I'm amazed nobody brought up The Running Man yet. That's one of the biggest examples of deviation from the original novel I've seen so far.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Movies that vary from the book for no reason
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by ZedOmega View PostI'm amazed nobody brought up The Running Man yet. That's one of the biggest examples of deviation from the original novel I've seen so far.
Those two Stephen King movies mentioned, PLUS Maximum Overdrive, make me live in fear of a big screen adaptation of The Dark Tower of any kind.
Comment
-
the other one I happened to think of is Logan's Run
I saw the movie then read the book. both contained the same basic plot theme of restricting a person's age
book summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan's_Run
Movie summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan's_Run_(film)
both are good for their medium and for the mid 70's the special effects of the film are somwhat good (with an Acadaemy Award for special effects though the minuiture sets are a little lame)
there was even a short lived TV series on CBS in the US
and doing a little searching I find that someone is either seriously contemplating or actually doing a remake for possible release in 2012.I'm lost without a paddle and I'm headed up sh*t creek.
I got one foot on a banana peel and the other in the Twilight Zone.
The Fools - Life Sucks Then You Die
Comment
-
I hated the treatment Faramir got in the Two Towers. Why waste time in a film, which is long enough, by showing him being tempted by the Ring? In the book the point is that he is not tempted at all since he is noble and a true descendant of Numenor.
I haven't seen the Return of the King yet, I just can't do it.
Oh, and Elrond doesn't look like his description :
He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as
a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind
as summer.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mikkel View PostI hated the treatment Faramir got in the Two Towers. Why waste time in a film, which is long enough, by showing him being tempted by the Ring? In the book the point is that he is not tempted at all since he is noble and a true descendant of Numenor.
Also, Denethor. He is nowhere near as bad as he's painted in the films. True, he treats Faramir like second best, but the film made him out to be a monster with no good points at all. I mean, he managed to rule as Steward for all those years, so he must be doing something right."Oh wow, I can't believe how stupid I used to be and you still are."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ginger Tea View PostV for Vendetta worked better in some parts on the big screen (and the book adaptation) than the original comic (or graphic novel)
I have to ask Hollywood... why? Does having a kid brother die instead of a mother tug at the heart strings more?
Originally posted by AdminAssistant View PostI haven't read the original books, but I heard a lot of people complain about the editing in the LOTR movies.
Also, if I remember correctly, didn't Elrond still have a youthful appearance about him in The Hobbit? The events in The Lord of the Rings occured less than a hundred years later; for someone born in the First Age, he certainly aged rapidly!"I take it your health insurance doesn't cover acts of pussy."— Queen of Wands // Something Positive
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bloodsoul View Post
And in the dark lands of the Old Forest they were forced to eat Fatty Bolger. And there was much rejoicing.
Also, if I remember correctly, didn't Elrond still have a youthful appearance about him in The Hobbit? The events in The Lord of the Rings occured less than a hundred years later; for someone born in the First Age, he certainly aged rapidly!Last edited by Lace Neil Singer; 08-17-2010, 01:29 AM."Oh wow, I can't believe how stupid I used to be and you still are."
Comment
-
They were going to go for someone younger looking, but Weaving was the only available actor who could look bad-ass whilst wearing a tiara, so their options were a bit limited
And while Glorfindel is a substantial minor character. In the grand scheme of things, especially considering how brief his appearance would have been in a condensed format, he's a nothing character. Not worth the time it takes to set up only to basically never use. Given the choice between replacing him thus making the whole affair that much more efficient, letting him go nameless and waste the space or muck everything up, the choice is obvious, really.
When it comes to book to film adaptations LOTR is among the best, if not THE best.Last edited by Wingates_Hellsing; 08-17-2010, 02:51 AM.All units: IRENE
HK MP5-N: Solving 800 problems a minute since 1986
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nyoibo View PostMovies changed from books, Starship Troopers.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie, but the only thing it has in common with the book is the title.
I was about to post much the same thing. I still wonder how the heck the screenwriter made that leap???? I guess he was given the assignment to crank out a big budget action/war movie and left most of the political stuff on the floor. though I did find the book a bit boring for Heinlein as the author
and they managed to make 3 movies (1 original and 2 baddddd sequels) I finally saw the third one not that long ago and I thought YUUUUUCCCCKKKK
The animated series in the late 90's was OK. a good cross between the book and the first movieI'm lost without a paddle and I'm headed up sh*t creek.
I got one foot on a banana peel and the other in the Twilight Zone.
The Fools - Life Sucks Then You Die
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wingates_Hellsing View PostThey were going to go for someone younger looking, but Weaving was the only available actor who could look bad-ass whilst wearing a tiara, so their options were a bit limited
And while Glorfindel is a substantial minor character. In the grand scheme of things, especially considering how brief his appearance would have been in a condensed format, he's a nothing character. Not worth the time it takes to set up only to basically never use. Given the choice between replacing him thus making the whole affair that much more efficient, letting him go nameless and waste the space or muck everything up, the choice is obvious, really.
When it comes to book to film adaptations LOTR is among the best, if not THE best.
I do like the movies, but I thought that they were a little too keen on editing Return Of The King. For example, the Sack of the Shire could have been included; and they should have included Saruman's death in all versions, not just the extended version, cuz a lot of people were left wondering what the hell happened to him; for example, one of my friends asked, "So the Ents are just going to guard Saruman for the rest of existance?""Oh wow, I can't believe how stupid I used to be and you still are."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nyoibo View PostMovies changed from books, Starship Troopers.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie, but the only thing it has in common with the book is the title.
From what I heard the original script was completed unrelated but similiar. It was a studio decision to make it an adaptation. After reading the book the screen writer hated the philosophy and decided to make the adaptation as over the top as possible.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Red Panda View PostI think The Watchmen is better since the biggest change is actually an improvement over the source material
Just Kidding....
What really pissed me off about the movie was base don Rorschach though. They completely changed his character when they changed how he found and killed the child molester. What they made him into is not who he was.
CHSome People Are Alive Only Because It's Illegal To Kill Them.
Comment
Comment