You might add the 1976 movie "Logan's Run" to your list. Adapted from the 1967 novel of the same name. Up-aging the main characters (mostly so they could use established actors instead of the children and teenagers of the original novel) and turning the actual leader of the Resistance into a fanatical follower of the murderous system essentially upended the entire plot and melted it down into a "youth vs. age" potboiler, even though the film allowed their characters the "right" to survive until the age of 3o instead of the novel's limit of 21. Instead of a plot based on a fight for a basic human right, the film turned it into a "brainwashed villain reformed and saved by a love at first sight" soap opera. It also condensed the whole continent spanning environment into a single dystopian city state, with a "natural paradise" existing outside the walls.
“The Spy Which Loved Me”: Ian Fleming would only allow the producers to use the title and not the plot, although it does feature a villain with metal teeth (called Horror rather than Jaws).
Here in the UK when i was 16-1976-i worked in a bookshop,i got into Science Fiction/Horror in a big way.Isaac Asimov was and still is a fave of mine,I Robot-the collection of short stories was superb and i looked forward to the film,even though i really enjoyed the film it was virtually roughly only 3% of what was in the short stories....Blade Runner was nothing like the original Philip K Dick short story but then again,Dick`s novels/stories would have been virtually impossible to film due to their content....For every good novel he wrote,Stephen King usually followed it up with two stinkers.The Shining was a good book but i much preferred the film.
The film Damnation Alley had only TWO things in common with the novel by Roger Zelazny: the title, and the NAME of the lead character(the two characters, themselves, were entirely different!)!
Ver Hoeven publicly stated he only read the first few pages of "Starship Troopers." If Robert A. Heinlein were alive today he would probably forgo the current "I'm going to sue you" trope and just show up at the doorstep of everyone involved and punch hem out. They took what was essentially a statement that mankind and the individuals in it were individually responsible for their own actions and turned them into brainwashed puppets. And the Bugs would probably sue them too, as the film turned an advanced hive mind spacefaring race and turned them into mindless insects firing interstellar weaponry out of their backsides.
Off the top of my head, Don Siegel's The Killers and Robert Aldrich's Kiss Me Deadly. Mickey Spillane's book is pulp trash, the film is a masterpiece, far ahead of its time. BTW Spillane HATED the film...lol
The Scarlet Letter starring Demi Moore. This is the most heartbreaking adaptation of any book I have ever seen. The three movies of The Hobbit run a close second.
Book/film adaptations are probably the biggest area for complaints. They are totally different creative mediums and even with the best will in the world, most stories wouldn’t make the jump in one piece. I never expect a film of a book to be the same. Even when there have been several versions, none relate back to the source material closely. Of all the novels I’ve read that have been turned into films, I can only think of two that are close. Readers here may have their own list as I’ve not read a ton of filmed tomes. Occasionally, a film changes things but somehow manages to get the right ambiance in doing so. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, was never going to be filmable as the book was constructed. Having a story told by an elective mute is pretty much a no-no. The film was somehow reworked, lost many incidents, but somehow came out with a very similar mood. The novel’s author (Ken Kesey) didn’t like the film, largely because Kirk Douglas (who bought the rights from him) had no connection to the film. Michael Douglas was the man behind the film, Kirk having given his son the rights because he’d had no luck with it. It turned out well, scooping the Oscars. As far as I’m aware there is no correlation between ignoring the original work and a film version. Quoting the scores from an aggregate site gives us nothing at all about the transfer.
World War Z the novel would make a great limited series I thought the Walking Dead universe was kind of going that way with The tales of the Walking dead they did a couple years ago every week just a one off story
The movie _Blade Runner_ actually improves immensely over Dick's novel. The climax had a great fight and a terribly poignant conclusion. I kid you not: in the novel Dick had Deckard go into the the abandoned hotel and kill Roy Batty *all in the space of one paperback page!* What a let-down.
The first movie I thought of to meet that criteria was William Friedkin's To Live And Die In LA. According to the author, the screenplay ignores at least 80% of the book.
