-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Movies That Are Nothing Like the Books They're Based On
- Thread starter JaseMath
- Start date
- Status
Wanted is pretty different from the comic it's based on from what I remember. The movie deals with a guy finding out he's the son of an assassin but the comic is actually about a evil guy that finds out he's the son of a super villain in a world where villains rule and have killed a lot of the heroes who were DC and Marvel analogues run through the Mark Millar filter. The Angelina Jolie character plays a similar role in both but in the comic she's suppose to be a Catwoman analogue.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I've watched the first two eps of Man in High Castle and already it's making coherent sense and isn't boring af so it's not very faithful to the book.
Came here to say this. I kind of like that movie, but as Ridley said Moore's GN is just way too rich and detailed to do any sort of justice in a 2-hour film. So, they didn't bother trying
(but still made a fairly entertaining, atmospheric mystery/thriller).In late 2014 it was announced that FX was developing a miniseries adaptation, but I don't know if anything came of it.
echoshifting
Banned
Lmao
Sparrowhawk
Member
This right here.
BattleMonkey
Member
Yea Wanted has pretty much no relation to the comic. Kid becomes a bad ass is only same idea, rest is just completely changed and unrecognizable as based off the comic.
320 gigs? Wowie
It's funny that the OP's example was Jurassic Park, because my first response to the thread title was The Lost World. Levine, who was just as much a main character as Malcolm in the book, wasn't even in the movie.
It's funny, because the only reason Crichton even wrote the book was so they could make a movie based off of it, but then they completely ignored the book anyway.
It's funny, because the only reason Crichton even wrote the book was so they could make a movie based off of it, but then they completely ignored the book anyway.
JaseMath
Member
Is that true? That's a creative professional's nightmare scenario.
Seconded. JP's movie and book adaptations have a lot of diverging branches, but the Lost World isn't even on the same tree as the book.
Since I'm still on the graphic novel kick, the book and the film versions of A History of Violence diverge sharply once Tom takes care of the mobsters that threaten his family. The book goes into an incredibly long flashback shortly thereafter, while the movie continues focusing in on the family as the truth is finally out and what it does to each of them as they cope with what they now know.
It may not fit this particular thread as well since it's almost universally accepted that the film blows the graphic novel out of the water, but it's one worth mentioning because of how much it eventually differs from the source material.
It may not fit this particular thread as well since it's almost universally accepted that the film blows the graphic novel out of the water, but it's one worth mentioning because of how much it eventually differs from the source material.
Came to post this. The book is so wildly different in tone, content and everything. One of my favourites.
Crichton only did the book because Spielberg pressured him into doing it. He actually disliked the idea of writing sequels, but money's money.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Pirates of the Carribean 4 is actually an adaptation of On Stranger Tides (which Disney even bought the rights for), but it takes virtually nothing from the novel. Given its reception, they could have stood to lift a lot more.
Hellboy I lifts its story directly from one of the comic's earlier arcs, but even then there's a ton of differences. In particular, Kronen in the movie is literally nothing like his comic incarnation. It actually works pretty well, though.
Hellboy I lifts its story directly from one of the comic's earlier arcs, but even then there's a ton of differences. In particular, Kronen in the movie is literally nothing like his comic incarnation. It actually works pretty well, though.
TheRedSnifit
Member
The Spy Who Loved Me was a really weird romance novel with spy elements that was written from the perspective of a Bond girl. The movie is . . . not.
Probably the best example of this actually working well. The book was trash, the movie was fantastic.
matman5025
Member
Who Framed Roger Rabbit is extremely different than the book it's based on.
I love this movie. It explores emotional territory radically different from the book.
To be fair it does had EVERYTHING the book tells =P
Professor Renegade
Banned
If you thought Jurassic Park was removed from the book, just wait until you read The Lost World OP. With the exception of one scene and a few characters, they're completely different stories.
Hell, Jurassic World stuck with the themes of the first book a lot better than any of the other films.
Hell, Jurassic World stuck with the themes of the first book a lot better than any of the other films.
Beren the Empty-Handed
Member
The Hobbit
The Lord of the Rings
The plot is the same, but nearly everything else is altered in some way or another. For the Hobbit, things were altered for the worse.
It makes me glad that they'll never be able to do the Silmarillion in my lifetime.
The Lord of the Rings
The plot is the same, but nearly everything else is altered in some way or another. For the Hobbit, things were altered for the worse.
It makes me glad that they'll never be able to do the Silmarillion in my lifetime.
And the movie is so much better than the book that in the second book the first movie is now canon instead of the first book
supermarioworldE
Banned
While similar on the surface, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs did change a lot details from the book. Understandable, for the sake of feature film length, but still.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
2002's Count of Monte Cristo.
Turned a thrilling story about how revenge will destroy you into a stupid flick about how revenge is so awesome, and doing it will get you everything you ever wanted. Also had the dumbest hack writing twist with Albert being his son.
Turned a thrilling story about how revenge will destroy you into a stupid flick about how revenge is so awesome, and doing it will get you everything you ever wanted. Also had the dumbest hack writing twist with Albert being his son.
The problem is most adaptations of Alice in Wonderland work in the more iconic elements of Through the Looking Glass making a straight adaptation impossible.
FormallyMegadrive
Member
Where the Wild Things Are is a fantastic book as well as film. Incredible.
The Shadow
Member
In the grand scheme of things, Jurassic Park the movie isn't hugely different from the book. I'd say they made the characters more likable overall, and the story less cynical, which you'd pretty much have to if you want to make a blockbuster. Take Sphere for instance (sticking with Michael Crichton books), which the movie is far more faithful to the book, and it just doesn't translate very well. Sphere the book is probably my favorite Crichton book, but the movie is pretty forgettable.
For me the biggest differences between book and movie was Starship Troopers. I liked both book and movie but for very different reasons. Outside of a generalized theme of an earth military fighting bugs, and characters with the same name, they're really completely different.
I read Man in the High Castle based on a recommendation on this forum, and I'd have to agree tbh. It's just ....boring.
I like PKD's other stuff but Man in the High Castle was not one of them.
Cabbagehead
Member
Yeah that's the thing World War shouldn't have been made period, it does not need or frankly deserve a adaptation.
Cabbagehead
Member
but, but there are mazes and there's running? right? 60 million please!
The alternate ending makes it a lot more consistent with the book.
| Praxis |
Banned
Not as different as a lot of these, but The Beach was a disappointment after liking the book.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
Frankenstein (1931) should be the obvious answer tho.
hate to say it but it sounds like the rest of the show was a faithful adaptation then.
i came to post this... books are great, movie is not and only the characters names are similar
their actual character is not
Thread finisher.
Sure you can mention blade runner and so on but they remain thematically similar.
But the lawnmower man? Gold tier title and kings name and nothing else carried over.
- Status