The film also has nothing to do with the 1939 short story “I, Robot” by Eando Binder who used the title first.
I think it is basically cliche at this point to even bring it up. But seriously, my last re-read taught me that while it might be cute to some, I actually really don’t like the Bombadil chapters(he comes back immediately after they leave).
At least Tolkien was smart enough to have characters ask about Tom Bombadil at the Council of the Ring. They ask why they don’t just give the Ring to Tom so he can destroy it…and Gandalf indicates that Tom would intend to do so, but forget.
The movies are wise not to include such an all powerful, but kind of useless character.
I mean…if he saved Frodo from Shelob…he might have been useful.
The movie version actually is much more an adaptation of Jack Williamson’s “The Humaniods” than anything Asimov ever wrote.
On the far planet Wing IV, a brilliant scientist creates the humanoids–sleek black androids programmed to serve humanity.
But are they perfect servants–or perfect masters?
I thought the screenwriters of LA CONFIDENTIAL chose the most pedestrian of the book’s several interlaced subplots and ran it into the ground, probably on purpose because they thought it was the one with the most commercial potential.
Blade Runner takes its name from a novel by Alan Nourse about an underground black markt in medical equipment. Nothing else.
Similarly, I Robot was written without any reference to Asimov’s book. After the script was written, someone loved the title, bought the rights, and added Susan Calvin.
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (but Were Afraid to Ask) used the title, a few of the questions, and nothing else.
I have read the book (Who Censored Roger Rabbit), and I would say it would work just fine as a screenplay. However, it wouldn’t work as a Disney movie. It would need to have film noir narration, but that’s fine since it reads as a pastiche of that genre. And it’s not exactly a happy ending.
I understand that King himself liked the movie ending better than the one he wrote.
The book “The Natural” has a real downer of an ending, not the standing up to the bad guys, pennant-winning home-run into the sparking arc-lights, guy-gets-the girl ending the movie had. The movie was much, much better.
Wait, how does the book end?
The book on which Die Hard is based has it’s hero battle terrorists to save his daughter rather than his wife. At end he fails to do so, and has his daughter (who unlike the wife in the book is complicit in the crimes that led to the take over) fall to her death with Gruber.
It was also intended as a Frank Sinatra role (he starred in the adaptation of an earlier book by the same author)
Given that films almost have to ignore masses of the source material when the source material is a full-length (or multi-part) novel, and films that didn’t wouldn’t work, I think thousands of films qualify here.
I’d think a distinction should be made between reasonable trimming of the source material and situations where about all the source and adaptation have in common is a title, a few character names, and maybe some plot points.
I liked the book, but I’m a fan of Phillip K. Dick. No one does paranoia like he does. The movie simplified the story and turned into a chase story.
That’s kind of what I thought the thread was supposed to be about.
I’d thought so too, but the discussion seems to have wandered back and forth on that boundary.
I actually think it makes it worse (and it isn’t like ROTK didn’t have enough time - just axe one of the 15 endings). The Scouring not only shows that Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin had matured but indicates that nowhere is safe from evil and gives an even greater urgency as to why they had to go in the first place.
We can argue about whether its “better” but its definitely true that all those Philip K Dick based movies would have been a lot less successful commercially if they’d stayed true to his general weirdness and surreal (if that’s the right word?) nature of his books.
As I mention above the only adaptation that did that was Through a Scanner Darkly, and that, while an interesting film, did not make anyone involved a millionaire.
Of course trying to be more commercially successful was also the reasoning behind the godawful voice-over cut of the Bladerunner, so its not the be-all-and-end-all of what makes a better movie.
I actually liked that movie a lot more than I expected! But, yeah, adapting a book to a movie is a lot more difficult than it looks and can really change the vibe.
In the book, Roy Hobbs a[s[/spoiler]poiler]grees to take the bribe from the judge. He later reconsiders when he is playing in the final game, but he ultimately strikes out and the Knights lose the pennant. After the game, he sees a newspaper column from Max Mercy revealing the scheme, which is going to result in Roy being banned from baseball forever.
Given the changes that they made to Roy in the movie (making him a much more “perfect” human), it’s understandable that they also changed the ending.
It’s been a very long time since I read the books, but I think I remember thinking that the whole Tom Bombadil bit was pointless, and I thought it made perfect sense not to include it in the movies.
———
On the other hand, I’m deeply disappointed that The Scouring of the Shire was cut out, especially in the extended versions, where Bilbo’s “Concerning Hobbits” bit at the start seemed to be a important setup for it. It was there made clear that Hobbits are simple, innocent, naïve folk, isolated from the rest of the world, with no grasp of the great evils that can exist outside of their community. Bilbo, at that time, was the lone exception, an aberrant Hobbit who had ventured out of the Shire, and had seen and fought evils that the other Hobbits could never imagine, albeit nothing like what was to come and be fought against by four more Hobbits.
I found great power in the part of the story, where the four battle-hardened Hobbits returned to The Shire, only to find that the evil from outside had come into The Shire, and taken it over, the humble, innocent Hobbits who lived there having no grasp of such evil, and no idea how to fight it. It took these four Hobbits, after all that they had been through, now to cleanse their home community of the evil that had taken root therein while they were away.