What's the worst story change from a book to a movie?

Submitted by Franz1871 t3_zxooco in books

The Count of Monte Cristo (2002).

>!turning Albert into the son of the coount is like it would unite the couple.!<

>!for hollywood a man will always love the same woman, he is incapable of abandoning her or that a man is incapable of abandoning his family for another woman.!<

>!But in real life it's quite different.!<

>!In the film Admiral (2008) by Andrei Kravchuk, which tells the true story of admiral Alexander Kolchak and his young lover Anna Timiryova, he abandons his wife and son to stay with his young lover.!<

>!Films based on real events develop differently from weak hollywood clichés.!<

>!Hollywood has always believed that a man is not capable of starting to like another woman and leaving his wife and child for another woman or breaking up with his girlfriend.!<

The film The Prisoner of Château d'If by Georgi Yungvald-Khilkevich (1988) has the end of the book.

16

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

dmvelgar t1_j21gf4m wrote

Everything they did to The Hobbit to make it into three bloated films.

119

PraxisLD t1_j21k274 wrote

There are several fan cuts that remove all the extra nonsense and make for a much better viewing experience.

One iteration has the interesting extras that weren’t part of the original book moved into a separate short movie.

Much better than the bloated versions they released, with no ridiculous romance randomly shoehorned in…

25

Franz1871 OP t1_j21jyqb wrote

A lot of greed from the studios ruined the story of the book.

17

miss_scarlet_letter t1_j220cvk wrote

unpopular opinion but I actually like The Hobbit films. I didn't feel the extra story really hurt the source material. the plot with the necromancer was much better fleshed out (where as in the book I believe Gandalf like vaguely mentioned he was off fighting a necromancer NBD). the love story was a little meh but kili still died so 🤷‍♀️

15

VeganPhilosopher t1_j221r2c wrote

Lolita (1997) turns innocent 12 yr old Dolores into a teenage seductress who prays on poor Humbert Humbert

38

junglelala t1_j228jyu wrote

That change was very disappointing. I know the book is often misunderstood, but that was a disturbing take on the filmmaker's part.

4

FatherPot t1_j226joi wrote

The Kubrick version was awful as well, but that could’ve been attributed to Hollywood censorship of the time. As a work of literature, good lord, such a great novel.

2

VendettaFuriosa t1_j25s9bd wrote

I don't agree. I consider that movie a great film that I've seen several times, and I've read the book at least a couple of times. Lolita starts out being a temptress, she was never innocent, that everything has gotten out of her hand is something else. Humbert would never have started anything if she hadn't shown a bit of intent, and it's worth noting that I'm talking about what happens in the story, good or bad. She always used him, first to escape from her mother and then to get his money and so... she was never innocent. And Lyne's movie is great and totally faithful to the book.

0

VeganPhilosopher t1_j25vsrf wrote

I think we have a difference of interpretation.

I dont believe Humbert is perfectly honest to the court with everything he says about Dolores. I believe he interpreted things as "sexual"" because of his perversion. I dont see Humbert as a reliable narrator.

At the very least, she is older in the film than in the book. Also, I think her outfits were a little too revealing, but I'm not too privy to French fashion.

6

VendettaFuriosa t1_j2awa68 wrote

It's not Rashomon, so we're going to have to assume that everything Humbert says is what really happened, and he, for good or bad, did nothing with her, no matter how interested he was, until she kissed him when he left the summer camp where she had already lost whatever innocence she had left. And all that, if I remember correctly, also happened in the novel. That's why I disagree with your first comment. And I understand that we are not judging the characters, but if there was any change between the novel and the movie, which there was not.

1

Astrid-Wish t1_j21qsvp wrote

The Dark Tower. They tried to make it like marvel instead of Stephen king. Totally terrible.

30

Hyperion_Consul t1_j227wkc wrote

The nice part about this film is that it was bad enough to where I don't remember it. Hoping that Flanagan eventually does it justice.

6

Gardah229 t1_j224san wrote

I looked forward to this the moment I heard it was even in the works. Devastating to see where it ended up. It does make me think of the 90's miniseries of The Stand that I've heard was pretty good. I'll have to bump that up the watch list and see if it's worth its salt. Recently found out they released another adaption in the midst of the pandemic that was pretty middling.

2

Astrid-Wish t1_j23e99e wrote

It is actually quite well done. I've watched it several times.

