Technically, most of the Robert De Niro sections of GF2 were in the novel, but all the stuff about Michael/Roth/Nevada/Cuba was not.
True enough.
In the book The Natural, Roy strikes out in the climactic at-bat, losing the game for his team. In the movie, he hits the gigantic home run that causes all the lights in the stadium to explode.
And causes his ulcer to bleed through his skin. Pretty severe for an ulcer.
Oh yeah. The single most effective scene in The Deep End of The Ocean by Jacquelyn Mitchard is the one that explains the title in a flashback- it’s absolutely chilling considering what happened after to Ben not long after that. The movie adaptation not only omitted that scene, they also never mentioned anything else to explain the title either. sigh.
One interesting case is Logan’s Run. There are three scenes where action and dialog are copied from the book, near-verbatim. The rest of the movie is drastically different.
In the book:
The society spans the globe.
Everyone (except Ballard) dies at age 21.
In the movie:
The society is contained in a single city, with only wilderness and ruins outside.
Everyone (except Peter Ustinov’s nameless character) dies at age 30.
My copy of the book had a bunch of photos from the movie in the center, so I knew that the movie would be significantly different. When I finally got around to watching the movie, years later, I didn’t mind the changes.
A faithful adaptation of the novel would have been hideously expensive in the 1970s. Also, most of the characters in the book are teenagers; the sex scenes would have caused legal difficulties.
Neither the book nor the movie is an Immortal Classic. I like them both.
Good Point JohnT. And yes, Freudian Slit, I know that abortions were performed in the 50s, I just don’t think it’s in line with Puzo’s story about the type of person Kay is. Just because they were performed, doesn’t mean it’s a good or accurate story line. I don’t think Kay would have gotten an abortion. JohnT, when Fredo betrayed Michael, I thought he simply cut him out of the family business so he wouldn’t have to be threatened by him again. And of course I’ll re-state my belief that I don’t think the book portrayed Michael as an evil revenge seeking monster, whereas the movie did. That being said, The Godfather movie is still one of my top 10 favorite movies.
But Michael was portrayed in the book as a “evil revenge seeking monster.” IIRC, there were two reasons why the Don’s revenge didn’t take place while he was alive:
- He gave his word at the conference that as long as he lived, he would forgo vengeance.
- He couldn’t stomach killing Carlos, Connie’s husband, because of the pain it would cause Connie.
Michael, however, could. He still preferred to have reassurance that Carlos betrayed the family (which is why he wanted the confession), but, unlike the Don, once he had the confession he had no problem with the kill.
It was the brutality, swiftness, and completeness of the Corleone’s revenge that made Michael the Godfather in the eyes of the rest of the NY crime syndicate, as well as his own organization (which was the point of the book - the Godfather referenced in the title is Michael, not Vito). He not only took out the heads of the other 5 families, he offed his own sister’s husband!
So, imho, it was established in the novel that:
A. Fredo can go against the family, and,
B. Michael will kill family members who do so
When I was a child, we used to get the Scholastic Books order forms. I ordered several novels of Disney movies - the live action 70s Disney movies, usually starring Dean Jones. It confused me to no end that the pictures on the cover and in the center were of things that didn’t happen in the book, and that when I saw the movies, they were totally different. Off the top of my head, “Blackbeard’s Ghost,” “That Darn Cat,” and “The Ugly Dachshund” spring to mind.
(The last named is perhaps of particular interest. The original is well beloved by Dachshund (and Boxer) owners, and is a charming tale set in France between the wars. The existence of the Disney movie means it will never be filmed more accurately. If you enjoy dog books you should read it. Trust me that it bears no resemblance at all to the movie.)
I guess I just have a hard time seeing that having an abortion has to do with the kind of person you are. I mean, yes, in the book she was going to Mass and being a good Catholic, but despite Catholic doctrine, I’m sure a lot of women who went to Mass (and go to Mass today) get abortions. They may not advertise it, but I don’t think it’s so odd. I think that any woman in the right circumstances could get one and that it has nothing to do with the kind of person you are.
Escape to Witch Mountain is a great example of this (with both movies).
A lot of the story in the movie version of Logan’s Run was inspired by an obscure 1971 British SF movie, Glen and Randa.
I once started a thread on the different endings of the book and movie versions of Forrest Gump. In the book Jenny doesn’t die but she leaves Forrest. In the movie Jenny and Forrest get together but she then dies. I asked which ending people thought was sadder.
Also in the book Forrest’s mother doesn’t die. When Winston Groom wrote the sequel he opened it with her death so the new book would match the movie.
It’s interesting to me that we could both have read the novel and gotten such a different message from it. My mind didn’t make it nearly so complicated. Yes Michael got revenge; but the distinction I meant to make was that I felt the movie portrayed him almost as a rage filled with his intentions to get revenge, whereas I felt the book portrayed Michael like his father. Revenge had to be taken because that’s the way the business was. The Don was a man of his word, and as you pointed out he promised at the conference that no retaliation would take place while he was alive. Indeed the book talks about how Michael and his dad were meticulously putting everything in place to put the Corleone family back on top. So, in my mind Michael and Vito were extracting revenge as a means to protect his empire. That fact that they killed Connie’s husband was also just a part of the business. One of Michael’s few weaknesses in the book was getting Carlo to admit that he was the cause of Sonny’s death. Vito wouldn’t have done that. I never got the impression that Vito couldn’t stomach killing Carlo. On the contrary he stayed out of the business of Carlo beating Connie. When asked if he ever hit his wife, he answered something to the effect of: “she never gave me reason to beat her.” You’d think he could stomach killing Carlo easier than knowing his own daughter is getting beat by her.
