Action shows get praised for the wrong things all the time. People talk about body counts, cool shots, big fights, shock deaths, and who looked the toughest walking away from an explosion. None of that means much on its own. Great action television is about sustained pressure.

It is about whether the violence changes the story, whether the fights expose character, whether escalation feels earned, and whether the show can keep making danger feel immediate instead of routine. That is where the nearly perfect ones separate themselves. The ten shows here all get that. They do not all work the same way, but every one of them knows how to make action feel like a story instead of decoration.

10

‘Warrior’ (2019–2023)

Image via Max

Warrior hits so hard and it never treats action as a side attraction. The fights are the language of the world. Territory, respect, class tension, family resentment, political opportunism, racial violence, personal shame, all of it keeps finding its way into physical confrontation. That is why the show stays alive even when nobody is punching anybody. You always feel like somebody is about to test somebody else’s claim to space.

Ah Sahm (Andrew Koji) gives the show an aura, but the real strength is that Warrior never traps itself inside one kind of cool. Ah Sahm can fight like a demon, yes, but the show also has to deal with Mai Ling (Dianne Doan)’s ambition, Young Jun (Jason Tobin)’s instability, Ah Toy (Olivia Cheng)’s cold-blooded precision, and the way the city itself keeps pressurizing every faction inside it. The result is a series where the action scenes matter because the grudges underneath them are always active. When the show really gets rolling, it feels less like a string of fights and more like a city-wide chain reaction.

9

‘Reacher’ (2022– )

Image via Prime Video

What Reacher understands better than a lot of prestige-minded action series is the pleasure of directness. This is a show built around a giant human problem walking into corrupt systems and deciding he is not going to tolerate any of it. That sounds simple because it is simple, and the show is smarter for not apologizing about that. Reacher’s whole appeal is that he reads a room fast, clocks the lie inside it, and turns physical force into moral clarity.

But the reason it works beyond the basic premise is that Alan Ritchson does not play Jack Reacher like a robot. Reacher is blunt, observant, dryly funny, and weirdly patient right up until the moment patience is no longer useful. He’s stoic and unapologetic. That’s a weird combo these days. That makes the bursts of violence land better. And the show knows how to build around him: small-town conspiracies, military baggage, bad men who mistake size for invulnerability, allies who are useful without becoming dead weight. A lot of action shows waste time trying to convince you they are deeper than they are. Reacher does not. It just keeps delivering satisfying escalation with enough intelligence in the mechanics to keep you fully locked in.

8

‘Banshee’ (2013–2016)

Image via Cinemax

Banshee is what happens when a show looks at the idea of too much and decides that is exactly the right amount. The violence is savage, the sex is reckless, the grudges are old, the criminal energy is everywhere, and every major character seems about one bad decision away from detonating the whole town. That could have turned into nonsense. Instead, the show commits so hard that its madness becomes structured.

The genius of Banshee is that Lucas Hood (Antony Starr) being an impostor is not just a hook. It poisons every interaction he has. He is constantly improvising authority he does not really own while dealing with Carrie Hopewell (Ivana Miličević)’s history, Rabbit (Ben Cross)’s shadow, Kai Proctor (Ulrich Thomsen)’s local dominance, and a town full of people who all seem to have private reasons for snapping. The fights are famous for good reason. They do not feel neat. They feel exhausting, painful, ugly, and personal. That is what gives the show its bite.

7

’24’ (2001–2010)

Image via FOX

There are action shows with better individual fight scenes than 24. There are action shows with prettier filmmaking. There are action shows less absurd from season to season. But if we are talking about pure compulsion, pure “I need the next episode now,” 24 still belongs near the top because it understands velocity on a level most television never touches. Every hour ends with a fresh emergency, a betrayal, a clock problem, a political complication, or a new layer of catastrophe.

Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) is the engine, obviously, and Sutherland plays him with exactly the right approach. Jack is not cool in a relaxed way. He is desperate, half-broken, relentless, and always one second away from doing something extreme because the alternative looks even worse. That is what makes the show work. It does not present action as controlled mastery. It presents it as triage under impossible pressure. Even when the plotting strains credibility, the show’s sense of pace keeps dragging you forward.

6

‘Daredevil’ (2015–2018)

Image via Netflix

What separates Daredevil from most superhero action shows is that it actually understands what a beating costs. Matt Murdock (Charlie Cox) gets battered, staggered, slammed into walls, thrown down hallways, and pushed into the kind of exhaustion that changes how a scene feels. That physical vulnerability gives the action real dramatic value. And then there is the mood.

