What's the worst change made in a movie adaptation of a book?
-
It's still my favorite version. Though, I still wonder if Jowarsky's Dune would have been better.
Based on his comics I'm going to say it would be a classic, but mostly in a "can't believe they filmed that" sense.
-
Wanted...
It was supposed to be full of knockoff versions of popular heroes like The Boys. But in a universe all the villains won and mindco controlled the heroes I to playing fictionalized versions of themselves as a joke.
The main character kind of got to keep their original power, but not really.
It was a good movie, but it desperately needs a remake that's faithful to the original comic. Probably something animated like Invincible because live action would need a crazy budget.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
EVERY SINGLE CHOICE made in Ready Player One. What a disappointment.
I actually liked it. The book was good too. I wasn’t completely disaffected. Agree to disagree.
-
I'm a little surprised at that response because American Psycho is one of the most true to the source material movies I've ever seen. Whole passages were lifted and turned directly into dialog. Sure all of those white men were supposed to be corporate clones in the books but in a movie characters have to be visually distinct that's just the nature of the mediums
Would literal clowns not be visually appealing?
-
Jurassic Park. The original was a horror/thriller that would have had to be unrated if they made it literally from the book. Instead, we got a PG-13 family film that really did not live up to the book.
In fact, it’s the first time that I read the book before seeing the movie, and I learned to never ever do that again.
The worst part of all these stupid spin off movies (besides how atrocious I’m assuming they are) is that they significantly reduce the likelihood we will ever get a movie that is faithful to the book.
-
vaguely gestures at World War Z
I thought it was an entertaining movie, but I haven’t read the book. Ima go download it right now.
-
vaguely gestures at World War Z
Oooo as someone who has seen the movie and never read the book, any sales pitch for me for the book?
-
I actually liked it. The book was good too. I wasn’t completely disaffected. Agree to disagree.
A few of the visuals in the movie were stunning to me!
I also didn't mind it in either medium. It's not like it's a novel of a generation. Fun silly book, fun silly movie
-
Would literal clowns not be visually appealing?
I mean, no? It would defeat the point of the story. The monoculture of white men destroying everything around them was what Brett Easton Ellis was talking about and making clowns would have made that a different story
-
Oooo as someone who has seen the movie and never read the book, any sales pitch for me for the book?
The book is wonderfully written, and actually fairly insightful from a disaster preparedness and policy standpoint. It's been a while since a read it so forgive me if the details aren't exactly correct. Its written from the viewpoint of a journalist traveling the world post zombie apocalypse. He is collecting stories from survivors of various major events that happened during the zombie outbreak. Each chapter details a different event conveyed by a different witness, so it's not a cohesive single plot story. More like working notes of someone preparing to write a history of a major global disaster. It highlights some of the mistakes made and lessons learned as events unfolded.
-
Zendaya just plays an immature, "rebel without a cause" New Yorker instead of Chani, a strong and intelligent Fremen young lady who falls in love with and follows her Muad'dib, not just because of his prophetic abilities but also/mostly because of his character. But, in the current Western cultural understanding, that just wouldn't fly as strong means selfish and reactive and intelligent means rebellious and lippy. She's awed by Paul, as would be anyone surrounding him (to Paul's chagrin when it changes those around him to more "robotic" beings as it does with Stilgar), but also understands him deeply and is his emotional pillar, while Paul's the pillar to his entire community. They just wanted a "girl boss" and that's what we had in Denis' Dunes.
Calling Zendaya’s Chani a girl boss New Yorker seems incredibly misogynistic to me.
-
Calling Zendaya’s Chani a girl boss New Yorker seems incredibly misogynistic to me.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I don't understand what "woman hating subtext" you read from my comment but, if you read the books, it will just seem appropriate.
-
I thought it was an entertaining movie, but I haven’t read the book. Ima go download it right now.
The movie isn’t very interesting, but it’s not outright bad - unless you were hoping for a faithful adaptation. The book has a MUCH more interesting storyline.
-
I don't understand what "woman hating subtext" you read from my comment but, if you read the books, it will just seem appropriate.
I’ve read all of them after Foundation it’s my favorite science fiction series.
-
Zendaya just plays an immature, "rebel without a cause" New Yorker instead of Chani, a strong and intelligent Fremen young lady who falls in love with and follows her Muad'dib, not just because of his prophetic abilities but also/mostly because of his character. But, in the current Western cultural understanding, that just wouldn't fly as strong means selfish and reactive and intelligent means rebellious and lippy. She's awed by Paul, as would be anyone surrounding him (to Paul's chagrin when it changes those around him to more "robotic" beings as it does with Stilgar), but also understands him deeply and is his emotional pillar, while Paul's the pillar to his entire community. They just wanted a "girl boss" and that's what we had in Denis' Dunes.
