This is why I won't watch so many films based on books I love and have read and re-read, no matter how well reviewed.

I don't watch a whole lot of movies or tv versions. The ones that come to mind did pretty well at replacing whatever notion I had of how the main characters looked. Bertie and Jeeves now "are" Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry when I read PG Wodehouse. Jeremy Brett "is" Sherlock Holmes. The casting for the Harry Potter movies was good (although I haven't re-read the books yet.) Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies did well with the main characters.

The ones that totally messed up a book, well I guess my mind purged them quickly :-)

It depends. Unless something like race, gender or appearance are important to the character and their story, it does not really bother me. I get more annoyed when producers or whoever take stories about real historical people, and cast them in a different race or even gender, in order to create controversy and get more attention. Example: Jodie turner smith playing Anne Boleyn. Why?

But for fictional stories? Nah.

Jack Reacher comes to mind. Tom Cruise as Reacher, no way. While the movie was good Tom as the main character was a huge miss. Now the guy playing Reacher in the new Amazon series is spot on in my vision of Reacher. Big guy.

When book rights are acquired, whether for theatrical films, streaming videos, or some other hybrid, the rights owner is not obligated to only produce a work that visually portrays the book as it appears in print. What makes a good book isn't the same as what makes a good movie. Movies don't have nearly enough time to cover everything starting on the first page and ending on the last page. A way to think about it is that such films are "based" on a book, it's not that they "are" the book.

When shorty Tom Cruise (5'7") was first cast as the imposing and popular book character Jack Reacher (6'5") for a film, many fans of the book series were aghast. The "father" of Jack Reacher, author Lee Child, said some words like this in an interview I saw: "I'm very happy with how much I was paid for the film rights and they can do as they wish. What author wouldn't be thrilled to have his lead character portrayed by one of the greatest actors of our time? The thing is, the books still exist, and the descriptions of Jack Reacher I describe in words remain for each reader to use to create their own personal mental image of what the character looks like to them. That will never change."

One book/movie combo that was very faithful was A Man Called Ove. I liked them both.

Some of the changes are interesting in an historical context. I like to watch film noir and a number of them had to change the endings as the code in effect at the time did not allow the 'bad guy' to get away with anything and they did not allow suicide as an escape from justice route either.

One of the book series I so enjoyed are the Janet Evanovich Stephanie Plum. They made a movie of it and the casting was horrible, the movie was really bad. So disappointing. The only one that worked was Debbie Reynolds was fabulous as Grandma Mazur.

OMG--Annie--I loved both the book and the movie A Man Called Ove. I'm okay with diversity of characters, etc BUT I hate it when they drastically change a portion of the book. Like The Scarlet Letter with Demi Moore. That was just awful.

It drives me crazy how poor most Pride and Prejudice adaptions have been. It is my favorite novel, which is interesting as I don't care for any of Austen's other works (although the short story Lady Susan is quite funny, even if it didn't make a good movie).

Although I wasn't in love with the 1995 A&E/BBC mini-series casting of Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennet, she is a fine actress and the rest of the casting was spot-on. Costumes, sets, and even hairstyles were historically accurate.

The 2005 movie drove me to distraction. Keira Knightley is an actress the camera loves - witness her incandescent beauty in "Love Actually" - but I wasn't a big fan of Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy. And whoever was hired as costumer should have been drawn and quartered. Elizabeth and Darcy went blithely around in public half-dressed, looking like they'd just fallen out of bed, while everyone else was properly attired.

Ugh....why not just draw big red arrows and pulsating LooneyTune hearts on their scenes together, in case anyone in the audience is too dumb to figure out who the romantic leads are?

The 1980 BBC mini-series was not too bad: Elizabeth Garvie as Elizabeth Bennet had charm and David Rintoul as Fitzwilliam Darcy had the looks although he couldn't seem to bring the character to life. But Sabina Franklyn as Jane was a clunky visual miscasting; one could never describe her as a woman with "golden blonde hair and blue eyes" (per Austen's own words).

Oddly, I enjoyed the movie "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" - it was a very funny mash-up of P&P and zombie movies! My spouse, who normally loathes 'chick flix', liked it as well, although it wasn't the type of movie he'd want to re-watch except rarely.

