It’s been many years since I read the book, but I remember thinking when I saw Ethan Supplee as Randy on My Name is Earl that “this” is the book version of Forrest. Tom Hanks played a mob hitman in Road to Perdition and he was likable, but in the book Forrest is more a big hulking moron who’s just not anything remotely like the movie character in charm or good nature or likability.
What’s ironic is that while the movie deviated until it was unrecognizable (“let’s make Forrest cute in looks and a Zen pussycat in personality… oh, and that Woody Allen film Zelig- let’s do what they did of having him present at everything in history…”) the huge success of Forrest Gump inspired the publishers to offer Winston Groom $7 million for a sequel. This was a problem for several reasons, not least of them that in addition to book and movie having the character go in way different directions they also end completely differently (for example, at the end of the book Gump is penniless, his house is burned, and as memory serves he’s sweeping topless bars for food) while of course the movie ends with him a multimillionaire single dad (and paragon of virtue- in an borderline retarded and borderline Aspergers sort of way). Groom didn’t know where in the hell to begin for a sequel, but (and who can blame him) he wasn’t going to turn down $7 million either.
The result was GUMP & CO., which tried to weave book and movie together (among other things Forrest has a movie made of his life starring Tom Hanks and having nothing to do with him) and it flopped. Groom (my sister knows him) pretty much said “I had no doubt it would- wasn’t my best work, might have been my worst… but there’s one thing I’m damned proud of from that work. It’s that I can look at that book and say 'Goddamn I’m rich!” (He wasn’t hurting before- he’s from a rich family to begin with and did okay as a writer- but this made him independently wealthy for the first time- celebrated with a half his age/half his height [Groom’s about 6’8] trophy wife and a new waterfront house).
Anyway, crazy thing is that all these years later there’s still talk of a movie sequel. The only reason there wasn’t one long ago was that the actors were unable to schedule it or come to terms and then the rights expired for a time. This could well be a cause for tears to anybody who has money invested in that studio; it was a monster of a hit 15 years ago but it’s aged about as well as Jan Michael Vincent and I really think they should make like Henry Jones Sr. and say “Junior, let it go…”. OTOH, might be interestingly awful if they do go through with it (and if Lost Boys 2 is a hit I’m guessing you’re going to see every 80s and early 90s movie that can stand for it getting a sequel.)
Clear and Present Danger. They changed the age of Ryan, the enemy, in fact just about everything. There’s no way they could put all the science stuff in the movie, but I think there was too much 9/11 paranoia when they were making that movie.
Gandalf & Theoden in The Two Towers. As Tolkien wrote it, it would not have been good cinema: They walk into the hall. Grima insults Gandalf. Gandalf insults Grima. Suddenly, Theoden fires Grima, and starts taking Gandalf’s advice, based solely on Gandalf’s uplifting oratory. Now, Ian Mckellan is a good actor, but I don’t know if he is good enough to make that seem believable.
The Sandman’s Weapon in Logan’s Run. The Gun in the book was more interesting on an intellectual level, but the Weapon in the movie looked much cooler.
Dislike:
See Cal Meacham’s comments on Dune.
In The Last of the Mohicans, (Daniel Day-Lewis version), Chingachgook is Hawkeye’s foster-father and Uncas is Hawkeye’s foster-brother. WTF? In the book, Chingachgook and Hawkeye were the same age, and the Hawkeye/Uncas relationship was uncle/nephew. Other than enabling Russell Means to play the role, the change served no purpose.
Sometimes a studio develops a script, but somebody notices that elements of the script are similar to some old science fiction story, so the studio decides to buy the rights to the story just to avoid any legal hassles. Then after they’ve bought the rights, they figure they might as well slap the famous name on their homebrewed script.
I’m perfectly aware of why they sometimes do it – this is the reason given for putting the name I, Robot on Jeff Vintar’s wholly unrelated (except for using Asimov’s Three Laws) screenplay. If they’d not tried to shoehorn it into being Asimov’s book I might have liked it a bit more (there were some cute ideas, and some good dialogue), but as it is, I’m severely annoyed with them for trying to pass it off as “I, Robot”. That’s like trying to remake The Red Badge of Courage into Gone With the Wind by changing some names and sexes, on the basis that they’re both about the Civil War.
Even with that kind of justification, they didn’t HAVE to do that – change the name and all. Hollywood was perfectly happy to pay off Kit Reed and not change the title of Honey, I Blew Up the Kid.
At least they kept Asimov’s “Converse running shoes, vintage 2004” opening intact.
There are several changes in Stephen King adaptations I actually prefer. One of the biggest perhaps is (Rita Hayworth and) The Shawhank Redemption. In the movie the warden (it’s been long enough- nobody needs spoilers right?) ends up putting a gun in his mouth rather than being indicted and incarcerated in his own prison. In the book he---- resigns. Plus, the characters are a lot more fleshed out in the movie.
Anyone remember the movie Sphere based on Micahel Crichton’s book?
In the book, it appears that Beth has kept her powers, while they eliminated that in the movie.
Then again, that whole movie is pretty bad.
Did like:
Most of the changes in Lord of the Rings were well done and necessary. Sam’s speech at the end of the Two Towers is very well done and a great addition.
The ending of Cujo. I can see why Hollywood couldn’t let the kid die, but what a change. If memory serves, it was symbolic for Mom’s punishment for her affair.
Gollum, speaking to Frodo and Sam of the time he spent being tortured in Barad-Dur, says something like:
“Yes, yesss, my precious. He has only nine fingers on His hand. But it’s enough.”
It pretty clearlt refers to Sauron, with the one finger that had the Ring on it cut off (the movie errs in showing several fingers cut off.)
In addition, Gandalf talks about The Necromancer in Dol Guldur in Mirkwood, who is the re-corporealized Sauron, spoken of as an actual physical person. In any event, it’d be hard for him to be a disembodied eye sttretched between the lightning rods of Barad-Dur at that point.
I was very pleased with Alfred Hitchock’s film of Daphne du Maurier’s Rebecca, except for this: In the Hitchcock version, Rebecca’s death was accidental (during an argument, she lost her balance, fell, and hit her head). In the novel, it was murder: Maxim shot her through the heart.
I’m happy with all of Peter Jackson’s changes to LOTR, except how he butchered my favorite scene from entire trilogy: the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-King of Angmar.
Books: WK is on horseback, leading the unit in charge of the battering ram (Grond). Door bursts open. Dead silence pause in the battle. WK strolls in, and finds Gandalf, alone, on Shadowfax. They exchange some great trash talk, interrupted by the horns of Rohan.
Movie (theatrical release): nuttin’.
Movie (extended version): Gandalf is racing somewhere when the WK, on his flying Fell Beast, lands on top of him. Some trash talk. WK breaks Gandalf’s staff, while Gandalf grovels on the ground. Horns of Rohan.
Breaks his staff? Excuse me? The upgraded Gandalf the White doesn’t get his staff broken by some undead slave. Sauron himself, maybe, but his minions? No way.
All this talk about LotR and no one is raving about the utter idiocy that was Aragorn falling off the cliff? Jesus, I love those movies but that scene makes me want to start throwing things.