1

GhostMug t1_j23ibc1 wrote

The 90's The Stand mini series is way better than it had any business being. I remember watching it when I was younger and being enthralled. Production value was low and it's clearly very 90's but still really good.

1

Aunafaith t1_j21h7wm wrote

The percy jackson movie.... So bad.

26

MsAggieCoffee t1_j21s8js wrote

My sister’s keeper changing/removing the major twist at the end of the book in the movie.

22

lyssssa6 t1_j23h65b wrote

What was the twist?

3

Lex_Loki t1_j23lo9y wrote

>!Anna dies, not Kate. It was supposed to be about life's randomness.!<

The movie took the traditional path. And it was dumb.

8

Rebel_Khalessi90 t1_j25ickl wrote

I remember watching the movie in college with friends and I was so pissed at the ending while my friends thought it was a good movie. They didn't understand why I was so pissed with the ending of the movie.

1

Mr_Otingocni t1_j21vqll wrote

World War Z.

The movie was a pretty entertaining. The book was on a whole other level.

22

googleismygod t1_j22p17u wrote

The movie was a run of the mill zombie flick. It completely gutted everything about the book that made it unique and fresh.

7

Mr_Otingocni t1_j24ate6 wrote

Agreed. Made me mad that the book had so much world-building potential and explored some interesting themes. Then some Hollywood execs had all of that in their hands and just obliviously crapped out some forgettable cash grab.

3

PoppysPen t1_j25bvru wrote

It shouldn't have been a movie, it should have been an anthology series on cable or a streamer.

1

0OO0OO00O t1_j21uvl0 wrote

The Eragon movie in its entirety

20

Ealinguser t1_j23ybcr wrote

I dunno that it was significantly more crap than the book.

3

ImitationCowboy t1_j26yltn wrote

Great Call!! Books were great, the attempt at the movie was absolutely poo!!!! ruined the possibility for the rest of the books to become movies.

1

Heidegger12 t1_j21ll6a wrote

Mina being in love with Dracula in the 1992 version. Dracula is a psychopath killer who killed a child, he was responsible for Lucy's death.

As much as Mina was in love with Dracula, she is not a stupid girl and her love for him would turn to hatred for everything he did wrong.

18

FlattopJr t1_j22ftlf wrote

Yes, that whole "Mina is the reincarnation of Dracula's dead wife" movie subplot was also not in the novel, as far as I recall.

9

Professional-Cat-693 t1_j21jnif wrote

Lynch's Dune making the "weirding way" into a sonic gun. I was really excited about a Dune movie. Then very disappointed. New one did it much better.

17

GrudaAplam t1_j21tti9 wrote

Interestingly, Frank Herbert was a consultant on that production and he said at the time that he was quite happy with it.

2

dunecello t1_j23tt9i wrote

He didn't like everything about the film. He was vocal about how the ending completely contradicts his message: "Paul was a man playing god, not a god who could make it rain." In fact according to a later book making it rain would >!doom the entire spice trade!<. So maybe the sonic gun was another aspect he wasn't a fan of.

2

River_Rat_75 t1_j226h9p wrote

More from a book to a Netflix series or whatever, but Little Fires Everywhere. They took a good mentoring relationship between teacher and student and turned it into a sexual/romantic one, and the power imbalance and the ick factor just skeeved me out. Why does every relationship in Hollywood have to be made sexual for it to mean something?

15

kingeditor t1_j21mfve wrote

The Great Gatsby (2013) interprets Fitzgerald’s writing way too literally in numerous scenes. The inclusion of modern music to appeal to modern audiences was unnecessary as well.

14

theMycon t1_j21pjn1 wrote

Both Neil Gaiman's book Stardust and the movie were good, but there were two changes I hated.

First: >!The unicorn unchained the star. Tristan taking the chain off her, instead of leaving her alone chained up to a tree is a major plot point because that's when he started to see her as a person, instead of an object. It's later called out by another character that she wouldn't have helped him if he hadn't freed her. In the movie, though, he just ties her to a post and leaves her, and then a magic horse comes by and breaks it.!<

Second: the ending >!In the book, the witches realize The Star's heart belongs to another and stealing it wouldn't give them youth anymore. So there's a little chat between them, it's handled delicately, and when offered a position as king Tristan says "sure, when I get around to it" and spends several years heroing while his mother rules in his stead. In the movie, there's a big cinematic battle where Tristan fights the witches with a lightning cannon, rescues the damsel in distress, and then goes straight to being a prince in pretty clothes.!<

They both make for a more marketable movie, sure, but they're also directly in conflict with what made the book so special. As someone who grew up reading Cabell & Mirrlees, it felt like a betrayal of the story.

