10 Awful Movie Adaptations That Should Have Never Happened

If there’s one thing avid readers know, it’s that Hollywood rarely gets things right when adapting their favorite books into movies. This happens so often that failure is all but expected by the public. There are many reasons why a film based on a book or series might differ significantly from its source material; some elements understandably need to be cut for time, while others are inexplicably altered, changing the story, themes, characters, or everything else in between.

Sure, there are some excellent examples of the opposite happening, but it’s unfortunately rare. Movies like “The Lord of the Rings,” “To Kill a Mockingbird,” and “The Godfather” are some of the best films ever made, and they were all adapted from equally impressive novels. On the other side are the adaptations that are so poorly done that the source material’s fans end up unleashing torrents of vitriol online after seeing them.

While some fans of the following films likely had high hopes, they ended up dashed upon seeing the final product. There are plenty of awful movie adaptations of books, but a handful are so poorly done that they truly shouldn’t have been made. They’re the biggest wastes of money that saw production companies bank on would-be tentpole franchises that utterly bombed, divided the fanbase, or outright offended anyone with a passing familiarity with the source. These are some of the worst adaptations, movies so disappointing that few would argue against the idea that they shouldn’t have even been made.

The House of Mouse’s notorious flop, “John Carter,” holds the unenviable distinction of being the film that spent the longest sentence in development hell: 81 years. When a movie takes that long to make, its biggest problem is that the public who initially wanted it is several generations back. Still, Disney managed the seemingly impossible and adapted Edgar Rice Burroughs’ seminal sci-fi series into a big-budget feature film that released in 2012 to lackluster reviews, poor box office performance, and an unimpressed moviegoing public.

The film was released 100 years after the first book was published, and while that doesn’t necessarily mean it couldn’t have worked, “John Carter” certainly didn’t. One of the biggest problems is the extensive lore of the series, which comprises 11 novels. Introducing elements of each book to an audience that was largely unfamiliar with it proved an incredible challenge. The film actually managed to cover the source material fairly well in this regard, but several unwelcome changes were made to make the characters more likable.

This was most notable in the eponymous lead, who, in the books, is a misanthropic, honor-bound warrior. He’s depicted in the movie as a more affable character, packed with charm and idealism, a far cry from the novels’ hero. Some might appreciate these changes, which Taylor Kitsch’s performance embraced. Unfortunately, few viewers were impressed with Disney’s adaptation. Ultimately, “John Carter” flopped so hard that Disney shifted its focus away from releasing new IPs, leading to the acquisitions of Marvel, Fox, and Lucasfilm.

Philip Pullman’s “The Golden Compass” trilogy, published under the title “His Dark Materials” outside of the U.S., is an imaginative and fantastical retelling of John Milton’s “Paradise Lost.” It’s a beloved trilogy of young adult novels, and given how Hollywood dips into the YA realm as often as it does, attempting to adapt the books into a series of big-budget blockbusters was only a matter of time. “The Golden Compass” was released in 2007, the first step of a plan to produce three films in total, each one covering one of the novels that make up the trilogy.

That never happened, and “The Golden Compass” became yet another abandoned movie franchise that has been largely forgotten. To its credit, the film adapts the first novel well enough, though, like any feature film developed from a book, several elements were changed or omitted. The source material itself has been criticized for being anti-religious, with several groups decrying it as being specifically anti-Christian.

These controversial elements were toned down in the film, likely an attempt at courting a wider audience, but this effort failed. Audiences and critics derided the movie, taken in only by its admittedly impressive CGI. Ultimately, it bombed, though it managed to earn over $372 million at the worldwide box office. While the film failed to lead into its planned sequels, fans of the novels got a better update in HBO’s “His Dark Materials” series in 2019. The show ran for three seasons, covering all three novels in a far more faithful adaptation than its cinematic predecessor.

Science fiction owes much to the writing of H.G. Wells, and many of his books have been adapted into feature films, including “The Time Machine.” The first was released in 1960 and is highly regarded as a faithful and well-executed adaptation. The same cannot be said of the 2002 movie. Starring Guy Pearce as Alexander Hartdegen, a scientist who builds a time machine, the film deviates from the novel in several ways, most notably in its lead’s desire to change the past.

In the book, the unnamed scientist only seeks scientific discovery and a view of the future. Despite the many narrative changes, the film does touch on the primary points of the novel, including the 800,000-year jump forward and the presence of the Eloi and Morlocks. It also injects an explanation for the fall of humanity and the divergence of the species.

