posted
Today I was watching the end of "The Witches," based on the book of the same title, by Roald Dahl. (Spoilers to follow...)
The main character, Luke, has been changed into a mouse by the witches. In the book, there's a discussion between Luke and his grandmother (who is his guardian). They conclude that his being a mouse works out well because this way, it's likely that they'll have a similar lifespan. In the movie, at the end, he gets turned back into a boy (by a former witch who became rather disillusioned with the "lifestyle").
It was a fairly big change but I suppose it lets the movie end on a more optimistic note. (And leaves aside the morbid topic of thinking about death.)
Another one that comes to mind is "Jurassic Park" and "The Lost World." Both books feature quite a bit of hunting down dinosaurs, whereas the movies toned that down considerably (i.e., no dinosaurs are seen shot/killed).
Are there any other examples that you guys can think of, of movies from books that attempted to sugar coat things/make them more positive or light?
Posts: 679 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the first Lord of the Rings, Merry and Pippin are attacked by the willow tree. That never happened in the movie. I guess it got removed because of time, or maybe the producers thought people would freak out at hobbits getting eaten by a tree.
-------------------- Have you heard the Word? Praise Hircine! Posts: 283 | From: Ohio | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The movie version of Gone With the Wind leaves out a lot of characters: Scarlett's other children, Will Benteen, Archie, Dilcey, etc. But another missing element is the Ku Klux Klan, of which most Atlanta gentlemen in the story(including Ashley and Frank Kennedy) belonged. In the movie the Klan scene is written as the "political meeting" where Frank, Ashley, and others raid Shantytown after Scarlett is attacked.
-------------------- "There is no constitutional right to sleep with endangered reptiles." -- Carl Hiaasen Won't somebody please think of the adults! Posts: 8254 | From: Florida | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure that's necessary, but in any case the little boy dies in the book, but not the movie.
edited to add more spoiler space, just in case.
Unfortunately, things like this tend to be true with any and EVERY Stephen King book adapted into a movie. Desperation wasn't too bad, though...
-------------------- "With a bit of luck, his life was ruined forever. Always thinking that just behind some narrow door in all of his favorite bars, men in red woolen shirts are getting incredible kicks from things he'll never know." -Raoul Duke Posts: 6 | From: Colorado Springs, CO | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pork Chop: From the first Lord of the Rings, Merry and Pippin are attacked by the willow tree. That never happened in the movie. I guess it got removed because of time, or maybe the producers thought people would freak out at hobbits getting eaten by a tree.
Or maybe it was because they removed the entire Tom Bombadil portion of the story...
Of course, if we wanted to get into LOTR there is a huge laundry list of changed items. Faramir's entire character is the one that jumps readily to my mind.
posted
Any Disney cartoon ever - most notably, of course, Little Mermaid.
-------------------- and it's 1 - 2 - 3, what are we fighting for? don't ask me, I don't give a damn Posts: 1319 | From: Florida | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Alex Buchet
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales
posted
In 'The Name of the Rose' novel, the innocent village girl is burnt alive as a witch and the evil Benedictine who condemned her rides off in safety.
In the movie, the girl survives and the evil Benedictine is killed by the villagers.
Ho, hum.
Posts: 202 | From: Paris, France | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BeachLife: ... Of course, if we wanted to get into LOTR there is a huge laundry list of changed items. Faramir's entire character is the one that jumps readily to my mind.
I agree that the treatment of Faramir's character was almost criminal; more so, because there was really no reason for it. I can understand that changes are necessary to adapt a book to film. I had no problem with skipping out the whole Bombadil part, or even giving Arwen more screen time than she got in the books (and even in the books you had to read the appendices to get her full story) because otherwise her appearance would have seemed abrupt to a naive viewer. But gratuitous changes to a person's character just makes my blood boil! Even Denethor was hacked up pretty badly, too.
