Most Inaccurate Adaptations

[A Necessary Evil]

Really??

I guess it's been that long since I've read the book. When the movie first hit home video I remember it being fairly close.

It kept the basic plot and structure, but the tone of the book and film (whilst a dark film) was wildly different than the adaptation. That being said, I still think the film is brilliant. It is no shining, i'll say that much.

I don't think Harry Potter as an adaptation is really counts an offender compared to a bunch of the others (especially Mario Brothers, Catwoman, and I, Robot). They at least kept the a lot of the same plot and structure.

I count potter, but to be honest I still think they do as good a job as possible of telling the story, so I have no problems with things they cut out (like SPEW...I loved that they cut that out)

 

[jacobed]

I may be wrong but isn't The Two Towers really different from the book. It's been a while since I've read the book but I remember there being a lot of differences.

 

[chaseter]

They did flashbacks showing alice in wonderland when she was younger. That alone should have told you it was a sequel. Plus, her dreams of being there. Also, everyone kept saying she wasn't Alice, because she had changed since she was there the first time. All those things point to it being a sequel. Not to mention comments by tim burton himself and story elements from the second book. In short, though, it is a sequel.

How about we all just agree that it was a terrible movie.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I count potter, but to be honest I still think they do as good a job as possible of telling the story, so I have no problems with things they cut out (like SPEW...I loved that they cut that out)

When I think "Inaccurate," I see actual changes. Changes that change the meaning and tone. I wouldn't count things getting cut out as being inaccurate. Sure, it wasn't truly accurate, but when I think most inaccurate, there are so many films that I would say are more inaccurate than Harry Potter films.

 

[Rez]

CATWOMAN.

I dare you to find a more inaccurate adaptation. "___ IN NAME ONLY" is used a lot (sometimes unfairly) but it's almost literally true here. It almost reminds me of how Roger Corman (I think it was) wanted to make a Spider-Man movie in the 80s ala The Fly, where Peter becomes a literal spider monster.

This is incredibly interesting to me, because Corman eventually produced a movie(I believe around 2001) called Earth Vs The Spider, which while named as a remake of the old film, was actually basically the first Spiderman movie but with the main character turning into a Fly like Spider Monster that killed people. It focused a lot on comic books(one of his friends ran a comic book shop and they reference them a lot) and it is incredibly similar in tone (no doubt ripping off) Raimi's films.


I'm kind of surprised people keep saying Jurassic Park. The book certainly is meaner and more violent, but the film is an almost slavish adaptation. I remember having the same feeling in my youth of watching the movie and reading the book, and wishing they were far more similar. Sure, they cut the opening 80 pages or so and ditch a few characters, dinosaurs, and the climax, but almost everything on screen is taken directly from the book. I think the issue people have with it is that the book is fantastic, and the movie is so great, that they just wish it were longer. I know I do. I wish there was a 5 hour Jurassic Park with everything from the book, but that's only because what we have is so great. But what we do have is almost pulled entirely from the story in a great way. The only real exception to this is Hammond, whose tragically misunderstood invisible flea circus character was made up for the movie, who was just a big steaming ******* for the book. Everything else is spot on(and no, saying "But the kids are reversed!" and "Malcolm dies!" doesn't count).

What does totally count is The Lost World. Which is so different that.. oh **** it.

 

[Marvolo]

How about we all just agree that it was a terrible movie.

It's got good ideas that were poorly executed. I enjoy aspects of the film, but as a whole its not that great.

 

[Figs]

How about The Running Man.

I love the Arnold cheese, but for those who haven't read the story, the movie is entirely different.

 

[Vengeance]

Three girls in a rock band uncover a ridiculous plot using some wacky device. There's a vanilla heroine, dumb blonde, black girl who is black, the heroine's boyfriend, the manager's b****y sister trying to steal the heroine's boyfriend for herself, over the top morons for villains...

No, that movie was pretty accurate. Its only fault was that it focused on the band getting a record deal instead of them uncovering the stupid plot while they were on tour. That, and Josie & the Pussycats (while an entertaining cartoon) wasn't meant for film.

Well I'll just say that most people would call it a loose adaption of the comic

 

[Rowsdower!]

I've never played the Dungeon Siege game, but something tells me the plot synopsis I just read of "In the Name of the King 2" is nothing like it at all.

 

[Manic]

Well I'll just say that most people would call it a loose adaption of the comic

Ah, I've never read an Archie comic. As far as adapting the old TV show, the movie was pretty close.

 

[Alchemyst]

I've never played the Dungeon Siege game, but something tells me the plot synopsis I just read of "In the Name of the King 2" is nothing like it at all.

Well it was made by Uwe Boll, that should tell you something

 

[Rowsdower!]

Oh, I know.

I just couldn't believe how bad it sounds, even by Boll's abysmal standards. Dolph Lundgren plays a modern day cop who goes back in time to fight alongside a bunch of knights who tell him that his father was actually a knight who sent him forward in time when he was a baby so he could go back in time to conquer evil or something. LMAO

 

[Alchemyst]

Oh, I know.

I just couldn't believe how bad it sounds, even by Boll's abysmal standards. Dolph Lundgren plays a modern day cop who goes back in time to fight alongside a bunch of knights who tell him that his father was actually a knight who sent him forward in time when he was a baby so he could go back in time to conquer evil or something. LMAO

whoa wtf..REALLY?!? damn....Boll out-did himself with that

 

[Iron_Stark]

The way Ron Howard depicted Max Baer in The Cinderella Man. Baer was never some cold hearted killer that took joy in the death of the ONE guy he killed in the ring. Before Jorge Paez, Baer was known as the clown prince of boxing.