One interesting thing the film had going for it was its director, Simon Wells, who is the author’s great-grandson. But despite the familial connection, the director deviated significantly from the novel’s premise, alienating fans. The genre shift from an analysis of dystopian science fiction to an action-thriller centered around a more detailed species of Morlocks turned both critics and fans away from the movie. The remake performed so terribly, Pearce openly regrets making it in the first place. Still, watching it with complete ignorance of the source makes for an entertaining popcorn movie experience. Unfortunately for the novel’s fans, though, the adaptation pays too little homage to Wells’ novel or its themes.

If you ask a group of “X-Men” fans which is the franchise’s greatest storyline, they’d likely agree on “The Dark Phoenix Saga.” The story takes place across multiple issues in the ’80s, written by Chris Claremont and co-plotted and illustrated by John Byrne. But while the story is highly regarded as one of the best in the entire Marvel bibliography, it’s proven difficult to adapt. Fox first attempted to do so with 2006’s “X-Men: The Last Stand,” closing out the trilogy with a poor adaptation.

While that movie underperformed, 2019’s “X-Men: Dark Phoenix” absolutely bombed, which, like its predecessor, closed out its quadrilogy with a disappointing adaptation. The film’s biggest cinematic crime was the numerous changes made to the source material. The nature of the Phoenix Force was altered significantly, and a new villain was injected in a way that just didn’t make sense. Topping those suspect choices off, the killing of Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) was spoiled in the previews, making fans wary of the film even before it hit theaters.

When it premiered, few were surprised that it fumbled the titular premise with inane and unnecessary plot points, eschewing much of Claremont’s and Byrne’s classic. Too much of the plot centered on Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), abandoning the original story, which hinges on the character but is ultimately about the team and how it handles her tragic situation. There are some entertaining aspects to the film, but as the swan song for Fox’s 13-movie “X-Men” franchise, “Dark Phoenix” failed to match its predecessors’ lukewarm success, proving the studio didn’t learn any lessons from “Last Stand.”

When Hayden Christensen starred in two “Star Wars” prequel films, he set himself up for a fantastic career. Unfortunately, he then appeared in a sci-fi flop that effectively killed said career for years. On paper, “Jumper” had a lot going for it, including Christensen starring opposite Samuel L. Jackson, but the movie was a total failure with audiences and critics. The film is based on Steven Gould’s novel of the same name, but anyone familiar with the book likely wondered if someone was pranking them while they watched the adaptation.

That’s because the title, the main character’s name, and his ability to teleport are the only similarities the film has to the source material. The storyline, additional characters, and the introduction of an underground movement designed to take out anyone with teleportation abilities are all fabrications of the movie and have nothing to do with the book. The end result is a perfect example of how not to adapt a novel into a film, because readers couldn’t stomach the changes made to its story.

Gould even wrote a prequel book that shoehorns the film’s elements and characters into the franchise in an attempt to combine their narratives, but it was a lackluster attempt. “Jumper” did well enough at the box office to garner a follow-up, but none manifested even though the film ends with the door open for a sequel, and there are several books in the series. The only further adaptation to make it to production and release was a YouTube Premium series titled “Impulse,” which was better received and ran for two seasons before it was canceled.

Stephen King has written tons of stories that have been adapted by Hollywood; in fact, King’s novels have been translated to film more than those of any other living author. It’s no surprise, then, that fans of his “Dark Tower” series wanted to see it on the silver screen for years. The series, which was inspired by J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” and Robert Browning’s “Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came,” crafted a vast, multi-dimensional world that ties all of King’s novels into a single universe via main character, Roland Deschain, a fabled Gunslinger whose quest for the titular Dark Tower drives his every ambition.

There are eight books and additional works making up the “Dark Tower,” so there’s plenty of material to adapt. An attempt at a TV series at Amazon never came to fruition, though King has since begun working on a new TV version. Unfortunately, a movie starring Idris Elba as Deschain was released in theaters in 2017 to widespread criticism and box office failure.

There are few similarities between the source material and the film, which is primarily why it bombed. Instead of adapting “The Gunslinger,” King’s first novel in the series, the film is more of a sequel to the second book, which references the first. Had it succeeded, “The Dark Tower” would have become a film franchise, but it ended up underperforming at the box office. Plans for sequels were swiftly quashed, and “The Dark Tower” stands as an objectively awful King adaptation.

In 1993, Michael Crichton’s “Jurassic Park” was adapted to widespread critical acclaim and audience excitement. Crichton’s books had been adapted previously, but “Jurassic Park” is the most successful of the lot. So, following the dino flick’s success, Hollywood looked to his bibliography once again, and the result was 1995’s “Congo.” Attempts to adapt the novel date further back, to the early ’80s, but it was “Jurassic Park’s” success that helped make plans for the film actually coalesce. And though some changes were made, for the most part, “Congo” is largely faithful to the novel.

