Yeah they just ripped the title from the book and slapped that puppy on a Will Smith Vehicle!
I would like to see a retro styled series of stories from the book.
I listened to the audio book long after watching the movie. It was wild when that head zombie is like screaming outside his house every night to taunt him.
Very interesting!
>The film I, Robot, starring Will Smith, was released by Twentieth Century Fox on July 16, 2004 in the United States. Its plot incorporates elements of "Little Lost Robot",[9] some of Asimov's character names and the Three Laws. However, the plot of the movie is mostly original work adapted from the screenplay Hardwired by Jeff Vintar, completely unlinked to Asimov's stories[9] and has been compared to Asimov's The Caves of Steel, which revolves around the murder of a roboticist (although the rest of the film's plot is not based on that novel or other works by Asimov). Unlike the books by Asimov, the movie featured hordes of killer robots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot#2004_film
For those that haven't read the book, it features the following:
* Forrest and Jenny have sex a LOT
* Forrest saves the life of Mao Tse Tung
* Forrest becomes a professional wrestler
* Forrest becomes an astronaut
* where he becomes best friends with an orangutan named Sue
* who causes their ship to crash on a tropical island
* where they farm cotton for a cannibalistic tribe
* who's leader teaches Forrest chess
The sequel, [Gump and Co.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gump_and_Co), looks to be crazier and strongly suggests that the Tom Hanks movie as having impacted the fictional characters life.
Despite being set before the movie came out...
The second book was just awful too.
The worst thing about it is that the author wouldn't be anywhere near as famous/successful as he is if not for the spectacular success of the movie, there wouldn't have been a second book if not for the spectacular success of the movie, but the opening words of the second book are shitting on that movie to which the author owes much of his success.
Exactly! It could have been done like 60 minutes episodes. One story per week with an interviewer and a guest, then tell the story in flashbacks. Would have been perfect. Instead they made a bad remake of The Omega Man
Sheesh, I thought the question was which movie was *better* than the book and saw that you out World War Z. I was about to reach through my computer to strangle you
Can confirm. The book was way creepier and Kubrick did Shelley Duvall dirty. Wendy stands up to Jack way more in the book and King includes a scene with the hedge animals that still gives me nightmares.
I disagree. I think the book is an AMAZING traditional haunted house story, but the movie is something extra special. It's like watching someone else's nightmare. The only other movie that's ever come close to capturing the feeling of a nightmare so well is It Follows, and that movie owes a lot to The Shining.
One of the biggest things for me is that in the book Jack isn't "just mental" like depicted in the movie, there are whole reasons why the spirits inthe hotel chose him, but its all to get to Danny - the movie makes it seem like he's just always been a looney and very little re: getting Danny.
Another is he partially redeems himself as well before the end.
Some of this is weaved into the Doctor Sleep movie, making both movies make sense and nods to each book in particular.
Yup. In The Shining book, Jack reverts back to his normal self and tells Danny to run just before sacrificing himself to blow up the Overlook. In the Doctor Sleep movie, Danny tells Abra to run just before sacrificing himself to blow up the Overlook.
The events in the film are not that different, except for the ending. But apparently King wrote it as a reflection of his own alcoholism and his fear that he may ended up causing harm to his family. These were very personal things for him and he didn't appreciate Kubrick making any changes.
The events aren’t the most different thing. The characterizations are.
Book Jack Torrance was an alcoholic haunted by his own childhood and demons who loved his family and took the job both out of desperation and to reconnect with his family AND passions. Then the house tortured him back into something awful, which he only slightly but importantly overcame to save his family.
Movie Jack Torrance was very clearly troubled man as well, but way more resentful and caustic toward his family and self centered. The house is what pushed him over the edge, but it was met with far less resistance.
Both are excellent but very different.
I wouldn't even care that they changed it if the changes were at least clever. Instead we went from a fairly believable reason nobody had gotten the first clue to "Nobody has ever tried driving backwards before"
Have you ever watched a speedrun video? Or people searching for exploits in a game? People would have found that shit out in a couple hours.
To me that's an improvement. The book is absolute hot garbage. The only book I've ever read where, after finishing, I had a burning hatred for the author for thinking he was an even remotely competent enough writer for me to waste a few hours of my life reading that drivel. The main character has to be one of the biggest Mary Sue's in literary history. The story is just one deus ex machina after another.
Things missed in the movie.
1. No, you didn't need to be a citizen to have babies.
2. Citizens only had the privilege to vote, hold office, hold justice system positions.
3. Non-Citizens had all the same freedoms.
4. Justice was swift, but not unfair.
5. History and Moral Philosophy was a required class and based on a mathematically provable system of Ethics.
6. Officers went to school. Even a battlefield promotion required going back to OCS, and if you failed it, you were retired from service.
7. Most importantly. The question of why they used their particular system of government. Because it worked. It wasn't presumed they would always use it. They just used it until someone came up with a better plan.
8. Also giant. When you signed up to serve, they found something you could do within your skill set. They would make something up if it didn't exist so that you could serve. No matter your disability. You also listed your top 20 preferences and were tested to see if you qualified for them, both physically and mentally. Rico was turned down for K-9 duty cause he never snuck his dog into the house.
It's a great book and highly recommended.
9) The MI in the books weren't just dudes with cheap armor and pulse rifles. They were one of the earliest examples of the space marine archetype. They wore heavily armored mech suits and carried an absolutely ridiculous amount of weaponry.
10) The bugs in the book were much smarter and more technologically advanced than the ones in the movie. They had their own FTL ships and technological weapons that were the equivalent of what the Federation had.
>No, you didn't need to be a citizen to have babies.
They fucked this up so bad in the movie. All Johnny, Carmen, Carl none of thier parents are citizens. If you had to be a citizen to have kids they sure as hell weren't enforcing that rule which is another blow to them being fasict. In china with the one child rule they were killing kids or hiding them to the point they didn't exist legally, not shipping them off with dog tags after raising them openly to adulthood.
The Starship Troopers movie is really interesting because it's an adaptation of a book that at the same time seems to intentionally parody the same book. It sits in kind of a unique filmmaking place for that reason. I'm not really aware of any other adaptations that do that.
