Top 10 Most Unforgivable Book to Movie Changes 

You forgot about the movie Hostage with Bruce Willis. Which happens to be based on the the novel by Michael Crais. They changed 3 things. 1. They cut out the trailer scene of which Talley finds a bunch of cereal boxes and one of car thieves' mom's head in a jar in their fridge. 2. The chief was corrupt by the mob. 3. The whole ending of the book was changed for the movie.

Agreed

Peter Pan

the entire percy jackson and eragon movies

WORLD WAR Z. it should have been a feauxcumentary.

Agreed!

And SO MUCH more

What good moments? 😂 abandoning Harry And Hermione? - someone who read the books several times

@@louff4tw746 then you’ll know that in the books Ron stood up against Sirius (on a broken ankle) and not Hermione in PoA. Ron also continuously defend Hermione and Harry against Professor Snape, Ron was freaking out a lot more when Hermione was tortured by Bellatrix. In the books Ron was continuously the loyal friend through and through.

Also Ron suggested to save the elves during the war

She was so fierce and witty in the books and her relationship with Harry was developed beautifully. Whereas in the films, she literally had no personality at all and I have heard from people who have only watched the films that they thought the Harry/Ginny pairing was weird af, which it WAS in the films! But in the books it all made sense!

@@91clarie when people tell me that Harry and Ginny shouldn’t be a thing, I ask, “did you read the books?” And of course they lie. I can always tell because of that statement, “Harry and Hermione should have been together. Ginny makes no sense.”

What does eps mean?

@@DaniqueEmiliaSteinfeld typo on my part, it should have went esp.(i'll fix it) but it's short handed for especially.

@Sarah Granger I agree. Ron is my absolute favorite and I loved his and Hermione's chemistry in the books. They totally ruined his character in the movies. They gave all of Ron's best lines in the books to either Harry or Hermione. It annoyed me so much.

Agreed, I love those books and have read all of them. The movies made me so mad

About the remake. I'm not really looking forward to it since I found out what characters will be there. Even though I love Percy Jackson, I won't Be watching a Disney remake+

@@PlagueDoctor447 I’ll give it an episode or two to prove itself

I agree with you but because they are on Disney+ they’re not exactly gonna be any more book accurate than the movies were

@@gilbertmillers4865 one can dream

Omg then Harry just snapped the Elder Wand and threw it away like it was nothing!

I totally agree. Plus, the way of his death is not the same, in the book Voldemort dies like any human being and not dissolving in the air. And that is the message, for all his quest for immortality and power, Voldemort died like any other wizard.

@@MoonTsubasaHime I prefer Harry snapping the elder wand in half. It ends the wand's bloody line of provenance. It differentiates him from Dumbledore, who might have been too curious to destroy such a significant artifact.

@@takatamiyagawa5688 I also preferred him snapping the wand but I hate that they didn't include him fixing his original wand first.

@@melodramatic7904 Totally agree. I’m fine with how they extended the final battle in the movie, though I do wish they had included more of Harry and Voldemort’s conversation. But Harry just snapping the Elder Wand without fixing his own first still bugs me 11 years later.

I agree with you on how they turned it to proof that he was a good kid. Though, I still find it ironic that the movie that focused mostly on Charlie was called “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”, while the one that focused more on Willy Wonka was called “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.” And poor Rold Dahl just had such crap luck with movie adaptations of his novels not living up to his vision. He hated the change to the end of The Witches as well and disowned that movie for it.

I was thinking the same thing. He gave that candy back and his family truly needed the money "Slugworth" was going to pay for it. I think we are to assume the others ran straight to Slugworth with the Gobstopper even though they were much better off financially. So, he was redeemed by being the only one who was not going to betray Wonka. The most disappointing part for me as a kid was, they did not show the other characters leaving the factory. This is described in the book. We see that they 1) all survived and 2) ALL got the chocolate.

@@themayhemofmadness7038 I don’t blame Dahl for hating the ending of The Witches (1990). After watching the 2020 version with the book’s ending and hearing about the changes ending in the 1990 film, I’d also be mad too.