Hell’s Kitchen feels claustrophobic, wounded, and morally cornered. Fisk (Vincent D’Onofrio) reshapes the entire show’s sense of threat because his presence makes every criminal and civic layer feel connected. Charlie Cox brings the right tension to Matt: intelligence, restraint, guilt, anger, and a self-destructive need to carry too much himself. The famous hallway fights embody what the show is about. Matt wins, but never cleanly. Every victory leaves damage behind. That is why the action means something.

5

‘The Punisher’ (2017–2019)

Image via Netflix

A lot of adaptations get seduced by the iconography of the character and stop there. This one is strongest when it remembers that Frank (Jon Bernthal) is not just efficient. He is torn open and functioning anyway. The Punisher follows a man whose grief has hardened into method without ever fully losing the raw wound underneath it.

When the show is in full form, it is ruthless.The action is tied to Frank’s psychology and the damage done to everyone around him. His scenes with Micro (Ebon Moss-Bachrach) help because they create contrast without softening him into something he is not. Billy Russo (Ben Barnes) matters because their history turns conflict into betrayal instead of generic opposition. And when Frank goes to work, it is ugly, efficient, punishing force carried out by a man who has stopped pretending he belongs to ordinary life. That clarity is what keeps the series from feeling like empty punishment porn.

4

‘Strike Back’ (2010–2020)

Image via Cinemax

Strike Back might be one of the purest action-delivery systems television has ever produced, and that is meant as praise. The show knows exactly what it is built to do: throw damaged, hyper-capable operators into one hot zone after another, keep the missions nasty and unstable, and make every operation feel like it can spiral in six different directions before anybody gets out. There is no bloat in the appeal. It is precision, momentum, and constant tactical pressure.

What makes it better than lesser military action shows is that it does not go soft in the connective tissue. The banter matters. The exhaustion matters. The improvisation matters. Scott (Sullivan Stapleton) and Stonebridge (Philip Winchester), in particular, work because their chemistry gives the show something to lean on between firefights. One is chaos with a pulse, the other is discipline holding itself together, and that friction keeps scenes from going flat. Then the set pieces hit, and the show delivers with frightening consistency. Raids, ambushes, extractions, reversals, close-quarters scrambles, Strike Back understands that action television can be artfully simple if the execution is sharp enough. Here, it usually is.

3

‘Spartacus’ (2010–2013)

Image via Starz

Very few shows understand escalation the way Spartacus does. It starts hot and then keeps finding ways to become hotter without losing narrative shape. That is the trick. Plenty of series can go loud. Very few can go loud while still making every new betrayal, revolt, alliance, humiliation, and revenge beat feel like it belongs exactly where it lands. Spartacus is operating at full emotional volume almost all the time, and somehow that becomes a strength rather than a weakness.

The show’s action is nearly perfect because it is fused to suffering, pride, spectacle, and payback. Spartacus (Andy Whitfield) is fighting and clawing his way through systems that stripped him of home, wife, name, and control. Batiatus (John Hannah) is one of the great chaos engines in TV because he can make a room dangerous without drawing a blade. Crixus (Manu Bennett), Gannicus (Dustin Clare), Lucretia (Lucy Lawless), Ashur (Nick E. Tarabay), Oenomaus (Peter Mensah), these are not decorative figures orbiting the hero. They all sharpen the stakes in different ways. And when the series goes into battle mode, you feel the accumulated insult behind every strike. That emotional backlog is why the action in Spartacus lands so hard.

2

‘Gangs of London’ (2020– )

Image via AMC

Gangs of London feels like a show made by people who took it personally when television action got lazy. The fight scenes are not just good. They are viciously imagined, spatially clear, physically punishing, and committed to consequences in a way that makes a lot of expensive action TV look fake and timid. The series understands that the audience should not just admire violence. They should wince at it, dread it, and still be unable to look away from it.

But the reason it rises this high is that the show is not only a collection of astonishing beatdowns and shootouts. It is a power struggle full of unstable loyalties, family fractures, strategic misreads, and men convincing themselves they are in control right before somebody tears that illusion apart. Elliot Carter (Ṣọpẹ́ Dìrísù) works because he is never allowed to settle into simple hero mode. Sean Wallace (Joe Cole) is compelling because grief, entitlement, rage, and insecurity are all fighting inside him at once. And when the show decides to explode, it really explodes. Safe houses become slaughterhouses. Negotiations collapse into carnage. Whole alliances get rewritten in minutes. It is some of the most ferocious action television ever made.