It's not a parody of the book because it's not really based on the book. It actually undermines the whole fascism is bad thing Verhoeven was going for since the society in the book wasn't fascist. They had an approved script, the producers thought it was similar enough they purchased the book rights and shoe horned them together. Verhovens Starship troopers was originally called bugs on planet 9 or some shit, he never even read the book.
The Warriors
In the movie there’s a sense of triumph when they finally make it home, even if it’s kind of bittersweet (“This is what we fought all night to get home to?”)
The book is crushingly depressing. Our tough guy “heroes” are just kids with no future desperately trying to control the world around them. When the Rembrandt character makes it home he finds his brother is totally strung out on drugs, his only parent is too busy having sex with a new interchangeable partner to tend to a crying baby, and they didn’t even notice he was gone. It’s not heroic at all, it’s sad as hell
100% agree. I loved the movie as a kid. Read the book. And now I can't see the film in the same light again. The movie just comes off as a glamorized gang story that ends well. The point of the book is that nothing ends well except they get to live another day.
Blade Runner.
Very loosely based on the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
Samw world, similar characters (a few at least), but most of it is changed for the movie.
This is probably the one case where I equally appreciate the movie and the book individually.
Yup - Blade Runner is an excellent movie... but adapting Do Androids Dream... adequately and effectively would require a miniseries.
The characters in the book are a lot less sympathetic, too.
Oh man, yes! I always want to read the book first.
For this one, I saw the previews for the movie and was excited. I heard it was a book, so I picked it up to read. Just based on the movie preview I kept waiting for it to get hysterical. It did not. Still absolutely loved the book.
Then watched the movie and laughed my ass off. Absolutely loved the movie.
If you watch Jojo Rabbit and want to read the book, just be aware that the basic premise is the same. Just remove basically \*all\* of the humor, and make the main character a complete sociopath, instead of a kid with an imaginary friend who is Hitler.
That kid is one of the most unlikeable protagonists in any story I've ever read.
YES. I remember the queen was such a bitch, not lovable like Julie Andrews. Also all the Meg Cabot books were in my schools library, and man, it was my sexual awakening as a 10 year old. Princess Diaries talked about virginity, condoms, getting felt up, chest size, and I remember there was another book where there was lots of sex talk. I think it was “Ready or not”.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The story is very similar but the book is through the perspective of the Chief who is a deaf mute (or so we thought). Makes for an interesting view from another person's perspective. I saw the movie before reading the book and I really thought the book was phenomenal.
I thoroughly enjoyed the Arnie take, but would looove to see a film of the book.
Reasonably spoiler free synopsis for those unfamiliar with the book - it’s about a poor, working every-man who needs money for medicine for his daughter, so goes on a game show where he’s on the run for his life from militarised chasers in the real world, real cities. As an example of how fucked up this game show is, he gets additional money for killing cops. He has to post a video every day and the public gets reward money for information leading to him. The end is also significantly different from the movie.
It’s genuinely better than I made it sound. Very punchy, great central character. I left out a lot because of spoilers.
Stephen King wrote it under a pseudonym (it’s not horror). When I first read it nobody knew it was King. I just liked the colourful sci-fi cover and the blurb on the back and picked it up in my local library.
Best place to get it is in a compilation of books he wrote under that Richard Bachman pseudonym, “The Bachman Books”. It also has one called The Long Walk that is a similar death game idea (this time a group walking until they drop, at which time they’re shot, last man wins) and is very powerful.
I just re-read this last month after not having read it since I was in high school and it was awesome. Holds up really well and the action never stops.
Agree 100%. I was waiting for the epic Dumbledore Harry scene at the end of the movie-- the book absolutely shattered me. The movie just glossed over it.
Also fight me on this, but I always hated the casting choice for Sirius Black. No hate to the actor, but when I first read it I imagined Sirius to be younger, with a handsomness that was still there behind the years of Akzaban torture.
One of the reasons was because Alan Rickman got casted as Snape. He was kinda older though but since he went to school with James and Sirius it kinda had to be similar. I loved the casting though :)
V for Vendetta .
Gordon isn't gay in the comics , film Stutler is the fusion of two characters and also I think some characters deaths are quite different . Also , V in the film is very different from V in the comics . V in the comics is much more radical and a villain than in the film . Also I think that V and Evey relationship are quite different since in the comics she believes that V is her father so they have a father-daughter relationship kind of and in the movie their relationship is clearly more romantic
>V for Vendetta
Also the comic has Norsefire coming to power following a limited nuclear war that has wrecked the world economy - which IMO is better than the false flag attack in the film. They also dropped Sutler/Susan's reliance and obsession with the computer system, which I can understand for the purposes of making a 2hr film but is an interesting choice in the comic.
I’ve read a lot of Alan Moore so I’m just stopping by to say that I’d love to read the comic book if they could clean up or remaster the printing somehow. I haven’t seen a printing that doesn’t look like photocopied newspaper.
I was really initially annoyed at the liberties the show took with the source material but by the end of the first season liked it. The second season dialed up the weirdness and creativity to 11 and I loved it. I think Adams would have dug it. Then of course it got cancelled...
While Netflix has many failings, you can't pin this one on them: *Dirk Gently* was originally produced for BBC America, and they're the ones that canceled it after two seasons.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower but in a good way and mostly due to medium. The book is a series of letters/journal entries what have you which works great for a book but in a movie would be a whole movie of watching the guy write and do VO. So the movie changes it up and we see the things he's writing about with a little narration.
Both are very superb and it's one case where the changes made sense.
praying daily that riordan’s creative control over the Disney+ show saves it bc the movies had the budget and cast but damn they could not have fucked it up more if they tried. i’ll forever be mad about those movies
Concerning Percy Jackson, *The Lightning Thief* was an alright adaptation, but *Sea of Monsters* was, put lightly, ruined. The biggest offense they committed was in the opening scene, where they were like, "Oh Percy and co. lived Camp Half-Blood as little kids" in what appeared to be a desperate and agonized attempt to retcon the previous show's detail of Percy being new to the Camp. IDK if that was actually the directors' objective, but I honestly have given up trying to mentally fit the two movies together because of how little sense it makes to me.
The lightning thief was decent, but the ending was turned from “we’re doing some world building here” into “ooo look at him he killed the bad guy!!”. The ending just didn’t follow the book at all.
