Terrible source material


It is amazing that such a great movie was adapted from such an awful book.
The book sequel is even worse.

reply

You think this is a great movie? You think this was an appropriate scene they needed to put in the film? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-65F0RpWbCk4/UzNqmgGAJGI/AAAAAAAAAXc/SHOKl9lXaDA/s1600/4inabed.jpg

reply

I know LOL is overused internet tripe but, your post legitimately made me laugh. Aways appreciated. And now I quietly wonder what series of bored internet clicks you somehow made wondering around the world wide web in order to stumble across that image

reply

The movie has many flaws, as do the books, but I enjoyed both.

reply

The book was terrible? I have not read it but I’m curious why they chose to make a movie based on an awful book? Btw how or why was the book awful?

reply

I'd honestly suggest you read the book while you wait for an answer here. I'm not trying to be nasty in suggesting it at all, but to do so would leave you far better able to understand (or refute) any commentary concerning your question.

reply

I couldn't disagree more. I just read the book and its sequel about a year ago and they were both good. I like the movie too though. I feel like the only reason you hate the book is you didn't read it before seeing the movie. A lot of people who love a movie based on a book end up hating the book for not being like the movie.

reply

Have you read the books?

reply

The books have a smug "over-the-top"-ness married to a maudlin sentimentalism that doesn't play well in this century. Even when reading them as a kid, it was easy to see that when Pastor Dahl gives names to his characters like Augustus Gloop, Mike Tevee, or even Charlie Bucket that he is attempting to do more than just entertain or capture one's imagination.

That being said, they are better than the film adaptations.

reply