@@LB-gz3ke In the 2005 remake we get to see the other children leave the factory. I hated in the 1971 version that all we got was Mr. Wonka's promise to Charlie that the other kids would be fine.

Also Charlie was just curious, whereas the other kids were greedy and demanding about the things they took/tried to take.

I was thinking the exact same thing! :D

Eragon had some cool concepts, especially the way magic worked… but aside from that, the series is pretty bad. It makes sense the movie was worse. It’s really not a good series.

Yeah, almost a third of the book's content is just missing, and the final battle was under the dwarves' mountain, not in the enchanted forest.

I think it is not mentioned because the film was a total failure, and rightfully so.

Hence why I watched that movie once🤬They murdered that book!🤬

I kind of forgive Dawn treader because they were trying to add a narrative. They didn't think "Let's explore these islands while searching for these 7 lords" was a strong enough motivation. They also needed to pull the witch back in (no idea why) and to add a real Climax with STAKES

ok but Percy Jackson aging up the characters didn't change anything at all

@@yiwoon_cr8s it kind of does. Especially given the prophecy of the second one. If they were intending to follow the entire series, they shot themselves in the foot. Plus all the other changes they made that were notably abhorrent.

I just tell myself the Ella's Enchanted movie is a different story, just with the same curse and characters. The movie by itself is fun but it was my favorite book as a kid, so I was disappointed the first time I saw it because the story is so different.

@@jessiem3169 Ugh... Ella Enchanted the movie was such a massive disappointment. It’s really not the same curse at all though. The book makes it clear that the curse causes Ella pain when she doesn’t obey immediately. Her learning what level of pain she can tolerate before she has to obey is a huge part of her character arc. It helps her figure out her loopholes, her limitations, and is instrumental in developing her determination to break her curse. The book curse also doesn’t give Ella skills she doesn’t actually have in order to obey a command-movie karate scene I’m looking at you. Or make her freeze in mid-air! Because that’s not realistic. And one thing Gail Carson Levine’s story got perfect was keeping the curse realistically grounded despite the story being a fantasy. The movie is a cute Shrek wanna-be. But it is not Ella Enchanted. They stripped everything unique and surprising from Levine’s book, including how it’s a literal Cinderella story, and gave us a damsel in distress devoid of a personality who only fights back when commanded to do so, until the very end after she has broken the curse. And the way the movie breaks the curse is just trash. She looks in a mirror and commands herself not to be obedient? Seriously? The whole point of her character arc is that she learns that she has been wanting to break her curse for a selfish reason, when what actually breaks it is her selfless choice to save Char and her kingdom by refusing to marry him and become queen. She can’t risk that her curse could be used to harm him or hurt the kingdom. The movie missed the entire point of Ella’s character arc. And I can’t stand what they did to Char either. He wasn’t a stupid, disinterested teen who fell for Ella because she’s pretty and supposedly not interested in him. Book Char was deeply interested in his kingdom and he fell for Ella because she made him laugh and she was a smart, interesting, uniquely skilled, independent woman. The book deserves a new adaption from people who actually understand it and want to highlight its uniqueness.

People do it though.

Precisely. As is that poor kid getting in a mortal accident less than an hour after winning a court case that gave her the right to make her own medical decisions

Why did the doctor go along with it(if he did)?

​@@jackilynpyzocha662parents have the right to make all medical decisions for minors, if a parent says "use my kid to save my other kid" they will.

Exactly I remember reading it after the movie I was so surprised but I thought it was a better ending then the movie.

The book was so much better. The movie robbed people smh

@@HUeducator2011 I agree. I like the book better.

same the book tied itself together and the movie just sacrificed so much and for what?

The book was amazing. I hated the movie!

That was the weirdest change ever... Dumbledore being calm is what makes his rare screaming moments so intimidating...

LOL yes... that's top of my list of "Dumbest HP book to movie changes" and close next is the fact that Lily's eyes in the final movie don't match Harry's.... like... how do you ruin that?

Same

@@andreca90 OMG I'm so glad to see someone else annoyed by the eyes thing. Seriously, there was ONE casting requirement for young Lily: she had to have Daniel Radcliffe's eyes. That's it. That was their only assignment 🤣

That was absolutely bizarre. I know Michael Gambon can act, I have liked him in several roles, but he was a terrible Dumbledore.

