Since we’ve been doing a thread on sequels I thought I’d bring up this case.
Often when a book has a sequel and movie is based on the original book, the movie sequel is based on the book sequel.
As with the Arthur C. Clarke novels 2001: A Space Odyssey and 2010: Odyssey Two, which were filmed as 2001: A Space Odyssey and 2010: The Year we Make Contact. Or Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s (Sorcerer’s) Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (and the rest of the series).
But then you have cases like Robert Bloch’s Psycho II (1982), a sequel to his original 1959 novel Psycho. The movie Psycho II (1983) is a sequel to Hitchcock’s movies Psycho (1960), which is based on Bloch’s original novel. But the second film has nothing to do with Bloch’s sequel book.
Or the movie The Vengeance of She (1968), a sequel to the 1965 movie She, based on H. Rider Haggard’s She: A History of Adventure (1886). The movie sequel has nothing to do with Haggard’s sequel to the novel, Ayesha: The Return of She (1905).
Speaking of Haggard, the Richard Chamberlin/Sharon Stone 1985 movie King Solomon’s Mines had a back-to-back sequel filmed at the same time Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold (1986), which doesn’t resembled any of Haggard’s Alan Quatermain novels. Of course, the first movie doesn’t really much resemble Haggard’s novel of the same name (1885).
The sequel to Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Tarzan the Ape Man was The Return of Tarzan. Most of the Tarzan movies made as immediate sequels
to the original aren’t adaptations of this second book, with one exception – the very first silent adaptation with Elmo LIncoln actually split the book into two parts and adapted it. Nobody else did.
Excellent example - the whole original book by Gallico to first movie, to a novelised sequel to film of that book is marvellously messy, complicated by Gallico’s death. Probably best to read the Beyond … Wikipedia page rather than trying to relay it coherently.
This was mentioned in the ‘Brought back from the dead’ thread, but worth mentioning here too…
Michael Crichton’s sequel to his own Jurassic Park novel, The Lost World, was also made into a film sequel of the same name, and although the outline of the plot is pretty similar, he had to make some amendments to characters’ fates from the JP novel that were changed in the JP film. So suddenly Ian Malcolm is brought back from the (literary) dead, free to take part in the sequel. He’d also killed off John Hammond in his original book but of course that character also survived in the film, and appeared in the film sequel.
So I would argue that the sequel novel is a sequel to the first film, not the first novel, but the sequel film is based on the first film, and also the second novel.
Thanks for the Wiki listing; definitely more respectable than that awful film deserves. I remember the novel being serviceable, if a tad strange, but all I really remember of that wet fart of a film is Sally Field getting shot in her cute little butt.
If I understand correctly. The movie Fletch was based on a book by Gregory McDonald. There are several books in the Fletch series. The sequel to the movie was Fletch Lives, which is not one of the books in the series.
This series is exactly the one that comes to mind when I think of movies not matching the books, especially the sequels - they’re not even close. Bourne Supremacy (book) involves Bourne traveling to Hong Kong to rescue his wife, and Bourne Ultimatum (book) is the final showdown with Carlos the Jackal, who was removed from the entire movie series. The Bourne Supremacy (movie) has a Russian oligarch kill his wife in the beginning of the movie, and Bourne Ultimatum (movie) rehashes the first one, only Treadstone is now Blackbriar.
Jason Bourne is an amnesiac assassin in both the novels and the movies; the similarity ends there.
You’d maybe think the movie sequel THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is based on the book sequel THE SPY WHO LOVED ME — possibly with some major changes, to the point where you could say well, it’s loosely based on that — but it, uh, just isn’t, is all.
Moonraker
The Man With The Golden Gun
Quantum of Solace
(From) A View To A Kill
Octopussy
The Living Daylights (and I can probably throw in For Your Eyes Only for similar reasons)
You Only Live Twice
Diamonds Are Forever
To the same or somewhat lesser, but still significant, degrees.
They probably wouldn’t have based the movie on the book for lots of reasons, but it turns out that they couldn’t – Fleming sold them the rights to the title, but forbade them from using the plot.
The novelization was written by Christopher Wood, who wrote the screenplay. His two screenplays were the worst and most puerile of the entire James Bond series.
He also wrote the novelization for Moonraker, titling it James Bond and Moonraker so that you wouldn’t mistake it for Fleming’s novel.
Just for the record, I don’t think his novelizations are as bad as the movies, but they’re still pretty bad.
Again, for what it’s worth, from iamtractorboy’s list, I’d point out that Octopussy, The Living Daylights, and (although he doesn’t name it) For Your Eyes Only actually tried to use material from their novels in the films, especially the last (which uses stuff from two short stories in the collection, as well as a snipper from Live and Let Die)
I don’t think these Bond books really qualify for this thread – they’re cases of the movie ostensibly following a named title, but reject9ing most of it. That’s an entirely separate thread, and one that we’ve pursued in the past more than once. But the examples in my OP were cases where they didn’t copy the title and had no intention of using any of the material in the novel. (}Psycho II" is sort of an obvious ttle for the sequel, but they never considered Bloch’s work in coming up with that abysmal sequel).
Wicked, both the Broadway show and the movie, is a sequel to the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz. It bears no resemblance to any of L. Frank Baum’s books set in Oz.
No, that’s a stretch. Wicked is a re-interpretation of the story, drawing on both Baum’s books and the 1939 movie. But it is in no way a sequel to The Wizard of Oz in any form.
A similar case applies to 2001. In the original book, the destination was Saturn. In the movie, and in the sequels in both media, the destination was Jupiter.
Yeh I guess that’s where I was coming from too; the Bond movies have all essentially (up until Craig anyway) been stand alone stories with little reference to previous entries (except for occasional things like Tracey), so the fact they deviated so much from the novels or expanded drastically from the short stories didn’t have an impact on the canon, such that it is. Fleming’s novels did tend to refer to previous adventures at times during the early chapters, particularly if Bond was still in a relationship with a woman he’d met, or just as likely recovering from the physically and mental after-effects. But they also more or less stood alone as self contained stories, even the SPECTRE trilogy could be read separately and you wouldn’t really miss much.
Force 10 from Navarone the movie is sorta loosely based on Alastair MacLean’s novel of the same name, so I won’t include it on this list. But I have to quote from the Wikiedia page:
Stargirl, the best-known book by YA novelist Jerry Spinelli, had a sequel called Love, Stargirl where the heroine went to somewhere in Pennsylvania and continued her mission to bring acts of kindness to marginalized people. The movie, Disney’s Stargirl, had a very different sequel, Hollywood Stargirl, where she goes to Holllywood with her mom and gets involved with indy filmmakers.