Ever been mad that a movie was ruined so badly, it ended chances of similar movies being made?

[charlie and algernon]

I'm reading a book now called "April 1865, the Month that Saved America." It details essentially the last two months of the Civil War and all the monumental events that happened March and April, 1865. All the while I'm reading it, I'm getting more pissed that they destroyed Gods and Generals and turned it into boring monologue filled crap.

The movie Gettysburg was great, so they talked about making two more movies, a prequel (Gods and Generals) and a sequel detailing the final battles of the war in 1864-1865. With Gods and Generals sucking so much and getting such terrible box office numbers, any talk of a movie about the end of the Civil War has been tabled. :grr:

So now we'll probably never get a well done movie about the last campaigns of the war, detailing the bloody total war implemented by Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan. Nor the massive artillery barrages, and World War I trench warfare around Petersburg. Nor the frantic discussions by Lee and president Davis over whether to wage one more apocalyptic battle or try to slip into North Carolina and start a guerrilla war.

All because they turned Gods and Generals into a boring 4 hour monologue.

How about you? any movie that they ruined so badly they destroyed any subsequent similiar movies from being made?

[BlueIris]

1. I'm kinda mad that X-Files: I Want to Believe may have killed that franchise.

Yes, I know that there's talk of a third film, but even if that happens, the colossal suckitude of the plotless X-Files sequel will probably prevent #3 from being anything other than average. If it even gets made (which I doubt it will.)

[Crystal Clarity]

2. Yes...too many to count

For example I'm a bit of an anglo-phile and love the Tudor period in particular. I have yet to see a decent movie made regarding that time period. PBS did something reasonably good about Queen Elizabeth a couple of years ago... (I'd give it a grade of meh, C+ to B- ) but other then that, most everything else I've seen pissed me off in one way or another.

And I don't limit this criticism to non-fiction historical stuff (although hollywood tends to screw historical things up more-so then other things imho)... Often, while reading a great fictional book, I'll envision/dream of someone doing a movie about it. But the few times this wish came to fruition, I've almost always been disappointed.

Perhaps it's better to see a movie based on a book or story that one has not read? :shrug: I very much enjoyed "Flowers for Algernon" for example, but then again, have never read the short story it was based on, so it's hard to say how distorted from the original it might've been.

Bottom line, hell yah, I've noticed this phenomena and it does piss me off. If they'd do it right, by not adding stuff that doesn't belong or taking out stuff that does, or just f-ing it all up in general, the chances of it being done again and done better would improve.

I share your frustration.

[charlie and algernon]

12. I never saw the movie version of "Flowers for Algernon"

I think I'd be afraid to see it and have the book ruined, lol!

[Crystal Clarity]

15. I don't blame you

:-)

[Orsino]

3. Well, the last King Arthur. promised a lot.

The first thirty minutes of it were cool and spooky. I watched the DVD thinking, "Why did everyone make fun of this thing? It's great."

Then she showed up. Keira Knightley. And the movie turned to shit in seconds. Running around in an authentic Celtic bikini, she was like a movie ninja, slaughtering the picture stealthily, and ensuring that no one else would ever dare Romanize Arthurian legend on film again.

edit: and by the way, April 1865 is indeed a great book. The history Channel adaptation is rather awesome, as well.

[NewJeffCT]

8. There was another movie that Romanized Arthurian legend

The Last Legion, I believe, with With Colin Firth, Ben Kingsley and the smoking hot, but way out of place, Aishwarya Rai

[Orsino]

13. See, I watched that just a few weeks ago, and even liked some of it.

But I had completely forgotten it, and I think it's because of Keira Knightley, who burned out the synapses that should have fully appreciated the far-superior Aishwarya Rai.

[NewJeffCT]

14. Rai is hot

but, she was rather out of place in the movie, I thought. But, I guess it is possible that a woman from India made it to ancient Rome.

[Orsino]

21. Yes, her very presence was ludicrous.

But her badassery was rather beautiful to watch, and her acting not too shabby, either. I got a very good vibe of equality off her and Firth.

[Odin2005]

22. NOOOO, I had tried to forget Keira Knightley as Guinevere! DAMN YOU!

:rofl:

[Radical Activist]

4. What I remember most about those movies,

(it may have been Gettysburg or both) was their use or reinactors. The young farmers who were starving and marching across the country were portrayed by regiments of overweight middle aged men. It was a nice thing to do for the reinactors but it looked ridiculous.

[charlie and algernon]

7. yeah, but that would always be a problem unless you used CGI

The Lord of the Rings trilogy has shown that you can create armies of thousands by using CGI, so an April 1865 type movie could go that route. But if you're going to open the door to reenactors, you will ALWAYS have the fat guys pretending to be the starving soldiers.

I think it was the movie Braveheart which borrowed reserve soldiers from the Scottish army as extras. I doubt any state would allow 5,000 of their National Guardsmen to be used as extras though.

[Flaxbee]

5. My selection isn't quite so serious, but since I love Steve Zahn

I wish "Sahara" had been better so there would have been another "Dirk Pitt" (Idiotic name) movie or two. With or without Matthew McConnaghy (or however you spell it). I just like Steve Zahn's goofiness.

[av8rdave]

6. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

A terrible execution of a delightful book. That faint sound you hear is Douglas Adams spinning in his grave at about 20,000 RPM.

[NewJeffCT]

9. I'm afraid to even watch the movie

I loved the 4 books of the trilogy, but heard poor to mediocre reviews of the movie, so don't want to have my mental images from the book ruined by the movie.

[realisticphish]

11. DO NOT WATCH

for the love of god, if you're a DA fan, stay far away

[Richard Steele]

20. Find the old BBC TV adaptation- it's very enjoyable.

Avoid that recent film remake as long as you can-
it sucks in every possible way.

[realisticphish]

10. i was going to say this

the dolphin bit at the beginning was the only good part.

marvin sucked, ford sucked, zaphod sucked, there was a frakking love story, that weird ass gun that was put in, and an arthur that sucked, though not as much as the others. Zooey Deschanel was ok as Trillian, but her character was written poorly

[Kat45]

17. Yes, that movie totally sucked.

And it's such a great book.

[YankeyMCC]

16. I, Robot

In fact I enjoyed the movie as a bit of fun even though any semblance to an Asimov (my favorite SF writer, not just due to his talent, there are many more talented in ways but his were among the first good SF I read as a kid) was purely accidental.

The problem is there is probably no chance of a good film based on Asimov's robot and empire novels will ever be made. And I don't believe any film could be very true to the stories as told in the books I think the spirit and tone could be done very well but not if "I, Robot" remains in anyway connected in the minds of audiences and producers.

Just thought to add "Enemy Mine" this was a better movie (compared to I, Robot) , pretty close I think (the author doesn't) to the spirit of the story however, it could have been much better by following the arc in the series of novellas it was taken from and made a good film trilogy.

[Mopar151]

18. Days of Thunder

Pitiful. badly edited, terrible cardboard depiction of a real story

[Deep13]

19. Like X-Men III and Mission Impossible III?

The third act of a sequel usually sucks.