What's the worst change made in a movie adaptation of a book?
-
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.
-
All the adaptations of I Am Legend are bad, but 2007 movie was insulting. It gave the illusion of following the book, but then did a u-tutn and completely changed the meaning of the story and the title itself.
In the movie the protagonist becomes a legend because he sacrifices himself to cure vampirism.
In the book he is the last man in a world of vampires, he kills vampires, and understands that he is like a legendary monster that kills people in their sleep. He is then executed.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
Please don't fuck up project hail mary.. please don't fuck up project hail mary..
Honestly, I'm not even going to see it. The book was so insanely good that I cannot entertain the possibility of a movie straying even one millimeter from the source material.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The color from outer space.
It wasn’t glowing purple. It was closer to a dull grey.
I’ll give them a pass because it’s hard to film lovecraft books. How do you film a new color no one has seen before? Or monster that drives you crazy just to loook at?
-
This post did not contain any content.
I Am Legend. Just the whole thing.
-
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.
The thing is that the elves were explicitly leaving and staying out of the conflicts. It makes no sense for them to help out at Helm's Deep but piss off for all the rest.
-
Have you watched the Sci-fi channel miniseries? I think that one (especially since it also has Messiah and Children) is the best. Not the best graphics, or filming, or acting, but the best as a whole.
James McAvoy as Leto II when he was an unknown actor and an incredible soundtrack are both good reasons to watch the miniseries, particularly the second one.
-
I think it can still recover, but I felt the same way after leaving the theater for part 2. I was confused why they decided to change it that much. It's supposed to make her seem intelligent and independent or something, but honestly it just make her seem nieve. They discuss Paul needing to do something like this, and she knows his mother's position was the same, but was still his father's only love.
It's bad enough that they cut out an entire portion of their lives where they have a son together, and lose that son to the Harkonnen. Then they do what they did at the end and it's just wrong.
It's definitely the easiest to watch though, and I don't know that it's less accurate than 1984's (Paul calls in rain after he wins the battle?). The miniseries is most accurate though.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Shortenning the timeframe of the first book from a few years to a few months definitely had some weird effects, like Paul and Chani's relationship not being as solid yet. When I watched Part 2 the first time I kept wondering where they were going to put the timeskip before I realized they just weren't going to have one.
-
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.
A third? It’s one movie. They left out probably 9/10ths or more of all the awesome stuff in the series… but it was still neat in its own way.
