|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Mar 17, 2011 17:59:34 GMT -5
I've never read the book, but I've been told Forrest Gump (the novel) is VERY different from the movie.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,459
|
Post by FinalGwen on Mar 17, 2011 18:14:20 GMT -5
One example (while not as severe as some of those in this thread) that really interested me was Battle Royale. The biggest difference from the book is the reason for the battle itself. In the movie, it's a rather vague thing about curbing delinquency, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In the book, it's a rather chilling idea from the totalitarian government to stop people banding together and rebelling, by showing that even the closest of school friends will betray each other if it means their own survival.
Also, Kazuo Kiriyama is a stranger who joined up for fun, as opposed to a member of the class who was the leader of the gang that he was 'captured' by in the movie. Makes his behaviour a lot more chilling, although the movie version has enough acting talent (and awesome hair) for me not to mind too much.
|
|
Ken Ivory
Hank Scorpio
This sorta thing IS my bag, baby.
Posts: 5,282
|
Post by Ken Ivory on Mar 17, 2011 18:14:24 GMT -5
Yes Man
|
|
|
Post by Bobafett on Mar 17, 2011 18:21:26 GMT -5
The Lost World The book doesn't feature a group of hunters capturing dinosaurs, it doesn't feature Malcolm going to the island to rescue his gf, it doesn't feature a T-Rex rampaging through San Diego, doesn't feature an annoying environmentalist, doesn't feature the dinos breaking free and rampaging through the hunters camp, doesn't even feature hunters actually. (The main villains are a geneticist and his companion who are on the island to steal dino eggs, neither are big game hunters though) In fact, the only things that are the same are the T-Rex attacking the trailers and to some degree, the group getting attacked by raptors in the abandoned town. to be honest the 3rd movie seemed more like the Lost Worldbook, I wish they had made it more faithfull though
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Mar 17, 2011 18:30:00 GMT -5
Nightbreed is another one which springs to mind. It's a unique case though since the changes made to the movie adaption actually improve it wheras the book it was based on was kinda dull imo.
|
|
|
Post by bibboid on Mar 17, 2011 18:30:49 GMT -5
The first couple of Bond movies were sort of based on the books. By the time Roger Moore took over the role, all they had in common were the titles.
|
|
|
Post by strykerdarksilence on Mar 17, 2011 18:33:52 GMT -5
The Color Purple.
And this is the reason I sing with joy whenever I hear it mentioned that it got snubbed at the Oscars. Spielberg ripped the soul out of that book with his butchering of the ending. By having Celie not forgive Albert and having him isolated at the end of the film it TOTALLY RUINS THE FRIGGING POINT OF THE BOOK!! Celie is supposed to be at peace with a reconciliation and resolution of her life and 'her peoples' all around her with her their central figure. Albert not being part of that means there is a huge unresolved issue there.
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Mar 17, 2011 18:58:58 GMT -5
I've never read the book, but I've been told Forrest Gump (the novel) is VERY different from the movie. He becomes an astronaut in the book.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Galt on Mar 17, 2011 19:15:19 GMT -5
I think I'm the only person who liked Troy. I liked it. Maybe there's one or two more of us. ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) I liked it as well.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Mar 17, 2011 19:17:07 GMT -5
I think I'm the only person who liked Troy. I liked it. Maybe there's one or two more of us. ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) I've grown to enjoy it for what it is, but damn that first time was rough. When the group of girls in front of me cheered when they killed Menelaus, I just yelled out "NO!"
|
|
|
Post by Joe Galt on Mar 17, 2011 19:18:14 GMT -5
The Lost World The book doesn't feature a group of hunters capturing dinosaurs, it doesn't feature Malcolm going to the island to rescue his gf, it doesn't feature a T-Rex rampaging through San Diego, doesn't feature an annoying environmentalist, doesn't feature the dinos breaking free and rampaging through the hunters camp, doesn't even feature hunters actually. (The main villains are a geneticist and his companion who are on the island to steal dino eggs, neither are big game hunters though) In fact, the only things that are the same are the T-Rex attacking the trailers and to some degree, the group getting attacked by raptors in the abandoned town. I am still to this day pissed at Steven Spielberg because of that crap he pulled with the movie! The Lost World, at the time, was one of the best books that I had ever read. The movie marks the first time I had walked out of a movie protesting how awful a movie was.