1

‘Shōgun’ (2024– )

Image via FX Networks

Putting Shōgun at number one on an action list is exactly the kind of choice people only question if they think action begins when swords come out. That is far too small a definition. Shōgun is nearly perfect action television because it understands that action starts much earlier than impact. It starts with positioning. It starts with reading a room correctly. It starts with knowing who is cornered, who is bluffing, who is buying time, who is sacrificing a piece to save the board, and who is quietly steering everybody else toward a confrontation they will not survive.

That is why the show is so overwhelming. When violence happens, it matters because the tension feeding into it has been built with terrifying patience. Toranaga (Hiroyuki Sanada) does not dominate the series by constantly raising his voice or swinging his authority around. He dominates it by turning thought into motion and motion into inevitability. Mariko (Anna Sawai) gives the story its deepest force because her restraint, duty, faith, intelligence, and pain make every scene around her denser. Blackthorne (Cosmo Jarvis) is useful not as an action avatar for the audience, but as a destabilizing presence inside a system already trembling with calculation and mistrust. And when Shōgun does unleash kinetic force, it lands with unusual weight because the show has already done the harder work.

Advertisement

Shogun

Advertisement

Release Date

2024 – 2026-00-00

Advertisement

Directors

Fred Toye, Jonathan van Tulleken, Charlotte Brändström, Takeshi Fukunaga, Hiromi Kamata

Advertisement

Writers

Rachel Kondo

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

For millions of Star Wars fans, Obi-Wan Kenobi represents wisdom, calm, and the moral center of the original trilogy. He is the mentor archetype perfected. Part samurai master, part space wizard, part philosophical guide leading Luke Skywalker toward his destiny. Without him, Star Wars simply would not feel the same. Ironically, the man who made the character iconic never fully understood the obsession.

Sir Alec Guinness had a famously complicated relationship with the role that made him recognizable to generations of moviegoers. While Star Wars made him extraordinarily wealthy and introduced him to the largest audience of his career, it also became the role he spent decades trying to separate himself from. But the real story is not just that Guinness disliked Star Wars, it is why his presence in the film was so important in the first place. Because without Guinness, Star Wars might not have worked the way it did.

Guinness Helped Make Star Wars Feel Legitimate

Image via Lucasfilm

When Star Wars released in 1977, it was far from guaranteed to become the cultural phenomenon it is today. Science fiction was not widely considered prestige filmmaking, and the genre often struggled to be taken seriously aside from a few exceptions. George Lucas understood this, which is part of why casting Guinness mattered so much. Guinness was an Academy Award winner for The Bridge on the River Kwai, known for serious dramatic work and classical stage performances. His presence alone signaled that Star Wars was trying to be more than just spectacle. More importantly, he treated the role with complete sincerity.

Rather than leaning into the pulpy nature of the material, Guinness approached Obi-Wan like a classical mentor figure. He delivered exposition about the Force and the Jedi with the quiet confidence of someone discussing philosophy rather than fantasy. His performance gives the impression that this galaxy has a real history instead of just invented lore. That choice helped audiences accept the film’s mythology. It is easy to imagine a version of Star Wars where Obi-Wan feels campy or overly theatrical. In the wrong hands, the character could have felt like a stock fantasy wizard. Guinness instead gave him restraint, sadness, and a sense of lived experience. He made Obi-Wan feel like someone who had already lived through a lost golden age. That emotional grounding helped make the entire story feel more real.

Related

The 20 Most Powerful Jedi in Star Wars, Ranked

“May the Force be with you.”

Advertisement

Guinness’ Performance Grounded the Film’s Biggest Ideas

One of Guinness’ greatest contributions to Star Wars is how he handles the film’s most difficult material. Much of A New Hope depends on the audience accepting abstract ideas like the Force, the fall of the Jedi, and the moral battle between light and dark. Guinness makes those ideas believable simply through how seriously he takes them. The calm conviction in his delivery gives the idea emotional credibility. It turns what could have been technobabble into something closer to mythology.