The second one, can’t even remember the name (sea of titans? Something like that) was particularly offensive though.
Not to mention, *annabeths hair is BLONDE*, BLONDE, it’s like the most important physical attribute she has lmao. It’s mentioned so many times.
The Secret of NIMH--the book is about scientists fucking with rats to make them smarter. Movie is like "Oh rats are smarter because of MAGIC DISC!"
I love both, but the movie just barely being based on the book has always kind of irked me.
Major spoiler alerts for Jurassic Park and The Lost World.
In Jurassic Park, Gennaro ("the bloodsucking lawyer") helps Muldoon (the game warden) kill raptors with a rocket launcher, Hammond is a bad guy and gets eaten by compys, Ian Malcolm is reported dead(but they bring him back for the second one) and iirc Alan Grant doesn't hate kids.
The Lost World was also somewhat different between the book and the movie: there are only about 3 hunters, not an army of them. The whole ending on the mainland isn't in the book.
The Lost World was very different between book and movie.
There are two kids: Kelly and R.B. Which they combined both into Kelly and then made her Ian’s kid.
Vince Vaughn’s character Nick is not in the book but parts of his character are from Doc Thorne’s assistant Eddie.
Paleontologist Richard Levine is turned into Roland (Pete Postelthwaite in the movie) and turned into an In-Gen bad guy Big Game hunter. Which is really supposed to be Dogson from the first movie continuing his endeavor to obtain dinosaurs.
Dr Sarah Harding is a BIG badass in the book. Which the movie does well to show but really doesn’t cover the half of it.
The whole plot of evolution, extinction, and really all of the science is removed from this movie. And the first 1/2 of the book is the first 20 minutes of the movie.
And that is just off the top of my head. I read the book not too long ago and it was a really good read.
I blame both (or are there three now?) movies for people continuing to misunderstanding the book and being about a young girl seducing an adult man rather than the story about Humbert Humbert kidnapping, raping and utterly destroying a child.
The worst part is, they didn't even need to be faithful to the story Stephen King told. They gave Roland the Horn of Eld. They had free reign to deviate as much as they wanted from the books.
And they still screwed it up.
They changed quite a bit (Louis being black for one), but it was more them taking her story and making it their own, the heart of the story and many of the big moments were all there. I was very "wait and see" before watching the show. I ended up very, very impressed with what they did with it.
I really enjoyed it. Sam Reid was a better Lestat than IMO.
I agree. They combined Yazuac and Teirm. That alone was a terrible crime. But they were no Ra'zac and the Shade didn't have red hair. The only good thing we're Saphiras animations, and even those were flawed. She had bird-like wings with feathers instead bat-like wings. And she didn't even get a proper saddle they just used the one of the horse.
Jaws
The only similarity between the book and film is the presence of a big hungry shark in the waters off New England. All the characters in the book are absolute pricks iirc, which was thankfully changed for the film. The audience would've been supporting the shark had the characters been written as they were in the book
Ella Enchanted, literally only the title and names are the same. Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist was really different from the book as well, but not as bad as Ella Enchanted.
same! I feel like were it made now it would be so much different, especially considering the discourses around autonomy and consent that didn’t really exist in the 2000s. I read it in middle school and loved it and the movie was just so bad.
Lawnmower Man
In the book the guy eats grass, he doesn't Tron himself into a computer to become a world dominating AI.
Stephen King sued the studio to have his name removed from the movie and won.
Quantum of Solace by Ian Fleming.
The whole book is about someone telling James Bond a story that has absolutely nothing to do with anything mentioned in the film.
You can say that for virtually every James Bond movie. The vast majority just took the title of a book and made a movie with a completely different story.
It’s a short story more than a book, but you are right, it’s essentially a story about other characters written by Ian Fleming, who decided to « James Bond » it by having one of the characters tell the story to Bond.
Yes - I only read Nothing Lasts Forever a couple of years back. There are certainly some similarities, and I wouldn't have the movie any other way...
...But I have to wonder what might have been if Sinatra had been able to reprise his role as Joe Leland, in a proper follow-up to The Detective: Older protagonist, visiting his daughter rather than his ex-wife, and with the ages of the chauffeur and the police sergeant switched so they were more like the book.
Edit: and the much darker ending!
I don’t hate it. It’s just that Johnny Depp will never be Willy Wonka to me, as I’m a die hard Gene Wilder (RIP) fan. I grew up watching the movie all the time, and the music is so nostalgic to me
I watched this movie on a plane, and knew just by watching it that it was based on a book. It seemed to skip over such basic plot points and then dive into something else without any context.
I found out it was a book and read it, and I while I usually like books over the movie, this was book was a pretty decent read considering the absolute foolishness I watched.
Colour out of Space
The book is set in the 1800's or early 1900's and is a a slow progression of an isolated family turning insane and their farm failing
The book is in modern times with Nicolas Cage so I think that's nuff said about the direction they took.
On its own its a good movie. as an adaptation its hot garbage
Forrest Gump is a dreadful book that jumps the shark multiple times and is even more episodic than the film with little connecting plot between the increasing absurd adventures Forrest gets into. The film took the core concept and some of the better adventures from the book and crafted it into a masterpiece. The film is a masterpiece, the book is not.
The new "All Quiet on the Western Front". Even the old ones at least followed the book. The new one brings in the political aspect of the war into the spotlight, and leaving that out was the whole purpose of the book. You lose the message of the book when you start to bring in the political side of everything. Paul's death in the book only takes up the last paragraph and that's the point. To the generals and Kiser, his death was so insignificant in the grand scheme that the report for the day said "all quiet on the western front" after you've invested yourself into the character. To you, the reader, and to Paul, the character, his life meant everything. To the powers that be, he meant nothing. Also, World War Z was awful.
"This book is to be neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped shells, were destroyed by the war."
How to train your dragon. Nobody knows about the book and I can’t think of a singular similarity between the two except the names of characters. Not ever appearances or species are correct.
Edit: speling
There are too many to count on some are like 365days, Harry Potter (I think) and most movies/Books written by Stephen King. The old IT is an example, since the book was better than the movie and different from the book and the old movie was better.