The 1940 Golden Era Hollywood version shines due to the acting chops of its stars. The costumes are God-awful and the altered ending is cinematic pap. Greer Garson was much too old at age 36 to be playing Elizabeth Bennet. But the byplay between her and co-star Lawrence Olivier will never be bettered, both for the verbal delivery of their lines and their subtle facial expressions.

The scene at Rosings when Elizabeth is playing the piano and Darcy is standing beside her, distills the relationship without words. Olivier's gradual realization that far from complimenting him, Ms. Garson has smoothly insulted him in the wittiest, most polite manner, shows why he truly was one of the finest actors ever. In just a couple of seconds, his face completely changes from arrogant to chagrinned.

We watched Hunt for Red October recently, and I was reminded that I liked all the casting, it‘s what I felt from the book. But Patriot Games with the same character played by Harrison Ford instead of Alex Baldwin just didn’t seem right. I like Ford as an actor, but he was too old to play Jack Ryan.

When I read The Martian, my first thought was that Will Smith would have been great as the botanist, but he was about 10 years too old. But, Matt Damon played him, and somehow seemed younger, more appropriate, even though Damon and Smith are close in age. So go figure.

Harry Potter, every single character crossed from page to screen perfectly for me.

I didn't like the Lord of the Rings movies, not so much because of the casting but because I felt that the focus shifted from the story with all its moral nuances, to the special effects.

I really liked Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennett - I thought she was perfect, and the series was lovely to watch even though I practically had the book memorized!

Outlander - the casting was wonderful in the first 2-3 seasons (with one glaring exception), and changes that had to be made for the sake of the limitations of the series were done really well. But, as the series has gone on, they've strayed farther from the books, and the writing hasn't been capturing the heart of the series as well. IMO ;) of course.

Hah, jakkom, female characters far less modestly dressed than would have been the norm in the historical era is one of my pet peeves. That, and the apparent belief that historical characters never ever bathed or combed/plaited their hair.

I’ve had a lot of disappointments in movies from books but also some that were very good at capturing the essence of the story. A couple have been mentioned. I thought the Harry Potter movies were very well cast and well produced for a wide audience. I happened to purchase the first two books in England before HP became a huge craze in the US and was not surprised they became so popular. The books have such a following, I think the movies needed to pretty much stay true to the story.

Another was the book ’Wild’ and the movie produced by Reese Witherspoon in which she also starred. It was based on the author’s personal story and was very true to the events.

I got back clear to Gone with the Wind--they left out two husbands and a kid of Scarlet's if I recall correctly!! That was high school--no reason to expect any better so never did.

I'm not sure any such "expectation" is reasonable. Story elements always get left out and not infrequently get changed. That should be the expectation but think of it however you like.

"Jack Reacher comes to mind. Tom Cruise as Reacher, no way."

Oh, that made a friend of mine so mad.....he ranted on about it for ages. Personally, I've not read the book or seen the movie.

I try really hard to separate the movie experience from the book experience - to look at each one on it's own without expectations. As long as they're good actors, I'm OK with it. I may be initially surprised, but a good actor and director can take me past that.....I don't expect the movie to be like the book.

Sometimes, even with the book, I can't see the character in the physicality that they're written, for some reason. Right now I'm listening to the audiobook version of a later book in the Mary Russel/Sherlock Holmes series (which is a fabulous series. by the way). Mary is 6' tall and blond, but I just can't see her that way in my mind - in my mind, she's dark haired and 5'8"-ish - tall, but certainly not that close in height to Sherlock. (Sherlock looks like Matt Frewer in my mind, somehow.) Every time her blond hair is mentioned in the book, I'm a little bit startled.

Michael Connelly's book Blood Work was totally flipped around and wrong. Good movie but nothing to do with the book. I think that's why Connelly didn't approve anything else for a long time, but the Bosch TV series seems ok (I haven't watched, just reporting on what others said.) I agree about the Harry Potter books/movies. A case of the author being very involved in the film production.

"I think that's why Connelly didn't approve anything else for a long time, but the Bosch TV series seems ok."