His famous sacrifice on the Death Star works for the same reason. Guinness plays the moment with quiet acceptance rather than dramatic spectacle. Obi-Wan does not die like an action hero, he dies like someone fulfilling a purpose he has already accepted. That performance choice reinforces the idea that Star Wars is operating on mythic storytelling rules rather than simple adventure logic. Without that tone, the moment risks feeling confusing or anticlimactic. Instead, it becomes one of the most important turning points in the trilogy. It also helped establish one of the franchise’s most important storytelling ideas. In Star Wars, victory does not always come from power. Sometimes it comes from belief and sacrifice. Guinness communicates that theme through performance more than dialogue. That may be his most important contribution to the film.

Guinness Never Loved What Obi-Wan Became

Image via Lucasfilm

Despite how essential his performance was, Guinness never fully embraced the role. Unlike many actors who later grow tired of their most famous characters, Guinness had doubts from the beginning. He reportedly struggled with some of the dialogue and was unsure how the film would be received. While he respected Lucas’ ambition, he did not share the same excitement for the genre. His decision to join the film was partly practical. His contract included a percentage of the film’s backend profits, estimated at around 2.25 percent, which ultimately earned him millions as Star Wars became a global success.

Financially, it was one of the smartest decisions he ever made. Artistically, it was more complicated. Guinness spent decades building a reputation as a transformative actor known for his range. After Star Wars, he increasingly found himself defined by a single role. In his memoir A Positively Final Appearance, he recalled throwing away Obi-Wan fan mail without reading it. One frequently repeated story describes him agreeing to sign an autograph for a young fan only if the boy promised to stop watching Star Wars. These stories may sound harsh, but they reflect a real fear: Guinness worried that his most popular role would overshadow the rest of his career. In some ways, he was right. But there is also a deep irony here. The qualities Guinness valued most as an actor are exactly what made Obi-Wan so beloved. His restraint, discipline, and seriousness helped elevate the film beyond simple genre entertainment. His commitment to treating the story seriously is what helped make it timeless.

Whether he liked it or not, he became part of cinematic mythology through Obi-Wan, and in the end, that may be the clearest measure of his impact. Guinness did not just play Obi-Wan Kenobi: he helped convince audiences that Star Wars was worth believing in, even if he never fully understood why they believed in it so much.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Created by

George Lucas

Advertisement

First TV Show

Star Wars The Clone Wars

Advertisement

Latest TV Show

The Acolyte

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Age of Attraction returned for a reunion but Netflix viewers will be surprised to know the special episode isn’t available on the streaming platform.

The new dating show, which premiered in March, followed couples with significant age gaps trying to navigate new romances. Divided into three parts, the first batch of episodes showed the initial connections that were formed before individual couples made promises to each other, explored a long-lasting connection and then made a promise for the future — or broke up.

It was announced that a reunion would be released on Wednesday, April 1, with hosts Nick Viall and wife Natalie Joy hosting on his “Viall Files” podcast. But the episode won’t be available to watch on Netflix — despite the entire first episode being released on the platform.

According to the first trailer, stars Andrew, Chris, John, Logan, Derrick, Libby, Vanessa, Theresa and Leah. Pfeifer, meanwhile, is missing from the reunion while Vanelle and Jorge were featured despite exiting the show early.

Before the show premiered, the finalists addressed the backlash to the show.

“Initially the response [was so strong] because there wasn’t a lot of information when it was first released. The concept of the show made people go, ‘Oh, my God, here we go. A bunch of old and creepy guys with young girls,’” Andrew exclusively told Us Weekly. “I think Netflix has done a great job with the trailers and what they put out there to clarify that that’s not what this is going to be about.”

Andrew teased how the show is “going to test it both ways,” adding, “There’s older women with younger guys. There’s younger guys with older women. Now, it’s leveling out. There’s still some people hating on it, but you’re always going to have that. But I think some people — the majority — are curious and looking forward to seeing it unfold.”

Thank You!

You have successfully subscribed.

Advertisement

His partner on the show, Libby, had a similar outlook on the backlash.

“I would say my hope is that people maybe approach the way that they’re thinking about me with an open mind. It would be natural to think that there was a young and naive girl with an older guy,” Libby, who is 16 years younger than Andrew, explained. “That’s the stereotype that you’re used to. But I really don’t feel like Andrew and I had a lot of differences — and I found a lot of similarity between us. I understand your concerns 100 percent but I don’t find our relationship concerning.”

Age of Attraction is now streaming on Netflix.

“Real Housewives of Salt Lake City” star Jen Shah likened her first day in federal prison to a “BravoCon meet and greet” in her first interview since being released.

