Worst adaptation of source material (film or TV)
Discussion
I don’t mean badly made. I mean what adaption strayed the furthest from the original book/comic/play/folktale.
Some for starters:
I am Legend. Film was a vehicle for Will Smith with upbeat ending that was contrary to the book (which was much more interesting as was the meaning of Legend).
Animal Farm: animated film has the animals rebelling at the end. Completely destroys the original ending and whole meaning of the book.
Some for starters:
I am Legend. Film was a vehicle for Will Smith with upbeat ending that was contrary to the book (which was much more interesting as was the meaning of Legend).
Animal Farm: animated film has the animals rebelling at the end. Completely destroys the original ending and whole meaning of the book.
There are lots and I will probably remember loads more but the two that really stand out for me are.
I am legend - It completely misses the point of the book. I think i am okay for spoilers on a 20 year old movie. - In the end of the book the protagonist realises that he is actually the monster. None of this really came across in either version of the movie where Will Smith was resolutely the hero.
The second is much more controversial - Dune Part 2.
I have read the book numerous times and loved it since my teenage years. I really liked part one so was excited and hopeful for part 2, but was seriously let down.
Why?
1. No spacing guild - These guys are the real power in the universe. At the end of the book after Paul kill Fyed its the guild that stops the Houses of the Landsraad attacking. it the movie the completely untrained Freman jump in the emperors ships and take off to attack. They would be destroyed before they managed to take off.
2. The truncated time line. The events of the second half of the book take place over a number of years. In the book it's a couple of months. There are a number of drawbacks to this but the worst is the fact Alia remains unborn.
3. Chani. The need to impose modern day sensibilities to a story set 20,000 years in the future turned an extremely complex and important character into a moody teenager.
Now you're probably thinking I am miserable git and it was a good movie and you'd probably right. The only problem is the next movie will now need to deviate even further from the source material to fit these changes. Either that or some serious retconning is required.
I would go as far as to say the David Lynch movie is closer to the book (if you take out the wierding module stuff its much closer)
I am legend - It completely misses the point of the book. I think i am okay for spoilers on a 20 year old movie. - In the end of the book the protagonist realises that he is actually the monster. None of this really came across in either version of the movie where Will Smith was resolutely the hero.
The second is much more controversial - Dune Part 2.
I have read the book numerous times and loved it since my teenage years. I really liked part one so was excited and hopeful for part 2, but was seriously let down.
Why?
1. No spacing guild - These guys are the real power in the universe. At the end of the book after Paul kill Fyed its the guild that stops the Houses of the Landsraad attacking. it the movie the completely untrained Freman jump in the emperors ships and take off to attack. They would be destroyed before they managed to take off.
2. The truncated time line. The events of the second half of the book take place over a number of years. In the book it's a couple of months. There are a number of drawbacks to this but the worst is the fact Alia remains unborn.
3. Chani. The need to impose modern day sensibilities to a story set 20,000 years in the future turned an extremely complex and important character into a moody teenager.
Now you're probably thinking I am miserable git and it was a good movie and you'd probably right. The only problem is the next movie will now need to deviate even further from the source material to fit these changes. Either that or some serious retconning is required.
I would go as far as to say the David Lynch movie is closer to the book (if you take out the wierding module stuff its much closer)
in terms of straying furthest from the original book, surely some of the James Bond films which basically just take Ian Fleming's title and throw away the plot altogether. The Spy Who Loved Me, for example, which has no elements of the novel at all other than that James Bond is in both.
robemcdonald said:
There are lots and I will probably remember loads more but the two that really stand out for me are.
I am legend - It completely misses the point of the book. I think i am okay for spoilers on a 20 year old movie. - In the end of the book the protagonist realises that he is actually the monster. None of this really came across in either version of the movie where Will Smith was resolutely the hero.
The second is much more controversial - Dune Part 2.
I have read the book numerous times and loved it since my teenage years. I really liked part one so was excited and hopeful for part 2, but was seriously let down.
Why?
1. No spacing guild - These guys are the real power in the universe. At the end of the book after Paul kill Fyed its the guild that stops the Houses of the Landsraad attacking. it the movie the completely untrained Freman jump in the emperors ships and take off to attack. They would be destroyed before they managed to take off.