F*** Ron Howard, Jethro would've kicked Opies ass.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

When I think "Inaccurate," I see actual changes. Changes that change the meaning and tone. I wouldn't count things getting cut out as being inaccurate. Sure, it wasn't truly accurate, but when I think most inaccurate, there are so many films that I would say are more inaccurate than Harry Potter films.

Reasonable enough, I suppose potter 3,5 and 6 should be off the list, since there's way worse adaptations, but I still love all HP films..obviously

 

[Brother Jack]

I may be wrong but isn't The Two Towers really different from the book. It's been a while since I've read the book but I remember there being a lot of differences.

Parts of the ending are different; the sections with Frodo abandoning Sam and the fight with Shelob from Return of the King are actually from Two Towers. But that's the only real major difference.

 

[antsman41]

I Robot.....they pretty much just used the name and ignored the story.

For most inaccurate historical adaptation, Tombstone. Good movie....but Doc Holiday was nothing like that.

That's because is was originally an "original" script but couldn't sell it and some dumbass decided to merge it with the greatness that is Asimov.

 

[SuperFerret]

Parts of the ending are different; the sections with Frodo abandoning Sam and the fight with Shelob from Return of the King are actually from Two Towers. But that's the only real major difference.

Boromir's death was also placed at the end of Fellowship instead of the beginning of Two Towers, as was the case in the book.

 

[Brother Jack]

Boromir's death was also placed at the end of Fellowship instead of the beginning of Two Towers, as was the case in the book.

Really? It's been a while since I've read the books but I remember Fellowship ending like the movie, with Boromir's fall.

 

[SuperFerret]

When I read it, Boromir doesn't die until the beginning of the second book.

 

[Brother Jack]

*Goes to check Wikipedia*, looks like you're right Mr. Ferret. Boromir does die at the beginning of Two Towers. Though it should be noted that the individual books don't really have their own endings, it's all treated as one story. So I'd say it makes sense for Jackson and co. to place Boromir's death at the end of Fellowship, to give it as a film some sense of conclusion.

 

[SuperFerret]

That is true.

 

[Donnie Darko]

I have to agree with I Am Legend. While there are similarities, I was greatly let down by the film. I actually read the book around the time the movie came out, and heard so many people I know talk about the movie being "awesome," so I eventually got in from a Redbox when it came out on dvd and was just really let down by all the changes. I mean, even taking out everything else, changing the ending of the book, which gave the reasoning behind the title... shame...

 

[chaseter]

I'm kind of surprised people keep saying Jurassic Park. The book certainly is meaner and more violent, but the film is an almost slavish adaptation. I remember having the same feeling in my youth of watching the movie and reading the book, and wishing they were far more similar. Sure, they cut the opening 80 pages or so and ditch a few characters, dinosaurs, and the climax, but almost everything on screen is taken directly from the book. I think the issue people have with it is that the book is fantastic, and the movie is so great, that they just wish it were longer. I know I do. I wish there was a 5 hour Jurassic Park with everything from the book, but that's only because what we have is so great. But what we do have is almost pulled entirely from the story in a great way. The only real exception to this is Hammond, whose tragically misunderstood invisible flea circus character was made up for the movie, who was just a big steaming ******* for the book. Everything else is spot on(and no, saying "But the kids are reversed!" and "Malcolm dies!" doesn't count).

You need to re-read the book. Sure there is a lot of stuff in the movie from the book but they left out a **** ton.

Here look, I can name like 10 things just off the top of my head that the movie differs from:

The intro. The first 5 or 6 chapters are completely different than the movie.
There is a juvenile rex that kills Ed
Dr. Harding is not in the movie
The Raptors play a lot bigger role and kill so many other people like Wu.
Dodgson and Biosyn play a lot bigger role than just a one scene meeting with Nedry.
The possibility of reproduction is discovered early on.
Gennaro isn't a loser lawyer that gets eaten on the toilet.
Raft and the river T-Rex chase
The aviary and the pteradons
The Rex chases the jeep with Muldoon and Gennaro in it
The underground utility tunnels with the golf cart and the raptor
Hammond dies

That is all I can remember for now. The book is so different than the movie. I love the movie and the book but damn what a loose adaptation.

 

[SuperFerret]

You need to re-read the book. Sure there is a lot of stuff in the movie from the book but they left out a **** ton.

Here look, I can name like 10 things just off the top of my head that the movie differs from:

The intro. The first 5 or 6 chapters are completely different than the movie.
There is a juvenile rex that kills Ed
Dr. Harding is not in the movie
The Raptors play a lot bigger role and kill so many other people like Wu.
Dodgson and Biosyn play a lot bigger role than just a one scene meeting with Nedry.
The possibility of reproduction is discovered early on.
Gennaro isn't a loser lawyer that gets eaten on the toilet.
Raft and the river T-Rex chase
The aviary and the pteradons
The Rex chases the jeep with Muldoon and Gennaro in it
The underground utility tunnels with the golf cart and the raptor
Hammond dies

That is all I can remember for now. The book is so different than the movie. I love the movie and the book but damn what a loose adaptation.

Details. The main plot and the themes behind both are the same.