Jen Shah was sentenced to nearly eight years in prison in January 2023 after pleading guilty to her role in running a nationwide telemarketing fraud scheme that targeted elderly and vulnerable victims.

Jen Shah Talks About First Day In Prison, Said It Was Like A ‘BravoCon Meet And Greet’

Speaking with PEOPLE, Shah opened up about life as a public figure behind bars.

“Listen, it was like a BravoCon meet and greet when I got there,” she said. “Literally.”

BravoCon is the network’s massive fan convention featuring more than 100 Bravolebs held every other year.

“I didn’t know that there were so many fans there,” Shah continued. “I had people coming up to me, saying, ‘Hi, I’m the President of the Salt Lake City fan club out of Louisiana.”

Jen Shah Says Being A Former ‘Real Housewives’ Star Brought A Lot Of Attention To Her In Prison

The attention wasn’t always welcomed, though. According to Shah, the staff at FPC Bryan in Texas did things that brought “unnecessary” attention to her.

“I was required to carry a pink card,” she said, describing it as the “scarlet letter.”

Shah explained that wearing the pink card placed a target on her back and said it also came with strict requirements.

“I had to carry it around and check in with officers every two hours,” she said.

Jen Shah Admits She Made The ‘Wrong Decisions’ Before Being Sentenced

“Real Housewives of Salt Lake City” viewers saw a portion of Shah’s legal battles during earlier seasons of the show. However, her lawyers barred her from sharing too much information on camera.

Advertisement

According to the Department of Justice, Shah pleaded guilty in June 2022 to conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with telemarketing.

US Attorney Damiian Williams said Shah was a “key participant” in a nationwide plot that “targeted the elderly, vulnerable victims” by selling “false promises of financial security.”

The press release claimed that Shah, along with others, engaged in a “widespread coordinated effort” to get victims to invest in companies that had little to no value.

In her interview with PEOPLE, Shah admitted she was “wrong” for what she did. “I made wrong decisions. I should have done things differently. I should have been more diligent. And I’m deeply remorseful and sorry for my actions and for my part. I take full responsibility,” she added.

Advertisement

Shah Details How She Became Involved In The Reported Scheme That Sent Her To Prison

The reported scheme used lead lists containing customer information that had been sold to different telemarketing floors to pressure them into purchasing more services.

The US government alleged that Shah was the mastermind behind the lists, ultimately controlling what was offered and how much to charge.

“It’s a long and a very complex journey that brought me to this point,” Shah said about her role in the ordeal. “And without re-litigating it, I became involved in the case because I made horrible business decisions and I disregarded huge red flags. I allowed the lines to be blurred between personal friendships and ethical business practices. And in essence, I trusted the wrong people at a very vulnerable time in my life.”

Shah went on to say that she believed she was doing the “right thing” at one point. “I was working under people who were running these companies,” she said.

Advertisement

Down the line, however, the individuals Shah worked with allegedly began working with others, who engaged in unethical behavior. “Once that initial fulfillment was happening, things were happening beyond the point of sale with that customer that I didn’t know about,” she added.

Could Shah Return To The ‘Real Housewives Of Salt Lake City’?

Now that Shah is a free woman, could she return to the “Real Housewives” franchise, as some of the network’s other previously arrested stars have, such as Teresa Giudice?

It’s hard to say for certain; however, Shah’s former co-star Meredith Marks seemed open to the idea in 2024.

“Accountability goes a long way in our circle,” she told PEOPLE. “If you say, ‘Look, I screwed up and I made a mistake and I’m sorry’ — that matters. If she’s taking accountability and doing what she needs to do to make it better, that’s the best she can do right now. There’s nothing else she can do beyond that.”

Shah may have a few others to convince, though. According to The Blast, Bravo’s head honcho and “Housewives” godfather Andy Cohen previously said he “never” wants to see Shah again.

Advertisement

Some mornings, you’re staring into your closet with five minutes to spare and zero inspiration. You’ve got errands to run and dinner plans to make, and the last thing you want is to create an outfit from scratch. Thankfully, these one-and-done outfits do all the work for you.

A matching top and bottom takes the guesswork out of getting dressed, making you look polished in a matter of minutes. Read: You can actually have time to enjoy that morning coffee. These 19 two-piece sets cover everything from lounge days to date nights, so we bet they’ll earn permanent spot in your rotation. See our comfy favorites, which happen to start at just $7 a set. We know, it’s shocking.

