Books to Movie Adaptations that Almost Made Me an Alcoholic

Man, you have to be thankful I'm not a big drinker. If I had taken a shot of alcohol for every thing these movies ruined while adapting their book counterparts, I would be a serious alcoholic by now. I don't even think even AA could save me. 

In today's post, I will be discussing some movie adaptations of books I've read. All have one thing in common: they failed epically and horribly. I can't even begin to describe how awful they are, especially compared to their source material. If they had been stand-alone, original movies, then maybe they could have been better. But no. They were adapted from great or at least decent books, and made into a cinematic piece of crap. 

For each book to movie adaptation, I will be "taking a shot" from a bottle of alcohol, so to speak. I will be giving a rating to the movie as well, and mention how intoxicated I would be by the end of such movie. 

Without further due, let's get started. 

Give me a shot of whiskey for: "Vampire Academy"

I felt so betrayed by this movie, in a very personal level. The "Vampire Academy" books by Richelle Mead are pretty cool; they're fun to read, the characters are great, and even though the plots tend to move and build up very slowly, they always make up for it with jaw-dropping endings. The books deal with two best friends, Rose and Lisa who study in Saint Vladimir Academy, which is a school for vampires. Rose is a dhampir, a type of vampire meant to protect the moroi. Lisa is a moroi, the most powerful type of vampire with access to magic; she's also a vampire princess. Reading the books, it felt as if I was reading "Heathers" but a vampire version. It was dark, funny, gritty, with dark humor, lots of action sequences and a romance worthy of the world. But the movie sucked. 

With such a cringe worthy tagline, 
no wonder it failed. 

The movie's effects were trash, period. Most of the characters felt bland, even though I enjoyed the acting of the lead actresses. They took out all of the fun of the books, and all of the feeling as well. The books deal with some serious issues, such as self-harm and depression and they were important; in the movie they're not even mentioned. It felt like I was watching just another teen movie, or like watching "Mean Girls 2", or worse: "Twilight" meets "Harry Potter". It was all bright colors and cheap cliché dialogues, with no real substance. I feel personally victimized by this crappy adaptation like you have no idea. 

So, my rating for the movie is: 

And I'm being generous. 

Level of intoxication: A little tipsy, but I'm okay. 


Give me a margarita for: "Beautiful Creatures"

Oh good lord... where do I even begin with this one? 

Alright. First of all, the book and the rest of the series (called "The Caster Chronicles") was amazing. It deals with this popular guy named Ethan who's in the basketball team, has some very cool friends, and has pretty girls surrounding him. His life turns upside down when the local boogey man's niece arrives into town. We're talking about a small, southern town in the States; in this town, prejudice is abundant and hidden magic too, for the new girl whose name is Lena is a witch, or caster as they prefer to be called. Ethan and Lena soon become entangled, sparking a love that could burn the town (literally). These books are very dark, in ways I never though a YA series could be, which was unexpectedly beautiful. 

The movie though... the only similarities were the names and that's it. Ethan was made into an angsty asshole who thought he was better than everyone, important characters were eliminated or mashed up with others, and the villains were absolutely ruined. The main evil witch was portrayed horribly, and Lena's cousin Ridley was made so bland and boring; Ridley I should say is a caster with the power of seduction and mind control, and a very bad witch. I was expecting to see her most of all, but her characterization was crappy to say the least. The very magic system of the books which was so detailed and fully explained, was completely changed in the movie. The result was an awful mess. 

My rating for the "Beautiful Creatures" movie is: 

I don't give it one star only because of Lena and Ridley's actresses. 
They did a good job with the piece of crap they were given. 

Level of intoxication: I'm just wasted man. Period. 

Now please give me some tequila for: "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"

You guys already know how I feel about Harry Potter. I don't hate it, but I don't like it much either- and J.K. Rowling isn't helping! 

Regardless, the books were pretty cool I guess. The magic system was well explained, even though it isn't my favorite. The characters were memorable and the plots were good most of the time. And of course, there's the nostalgia involved considering my generation grew up with these books and their movie adaptations. Most of these adaptations were decent, but the one for the sixth book was just awful. 

They left out the characterization and development of several characters, including Ginny and Neville. They never showed key parts such as when the characters saw Neville's parents in the hospital for wizards. Unnecessary things were added, like when Bellatrix burned down the Weasleys house. Other characters and their story lines felt bland and incongruent, totally inconsistent with their book counterparts. The color palette for the movie was also terrible; it looked bleached of color, dull and boring. And lastly... Harry's and Ginny's romance that just came out of the blue. In the books it had been building up at least a little, and book Ginny could kick movie Ginny's ass any given day. But in the movies it felt like this: "Oh I suddenly realized I like you, out of the blue. Let's make out, stare at each other awkwardly and stuff."