Ya that annoyed me too. The book pretty much explained Voldermorts entire backstory. One of the movies does mention like hes a half blood or whatever but half blood prince explains the entire thing and why he is the way he is. It also bothered me that the book and movie were called half blood prince since it really had no plot point other than being snapes book and the reveal at the end about Snape even tho the majority of the book was about Harry trying to get Memories of Voldermorts past to figure out where he hid the items.

They threw those out the window in favour of whatever was going on with Ron, Hermione, Cormag and Lavender as well as Ginny and Dean's on again-off again relationship just for Ginny to be with Harry, but the romantic scenes between the two were awful. Don't know if Bonnie was just uncomfortable with romantic scenes in general, or if the tension wasn't how it needed to be, but either way, I can see why Ginny's novel counterpart is loved more by fans.

@@grahamdamberger7130 I don't know why they thought the romantic teenage drama was more important than Voldermort's backstory. At that scene where Hermione said that she wanted to throw up at Lavender calling Ron her "Won-won" I wanted to join her!

Do people really hate it? You’d think they’d be happy that the main character lived

^ Their arguments usually are that the darker ending was better fitting for the story, when Kate choosing to die is also a pretty dark ending. And just bc an ending is darker doesn’t mean it’s better.

@@islasullivan3463 I’ve heard this argument. It has to be executed perfectly to work

@redrasegarden Agreed. One series that I think pulls it off is A Series of Unfortunate Events, bc the main theme of is that terrible can happen or be done to people, and that it can all depend on circumstances and luck (for lack of better terms), and the narrator says right at the beginning that this won’t have a happy ending. My Sisters Keeper’s message is that one child should not be used as spare parts for another, as that is horrific, then ends with that child’s body being used as spare parts for another.

I mean it’s shocking, but it’s not done for shock value. In an ideal world Anna doesn’t exist because Kate didn’t get cancer, so it’s very poetic that, in the end, Anna dying and saving Kate one last time gives the parents the two kids they were always meant to have. It’s a beautifully tragic ending that is completely destroyed in the movie.

@@crystalpritchard5065 Not really I think it's handled better here because in the book the mom actually cares about Anna but in the movie she doesn't at all and even when everyone around her tells her she's taking things too far even Kate I get that life unpredictable and shit happens but Anna didn't deserve to die and Kate didn't get her wish so no one wins except the mom that way

​@@crystalpritchard5065 it s a fucked up ending ... like ana s life was there to be sacrificed

@@andreeat2142 that’s the point though. It was wrong for Anna parents to have her solely so that she could be spare parts for Kate; they never let her have a life outside of Kate’s needs, she never got to be her own person. Killing her in the end and having her safe Kate emphasizes this point, it’s shows how much her parents trivialized her life, that as much as they loved her, they saw her as spare parts for their first daughter. I agree it’s a cruel fate for a character but that’s literally the point.

I also liked the movie ending better. For once: It was more realistic. Kate's life (or more her misery) could only be prolonged. "Healing her" with a kidney would just have been extremely stupid and unrealistic. But mostly: The move stood way more firm to the question if it is alright to "create" a donor child to get spare parts at all. I live in a country where all of that is completely illegal and sure that has influenced me but even if US-citizens are ok with something like that being legally possible.. "Does the fact that it is scientific possible make it ok?" Is just a question that NEEDS to be asked. And killing Anna who fought for her right of being worth of living her own life of to magically safe Kate with a kidney while removing the child that isn't needed anymore after Kate is healed... In my opinion that end does not ask the questions that need to be asked.

There's also the fact that YA Dystopia had lost it's popularaty by the time Allegiant came out, wich probably convinced the producers to stop investing in the proyect.

And then they kill her off in the opening of the sequel. Suuuuuuucked. I know they had to change the plot to make it a contemporary thriller but that was no reason to shortchange Marie like that.

Except Anna wanted to donate. Kate asked her to do the trial because she knew she wouldn’t survive the operation and was ready to die.