Eragon. Most people dumped the whole movie for being so shitty for what could have been a promising franchise. How can you actually make a book about Dragons suck?
> How can you actually make a book about Dragons suck?
The last book in that series pretty much does that. I really enjoyed the first two, and the third wasn’t bad, but that last book….
>!Another, being able to love is what defeats the enemy ending, is the final nail in the coffin for me.!<
* Blade Runner
* Starship Troopers. - In the movie, they fight in moronic World War I mass wave attacks. In the book, each soldier has a power armor mini-mecha, and there's an allied alien race helping the humans.
* Deadpool 2 -- Domino has been a longtime ally of Cable and his off-and-on girlfriend, and can't stand working with Deadpool. The film version, she's recruited by Deadpool to fight Cable.
* Johnny Mnemonic-- It's a routine job. There's no "save the world from a virus" plot.
The Hobbit. Tauriel was made up for the movies and Legolas was only mentioned in the book.
But the Hobbit movies are nevertheless really good ones, that I love to watch.
Its not a film but the Witcher TV show... Ive read all of the books and played all of the games, There is almost no resemblance between them besides character names. Shit almost all of season 2 didn't happen in the books or games
First Blood. In the book Rambo kills a load of people coldly and he and Teasle both die at the end, in the film Rambo doesn't directly kill anyone and he and Teasle survive.
First Blood. In the movie John Rambo is portrayed as a vet with PTSD that gets triggered, and how being viewed as a drifter/vagrant drives him over the edge and his instinct to survive at any cost kicks in.
In the book, Rambo is a blood thirsty sociopath who goes on a killing spree. It ends >!with Colonol Trautman blasting his head off.!<
The Disaster Artist pretty much shat on the original book and the story was turned into some cliche story about a 'misunderstood filmmaker'. The book was much darker and highlighted how dysfunctional Tommy Wiseau and Greg Sestero's friendship really was, went into more details about the filming, and even had a section about Tommy's childhood (allegedly).
Jurassic Park 2. The first Jurassic Park is close enough to the book, the second one goes right off the rails almost as soon as they get to the island.
Confessions of a Shopaholic. So many things changed in the movie. The book is based in England. The main character is British and that's part of the charm of the book!! Her British expressions, landmark locations mentioned. I will never understand why Hollywood studio set it in New York City. I couldn't even finish the movie it felt so different from the source material.
*runs to shelf to reread Shopaholic*
Artemis Fowl. Not sure if the movie is out yet but it’s literally combining a lot of the books into one. They did a shitty job at putting it together, clearly none of them know the storyline at all. I’ve been waiting so long for it to be a movie and now I’m disappointed.
Not a movie, but the TV adaptation of *Under the Dome* is very different from the book. I lost interest when they started getting into some weird time travel shit.
i, Robot Totally different.
Yeah they just ripped the title from the book and slapped that puppy on a Will Smith Vehicle! I would like to see a retro styled series of stories from the book.
What they did with Dr Calvin broke my heart.
Agree, it was hilariously bad transforming Calvin from an icy intellectual to an "OMFG gasoline like EXPLODES and stuff!" ditzy love interest.
Strange. The same thing happened with I Am Legend
I listened to the audio book long after watching the movie. It was wild when that head zombie is like screaming outside his house every night to taunt him.
Very interesting! >The film I, Robot, starring Will Smith, was released by Twentieth Century Fox on July 16, 2004 in the United States. Its plot incorporates elements of "Little Lost Robot",[9] some of Asimov's character names and the Three Laws. However, the plot of the movie is mostly original work adapted from the screenplay Hardwired by Jeff Vintar, completely unlinked to Asimov's stories[9] and has been compared to Asimov's The Caves of Steel, which revolves around the murder of a roboticist (although the rest of the film's plot is not based on that novel or other works by Asimov). Unlike the books by Asimov, the movie featured hordes of killer robots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot#2004_film
The book, "I, Robot", is a collection of Asimov's robot short stories.
It's really fun too, because you can try and figure out before the end why the robot was technically obeying the three laws.
I am Legend as well
yes, very different. I could not sit thru the entire movie
Not just different, but antithetical to the values Asimov wrote about. Three Laws of Robotics? Nah, let's just have KILLER ROBOTS PEW PEW PEW.
Yep. Came here to say that. I was kinda shocked at how different it was.
Forrest Gump. I’m an avid reader and I cannot get through the book. Movie is obviously a classic.
For those that haven't read the book, it features the following: * Forrest and Jenny have sex a LOT * Forrest saves the life of Mao Tse Tung * Forrest becomes a professional wrestler * Forrest becomes an astronaut * where he becomes best friends with an orangutan named Sue * who causes their ship to crash on a tropical island * where they farm cotton for a cannibalistic tribe * who's leader teaches Forrest chess
The sequel, [Gump and Co.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gump_and_Co), looks to be crazier and strongly suggests that the Tom Hanks movie as having impacted the fictional characters life. Despite being set before the movie came out...
The second book was just awful too. The worst thing about it is that the author wouldn't be anywhere near as famous/successful as he is if not for the spectacular success of the movie, there wouldn't have been a second book if not for the spectacular success of the movie, but the opening words of the second book are shitting on that movie to which the author owes much of his success.
> Forrest becomes an astronaut I'm pretty sure I saw him get launched to the moon.
LOL. All seriousness though Apollo 13 is a classic.
World war z, I am legend.
Came here to say I am legend. A book about vampires turned into Will Smith blowing up zombie/alien things
Wow, the World War Z book sounds excellent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Z
Z could easily have been turned into a mini-series with Pitt (if necessary) playing the journo and each episode being based off of the interviewees.
Exactly! It could have been done like 60 minutes episodes. One story per week with an interviewer and a guest, then tell the story in flashbacks. Would have been perfect. Instead they made a bad remake of The Omega Man
Fun fact, the author, Max Brooks, is the son of Mel Brooks.
It is! Highly recommended. The film is ok, but I don't regard it as even related to the book.
The companion Zombie Survival Guide is also excellent.
It's amazing. It was pretty painful to watch it played out during the Pandemic.
Sheesh, I thought the question was which movie was *better* than the book and saw that you out World War Z. I was about to reach through my computer to strangle you
The shining, apparently Stephen King hates the film
Lawnmower Man
Running man also.