Unfortunately, the film is an example of what works on paper doesn’t necessarily work on the silver screen. The film is, in a word, goofy, thanks to the less-than-believable ape costumes and animatronics. No doubt millions were spent on making them as believable as possible, but ultimately, even Stan Winston Studio couldn’t make them appear as lifelike as they needed to be. There’s a too-human aspect of the gorillas’ movements that forces the audience to suspend far too much belief, and it doesn’t work.

There was a 15-year gap between the novel’s publication and the film, requiring some updates to the material to modernize the narrative, and these changes helped the film somewhat. Unfortunately, audiences couldn’t get over the campy tone of the movie, which made it difficult to take seriously. Crichton’s penchant for scientific accuracy is lost in the translation from book to film, making it less like a Crichton adaptation than his typical fare. Audiences and critics hated it, though it performed well at the box office.

Eight years after “Congo” underperformed, Hollywood revisited Crichton’s work with “Timeline,” and just like the jungle-based adaptation, it didn’t go over well. This time, the film was made only four years after the book was published, with Richard Donner as its director and a cast that includes Paul Walker, Gerard Butler, and Billy Connolly, so it appeared to be set up for success. Unfortunately, like so many adaptations, changes were made to numerous elements of the story, including adding new characters, gender-swapping others, and more.

Crichton spent years researching and writing “Timeline,” which was typical of the author. But while his novel is filled with historical accuracy, the film is decidedly not. The languages and idioms spoken are entirely anachronistic, medieval technology is misrepresented, and a romantic element was thrown in for some reason. Crichton focuses on time travel technology in his book, but the film explains nothing beyond a rudimentary comparison to a fax machine, which was a fairly dated reference in 2003.

“Timeline” bombed in every conceivable way, turning off both critics and audiences and earning back little more than half its production budget at the worldwide box office. Ultimately, “Timeline” dumbed itself down so much that it alienated its audience and angered fans of the novel who hoped for a faithful adaptation. Seeing his work used to produce such a cinematic turkey, Crichton decided he wouldn’t authorize any more adaptations of his novels by Hollywood for as long as he lived. Crichton kept his word until he died in 2008.

Christopher Paolini’s “The Inheritance Cycle” was a massive success from the start when its first novel, “Eragon,” was published in 2002. Though they’re somewhat derivative of previous works, the books were best-selling hits, as young adults (and older ones as well) loved the characters, setting, and story. “Eragon” was released in theaters in 2006, and before it arrived, plans for sequels to cover the remaining novels were already underway. After all, there was little doubt the series would become a blockbuster Hollywood franchise, but in the end, only one film was produced, and it was a major disappointment.

In the end, “Eragon” was yet another movie that overpromised and underdelivered because it shredded the source material, creating something almost entirely different. Sure, there’s a dragon, and Eragon (Ed Speleers) is her Dragon Rider, but beyond that, storylines from the novel were inexplicably abandoned. This was likely due to the film’s $100 million budget. While that sounds like a lot of money, it wasn’t enough to cover the book in its entirety, resulting in significant deviations.

Paolini spent a lot of pages worldbuilding his lore, and the movie ignored almost all of it, a move that upset fans while critics trashed the film. The acting is stilted and unconvincing, and what worldbuilding that does exist is unimpressive and dull. Sure, the dragon was well animated, but beyond that, there’s not much worth watching in “Eragon.” Fortunately for fans, the franchise didn’t die with the movie; a series remake entered development at Disney+ in 2022, which Paolini confirmed in February 2025 is still happening.

There are numerous bad movie adaptations that shouldn’t have been made, but one that most people seem to agree on as the worst is “Battlefield Earth.” Not only is it objectively terrible, but it’s based on a book that neither lends itself to adaptation nor is appreciated by science fiction fans who aren’t incredibly engrossed in the writing of L. Ron Hubbard. Yes, the man behind Scientology wrote a book that John Travolta fought to adapt — and it’s absolutely terrible.

Travolta temporarily trashed his career by delivering one of the hammiest scene-chewing performances in modern movie history. One of the film’s biggest problems is that it’s unfinished, as it only covers half of the source material. Travolta planned on filming a sequel to cover the second half, but the movie’s outright failure destroyed that possibility. The film bombed so hard that it actually killed the studio that made it, so when we say it’s got some negative history, we’re not exaggerating; on Rotten Tomatoes, “Battlefield Earth” holds a 3% from critics, and yet director Roger Christian is proud of it.

Screenwriter J.D. Shapiro is also proud, but only because he acknowledges that of all the terrible movies, his is the worst. “Battlefield Earth” was so financially ruinous, it resulted in a lawsuit for fraud over inflated budget numbers. Even overlooking the drama behind the scenes and the bad acting throughout, the storyline is laughably ridiculous and implausible. It’s a film that’s so terrible, even its executive producer said it shouldn’t have been made.