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,418
|
Post by agent817 on Mar 17, 2011 19:52:48 GMT -5
If comic books count, then Kick-Ass has a few differences than the movie: {Spoiler}The story of Big Daddy/Hit-Girl was nothing more than a fabrication. In the comic, he lied about being an ex-cop and was revealed to have kidnapped his own daughter while she was a baby and lied about her mother being killed. Big Daddy was revealed to be just an accountant who was bored with his life and was a big comics fan who wanted to live out his fantasies and only chose to go after the mob because he "needed a villain."
Also, if you read it before seeing the movie, you probably would have never guessed Red Mist's betrayal and he was nothing more than a sadist.
Also, Dave doesn't get the girl. He came clean about pretending to be gay to get close to her and told her his true feelings about her but she was mad at him and had her boyfriend beat him up.
|
|
|
Post by saneiac on Mar 17, 2011 20:00:37 GMT -5
One King work I did read that was different from the movie, was the short story "The Lawnmower Man," which I heard King was PISSED about. I always found how angry King was mentioned as being hilarious. If you look up the story and read it you probably will too. It is only about 10 to 20 pages and has nowhere near the amount of depth to it to make a compelling film. Really, I think one of major plot points is just a guy paid to be a groundskeeper sees a nude centaur or something like that. I mean the centaur doesn't really do anything, the groundskeeper just sees him.How the hell would you make a movie out of that? You could answer, "Well, maybe the centaur does something, you know anything?" But that would deviate from King's short story, which is the whole reason he got pissed about "The Lawnmower Man" in the first place. Are you sure you read this story? Actual plot: A man hires a fat dude to cut his lawn. The fat dude is actually a satyr - half man/half goat, who cuts the lawn by stripping naked and eating all the long grass. The man gets upset at having a big fat naked dude eating grass in his yard, and starts to yell and make threats. The satyr kills him. The end. Yes, it isn't the sort of thing that can be made into a film. It's a silly short story. It also has nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever, to do with the movie. V for Vendetta changes the graphic novel so much that Alan Moore first distanced himself from it, then quit DC Comics altogether when they kept attaching his name to it. The original work is purposely vague, meant to let the reader question which side is right or wrong, if V is a hero or a crazy man, if safety is worth loss of freedom. The film is strictly anti-government.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Mar 17, 2011 20:06:31 GMT -5
One King work I did read that was different from the movie, was the short story "The Lawnmower Man," which I heard King was PISSED about. I always found how angry King was mentioned as being hilarious. If you look up the story and read it you probably will too. It is only about 10 to 20 pages and has nowhere near the amount of depth to it to make a compelling film. Really, I think one of major plot points is just a guy paid to be a groundskeeper sees a nude centaur or something like that. I mean the centaur doesn't really do anything, the groundskeeper just sees him.How the hell would you make a movie out of that? You could answer, "Well, maybe the centaur does something, you know anything?" But that would deviate from King's short story, which is the whole reason he got pissed about "The Lawnmower Man" in the first place. Are you sure you read this story? Actual plot: A man hires a fat dude to cut his lawn. The fat dude is actually a satyr - half man/half goat, who cuts the lawn by stripping naked and eating all the long grass. The man gets upset at having a big fat naked dude eating grass in his yard, and starts to yell and make threats. The satyr kills him. The end. Yes, it isn't the sort of thing that can be made into a film. It's a silly short story. It also has nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever, to do with the movie. V for Vendetta changes the graphic novel so much that Alan Moore first distanced himself from it, then quit DC Comics altogether when they kept attaching his name to it. The original work is purposely vague, meant to let the reader question which side is right or wrong, if V is a hero or a crazy man, if safety is worth loss of freedom. The film is strictly anti-government. To be fair, Alan Moore has hated every single movie adaptation that has been made from his work. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was far less true to the book.
|
|
|
Post by Threadkiller [Classic] on Mar 17, 2011 20:24:35 GMT -5
"The Mist" deviates considerably from Stephen King's novella by expanding on certain points of the story, creating a new ending out of a line towards the end of the book.
And MAN, that ending...I was f***ed up for days after that.
I still don't know if the ending change made it a better film or not, but it certainly made for a more rattling experience.
|
|
mattperiolat
King Koopa
Thank you, Brodie... for everything.