13

miss_scarlet_letter t1_j21zgr2 wrote

in the same vein, I felt like the TV show absolutely butchered American Gods, which was extra disappointing because they got the casting exactly right.

14

dbag002 t1_j21su0x wrote

Stardust the movie is like 10 light years better than the book IMO but I see your point

4

tomcat_tweaker t1_j21mxqi wrote

The newest All Quiet on the Western Front movie. Critical scenes missing, setting changed, timeline during the war different. The ending is so, so different. Still a good movie, but not the book I read by a long shot.

12

Arcangel613 t1_j246s8z wrote

I gotta say, I actually liked the changed ending. Cause i think I makes it just that much sadder that he knew it was over, and it hit a little harder for me.

3

tomcat_tweaker t1_j253p0k wrote

Even if it was a little on the nose at times, I did like the new ending, in and of itself. I just think the original book ending is a little more layred and thought provoking. I will be the first to admit, however, that the book ending is better for a book, and the new movie ending is a better, more cinematic way to end a movie.

3

FlattopJr t1_j22hhqx wrote

It's been so long since I read the novel (25+years) that I barely remember it. Maybe I should watch the series before re-reading the novel so I'm not disappointed.

Watched the 1930 film adaptation shortly after reading the novel and still vividly remember one scene: in battle, a soldier runs towards the camera and stumbles against a barbed wire fence right as a grenade explodes in front of him. When the smoke clears, >!his severed hands are seen still clinging to the fence!<.

2

rohtbert55 t1_j2537jm wrote

Yeeeeeeeees! finally. I watched it the day it came out, and....It's not that it was abd, it's that it was dissapointing. I feel the filmakers tried focusing on scenes that were sure to cause an impact that they cut out super important and poignant scenes. I felt that it would've been a great WW1 film on it's own, but not that great as a rendition of hte book.

2

Professional-Cat-693 t1_j21k2g8 wrote

Breakfast at Tiffany's is great as is.. (minus the horribly racist Mickey Rooney bit) but if they kept the Original ending it would have packed a gut punch.

10

Tayreads608 t1_j21kaer wrote

“Whatever walked there, walked TOGETHER”

Ummm, I’m sorry how dare one miss the point so hard they think they can change Shirley “queen of the American gothic” Jackson’s last line of her masterful deconstruction of domesticity and heteronormativity and in the process actively undo everything they had spent 9 episodes building toward.

I truly do not understand the reason for making that last line change. It’s silly, it’s absurd, and it’s soft.

“Whatever walked there, walked ALONE” - Shirley Jackson, The Haunting of Hill House

9

miss_scarlet_letter t1_j21zr74 wrote

+1. I can't even think of the book and the adaptation as the same thing except in title only. the thing was, the tv show wasn't bad. it just wasn't the novel. at all.

5

Tayreads608 t1_j22075p wrote

Yeah. It’s a fine show just not a great adaptation. If it used less of her text I might be able to separate the two more, but some of those quotes are quite jarring when used in the way they were. Idk. It’s just a strange one to me.

2

riordan2013 t1_j224qr6 wrote

Oh my God, I haven't even seen this and I'm enraged.

4

Suspicious-Shock-934 t1_j229nh7 wrote

Amazon's wheel of time. Took agency away from the male lead. Also all the men in the show are superfluous to it despite being 3 male leads. It's a disgrace. I can deal with narrative restructuring but it would have been almost exactly the same if the 3 main characters were literally not in the show.

9

Viclmol81 t1_j23ebxr wrote

The ending of Harry Potter. Harry's final duel with Voldemort in the books was so good and so symbolic for many reason and the farce that happened at the end of the film just ruined it.

8

idcxinfinity t1_j22gqwk wrote

I Am Legend. Wtf was that ending?

7

markus_kt t1_j25q1es wrote

The movie had an alternate ending that at least was closer to that of the book's.

