Movies: Novel Adaptations That Failed To Keep True To The Novel

[Crothian]

The Bourne Trilogy based on Robert Ludlum's novels, or so they say.

Still, I like the movie version.

It was based on the first book really. The first book and movie are alike. But the second and third book has time pass that the other movie obviously do not.

 

[Merkuri]

The Princess Bride wasn't like the book that much. It skipped large backstory sections and descriptions of the countries.

I think Welverin was giving examples of movies that didn't follow the book, but were great movies anyway. I read Fight Club a while ago, and there's a lot different in that book, too (although the author actually said he liked the movie better than his book ). I liked the movie Fight Club better than the book.

 

[el-remmen]

(although the author actually said he liked the movie better than his book ).

He was right. It is better.

It is on a very short list of movies that are better than the books they were based on.

 

[Storm Raven]

I haven't read the book, but I really found that movie enjoyable. Sure, some scenes were cheessy, but the satirist tone in many scenes were nice. I am not sure I would have liked a movie where were each trooper was armed with a personal nuke or whatever the book had.

The movie was horrendous, even if you ignore the book entirely. A current modern armed service wouldn't send its troops into combat without armor, artillery and air support, and yet we are expected to believe that the best we can do in the future is a couple thousand idiots running around at night with rifles and body armor with no protective capabilities whatsoever. The movie is moronic on so many levels that if you think about it for even one second it falls apart entirely.

This is just compounded if you have read the book, since the military organization in the book actually made sense.

The movie, on the other hand, looks like it was made by retarded monkeys who had lobotomies.

"The mobile infantry made me the man I am today" *rolls on a wheelchair and shows off his missing limbs*.

This scene is in the book, and much better done. The movie's take on it was inane, to say the least.

 

[Ranger REG]

It was based on the first book really. The first book and movie are alike. But the second and third book has time pass that the other movie obviously do not.

Loosely based.

1. Marie in the novel was an economist that worked for the Canadian government.

2. The novel is based in a period close to the end of the Viet Nam War where Jason Bourne is created. The movie is more close to our modern period.

3. Marie in the movie was shot in the second film that bores the same title as the second book. The second book, Marie is still pretty much alive, despite having been kidnapped.

4. No mention of Jason Bourne's novel arch-nemesis Carlos the Jackal, in the movie.

 

[Dioltach]

I have a couple of pet peeves when it comes to movie adaptations of novels, particularly novels I read and loved as a child: the Earthsea miniseries, The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising, and The Black Cauldron.

In each of those adaptations, the makers seem to have taken a couple of elements and decided that they could do better with the rest themselves. And, in my opinion, they failed miserably.

The changes aren't just updating the storyline or elements to suit a new audience or a new medium: they change the entire story. For example, in The Dark Is Rising, the nature of the Six Signs (or five in the movie, I believe) is changed completely. to the extent that the makers probably knew they'd never be doing the sequels because they wouldn't work with what they did with the Signs.

 

[BryonD]

Casino Royale

Are you talking about the most recent one?
Because aside from updating to some modern elements and laying in some added activity to strech out the story, the movie was quite remarkable in how true to the book it was.

 

[BryonD]

Amen. Cases in point: The Shining, Hearts in Atlantis, or even Batman Begins.

LA Confidential.
One of my favorite movies and the book was crap (IMO).

Godfather is an interesting example also. Godfather was a good book. But the movie removes a bunch of crap and reorganizes things into, obviously, a masterpiece.

 

[Silver Moon]

First Blood - I thankfully read David Morrell's excellent cat-and-mouse thriller prior to the Stallone movie, so had no preconceptions about John Rambo. In the book he is an average looking guy in his early twenties, which is not how it appeared in the film. The movie also changes the setting to the Pacific northwest in the late seventies rather than the deep south in the early seventies while the Vietnam war is still going on.

Clear and Present Danger - I knew they would be taking major liberties with this one, as the Jack Ryan character doesn't appear until half-way through the book, and I was certain that they weren't going to be paying Harrison Ford $ 10 M to not be in half the movie. What also changed the feel were the ages of the two main actors, you had a guy in his 50's playing someone who was supposed to be in his 30's and a guy in his 30's playing someone who was supposed to be in his 50's.

On the subject of Tom Clancy novels, I'll add that Hunt for Red October is probably the single best film adapatation of a novel that I have ever seen. True in every way to the original.

 

[Mallus]

A current modern armed service wouldn't send its troops into combat without armor, artillery and air support, and yet we are expected to believe that the best we can do in the future is a couple thousand idiots running around at night with rifles and body armor with no protective capabilities whatsoever. The movie is moronic on so many levels that if you think about it for even one second it falls apart entirely.

Do you think the makers of the film were even remotely interested in portraying a believable, well-run future military? The film was, after all a satire of war-movies-as-propaganda.

I realize it's no reason to like Starship Troopers any better, but criticizing on the grounds of accuracy is like complaining that the Airplane movies don't offer a realistic view of the airline industry and air-traffic control...

The movie, on the other hand, looks like it was made by retarded monkeys who had lobotomies.

As has been noted before, the books and the have different goals.

P.S. I like them both, obviously for different reasons.