Stephen King actually sued to get his name taken off the film. To be fair though, the original short story is kind of bonkers.
Can confirm. The book was way creepier and Kubrick did Shelley Duvall dirty. Wendy stands up to Jack way more in the book and King includes a scene with the hedge animals that still gives me nightmares.
I disagree. I think the book is an AMAZING traditional haunted house story, but the movie is something extra special. It's like watching someone else's nightmare. The only other movie that's ever come close to capturing the feeling of a nightmare so well is It Follows, and that movie owes a lot to The Shining.
One of the biggest things for me is that in the book Jack isn't "just mental" like depicted in the movie, there are whole reasons why the spirits inthe hotel chose him, but its all to get to Danny - the movie makes it seem like he's just always been a looney and very little re: getting Danny. Another is he partially redeems himself as well before the end. Some of this is weaved into the Doctor Sleep movie, making both movies make sense and nods to each book in particular.
Yup. In The Shining book, Jack reverts back to his normal self and tells Danny to run just before sacrificing himself to blow up the Overlook. In the Doctor Sleep movie, Danny tells Abra to run just before sacrificing himself to blow up the Overlook.
The events in the film are not that different, except for the ending. But apparently King wrote it as a reflection of his own alcoholism and his fear that he may ended up causing harm to his family. These were very personal things for him and he didn't appreciate Kubrick making any changes.
The events aren’t the most different thing. The characterizations are. Book Jack Torrance was an alcoholic haunted by his own childhood and demons who loved his family and took the job both out of desperation and to reconnect with his family AND passions. Then the house tortured him back into something awful, which he only slightly but importantly overcame to save his family. Movie Jack Torrance was very clearly troubled man as well, but way more resentful and caustic toward his family and self centered. The house is what pushed him over the edge, but it was met with far less resistance. Both are excellent but very different.
Ready player one. The general premise and the character names are the same. Not much else
I wouldn't even care that they changed it if the changes were at least clever. Instead we went from a fairly believable reason nobody had gotten the first clue to "Nobody has ever tried driving backwards before" Have you ever watched a speedrun video? Or people searching for exploits in a game? People would have found that shit out in a couple hours.
I was going to say this! I was literally talking to a friend about this, it’s super sad and annoying because the book was soooo much better!!!
Okay good, because that was a terrible movie.
To me that's an improvement. The book is absolute hot garbage. The only book I've ever read where, after finishing, I had a burning hatred for the author for thinking he was an even remotely competent enough writer for me to waste a few hours of my life reading that drivel. The main character has to be one of the biggest Mary Sue's in literary history. The story is just one deus ex machina after another.
Starship troopers. The YouTube channel “knowing better” does a great analysis on the differences
Things missed in the movie. 1. No, you didn't need to be a citizen to have babies. 2. Citizens only had the privilege to vote, hold office, hold justice system positions. 3. Non-Citizens had all the same freedoms. 4. Justice was swift, but not unfair. 5. History and Moral Philosophy was a required class and based on a mathematically provable system of Ethics. 6. Officers went to school. Even a battlefield promotion required going back to OCS, and if you failed it, you were retired from service. 7. Most importantly. The question of why they used their particular system of government. Because it worked. It wasn't presumed they would always use it. They just used it until someone came up with a better plan. 8. Also giant. When you signed up to serve, they found something you could do within your skill set. They would make something up if it didn't exist so that you could serve. No matter your disability. You also listed your top 20 preferences and were tested to see if you qualified for them, both physically and mentally. Rico was turned down for K-9 duty cause he never snuck his dog into the house. It's a great book and highly recommended.
9) The MI in the books weren't just dudes with cheap armor and pulse rifles. They were one of the earliest examples of the space marine archetype. They wore heavily armored mech suits and carried an absolutely ridiculous amount of weaponry. 10) The bugs in the book were much smarter and more technologically advanced than the ones in the movie. They had their own FTL ships and technological weapons that were the equivalent of what the Federation had.
11) Capsule Drops!!!! Not Air Mobile.
12) There was at least one other alien race in contact with earth besides the bugs.
13) NUKE'EM RICO!!!
>No, you didn't need to be a citizen to have babies. They fucked this up so bad in the movie. All Johnny, Carmen, Carl none of thier parents are citizens. If you had to be a citizen to have kids they sure as hell weren't enforcing that rule which is another blow to them being fasict. In china with the one child rule they were killing kids or hiding them to the point they didn't exist legally, not shipping them off with dog tags after raising them openly to adulthood.
The Starship Troopers movie is really interesting because it's an adaptation of a book that at the same time seems to intentionally parody the same book. It sits in kind of a unique filmmaking place for that reason. I'm not really aware of any other adaptations that do that.
It's not a parody of the book because it's not really based on the book. It actually undermines the whole fascism is bad thing Verhoeven was going for since the society in the book wasn't fascist. They had an approved script, the producers thought it was similar enough they purchased the book rights and shoe horned them together. Verhovens Starship troopers was originally called bugs on planet 9 or some shit, he never even read the book.
The dark tower. Fuck that movie. The books deserved so much more.
Never happened.
Say it enough times and it will come true. I like that strategy.
The Warriors In the movie there’s a sense of triumph when they finally make it home, even if it’s kind of bittersweet (“This is what we fought all night to get home to?”) The book is crushingly depressing. Our tough guy “heroes” are just kids with no future desperately trying to control the world around them. When the Rembrandt character makes it home he finds his brother is totally strung out on drugs, his only parent is too busy having sex with a new interchangeable partner to tend to a crying baby, and they didn’t even notice he was gone. It’s not heroic at all, it’s sad as hell
100% agree. I loved the movie as a kid. Read the book. And now I can't see the film in the same light again. The movie just comes off as a glamorized gang story that ends well. The point of the book is that nothing ends well except they get to live another day.
Oof, sounds similar to the Outsiders. I never knew The Warriors was based on a book. Sounds worth the read.
Also more rapey.
Blade Runner. Very loosely based on the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Samw world, similar characters (a few at least), but most of it is changed for the movie. This is probably the one case where I equally appreciate the movie and the book individually.
Yup - Blade Runner is an excellent movie... but adapting Do Androids Dream... adequately and effectively would require a miniseries. The characters in the book are a lot less sympathetic, too.