Arrgh! Now you got me started again. And why did he make the Ents look so stupid? (I'd better stop now)
Nick
-------------------- Don't forget to register for the New ULMB.
posted
Don't forget that in the Brothes Grimm version of Cinderella she is killed by the poisoned apple; the dwarves then capture the Queen and eat her.
One recent case was Jackal starring Bruce Willis, where the producers credited an eariler film (Day of the Jackal) without mentioning the book it was (almost word-for-word) based on.
Posts: 135 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mycroft: Don't forget that in the Brothes Grimm version of Cinderella she is killed by the poisoned apple; the dwarves then capture the Queen and eat her.
.....
What the hey? Dwarves and poisoned apples in "Cinderella?" That's not in my edition of Grimm's Fairytales! There are a couple of ophtamnivorous pigeons, however.
-------------------- "No hard feelin's and HOPpy New Year!"--Walt Kelly Hear what you're missing: ARTC podcasts! http://artcpodcast.org/ Posts: 7581 | From: Gainesville, Georgia | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mycroft: Don't forget that in the Brothes Grimm version of Cinderella she is killed by the poisoned apple; the dwarves then capture the Queen and eat her.
If you meant "Snow White," the version I read (in German! Oh, high school foreign language courses...) had the apple only stuck in her throat and when her corpse was being taken back to the prince's castle for display (creepy!), a bump in the road dislodged the apple and she awoke.
Still completely different from any movie version I've seen (which also tend to disregard the comb and the girdle) however. No kiss to break the spell ('cause who'd want to kiss a dead chick? Really).
Posts: 20 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
oops!!! meant Snow White (and Brothers Grimm) but cat was hungry so I got distracted by claws in the knee
Posts: 135 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The book Jaws had Matt Hooper (played by Richard Dreyfuss in the film) killed by the shark. It seemed as though he was being punished for having an affair with Chief Brody's wife (a subplot cut from the film, thank goodness).
The Natural as a book had a very dark ending--none of this "underdog beats the odds and gets the good woman" stuff.
-------------------- Si hoc comprehendere potes, gratias age magistro Latinae. Posts: 1720 | From: Charlottesville, VA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The film version of The Godfather omitted a bunch of stuff from the book, moreso than the average adaptation, I would say. Of course, most of it was for the better: Mario Puzo did not know when to stop a digression. Entire sections of the book (not chapters, mind you, we're talking 30-40 pages here) are dedicated to secondary characters whose lives and the incidents they go through have no effect on the overarcing story whatsoever, and provide nothing to the story other than padding.
For those who have seen the movie but not read the book, Johnny Fontaine, the Frank Sinatra stand-in, is featured a lot more in the novel. In the novel, after Michael kills the guys in the restaurant, the narration states (paraphrased) "The mob war of 1945 had begun." The next chapter starts by describing Johnny Fontaine's miserable home life, and for the next forty pages, the story is completely focused on him. There is no reference to the gang war, the killings in the restaurant, nothing; it's all about his bad relationships with women, his broken marriage, his drinking, etc. Then all of a sudden a chapter begins with Michael in Italy, and we never hear from Johnny again until he makes a brief appearance at the end of the book, attending the Don's funeral. A similar incident happens later in the book when, in the midst of detailing Michael's rise to power, the narrative suddenly shifts to Lucy Mancini, Sonny's mistress, who we find out has been living in a hotel in Vegas. Aside from a brief cameo by Fredo, the Lucy portion of the book (another thirty-some pages) has nothing to do with the Corleones or the mob war, and is rather focused on her mental anguish at the knowledge she has a deformed vaginal cavity, and how the power of love and surgery by a mob doctor restores her own feelings of womanliness. This abruptly segues back into the main story--all of a sudden Michael shows up to talk about the hotel--and we never hear from Lucy or the doctor again until a brief mention near the end of the book. A third, lesser offense occurs right near the end of the book when, in the middle of describing the death of the heads of the five families, Puzo all of a sudden describes to go into the life story of one of the Corleone hitmen, Al Neri, who has barely been a player at all up until this point. Puzo breaks the tense narrative of these mobsters getting ready to carry out killings to tell us that Neri is a racist and that he has a spoiled nephew, and that he was once in prison, and that his father is a friend of Vito's who got Neri released...
