The book had the maximum age as 21 (compared to 30 in the film), so much of the sex would be younger by default.
And in Godfather Part III we find out Andy Garcia fell out of that giant vagina. Same actress played her briefly.
That reminds me of It with the underage orgy scene. The films are obviously better for having ignored it.
Also aging up many of the characters in Game of Thrones. The younger ages may not have been as out of place in a medieval setting but it doesn’t work as well in a modern production. And younger actors would have aged in their role too quickly.
I disagree with a main part of the OP. The changes in Jaws were not minor. The major point of a shark eating people may have been the same but the entire tone and direction of the book was different and worse in the book. The book was barely readable, the movie was great.
IIRC, the narrator makes an offhand comment at some point about how on Earth they had just barely managed to teach apes how to speak, so I think Earth’s apes wound up following the same path as those on Soror.
The point being that you are not supposed to like them. It is not that kind of novel. But that does not make for compelling television, so we have a good example of the source material (and its themes) being ignored, perhaps inevitably, but not because of any shortcoming of the book series.
I’ll kind of go outside the specific topic and add something that is rare.
The first two Monkey Island games are not voiced. This is how many first experienced them. For the third game, they voiced Guybrush Threepwood with Dominic Armato.
His voicing of Guybrush was so immediately perfect, it became intertwined with the character. They even went back to the first two games and added his voice so we can hear the “real” Guybrush voice in all games.
It’s kind of unusual to add such a key element and for it to be universally praised and accepted.
Jason’s iconic hockey mask first appeared in the 3rd movie. It’s hard to imagine Jason without the hockey mask now.
They did that with the recent remake of Dead Space. The original game, the protagonist is unvoiced, but starting in the second, they cast Gunner Wright as the main character’s voice. Earlier this year, they released a remake of the first game, and they rewrote the script to give your character a ton of dialogue. It’s surprising how much this minor tweak changes the feel of the game. For example, all of the NPCs are suddenly way more likeable, because instead of them constantly ordering you into life-threatening situations, you’re now volunteering for them, and the NPCs are saying things like, “Are you sure? It’s incredibly dangerous!”
Just like it’s hard to imagine a non-green Grinch, even though he wasn’t green until the animated TV adaptation.
I don’t know… Heinlein’s novel had quite a few groundbreaking concepts- drop pods, power armor, the Bugs as an intelligent hive mind, etc… And a lot of surprisingly philosophical treatment of WHY the M.I. was fighting, and why citizenship was the way it was in the book universe. And on top of all that, it was a coming-of-age story in large part.
The movie scrapped nearly ALL that, except for the Bugs, who ended up being essentially mindless and relied on overwhelming numbers.
I feel like the movie was NOT an improvement over the book at all. With the exception of the basic premise (Bugs attack Earth, humanity fights back, same character names), it was a totally different story.
My nominee for adaptation where the source material is ignored for the better would be “The Right Stuff”. The book itself is greatly concerned with “The Great Ziggurat of Flying”, which is Wolfe’s concept of the hierarchy of test pilots and astronauts, and why/how the astronauts supplanted the test pilots at the top of the Ziggurat, and what that entailed. And a lot of exploration of what drove the pilots/astronauts to do what they did as well.
The movie is more of a straight-up dramatization of the Mercury project astronauts’ training and flights, without any real mention of the hierarchy or what really drove them. And I think it’s better for it.
Oh, is the Grinch white like on the cover? I’ve never read it. I don’t know that I’ve seen the cartoon since the 80’s and never saw the Jim Carey movie or the other movie versions they have made.
I don’t remember the ziggurat being all that central to the book, except to describe the ambition and competition among the pilot community. There are still plenty of references to that in the movie, although the astronauts tend to band together somewhat toward the end. I’ve heard the movie described as showcasing the transition of American heroism from individuals (the cowboy archetype, like Yeager) into team players.
The movie does omit plenty from the book. Carpenter’s and Schirra’s flights are skipped entirely, and it ends with Cooper’s launch. I assume that was just for time; it’s still over three hours. Both the book and the movie are excellent.
I remember there being some discussion of the Ziggurat, and how the pilots competed to be at the top of it, by having “the right stuff”, so to speak.
Then later, there was a lot of discussion about how the astronauts had supplanted the pilots at the top, and they weren’t even flying anything, and how that caused resentment among the pilots like Chuck Yeager, who either didn’t apply, or weren’t considered for astronaut training.
The movie was more of a straight space-race chronicle than the book, which was more about the test pilots and flying community in general, and how the Space Race sort of cemented that hierarchy.
Regarding Tom Bombadil, Tolkien himself noted that many readers found him to be a “discordant” element. The “real” reason he’s in the book is because Tolkien had already created the character years before, in other writings long before he started on Lord of the Rings. When he had reached that point in the LotR narrative, Tolkien had very little idea of where the story was going, so he added Bombadil as an “adventure” to spice up the journey to Rivendell. But he apparently liked the character, and rather astonishingly, apparently considered making him the protagonist of the whole story. In a 1937 letter to his publisher, when he was still trying to come up with ideas for a book to follow the unexpectedly successful The Hobbit, in a paragraph about possible plots, he wrote “Do you think Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into the hero of a story?”
One part I remember very clearly because it rang very true from my military time.
A officer was giving a base newcomer orientation to incoming officer wives. The first thing he did was tell them to be seated by rank. After a few minutes of jockeying around they were seated from highest to lowest. He then proceeded to tell them they didn’t have any rank it was their husband who held the rank. The wives didn’t say anything but each one knew how very wrong he was.
True, great example.
Makes sense to me that would have been introduced after the first movie, since Jason was not the killer in that one.
Similarly, in the first few James Bond books he carried a Beretta .25 caliber pocket pistol. The movie introduces him with a Walter PPK which makes far more sense considering the era.
Imagine James Bond running around with a glorified .22 pistol in the 2000s.