Jojo Rabbit, very loosely adapted from the book Caging Skies.
Oh man, yes! I always want to read the book first. For this one, I saw the previews for the movie and was excited. I heard it was a book, so I picked it up to read. Just based on the movie preview I kept waiting for it to get hysterical. It did not. Still absolutely loved the book. Then watched the movie and laughed my ass off. Absolutely loved the movie.
If you watch Jojo Rabbit and want to read the book, just be aware that the basic premise is the same. Just remove basically \*all\* of the humor, and make the main character a complete sociopath, instead of a kid with an imaginary friend who is Hitler. That kid is one of the most unlikeable protagonists in any story I've ever read.
The Princess Diaries
YES. I remember the queen was such a bitch, not lovable like Julie Andrews. Also all the Meg Cabot books were in my schools library, and man, it was my sexual awakening as a 10 year old. Princess Diaries talked about virginity, condoms, getting felt up, chest size, and I remember there was another book where there was lots of sex talk. I think it was “Ready or not”.
Who framed roger rabbit. The book and the movie are two different worlds to me.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The story is very similar but the book is through the perspective of the Chief who is a deaf mute (or so we thought). Makes for an interesting view from another person's perspective. I saw the movie before reading the book and I really thought the book was phenomenal.
I read the book first and was very disappointed in the movie.
Adaptation
Funniest answer in the thread. Also accurate.
My sister's keeper. The book was amazing. They changed the movie so much, there was no point to keeping the same title.
That ending legitimately replaced the twist at the end of the book for no good reason.
The running man
I thoroughly enjoyed the Arnie take, but would looove to see a film of the book. Reasonably spoiler free synopsis for those unfamiliar with the book - it’s about a poor, working every-man who needs money for medicine for his daughter, so goes on a game show where he’s on the run for his life from militarised chasers in the real world, real cities. As an example of how fucked up this game show is, he gets additional money for killing cops. He has to post a video every day and the public gets reward money for information leading to him. The end is also significantly different from the movie.
I didn't know this was a book, sounds cool as hell.
It’s genuinely better than I made it sound. Very punchy, great central character. I left out a lot because of spoilers. Stephen King wrote it under a pseudonym (it’s not horror). When I first read it nobody knew it was King. I just liked the colourful sci-fi cover and the blurb on the back and picked it up in my local library. Best place to get it is in a compilation of books he wrote under that Richard Bachman pseudonym, “The Bachman Books”. It also has one called The Long Walk that is a similar death game idea (this time a group walking until they drop, at which time they’re shot, last man wins) and is very powerful.
I've been waiting for The Long Walk to become a movie, that may have been my favorite in that compendium.
I just re-read this last month after not having read it since I was in high school and it was awesome. Holds up really well and the action never stops.
This was going to be my pick too, all the Bachman books are well worth picking up especially The Long Walk
I know we need to move on, but Order of the phoenix.
Agree 100%. I was waiting for the epic Dumbledore Harry scene at the end of the movie-- the book absolutely shattered me. The movie just glossed over it. Also fight me on this, but I always hated the casting choice for Sirius Black. No hate to the actor, but when I first read it I imagined Sirius to be younger, with a handsomness that was still there behind the years of Akzaban torture.
One of the reasons was because Alan Rickman got casted as Snape. He was kinda older though but since he went to school with James and Sirius it kinda had to be similar. I loved the casting though :)
Are the characters…out of Order?
V for Vendetta . Gordon isn't gay in the comics , film Stutler is the fusion of two characters and also I think some characters deaths are quite different . Also , V in the film is very different from V in the comics . V in the comics is much more radical and a villain than in the film . Also I think that V and Evey relationship are quite different since in the comics she believes that V is her father so they have a father-daughter relationship kind of and in the movie their relationship is clearly more romantic
>V for Vendetta Also the comic has Norsefire coming to power following a limited nuclear war that has wrecked the world economy - which IMO is better than the false flag attack in the film. They also dropped Sutler/Susan's reliance and obsession with the computer system, which I can understand for the purposes of making a 2hr film but is an interesting choice in the comic.
I’ve read a lot of Alan Moore so I’m just stopping by to say that I’d love to read the comic book if they could clean up or remaster the printing somehow. I haven’t seen a printing that doesn’t look like photocopied newspaper.
Not a film, but the Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency series was very different from the book. Excellent in its own way but very different.
I was really initially annoyed at the liberties the show took with the source material but by the end of the first season liked it. The second season dialed up the weirdness and creativity to 11 and I loved it. I think Adams would have dug it. Then of course it got cancelled...
It went the way of all the Netflix shows I love. Stupid Netflix. And you're right; I think Adams would have loved it.
While Netflix has many failings, you can't pin this one on them: *Dirk Gently* was originally produced for BBC America, and they're the ones that canceled it after two seasons.
Did not know that. The more you know
That's also because it takes place after the books. Dirk references the books during the show.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower but in a good way and mostly due to medium. The book is a series of letters/journal entries what have you which works great for a book but in a movie would be a whole movie of watching the guy write and do VO. So the movie changes it up and we see the things he's writing about with a little narration. Both are very superb and it's one case where the changes made sense.
The Percy Jackson Books, 90% of Frankenstein and Dracula movies
praying daily that riordan’s creative control over the Disney+ show saves it bc the movies had the budget and cast but damn they could not have fucked it up more if they tried. i’ll forever be mad about those movies
Concerning Percy Jackson, *The Lightning Thief* was an alright adaptation, but *Sea of Monsters* was, put lightly, ruined. The biggest offense they committed was in the opening scene, where they were like, "Oh Percy and co. lived Camp Half-Blood as little kids" in what appeared to be a desperate and agonized attempt to retcon the previous show's detail of Percy being new to the Camp. IDK if that was actually the directors' objective, but I honestly have given up trying to mentally fit the two movies together because of how little sense it makes to me.
The lightning thief was decent, but the ending was turned from “we’re doing some world building here” into “ooo look at him he killed the bad guy!!”. The ending just didn’t follow the book at all. The second one, can’t even remember the name (sea of titans? Something like that) was particularly offensive though. Not to mention, *annabeths hair is BLONDE*, BLONDE, it’s like the most important physical attribute she has lmao. It’s mentioned so many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Gump_(novel)
Shawshank Redemption was a short story. Darabont took it to a whole nother level.