In the book's ending, Anna died, didn't she? So if that's her being selfless, it's counter-productive in my opinion. It sent a message that in life, you are either being selfish and live or selfless and die. Anna is 11 year old, she deserves to live. I have just recently watched an episode about child marriage and it made me sympathize with her even more. Anna's lawyer asked Sara a valid question: She protected Kate but who protected Anna? Anna'd donated since the moment she was born. Why should the kidney donating define her?

@@lochuynh5387 My point was that Anna took her family to trial, but in the end she was still feeling conflicted about donating the kidney. Now she had all the power to do it (no one was forcing her), she was considering it. I believe that it made her character even more complex. The movie took the easy way out, not allowing her character to develop even further. Anna's death is absolutely tragic. I cried so hard. And then her sister gets the kidney, has a miraculous recovery and lives with guilt feelings. I love the book, tragedy and all because it made it unique.

@@lochuynh5387 I agree. Except in the book she is thirteen. I like the book a lot more than the movie. Anna felt obligated to give her kidney without being asked if she wanted to. There was a small part of her that wanted to say no and just wanted that option. Kate knew that she just wanted to be a kid and be able to try out for hockey and have kids and just live a normal life without having to be a donor her whole life. All the characters in the book seemed so much more interesting than in the movie too

@@crasicatlady I think making Anna a tragic hero definitely left a strong impression. It also puts all the attention on her. While I agree that attention is a good thing, it also leaves a negative impact when it's monopolized. As you can see, we have been only talking about Anna as if her character makes or breaks the story. In the movie, Kate felt as much an essential character as Anna to me. She didn't ignore what's going on with her family just because she's sick. She said the disease was not only killing her but also killing her family: Jesse's dyslexic was neglected, Brian was feeling less and less like Sara's husband while Sara used all her time to take care of Kate, even Sara's sister only worked part-time job and used the remaining time to help her. That's why she made Anna fought that case and it made her more than a patient to me. What we often don't notice is that being a burden kills people as much as their disease. I love a tragic story as much as the next person but wholesomeness, resolution and positive message are important to me too. I rather seeing the family learn to deal with grief, heel and continue to live their lives than leaving them stuck between grief, guilt and resentment forever.

I didn’t read the book yet.

As someone who is currently battling stage lV breast cancer, I completely agree. I would much rather die from my cancer than feel responsible for the rest of my life for someone else’s death. I’m not afraid to die because I know there’s more after this earth experience. It would be torture to have to live my life feeling responsible for someone else’s death.

I hope you are okay now🫂🫶❤️​@@NsTheName

Plus Peter Jackson wasn't supposed to direct the films. Guillermo Del Toro was to direct The Hobbit but for whatever reason had to leave so Jackson was forced to step back in. Jackson was burnt-out from filming LoTR and that is why The Hobbit was CGI heavy.

Yes! I feel bad that Peter Jackson gets so much flack for The Hobbit movies but he came into the process very late and so much had already been decided and, like you said, the studio had their ideas on what the movies should be which is probably part of the reason the original director decided to leave the project.

I came here for this comment. It wasn't that he "Couldn't help himself" He was doing his best to create enough content for three movies when I think he wanted to only do two.

I totally agree. Faramir was the ‘good’ brother. I did not like what Peter Jackson did.

Unpopular opinion: I prefer Faramir from the films, I totally see how changing his behaviour made sense - he was also tempted like Boromir at first, but on the contrary to his brother, he managed to overcome the temptation and let Frodo go. IMO it makes his character more interesting and human, because it shows that he is not perfect, too.

In the film commentary, they discussed this. They had built up the fact that the ring moved people to do things beyond their control and made everyone want it. To then have a character that just said, "meh, no thanks" THEY felt negated the ring's power.

@@taraevans1108 Yet that is exactly why Faramir was such a good man. It is the exceptions that make the rule stronger

@@brontewcat I understand. Was just letting them know how the director and writers justified it.

I think Peter Jackson wanted to make this 'grow and evolve' part more visible, by showing him struggling. When he decides to let Frodo go he knows that this means that he loses any chance of gaining the love of his father, and might likely die for it. This gives it for me even more impact than just the easy decision in the book.