Therefore, my rating for this movie is: 

I should give it a 0.

How intoxicated I am? By this point, I can't even remember my name. 

Pretty readers, give me now a bottle of fine wine for: "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"

Now that I finally got to read the comic, let me tell you: it was so GOOD! I will probably be making a review of it later on. 

For now, the premise is quite simple: a world threat is arising in the late 1800's. A group of people are put together by a mister Bond, who entrusts Mina Murray from "Dracula" to track and enlist several men for their mission: Prince Dakkar a.k.a Captain Nemo, Allan Quatermain, Dr. Henry Jekyll and his evil counterpart Mr. Edward Hyde, and Hawley Griffin- the Invisible Man. Together they form a league to save the world from an imminent threat, using their powers or skills to fight against evil. They do not like each other, and they are very problematic, but together they make it work. One very special thing about this group is that it's lead by Mina, and it isn't very common to have a group of heroes being lead by a woman. 

The movie adaptation of this brilliant piece of work came out in the early 2000's. It had a good cast, lead by Sean Connery. But if failed miserably. First, they made Mina a vampire and a side character; what was so special about her was that she led the league, without any super powers and using only her intelligence, wisdom, strength and strategy. Here she's wasted by being represented as the mere female sidekick. Allan Quatermain was made into the perfect man and hero, when in the comics he struggles with drug addiction, which in my opinion humanizes him more. The Invisible Man was not a good person in the comics, nor was Mr. Hyde, but in the movie they are just misunderstood. Captain Nemo is not dark and mysterious as in the comics, just an eccentric pirate. 

Also, they added Dorian Grey because reasons and made him the traitor, when that traitor part was meant for another character. And Hollywood being Hollywood they added Tom Sawyer, because they just needed to have an American character mixed in the plot. The color palette of the movie was dull, all grey (hehe) and boring. Nemo's Nautilus looked so plain, the effects were disastrous (don't make me talk about Hyde) and the ending was plain stupid. 

My rating for this sorry excuse of a movie: 

My intoxication level is... well. With this movie, I wonder how I'm still alive. 

I will take the whole bottle of vodka for the next one: "The Lightning Thief"

Just why? Why????? 

The first book in the Percy Jackson series was epic. Period. I read it again and again and I never get tire of it. It's fun, adventurous, and it explores the concepts of Greek mythology amazingly well. Thanks to this book and its sequels I fell even more in love with Greek mythology, and it helped me understand several things about it that used to confuse me. Also, the diversity representation in these books is amazing; from disabled characters, to racially and sexually diverse ones. It's pure perfection, as easy as that. 

The only thing the movie has in common with the book is the characters' names. That's about it. 

First of all, the characters were aged up; they looked like they were near their twenties, when they were actually 12, and the age was a very important part of the plot. The reasons for the gods not visiting their children was changed: in the books, the gods are super busy with the whole world and don't have a lot of time to spare, but mostly they just don't interfere in their children's lives because they don't want to; in the movie it's because of a stupid random rule established by Zeus, which is even worse. 

F**** you anyone who was involved with this. 

And Annabeth... by the gods. Being Athena's daughter, Annabeth's main power is her wisdom, strategy and intelligence. She's the main reason why Percy is still alive. She's also blonde, which serves for breaking the stereotype against blonde women. But in the movie she's left to being Percy's love interest and that's it. She becomes a brunette instead of a blonde, because apparently blonde girls can't be smart. Her brain power is barely touched upon, and she's left as being only a good fighter and sidekick; let me tell you- Annabeth Chase is no man's sidekick. 

A lot of the mythology aspects presented in the movie didn't make sense at all as well, and the way Camp Half-Blood was portrayed was plain ugly. 

My rating for this piece of shit is: 

You deserve that 0. 

Level of intoxication: Just bury me at this point. 

I will be taking a piña colada mixed with alcohol for: "The Hobbit"

I read "The Hobbit" before "The Fellowship of the Ring". It was pretty cool. It was fun, even if some parts dragged a bit. It had several funny parts, and some that were quite dark- looking at you Gollum. But it was a good book. The plot was not overly complicated, so it could have been done in a single movie. Then why on earth was "The Hobbit" was made intro a cinematic trilogy??

 

Several effects were pretty bad, as when Galadriel used her power against Sauron. Unnecessary characters and story lines were added, which felt forced especially considering they didn't even exist in the original source material. Also... what was that about Galadriel and Gandalf being romantically involved? That doesn't even make sense! It doesn't even match the story line of that world created by J. R. R. Tolkien. 

The fact that "The Hobbit" was made into a trilogy is a perfect example of how Hollywood is starving for more money. 

My rating: 

Three because of Galadriel. 
She's perfect. 

My level of intoxication: I'm only a little dizzy, I'm okay. 



For this one, I will be drinking a beer: "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones"

The first movie in the "Shadowhunters Chronicles" by Cassandra Clare. This was the very beginning, the one and only book that introduced us to the queen of urban fantasy. Granted, the book isn't perfect. But it was still cool, you know? It introduced us to the world of the shadowhunters and all their politics and magic. With this book I met the urban fantasy genre, and it left me with a taste for more. 

For me, "City of Bones" spoke to my teenager soul and it still mesmerizes me in my twenties. It was full of so many adventures, and a world ripe for discovering and exploring. It was fantastic! Also, the characters were EVERYTHING, even the villains. The shadowhunters, the warlocks, the werewolves, the faeries, the demons and the vampires... they all felt like home. 

When I saw the movie, I was expecting the same level of greatness, but that obviously didn't happen. The first mistake for me was the casting; only Lily Collins was well casted in my opinion. The actor that they used for Jace did a very bad job portraying him, and several other members of the cast as well. Some action sequences were added and they were completely unnecessary. The plot was made longer than it really was, the gear used by the shadowhunters to fight demons was changed into a hipster-meets-emo-meets-rock-band outfit, and Clary's powers were completely ruined. 

It's still a fun movie, but compared to the source material... meh. 

My rating for this disaster is: 

I mean, it was bad. 
But Percy Jackson was worse. 

My level of intoxication: I can still walk. 

Stepping into this next book, I will be drinking a scotch on the rocks for: "The Golden Compass"

Words can't describe my love for "His Dark Materials" by Philip Pullman. It's one of my favorite books ever! I've learned and grown with them as a person, and to put it simply, my life hasn't been the same after reading them. If you want to know more about it, one of my first blog posts was about that, so check it out. 

Where did the movie fail? Not the effects; those were decent. Not the characters; most of them were portrayed correctly. Instead, it failed in two things: the themes in the story, and the way the plot was adapted. The book deals with serious topics, including a direct attack at Christianity and religion in general, but the movie left this outside of the plot, and sometimes it was shown but very subtly; almost imperceptibly. I'm sorry, but that theme is one of THE most important in the book, as it essentially affects most of the book's plot. 

As for the way the plot was adapted, it felt very superficial. Key elements of the plot were abandoned, others barely explored. It felt as just another fantasy story, when it's really so much more than that. Moreover, the ending was changed and that was a fatal mistake. The ending of the book is quite dark and tragic (I won't spoil it here), and it changed the protagonist forever; the movie's ending was more optimistic, brighter and full of hope. Meh. There was a reason for that tragedy to occur, you know? It was very important not only for the protagonist, but for the plot of the next two books. 

My rating of "The Golden Compass": 

My level of intoxication: I'm fine for now, I don't see anything too blurry. 

Taking a Bailey's Irish Cream, I dive now into: "Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children"

The book wasn't my favorite, but it was still a fun read. It was something unexpected, as I have never read anything like it. The book and all its sequels include a bunch of creepy, vintage pictures that make you feel as if you're reading a horror novel for teenagers. 

The plot was good, the characters were well fleshed out (at least most of them), the twists were unexpected, and the world created by the author was beautiful in a creepy, scary way. The characters were the top of the cream, though. Most of them had powers, and several of those I had never read or seen before. My only complain with the books is the length of the chapters, because I feel they are too long for my taste. 

When the movie was announced, I was expecting something so great. When I heard Tim Burton was going to direct it, and Eva Green was going to portray Miss Peregrine, I was more than excited. The I went to the movies to see it, and I realized I had made the worst mistake of my life. 

Tim Burton did a total mess, period. The characters were mixed and their powers changed, in ways that were completely unlogic. A fight scene was added between the children and their enemies that albeit being a fun sequence, it was altogether unnecessary. Several rules of the established magic system of the books was changed, and the ending was made into a cheerful, bright thing. What's the problem with Hollywood and dark endings? 

Last but not least, I have an issue with Emma's portrayal. She's the female lead of the books, with the power to conjure fire with her hands, while in the movie her powers are some weird air and floating thing, and she's downgraded to being the romantic interest of the protagonist. 