"The Shining" is one of my favorite King novels. I absolutely hated the film adaptation (over the years I appreciate the film as a separate entity and don't connect it to the novel). I know everyone lauds the acting but for me horror of the book was how what appears to be a completely likeable all-American couple with the handsome stoic dad, pretty blonde housewife, and shy, introverted son was lost with the directorial and acting choices. Nicholson's father was creepy from the start so his descent in madness lacked tension or shock. Shelly Duvall's Wendy was high-strung and on edge from the beginning. The decision to make Danny outright odd instead of the books version was also a misstep. As watered down as the television adaption is, the casting of Rebecca De Mornay was closer to how Wendy in the book appears.
Let's see... - Starship Troopers - Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit - Last of the Mohicans - Moby Dick - Beowulf - Every Conan movie ever made - Every Robin Hood movie ever made Und so weiter. You'd have a shorter list just showing us the 25 or so films that actually tried to be accurate to the original book.
And add 1982'S The Beastmaster that was turned from Andre Norton's Science Fiction novel into a mickery of a fantasy movie. Not, to mention 1963's Day of the Triffids which has very little to do with the original novel!!
I loved The 13th Warrior (Eaters of the Dead) the movie, but it is different from the book. Congo really disappointed me though. It could of been such a great horror movie.
Books vs Movies will always be problematic. I agree with the book/movie conclusions here. I want to nominate two more for "vol. 2 of this series": Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff" - The book is an excellent and readable narrative of the Mercury astronauts and the story of the first Americans in space. Mr. Wolfe really didn't like Kaufman's movie, a fun and exhilarating ride over the same territory. I read the book before I saw the movie. Both accomplished their own separate missions. Earlier (1968) I watched the most exciting movie I had seen to that time, Planet of the Apes. Then I found and read the original novel by Pierre Boulle. I never wasted my time on the later issues of the Apes franchise - the original novel of much better.
With "Ella Enchanted" they reduced the actual horror of Ella's curse. In the book if she tries to disobey she starts to feel agonizing discomfort and the only way to end it is to do what told to do. It would reach a point where she would cut off her own head to end the discomfort. With "I, Robot" I can understand why the did it the way they did. The original book was a collection of individual stories in a common setting, and I don't think it would work as a movie as is. I view that "I, Robot" (the movie) is set in the same universe as the rest of Asimov's books (which had a loose common continuity).
I have trouble with movies don't resemble the books they are stealing their title from but I especially dislike movies that make the exact opposite point that the books try to make. Asimov's robot stories spend a lot of time making fun of catastrophists who didn't understand the rules that robots were actually constrained by and automatically generated impossible scenarios like all the robots in the world suddenly attacking humans. The movie had nothing to do with I Robot. Lawnmower man was a pretty bizarre short story too, but totally different. The Running man was totally unlike the book. It's a terrible movie.
Eh ... One should never expect anything from a Movie. It is what it is - good or bad. Books - can create vastly more elaborate, complex stories because they don't have to fit everything into an hour and a half. Another one where the movie is a lot better than the book - is _The Edge of Tomorrow_ the movie vs. _All You Need Is Kill_ the book. The movie is vastly better than the book. But - I've lost count of the times I'd read a book - and then seen the movie - and the movie was horrible. Basically - each stands on their own - book or movie. They are great or they stink because of themselves. .
You might add the 1976 movie "Logan's Run" to your list. Adapted from the 1967 novel of the same name. Up-aging the main characters (mostly so they could use established actors instead of the children and teenagers of the original novel) and turning the actual leader of the Resistance into a fanatical follower of the murderous system essentially upended the entire plot and melted it down into a "youth vs. age" potboiler, even though the film allowed their characters the "right" to survive until the age of 3o instead of the novel's limit of 21. Instead of a plot based on a fight for a basic human right, the film turned it into a "brainwashed villain reformed and saved by a love at first sight" soap opera. It also condensed the whole continent spanning environment into a single dystopian city state, with a "natural paradise" existing outside the walls.
Most of the James Bond films have little to do with the books, but The Spy Who Loves Me and Moonraker basically just use the titles.