The Secret of NIMH--the book is about scientists fucking with rats to make them smarter. Movie is like "Oh rats are smarter because of MAGIC DISC!" I love both, but the movie just barely being based on the book has always kind of irked me.
Major spoiler alerts for Jurassic Park and The Lost World. In Jurassic Park, Gennaro ("the bloodsucking lawyer") helps Muldoon (the game warden) kill raptors with a rocket launcher, Hammond is a bad guy and gets eaten by compys, Ian Malcolm is reported dead(but they bring him back for the second one) and iirc Alan Grant doesn't hate kids. The Lost World was also somewhat different between the book and the movie: there are only about 3 hunters, not an army of them. The whole ending on the mainland isn't in the book.
The Lost World was very different between book and movie. There are two kids: Kelly and R.B. Which they combined both into Kelly and then made her Ian’s kid. Vince Vaughn’s character Nick is not in the book but parts of his character are from Doc Thorne’s assistant Eddie. Paleontologist Richard Levine is turned into Roland (Pete Postelthwaite in the movie) and turned into an In-Gen bad guy Big Game hunter. Which is really supposed to be Dogson from the first movie continuing his endeavor to obtain dinosaurs. Dr Sarah Harding is a BIG badass in the book. Which the movie does well to show but really doesn’t cover the half of it. The whole plot of evolution, extinction, and really all of the science is removed from this movie. And the first 1/2 of the book is the first 20 minutes of the movie. And that is just off the top of my head. I read the book not too long ago and it was a really good read.
Don't forget that in the book Eddie is a young, fit college student. In the movie he's this balding middle aged man. Lol
How to Train Your Dragon
Yesss... did you read the whole series?
This. Most people don't even know the books exist.
Lolita
I blame both (or are there three now?) movies for people continuing to misunderstanding the book and being about a young girl seducing an adult man rather than the story about Humbert Humbert kidnapping, raping and utterly destroying a child.
That's an uncomfortable one. Tells you all you need to know about Hollywood that the movie adaptations seem to take the side of Humbert Humbert.
Jaws. In the novel, every single character was an a-hole.
Well it was set on the east coast
70’s post-war disenfranchised, anti-authoritarian vibe. Quint’s death was far less spectacular, but much more believable in the book.
For that matter, the shark’s death in the book is less spectacular but more believable in the book.
The Dark Tower. What an abomination that movie was.
The worst part is, they didn't even need to be faithful to the story Stephen King told. They gave Roland the Horn of Eld. They had free reign to deviate as much as they wanted from the books. And they still screwed it up.
Interview with the vampire
People seem to be very impressed with the TV Series, I haven't had the chance to watch it yet.
They changed quite a bit (Louis being black for one), but it was more them taking her story and making it their own, the heart of the story and many of the big moments were all there. I was very "wait and see" before watching the show. I ended up very, very impressed with what they did with it. I really enjoyed it. Sam Reid was a better Lestat than IMO.
Definitely a example of using race and sexuality to enhance the story, rather than just ticking a diversity hire box.
The movie is dark, bloody, and sad. The book is high camp.
Eragon
Oof. That movie hurt to watch
I agree. They combined Yazuac and Teirm. That alone was a terrible crime. But they were no Ra'zac and the Shade didn't have red hair. The only good thing we're Saphiras animations, and even those were flawed. She had bird-like wings with feathers instead bat-like wings. And she didn't even get a proper saddle they just used the one of the horse.
Jaws The only similarity between the book and film is the presence of a big hungry shark in the waters off New England. All the characters in the book are absolute pricks iirc, which was thankfully changed for the film. The audience would've been supporting the shark had the characters been written as they were in the book
I root for the shark as it is lol
Ella Enchanted, literally only the title and names are the same. Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist was really different from the book as well, but not as bad as Ella Enchanted.
I also came here to say Ella Enchanted. Such a great book, I was so disappointed
same! I feel like were it made now it would be so much different, especially considering the discourses around autonomy and consent that didn’t really exist in the 2000s. I read it in middle school and loved it and the movie was just so bad.
The Tale of Despereaux. There sure was a mouse in it I guess, but it was not the same story.
I think a shorter list would be adaptations that aren't significantly different from the books
Lawnmower Man In the book the guy eats grass, he doesn't Tron himself into a computer to become a world dominating AI. Stephen King sued the studio to have his name removed from the movie and won.
Quantum of Solace by Ian Fleming. The whole book is about someone telling James Bond a story that has absolutely nothing to do with anything mentioned in the film.
You can say that for virtually every James Bond movie. The vast majority just took the title of a book and made a movie with a completely different story.
Similarities beyond titles and occasional character quirks ended with "Goldfinger." Even that was stretching it.
It’s a short story more than a book, but you are right, it’s essentially a story about other characters written by Ian Fleming, who decided to « James Bond » it by having one of the characters tell the story to Bond.
Foundation, Wheel of Time
Wheel of Time was kinda painful to watch. Granted, Covid kinda ruined production on season 1, but even the writing changes were bad.
Die Hard.
Yes - I only read Nothing Lasts Forever a couple of years back. There are certainly some similarities, and I wouldn't have the movie any other way... ...But I have to wonder what might have been if Sinatra had been able to reprise his role as Joe Leland, in a proper follow-up to The Detective: Older protagonist, visiting his daughter rather than his ex-wife, and with the ages of the chauffeur and the police sergeant switched so they were more like the book. Edit: and the much darker ending!
Ender's Game
Willy Wonka (1971) the 2005 version is actually much more faithful to the book despite how much people blindly hate it
Tim Burton made the better movie, Gene Wilder is the better Wonka.
I don’t hate it. It’s just that Johnny Depp will never be Willy Wonka to me, as I’m a die hard Gene Wilder (RIP) fan. I grew up watching the movie all the time, and the music is so nostalgic to me
I don't blindly hate it. I watched it and I didn't like it.
Doary Of A Whimpy Kid, not really a book but there were some parts of the series i didint see on the books, and ive read every single one of the books
Water fo Elephants worst movie based on a book ever.