3

A_warm_sunny_day t1_j22npyy wrote

I had always wondered about the title until I read the book, at which point it made perfect sense.

2

idcxinfinity t1_j25tezn wrote

Lol no kidding. Just call it will smiths adventures with vampires. There is absolutely no point to the book without the ending. I usually don't care what movies do to books but this one was upsetting.

2

ChronoMonkeyX t1_j24wguv wrote

>I Am Legend. Wtf was that ending?

Test screening audience approved. Can't have a movie without the hero saving the day and getting the girl.

2

idcxinfinity t1_j25u42y wrote

Yeah, if heard that too. Sad endings can suck, but that's the whole point of the book. To see things from a different perspective, to see the hero isn't always a hero, and on and on. I've really gotta let it go but man it frustrates me lol

1

Professional-Cat-693 t1_j21lad9 wrote

I liked the LOTR. But I feel the scene where Frodo and Sam leave the Fellowship really changed the story. In the book no one sees them leave. Aragon et al, learn "some hobbits" were taken by the Orcs. They follow them, hoping it is Frodo... the freaking ring bearer. They don't wave him off with a smile.

6

TywinShitsGold t1_j2298el wrote

The first chapter of Two Towers they figure out the riddle immediately after Viking funeraling Boromir.

Only frodo would have taken the boat, only Sam woulda taken his pack.

“Our choice then,” said Gimli,“is either to take the remaining boat and follow Frodo, or else to follow the Orcs on foot. There is little hope either way. We have already lost precious hours.”

They follow Merry and Pippen knowing it’s not frodo and that frodo and Sammie are all alone.

11

foreverinLOL t1_j23dljd wrote

I would say that LOTR: ROTK has the worst differences in book vs. movie. Gollum actually manipulating Frodo into telling Sam to go home? That was the worst. Because Sam would never and they face Shelob together. I mean imagine you make it to Minas Morgul and travel around with Frodo and he just says:"Go home". I felt that was a bit stupid and given that the characters looked like teenagers, Frodo often comes off as way too whiny.

5

IAmNotLookingatYou t1_j21xkut wrote

The first Maze Runner book and movie! Tell me, the book said, it never rains in the maze, that's part of the reason they knew it was fake? But then the movie absolutely DOES rain?! Or the whole ending sequence, each of them is completely different. Why?

6

allredidit t1_j222em1 wrote

Screenwriters have egos and want to put their own mark on the material.

3

nightfishin t1_j23co2x wrote

Not to mention their inferiority complex of not being able publish their own works so the only way to write their wish fulfilment story is to ruin someone elses.

−1

lemon_buttonhook t1_j230nv5 wrote

Exit to Eden The book is erotica by Anne Rice, which I read way too young. The movie comes out years later, a comedy, with Rosie ODonnell and Dan Aykroyd. I must of blocked out most of it, but those two in S&M outfits is burned into my brain years later. It seems like it was nothing like the book and not in a good way like the Shining. King book version vs kubrick movie version.

5

South_Honey2705 t1_j231f0u wrote

The screenwriters are never as good as the author

5

VendettaFuriosa t1_j25si9l wrote

I disagree. There are movies that are better than the books and there are others that, even though they are different from the book, are just as good.

1

South_Honey2705 t1_j25y0pg wrote

Maybe in some cases I think that the book is the essence of the author

1

WatchBat t1_j255ihy wrote

It's not changed It's rather removed all together. In HP and the Half Blood Prince, the memories about Voldemort's past

That was like the whole point of the book, and the film removed them to focus on teen romance instead

5

Direseve t1_j21h0yg wrote

The Bourne series

4

chrispd01 t1_j22dauq wrote

Gotta disagree here. I think its better to just view them as different beasts ….

6

Heidegger12 t1_j21mpyd wrote

edmond being illiterate in the count of monte cristo (2002), and to be a captain, he would have to know how to read, write and math, to deal with bureaucracy and accounting.

Mercedes not being a virgin in the middle of the 19th century and managing to marry an aristocrat, and Fernand does not love her.

Albert not suspecting that a stranger saved him with only a sword instead of calling the police.

The very obvious vendettas in the count of monte cristo, that not even a child would fall for them.

Edmond easily accepting the return of his enemy's wife. There are men who kill a woman for having sex with a random man, let alone the man who ruined his life.

Albert and Edmond suddenly and easily developing the father-son relationship.

