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

[Tadd]

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)

 

[bobmus]

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

 

[WolfThomas]

I think the problem is that it's inherently harder to give the breadth of characterization and introspection in a tv series. But that doesn't mean that it's bad. I have read both the Song of Ice and Fire books and watched the show. I feel a lot of their changes have been pragmatic and necessary (some admittedly quite weird).

Take Tywin Lannister I feel he's more empathetic in the TV show and more impressive because they changed his physical appearance. The shaved everywhere but gold sideburns was ridiculous, the over the top ornate armour, I couldn't take him seriously even though hes meant to be a very severe character. But Tywin Lannister in the show is menacing but at the same time shows a kindly side to say Arya.

Stannis's upgrade to a BAMF in "Blackwater" was pretty cool too.

 

[Griffolion]

The simple fact is, if you are to include every tiny bit of detail in a TV show or movie that can be found in a book, the running time would be hours and half of it just wouldn't be good TV or film production. Stuff needs to get adapted, and most likely shortened, to fit the screen, big or small. LOTR is a good example. Films in their own rights were amazing, but the books offer a greatly fleshed out experience. Neither are invalid, neither are god.

 

[Dangit2019]

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 still attest that they made Hades look like Tony Iommi (of Black Sabbath) on purpose. I mean, come on! He even had a red Gibson SG in his living room!

 

[Hollyday]

Sorry to be really really girly for a second, but this one bugs me more than any other character in history: Mr. Darcy.

In the films he's this brooding, sulky but ultimately ridiculously romantic character. Hence, especially since Colin Firth's portrayal, he's seen as the 'perfect man'.

But in the book he's just nothing. Absolutely nothing. All his dialogue is given to us second hand. All his descriptions are received from a character, not the narrator, and he never has this amazing moment of clarity at the end where he professes his undying love. That's the whole point of the book - that our idea of this man is formed solely through other people's prejudices. In an adaptation which was trying to stay faithful to the book you just wouldn't cast him, except for a figure in the distance scowling every now and again.

 

[Zeckt]

I read the books only, and can see why they would have to tone Tyrion down by quite alot. He's made to be very repulsive and offending with his attitude and Tywin in the books would care less if Arya was dead in a gutter then even acknowledge her. I would probably find that scene in the show hilarious.

If there's too much to hate in the show, they will just hate the show.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

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

This this this a thousand times this.
I can understand when they cut a few things from a book in order for the running time to be reasonable. It's the same case when cutting a TV series (Avatar the Last Airbender) into a two hour film. (Although the depiction of Ange and Sokka could probably fit well into this topic).

It seems like they just didn't care about the Percy Jackson film... at all. I don't think I've seen a book so completely butchered, and that's saying a lot. If they plan to make Sea of Monsters, I'm not even sure how they are gonna pull that off jumping from The Lightning Thief.
------------
On the other side, I thought The Golden Compass was done very well, it's a shame the sequel will never see the light of day.

 

[VoidWanderer]

The Seeker, at least that's what I think it was called.

My parents told me how good the series was, and they hadn't watched the books.

I watched, I think, about 10 minutes of the pilot episode and after getting every single character interaction wrong, to the point of negating a crucial part of Richard's character in the first 10 minutes.

/sigh

 

[SidheKnight]

The Harry Potter movies are CRAP compared to the books.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Rarely do you get someoe who matches the movie perfectly. its part of the written thing you can imagine in your mind and everyone has a bit of a different take, even when the description is spelled out for you. and while its dead at th emoment, I'll say that I dont envy whoever gets cast to be Roland in a dark tower movie 9Not to mention whats going to be cut out, and how many OTHER movies they d have to make or make sure are redone or something so that little nods are remembered. You think the avengers was impressive and innovating with its use of multiple smaller movies leading to a big grandstanding one, all that would be tiny compared to the ammount of effort it would take to connect the dots to all the king interlocking words).

 

[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.

 

[shrekfan246]

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).

I agree on that completely.

Richard Harris was the perfect person to cast for the role as Dumbledore was written in the books. Michael Gambon was a bit too... animated, I suppose. He was a bit too imposing as the character. He changed Dumbledore from a wizened old man with a lot of hidden power to a sprightly man with a booming voice and a lot of harsh looks. Even with the things Dumbledore did in the later books, his characterization was better filled by Richard Harris, maybe with Michael Gambon being cast as the younger Dumbledore during the scenes that explored his past.

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.

 

[WaysideMaze]

My only experience with this comes from Terry Pratchetts Hogfather.

I love that book, have read it countless times, and was interested when Sky1 said they were going to adapt it for TV.

It was fucking awful.

 

[Elamdri]

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)

Jurassic Park the Movie: John Hammond is a nice, old Santa Claus-esque man.

Jurassic Park the Book: John Hammond is an absolute money grubbing bastard. Gets eaten by dinosaurs.

 

[Amaror]

snip

I have read Eragon and watched the movie.
So yeah i have experienced how something from a book das been ruined in a movie.
But still i am still very proud to be one of the first witnesses of the case, where the whole book has been ruined in a movie.
They didn't even get the hair color right, not for one bloody character.

 

[Zeckt]

The Seeker, at least that's what I think it was called.

My parents told me how good the series was, and they hadn't watched the books.

I watched, I think, about 10 minutes of the pilot episode and after getting every single character interaction wrong, to the point of negating a crucial part of Richard's character in the first 10 minutes.

/sigh

I watched that, it actually gets quite good in the second season and the storyline gets darker rather then Richard being a white knight nobody. Just forget everything you know about the books, that's the only way to garner any enjoyment out of it.

 

[Goofguy]

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.

But in the end, you watched the movies first which affect your judgement of the books... Kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I've realized that it is best I watch TV or movie adaptations before reading their source literary material because I'm usually one of *those whiny guys*. I don't take pride in it, it just is what it is. Case in point, the Bourne series. Based on my movie tastes, I should really like the movies. However, since I read the books first, I abhor the movies because they got everything wrong (and that's not an overstatement, those films truly veered off in their own direction). Shame, really.

 

[Timnoldzim]

Eragon. It wasn't ever really a great book, but I adored it as a kid, and the horrendous film adaptation was the first time I EVER remembered being disappointed in a movie. It was really awful.

 

[bobmus]

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?