Posts: 2711 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like to give examples where the movie was an *improvement* over the book.
"Goldfinger." The book just plain sucks. Goldfinger is stupid. The plot is to rob Ft. Knox; the movie's notion, to blow it up, is elegant.
"The Fourth Protocol." The entire first section of the book, which wanders to South Africa and back, is tedious. The whole case comes together on nothing more than a coincidence. In the movie, the "burglar" and the hero (played with magnificent aplomb by Michael Caine) are merged together into one role, which improves the story immensely!
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: I like to give examples where the movie was an *improvement* over the book.
"Goldfinger." The book just plain sucks. Goldfinger is stupid. The plot is to rob Ft. Knox; the movie's notion, to blow it up, is elegant.
I'm going to second this. When I got to the part of the book about robbing Ft. Knox, and poisoning the soldiers, and the non-radioactive bomb, I wondered if Ian Fleming was on martinis when he wrote it or just didn't bother doing any actual research of planning.
Posts: 2711 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the movie Hannibal was better than the book, but only because I think the book stinks so vilely. I first encountered the character of Hannibal Lecter when I borrowed the Silence of the Lambs video tape from the local library after a terrible breakup. I watched it alone in the dark, and it enthralled me (and distracted me from my self-pity for the length of the movie). I returned it to the library, and took out the book. Reading that took me a couple days, then I took out Red Dragon because I saw on the book jacket that Hannibal Lecter appeared in that book as well. He was just such an expertly crafted villain, I loved it. I was so excited when I heard Thomas Harris was working on a new Lecter book. Hannibal was such a disappointment, and not only because I had put so much hope into it. He completely destroyed his creation, by trying to get into his head and show us exactly what was there, to try to explain his insanity, etc. Not to mention the rest of the story read like it was written by some pulp fiction hack. I really need to go back and reread the other books to see if I just grew in my expectations over the ensuing years.
At least in the movie, there was that excellent brain eating scene. My SO still shudders with revulsion when he thinks of it, but I loved it. It was played with a perfect mix of dark humor and morbidity. I also felt that the actions at the end of the movie fit the Hannibal Lecter and Clarice characters better than what happened in the book. I did miss the removal of the main villain's bodybuilding sister, tho, she was the only one in the book I gave a damn about.
Posts: 550 | From: Springboro, OH | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Inventing the Abbotts - In the short story, Doug and Pamela never see each other again, in the movie they end up married. (The movie is a big improvement, IMO.
Circle of Friends - In the book, Benny has the good sense to dump Jack after he cheats on her. In the movie, she takes him back, which IMO defeats the purpose of the real ending. Not my favorite movie adaptation.
The Cider House Rules - The movie chops off about twenty years of the story, leaves out the reason why the doctor felt so strongly about abortion being available and the reason why Candy got pregnant in the first place, reduces one of the most interesting characters to a bit player who is barely there, and that's just what I can remember offhand without having read the book or seen the movie in about five years. Good movie, but it might as well be a different story.
-------------------- Another lifetime I'd have fallen in love with you Swept away by my feelings, ashamed and confused But just now it's enough to be walking with you Let the mystery play as it will! -Lui Collins Posts: 2669 | From: Jouy en Josas, France | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pork Chop: From the first Lord of the Rings, Merry and Pippin are attacked by the willow tree. That never happened in the movie. I guess it got removed because of time, or maybe the producers thought people would freak out at hobbits getting eaten by a tree.
They didn't want to deal with the whole Tom Bombadil subplot, I suspect-- and it is one of the few large chunks of the book that can be completely excised without harming the overall narrative.
[Personally, I suspect Jackson would've had great fun with Old Man Willow and especially the Barrow-wight.]