My rating of this... thing: 

My level of intoxication: I love everyone!!! Let me call my ex, that seems like a good idea. 

Give me several shots of Sambuca, because now I'm talking about: "A Wrinkle in Time"

Let me start by saying I didn't like the book, at all. It was an inconsistent story for me, with too many discrepancies. Many things were not explained well, including how their magic system works. To this day, I don't really know if the book is a fantasy or science fiction genre, or both. I don't know man. The three ladies that help Meg, the protagonist, are not defined well and are annoying as hell. What are they supposed to be? Stars? Witches? Angels? The Female Holy Trinity? Nah, that last one goes to the Charlie's Angels. 

The ideas in the book were cool, but not well explained in my opinion. It's sad because this a favorite book for many people out there, but it just didn't work for me. I was hoping that with the movie my thoughts would change, that I would be able to see all the wonder I was unable to appreciate in the source material. Girl, was I wrong. 

I'm sorry but just because a movie has diversity included, that doesn't make it good. A lot of people defended this movie only because of its diversity, disregarding all the things that make it awful. The effects were a big no for me- let's start with that. It was pure CGI porn; all flashy and brilliant effects, but no real substance. It felt empty and void of any real feeling. All the book's heart was lost in that sea of CGI. 

As for the characters, they wee forgettable at best. One of the ladies turned into a giant lettuce to carry the children for a pointless ride, because reasons. The kids felt bland, except for Meg who's actress actually did a decent job with the material she was given. But the other two kids... Charles Wallace, the little one, was annoying to no end, and Meg's love interest was lame. Sorry not sorry. 

For me the worst mistake of this movie was how they lost all the feeling presented in the book. The inconsistencies were more in the movie, and I left it not understanding a thing I saw. If anything, I was more confused with the movie than with the book.

Rating for this movie: 

Two because Oprah. 

Level of intoxication: I'm going to die. 

Considering what I will be writing about now, I'll take a Bloody Mary for: "The Queen of the Damned"

Anne Rice is the queen of vampires, there's not question about that. She rocked the entire world with her first vampire book "Interview with the Vampire", the first work of fiction centered around the perspective of the vampire/the monster. The movie was made, it was a success, and the work in general has become a cult classic. 

I read the book and two of its sequels: "The Vampire Lestat" and "Queen of the Damned". They were dark and sexy, beautiful and scary, the ones that made me fall in love with the dark side. But that movie, "The Queen of the Damned", was a travesty. 

They mixed the Lestat book with the Queen one. The result? A horrible, bloody mess. The Queen felt more like a side character rather than the main villain, and the rich story that Anne Rice created for her character was destroyed. The book also explores how vampires came to be, and the story is rich with mythology and lore. Needless to say, none of this beauty was translated to screen. Anne Rice herself was appalled by the movie result, and I can't say I blame her.

Also the effects were so cringe worthy. 

The only good thing about the movie was the Queen herself, portrayed by late singer Aaliyah. Rest in power sweet angel. 

Rating for "The Queen of the Damned": 

Two because Aaliyah was great. 

My level of intoxication: Sleeping in a ditch. 

Last but not least, a couple of Schnapps for: "Twilight"

Good lord, I can't believe I'm writing anything positive about this shit. 

The book is one I loathe. There's not secret there. If you happen to like "Twilight", that's totally fine, I don't really care. But despite me hating anything related to this book, I do have to admit that it has its charm. The charm of "Twilight" for me falls in the characters. Even though I have several issues with them, at least they have substance. Bella, despite her many flaws, is a full fleshed character, just like Edward and the rest of the Cullen/Hale clan. She's still her own person, her own self. The writing style also has its charm; it's addictive, and it makes you feel part of the story. 

Say what you want about "Twilight", 
but you have to admit the covers were beautiful. 

But as with other adaptations I previously discussed, the movie takes all substance from the source material. The characters feel more shallow than their book counterparts, and they don't even seem like real people (yes, I know they're vampires but whatever). All the things that made Bella tolerable in the book were completely lost in the adaptation, for example: book Bella acknowledges her faults and stupid decisions, and she actually works (sometimes) to improve herself; movie Bella justifies every stupid thing she does and she is never held accountable for her actions. 

I hate "Twilight", but if I had to choose, I would always go with the books. 

My rating: 

Level of intoxication: Help... 

Dude, this was so fun to write! I hope you guys liked it and stuff. Disclaimer: I don't drink half of those alcohol beverages I mentioned. 

See you next Sunday! 

P.S. The "Darkest Minds" adaptation was also a piece of trash.