Thats not exactly what happened. Connelly sold "Bosch" movie rights for a 15 year period to Paramount in the 1990s and it ultimately chose to do nothing further with them. Connelly was frustrated with this but could do little (I know this from interviews with him on which the subject came up). There was uncertainty concerning the timing and conditions of the end of the contract and Connelly sued. He got the rights back and I think paid a fair amount to do so. With his newly recovered rights ownership, he explored various possibilities (including feature films) before deciding to accept Netflix's acceptance of his pitch to make potentially multiple series on its platform.

Sorry for the long explanation, I'm a Connelly fan boy and knowing he has a broad audience, thought the explanation would be of interest to others.

Sushipup, here's another trivia point concerning Connelly that your location in the general Philadelphia area reminded me of. This is something I heard him talk about at a live bookstore appearance I was some years ago.

Connelly spent his early childhood in Philadelphia before his family moved to Florida. (He retains a Philadelphia accent when speaking). There were many tunnels around and they caught his attention. Tunnels for trains of various kinds, or under train bridges, for drainage, for pedestrian crossings, etc. He developed both an interest and a bit of a child's apprehension concerning tunnels. Keen followers of Bosch book series will go "Ah Ha!" when I point out how frequently tunnels appear as story or background elements in Bosch books. The character's back story was that he was a "tunnel rat" when serving in Vietnam. In one book, a body was found in a drainage pipe near Hollywood Reservoir. In another, the under-road pedestrian tunnel to a parking lot at the Hollywood Bowl was the scene of some action. In another, there was action in an abandoned train tunnel in downtown LA. In another, a bank safe was broken into from a tunnel. A notion of tunnels carried along through his life and into his books, from Philadelphia.

That's interesting. I'm also a superfan, and have read all the books, in order, save the last three, including one McEvoy book. Another is coming out later this fall. I sort of ration them out slowly, to enjoy slowly instead of staying up all night and finishing them all at once.

But Blood Work was so completely butchered as related to the book that I still bet he wanted more control.

Elmer, thanks for that. I’m just now getting around to reading the Bosch series. I have intended to do so for quite a while and don’t know what took me so long as I am enjoying the first one. I look forward to watching a few of the TV series after reading a few of the books first.

Sometimes but I think it's worse when the plot is so different from the book.

I read Tom Jones when I was 12 or 13 (although I was officially forbidden to), and I really wanted to see the movie, but it had an "R" rating, and so I was definitely not allowed in the theater. I don't know what its rating would be today. When I finally did see it many years later, I loved the movie and its adaptation to the book. I knew that it would have to edit out a lot, and I was fine with that. I also saw the TV series version that came out in 1997 and was over 5 hours long. I liked this version also, but I think I liked the 1963 version a bit better, even though it was edited more.

I took a screenwriting class in Hollywood back in 1993, and one of the things we were taught was that once a script is sold, the person or company that buys it can do whatever it wants with it and change it as much as it wants. If you are lucky, the studio may hire you as a script consultant, but this is not the norm. Only established writers can negotiation for royalties - as a novice, one is lucky to get a script accepted at all. Often a novel is written after the movie, if the movie comes directly from an original screenplay.

My biggest complaint about a movie not following the book is that Aquaman did not have blond hair, and the comic books make it quite clear that he is blond. They should have bleached the actor's hair (like they did with Chris Hemsworth for Thor) or made him wear a wig.

Another complaint I have is Cesar Romero's refusal to shave his mustache for the role of The Joker on the Batman TV show. He looks stupid with all that makeup trying to hide the mustache, and it only takes a week or so to grow a mustache back. It shows that he cared more for his own vanity than he did for the role he was playing.

Oh I don't know - the Batman TV series was so campy & tongue in cheek and I understand many celebrities wanted to guest star. There was nothing serious about it. When I watch it now, I can laugh at things I took seriously as a kid because I didn't grasp all the nuances and satire back then.

I also understand that at the time - and today as well - there were/are Batman fans critical of how un-serious the show was, compared to the comics.

"I sort of ration them out slowly, to enjoy slowly instead of staying up all night and finishing them all at once.

But Blood Work was so completely butchered as related to the book that I still bet he wanted more control."

I do the same and agree.

