[QUOTE=Lissa]
The made-for-TV movie of Brave New World mangled the book. They turned it into a love story where Lenina and Bernard end up on a tropical island raising a baby together.
[/QUOTE]
Are there even any other movie adaptations of Brave New World? I remember reading something about a version from the 70s.
[QUOTE=HeadNinja]
Research indicates that the copies of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen sent to Stephen Norrington were accidentally swapped with a shipment of toilet paper. Oddly enough no one noticed, and shooting proceded on schedule.
This is one of the few recorded instances of both the audience and the production crew walking away with sore asses.
[/QUOTE]
I really don’t think Alan Moore fans have any place to complain about movies being unfaithful to his work. It’s not like any of his stuff qualifies as “source material” (except–what–Axel Pressbutton?).
In other words, Cal (rereading and seeing possible unclarity), the closer a director’s input *approaches *zero, the less I, personally, am likely to be interested in seeing the movie. YMMV.
[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
Are there even any other movie adaptations of Brave New World? I remember reading something about a version from the 70s.
[/QUOTE]
I remember a 1980 miniseries. It wasn’t bad. Wasn’t particularly good, either, IMHO.
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
If I could send a message back in time twenty years to the late 80s Barbra Streisand, it would be this: "I’m sorry that you aren’t content with the gifts God has given you, the incomparable singing voice that leaves people who hear it stunned and enamored. You want to be pretty as well, I get that; I even get that you’ve suffered in your youth because you’re not. But YOU’RE NOT PRETTY. You can’t pull off playing a character as lovely as Susan Lowenstein is described as being. See Michelle Pfeifer? Right over there in the bushes? Hire her.
[/QUOTE]
MMV. I think Streisand is gorgeous. Pfeiffer is … cute, but odd-looking.
A poor movie adaptation can be very damaging to the test scores of students who watch it so they can avoid reading the book.
[QUOTE=Snooooopy]
A poor movie adaptation can be very damaging to the test scores of students who watch it so they can avoid reading the book.
[/QUOTE]
Bwah! so true.
Has anyone mentioned
(the horror! the horror!)
Disney’s adaptation of The Prydain Chronicles, a wonderful, fantastic quintet of fiction by Lloyd Alexander that got butchered to death in The Black Cauldron?
I cannot believe how bad they botched it! First of all, making a quintet into a single 90-minute film can hardly do justice to the work. But the ending, E.T.-like and stupid, was what I hated about it the most. I don’t know how to do spoiler tags, but suffice it to say that when they had a major character killed in a way that didn’t happen in the books, and then brought this character back to life just like E.T., that did it for me.
Oh yes, Return to Oz was also horrible.
Must Disney ruin every book they adapt for film?
[QUOTE=KarlGauss]
Although, A Beautiful Mind was not a bad movie, and was quite watchable, it portrayed John Nash in a way that had little resemblance to that of him in the book (and in real life). The movie omits his general prickiness, his anti-semitism, his misogyny, and his utter lack of any sense of responsibility. It makes him seem almost likeable 
[/QUOTE]
Good catch! They screwed up Alicia also. Her real personality was far more subtle and interesting than in the movie. (And they were too cheap to film at MIT. )
[QUOTE=RealityChuck]
Total Recall was a complete trashing of “We Can Remember it for your Wholesale,”
[/QUOTE]
Continuing the theme of badly adapted Schwarzenflicks, there’s also The Running Man which had little to nothing in common with the original Steven King novel. There’s a man. He runs at some point. Er, that’s it.
[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
MMV. I think Streisand is gorgeous. Pfeiffer is … cute, but odd-looking.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, that’s misleading. Michelle Pfeiffer is gorgeous, but in a space-alien or elf way. It’s just…different. YMMV. [/hijac]
Hm. This is a weird thread. Hollywood makes a point of not getting the source material right as a rule. In time, we’ll name every US movie ever made.
Ever see Out of Sight? They mined passages from Elmore Leonard’s book & stuck them into a somewhat different plot. There’s a whole extra major character, & the end is totally different.