2. The truncated time line. The events of the second half of the book take place over a number of years. In the book it's a couple of months. There are a number of drawbacks to this but the worst is the fact Alia remains unborn.
3. Chani. The need to impose modern day sensibilities to a story set 20,000 years in the future turned an extremely complex and important character into a moody teenager.
Now you're probably thinking I am miserable git and it was a good movie and you'd probably right. The only problem is the next movie will now need to deviate even further from the source material to fit these changes. Either that or some serious retconning is required.
I would go as far as to say the David Lynch movie is closer to the book (if you take out the wierding module stuff its much closer)
I don’t understand why they made those changes in Dune 2. It wasn’t necessary in my view. I know the David Lynch version gets a lot of hate but I liked it (except the weirding module and the casting for Paul).I am legend - It completely misses the point of the book. I think i am okay for spoilers on a 20 year old movie. - In the end of the book the protagonist realises that he is actually the monster. None of this really came across in either version of the movie where Will Smith was resolutely the hero.
The second is much more controversial - Dune Part 2.
I have read the book numerous times and loved it since my teenage years. I really liked part one so was excited and hopeful for part 2, but was seriously let down.
Why?
1. No spacing guild - These guys are the real power in the universe. At the end of the book after Paul kill Fyed its the guild that stops the Houses of the Landsraad attacking. it the movie the completely untrained Freman jump in the emperors ships and take off to attack. They would be destroyed before they managed to take off.
2. The truncated time line. The events of the second half of the book take place over a number of years. In the book it's a couple of months. There are a number of drawbacks to this but the worst is the fact Alia remains unborn.
3. Chani. The need to impose modern day sensibilities to a story set 20,000 years in the future turned an extremely complex and important character into a moody teenager.
Now you're probably thinking I am miserable git and it was a good movie and you'd probably right. The only problem is the next movie will now need to deviate even further from the source material to fit these changes. Either that or some serious retconning is required.
I would go as far as to say the David Lynch movie is closer to the book (if you take out the wierding module stuff its much closer)
Cloudy147 said:
I was also going to say the Hobbit.
I love the book but haven’t actually watched the film(s). The fact it’s around 500 minutes for a regular sized book, meant it was going to be overly dark, depressing and loaded with nonsense.
I think if you edited the three films into one and took out all the unnecessary crap it would be a pretty good 3 hour film (which it should have been). I love the book but haven’t actually watched the film(s). The fact it’s around 500 minutes for a regular sized book, meant it was going to be overly dark, depressing and loaded with nonsense.
I’ve read the book a few times. The story makes no sense unfortunately.
robemcdonald said:
Skeptisk said:
Blade Runner annoys me with Scott making Deckard a replicant, which is just some poncy art student type thing to do as it makes no sense in terms of the story.
The other thing they changed from the original story was everything else.jtremlett said:
in terms of straying furthest from the original book, surely some of the James Bond films which basically just take Ian Fleming's title and throw away the plot altogether. The Spy Who Loved Me, for example, which has no elements of the novel at all other than that James Bond is in both.
Interesting you mention The Spy Who Loved Me. I recently heard/read something about this. Apparently Fleming didn't like the novel and didn't want the film to be anything like it, so he told the producers to just take the name and do something else.Virtually any TV or film adaptation from a video game. Generally, trying to distill a huge interactive story experience into a 2-10 hour film or TV series is tough because so much of the character and plot development has to be cut for the sake of run time. However, the biggest issue tends to be that these adaptations are s
tty cash-ins made by people who openly and proudly reject the source material and use the IP as a vehicle to 'tell our own story', invariably with terrible results.
tty cash-ins made by people who openly and proudly reject the source material and use the IP as a vehicle to 'tell our own story', invariably with terrible results.Collectingbrass said:
Nothing you're going to mention will be worse than Stallone's version of Judge Dredd.
The Dredd universe in that film was excellent. The whole ethos of Dredd was lost when Stallone got his face out.Similarly, the Cruise versions of Reacher where a gigantic muscled hulk was replaced by a dwarf in lifts.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff