Danile Quinn’s novel, Ishmael was turned into an unrecognizable mess called Instinct with Anthony Hopkins and Cuba Gooding Jr. (in the novel. Hopkin’s character was actually a talking gorilla. Amazingly, the human character in the movie comes off as more ridiculous).
Not maybe bastardized, as there was plenty of love put into the work, but Hellboy definatley falls under the catagory of most changed on the way to the screen; characters are added, people who die, dont, every aspect has been tinkered with in order to make the movie run smoothly with fewest questions, all of which sacrifices the main reason I watched the movie in the first place: Hellboy kicking ass.
Well, “bastardized” isn’t always bad. “Blade Runner” is a great film, even though it bears very, very little resemblance to Philip Dick’s equally great “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”
Oh, I had blocked that disaster out of my mind until you brought it up. I HATED that movie. When I was a kid I hated it, and when I read the books—which became two of my all-time favorites—I hated it every more. Sometimes, well, most of the time, it seems that Disney debases everything it touches. It’s the WalMart of entertainment.
Let’s see…so many…Moby Dick with John Barrymore(Ahab kills the whale and gets the girl)
Take your pick of any Perry Mason
and the winner,folks, Vonnegut’s Slapstick starring Jerry Lewis
It wasn’t all that great a book, but you can’t be serious. That’s freakin hilarious.
Mists of Avalon on TNT. A more ham-handed, watered-down, miscasted mess I don’t think they could have done (well, they could have cast Britney Spears as Gwyenhfar, but I digress). My SILs and I loved the book, we made two nights out of it while I taped it for future enjoyment of viewing. We dined on caviar, wine, cheese and crackers, and were somewhat bemused after the first night, but assumed it would get better.
After the final credits rolled, I said, “Well, shit,” and got up to rewind the tape. No way I was keeping that mess. A co-worker and I hugged each other in horror and sympathy the next day.
It was such a beautiful book, epic and detailed in its character development. TNT was pure crap. In fact, I’m pretty sure I dreamed the whole thing and I still await someone to make a proper, six or eight hour mini-series. Why do networks insist long books be truncated into four hours? What happened to the days of Roots, Shogun, and even The Thorn Birds, where there was time to go into everything important and explore it fully?
Given that they’d have to wear clothes, and the vist to the Doral would be bowdlerized beyond all recognition, I think Disney could do quite a good job of translating it to the screen. It’s a swashbuckler all the way.
I heard about a movie called Glory Road, and went, “Oh, wow!” Then looked up the details and went, “Oh.”
Even worse, IMO: In the book, Mitch McDeere, after the FBI informs him who he’s actually working for, never for a moment considers that he cannot cooperate with their investigation without violating his fiduciary duty to his clients (the Mob guys). In the movie, he agonizes over it. Why?
When I heard they were making a film of The Running Man, I just knew Hollywood wouldn’t have the guts to stick with the basic plot. The book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_man#Novel], 'ware spoilers) has a subversive class-war theme: The future is dystopian because the rich have consolidated their power thoroughly; anybody who isn’t prosperous is marginalized; the media environment is saturated with fatuous propaganda; you can’t even go to a public library any more without being a paid subscriber. (One minor character is a black gang leader who periodically sneaks into the library in a stolen business suit with fake ID, and digs up all kinds of horrible revelations about the actual threat level of nuclear power plants and air pollution.) The Establishment gives the people bread & circuses in the form of dangerous, often deadly game shows, for which contestants volunteer because they’re desperate for the money. (The hero needs money for his daughter’s medical treatment.) And that ending . . . But in the movie, the game show is just an alternative way to punish accused criminals, and the real villain is not the Establishment, but Television. It’s still a radical message, but twisted around like 30 or 60 degrees.
Of the movies I’ve seen and read the books both, I’d say it’s a toss up between Stanley Kubrick’s version of The Shining and Bless the Child. Both movies are 75% based on something the directors & screenplay writers decided to go with rather than their supposed source materials. The biggest difference is that Kubrick made an arguably scary horror movie, and Chuck Russell just made a big pile of crap.
Ella Enchanted. Maybe it’s not the worst adaptation ever, but they twisted the plot for no reason.
The original had plenty of drama. Ella’s struggle to be independent despite her curse to always do what she’s told, her grief that her greedy father will never care about her and her decision to flee a relationship with the prince because she could be ordered to kill or betray him. She’s also very funny. The best thing about the book was the world it was set in. Each kingdom and species has a distinct culture and language.
The filmmakers, in their infinite wisdom, reverted to cliches. Why spend time portraying a realistic culture? Instead, the story would be so much better if they had an elf who wants to be a lawyer. And a talking book. And, of course, a huge swordfight at the end!
Bah, phooey on Hollywood.
The Beach by Alex Garland is an excellent book. The idealised society that backpackers create on a secret beach is necessarily desirable, to make it something worth hiding and protecting at all costs. The protagonist slowly goes insane throughout the course of the novel. Ultimately, the society self-destructs. These points are vital to the plot.
In the movie, the society as portrayed comes over as extremely creepy, and the people living in it unpleasant and idiotic. It’s nothing that one would preserve, especially not at the risk of one’s life. Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, also, just goes bonkers at one point in the movie, for no apparent reason, with some appalling CGI thrown in. Then the society is destroyed by outside elements, thus negating the allegory.
Terrible movie, which is a shame because I liked Trainspotting and Shallow Grave.
The only good points are that the secenry is astonishing (I was on the very beach where it was made, just a week ago!), and Virginie LeDoyen is hot as hell.
Chances of a faithful adapation ever being made, ending with……the protagonist forcing his way into the cockpit of a plane (after being gutshot and tripping on his own intestines) killing the pilots, and steering the plane into the skyscraper that represents the economic power and privilige of a twisted system, so that the last thing the evil C.E.O. sees before the plane slams directly into his corner office is Our Hero flipping him the triumphant bloody bird……are probably somewhere around zero now.
Both the stage and movie version of Flower Drum Song made some pretty drastic changes to the original novel by C.Y. Lee. I can understand why his novel may not have been a perfect source for a musical comedy at that time, but Rodgers and Hammerstein didn’t even retain the basic spirit of the story. The recent revival restored some of the original bittersweetness (which I don’t think is a word…) but was very poorly received for a lot of other reasons.
And while Disney’s Alice in Wonderland was a pretty loose adaptation of the original books, I have to say that I think they at least captured some of Lewis Carroll’s original spirit. Have you ever seen one of the many live action versions that were much more faithful? They all sucked, and for good reason.
Sum of All Fears I don’t even think they tried to follow the book. Also Clear and Present Danger Better than SoAF, but still way off from the book. I always fear movies where I love the book.
-Otanx
As far as James Bond goes, even after On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, they managed to do one pretty faithful adaptation with For Your Eyes Only, which blended elements of the short stories For Your Eyes Only and Risico (from the same collection), with a dash of Live and Let Die tossed in.
At the start, it looked as if they were going to do the same with Octopussy, but they wimped out. They tried to do something of the sort with The Living Daylights, but there wasn’t enough story there to support an entire movie.
Creator, at least, was changed by the author of the novel, who wrote the screenplay, so I give him credit for the new version. The same goes for Amadeus, in which the film is very different from the original play. (And I prefer the play). But Peter Schaeffer wrote both.
**‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?’ ** is a black comedy about identity and the nature of reality and ‘Blade Runner’…isn’t.
I’ll agree about Disney’s horrible job of The Jungle Book, though it would have been a very cerebral cartoon for the time had it stuck close to Kipling (and the songs go very far towards redeeming it, if you don’t mind the story)… and where they got the sequel from, only Beelzebub knows… but I can forgive Disney almost anything after seeing The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe. A few short years ago, and I’d never have believed they could have done it justice. Credit where 'tis due.
Boulter’s Canary I find your comment interesting, but for the life of me I don’t see why you quoted me in front of it. There’s nothing in my post about Bladerunner, and Philip K. Dick had nothing to do with the adaptation. So I don’t see the connection.