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

[Desdichado]

Be careful, just because it was not faithful to the book does not mean it was a bad movie

This. Most novels would make terrible movies if adapted as written, honestly. The mediums are too different for a "faithful" adaptation to be anything other than tedious in most cases. The rare exceptions are the novelists who kinda write like screenwriters, visualizing a movie going on in their head as they write.

Also, a nitpickity personal pet peeve of mine... it's canon. Not cannon. You do not shoot the novel Jumper at the approaching pirate ship, you stick to it as if it were revealed gospel. The first is a cannon. The second is canon.

I disagree that novels are canon when it comes to movie adaptations, though. Generally a bad idea.

 

[Desdichado]

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

Where Eagles Dare is on that list too.

Which is funny, because Alistair MacLean (the author of the book) also has the screenwriter credit.

 

[Desdichado]

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

I didn't mind the cheesy (and somewhat brainless) military tactics and equipment, or the 90210 in space vibe. In fact, I kinda expected that.

Where the movie fails is that it tries to be tongue in cheek and mock the book, by having lines like that juxtaposed with scenes like that, and by throwing everyone into Nazi uniforms. It doesn't work when they quote Heinlein's philosophies straight out of the book and it actually sounds reasonable. The not so subtle mocking then comes across as just bizarre and petty.

 

[Desdichado]

While this is true, I just simply don't see it in most of the movie. All complaints aside, large chunks of the movie are taken pretty straight from the book. If there's some satire or parody in those parts it has completely escaped me.

Holy cow. Seriously? The entire movie was rife with ham-handed satire. Like I just said, it didn't work because it was quoting so much directly from the book, and the book largely resonates with the philosophy that permeates it. Just because you suddenly put your monologuers in Nazi uniforms doesn't mean that you've made your point that the philosophy their espousing in any way resembles the Nazis. But Voerhoven (or however you spell it) isn't nearly subtle enough to actually pull that off.

 

[Nifft]

The folks who do Shakespeare understand this - each retelling is a little bit different, and that's the point. To find the things that you can change a little bit, to give a different spin or meaning to the work. Small variations, or things you can do better than anyone else did before you.

Apropos of nothing, one of my favorite ways to enjoy a Shakespeare adaptation is to read the play beforehand, out loud, with the same friend(s) with whom I'm going to see the movie or play.

I find it helps me to appreciate the performance's "spin" best when the play itself is freshest in my mind.

Cheers, -- N

PS: I sure hope Starship Troopers contained large elements of satire. Otherwise... it becomes unintentionally hilarious.

 

[evileeyore]

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

Maybe I shouldn't judge movies on their "memorable quotability", but sometimes, that's what I do. It is basically the "long-term"-enjoyment these movies bring to me and my friends.

I agree.


Also that line gets a lot of play time in my group, all of whom except me, have had 4+ years of military service.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Children of Men did utter violence to the novel.

That doesn't mean that it was a bad movie however. It complete inverted so much of the story that anyone reading the novel after seeing the movie would have their head spinning. I'd put it in the realm of Starship Troopers level of inversion of the author's intent. Again, in Children of Men's defense, it was still a reall a darn good movie!

So with the question of movies that failed to keep true to the novel, CoM totally makes the top ten.

 

[Whitemouse]

Children of Men did utter violence to the novel.

I never read the novel. Though it is on my list of 'to-reads.'

That doesn't mean that it was a bad movie however. It complete inverted so much of the story that anyone reading the novel after seeing the movie would have their head spinning. I'd put it in the realm of Starship Troopers level of inversion of the author's intent. Again, in Children of Men's defense, it was still a reall a darn good movie!

I thought the movie sucked something fierce. I wish I could get a refund for time spent watching it.

 

[Mallus]

I thought the movie sucked something fierce. I wish I could get a refund for time spent watching it.

But... but... on the strength of those two tracking shots alone it's a good film -- if not a great one (can you tell I liked it?).

Children of Men is an interesting example. It's succeeds as a film for reasons completely unrelated to it's source, ie for it's cinematography, though I'd argue it is ultimately, more than just pretty.

A work needs to succeed in it's own medium, which is why I don't particularly care if a movie adaptation is faithful to the source text. To risk a tautology here, faithfulness is indicative of faithfulness, not of quality.

As an aside, one of my favorite movie adaptations is Michael Chabon's Wonder Boys. I think it's a better film than novel, but here's the damnedest thing: the book does the near-slapstick comedy better while the film has warmer, better fleshed-out characters. You'd think it would be the other way around...

 

[Tonguez]

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.

First Blood was a great novel.

. The "satire" in ST mostly consisted of making the military organization look stupid by having them act stupid. On their own terms, all of the military characters were simply idiots. As a result, the alleged satire simply falls flat.

You are aware that many parts of the world would actually view ST as an accurate depiction of the the US Military - at least as it is depicted by the media