nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

UN-faithful movie adaptations that are actually good?

Tokyo

Sitting down in front of the TV watching Sylvester Stallone run around a mountainside in 'First Blood' right now, and it got me thinking back to the first time I read the book, and how the image that it created in my head was so different to when I finally got around to watching it on TV. The novel focuses on the psychological aftermath of the Vietnam war, whereas the movie leans more towards the car chases, explosions, and gunfights. Having said that, I remember thinking that despite this, and the fact that the ending is completely different from the novel, it's still a pretty good movie - especially considering the action-fest that followed in the sequels.

So with that in mind, What other cases are out there where filmmakers made movies that resemble the books in almost zero ways, and yet it’s entirely possible to consider them... good?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Wacker The Attacker

Lady Windermeres Fanny

Literary masterpiece

Links234

V for Vendetta, pretty much loathed by Alan Moore himself, and takes a lot of liberties, but easily the best adaptation of Moore's work and a really good movie in it's own right

Tokyo

Links234 wrote: »

V for Vendetta, pretty much loathed by Alan Moore himself, and takes a lot of liberties, but easily the best adaptation of Moore's work and a really good movie in it's own right

To be fair has there been an adaptation of his work that Moore has actually liked?

MS.ing

rambo was a book!

pmsl!!

Lenin Skynard

Apocalypse Now would have to mentioned. It's a lot different than the book it was based on but retains the central core of the story. It was very well done.

Tokyo

MS.ing wrote: »

rambo was a book!

pmsl!!

Yup, First Blood, by David Morrel

Stavros Murphy

MS.ing wrote: »

rambo was a book!

pmsl!!

Better yet, Rambo got his name from an author - Rimbaud.

"Rimbaud, First Blood", doesn't have the same ring to it though.

loyatemu

The Shining is an obvious one - Steven King reportedly hates it, and produced his own adaptation of the book, which was terrible.

Degag

The "Bourne" series of books would have to be up there.

[Deleted User]

Mr Bean, the radio show didn't go down too well. Apparently, only Priests got the humour!

Royal Legend

The Bourne Ultimatum, the film is so far removed from the book. Was really looking forward to the film after reading the book.

Tokyo

Degag wrote: »

The "Bourne" series of books would have to be up there.

Didn't think much of "The Bourne Identity" as a novel - thought the movies were excellent though.

evolving_doors

mike_ie wrote: »

Sitting down in front of the TV watching Sylvester Stallone run around a mountainside in 'First Blood' right now, and it got me thinking back to the first time I read the book, and how the image that it created in my head was so different to when I finally got around to watching it on TV. The novel focuses on the psychological aftermath of the Vietnam war, whereas the movie leans more towards the car chases, explosions, and gunfights. Having said that, I remember thinking that despite this, and the fact that the ending is completely different from the novel, it's still a pretty good movie - especially considering the action-fest that followed in the sequels.

So with that in mind, What other cases are out there where filmmakers made movies that resemble the books in almost zero ways, and yet it’s entirely possible to consider them... good?

Ya that Rambo film wouldn;t have happened if they had just given him the goddam burger at the start.

Links234

mike_ie wrote: »

To be fair has there been an adaptation of his work that Moore has actually liked?

No, but you can't blame him after the track record of adaptations, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was probably one of the most obnoxious adaptations ever, it wasn't just bad it was painful to watch.

Hard to believe it was the same director as Blade :eek:

losthorizon

I read that as "UN" faithful movie adaptations that are actually good.

I was going to suggest Hotel Rwanda as the the UN played a fairly central role in that film and conflict.:o

The Backwards Man

Another King one for me. Maximum Overdrive. The short story is very dark, the movie is a barrel of laughs.

Degag

mike_ie wrote: »

Didn't think much of "The Bourne Identity" as a novel - thought the movies were excellent though.

Thought the books were very good - but longwinded.

CrabRevolution

Lord of the Rings.

While I enjoy the books, I feel they get ridiculously bogged down with unnecessary detail and extra characters (Tom Bombadil for example). Also in the books, the noble and heroic atributes of every character are absolutely played up to the hilt, some characters and places are said to nearly glow with power, so it makes you think they werent really ever likely to be defeated anyway.

In the films I prefer the way they're left to earn your opinion of them, and the supernatural noble blood/ aura of invincibility stuff is ignored, so there remains an actual risk of the good side losing. Also they downplay the whole Officer/adjutant thing Frodo and Sam have going on in the book.

Turtyturd

On the subject of Moore Watchmen is better than the source material.

City of God would be another one.

kowloon

loyatemu wrote: »

The Shining is an obvious one - Steven King reportedly hates it, and produced his own adaptation of the book, which was terrible.

He liked the changes to The Mist, as did I.

Addle

The Bridges of Madison County.

Pumpkinseeds

loyatemu wrote: »

The Shining is an obvious one - Steven King reportedly hates it, and produced his own adaptation of the book, which was terrible.

The thing is when you read the book Jack Nicholson isn't the obvious choice for the lead, but when you see the film you can't imagine anyone else playing the character. The Wendy character in the film was all wrong, even the very basics like hair colour. In the book she's a blonde in the movie she's a brunette.

The film has no warmth or real depth to any of the characters and there's no background to show why he took the job in the hotel. The Wendy character in the film is basically just a verbal and physical punch bag.

Links234

Turtyturd wrote: »

On the subject of Moore Watchmen is better than the source material.

ಠ_ಠ

bumper234

Laugh all you like but i enjoy them

Jack Reacher

Tom Cruise playing a character who is supposed to be over 6ft and built like the proverbial brick ****house has ruined these books for me.

Capt'n Midnight

MS.ing wrote: »

rambo was a book!

pmsl!!

The book was more violent

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Mr Bean, the radio show didn't go down too well. Apparently, only Priests got the humour!

Was it Eric Idle or Andrew Sachs who actually did a radio play without words ?

Femme_Fatale

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The book was more violent

Speaking of which: American Psycho.

I had to stop reading it; too extreme. But I love the movie.

Links234

Links234 wrote: »

ಠ_ಠ

Actually let me elaborate on this look of disapproval, Watchmen was an incredible comic book. The movie Zack Snyder made was more like a series of music videos with Watchmen visuals, it wasn't as bad as it could have been, but it ended up as an unintentionally funny mess.

But I can't stand Zack Snyder in general, everything he does is style over substance

beano345

"The running man"...watchable but totally different from the book

Frank Lee Midere

Clueless. Better than Emma.