I get where you're coming from, and I do feel like Chani really suffered from the adaptation, but I felt like it was more due to screentime and not having internal thoughts than changes made. I felt her being skeptical at the beginning was both a great change to her character (it feels like she falls in love with the Muad'dib Paul becomes, not the Atreides he was) and a really good way to carry themes of anti-messianism into the movie where the book relied on philosophical asides. It also provides a natural foil to Stilgar's zeal and Jessica's manipulation, presenting Chani as more aligned with Paul himself.
-
The Dark Tower. Good movie in its own right, especially if you like Idris Elba.
First, they took 8 Stephen King books, some of which were like 2" thick, and decided to turn it into a 90-minute PG-13 film. A single film.
Second, because the racist element was so offensive (a Black woman taken out of the 1970s, who has personally experienced racism toward her, is taken to a foreign world, an alternate reality, where she basically is led by an old white man (modeled after Clint Eastwood) and naturally she feels a certain type of way about that) they decided they were going to change it up. Make her white, and him Black. Hence casting Idris Elba as a guy based on Clint Eastwood. Then they dropped her character entirely. I will argue that Elba made a hell of a Gunslinger, but the reason they cast him was because they wanted to turn the whole racism plot on its head. For no good reason. It was fine in the books (this would be The Drawing of the Three, and The Waste Lands, the second and third books).
But for all that, it was an entertaining action flick with a bunch of Stephen King references. I quite like it. As a reader of the books and a fan of Stephen King, I shouldn't, but the movie itself was good.
Honestly that the movie exists at all is the worst change, though.
I only read the first three or four books, but the movie didn't include a single thing I remember from thee early books that I liked. No crab taking fingers, no giant robot bear, no talking train, or anything else. It seemed to me like they had some other script and slapped a Dark Tower veneer on it.
-
I’ve read all of them after Foundation it’s my favorite science fiction series.
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.
-
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.
Honestly it feels like you dislike the actor and are projecting it on to the character.
-
I get where you're coming from, and I do feel like Chani really suffered from the adaptation, but I felt like it was more due to screentime and not having internal thoughts than changes made. I felt her being skeptical at the beginning was both a great change to her character (it feels like she falls in love with the Muad'dib Paul becomes, not the Atreides he was) and a really good way to carry themes of anti-messianism into the movie where the book relied on philosophical asides. It also provides a natural foil to Stilgar's zeal and Jessica's manipulation, presenting Chani as more aligned with Paul himself.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It was unnecessary and disruptive (and what was that "Chani is a leader of an internal rebellion in the Fremen" all about in Dune Part 2?!), Chani served her purpose in Dune like pretty much other characters did besides the protagonists Paul and Leto II, who simply take more of the stage because, as prophetic beings infused with semi-omniscient knowledge, have more depth to them. The rest are mostly just people, and we all know people, but Dune was never about the characters... and maybe that's why it cannot be adapted for the masses. I mean, even events like a jihad that kills billions and the death of Paul's first child (was this even in the movie?! But sludge covered Baron Harkonnen was front and center, lol, without even mentioning his pedophilia!) are just brushed off, written in some sentences tops. The meat and potatoes of Dune are the philosophical explorations, in particular "how would anyone handle excess knowledge?", and as such Chani played her role as much as Leto and Jessica did, you change the characters and you just muddle something clear. I didn't even mind when they genderswapped Paul's short-lived mentor in Arrakis, cause it really doesn't matter much, but they replaced Chani with just Zendaya. They also put way more action scenes in it but didn't show the very important dinner scene, didn't properly explain why it was important to have a "male Bene Gesserit" (again, modern sensibilities), didn't properly explain Paul's visions and left it very inconsistent/inconclusive, but these long (beautiful, certainly) shots with empty silences were there, because that's what matters in fricking DUNE...
For those who don't care about the depth of Dune and the points Herbert tried to make, the movies are lovely. And for the ones who do, we'll always have the books, so whatever, I guess. But I got my COVID shots quickly just to watch Dune Part One and I'm still a little bit salty, lol, that's all.
-
Jurassic Park. The original was a horror/thriller that would have had to be unrated if they made it literally from the book. Instead, we got a PG-13 family film that really did not live up to the book.
In fact, it’s the first time that I read the book before seeing the movie, and I learned to never ever do that again.
Funny thing though, Jurassic Park is STILL wildly successful, and if it had followed the book, most people would have never heard of it today.
