I was wondering what movies are least like the material, often a play or movie, that they are based on? But with so much innovative TV decided to make the question more general.
I was thinking movies that added an upbeat ending like Pygmalion or The Grapes of Wrath. Ones like Forbidden Planet which transpose The Tempest into space. Maybe things like The Quiet American which reverse the main point. Maybe Foreign Correspondent, which has almost nothing of its original basis except the title.
Any other good examples?
Pretty much any Phillip K Dick adaptation.
(First in!)
Also Mary Poppins. The main character is utterly different to the one in the books; a lot of the events are the same as in the books, but this is such an enormous difference that if you changed the name in the books you would barely be aware you were reading the same stories.
less than zero by bret easton ellis other than character names and one of them is a prostitute the movie has nothing to do with the book
The “happy ending” to Pygmalion (and My Fair Lady) was added by the play’s first producer, over the objections of GB Shaw. “Audiences want to see a happy ending, so we’re going to give them one.” The play actually ends with Eliza walking out on Higgins to attend her father’s wedding.
The studio didn’t really add a happy ending to The Grapes of Wrath; it just omitted the true one with the breast feeding. The combination of stillbirth and sexuality was judged just too much for audiences to handle.
Where Mary Poppins is concerned, some of the incidents were loosely based on the book. As noted, however, the tone of the latter was completely different (if not downright creepy in places).
TV’s Little House on the Prairie differed greatly from the books for basically the same reason. Michael Landon fell out with the first producer over his desire to take incidents from the stories and dramatize them loosely, rather than depict them more truly.
The 2004 I, Robot film bears little resemblence to any of Isaac Asimov’s robot stories, and the plot was based on an unrelated, original screenplay. I’m fairly certain that the only reason it uses the title is that the studio had the rights to the title, and felt it would help draw in audiences.
I’ll also note that, while the three Hobbit movies do keep the overall plot of the book, they contain an awful lot that was either only loosely suggested in some of Tolkien’s other writings, or just made up out of whole cloth, to pad the story out to three 3-hour films, and add a bunch of action to a story that doesn’t actually have much in the way of action or combat.
You can’t get much farther from the source then the 1967 version of Casino Royale, with Woody Allen as (a) James “Jimmy” Bond
To Have and Have Not with Bogart and Bacall bore almost no resemblance to Hemingway’s novel, other than its setting. It was an attempt by the studio to cash in on the success of Casablanca by following a similar theme.
Not just Mary Poppins, but any of the “original” Disney movies. Especially the animated ones based on folk tales.
Adaptation (the movie) is a surreal take on the struggles of a screenwriter trying to bring Adaptation (the book) to the big screen.
All of the screen versions of I am Legend
Disney’s version of 101 Dalmatians also differs greatly from the book, though I must say I enjoyed the movie more.
IIRC, it was a bet between Howard Hawks and Ernest Hemingway on whether Hawks could make a good movie out of Hemingway’s “worst book”.
Don’t think I’ve heard this before, but I can believe it!
The movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit only shares a few characters and their general personalities with the book Who Censored Roger Rabbit. Completely new plot, and even the basic premise of “toons” was changed from the novel having living comic strip characters, with no famous ones you’d recognize from real world comic strips, to the film having living animation characters, and a bunch of famous ones alongside the invented characters. I think the only bit of plot carried over was the mystery of why Jessica fell in love with Roger. In the movie, she simply says he makes her laugh, but the book had that as an important plot point.
It is not, in itself, bad if an adaptation differs from the book, sometimes this is unavoidable. Occasionally it is better. No doubt screenwriters want to make their mark.
But sometimes it is.
Sometimes the source is only a few pages long, and the movie burns through the original material in the first ten minutes, like The Killers based on Hemingway’s short story.
It would be hard to make a literal movie about Hopscotch or Breakfast of Champions. I’m sure there are much better examples.
The CBS adaption of The Stand. It was something but not much like the book.
I was thinking about the book Rayuela by Argentinian author Julio Cortazar, which was designed to be read conventionally, or by reading any chapter in any order. Not so much the movie above. Don’t know if a movie exists.
Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask). The book was a (wildly inaccurate) guide to sexual practices in Q and A format; the movie was a series of comedy skits based on the questions.