[QUOTE=bup]
You think the movie sucks? It bears little resemblance (ok, it has the 3 rules and that’s it) to the book, but it’s a great story in its own right. I think I, Robot’s fate is to be regarded in the same class as Blade Runner and The Terminator (first one only, of course - not either sequel).
[/QUOTE]
Let me be perfectly clear: the film called I, Robot, starring Wil Smith, is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
To Wit:
Egregious Product Placement for Audi, Converse, FedEx, Jensen, and others. The Converse placement was jaw-droppingly tacky and awful. I have never seen a film with such contempt for its audience as this one showed in its first five minutes.
Horrible acting on the part of Smith and Bridget Moynahan. Smith comes off as such an obnoxious prick that I had more sympathy for the sinister corporate guy than for him. Moynahan comes off as about as interesting as a statue of Grover Cleveland’s cousin.
A COMPLETELY nonsensical plot:
Dr. Alfred Lanning, upon realizing that the A.I. controlling his building has gone rogue, seals himself into his lab with only a robot he’d been experimenting on for company. He then decides that the ONLY way to alert the authorities is to have his robot throw him through a window to his death, leaving only a cryptic, unhelpful message for the police with his body. This brilliant scientist also apparently tells nothing of his suspicions to his robot pal, leaves no note, and doesn’t consider that maybe a robot who can jump unharmed out of the same window would be better put to use carrying a recorded message to the police than his own dead body.
Stupidest. Plot. Ever. And that’s just the framework upon which this dreck is hung. Before going into it, I didn’t know who’d written it, but by the time the credits rolled, I knew I was going to see Akiva “Hackmaster” Goldsman’s name, and whaddaya know?
Robots that look so creepy that no one would ever buy one. I mean, really, would you let one of those things into the same room as a small child? Not to mention the fact that every single one of them used exactly the same model, color (translucent bluish-white), and face. Ironic, considering one of the promos was a website where you could “individualize” your robot order.
In the third act, Proyas apparently decided that the movie didn’t have enough action so he switched into John Woo mode, with motorcycle jumps and double-fisted gunfire.
Did I mention the plot? Because a child raised by brain-damaged marmots could have pointed out holes in the incredibly flawed story. I’m sure people did point them out during production, but apparently no one cared enough to fix them. It is an insult to the intelligence of even the least discriminating viewer. Fortunately for the filmmakers, people just don’t seem to notice when they’re being laughed at anymore.
I hope I’ve made it clear that this movie is not my favorite.
[QUOTE=pinkfreud]
It was a shame to see what they did to John Varley’s Millennium when they made it into a movie. Whoever cast Cheryl Ladd in this mess should be dipped in molten treacle and thrown into an anthill. Likewise, the botchery of George R.R. Martin’s Nightflyers was a great pity. Both of these projects could have led to excellent films if someone who actually liked and respected science fiction had been in charge.
[/QUOTE]
No arguments about Nightflyers except that I didn’t think it was a very good book in the first place.
Varley admits to plenty of the blame for Millennium, though. He was the screenwriter and was plenty involved with the production, including being on the set for a lot of the filming. He does mention regretting that Natalie Wood, who was to star, died before filming started.
And, again, I think the book Millennium (and Air Raid, the short he expanded into the novel) is nowhere near his best work. Give me a well-made movie of Steel Beach or The Golden Globe or the Gaia trilogy and I will be a very happy man. Butcher them at your peril, Hollywood!
Coppola’s adaptation of Heart of Darkness changed a lot. Still a good flick, though, and some of the themes were preserved.
In general, I think movies that aren’t afraid to change the plots of the books they adapt, but still capture some of the original themes and conflicts are the best adaptations. IMHO Apocalypse, I Robot and Bladerunner are good examples of this.
And was Adaptation supposed to be an adaptation of The Orchid Thief, I lost track 
But if it was, then I’d put it in for least faithful adaptation ever.
