a shame as I really enjoyed the book.

I was disappointed with the film of Carrie. I love the book, but Sissy Spacek was nothing like how I imagined Carrie White.

Steph wrote: "I was disappointed with the film of Carrie. I love the book, but Sissy Spacek was nothing like how I imagined Carrie White."
Isn't that film being remade or scheduled for release this year?

The Broadway musical version was famously stinky, but they did revive it. Briefly.

Most Stephen King books become less... scary, I guess is the best word, when translated to movies, I think. At least his more fantastical stories. The ones that are more realistic keep that OMG tension. Something about how he wraps you up with the tension of the events makes them more horrifying. And a movie just can't take the time to do that.

The Mist, for example, I'm sure was not a terrifying movie, but I haven't seen it. But the moment one of those tentacles came flying out to grab someone in the book I wanted to scream.

I watched the first few minutes of the Bag of Bones TV special. Up to the moment when the wife of his ghost shoves the box out from under the bed. That part of the book FREAKED me out. I was about 13 or 14 when I read it, and I was afraid to step too close to my bed because of that damn book! I would take an extra large step to get into bed, and I will admit to sleeping with the light on for a couple of days. But on the TV special? My husband looked at me like, "This is the freaky movie you've been telling me about? Because this is lame."

Langoliers was a pretty tense story. Movie was interesting. Not tense.

But books like Delores Claiborne and Misery were more realistic and easier to translate to movies. The books had some of the metaphysical, characteristically King strangeness that worked really well in the book. But they cut it out of the movies because they wouldn't be able to portray it well.

But I haven't read Carrie, so I can't commiserate with you on that one!

Jennifer wrote: "Most Stephen King books become less... scary, I guess is the best word, when translated to movies, I think. At least his more fantastical stories. The ones that are more realistic keep that OMG t..."
Here's the thing, I never read The Mist, but watched the movie, and it was really good, right up until the end, it was one of those endings I would never forget (like that of The Ring and the Blair Witch) and not want to watch again. It quite put me off reading that book.

Peter wrote: "Here's the thing, I never read The Mist, but watched the movie, and it was really good, right up until the end, it was one of those endings I would never forget (like that of The Ring and the Blair Witch) and not want to watch again. It quite put me off reading that book. "

If it ends the way the book did, I can believe that whole heartedly. (view spoiler)[ No resolution, right? Just... searching. What an asshole to end a book that way, right?! (hide spoiler)] It was originally a story within one of his anthologies (I think I read it in Skeleton Crew). So I'll forgive him a little bit just because it wasn't a full fledged novel. And I know one of his devices to make a story a little extra terrifying is to leave it without a resolution, with several loose ends to give you an extra dose of anxiety that IF this actually happened, it might not be all okay in the end.

But I'm still bitter with him.

My vote has to be Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard. I loved the book and was excited when I first heard of its pending filming way back in 1993-ish. Try eagerly waiting for disappointment for at least 7 years.