Posts: 2787 | From: California | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never read the book, so I cannot vouch for this, but I recall someone telling me that in the book version of Forrest Gump, forrest is a perpetually swearing oaf of a man who winds up getting blasted into space with an ape who becomes his enemy.
quote:Originally posted by Pork Chop: From the first Lord of the Rings, Merry and Pippin are attacked by the willow tree. That never happened in the movie. I guess it got removed because of time, or maybe the producers thought people would freak out at hobbits getting eaten by a tree.
They didn't want to deal with the whole Tom Bombadil subplot, I suspect-- and it is one of the few large chunks of the book that can be completely excised without harming the overall narrative.
[Personally, I suspect Jackson would've had great fun with Old Man Willow and especially the Barrow-wight.]
Accorfing to an interview with peter jackson. the premise of the movie that made it dramatic was that the ring would corrupt anybody who came into contact with it. Amybody who was not affected (for whatever reason) would be views by the audicve as a better person than frodo was. If Bopombadil wwas in the script the audience would wonder why he coulndt have taken the ring intead of frodo. The reasons hew couldnt have simply cannot be explained reasonably well enough for a movie. That and he was another character that was a one shot event that would have added a half hour to the movie that had no affect to getting rodo to mordor. It was unecesdsary.
Now back to the topic at hand.
-------------------- W.W.F.S.M.D? But this image of Bush as some sort of Snidely Whiplash tying the fair maiden to the railroad tracks is beyond the pale. - Joe Bentley Posts: 2311 | From: Minnnesota | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spoilers for Jurassic Park, although probably by now no one really cares, but I'm putting this anyway because I'm silly like that.
quote:Originally posted by Artemis: Another one that comes to mind is "Jurassic Park" and "The Lost World." Both books feature quite a bit of hunting down dinosaurs, whereas the movies toned that down considerably (i.e., no dinosaurs are seen shot/killed).
I think that changing the movie's ending was a good choice for Jurassic Park. I love both the movie and the book, but the ending for the book feels to me like it just sort of peters out. The sense of fear and danger that's been kept up throughout the book is lost. The raptors have been painted as the most fearsome, most dangerous of the dinosaurs (a twist that I liked, since one might assume that the T-Rex would be the worst, but it seems that brains and skill win out over size and muscle), but the book's ending has several main characters in the raptors' nest with scarcely any fear or risk. I think it really undermines the perceived menace of the raptors. Now, I realize that it does fit in with Malcolm's earlier discussion of really taking responsibility for what happens after acts of scientific discovery, but I still think it weakens the storyline.
-------------------- More Snape in drag. Seriously, man, that just improves any book. Like, A Tale of Two Cities? TEN TIMES BETTER if Madame Defarge is really Snape in drag with a bad knitting habit. Posts: 241 | From: Land of Lincoln, IL | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Usually I hate watching a film adaptation of a book, because the story gets messed with, but sometimes it is an improvement. "About Schmidt" comes to mind. And I will not say how and ruin the movie for those who haven't seen it, but the film ending of "The Da Vinci Code" is way better than the book. See for yourself!
-------------------- "Jesus must be spinning in his grave." - Barney Gumble Posts: 26 | From: Burns Lake, BC, Canada | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Usually I hate watching a film adaptation of a book, because the story gets messed with, but sometimes it is an improvement. "About Schmidt" comes to mind. And I will not say how and ruin the movie for those who haven't seen it, but the film ending of "The Da Vinci Code" is way better than the book. See for yourself!
-------------------- "Jesus must be spinning in his grave." - Barney Gumble Posts: 26 | From: Burns Lake, BC, Canada | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Usually I hate watching a film adaptation of a book, because the story gets messed with, but sometimes it is an improvement. "About Schmidt" comes to mind. And I will not say how and ruin the movie for those who haven't seen it, but the film ending of "The Da Vinci Code" is way better than the book. See for yourself!
