The 4th book was incredibly disturbing and flat out unbelievable.

I never read the book (or knew there were three more). For flat-out unbelievable, I have to go with Son of Rosemary, although that at least had a twist.

I think the movies that suffer the most in translation from book to screen are often horror. The Exorcist was a terrifying book, and yeah, the movie is a classic, but even so the effects *now* look so cheesy. And we just watched The Mist, which was a really perfect, scary little Stephen King novella, and then the movie ... added all the special effects, and it's just never as scary (or as believable) as what you can imagine.

And we just watched The Mist, which was a really perfect, scary little Stephen King novella, and then the movie ... added all the special effects, and it's just never as scary (or as believable) as what you can imagine.

Yeah. While watching it, I kept on thinking, "This should be awesome... but it's merely OK."

Plus the crazy-ass Christian lady was too much even for me.

I don't remember her from the novella, which means I should probably reread it. I also thought the new ending completely missed the mark. Horrific, yes, but too coincidentally so.

Many of you will now stone me, but I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies more than I enjoyed the books (that I have never been able to get through).

Try the audiobooks read by Rob Inglis. Absolutely riveting. Plus, you get to hear all the songs sung to a tune. I have Two Towers out of the library right now, for probably the 6th time.

Wolfen

Oh my, Perkins. My DEXH and I loved that book. I think he read it over and over again for a long time. The movie? The one and only flick he ever walked out of...after about 10 minutes. His love for the book was too pure to have it wrecked. I tried watching it again years later and it wasn't that bad, but like Forrest Gump, it didn't seem to have even a glancing relationship with the source material.

I don't remember her from the novella, which means I should probably reread it. I also thought the new ending completely missed the mark. Horrific, yes, but too coincidentally so.

I remember her from the novella, but she didn't bug me. Maybe she was just less believable in the movie?

I also disliked the new ending.

Many of you will now stone me, but I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies more than I enjoyed the books (that I have never been able to get through).

This. I've said this on fandom messageboards before, and met with aghast reactions. But the books are just too much like hard work. And I've read some big books.

I just re-read the book, Seska, and, yeah, the book is much, much better in the plot- and character-development departments.

I need some easy reading during final-month-of-dissertation hell. I shall dig out The Shining and see how it compares.

The 4th book was incredibly disturbing and flat out unbelievable.

Never read The Omen books - but I think American Psycho was far, far scarier in book form than what passed for an adaptation on the big screen.

Oh, lord, the LOTR movies are way better than the books.

Jumping on LOTR movies are better train.

I think so, too. "Clockers" the movie is as good as "Clockers" the book, while "Freedomland" didn't translate to the screen at all.

I'm now trying to search for and cannot find the 2001 book my father bought me which seemed to have been the novel and the making of story. There was a separate publication that was a novel only?

This was the cover of the one I read. It might have had behind the scenes of the movie pictures included, but I'm not sure. Must have been twenty years ago that I read it, and I don't think it was technically my book, probably borrowed it from my dad.