What's the worst change made in a movie adaptation of a book?
-
vaguely gestures at World War Z
I should reread the book. It was hyped as a good book. It was a good book.
Then I went to see the movie. Came out of the cinema and muttered "well that was a bunch of unrelated nonsense". Went home.
-
Okay, okay, hear me out. What if we, and stay with me on this, mix the DNA of two
monstersdinosaurs together? Crazy right?Ctr-c
Ctr-v four times
Print
No-one saw it coming. Four. More. Times.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
Eh. I've been watching it, and I think it's a decent adaptation. Entirely faithful to the original? No. But the core trilogy of was written in the 1950s, and it's absolutely a product of its time. I for one am glad they left the misogyny back in the 1950s where it belongs. Also, the original books were very much in the "our friend the atom" era of nuclear power, the era where they were predicting power too cheap to meter and no one had ever heard of a nuclear plant meltdown. The inclusion of the genetic dynasty was an inspired choice. And frankly, I'm glad we're not depicting a far future where everybody is white.
But I think the TV series is faithful to the core themes of the books. It still explores the contrast between the "trends and forces" and "great man" theories of history. It still explores the fascinating concept of predicting the future mathematically. It still shows the slow and inexorable decline of a great galactic empire. And the Mule in the show is every bit a force of malevolent evil as the Mule in the novels.
Overall, is it a perfect one-to-one adaption? No, but that was never going to happen for a book like Foundation. It was long considered unfilmable. But some minor adaptations have allowed them to create a good series that explores the core themes of Asimov's work.
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.
-
I’d say that’s more thriller than horror.
For example, in the book, that fuse search ends in something far more horrifying than just Arnold’s dismembered arm. If I remember correctly, they discover him in pieces. All of them, but all over the place. Not just his arm. I think one of the kids pukes.
The whole book seems like Michael Creighton really tapped his imagination for how many ways wild dinosaurs could absolutely and utterly eviscerate a person.
Nice ! I should really read it. I consider JP my favourite film
-
This post did not contain any content.
The most egregious that i remember must be Artemis Fowl.
I remember liking the book quite a lot for making fairies into the opposite of pushovers. It also had a mean edge to it that other teen fantasy lacked.
The movie is just... Not that.
-
Literally every single detail of the Eragon movie. God I hope someone actually adapts it well some day. Not that it's the world's best prose or anything but I truly believe it would be a great series with the proper director and cast. You know, where literally any of them had read and appreciated the source material.
Loved the books, the movie is an abomination. Like they literally cut out the best and most important parts
-
All the WTFery in that War of the Worlds thing Amazon just crapped out.
I'm not even looking at it, I really liked the old one with Tom Cruise and Garret hedlund.
-
When they announced a movie with Brad Pitt, I knew it would be bad. The book reads like a multi épisode TV show without a main character (and it could be a great adaptation).
When I pirated the movie version... It was so bad I regretted wasting bandwidth for that
Loved the book. When I first watched the movie I hated it. as a movie by itself it's ok, sort of free on me. But then I thought the movie works if you treat it as a prequel
-
This post did not contain any content.
Literally everything about World War Z. Absolute travesty. The book is a unique and genuinely thought provoking new take on the zombie genre. The movie is an insult to every bit of world building Max Brooks created.
-
The most egregious that i remember must be Artemis Fowl.
I remember liking the book quite a lot for making fairies into the opposite of pushovers. It also had a mean edge to it that other teen fantasy lacked.
The movie is just... Not that.
I hated the fact that the movie steered away from the fact that Artemis Fowl was a frigging criminal mastermind and instead made him a mid rebel with a relatable motivation...
Have the same grouse about Ender's Game too -
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
I'd say Moonraker, which might be my favourite of the first books, but the movie adaptation keeps little more than the title and changes pretty much everything else (and as a result ends up being quite bad, receiving noticeably lukewarm reviews and nowadays often appearing in lists of worst Bond films ever).
Just looked it up, and the titular Moonraker was changed from a missile to a space shuttle.
-
I wouldn't call it a bad change, quite the opposite but when I read Fight Club, I was amazed how faithful the film was to the book. There are just two major changes I can remember.
In the book, Tyler Durden meets the narrator on a (nude?) beach where Tyler is erecting driftwood into the sand so that the shadow looks like a hand. (It's been a very long time since I read it, I think that's right.)
Secondly, the narrator struggles all through the story to remember the correct formula for the home made explosive. If he doesn't know, then Tyler doesn't know. Which means the explosives at the end don't go off. The buildings stay standing.
Didn't the author end up preferring the movie?
-
Eh. I've been watching it, and I think it's a decent adaptation. Entirely faithful to the original? No. But the core trilogy of was written in the 1950s, and it's absolutely a product of its time. I for one am glad they left the misogyny back in the 1950s where it belongs. Also, the original books were very much in the "our friend the atom" era of nuclear power, the era where they were predicting power too cheap to meter and no one had ever heard of a nuclear plant meltdown. The inclusion of the genetic dynasty was an inspired choice. And frankly, I'm glad we're not depicting a far future where everybody is white.
But I think the TV series is faithful to the core themes of the books. It still explores the contrast between the "trends and forces" and "great man" theories of history. It still explores the fascinating concept of predicting the future mathematically. It still shows the slow and inexorable decline of a great galactic empire. And the Mule in the show is every bit a force of malevolent evil as the Mule in the novels.
Overall, is it a perfect one-to-one adaption? No, but that was never going to happen for a book like Foundation. It was long considered unfilmable. But some minor adaptations have allowed them to create a good series that explores the core themes of Asimov's work.
Does it get any better after season 1? The terminus plot was just incredibly stupid so I lost all interest. Empire was great though, especially as he didn't exist in the books
-
The audiobook was good except for the Chinese characters. For some insane reason they decided to have white voice actors do a bad Chinese accent instead of just hiring actual Chinese voice actors.
You're right some were a miss. but the concept was cool.
-
I'm not even looking at it, I really liked the old one with Tom Cruise and Garret hedlund.
They should've checked the solenoid.
-
No hamster scene though.
I remember it being a rat unless we're discussing different parts but that's just the reality of what you were able to get away with in 2000s media. The movie would have been NC-17 if all of the violence from the book made it in
-
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.
For me it's elves at Helm's Deep. Totally unnecessary.
Although I always laugh out loud when Sam says "We shouldn't even be here" in Osgiliath.
-
Literally everything about World War Z. Absolute travesty. The book is a unique and genuinely thought provoking new take on the zombie genre. The movie is an insult to every bit of world building Max Brooks created.
I thought the movie was pretty enjoyable but it shouldn't have been named after the book. It would have been a decent zombie movie on its own.