19 Comfy Outfit Sets for Busy Mornings — From $7

1. Our Favorite: Packing for a trip gets easier when one set works double duty. Wear this sleeveless mock-neck outfit solo on warm days and layered on cooler ones.

2. Everyday Outfit: Grocery runs, weekend sports games, kid pick-ups — this casual tee and shorts set handles it all.

3. Date Night: Striped patterns and a relaxed silhouette give this day-to-night set a cool, unhurried vibe. It’s loose around the tummy for an extra-flattering fit.

4. Classy Act: Want a country club aesthetic? This knit outfit set nails it with luxe-looking fabric and contrast hems, which we credit for elevating the whole outfit.

5. Rich Mom: This cap-sleeve top and pleated pants combo reads ‘designer’ straight off the hanger, thanks to the clean lines and sophisticated drape.

Related: Look Instantly Polished in These Loose, Billowy Button-Ups — From $8

Choosing between trousers and jeans is easy, but selecting the right spring-ready top can be a challenge — especially on a Monday morning when you’re rushing out the door. Instead of hoping for the perfect button-up shirt to would magically appear, we suggest checking out these polished spring blouses that will solve the getting-ready dilemma fast. […]

Advertisement

6. Skirt Set: If you’re tied of winter neutrals, this colorful tee-and-skirt duo adds some personality back into your rotation.

7. Coffee Run: This wide-leg pants set splits the difference between loungewear and real clothes, ensuring you look pulled together without overthinking it. It’ll be your Starbucks run go-to.

8. Flattering Find: Ribbed materials are secretly slimming, elongating your torso and creating a longer, leaner silhouette. This two-piece wonder does so without effortlessly.

9. Yacht Wife: Stripes give this tee and shorts outfit a nautical, high-end flair. It should be much pricier than $27.

10. Sporty-Chic: When you want athleisure that doesn’t look like gym clothes, this stretchy top and jogger set is the answer. The drapey fabric and colorful options give the set a polished appearance, which we love.

11. Transitional Weather: Spring mornings call for long sleeves. This top and sweatpants set keeps you comfortable through transitional seasons and unpredictable shifts.

12. Vacation Mode: This tank and shorts set costs just $18, which is a total bargain in our book. Add sandals and a tote, and you’ve got a complete vacation look.

13. Effortless Elegance: The delicate floral tank gives this stylish number a dressy appeal. The print does the heavy lifting, so you can skip accessories completely.

14. Simple Stunner: Sometimes, a comfy tee and shorts are all you want. This matching set proves that simple style can still be sharp, especially with its dainty ruffle hems.

15. Boho Babe: Conceal the tummy with this boho-style lantern-sleeve set that features an oversized sweatshirt and shorts that keep it from looking frumpy.

16. Packing MVP: Sweat-wicking fabric sets this tank and flowy pants outfit apart from basic cotton options. It deserves a spot in any carry-on.

17. Under $35: Wear this refined knit set to a casual work meeting or weekend brunch — and nobody will guess it cost under $100, let alone under $35. The stripes keep it sleek.

18. Trendy Texture: Self-conscious about cellulite? This smoothing two-piece outfit is made with textured fabric that minimizes insecurities, making you feel like your confident self.

19. Flower Girl: A floral tee and sweatpants sounds casual, but this springy lounge set is actually so elevated. It bridges the gap between cozy and cute.

Related: These Sophisticated Gemstone Hues Are Much More Flattering Than Pastels

Advertisement

There’s a time and place for pastels, but if we’re being honest, these lighter shades have a way of washing out your skin tone. If that’s also your issue, you’re in good company. This spring, we’re reaching for clothes featuring gemstone-like hues instead — think deep topaz, rich amethyst and earthy green — the kind […]

Taking a book and turning it into a motion picture is a practice almost as old as cinema itself. Since the days of Georges Méliès, who offered his cinematic takes on literary classics like Cinderella and From the Earth to the Moon, filmmakers have been taking stories from the page to the big screen, experimenting with how the differences between the written word and the cinematic language can be most effectively combined.