-------------------- "Jesus must be spinning in his grave." - Barney Gumble Posts: 26 | From: Burns Lake, BC, Canada | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Woody Allen's Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex but Were Afraid to Ask doesn't follow the book at all.
Posts: 675 | From: Schenectady, NY | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pork Chop: From the first Lord of the Rings, Merry and Pippin are attacked by the willow tree. That never happened in the movie. I guess it got removed because of time, or maybe the producers thought people would freak out at hobbits getting eaten by a tree.
The whole Tom Bombadil episode was excised. Many Book!Fans hated that, but others say that although they miss Tom, they understand why.
One of the main themes of LOTR is the right and wrong styles of rulership and leadership. Bombadil gives an additional perspective--someone who just isn't interested, who has taken a 'vow of poverty', a true neutral. This is important and interesting thematically, BUT it is really extrinsic to the main plot, and would have made the movie which was already a long one far TOO long.
-------------------- "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch Posts: 3307 | From: Charleston, WV | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RealityChuck, the punisher: Woody Allen's Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex but Were Afraid to Ask doesn't follow the book at all.
Yeah, well, neither do I. I always lose my place in all the excitement.
-------------------- "No hard feelin's and HOPpy New Year!"--Walt Kelly Hear what you're missing: ARTC podcasts! http://artcpodcast.org/ Posts: 7581 | From: Gainesville, Georgia | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MisterGrey: I have never read the book, so I cannot vouch for this, but I recall someone telling me that in the book version of Forrest Gump, forrest is a perpetually swearing oaf of a man who winds up getting blasted into space with an ape who becomes his enemy.
Edited to remove speculative comment.
Sort of. The book is actually a funny, quick read, nothing at all like the hamhanded, overdone movie. Forrest is a big guy, and he winds up smoking weed, playing in a rock band, becoming a wrestler - all kinds of stuff. There's no AIDS involved in the first book, either.
In fact, if I recall correctly, the first line in the book is actually something like, "Mama always said, life ain't no box of chocolates."
-------------------- and it's 1 - 2 - 3, what are we fighting for? don't ask me, I don't give a damn Posts: 1319 | From: Florida | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mycroft: Don't forget that in the Brothes Grimm version of Cinderella she is killed by the poisoned apple; the dwarves then capture the Queen and eat her.
.....
What the hey? Dwarves and poisoned apples in "Cinderella?" That's not in my edition of Grimm's Fairytales! There are a couple of ophtamnivorous pigeons, however.
There are changes in the Cinderella story as well. In the French (original?) version the slippers are made of fur not glass (the French words for 'glass' and 'fur' are similar and I believe there was a mistranslation).
One of the Ugly Sisters cuts off her big toe to make it fit the fur slipper. The prince is about to marry her when he notices blood oozing out of the slipper.
Strangely this is not in any pantomime version that I have seen.
-------------------- Andrew, Ware, England Posts: 1709 | From: Ware, England | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "You learn something new every day if you're not careful" - Wilf Lunn Posts: 893 | From: Durham City, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Andrew of Ware, England: There are changes in the Cinderella story as well. In the French (original?) version the slippers are made of fur not glass (the French words for 'glass' and 'fur' are similar and I believe there was a mistranslation).
posted
The Princess Bride, one of my favorite books and movies. The novel ends with a very vague and ambiguous 'maybe they escape, maybe they don't' sort of ending. The movie has a pretty, romantic, happily-ever-after kind of ending. Usually, I hate that kind of thing, but in this case I preferred it.
Aura - occasionally a sucker for romance
-------------------- "Are we talking misdemeanor trouble or squeal like a pig trouble?" Posts: 618 | From: Ann Arbor, Michigan | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Princess Bride novel also had a scene near the end where Buttercup helps them escape from the castle but finally taking some initiate. I really wish they had put that scene in the movie. Other than that little sin of omission it's one of the best movie adaptations ever.
Posts: 1168 | From: Missouri | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[flame]](graemlins/flame.gif)
Even Denethor was hacked up pretty badly, too. 
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
:
