So many movies are based on novels, and with the creative input of directors and writers ultimately affecting the story, some things are inevitably changed during the process. Some have great results! Others? Eh, not so much.
With that in mind, what change in a movie adaptation of a novel did you absolutely hate? And which one did you love, if any?
I don't like The Dark Tower movie adaptation as a whole, taking away the mystique in favor of a familiar, but bland, plot.
One change that I loved, and it might be an unpopular opinion, but when Watchmen was adapted, I loved that
instead of introducing a giant squid out of nowhere, instead have Ozymandias frame Dr. Manhattan for the nuclear destruction of New York by imitating his energy signature. It keeps the story on theme on the fear and distrust the general public already had for super beings.
An unpopular opinion: I actually loved the adaptation of Aragon. Don't ask me why, but I liked it. Harry Potter adaptations were great too, so were many others I can't remember the titles of.
One adaptation I absolutely hated was The Wheel of Time adaptation. (This is more of a series, I know.) I think they messed up the lore big time with the changes they made.
I was sorely disappointed by the 1st HP movie when they didn't give Hermione her time to shine when
they were trying to find the Philosopher's Stone. And she was supposed to figure out which potions to drink
. I was a kid then so I didn't really understand the need for them to cut out some scenes. On an objective viewpoint, it really was a good adaptation. But I still couldn't shake off that ugly feeling of betrayal so the rest of the movie was bleh to me.
Twilight was an awful adaptation for me because of the way they portrayed the vampires. Still, can't forget that the first thought that came to mind regarding Edward Cullen was that he looked constipated all the time. Still hate that entire series.
Also hate 50 Shades of Grey so for me it didn't matter if they adapted that well. I never read the books, never watched the movie. The reviews from other people tell me all I need to know about how bad that series was.
Hunger Games and Divergent are decent adaptations I guess but the movie themselves felt so bland to me that it really didn't mean all that much that they were able to stay kind of true to the spirit of the books.
One of the recent ones, Artemis Fowl, destroyed me. It was nothing like the Artemis Fowl I loved and missed. They massacred that series and I'm very relieved that they'll never continue that disaster.
I agree with @Lisianthus. The WoT adaptations were horrendous. I kept screaming and crying at every unnecessary change they made. WHAT DID THEY DO TO MY LOVELY, JOLLY, ELEGANT THOM MERRILIN?!??!?!?!?!?!?!
I agree with @foodforpigs. They messed up the Dark Tower. It didn't matter to me that it was
supposed to be a different iteration of Roland's journey and is not the "round" that we read in the books
. The man in black deserved better than what we got.
For some positives, I loved the Lord of the Rings adaptation (not the Rings of Power). They cut out some stuff I wished weren't cut out, but otherwise it was an awesome movie. Stardust was also one that I enjoyed. And, following the Neil Gaiman route, Good Omens and Sandman were very good adaptations. I know American Gods came out but I haven't had the chance to watch that or hear reviews about it.
Neil Gaiman is a hero who manages to keep all of his works untouched by other people who think they know better than the original writer.
I really hate modern day Hollywood. I wish they'd stop leeching off previous successful works and just make their own damn stories again.
Honestly usually book to movie adaption aren't great BUT The Guernsey Literary and potato peel society was the BEST adaption I've seen. It's rare but I prefer the movie adaption for that book
One of my favorites is Coraline. I also liked To Kill a Mockingbird, Holes, Heart of Darkness, and IT (both movie versions are enjoyable to me but I haven't seen the newest IT movie, the Part II I mean). Series of Unfortunate Events, as well. :] Not just the show, but the movie, too. I know Jim Carrey doesn't exactly do a "scary" impression of Count Olaf, but I...I admit I loved it anyway...
Ones that I despise: Eragon, A Wrinkle in Time, The Golden Compass, The Notebook.
101 Dalmations came to mind, also. Even though the cartoon movie and the live-action movie are different from the book, I liked 'em. I don't however like the Cruella movie, that one...bleh...Lol.
I wouldn't write off the upcoming Percy Jackson adaptation yet @FenFren . To my knowledge Riordan has been far more involved and I believe it's a series instead of a movie. If we're lucky it might do for YA adaptation what Game of Thrones has done for Fantasy Television adaptation.
Best book to film adaptation I know is Princess Bride. All changes serve the new medium but retain the spirit of the book. They make superb companion pieces.
@Jaqueline@FenFren I'm kind of in the middle levels of excitement about the Percy Jackson TV series. I know Riordan is actually involved, and that's a good sign, but it is a Disney+ production and word on the street is that generally Disney has not been giving its properties enough time to develop and even animate before they're shoved out onto the world. On top of which, the casting announcement for the three leads convinced me that they're not trying the hardest for book accuracy, even ignoring the fact that great authors can still be shit screen writers. (I am also incredibly not a fan of this trend to do representation by recasting white SIDE characters as PoC, but refusing to ever recast white main characters as PoC, and since Grover was already PoC I didn't see what the point in changing his ethnicity was, but that's a side pet peeve, and my best hope is that they did that out of colorblind casting rules trying to pick the best actor or actress for the job than anything else, bc I get that good child actors are hard to find. It just FEELS a lot like other times Disney has done that sort of thing, so I haven't much faith there's any other motivation.)
My most hated adaptation is hands down Ella Enchanted (though I did not watch Artemis Fowl because that book series was my childhood obsession, and the first trailer instantly told me it would break my heart). To be more specific to Kuno's question, they took a clever, problem solving girl with a curse she has to withstand and turned her into a one whose magical frickin powers solve all the problems in the plot that has less than zero to do with the original anyways. A similar thing happens with the Netflix version of persuasion, where they take a kind, but giving girl into a snarky sarcastic one and that essentially ruins the entire theme and structure of the work. Changing characterization so you can destroy everything else is a type of adaptation change I generally despise.
I don't... think I actually have a favorite movie adaptation of anything. While I love princess bride and the LOTR movies, I've never read the source books, and I'm very whatever on stuff like HP. Favorite adaptation of a book ever is Pride and Prejudice the BBC miniseries, and that's a terrible example bc it plays the book pretty straight in almost every way I can think of. But I think my favorite technique for adaptations I've seen is cutting to a bit of insight from a character who wasn't POV in the novel, and giving them just a tiny bit extra characterization then they had in the book.
The 'Eragon' series being turned into movies was one of the biggest letdowns of my teenage years. I had adored the books, and had a specific character that I was so excited to see on the screen. He was my favorite one. Imagine my utter dismay when...he was nowhere to be found. It's been over a decade now, but I feel as if he hadnt even been mentioned in the movies at all? Almost as if he had never existed to begin with.
'Blood and Chocolate' was also a fave of mine in highschool too, and the movie was lackluster as well to me. The vision of the characters, events, etc in my mind werent even remotely close to what was on screen and that left me pretty bummed out at the time.
Skipping forward to last night, I started (and finished) watching a series on Hulu named 'Kindred'. Based on a book of the same name written by the late amazingly talent Octavia E. Bulter, I grew up always hearing about its contents. It was, and still remains, my mother's favorite book. Considering that back then, and even now, there are little to no fantasy/sci-fi stories not only written by black women, but also ones centered around one as a main character, 'Kindred' broke barriers. Despite that, it's unsurprisingly been banned in many places for those exact reasons.
Nonetheless, my mom stumbled upon the series before I had, and was excited yet understandably apprehensive about watching it. Needless to say, she was deeply disappointed, and couldn't help but notice how much the show had deviated from the source material. In contrast, I, who hadnt read the book', actually really enjoyed season 1 and reeeallly hope season 2 is greenlit. My opinion of the series was just of the show itself sprinkled with tidbits of details I recalled from my childhood, and so that led me to having an entirely different experience than my mother's.
I grew up in love with the Chaos Walking book series. Read it so many damn times. Then they come out with a movie about the first book, The Knife of Never Letting Go, starring Tom Holland, Daisy Ridley, Nick Jonas and Madds Mikkelsen. Crazy cast, right? Should've been good, yeah?
Nope. Absolute garbage fire that bombed everywhere it was shown, they forced weird romance shit on the two main characters super early on because obviously a guy and a girl can't exist near each other without making out, ruined my fav character and turned the entire thing into an embarrassment. :')
Off the top of my head, I can think of several movies that are better than their written counterparts:
Stand By Me (Based on "The Body" by Stephen King) - All in all, the film has better dialogue, writing, and the characters are more fleshed out. I found the book disappointing in comparison.
The Godfather - The book is decent, but the film is a masterpiece. Apparently Mario Puzo treated the screenplay like a second draft, and it shows. The book simply lacks the polish that the movie has.
Dune - I'm not saying the movie was better than the book, but if I had read the book before watching the movie, I would not have been able to finish reading it. The movie definitely does the book justice, I will say that. All hail Denis Villeneuve
LoTR - (See Dune. I basically feel the same way about LoTR)
Altered Carbon - Do not read the book if you don't want to be exposed to terrible smut or otherwise be bored to death, but DO watch the show. It's much, much more entertaining than the book.
Now for bad adaptations:
The Hobbit - It was so fucking bad. I mean, I like Legolas, but why the fuck is he in this movie?
The Witcher Season 2 - Could not go past the first few episodes. The writers massacred this show.
I, Robot - Honestly, you couldn't even call this an adaptation. You couldn't even say it was inspired by Asimov's book.
Funny that you think the Altered Carbon TV adaptation is nice, because from what I understand the whole concept of envoys is completely changed. The premise doesn't work without the first person, introspective narration.
Some movies are based on books and sometimes I feel like knowing the books could hinder enjoyment of the movie. Someone mentioned No Country For Old Men, or Godfather -- I think those stand on their own. I also enjoyed S2 of the Witcher, although maybe that was because Henry was doing is darndest to keep the plot together.
Funny that you think the Altered Carbon TV adaptation is nice, because from what I understand the whole concept of envoys is completely changed. The premise doesn't work without the first person, introspective narration.
Some movies are based on books and sometimes I feel like knowing the books could hinder enjoyment of the movie. Someone mentioned No Country For Old Men, or Godfather -- I think those stand on their own. I also enjoyed S2 of the Witcher, although maybe that was because Henry was doing is darndest to keep the plot together.
I'm not sure what's so funny about my own personal opinion, but okay. You may not like the adaptation, but I found it entertaining. So what? I read the book and thought it was pretty shit, but hey if someone else likes it, I'm not going to rain on their parade. Their opinion does not affect me in any way at all.
It's a turn of phrase, friend, because you went the opposite way and liked the movie over the book.
Anyways, this thread just seems to suggest to me that first impressions are the strongest and what we judge follow ups by. I read the Dune series a long a time ago, and although I found the movie fantastic I was really looking forward to more screen time for the Mentats.
Unpopular opinion: but I liked the Studio Ghibli adaptation of 'Howl's Moving Castle' probably because I saw it before reading the book, but I like to think of the movie as another and more romanticised point of view (told by the dear simp Howl) versus the sassier more practical retelling of Sophie in the book.
I think the adaptation I disliked the most are the Shadowhunter series/movies. The books were decent but wow. No words for both the movie and series.
Honestly, you couldn't even call this an adaptation. You couldn't even say it was inspired by Asimov's book.
I read the book and thought it was pretty shit, but hey if someone else likes it, I'm not going to rain on their parade. Their opinion does not affect me in any way at all.