“The Spy Which Loved Me”: Ian Fleming would only allow the producers to use the title and not the plot, although it does feature a villain with metal teeth (called Horror rather than Jaws).
ThankU I was gonna say. The Spy Who Loved Me is nothing like the movie.
Here in the UK when i was 16-1976-i worked in a bookshop,i got into Science Fiction/Horror in a big way.Isaac Asimov was and still is a fave of mine,I Robot-the collection of short stories was superb and i looked forward to the film,even though i really enjoyed the film it was virtually roughly only 3% of what was in the short stories....Blade Runner was nothing like the original Philip K Dick short story but then again,Dick`s novels/stories would have been virtually impossible to film due to their content....For every good novel he wrote,Stephen King usually followed it up with two stinkers.The Shining was a good book but i much preferred the film.
The film Damnation Alley had only TWO things in common with the novel by Roger Zelazny: the title, and the NAME of the lead character(the two characters, themselves, were entirely different!)!
Ver Hoeven publicly stated he only read the first few pages of "Starship Troopers." If Robert A. Heinlein were alive today he would probably forgo the current "I'm going to sue you" trope and just show up at the doorstep of everyone involved and punch hem out. They took what was essentially a statement that mankind and the individuals in it were individually responsible for their own actions and turned them into brainwashed puppets. And the Bugs would probably sue them too, as the film turned an advanced hive mind spacefaring race and turned them into mindless insects firing interstellar weaponry out of their backsides.
Off the top of my head, Don Siegel's The Killers and Robert Aldrich's Kiss Me Deadly. Mickey Spillane's book is pulp trash, the film is a masterpiece, far ahead of its time. BTW Spillane HATED the film...lol
The Scarlet Letter starring Demi Moore. This is the most heartbreaking adaptation of any book I have ever seen. The three movies of The Hobbit run a close second.
Book/film adaptations are probably the biggest area for complaints. They are totally different creative mediums and even with the best will in the world, most stories wouldn’t make the jump in one piece. I never expect a film of a book to be the same. Even when there have been several versions, none relate back to the source material closely. Of all the novels I’ve read that have been turned into films, I can only think of two that are close. Readers here may have their own list as I’ve not read a ton of filmed tomes. Occasionally, a film changes things but somehow manages to get the right ambiance in doing so. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, was never going to be filmable as the book was constructed. Having a story told by an elective mute is pretty much a no-no. The film was somehow reworked, lost many incidents, but somehow came out with a very similar mood. The novel’s author (Ken Kesey) didn’t like the film, largely because Kirk Douglas (who bought the rights from him) had no connection to the film. Michael Douglas was the man behind the film, Kirk having given his son the rights because he’d had no luck with it. It turned out well, scooping the Oscars. As far as I’m aware there is no correlation between ignoring the original work and a film version. Quoting the scores from an aggregate site gives us nothing at all about the transfer.
Short stories need to be added to in order to make a feature film. I, Robot was a bunch of short stories all about robots,
The Last of the Mohicans is a wonderful action movie adapted from a dull, dreary novel. The movie wisely changed characters and made it good.
"The Lawnmower Man" (1992)
"World War Z" (2013)
"Ella Enchanted" (2004)
"I, Robot" (2004)
"The Scorpion King" (2002)
"Starship Troopers" (1997)
"The Running Man" (1987)
"The Shining" (1980)
"Blade Runner" (1982)
"Mary Poppins" (1964)
Most Stephen King adaptations strayed…
World War Z the novel would make a great limited series I thought the Walking Dead universe was kind of going that way with The tales of the Walking dead they did a couple years ago every week just a one off story
The movie _Blade Runner_ actually improves immensely over Dick's novel. The climax had a great fight and a terribly poignant conclusion. I kid you not: in the novel Dick had Deckard go into the the abandoned hotel and kill Roy Batty *all in the space of one paperback page!* What a let-down.
You should also do a show on movies that faithfully followed the book and FAILED both critically and at box office.
The first movie I thought of to meet that criteria was William Friedkin's To Live And Die In LA.
According to the author, the screenplay ignores at least 80% of the book.
