Films that deviate the most from their book

13»

Comments

  • jediknight2k1jediknight2k1 Posts: 6,892
    Forum Member
    Most films about Dracula, the only version that was close was Coppola's and that had some differences.

    The same applies to Frankstein, while the Kenneth Branagh version was close it still had some changes.

    Both have been murdered by Hammer Horror in the past :eek:.
  • GortGort Posts: 7,460
    Forum Member
    Most films about Dracula, the only version that was close was Coppola's and that had some differences.

    The same applies to Frankstein, while the Kenneth Branagh version was close it still had some changes.

    Both have been murdered by Hammer Horror in the past :eek:.

    Not to mention the James Whale Frankensteins. Good films in a popcorn film way (although with some heart), obviously iconic, but they were quite far from the book that they were based on and ultimately did a disservice by turning a searching story about the nature of man, science, parental responsibility and other themes into a Saturday matinee monster film, even if one of the better examples. It would be nice to see a proper adaptation of the book (Branagh's was found wanting), but I fear that the '30s Frankenstein films and the Hammer ones have sort of tainted the expectations somewhat.
  • TarotTarot Posts: 11,983
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I was watching Angels and Demons last night and realised how much it was different to the book; there is much more story based at CERN in the book, major characters have been changed, final ambigram is different, etc.
  • big danbig dan Posts: 7,878
    Forum Member
    ShaunIOW wrote: »
    Both original Conan films are made from collections of short stories.

    Harry Potters 3-6 al have major changes to the books.

    I thought the Harry Potter films were a slight disservice to the books but on the whole fairly faithful. However the final instalment's ending with Harry and Voldemort having their final showdown alone completely changed the context. Imo it greatly detracted from that feeling of euphoria the victorious moment gave when reading the book. Probably doesn't warrant it's inclusion in this thread though - in fact I think it should be criticised for sticking faithfully to the cheesy epilogue.:o
  • Dr. LinusDr. Linus Posts: 6,445
    Forum Member
    When I was younger, I used to love Stuart Little (the film) and I remember reading the book because of this, and I seem to recall that it had virtually no resemblance to the film other than the characters. I'm not sure that many people even know that there is a book.
  • gasheadgashead Posts: 13,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    LA Confidential, although as so little of the book made it into the film, I wouldn't say it so much deviates as disregards it altogether.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,363
    Forum Member
    Mary Poppins.
    She was not nearly as nice in the first three original story books by female author P.L.Travers.
    The twin baby siblings were omitted from the film and the film also omitted the main story where the children and Mary Poppins use a compass to travel around the world.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,856
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I saw the Edmund O'Brien as Winston Smith version of 1984 at the BFI Southbank Mediateque a few years ago. The ending is so different from the closing of the book Nineteen Eighty-Four .
  • GortGort Posts: 7,460
    Forum Member
    I'll deviate slightly from the topic; only slightly. I've just read the Michel Faber book Under the Skin, which was absorbing, disturbing, thought provoking and an excellent read. I've just noticed that there's to be an adaptation coming out next year, which will star Scarlett Johansson. Already that's set my alarm bells ringing, because she's very far from what the protagonist is meant to look like in the novel (very far and it's an important plot point). Not only that, they've changed the character's name from the outlandish Isserley, to the down-to-earth Laura. More alarm bells! So, I put the coming Under the Skin film in the expect to wildly deviate from its source category. Hopefully my fears about possible deviation are very, very wrong, because this book really deserves a good adaptation.
  • lordo350lordo350 Posts: 3,633
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What about Eragon? Awful film.
    Same basic story, but they cut out so much of it that everything that made it not a star wars rip off was lost. Thus, that was all that remained.
  • gemma-the-huskygemma-the-husky Posts: 18,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    not completely different, but the Godfather missed out chunks of Johnny Fontaine, the back story about Michael getting his face fixed, and a lot about Al Neri.

    pacing, I know.

    Same as Lord of The Rings really. In the book it takes them about 5 months to decide to leave the Shire. In the film the Nazgul are there instantly. Made a lot more sense, to be honest.
  • rfonzorfonzo Posts: 11,771
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Of course, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is presented from different perspectives between the film and the book.
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    Gort wrote: »
    So, I put the coming Under the Skin film in the expect to wildly deviate from its source category. Hopefully my fears about possible deviation are very, very wrong, because this book really deserves a good adaptation.
    Agreed, though remember deviations are best done for the good of the film, which the film-maker's have pure artistic license over. And rightly so.

    Under the Skin is being made by Jonathan Glazer, the ex advert/pop vid supremo who directed Sexy Beast, which I sort of liked, and Birth, which I liked a lot but seems to have vanished. With such good material to work from, it should certainly be worth a look.
  • GortGort Posts: 7,460
    Forum Member
    Agreed, though remember deviations are best done for the good of the film, which the film-maker's have pure artistic license over. And rightly so.

    Yes, sure. Film is a different medium from literature, so it's natural that there have to be some compromises, alterations and cuts. I'm fine with that and don't expect adaptations to be too faithful (sometimes they can be surprisingly excellent even if they don't faithfully follow the source material). I suppose just after reading what I really thought was an excellent and poignant read, I'm a bit defensive about what changes appear to have been made.
    Under the Skin is being made by Jonathan Glazer, the ex advert/pop vid supremo who directed Sexy Beast, which I sort of liked, and Birth, which I liked a lot but seems to have vanished. With such good material to work from, it should certainly be worth a look.

    Yes, the director does fill me with some promise (loved Sexy Beast), but it's the description of the film that's sort of troubling me. I can't say too much without really spoiling the book (even the book's synopsis doesn't really give you a good idea where the story is going to lead you), so I'm a bit hesitant to fully explain my possible issues. From what I've seen of the pictures of "Laura" (Isserley), she's very far from what she's in the book, and, as I have said, that's a very important plot issue and not something superficial. The fact that she's being touted as sexy is also quite telling.

    Still, the author, Michel Faber, does seem to be quite involved in this and the director isn't some hack, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. I just can't silence those alarms, though. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.