Anyway, I [probably :)]won’t comment anymore as I suppose we’ve about beat it to death. I like your take on it, JohnT and I’ve definitely opened my mind a little on the events that occurred after the book.
Freudian Slit, In my mind there’s no way Kay would have gotten an abortion. In my mind, the way book ended she was falling in line to be more like mama Corleone. She loved Michael, and was a dutiful wife. At any rate, that and the killing of Fredo are about the only things I really don’t like about the movie. I probably have a somewhat glamorous view of Michael. Sure he’s really a gangster, but I think of him as being just like his father. Basically a good man who takes care of his family, and follows his own code of ethics to ensure that happens. The only thing that would have made the book better in my opinion would be if they found a way to for Apollonia to live and come back to the US w/ Michael.
Right, but what I’m saying is being a dutiful, loving wife doesn’t necessarily mean not having an abortion. I’m sure there are many dutiful loving Catholic wives who never consider abortions because they’re never in situations where they find it’s necessary. But a woman who’s in a situation where she’s having doubts might get one–I’m sure huge numbers of women who are like mama Corleone in your mind have gotten them, but just done so discreetly. I’m just saying that having an abortion isn’t a personality trait of certain kinds of women.
For some reason science fiction and spy novels seem to get significantly changed by Hollywood. We’ve commented ad nauseum about Starship Troopers and I, Robot, but here are others:
This Island Earth – An overlooked book that I like (can you tell?) It peters out at the end, but it’s overall done intelligently. The 1950s movie version took the opening and dumbed it down unbelievably, then tossed out the rest and substituted what seems to be a story based on perusing SF magazine covers. Unforgiveable.
The Puppet Masters – It has several good points, but an awful lot of this is just stupid. One of these days someone will film it without changing it too much (set in the future, interplanetary travel, etc.)
The Twonky – Henry Kuttner’s story was a dark comedy. The movie turned it into a light comedy bashing that upstart television.
Martians, go Home! – Fredric Brown wrote superb light SF, fantasy, and mysteries. They took this book of his and cranked up the “stupid” knob.
Robert Sheckley deserves a special award for most altered stories:
Immortality, Inc./Immortality Delivered had its plot 99% jettisoned and the movie turned into a vehicle for Anthony Hopkins and Mick Jagger, Freejack
The Game of X – Sheclkley’s parody of the spy genre got turned into a Disney movie starring a pre-Phantom of the Opera Michael Crawford, Condorman!
The Seventh Victim – Got the Italian Sci-Fi-who-the-hell-cares-what’s-happening treatment as The Seventh Victim
Actually, the ones who ought to get the Prizes for "most altered stories are Jules Verne, Edgar Allen Poe, and H.G. Wells. If any of their works get adapted faithfully, it’s probably an oversight. It’d take way too long to list the bad adaptations.
The point of the confession wasn’t to find out what had happened, the real point of the confession was to find out who it was that suborned Carlos - Barzini or Tattaglia?
I don’t think the point is that Kay wouldn’t have an abortion because its evil and sinful, and she couldn’t commit an evil and sinful act, it’s that Kay wouldn’t have an abortion because she has no reason to, besides hurting Michael in the greatest possible way. They certainly could financially afford another child. There was no indication that Kay had difficult pregnancies in the past, or that she was in ill health now, or her doctor had told her this pregnancy would be dangerous for her. The hotel room scene made it clear she had an abortion because she hated being a Corleone, and she hated Michael. That’s not the same Kay who at the end of the novel was praying daily for Michael’s soul.
Exactly! Of course, killing him afterwards was a personal bit of revenge for Sonny, and possibly a bit about Connie.
I think it odd how someone would think Godfather II was a departure from where Puzzo wanted to go seeing as he was one of the principle screenwriters.
The way I see part II is as a reflection of what happens to the children of immigrants as they become wrapped up in the culture of their country and drift away from the old ways. Even though Vito was a criminal he didn’t involve himself in prostitution or drugs and wouldn’t commit murder unless necessary. He was an old world gentleman.
His children, all American born, were changed by their experience. Michael served in the Pacific and in-spite of Sonny’s belief that Michael never got dirty killing likely he was in the thick of it. That is why he is able to Kill McClusky and Salazzo. I think he was damaged goods to start, he defied his past and then spent his time in power trying to hold onto it always comparing himself to the old ways, yet always ignoring the lessons.
Fredo was weakened by his womanizing and use of prostitutes, grew up protected and sheltered. He was easily swayed by material things and promises of getting what was his.
Sonny, hot headed, grew up on the streets as a tough. He was a product of his New York street childhood where he talked with his fists first. He also is a victim of his lust.
Connie, spoilt daughter, weak and unable to do anything without a strong male figure around. After Carlo she flits from man to man spending money as if there is no end in sight.
Interestingly enough this group (sans Sonny of course) begins its fall once they move to Vegas… sin city.
oops sorry for the hijack Uhhhh…
Clockwork Orange has a different ending in the book which I think sort of works. The movie seems to say Alex will be back to his old ways in no time without any change. In the book he realizes he getting older and his old desires seem to be fading with age. He doesn’t fit in anymore.
Actually, the book was originally released in the US without the 21st chapter. It ended pretty much the way the movie did - the operant conditioning was removed and Alex was back to his old tricks. I don’t know if they made the movie in ignorance of the 21st chapter or just decided they liked it better without it - I certainly prefer the movie ending.