Thread: Most disloyal book-based film?

  • avatar
    • 4 years 25 days ago
    • Posts: 906
    The Thing from Another World: A good movie as it's own but as an adaptation of the novella "Who Goes There" by John W. Campbell, it's poor since it's nothing like the story and the monster was very different as it wasn't the shapeshifting parasite from the story because in the 50's they had limited special effects technology, so instead they changed it to a killer walking slumbering plant monster that sucks blood and didn't imitate anyone or devour anyone.

    The 1982 version from John Carpenter remains to this day, the quintessential more faithful adaptation of the story.
    "Nobody wants to see vampire killers or vampires either! apparently all they want are demented madmen running around in ski-masks hacking up young virgins"-Peter Vincent from Fright Night.
    • avatar
      • 4 years 25 days ago
      • Posts: 4094
      Come to mind..

      The Time machine
      Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
      • avatar
        • 4 years 26 days ago
        • Posts: 591
        I'd say for me it would be The Kite Runner. They changed so much of the plot that it was almost a different story. The Handmaid's Tale is more excusable because the book is practically impossible to translate into picture format.
        • avatar
          • 2 years 7 months ago
          • Posts: 717
          The Kite Runner was a letdown. The Lovely Bones was a bummer too, because the book was so moving and Peter Jackson is a masterful director.
          • avatar
            • 2 years 3 months ago
            • Posts: 1258
            WHo framed roger rabbit has almost nothing at all in common with the book it was based on (who censored roger rabbit).
            signature*WARNING: The above post may be highly opinionated, read at your own risk.

            Gee Caspah, you're a twicky one!
            • avatar
              • 2 years 2 months ago
              • Posts: 410
              The Bourne Identity is very different from Robert Ludlums source novel but I still love that movie and I generally understand that most movies adapted from novels have to either change things or leave things out or we'd be watching 12 hour long movies!
              "Good Nyborg "
              • avatar
                • 1 year 10 months ago
                • Posts: 717
                Also, I'm going back and forth on my opinions of the Hobbit adaptations. It would be against my Tolkien appreciation to complain about having this much screen time, yet I felt exhausted midway through Desolation of Smaug.
                • avatar
                  • 1 year 9 months ago
                  • Posts: 1298
                  The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising. I never read that book, but
                  I heard the guy who directed the movie didn't either. I think
                  he was also quoted as hating the entire fantasy genre. That's
                  probably why the film isn't really that well liked.
                  Ed:An Apple A Day Keeps The Bus Driver Away!

                  Check out my Youtube page.Full of classic commercials from the 80s,90s,and 00s.

                    • 10 months 22 days ago
                    • Posts: 16
                    The Hobbit happened to be my favorite novel. The movies were a let down. All I ever wanted to see was a good live action Hobbit. But no, we had to have Lord of the Rings first and better made than the Hobbit trilogy!
                    • avatar
                      • 10 months 21 days ago
                      • Posts: 4094
                      ^Is very difficult to translate literature/novels into screen let alone LoTR/Hobbit universe. The Hobbit is one of my top 10 reads ever and even if they deviate considerably the movies are masterpiece material.
                      Forum Staff
                      Super Admin: Vertex
                      Super Mods