Posts: 11,445
|
Post by mattperiolat on Mar 17, 2011 21:47:47 GMT -5
Since we're on the subject of people messing around with Stephen King's work, doesn't the book Carrie end differently than the movie? I seem to recall a TV remake of Carrie that was closer to the original work.
|
|
|
Post by Alexander The So-so on Mar 17, 2011 21:51:27 GMT -5
I just read "First Blood" by David Morrell, and while it has mostly the same characters and plot points, it's very different thematically from the Sylvester Stallone movie that first introduced Rambo to film audiences. The movie takes a strong black & white face/heel dynamic, with Rambo as the innocent, alienated Vietnam vet who's being harassed for no reason, and Sherrif Teasle being a worthless dick who's hunting Rambo just to be an A-hole. In the book, there are a LOT more shades of gray. Teasle's character is expanded on to make him more sympathetic (he's undergoing a divorce from his wife) and draw parallels to Rambo's troubles (Teasle is himself a Korean War veteran who witnessed the horrors of war himself, as well as witnessing a lot of horrible things during his police career). He tried to escort Rambo out of legitimate concern for the townspeople's safety, and was a lot more patient in handling him. Rambo, meanwhile, is far less innocent, namely in one way: he doesn't kill anybody in the movie, except for one cop who obviously deserved it because he's an abusive sadist. In the book, Rambo kills, violently, all the cops who come after him, rather than disarming or injuring them (he disembowels a cop while escaping from the police station). And these deaths also make Teasle more sympathetic, because the cops who are killed are the sherrif's close friends, one of them basically being his surrogate father, making him feel a sense of personal loss because of Rambo. He also threatens civilian lives when he gets back to the town. Also, the main focus of the book is more on the strange relationship that develops between Rambo and Teasle. Despite all the hell they put each other through, they grow to respect each other as fellow soldiers, and develop a strange, unspoken liking for each other. The war between them becomes less about law vs. a fugitive and more a battle between two warriors to see who's the best. This goes all the way to the way different ending, where {Spoiler}instead of Rambo cornering Teasle, then being calmed down and breaking down about his position in life, the two of them, both mortally wounded, kill each other at the exact same time, both dying while being glad they fought honorably to the death and with respect for their opponent.
|
|
|
Post by General Adam on Mar 17, 2011 21:53:45 GMT -5
Some of the Bond movies are guilty of this. Example {Spoiler}In the "Spy who Loved Me" Bond has to stop a man from blowing up to major cities.
In the book Bond gets a flat tire and just happens to foil two men that are trying to burn down a hotel and kill the girl that runs it for insurance money
|
|
|
Post by Alexander The So-so on Mar 17, 2011 22:03:55 GMT -5
Yeah, the Bond movies really got changed the further in time they got. Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, and Thunderball pretty much follow the books verbatim, with small differences (the first two movies introduce SPECTRE from the get-go, while in the books, Dr. No is independent and SMERSH, the Soviet counterintelligence agency, is behind the attempt on Bond's life. And the Dr. No movie leaves out the climactic part of the book where James Bond {Spoiler}fights a giant squid(!!!!!)) Then You Only Live Twice came out. The book was the last one published during Ian Fleming's lifetime, and it was one of the most cerebral and symbolic books in the entire book series. The movie, meanwhile, made it more the standard Bond story you'd expect, despite retaining the setting. Then, On Her Majesty's Secret Service came, which went back to basically following the book verbatim. But from Diamonds Are Forever and onward, all the movies became hugely different from the book they were based on. Even though I understand why they had to change it, I still would've liked to see a literal adaptation of You Only Live Twice. Such a trippy, cerebral plot in that book.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Mar 17, 2011 22:18:31 GMT -5
If comic books count, then Kick-Ass has a few differences than the movie: {Spoiler}The story of Big Daddy/Hit-Girl was nothing more than a fabrication. In the comic, he lied about being an ex-cop and was revealed to have kidnapped his own daughter while she was a baby and lied about her mother being killed. Big Daddy was revealed to be just an accountant who was bored with his life and was a big comics fan who wanted to live out his fantasies and only chose to go after the mob because he "needed a villain."
Also, if you read it before seeing the movie, you probably would have never guessed Red Mist's betrayal and he was nothing more than a sadist.
Also, Dave doesn't get the girl. He came clean about pretending to be gay to get close to her and told her his true feelings about her but she was mad at him and had her boyfriend beat him up. Thus making the movie infinitely better. And going on Comics, Wanted was nothing close to the book, which is sad because Wanted had a really cool concept. "What would happen if all the supervillains teamed up and took over?" got turned into "A loom tells us to kill..." And annoyingly the only thing they kept was the pseudo Fight Club douchiness.
|
|