I think adaptations
[QUOTE=lissener]
In other words, Cal (rereading and seeing possible unclarity), the closer a director’s input *approaches *zero, the less I, personally, am likely to be interested in seeing the movie. YMMV.
[/QUOTE]
I’m going to jump into this side conversation because, well, it’s my thread. 
I’m of the opinion that there are many ways a director can put his or her stamp on a film, and that input is vital to making a good movie and a good book adaptation (the two are not always the same). My objection, and I think the objection of those sparring with you (they’re welcome to jump in and disagree with me), is when the plot, setting and characters are drastically altered to make a movie shorter or more palatable. A couple of examples, from books that I love:
Matilda - Was there any good reason to move the setting from England to America? Was it just so that they could shoehorn Jersey-ass Danny DeVito into the movie? The essential Welshness/Englishness of Roald Dahl’s books is a significant part of their charm, to me at least. Why mess with it?
Vision Quest - Several adult characters from the book are squished into one, Mr. Tanneran, in the movie. Since this wasn’t really an “action book” (or movie), but one about a character growing and learning and relating to others, this was very jarring to me.
I love when a director does a great job of faithfully adapting a book to film. It’s an art, and a difficult one. Some of the sets in the LotR trilogy came close to making me tear up, because they actually were as full and beautiful as I’d imagined for 20 years. To go back to the LotR example, Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh did a great job (with a few exceptions) of condensing Tolkien’s wordy dialogue into something that conveyed the idea and the feeling of the original, yet was succinct enough to work onscreen. I love that.
What I can’t stand is the arrogance or just plain ignorance of someone who slaps a happy ending onto The Hunchback of Notre Dame (and writes a sequel?!?! WTF), hands the characters in Dune some weird sound guns, or turns the title character from The Running Man from a desperate, borderline asthmatic working family man into…well…oh, don’t make me say it.
[QUOTE=Scupper]
Give me a well-made movie of Steel Beach or The Golden Globe or the Gaia trilogy and I will be a very happy man. Butcher them at your peril, Hollywood!
[/QUOTE]
Ah, the Gaia trilogy would be a great film project! So awesome if done well, but so likely to be done poorly, if at all.
[QUOTE=pinkfreud]
Ah, the Gaia trilogy would be a great film project! So awesome if done well, but so likely to be done poorly, if at all.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah. I exchanged e-mails with Varley last year (probably scared him with my gushing fanboy-ness) and he said that there had been some work done on adapting the Gaia books, but it had kind of petered out.
[QUOTE=pinkfreud]
I just remembered one of the biggest cinematic disappointments of recent times: Simon Birch. This was based upon one of my favorite John Irving books, A Prayer for Owen Meany. What a disaster. Not only is Simon Birch a piece of crap, but now this wonderful book will probably never be filmed again. And it would have made a remarkable movie indeed, in the right hands. If I were John Irving, I would sue.
[/QUOTE]
Ditto. Also, any of the other John Irving books that were made into movies. I was so looking forward to The Cider House Rules, but it was unrecognizable from the novel.
I know several people consider the book Interview With a Vampire to be bad. But it’s bad in an entertaining way. The movie, was just a big steaming pile of crap.
[QUOTE=pinkfreud]
I just remembered one of the biggest cinematic disappointments of recent times: Simon Birch. This was based upon one of my favorite John Irving books, A Prayer for Owen Meany. What a disaster. Not only is Simon Birch a piece of crap, but now this wonderful book will probably never be filmed again. And it would have made a remarkable movie indeed, in the right hands. If I were John Irving, I would sue.
[/QUOTE]
I would have mentioned this if you hadn’t. Almost universally, the opinions I’ve heard about this movie are that people who hadn’t read the book loved the movie and people who had read the book hated the movie. If I knew nothing about the book, I might have liked the movie too, but, as I remember it, the movie just leaves so much out that it’s a completely different story.
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
And was Adaptation supposed to be an adaptation of The Orchid Thief, I lost track 
But if it was, then I’d put it in for least faithful adaptation ever.
[/QUOTE]
Susan Orlean, the author of The Orchid Thief, would disagree with you.