"My Sister's Keeper" movie and book... WARNING: spoilers!

[inkkognito]

This doesn't surprise me at all since Hollywood has a history of screwing up good books by turning them into bad movies. They've done some of their worst to John Irving's books "The World According to Garp" is one of my favorite books, but the movie changes a major plot point and plenty of minor stuff. They screwed up "A Prayer for Owen Meany" so badly that he made them change the name to something totally unrelated ("Simon Birch").

The only book to movie adaptation with a big change that I've ever really loved was "Shawshank Redemption." I don't want to spoil it, but let's just say the book is more realistic in the one point but the movie version is much more satisfying. I also think they did a good job with "Dead Zone," another King book. It changes the plot to simplify it while still maintaining the exact flavor of the book.

 

[Imzadi]

The only book to movie adaptation with a big change that I've ever really loved was "Shawshank Redemption." I don't want to spoil it, but let's just say the book is more realistic in the one point but the movie version is much more satisfying. I also think they did a good job with "Dead Zone," another King book. It changes the plot to simplify it while still maintaining the exact flavor of the book.

Another Stephen King story I liked was Stand By Me. It was originally a novella, as was Shawshank Redemption. The screenwriter wrote extra stuff to make them both full movies. His book fans say it's his horror books that get massacred. That actually sounds like it's supposed to be a pun.

 

[inkkognito]

His book fans say it's his horror books that get massacred. That actually sounds like it's supposed to be a pun.

LOL, good one! Actually, I think they did a good job with Dead Zone, Christine, and Misery. But Firestarter...that was the Worst. King. Adaptation. Ever.

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

I didn't care for the Shining. My favorite part of the book was the topiary and they completely ditched that. I heard the miniseries was much truer to the book. I loved Green Mile, but I cant' remember how true to the book it was.

I think Lord of the Rings did a pretty good job considering how complex that book was. It helped that Peter Jackson set out to stay as true to the book as he could

 

[powellrj]

This doesn't surprise me at all since Hollywood has a history of screwing up good books by turning them into bad movies. They've done some of their worst to John Irving's books "The World According to Garp" is one of my favorite books, but the movie changes a major plot point and plenty of minor stuff. They screwed up "A Prayer for Owen Meany" so badly that he made them change the name to something totally unrelated ("Simon Birch").

I agree about John Irving. The Hotel New Hampshire was a mess and A Prayer for Owen Meany wasn't even close. I always wondered if people hadn't read Garp is they could even understand it.

I loved the book, but may just wait until the movie comes out on DVD. How was Cameron Diaz as the mom?

 

[sunlver]

Ok..we saw the movie on Sunday. I did not read the book. I read some reviews on the movie, I knew what the movie was going to about(cancer and all that )...
My take on the movie. It was a good movie. I did not cry. To me it seemed like a LIfetime tv movie. Dont get me wrong, I love my Lifetime moives, but I didnt seen all the big hoopla about it, and it did not make me cry

 

[J3nn78]

I LOVED the book and the ending is part of what made the book- as sad as it was.

When I heard they changed the ending, I decided not to waste my money on seeing the movie.

 

[AmandaSparks730]

Books turned to movies never quite end so well.

Like the Princess Diaries series? The first movie, not too bad. The second one? Oh dear god. They butchered the series. Horribly, horribly butchered it. And it's one of my favorites!

Musicals to movies don't work as well either. Such as Rent. Onstage? Incredible. Movie? Not so much.

An exception where the movie is better than the musical would possibly be Chicago, or Mamma Mia!.

My Sister's Keeper, the novel? Incredible, and hard to put down.

My Sister's Keeper, the movie? Okay. Just okay.

A couple spoilers, in white:

Jesse is not a pyromanic, nor is he much of a delinquent. The character of Julia is cut out altogether. Anna is 11 instead of 13, thus making Anna 13 instead of 16. Judge (the dog) is not mentioned much (such as the jokes Campbell makes about him). Brian does not live at the firestation with Anna. Anna lives and Kate dies.

Though I will say I pretty much wanted to smack Sara (Cameron Diaz) whenever she came onscreen!

 

[PaulaSB12]

I hated what they did to the book Chocolat, in the film the mother of the main character was a will of the whisp kind of woman flitting here and there in the book the main character has a memory of being in a car in Paris so I think she was stolen. As for the second Jurassic Park film the book is so much better in that Dawson from the first goes to the Island with a group and Sarah Harding goes on his boat. He pushes her overboard but she makes it to the island, later on they both end up under a vehicle and she pushes him right out into the mouth of a T rex who feeds him to some t rex chicks.

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

I liked Rent, but maybe there is a difference when you see the movie before reading the book or seeing the play. I've since been able to seen Rent on stage, but I don't think I would have liked it as much if I hadn't seen the movie first. The movie took out some of the raunchier elements while leaving the story pretty much intact. I think if I had seen the play first I would not have been prepared for some of the graphicness of it and would not have liked it as much.

 

[storzo]

I loved this book and wasn't planning on seeing the movie...just because, no particular reason. I told my friends who want to see the movie how good the book was and how the ending just blew me away...I guess now they won't get why I said that.