4

riordan2013 t1_j2251an wrote

It's been a minute since I've seen it, but the Lily James/Armie Hammer Rebecca doesn't depict their post-Manderley life nearly as bleakly as the book does, and I think that's important. >! Rebecca wins in the book. That needs to be shown. !<

4

violetlilyrose t1_j22wvw8 wrote

Haven't seen the newer one, but the Hitchcock version changes >!Rebecca's death from being shot by Maxim to it being an accident. Apparently this was because of the Hays code, and the murder of a spouse couldn't go unpunished like he does in the book !<

3

riordan2013 t1_j246pyv wrote

Yes - your memory is better than mine! Also a significant change to the story.

1

GhostMug t1_j23imcr wrote

The book >! doesn't depict it at all, IIRC. It just ends on them approaching the mansion on fire and were left to realize that all they have left is to be stuck with each other but then the remake has them jet-setting to Spain to live in a paradise. It was lame as hell. !<

2

CurmudgeonsGambit t1_j23kn7a wrote

I'm a purest so Arwen taking Glorfindel's place at the ford of bruinen

4

rohtbert55 t1_j253r13 wrote

Have to agree. There are few things from the film adaptations I don't like (yes, even if they're not 100% book accurate), but not Glorfindel hitted hard. Maybe Because I didn't like Liv Tyler's Arwen that much...

1

TillShoddy6670 t1_j24vq4z wrote

The decision to make John Hammond into a cuddly grandpa figure in Jurassic Park... it made nearly every decision he makes wrt the park damned near inexplicable.

4

laudida t1_j21if6o wrote

Changing the end of Fight Club. The movie ending was a bit nonsensical for me in an already over the top story.

3

Viclmol81 t1_j23e74j wrote

I have never read the book. I didnt know the ending was changed. How does the book end?

5

an_imperfect_lady t1_j221oqc wrote

The Scarlet Letter (1995) ... as I remember, the ending was completely changed. I was like... "wait, what??"

3

Nice_Sun_7018 t1_j22b75z wrote

I just read the synopsis of the ending - what a ballsy move to muck it up that much. Whoa.

2

Impressive-Box9151 t1_j22c9nl wrote

Southern Vampire series to True Blood. Not a movie, but they mucked it up so bad. Think what you will of the books, but the HBO translation first ignored key plot points and then went completely off the rails.

3

Sabonis86 t1_j2318pb wrote

I Am Legend. Without a doubt. The story is completely changed and while I think the movie was good in its own right, it should not have been named the same as the book.

3

daveinmd13 t1_j23vh0z wrote

Watch “The Omega Man” with Charlton Heston, made in the early 70s. It is much truer to the book, but still not exact.

2

maraudingnomad t1_j257dxh wrote

I actually liked the movie more, I guess because I saw it prior to reading the book? Gave the book full rating on goodreads for I realise the impact it had but for a modern reader it doesn't stand so tall in its own right IMO. I'd have to look up my review to recall precisely what my issues were but it was mostly the pseudoscience and some worldbuilding stuff.

1

darth_vladius t1_j23msg6 wrote

For me it’s the first Jurassic Park.

The beginning is the same. Everything after they went to the island is different and worse than it is in the Crichton’s book.

As a child I knew the book by heart. I was so looking forward to watching the movie… and I was so disappointed by how they butchered the story. Up to this day I can’t enjoy this movie, despite its great special effects. Some of my favourite actors star in it and it’s still just an abomination for me.

3

Furimbus t1_j21iiyt wrote

Child-me loved Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH. I was so excited to see it as a movie, The Secret of NIMH, but horrified that they changed the character’s name to Mrs. Brisby. Adult-me realizes there was probably some sort of trademark concern over the name, but still… worst change ever. Still mad.

2

HumanBeing5000 t1_j23a3hm wrote

I don't watch many movie interpretations but I think it was the two Percy Jackson movies that they made. Absolutely disgraceful, even the author agrees

2

Half-Scented1504 t1_j23rhzm wrote

I remember being outraged at the end of two movies.

  1. The Firm by Grisham - can't remember the ending in either the book or the movie, but I recall that I was not happy with the way things were changed in the movie. Wait, now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not sure it was they ending that was actually changed or events throughout the movie that were not in the book.
  2. The Horse Whisperer - this one I do remember the ending of the book, which they did not follow at all in the movie.

