I haven’t seen the movie or read any of Travers’ books, but from comparing the plots as given by Wikipedia it appears that the movie Mary Poppins Returns isn’t based on the book Mary Poppins Comes Back, although some incidents from the book look like they might have been used in the original Mary Poppins film.
Keeping on with Disney, it appears that 102 Dalmations, the live-action sequel to the live-action 101 Dalmations, has nothing to do with The Starlight Barking, Dodie Smith’s sequel to her novel 101 Dalmations
And Jungle Book 2 isn’t based on Kipling’s The Second Jungle Book.
The “reeling Mary in on a kite” element from Comes Back was used in Returns.
Although It has been a long time, I remember hating both the novel and movie versions of The Lost World. What I found odd was that the novel seemed to be written like a movie script, and it is a direct sequel to the first movie. However, they still ended up making some significant changes to the plot when they made the movie.
I still have not seen JP3 or most of the Jurassic World movies.
Gregory McDonald’s novel Fletch (1974), which was intriguing (the paperback beguiled you into reading it by printing the first paragraph or so right on the cover) was loosely adapted into a Chevy Chase film in 1985. The movie sequel, Fletch Lives (1989) was pretty awful, and not based on any of McDonald’s Fletch series (which eventually stretched to eleven books)
John P. Marquand wrote a series of six novels about a Japanese secret agent named Mr. Moto between 1935 and 1957. A series of eight films using the character appeared between 1927 and 1939, then again in 1965. The early films starred Peter Lorre as the title character. Amazingly, the first two films actually follow the novels, with the screenplay for the second written by Marquand himself. But after that they have nothing to do with the books.
The relationship between the Charley Chan and Fu Manchu films is much more complicated, but the films actually were based more on the characters than on the actual novels. Again, in most of these cases non-Asian actors played the lead characters, except, oddly, in the first two Charley Chan films, which had Japanese actors in the title roles.
The 1982 Don Bluth film The Secret of NIMH (based on Robert C. O’Brien’s book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH) had a 1998 direct to video sequel entitled The Secret of NIMH 2: Timmy to the Rescue which had nothing to do with book sequels written by O’Brien’s daughter.
Yes, indeed. I read Stargirl every year at school with my students. It’s one of our favorites. The sequel book, which is not part of our class teaching, does continue with Stargirl.
The second movie is shockingly wrong and misguided.
Stargirl and Westing Game are two young adult books I genuinely appreciate just as novels, not just kids books. Both are just terrific.
The flashback scenes in The Godfather Part II come directly from the original novel.
Neither does the animated sequel 101 Dalmatians II: Patch’s London Adventure.
Are any Disney straight-to-video sequels consistent with their book sequels?
Two more that aren’t:
Bambi II isn’t based on Bambi’s Children.
The Rescuers Down Under isn’t based on any of the sequels to Margery Sharp’s The Rescuers.
I remember when we all thought episode 5 was going to be based on Splinter of the Mind’s Eye.
Mahaloth wrote:
Are any Disney straight-to-video sequels consistent with their book sequels?
Although Return to Oz was briefly in the theaters, it went quickly to video. It retained a surprising number of elements from the first Oz sequel, The Land of Oz including Mombi, Ozma, Jack Pumpkinhead, Gump, and the Wheelers. It’s a Disney sequel to an MGM movie, so probably not what you’re looking for.
I saw it in the theaters, and I really liked it – they managed to provide a movie consistent with Baum’s vision (the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, and the cowardly Lion look like they do in the original illustrations) but also pay homage to the 1939 movie (some of the way things look, the “real world” Framing story), and including things from the later Oz books (the Gump, Jack Pumpkinhead, the Mechanical Man). And it had Will Vinton’s Claymation animation for the Nome King!
But most people didn’t appreciate it. And a lot of this movie sequel WAS based on the book sequels, so it’s not a good candidate for this thread. But It’s nice to know someone thought about it.
I think the Disney folks desperately, desperately wish they had made The Wizard of Oz. Every now and then this desire breaks out in another movie, like Return to Oz, or Oz the Great and Powerful (2013), or The Muppet’s Wizard of Oz (2005). I think the especially wanted to get Oz the Great and Powerful out before Wicked was filmed – it presents a completely different alternative genesis for the Oz characters.
I still have to read the book version of Aladdin 4: Jafar May Need Glasses.
Did his characterization change post '41?
Heck, he totally disappeared before 1941. No way would people watch a movie or read a book about a Japanese secret agent during WWII, especially one who had been a protagonist before.
When he returned in a single low-budget outing he was apparently a sort of low-rent James Bond, who wasn’t even clearly Japanese. I haven’t seen it, but that’s the description .
Considering how little the original movie resembled the original novel, that’s not surprising.