So what Faramir do differently from the books in the movie? I honestly didn’t understand that part in the video.

@@andreasmeelie1889 Faramir was never tempted by the ring in the book. He never brought the hobbits to osgilieth. His character was purely good. Even Aragon was tempted by the ring.

Same I felt for Kate, but I'm not upset with Anna getting to live her life. Kate's life was important but so was Anna.

praying for that day to come... and they can fix Ron as well... haha :)

And yet he’s stated for hating this movie…

I was going to say the same thing. Did he REALLY hate the movie adaptation he literally wrote?

Roald Dahl wasn't the sole screenwriter - he was the only credited screenwriter, but that's hardly the same thing. David Seltzer was the uncredited writer, who changed many things against Dahl's will such as the fizzy lifting drink. Overall, the few things that survive from Dahl's original script are the references to characters and situations that would only appear in Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator (which would only be published after the film's release) such as the Vermicious Knids. Another bit Dahl did not write was Wonka's first appearance, leaning on his cane and leaving it behind, which came from Gene Wilder himself. I (and many others) feel it's a great introduction to Wonka's character, but Dahl absolutely HATED it.

@@patriciaesteves61 oh, did he? I wasn't aware of that! thanks for the correction. 👍🏻

Just because he wrote the first draft and is the credited writer doesn’t mean his script was the one that was used in production. Look up the term script doctor, lots of screenplays get rewritten by other writers who are billed and credited differently. It’s pretty common to the point where “and” vs “&” in the credits denotes weather writers were coauthors or both wrote scripts that were then used in part but not full.

And Stephen king’s misery also

Twilight books were way more amazing than the movies led on. But that's the only book series I read front to back.

the World War Z book was unfilmable as is, so it just provided a basis for the movie. I enjoyed both for what they were

@@kristentaylor5359 The only thing the movie took from the book was the title. World War Z, the book, is a thought-provoking piece that highlights different groups of people through the use of interviews after a zombie apocalypse has occurred. What part of that sounds unfilmable? A film student with little to no budget could have made a more faithful adaptation than Hollywood did.

@@cocoanutt27 It would be a difficult story to film, it jumps all over the place and doesn't have a central character. Also, it takes the main theme of the book, not just the name

This!

Yep. They gave every feat of his to Hermione.🤬

YES!!! I hated how much they changed Ron in the movies. He is my favorite character in the books and they completely ruined him by making him the bumbling idiot I will never forgive the movies for that.

The biggest example of that was in Chamber of Secrets. In the book Ron was the one who explained what a "mudblood" was. Hermione had no clue what it meant other than figured that Malfoy had insulted her. In the movie it was Hermione that explained the meaning of that word. It didn't make sense as to how she knew what it meant if she wasn't in the Wizarding world until she started Hogwarts.

Actually you can't really add dark tower because it doesn't follow the books at all. Why do people keep missing the movie says inspired by the dark tower book series.

In the 90s movie version she would have been a better match with the elder cousin. They could have fallen in love while she nursed him back to health... I mean they changed so far from the book anyway, they could have really leaned into it and made a really good movie. The younger brother didn't deserve her anyway in the book or the movie.

Same here. I also have to do the same with Hannibal but I don't particularly care for either ending when it comes to that particular story. 😑

The Shining movie is more inspired than faithful adaptation.

@@ashh4929 I loved the ending of the book Hannibal. But of course movies can't end like that, so it was drasticly changed to stupidity. A doctor would never cut off his entire hand to escape hand cuffs, when cutting two fingers and chunk of palm would do it (leaving a very functional 2 fingers and thumb). Scott directed so many excellent movies, why did he allow this monstrosity of a rewritten ending into one of his films? Probably money . . .

See that right there is why I will never watch a newer version of that movie.

That's why I liked the original Dumbledore better than the replacement. He'd never snap at Harry like some sort of abusive authority figure. RIP Richard Harris.

I'll forgive the SPEW subplot being omitted from Goblet Of Fire because I kind of got annoyed with it in the book. But the one thing that I can't forgive is that Aunts Sponge and Spiker didn't die in the movie. In the movie they pursued James and company across the ocean while they were simply crushed to death by the giant peach.