"The Shining" is one of my favorite King novels. I absolutely hated the film adaptation (over the years I appreciate the film as a separate entity and don't connect it to the novel).
I know everyone lauds the acting but for me horror of the book was how what appears to be a completely likeable all-American couple with the handsome stoic dad, pretty blonde housewife, and shy, introverted son was lost with the directorial and acting choices. Nicholson's father was creepy from the start so his descent in madness lacked tension or shock. Shelly Duvall's Wendy was high-strung and on edge from the beginning. The decision to make Danny outright odd instead of the books version was also a misstep. As watered down as the television adaption is, the casting of Rebecca De Mornay was closer to how Wendy in the book appears.
I’ve never read Stephen King’s short story but “The Lawnmower Man” is without doubt one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen.
Let's see...
- Starship Troopers
- Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit
- Last of the Mohicans
- Moby Dick
- Beowulf
- Every Conan movie ever made
- Every Robin Hood movie ever made
Und so weiter. You'd have a shorter list just showing us the 25 or so films that actually tried to be accurate to the original book.
And add 1982'S The Beastmaster that was turned from Andre Norton's Science Fiction novel into a mickery of a fantasy movie. Not, to mention 1963's Day of the Triffids which has very little to do with the original novel!!
Man should just do a list of destroying Chricton novels. Eaters of the Dead, Congo, The Lost World were all butchered
I loved The 13th Warrior (Eaters of the Dead) the movie, but it is different from the book.
Congo really disappointed me though. It could of been such a great horror movie.
Books vs Movies will always be problematic. I agree with the book/movie conclusions here. I want to nominate two more for "vol. 2 of this series": Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff" - The book is an excellent and readable narrative of the Mercury astronauts and the story of the first Americans in space. Mr. Wolfe really didn't like Kaufman's movie, a fun and exhilarating ride over the same territory. I read the book before I saw the movie. Both accomplished their own separate missions.
Earlier (1968) I watched the most exciting movie I had seen to that time, Planet of the Apes. Then I found and read the original novel by Pierre Boulle. I never wasted my time on the later issues of the Apes franchise - the original novel of much better.
There needs to be a dark tower tv series.
In the Bond films they kept the title and threw the book away.
Logan's Run. Very little in common with the book.
I would add the 1960 version of The Time Machine. While I love that movie it is very different from the H. G. Wells story.
With "Ella Enchanted" they reduced the actual horror of Ella's curse. In the book if she tries to disobey she starts to feel agonizing discomfort and the only way to end it is to do what told to do. It would reach a point where she would cut off her own head to end the discomfort.
With "I, Robot" I can understand why the did it the way they did. The original book was a collection of individual stories in a common setting, and I don't think it would work as a movie as is. I view that "I, Robot" (the movie) is set in the same universe as the rest of Asimov's books (which had a loose common continuity).
I have trouble with movies don't resemble the books they are stealing their title from but I especially dislike movies that make the exact opposite point that the books try to make. Asimov's robot stories spend a lot of time making fun of catastrophists who didn't understand the rules that robots were actually constrained by and automatically generated impossible scenarios like all the robots in the world suddenly attacking humans. The movie had nothing to do with I Robot.
Lawnmower man was a pretty bizarre short story too, but totally different.
The Running man was totally unlike the book.
It's a terrible movie.
How about Hidden Figures-a book with no real story?
What about the Prince Caspian movie released during 2008?
THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1995), THE PRESTIGE, THERE WILL BE BLOOD
Eh ...
One should never expect anything from a Movie. It is what it is - good or bad.
Books - can create vastly more elaborate, complex stories because they don't have to fit everything into an hour and a half.
Another one where the movie is a lot better than the book - is _The Edge of Tomorrow_ the movie vs. _All You Need Is Kill_ the book. The movie is vastly better than the book.
But - I've lost count of the times I'd read a book - and then seen the movie - and the movie was horrible.
Basically - each stands on their own - book or movie. They are great or they stink because of themselves.
.
No movie is totally faithful to it's book. None.
1984 got close.
Who cares?
If I wanted the contents of the book I'd read the book.