What's the worst change made in a movie adaptation of a book?
-
What a disappointment.
That's my thought on both the book and the movie. Perhaps its not the book's fault. There was so much hype surrounding it when it came out I thought it must be awesome. Instead I found the same simply story I'd read in a dozen other books, except this one drowning in a sea of 80s and 90s pop culture references. If it was a simply summer read without the hype I likely would have liked it for what it was.
I had similar disappointment when I finally read Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code". I read that same type of story a dozen times in other much better books but everyone was saying it was a groundbreaking book.
I had heard nothing about it before it came out. I had a friend who was just like “you’ll like this book” so I read it. It was a simple story, but I enjoyed it. The movie, not so much.
-
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 realized there was trouble when the producers were being interviewed and stated they had a hard time finding an entry point to the universe and I was like "Bitch, FIRST LINE - 'The man in black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.'"
-
If you want to read the books, it's 4 novels: Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, and Hannibal Rising.
You can skip that fourth book if you want. It's a prequel story that shows how Hannibal grew up and what turned him to cannibalism. The author (Thomas Harris) wanted to keep him a mysterious character, but Hannibal was so popular, people kept demanding to know his backstory and Harris knew that if he didn't tell the story, someone else would. So he begrudgingly wrote an origin story.
You can tell he didn't want to write it. The writing style is completely different than his other books. It's very direct, like he's just dictating information instead of weaving a tale.
Red Dragon follows Hannibal in prison and the detective who caught him, using Hannibal's intellect to help catch a psychotic killer on the loose.
Silence of the Lambs is basically the same story as Red Dragon, except replace the brilliant veteran detective with an amateur FBI trainee, whom Hannibal takes an interest in.
Hannibal is a direct sequel to Silence of the Lambs, showing the FBI trainee's exceptional career and eventual downfall, thanks to the patriarchy.
The Hannibal quadrilogy is one of my favorite book series. I'm sad that the movie version of Hannibal didn't understand the point the books were telling. And the Hannibal Rising movie was a terrible B-movie plot about a young psychotic kid getting a taste for murder. Didn't really feel like a Hannibal movie at all.
I haven't seen the Hannibal TV series, although I hear it's pretty good. But it's an original story, so may not be very loyal to the book series.
I'd argue he didn't even want to write Hannibal... "Oh, you want another Lecter book? Here's another f-ing Lecter book!"
-
What a disappointment.
That's my thought on both the book and the movie. Perhaps its not the book's fault. There was so much hype surrounding it when it came out I thought it must be awesome. Instead I found the same simply story I'd read in a dozen other books, except this one drowning in a sea of 80s and 90s pop culture references. If it was a simply summer read without the hype I likely would have liked it for what it was.
I had similar disappointment when I finally read Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code". I read that same type of story a dozen times in other much better books but everyone was saying it was a groundbreaking book.
The people saying Davinci Code (2003) was groundbreaking never read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" from 1982:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Blood_and_the_Holy_Grail
Or the Preacher comics from 1995-2000:
-
From what I remember, 1984's Dune is basically the book condensed down into the highlights. If you've read the book, fine but otherwise, it must be quite confusing.
cough weirding modules cough
-
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.
Idris Elba was the only good thing about that movie.
-
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.
The ending is different as well.
-
vaguely gestures at World War Z
Much like there has been no Dark Tower movie, there has also been no World War Z movie.
They don't count.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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 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.
I think since the Jurassic World series started, all of the reboots have mostly been "remember this" from the first movie, and none could really be anything more than that. Every one has to include a scene that's a homage to the original. Honestly feels like the franchise needs to have a genre switch up to force it to be something original.
-
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.
I don’t see why it wouldn’t have been as successful
-
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.
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.
-
I really liked the audiobook form. The story is basically told through an interviewer asking people what they experienced and the audiobook has different voice actors for all the characters.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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
-
Seek the truth, always.
As someone who didn't read WoT, the tv series is... on average "okay" with some scenes being great.
Like idk I don't "hate" it, but certain scenes felt kinda awkward, and I'm always like "wtf is going on", I also had that with watching GoT, but that was only 40% of the time, with WoT, I feel the "wtf is going on" 75% of the time, not sure if it's a adaptation thing or just the story thing.
-
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
On the other hand, it could be called a novel of a generation because the entire thing was basically built on millennial nostalgia. It has no appeal at all for anyone who doesn't get all of the pop culture references of the 80's and 90's.
-
I think since the Jurassic World series started, all of the reboots have mostly been "remember this" from the first movie, and none could really be anything more than that. Every one has to include a scene that's a homage to the original. Honestly feels like the franchise needs to have a genre switch up to force it to be something original.
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
-
Ditto the vast majority of Stephen King adaptations.
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.
-
Oooo as someone who has seen the movie and never read the book, any sales pitch for me for the book?
You already got great responses. I'll add that World War Z is a direct ripoff of Tom Brokaw's The Greatest Generation. And I mean that in a good way.
-
This post did not contain any content.
All the WTFery in that War of the Worlds thing Amazon just crapped out.