Sometimes, the books adapted belong to authors that have since passed away. Other times, the authors are still alive and kicking and commend these cinematic adaptations of their work, no matter how involved they were in their making. On a few noteworthy occasions, however, authors have been quite vocal about their intense dislike for a certain movie adaptation of a book of theirs. From novelists like Stephen King to comic writers like Alan Moore, these are authors who clearly didn’t think the cinematic medium did their work justice. For fairness’ sake, entries will be limited to only one per author. Otherwise, a list of this nature would end up being composed purely of King and Moore adaptations.

10

‘Tales from Earthsea’ (2006)

Image via Toho

Ursula K. Le Guin was one of the greatest and most important American writers of her generation, known mainly for her work in speculative fiction. The collection of fantasy stories and essays known as Tales from Earthsea is perhaps her best-known work, and for good reason. Fans couldn’t have possibly been more excited when a Studio Ghibli adaptation of the first four books in the series was announced, which would be Gōro Miyazaki‘s (son of Hayao Miyazaki) directing debut. The rest is history, just not particularly pleasant history.

There are those who would go so far as to call Ghibli’s Tales from Earthsea one of the worst anime movies of all time. Le Guin herself probably would never have gone that far, but she did state that Miyazaki misunderstood the spirit of her books so terribly that she felt like the film told a completely different story from the source material. You’d be hard-pressed to find an Earthsea book fan who would disagree.

9

‘Charlotte’s Web’ (1973)

Image via Paramount Pictures

Advertisement

E. B. White, perhaps best-known as the creator of Stuart Little, was one of the greatest American children’s literature authors in modern history. He also wrote Charlotte’s Web, an illustrated book that, before being turned into a live-action film starring Dakota Fanning in 2006, was turned into a Hanna-Barbera musical cartoon in 1973.

Audiences today mostly remember it fondly as one of the movies that proved 1970s animation was by no means bad, but White wasn’t fond of the film at all. On the contrary, though the author was slightly involved in the movie’s story, he was generally displeased with the final product, calling it “a travesty.” He hated the fact that the movie was a musical, which he felt didn’t gel well with what he had written.

8

‘Rawhead Rex’ (1986)

Image via Empire Pictures

Advertisement

Legendary British horror author Clive Barker is perhaps best known as the man who wrote the Hellraiser series. When it came time to turn the book into a film, he decided to write and direct it himself. The reason? Rawhead Rex, an adaptation of Barker’s short story of the same name directed by George Pavlou, from a screenplay by Barker himself.

The movie was a colossal failure, and is still remembered as one of the worst horror movies of the ’80s. Barker, obviously, felt that the elements were all there on the page for Rawhead Rex to have been quite a thrilling film. He felt, however, that Pavlou’s direction fell short, failing to provide the stylish oomph that would have made the movie as strong as the source material.

7

‘I Know What You Did Last Summer’ (1997)

Image via Columbia Pictures

Advertisement

Following the success of Wes Craven‘s 1996 slasher classic Scream, many terrible rip-offs followed. Jim Gillespie‘s I Know What You Did Last Summer may be iconic, but there’s no way of denying that it’s just that: a terrible Scream rip-off. It didn’t have to be that way, though. The movie wasn’t based on a horror novel, but rather a well-regarded 1973 YA thriller by Lois Duncan.

Duncan’s daughter, Kaitlyn Arquette, was shot to dead in 1989. In a 2002 interview, the author revealed that as the mother of a murdered young woman, she was absolutely appalled by the fact that her novel had been turned into a silly, cheap slasher. It’s difficult to blame her, made even more difficult by the fact that the film isn’t even a good slasher to begin with.

6

‘Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory’ (1971)

Image via Paramount Pictures

Advertisement

As one of the most important voices in the modern history of children’s literature, Roald Dahl is someone who needs no introduction. Another person who needs no introduction is Willy Wonka, and fittingly, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, one of the best fantasy movie masterpieces of all time, has a reputation that precedes it. A lesser-known part of that reputation, however, is that Dahl hated the film.

In fairness, Dahl hated the vast majority of the movies based on his work, thinking that Hollywood had a tendency to twist his stories into things he had never intended. His dislike for Willy Wonka, however, was particularly strong. He disowned the movie and declared himself “infuriated” by its plot deviations, its being a musical, and its shifting the narrative’s focus from Charlie to Wonka. The original book purist, Dahl would have vastly preferred it if director Mel Stuart had stuck far more closely to what was already on the page, even if this has proven to age as one of the best family movies of all time.

