What's the worst change made in a movie adaptation of a book?
-
I, Robot.
Asimov was explicitly trying to get away from the trope of "robots take over humanity". To be clear, the first short story that became I, Robot was published in 1940. "Robots take over humanity" was already an SF trope by then. Hollywood comes along more than half a century later and dives head first right back into that trope.
Lt Cmdr Data is more what Asimov had it mind. In fact, Data's character has direct references to Asimov, like his positronic brain.
Robots take over humanity has been around since literally the first robot story. R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) is where the word robot was coined.
-
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.
This movie was the last hurrah for old school adventure movies like The Mummy, I wish it got popular enough to get good sequels
-
Remind?
I wasn't even aware that this movie existed until this very second. I'm looking at the trailer right now, it's impressive this never even made a blip in my radar, I was into this genre of adventure movies in my teens.
It's...okay. Cussler himself hated it.
-
tv series rather than film but: The Dresden Files
worst change? everything
harry's staff -- carved from a lightning struck tree from the property of his mentor, iirc, and carved with various runes -- is replaced with a hockey stick
bob the skull -- a constructed sprit of intellect bound to a skull -- is now a ghost of some guy
they made lt murphy a brunette
probably more idk I didn't get more than an episode in and that was years ago
Didn't even know it got adapted, must have been terrible if the studio didn't even bother to market it
-
Not a movie, but a show. "Foundation".
Look, I get it, if you want to tell your own sci fi story that has nothing to do with Asimov, great! Good for you!
But don't pretend it's Foundation.
The coolest part of the show is the genetic dynasty stuff that wasn't even in the series
-
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
wrote last edited by [email protected]It's not a show that I wait for with bated breath, but I will usually watch the episodes and they're alright. As someone who only read part of the first book, there's nothing there to be ruined for me.
The Mule stuff is kind of interesting. I think the genetic dynasty stuff is the coolest part, and apparently that wasn't even in the books.
-
The Hobbit
From the shitty shoehorned romance to wholesale elimination of plot points in the original story. Yeah, there was definitely some drama in the whole production of the film, but nonetheless it was crap.
I like the Bilbo edit that removes most of the crap, and keeps the story shown to be from only what Bilbo sees. Gets the 3 movies down to 4 hrs I think.
-
Most of David Lynch's Dune.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Still better than whatever garbage Jodorowsky was going to put out. That's right, I said it.
Dude didn't even read Dune, and bragged about it. Could have made an awesome sci-fi film, but instead had to co-opt a classic novel
-
You're feigning ignorance then if you actually recall the books. Zendaya's/Denis' Chani and Herbert's Chani are like night and day. And, again, what exactly was 'misogynistic' about my comment? And do I have to start copypasting passages of Dune and Messiah and make a comparative analysis with Denis' Dune? It's past midnight over here, my guy.
To be completely honest, Herbert's Chani was pretty forgettable. Admittedly, it's been a very long time since I've read anything Dune, but I truly cannot remember anything memorable about Chani in the books...
-
Ditto the vast majority of Stephen King adaptations.
11/22/63 was pretty solid
-
I was pretty hyped when the trailer had the dwarves singing in Bag End. Then the movie shit in my pants.
I was hyped for a 3 hour hobbit film. I noped out the second I learned it was a trilogy.
I could read the entire book in less time than the films. How are they managing it? Cba finding out.
-
To be completely honest, Herbert's Chani was pretty forgettable. Admittedly, it's been a very long time since I've read anything Dune, but I truly cannot remember anything memorable about Chani in the books...
wrote last edited by [email protected]She's Paul's everything (and trying to keep her alive for as long as possible is the main reason he does anything in Messiah, basically) and mostly a supporting character in the books, and there's nothing wrong with that... but Zendaya is a star and the West would've crucified Denis if he just let Chani be Chani. We both know it, that's the core of the disagreement in this comment section, lol. Heretics and Chapterhouse have fantastic female protagonists, but I doubt we'll get there, sadly.
-
Still better than whatever garbage Jodorowsky was going to put out. That's right, I said it.
Dude didn't even read Dune, and bragged about it. Could have made an awesome sci-fi film, but instead had to co-opt a classic novel
Jodorowsky brags about not knowing how to make movies and still makes them. He does brings about interesting imagery but the intentionally naive cinematographic style gets stale and boring pretty quickly.
-
I like the Bilbo edit that removes most of the crap, and keeps the story shown to be from only what Bilbo sees. Gets the 3 movies down to 4 hrs I think.
I’ve seen that edit. Much improved, but unfortunately there are some continuity gaps that are inevitable when cutting up a film like that.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The Hobbit. Like, all of it
-
I, Robot.
Asimov was explicitly trying to get away from the trope of "robots take over humanity". To be clear, the first short story that became I, Robot was published in 1940. "Robots take over humanity" was already an SF trope by then. Hollywood comes along more than half a century later and dives head first right back into that trope.
Lt Cmdr Data is more what Asimov had it mind. In fact, Data's character has direct references to Asimov, like his positronic brain.
Shouldn't be called an adaptation, really. They only dressed it up a tiny bit as Asimov for marketing reasons
-
I agree though with the commenter to which you replied. Just go in knowing it is going to hurt to watch, but in a genuinely entertaining way.
Yeah I ain't watching that. They left out like at least a third of what made the books good IMO. Sounds like a waste of time.
-
Shouldn't be called an adaptation, really. They only dressed it up a tiny bit as Asimov for marketing reasons
From what I heard, they got the rights to I, Robot, grabbed some script about a robot uprising that they already had optioned, and slapped a few things on it.
This is apparently fairly common. If there's a Hollywood movie based on something that doesn't really align with the original, there's a good chance that this is what happened. Starship Troopers was the same way (though that's a whole different ballgame on whether the Hollywood version is good on its own merits).
-
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.
My devil's advocate argument for the elves being there is that there were a bunch of battles in the north that didn't make it into the movie and only get mentioned a little in the books, and one of the important themes of LOTR is that all these disparate groups had to band together to fight Sauron. So having elves be at Helm's Deep is a way to show the different people fighting together in a movie series that was already pressed for time. Necessary? Maybe not. But it doesn't bother me as much as some of the other changes, because I can at least see a rationale for it.
-
I, Robot.
Asimov was explicitly trying to get away from the trope of "robots take over humanity". To be clear, the first short story that became I, Robot was published in 1940. "Robots take over humanity" was already an SF trope by then. Hollywood comes along more than half a century later and dives head first right back into that trope.
Lt Cmdr Data is more what Asimov had it mind. In fact, Data's character has direct references to Asimov, like his positronic brain.
The only thing that advertisement masquerading as a movie has in common with the Asimov work is the title.