I have learned that if I really enjoy and love a book and they make a movie, I DO NOT watch it.

2

Ealinguser t1_j23z2mq wrote

In the book of the Firm, he swindles about 10 Million bucks from the Mafia, shops them, gets the feds to spring his brother from jail and they escape into the Caribbean. None of that bollocks about telling the Mafia they have been defrauded of tax and leaving their employ alive and without consequences.

2

Similar_Craft_9530 t1_j241qh5 wrote

Hands down World War Z and The Dark Tower. They made 2 completely unrelated films but insisted they were the same story as the books.

2

maraudingnomad t1_j256a1u wrote

Not a movie, but the Witcher. Whenever they keep to book plot, the series is good but they just messed up the lore with them nonsense monoliths, yen loosing her powers, that baba yaga shit and much more... They had a blueprint for sucess but were so arrogant that they thought they could do better. Kind of sad we are not getting a good adaptation so I guess I'll just munch on popcorn and watch how the whole thing crumbles to the ground. The prequel series is already an abysmal mess

2

Blue_Tomb t1_j29f3jq wrote

Troy leaving out the gods. Or, if you want to argue for that being necessary for modern audiences, the leaving out of Pyrrhus.

2

unsuresignofnewname t1_j22rtkn wrote

The Natural is a fun movie but sure takes liberties with the book’s story and particular ending.

1

bobby11c t1_j22vyw8 wrote

Starship Troopers, the book was the granddaddy of modern military science fiction, Paul Verhoven turned it into a satire that completely destroyed the spirit of the book. Verhoven didn't even read the book. I will never forgive that.

1

rohtbert55 t1_j254lyw wrote

Yeeeeeeeeees! Love the memes, would you like to know more? but I remeber that after I read the book I just couldn't watch the film. The whole love triangle, how Rico just casually becomes an officer NO FREAKING ARMOURED SUITS....a mess.

2

bobby11c t1_j25ivz2 wrote

I completely agree! And no armored suits! I might of been able to forgive the script if they had put in the suits and the orbital drops. That was so cool in the book.

2

jonadragonslay t1_j24kpb6 wrote

Fight Club the book was so different than the movie. While good, the movie didn't truly grasp how fucking crazy he was and that Tyler existed only because of meeting Marla.

1

tomcat_tweaker t1_j24mxkl wrote

Even if it was a little on the nose at times, I did like the new ending, in and of itself. I just think the original book ending is a little more layred and thought provoking. I will be the first to admit, however, that the book ending is better for a book, and the new movie ending is a better, more cinematic way to end a movie.

1

Sad_Specialist_420 t1_j24wq5f wrote

P.s. I love you. 15 years ago and I still think about how bad they did on that movie.

1

secondhandbanshee t1_j24xmim wrote

Maybe not the worst, but the film version of I Am Legend is nothing like the book. The film is fine as entertainment if you don't know the original, but the ending of the novella is far superior.

1

Flip3579 t1_j251wt5 wrote

So much in the Godfather, Johnny Fontane getting cut to a bit story, shifting the focus from Tom Hagan, basically turning Vito's early life into a flashback, making Michael the main character. So many sins.

1

omgtoji t1_j259xa1 wrote

i hate the change in faramir’s personality in the lord of the rings movies. one of my favorite characters in the books, so complex and likeable, turned full douchebag in the movies. i know he is redeemed by the end but it was so unnecessary

1

Rebeccaw81 t1_j25htg2 wrote

Miss. Peregrine's home for peculiar children

1

Life_Ad3690 t1_j25wp5m wrote

Postman by David Brin. Great book, lousy movie. They left out the whole subplot about the women!

1

Luziadovalongo t1_j266ta2 wrote

Jumper by Steven Gould. What the ever loving heck was that movie?

1

DarthDregan t1_j268f72 wrote

The attack in Snyder's Watchmen being fucking batteries AND Dr. Manhattan just fucking off instead of telling Veidt that "nothing lasts."

1

rohtbert55 t1_j2a8qxq wrote

This might be a controversial one, but I think American Sniper as a film really didn't respect the book that much.

1

ProstheticAttitude t1_j22eopv wrote

Starship Troopers (the movie's only connection to the book was the title, and people killing large insects). I walked out of the film.

−3