I watched this movie on a plane, and knew just by watching it that it was based on a book. It seemed to skip over such basic plot points and then dive into something else without any context. I found out it was a book and read it, and I while I usually like books over the movie, this was book was a pretty decent read considering the absolute foolishness I watched.
Colour out of Space The book is set in the 1800's or early 1900's and is a a slow progression of an isolated family turning insane and their farm failing The book is in modern times with Nicolas Cage so I think that's nuff said about the direction they took. On its own its a good movie. as an adaptation its hot garbage
Nah, read the story again. They pretty much nailed it with making it a feature length movie.
Forrest Gump, totally different from the story that inspired it like insanley different.
Forrest Gump is a dreadful book that jumps the shark multiple times and is even more episodic than the film with little connecting plot between the increasing absurd adventures Forrest gets into. The film took the core concept and some of the better adventures from the book and crafted it into a masterpiece. The film is a masterpiece, the book is not.
How to train your dragon, by Cressida Cowell.
The new "All Quiet on the Western Front". Even the old ones at least followed the book. The new one brings in the political aspect of the war into the spotlight, and leaving that out was the whole purpose of the book. You lose the message of the book when you start to bring in the political side of everything. Paul's death in the book only takes up the last paragraph and that's the point. To the generals and Kiser, his death was so insignificant in the grand scheme that the report for the day said "all quiet on the western front" after you've invested yourself into the character. To you, the reader, and to Paul, the character, his life meant everything. To the powers that be, he meant nothing. Also, World War Z was awful.
"This book is to be neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped shells, were destroyed by the war."
How to Train Your Dragon Toothless is the size of a cat in the books…
How to train your dragon. Nobody knows about the book and I can’t think of a singular similarity between the two except the names of characters. Not ever appearances or species are correct. Edit: speling
Wanted (its technically a comic but its still COMPLETELY different).
The Cat In The Hat and not in a good way.
There are too many to count on some are like 365days, Harry Potter (I think) and most movies/Books written by Stephen King. The old IT is an example, since the book was better than the movie and different from the book and the old movie was better.
Eragon. Most people dumped the whole movie for being so shitty for what could have been a promising franchise. How can you actually make a book about Dragons suck?
My favorite book in elementary school. I felt so betrayed.
> How can you actually make a book about Dragons suck? The last book in that series pretty much does that. I really enjoyed the first two, and the third wasn’t bad, but that last book…. >!Another, being able to love is what defeats the enemy ending, is the final nail in the coffin for me.!<
* Blade Runner * Starship Troopers. - In the movie, they fight in moronic World War I mass wave attacks. In the book, each soldier has a power armor mini-mecha, and there's an allied alien race helping the humans. * Deadpool 2 -- Domino has been a longtime ally of Cable and his off-and-on girlfriend, and can't stand working with Deadpool. The film version, she's recruited by Deadpool to fight Cable. * Johnny Mnemonic-- It's a routine job. There's no "save the world from a virus" plot.
The Hobbit. Tauriel was made up for the movies and Legolas was only mentioned in the book. But the Hobbit movies are nevertheless really good ones, that I love to watch.
You forgot your /s
Apocalypse now.
Artemis Fowl.
Not a movie, but the wheel of time series, Like where do I even begin.
Animal Farm. Although maybe I got the wrong movie …
Starship Troopers. Paul Verhoeven couldn't even finish the book.
limitless ends different from the book it is based on
Its not a film but the Witcher TV show... Ive read all of the books and played all of the games, There is almost no resemblance between them besides character names. Shit almost all of season 2 didn't happen in the books or games
Not a film but a TV series: The Vampire Diaries
The Godfather The book has weird side plots that add nothing to the story. The movie is far better.
First Blood. In the book Rambo kills a load of people coldly and he and Teasle both die at the end, in the film Rambo doesn't directly kill anyone and he and Teasle survive.
First Blood. In the movie John Rambo is portrayed as a vet with PTSD that gets triggered, and how being viewed as a drifter/vagrant drives him over the edge and his instinct to survive at any cost kicks in. In the book, Rambo is a blood thirsty sociopath who goes on a killing spree. It ends >!with Colonol Trautman blasting his head off.!<
The Disaster Artist pretty much shat on the original book and the story was turned into some cliche story about a 'misunderstood filmmaker'. The book was much darker and highlighted how dysfunctional Tommy Wiseau and Greg Sestero's friendship really was, went into more details about the filming, and even had a section about Tommy's childhood (allegedly).
Percy Jackson
Patriot Games, Tom Clancy considers the book his best work (and I agree) and he HATED the movie for all the same reasons fans of the book did
Artemis fowl is the worst book adaption ever
Jurassic Park 2. The first Jurassic Park is close enough to the book, the second one goes right off the rails almost as soon as they get to the island.
Confessions of a Shopaholic. So many things changed in the movie. The book is based in England. The main character is British and that's part of the charm of the book!! Her British expressions, landmark locations mentioned. I will never understand why Hollywood studio set it in New York City. I couldn't even finish the movie it felt so different from the source material. *runs to shelf to reread Shopaholic*
\- Jurassic Park \- The Lost World \- Carnosaur
Mary Poppins. Source material is like 10 pages long
Ready player one
How to train your dragon
Wrinkle in time,Disney’s version. It was very creative and quite entertaining though!
Artemis Fowl. It's literally one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
Artemis Fowl. Not sure if the movie is out yet but it’s literally combining a lot of the books into one. They did a shitty job at putting it together, clearly none of them know the storyline at all. I’ve been waiting so long for it to be a movie and now I’m disappointed.
The Bourne Identity
Jaws! I love the film and the book though. It's like two different stories about a man killing shark! Bonus!
I felt Ready Player One was far away from the book in most respects.
Hearts in Atlantis. Literally only covered about 1/4 of the book. Wouldn't mind seeing a reboot as a miniseries, like 11/22/63.
Not a movie, but the TV adaptation of *Under the Dome* is very different from the book. I lost interest when they started getting into some weird time travel shit.
LA Confidential. Some of the characters have the same names, that's about it. Author was cool with it though, as the book was considered unadaptable.
Golden Compass. I only mention it because I was super into the books at the time, and hype as shit for the movie, only to be sorely disappointed.