Don't miss the new Lincoln Lawyer production on Prime, I thought it was excellent. Like the Bosch series on Netflix, Connelly is an Executive producer and has the same hands-on involvement. Including casting, screenplays, and adaption of books to video production. The first season is based on Connelly's book The Brass Verdict. I thought the casting was particularly good - the man who plays Mickey Haller (the protagonist) is perfect for the role, as are the two women who play his ex-wifes- one who is the manager of his legal practice and the other who's an LA District attorney (Maggie McPherson, nicknamed McFierce) with whom he shares joint custody of their daughter. For those who don't know the Lincoln Lawyer books nor the Prime production, just as with the Bosch books, one of the stars of the stories who doesn't receive specific mention in the running credits is the city of Los Angeles. Both the good and the ugly, which most cities have.

For arcy and others who expect a film to be a first page to last page production of the book it's based on, you should know that Connelly supervised a number of significant plot changes to the written form of Brass Verdict, his own book, to transform it to becoming a more suitable streaming video production.

The original Bosch series on Netflix (edit for correction, Amazon Prime) ran for 7 seasons and was highly successful. A spin off called Bosch:Legacy has had its first season - it's a subset of the original show with the characters of Bosch (Titus Welliver), daughter Maddie (Maddison Lintz) and lawyer Honey Chandler (Mimi Rogers) played by the same actors.

Both Bosch:Legacy and The Lincoln Lawyer were renewed for second seasons, which presumably are now in some stage of production and to be presented next spring.

Elmer - Here it's on Netflix.

I can tolerate what is done to novels if all they do is leave some stuff out. It is impossible to include everything but I can really get irate when they entirely ignore the source material. My favorite hate was hearing an interview with a director and also the person who played the lead character boasting of not having read the novel nor having seen any other version so that their interpretation wouldn't be affected. ?????? You don't want your interpretation to be affected by the book .

As a fan of social history I can get peevish about bad historical representations. Austen novels are a good example there. Why will they have women racketing about with their hair flapping about instead of being done up under a bonnet? Women striding along roads like lumberjacks.

Austen was very spare with her descriptions. She will tell you a person is tall or short or beautiful or graceful or even handsome but not much else. Still, don't make Ann Elliot or Fanny Price plain because they were both described as beautiful. I don't care what color their hair is.

I tried a couple Jack Reacher short story and can certainly see that Tom didn't personify the character. Still not a fan of the stories. Not my thing.

cindy, I appreciate your pointing out my mistake. Your "here" is the same as my "here" (the US), I had it wrong. Thanks

Bosch and Bosch Legacy - Amazon Prime

Lincoln Lawyer film for theatrical release, with Matthew McConaughey (2011) - rent for nominal charge on Amazon Prime and perhaps other sources too. Based on Connelly's first book of Mickey Haller series, same name. It's pretty good and has up-market casting with McConaughey and Marisa Tomei.

Lincoln Lawyer TV series, one season produced (I mentioned above) - Produced originally by A+E, lawsuit, finally shown on Netflix and picked up for a second season

The best adaptation I've ever seen is the Granada TV production of Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited. The series is extremely faithful to the book, captures each of the characters wonderfully, and even enhances them. John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier, and Claire Bloom are in it, and it was one of Jeremy Irons' first screen roles. Highly recommended - I believe it's now on Prime.

I can agree with you on that one Bookwoman.

Speaking of movies of books. Remember the Flowers in the Attic series written by VC Andrews? They are showing on Lifetime channel. I haven't watched them yet, I may or may not, but I sure remember reading the books.

One of my favorite adaptations was The Brothers Karamazov, starring Yul Brynner, 1958. It did edit the book severely, but it kept enough to make it worth watching - plus the book is a somewhat difficult read, as it can be hard to keep up with the various characters. I read this for a Russian literature class (in translation), and it was my favorite book of that course.

There was a mini-series that I watched more recently, and I think I recorded it from TV on VCR, but I don't know if I still have it. I believe that version is no longer available, but I especially liked it because it kept much more of the details.

Dostoevsky was paid by the word for his writings, and so they can be rather wordy, but he also goes into great depth to describe his characters. Freud used Dostoevsky characters in his writings to identify personality types because he said that they contained pretty much all of the character types in mainstream society.