I just made a similar comment! You read my mind! It's like they were punishing Anna for making her own decision, trying to paint her as selfish. The car crash was to basically state she should have given up her body parts as asked because it would have happened anyway. I feel like that stripped the agency of the main character. And now the sister is alive but without her sister, so what did she really gain? She's alive, but is she really living?

That’s classic Jodi Picoult, she had a similar plot twist in ‘Handle with Care’ a the family sued their obstetrician for wrongful birth (their younger daughter had osteogenesis imperfecta) and won, giving them enough money to comfortably look after her but then the daughter drowned. Meanwhile both the mum and older daughter lost their best friends because they were the obstetrician and her daughter

Yeah it's been a while since I read the book but I remember thinking "Oh, so none of what I just read actually even mattered. Okay." And it didn't seem like it was saying anything about life being fragile and random, the message I got was more like fate stepping in to say "No, actually, this character WAS born solely to be spare parts for her sister and that is what she will be."

I read the book and was really, really hoping for a ballsy ending. That didn’t happen. The whole book built up to it and then the ending was trash. I hated it. I then tried to read two other of her books but there was the same dismal ending - one about an Amish woman and the other about the autistic kid (I’m on the spectrum and I had high hopes). She can’t write an ending to save her life and I will NEVER read another of her books. It still makes me mad.

If I remember correctly because it’s been years since I read the book, winning the court case didn’t mean she wasn’t going to give her sister the kidney, what she won was the choice. We as readers don’t know what she would’ve chosen to do with that win, maybe she would’ve donated the kidney anyway. I always found the end of the book poetic because in an ideal world, Anna doesn’t exist because Kate didn’t get cancer. Her parents were only meant to have two kids and in the end, they have those same two kids still. Anna was always meant to save her sister, and in the end she did.

"Squashed the beef??" Never heard that before; must be from wherever you're from. You should explain slang or avoid it, or you may confuse people.

@@glowormrdr6183 It's a saying in the USA that means they ended whatever arguments or fights or disagreements they've had. Jonathon Green, Lexicgrapher on Quora explains: "Beef" is usually described as having animosity towards someone. "Squashing the beef" is ending that animosity. Beef meaning ‘to complain’ is a coinage of the mid-19th century. This quote comes from an anonymous burglar's memoir, published in New York in 1865 (though the burglar himself was English and had fled from London): 1865 Leaves from the Diary of a Celebrated Burglar: With the intention of finding out whether he was likely to ‘beef’ or not, Tom asked his sister Til how much his ‘poke’ was ‘up to’. 'Poke' here means a wallet (which had been pickpocketed), and 'up to' means worth, i.e. whether he complained (to the authorities) depended on how much the wallet contained. (Leaves is a fascinating book and a boon for the lexicographer - every instance of slang, and there are at least 1000, comes neatly bracketed in quote marks.) As regards the etymology of beef, it seems to go back to the cry of hot beef! meaning ‘stop thief!’ (quasi-rhyming slang but more by coincidence than design, since it is far older than rhyming slang's first widespread use in the 1820s-30s); thus the 18th century cry hot beef, to raise a hue and cry. This became ‘to raise an alarm’ or ‘make a fuss’ - the presence of crime was now irrelevant - and thence ‘to shout’. The 'complain' use followed that. Then (both in the late 19th century) came ‘to argue’, ‘to give someone away to the authorities’, and so on.

I prefer snapping the elder wand in half. It instantly ends the long line of wizards that have fought each other over it. It also contrasts him with Dumbledore, who would probably have been too curious to destroy such a historically significant and powerful magical artifact.

@@GenerationNextNextNext The context was confusing as it seemed to be referencing the handshake, not the general intent. And being a sexagenarian American, if it confused me, it might confuse many. It is NOT a "saying" unless it's generally familiar.

The part where Harry and Dudley make amends before the Dursleys go into hiding was in the deleted scene of Part 1.

Anna is 13 in the book

“The main character wins the right to her body! Oh… she dies in a car crash and has to give up her kidney without her consent anyway, therefore making the entire point of the book moot.”