5

‘The NeverEnding Story’ (1984)

Wolfgang Petersen‘s first English-language film, The NeverEnding Story is one of the most iconic family films of the ’80s, even if some find it to traumatizingly dark that its “family film” status is not uncontested. It was based on German writer Michael Ende‘s 1979 book of the same title, and it was a hit both with critics and at the box office.

Someone it wasn’t a hit with, however, was Ende himself. The author only got to see the script days before the movie’s premiere, and claimed to have been “horrified” by what he saw. He felt that Petersen completely changed the essence and spirit of the book, and later called the film a “gigantic melodrama of kitsch, commerce, plush and plastic.”

4

‘Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief’ (2010) and ‘Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters’ (2013)

Image via 20th Century Studios

Of the many book series that tried to be the next Harry Potter, few came as remarkably close with something as original, fun, and genuinely high-quality as Rick Riordan‘s Percy Jackson & the Olympians book series. But out of every book-to-film adaptation that’s nothing like the books, few cases are as egregious as The Lightning Thief and Sea of Monsters, the movies based on the first two installments in the saga.

Riordan was extremely vocal about how he felt about these movies. He said the writing was terrible, and not just because it deviated tremendously from the source material. He shared email recommendations for script changes that he sent to the people behind the movies—recommendations that clearly went unheard. Most of all, the author was bothered because he knew that these adaptations would anger and disappoint fans. It’s no wonder why Riordan became far more directly involved with the new Disney+ TV series adaptation of Percy Jackson.

3

‘Mary Poppins’ (1964)

Image via Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

Mary Poppins is widely recognized as one of the most perfect live-action Disney movies of all time, a marvelously magical and beautifully nostalgic musical bolstered by Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke‘s lead performances. It’s based on Autralian-British writer P. L. Travers‘ Mary Poppins book series, and Walt Disney‘s repeated decades-spanning attempts to buy the film rights to her books made for such an arduous production process that it became the subject of the Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson-starring Saving Mr. Banks.

Contrary to what the ending of Saving Mr. Banks depicts, however, Travers did not, in fact, like what Disney did with her books. Travers famously cried at the movie’s premiere due to how distorted and saccharine her story and characters had become as a result of their Disney-ification. She hated the animated segments, she objected to the musical numbers, and she disliked the casting of Julie Andrews in the titular role. Audiences, of course, have disagreed with Travers over the course of the film’s existence; but one can only sympathize with her sadness.

Image via 20th Century Studios

Another author who famously hates pretty much any and every film that’s ever been made about their work is Alan Moore. The writer is of the vehement opinion that it’s impossible to turn a comic book into a film that properly captures its essence, and as a result, adaptations of his work—from Zack Snyder‘s Watchmen to James McTeigue‘s V for Vendetta—rub him the wrong way. But out of every movie adaptation of his oeuvre, Moore had the most contempt for Stephen Norrington‘s The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

In all fairness to Moore, this is far and away one of the most abysmal superhero movies ever made, so it’s difficult to blame him for disliking it. What really added salt to the wound, however, was the lawsuit brought forward against 20th Century Studios by Larry Cohen and Martin Poll, who claimed that the studio had plagiarized their script. Moore got tangled up in the whole ordeal, and that only made League all the more of an unpleasant experience.

1

‘The Shining’ (1980)

Image via Warner Bros. Pictures

As one of the authors whose work is most often adapted by Hollywood, and not often with good results, Stephen King is someone with a long track record of being critical of big-screen adaptations of his work. But the most notorious King adaptation that he despised, and perhaps the most notorious case of an author hating a movie based on their work, is Stanley Kubrick‘s The Shining. Based on the third novel King ever wrote, many think of this ’80s classic as one of the greatest horror movies ever made, complete with one of the scariest movie villains of all time—but the author himself disagreed.

King’s dislike for Kubrick’s movie has become a subject of study itself, with fans having spent the last 46 years diving deep into why King might have felt such an aversion to this version of The Shining. He once said that it was the only adaptation of his novels that he could truly remember hating, calling it “maddening, perverse, and disappointing.” He admitted to Kubrick’s brilliance as a director, but felt that the film twisted the message and essence of what he had written as an allegory for alcoholism (with many autobiographical elements) into something he couldn’t recognize. Knowing King’s deeply personal connection to the story, it becomes impossible to blame him for hating what even the film’s biggest fans must admit is vastly different from the source material.

Advertisement

The Shining

Advertisement

Release Date

June 13, 1980

Runtime

144 minutes

Advertisement

Director

Stanley Kubrick

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement