What's the worst change made in a movie adaptation of a book?
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
The Percy Jackson one is just terrible. They left out so much stuff, like the mist.
Edit; autocorrect
-
All the WTFery in that War of the Worlds thing Amazon just crapped out.
That was an hours long Amazon/MS teams ad.
If stopping an alien invasion involved teams in any way the aliens would win.
-
I say this to people and then always have to clarify:
It's not that the World War Z movie is a bad adaptation of the book, it's that it's NOT an adaptation of the book at all. Other than the name, and the fact that it has zombies, there are literally no similarities between the book and the movie.
The characters are different, the settings are different, the format is different, the plot is different, the way the zombies act is different. Literally EVERYTHING.
Calling it an adaptation is like if you took The Neverending Story and changed its title to The Lord of The Rings and called that an adaptation.
Very well put. I couldn't agree more.
-
This movie was the last hurrah for old school adventure movies like The Mummy, I wish it got popular enough to get good sequels
I wish it was good enough for sequels. There were so many books that this could have turned into a franchise with James Bond proportions.
I know the books aren’t exactly high brow literature but they’re fun, and they establish a great buddy-buddy universe very similar to the real world. The move was not that
-
OK, here's the thing. Overall, Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy is extremely good. I think it's the best Tolkien adaptation we're likely to ever get.
HOWEVER.
The random "Arwen is dying!" subplot was incredibly fucking stupid and while it didn't ruin the movies for me, it did dampen my enjoyment of them. There had to be a better way to get more screentime for Liv Tyler, surely.
I love the lotr movies but even the extended editions can't fit in the nuances of all the supporting characters. this gets worse the later you get in the trilogy, the biggest victims probably being the ents, faramir, denethor and pippin.
my own personal pick is probably one flew over the cuckoo's nest, where they change McMurphy's crime from battery and gambling to statutory rape. that did not engender sympathy
-
TV adaptation of Wheel of Time was just fucking awful. Like every stupid character change and story change was done literally as stupidly as possible and seemingly with a view to ruin the actual story as it was written.
I genuinely think the showrunners hadn't read the series to the end by most of the changes they made and canned it when they caught up and realised how much they had fucked the story that was still to come.
::: spoiler Book and TV spoilers
Tower in exile run by Siuan mentoring Egwene who is aes sedai by virtue only of being elected Amyrlin? Nope, Siuan is dead and Egwene was made Aes Sedai so I guess that arc is dead.Moiraine thought to be dead and later rescued from the tower of Ghenjei by Matt and Thom? Nope, she never got "killed", and never went through the doorway.
Min, Elayne and Aviendha all accepting the situation and bonding with each other as sister wives and sharing the bond with Rand through their own connection? Nope. Min is shacking up with Matt (maybe? Either way doesn't gaf about Rand) and Elayne and Aviendha are shacking up with each other instead.
Having Rand kill Turak with the power instead of entertaining his challenge was a little funny but completely outside of both Rand and LTT's code of honour and especially LTT's massive ego.
The first one that me swear out loud was killing Uno and making him Gaidal Cain. Like.. I guess Uno won't be leading armies in the last battle then, and Birgitte won't be wondering where Gaidal was woven into the world as a young child..
Oh god I forgot they gave Perrin a wife and had him kill her for literally no reason...
:::So many stupid changes made for no conceivable reason. Not little things to make a character easier to write for TV or more relatable, but sweeping giant story changes that make great chunks of the original canon impossible.
I genuinely implore anyone who even got the slightest amount of joy out of the show to read the books. Learn the original and really very good story, and experience Jordan's writing, rather than Judkins' made-up-as-they-went-along shit erroneously accepted as passable work.
Just finished reading the books. But i started book one and season 1 together and quickly saw they were completely different. But i watched the show first and it cemented how characters looked which is what i wanted before i read it.
After finishing all 14 and now on new spring im glad the show gave me direction to imagine a lot of them.
-
Maybe not the worst, but this one's personal: Edge of Tomorrow's take on the fantastic All You Need Is Kill (spoilers ahead).
- Making the movie PG-13. In chapter 2 of the manga, there is a brutal death scene showing how Keiji can't escape the Mimics wherever he goes. The series was quite bloody, and used that to its advantage.
- Casting Emily Blunt as "Rita Vrataski". One of her defining character traits was that she was unassuming, and that you wouldn't expect that level of combat skill from her appearance.
- While Keiji was in love with "Rita" in the original, it was unrequited–the change felt actively detrimental to "Rita's" character.
SIDENOTE: I feel like changing this was sort of unimportant, but you'll notice I'm using quotes for "Rita". That's because, in the original, her real name is unknown. She took someone else's identity.
To be fair, I wouldn't expect an elite combatant when I look at Emily Blunt.
-
Invincible just kills it. Not only is it true to the comics, but you also get additional character arcs and backstory that perfectly fit in.
I read the Invincible comics after the latest season and I'm super excited for the next few seasons If the show.
-
It gave the illusion of following the book.
Have you actually read the short story? Because I am baffled as to how anyone who has read the story would say that.
The movie was in no way an adaptation of the short story at all. It never even pretended to follow the short story.
Just like iRobot the only thing I Am Legend has in common with it’s written work is the title.
He is then executed.
No he wasn’t. He committed suicide.
Have you actually read the short story?
Yes I did, probably 10 years before that 2007 movie. Let me recommend you to check an encyclopaedia if you want precision instead of reading a random forum online.
He is then executed.
No he wasn’t. He committed suicide.
For what I remember he was in a jail cell ready to be executed and they offered him a pill. Anyway, that was not the point of the story.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Every film of All the King's Men inevitably fails because you can't capture Robert Penn Warren's amazing prose when you bring it to the screen.
-
The coolest part of the show is the genetic dynasty stuff that wasn't even in the series
Legitimately, if they had just done a "A Foundation Story: Empire" and then just did the genetic dynasty stuff, I don't think any of us would be mad.
But I don't think general audiences have read much Foundation these days so they would have struggled to set it in that universe without an established Foundation Cinematic Universe.
Anyways, I'm super excited for Tue Foundation super cut that's just Empire.
-
The core concept of the books was, that Hari could predict the future of societies in really broad strokes. Essentially how masses behave in certain situations. In order to actually make the gamble, he forced a situation where he put a group of people that could only behave in a certain way because they were lacking resources.
But, in all of the books it's quite clear that Hari couldn't make predictions for single people within a group, because there're too many variables (Asimov even created an example where Hari deliberately predicted the choices of a single person that exists in the present, and why that doesn't work for other purposes).
In the books, Hari cannot make any decisions for other people, because the solution can only come from those people (though because he setup the foundation colony like he did, the outcome was always predestined).
In the show, they don't care about the core concept. In the first season they show how psycho history is supposed to work, and partially adhere to it, but soon ignore all the limitations that it should have. It's like Hari plays those 1000 years on a musical instrument, manipulating people and situations. He tell's people the solution to the problem. He (because he's an AI) constantly interferes. That's not the idea of the core story.
Imagine it like this, in the books, a "creator" setup the world in a way where people can still make individual decisions, but only in a way that leads to a predestined outcome. Personal choices may lead to a different way to the outcome (see the mule), but in the end, it'll always come to the intended solution.
The show just has an omnipotent god that is reborn and moves people like chess pieces, constantly adapting to changing situations.
The fact that gods and magic also seemingly exist really fucks me up because its explicit in Tue original book that god is just a tool for smarter people (Foundation) to manipulate dumber people (everyone else).
Obnoxious atheist take? Sure I guess.
But it feels as if someone rebooted harry potter and made the kids saying something nice about trans people or Jews.
-
I say this to people and then always have to clarify:
It's not that the World War Z movie is a bad adaptation of the book, it's that it's NOT an adaptation of the book at all. Other than the name, and the fact that it has zombies, there are literally no similarities between the book and the movie.
The characters are different, the settings are different, the format is different, the plot is different, the way the zombies act is different. Literally EVERYTHING.
Calling it an adaptation is like if you took The Neverending Story and changed its title to The Lord of The Rings and called that an adaptation.
I read somewhere that this is basically Max Brooks' take on the film.
Something about breathing a sigh of relief when he read the script, because it was such a distinct story that there was nothing left of his book to be butchered.
-
I, Robot was about as far from the source material as you could get.
wrote last edited by [email protected]That sounds like a challenge to Hollywood. Though I'd put Starship Troopers up there too, haven't scrolled enough to see it mentioned but I assume it is.
Edit okay I did now and it's not mentioned. While a fun movie it doesn't have nearly the same story that the book does. Still I'll watch it for what it is, but doesn't have the same tone or scenes the book does.
-
Question for fans of the Russian film/books "Night Watch":
The first movie was amazing, it adapts roughly the first 1/3rd of the first book, I thought it was very well done. Went out, bought the books and caught up.
"Day Watch" comes out. I can't tell if it's legitimately a shitty movie or if it's just shitty compared to the books?
p.s. The author is now problematic because of the whole Russia/Ukraine issue, but the books were completed before even the Crimea invasion in 2014.
I read the first three books, and saw two movies, I think. I wasn't aware that anything new had happened on that front.
Or that the author was an idiot. Disappointing, but not entirely surprising. -
I want to take this opportunity to remind the audience that 2005's Sahara starring Matthew McConaughey exists. The second of two utter failures to adapt a Clive Cussler novel to the big screen.
It wasn't a good movie because of the studio and because of legal clashes with Cussler. I think you could have gotten it done.
Plot wise, I think making Dirk obsessed with the ironclad from the beginning was an unwise choice. They both made that a bigger factor in the overall plot, and yet diminished the whole point of it by removing its Very Important Passenger. They put so much shit in the runtime about the ironclad that the actual main plots of the gold mine and the waste disposal plant had to be pared down.
Also, casting. I actually think the movie is very well cast, McConaughey and Cruz were good, William Macy was an excellent Sandecker, Rainn Wilson was pretty good as Rudy Gunn, Lambert Wilson was the objectively correct choice for Massarde, and Steve Zahn was utterly incorrect for Al Giordino. I was about to say at least they didn't get Seth Rogan or Jack Black but Jack Black might actually have worked.
I liked that movie. I also watched it while I was on a plane from Cleveland to Hawaii with nothing to do though so maybe it was like a stockholm syndrome thing.
-
That sounds like a challenge to Hollywood. Though I'd put Starship Troopers up there too, haven't scrolled enough to see it mentioned but I assume it is.
Edit okay I did now and it's not mentioned. While a fun movie it doesn't have nearly the same story that the book does. Still I'll watch it for what it is, but doesn't have the same tone or scenes the book does.
You’re right, Starship Troopers should be way up on the list, too.
-
Nah, there are some solid adaptations. Green Mile comes to mind. The two Pet Semtary's aren't off the mark. The Shawshank Redemption was brilliant. Plenty more. But we will not speak of The Lawnmower Man.
TIL, that Green Mile and Shawshank were based on Stephen King books.
-
I read the first three books, and saw two movies, I think. I wasn't aware that anything new had happened on that front.
Or that the author was an idiot. Disappointing, but not entirely surprising.Yeah, the two movies didn't even finish adapting the first book. There are 3 stories in it and the first movie does a good job with the first one, then the 2nd one kind of half-asses the 2nd story in the first book.
It also painted them into a corner narratively where a 3rd movie wouldn't be possible.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I know we're not into Harry Potter now, but the past is the past and I can't forget how annoyed I was when the movie based on the third book, Prisoner of Azkaban, came out. I was a very disappointed teenager.
It was a whirlwind story to me at the time. I remember exactly where I was when I read it, as the moment that revealed the friendship between Harry's father James, Professor Lupin, Peter Pettigrew, and the alleged-murderer, Sirius Black, became seared into my brain. It was such a pivotal part of the overall story to me, that that twist alone made it my favorite in the series. So when the movie came out, I expected the use and development of The Marauder's Map to be a key highlight. It was a huge deal in the books, after all.
Yet in the movie, the map is just a neat thing Harry gets to use. Nobody mentions that Harry's own father helped create it. The movie never even tells who the Marauders are, even though the reveal of their backstory was the key emotional crux of the Shrieking Shack scene. To omit their story entirely felt like a gut-punch.
I didn't understand at the time why the director (Alfonso Cuaron) decided to straight-up change everything that made that story so compelling to me and my friends. To this day, I still don't understand.