@@SEGASister exactly, classic Jodi Picoult Another good one, perfect match - Mum kills priest for sexually abusing her child, oh wait the priest donated his bone marrow and it was the recipient who actually molested the child

I was smart enough to watch the movie first and I'm glad i need i probably wouldn't have been interested knowing that Anna life was only to save her sister.

No idea there was such a divide where the endings were involved, at least not until I watched clips from the movie years later. While I get liking the source material and preferring the emotional impact of a sudden death, to me it made everything Anna fought for in the first place completely pointless. The book lovers can see it however they please of course, but in the end my personal take away was that Anna still ended up being a spare set of parts for her sister in the end. Had I read the book first, or at all, I'd have felt so cheated by the end. As if there had been no point at all in reading it just for Anna to die out of nowhere and end up being the thing she desperately wanted to no longer be. Kate was more than ready to go and her simply explaining it to her mother was a lovely part of the film showing how far both characters came from the start of their respective stories.

I’m one of those who love the Hobbit movies instead of the book. The book to me was boring, and I loved the movies.

I bought that movie

I really like both adaptations. The burton one has a bit of a darker feel to it and when I read the book I definitely got a dark vibe from it. But I also like the original

I definitely do like both versions. Since when is weirdness a negative of Tim Burton? It's a feature, not a glitch, as they say. I didn't mind at all that they tried to explain why Wonka was so odd.

I liked it. So you aren’t alone.

I love that version. 😌The original version with Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka creeped me out.😨There was that creepy song he sang in that tunnel, then those horrid, creepy looking, monotone sounding oompa-loompas.

Quite honestly I hated Tris's death in the books. ROTH put all this emphasis on Tris being divergent and that's what made her worthy of being a leader and then kills her with a poison that the true divergents are immune to. She broke her world in the writing and I can't forget that. Allegiant was nothing like the books.

@@alleriapython I didn’t like that she killed off Tris either, but no matter our preferences, it’s how Roth wrote it & it’s okay to not agree with everything that Roth or any other writers do with their stories and characters (DOBBY!🥺😢😭) but we still must respect their decisions. Their books their writing their rules. Something I learned as a writer 🤓 Plus sad as it is, Tris’s death was pivotal to her character. All her life she felt that she wasn’t as selfless as her family & home faction, but learning of her divergence, her time in dauntless, & the willingness to do anything to save the people she loves shows how truly selfless Tris was, it’s sad yes, but in a way beautifully poetic at the same time & that’s great writing coming from Roth!😎🤓🤩👏

YES. this is why the movies were btter than the books for this series (other than divergent, I liked the first better than the movie, which felt very off to me). Like. A lot of tris and tobias's romance is played off as sexual tension. Also tris calls him tobias in the movies, and they have her call him four in the books. One thing i didnt really love about the second movie was the whole sex scene because tris is literally STATED to fear intimacy and the movies just did that for better reviews.

YES. OMG, I hate that whole section of the film... awful, awful, awful.

@@fisheyenomiko I'd even go further and say that it's my least favorite scene of any of the 6 (yes, 6) movies.

Yes😌They murdered that book.🤬

I loved Grandpa Joe in the Book. And I was not happy with the way the writers ruined his character.

That one I like the movie, but on its own, not as an adaptation of the book (as, really, it has nothing to do with the book!)

And in Order of Phoenix film another of Ron's lines is given to Hermione. When they Discover Harry's "I must not tell lies".

Ah you've read the books - Bond was a hard nosed bad arsed guy a la Mickey Spillane. Connery played him best, Moore's dapper gentleman was an insult to the books. Of course none of this matters, as they've used up the books and Bond is just an action hero now.

What? Someone changed Our Town? But the whole of Act 3 **is** her being dead and accepting it!

I completely agree with you. I read the books when I was about 11 and Tom Bombadil was my favorite character in the whole series. My parents had me read the books before letting me watch the movies, and although I loved them, I kept on waiting for him to appear during the first movie.

Jack’s character in the novel has an overall better character arc. Read the book years after the movie and I realized how much better I like the book.

Especially considering that Price has twice the energy and charisma of Charlton Heston.