• @silver_Motoko@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    82 years ago

    I know its not a classic, but Dan Brown’s inferno the book and the movie have two different endings and it angers me every time.

  • @alokir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    272 years ago

    Not a classics, but:

    • American Gods: they made unnecessary changes and introduced unnecessary filler plotlines until it felt like a drag to watch. The book already explored social issues, but the showrunners decided to dial it up to 100 and spoonfeed it to the audience at the expense of the actual plot.
    • Ready Player One: they dumbed down the whole thing about hunting keys and portals, removed tons of important worldbuilding details, made pointless changes that ruined the spirit of the books. They should have made it into a series instead of a movie.
    • Digital Mark
      link
      fedilink
      English
      142 years ago

      What made me mad at RP1 movie was they put the Easter Egg in Atari Adventure. Which is mentioned in chapter 0 of the book, and again in the fake town (not put in the movie) because it’s so obvious, nobody who cared about games at all would hide anything there.

      And no Tomb of Horrors.

      Instead Spielberg put a bunch of lame movie references in, because he’s too senile to understand the game references.

      And the actors are far too pretty for the “but you’re beautiful inside” plot.

      • TAG
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        Instead Spielberg put a bunch of lame movie references in, because he’s too senile to understand the game references.

        Have not seen the movie, but that sounds like Spielberg nailed the tone of the novel. The book reads like a thinly veiled essay by an aging Gen X geek about how pop culture peaked during the authors childhood and the world would be perfect if we could go back to the 80s.

      • @fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        And no Tomb of Horrors.

        That’s because the novel was about nerd culture in general, while the movie was almost entirely about video games. All the D&D, Rush, Monty Python, etc. references were absent. The Shining was in there because Kubrick was Spielberg’s mentor.

      • R0cket_M00se
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years ago

        Not to mention the bastardization of the entire plot.

        I liked the book because it felt like the villains had actual capabilities to accomplish their goals. The protagonists did everything right and it still wasnt enough to get the bad guys off their backs.

        In the movie the protagonists make stupid decisions and the villain helper character which didn’t even exist in the book just overhears them talking about it.

        Fucking. Stupid.

      • @alokir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        I won’t argue with the book being mediocre (I myself enjoyed it but many others didn’t), but it wasn’t a faithful adaptation at all.

      • @macracanthorhynchus@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        52 years ago

        Disagree. The movie is a mediocre adaptation of a fun and mediocre book into an un-fun and mediocre movie. The film was never going to be gold, but they spent an awful lot of CGI money to make a movie that wasn’t as fun as just reading the original and imagining all of the nerdy stuff being described.

    • @_pete_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      Both of these.

      American Gods really pissed me off though if they had stuck to the books it could have been an amazing series with great characters and weird but fun storylines in a unique setting. But they added too much stuff and there was a total mess with the show runners leaving so it all sort of fell apart before one of the best plot lines of the whole story.

      I kinda want to rewatch it again someday though…

    • @Dubious_Fart@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 years ago

      Ready Player One: they dumbed down the whole thing about hunting keys and portals, removed tons of important worldbuilding details, made pointless changes that ruined the spirit of the books. They should have made it into a series instead of a movie.

      I went into the theater expecting it to be not so great, and it still managed to disappoint me.

  • @Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    9
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Vampire$ -> John Carpenter’s Vampires

    I hate to admit it but it’s actually worse an adaptation than the Starship Troopers “adaptation.” Although admittedly I do like the JCV movie. I used to like Starship Troopers until I found out the director made a mockery of Heinlein on purpose because Verhooven is a jackass. Did you even read the book?

    Anyway.

    As I understand it there actually is a reason for this. Basically, a studio ends up with the rights to an IP, and they sit on it because they suck at the one thing they’re supposed to be good at. Then along comes somebody with a project idea, and the studio goes, oh that’s similar to something we already have in the pipe. Then they steal that idea, tweak the script to include at least one or two elements from the IP, claimants an original work and they don’t have to pay the original screenwriter, and churn out something that may or may not be any good, but is nothing like the IP, thus potentially making significant profits for the executives at the meager cost of pissing off the original IPs core fan base.

    • @whoisearth@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      So here me out.

      • A story by Harlan Ellison.

      • Adapted to screen by Frank Miller.

      • Directed by Paul Verhooven.

      This way it can be assholes all the way down.

  • Doubletwist
    link
    fedilink
    142 years ago

    I have to imagine that Lawnmower Man is in the running. Talk about having nothing at all to do with the ‘book’ , (well, short story anyway).

    • Agreed. It bears so little resemblance to the “”“source material”“” that they were legally required to remove all mentions of Stephen King from the film credits and promotional materials when it released on VHS.

  • Digital Mark
    link
    fedilink
    English
    592 years ago

    “I Am Legend” has been made into 3 or more movies, none of which have anything like the book’s ending.

    The Last Man on Earth (1964) is dull and misses the point almost entirely, but almost manages the title line. Not quite.

    The Omega Man (1971) is exciting and misses the point even further.

    I Am Legend (2007) almost gets it. The vampires are competent. Will Smith’s smarter than Neville of the book, but crazier. But then both endings fail to treat the vampires as a society.

  • SanguinePar
    link
    fedilink
    232 years ago

    Oh, another one I just thought of - How to Train Your Dragon.

    The movies are fine, but they are so completely different from the books in almost every respect that it’s barely worth giving them the same name.

    The books are absolutely brilliant, especially the further you get into them. Would love to see them developed as a TV series that stuck to the style and messages of the books. Would likely need about 10 seasons though!

      • SanguinePar
        link
        fedilink
        132 years ago

        Yeah, Cressida Cowell. It’s very different though, be warned. There’s a guy called Hiccup who is a Viking and has a dragon… And that’s about it :-)

      • SanguinePar
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        I think there’s a series based on the movies, but not really on the books as far asni know.

  • recursive_recursion [they/them]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    12
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Inkheart by Cornelia Funke is one of my most beloved series

    read that series several times and when they announced a movie I was so hyped!

    and the movie was just ok :C
    I haven’t seen any movies based on books since then unless it receives high praises which I haven’t seen much

  • SanguinePar
    link
    fedilink
    442 years ago

    Possibly controversial, but I thought the movie version of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy was a huge disappointment.

    Luckily there’s the radio series, books, TV show, comic, play, and game to get me through :-)

    • @itsraining@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      182 years ago

      I partly expected that this particular movie would come up in such a thread, as most people seem to be quite disappointed by it. Sure it was different from what everyone expected, and it could have been much better. I still appreciate it though because, like all adaptations/versions of H2G2, it tells a slightly different story, with the same humour and satire that is characteristic of Douglas Adams. And the effects were quite nifty IMO. Too bad DNA did not live to see the completed film…

      Luckily there’s the radio series, books, TV show, comic, play, and game to get me through :-)

      Don’t forget the BBC TV series, it was not bad either ;-)

    • @fubo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      92 years ago

      It’s a mess of a movie, but it’s also the only version of the story where some bits of Adams’ original material actually ended up being seen — namely Humma Kavula and the Point-of-View Gun.

    • @ashok36@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      92 years ago

      I agree. Mos Def and Zooey Deschanel really didn’t pull their weight. Zaphod with only one head nearly the entire time was lame. The whole thing felt too “American” to me.

      Bill Nighy was fantastic though.

      • @Dubious_Fart@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years ago

        I’ve not read the book. I swear theres some weird curse on my copy, because every time I sit down to read it some major shit hits a fan.

        But I loved the movie, and the only disappointing thing with regard to it is that it didnt do well enough to get the sequels made.

        • themeatbridge
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          That was Catch-22 for me. Every time I had a free moment to read it, some random, horrible thing would happen. First, a garbage disposal exploded, next time my work truck ran into the back of a bus, and then finally I got fired from my job as an appliance installer for reading books on the job.

    • @Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      02 years ago

      I found the book over the top and a cringy “penguin of doom” “I’m so random” style of humour. I don’t get that series

      • themeatbridge
        link
        fedilink
        0
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I would imagine that it’s tough to go back to a book that defined humor for a generation of readers, spawning copycat jokes and stories across the world. Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog, per E.B. White, nobody is that interested and the frog dies. So I won’t go into why Adams’ writing is considered some of the funniest literature in modern history, but I will say two things:

        First, none of it is actually random. It might seem random, but that’s just how it looks from your limited perspective. That’s part of the beauty in the stories, things come back around later. It’s a story centered around a literal improbability generator, and yet everything exists for a reason (even if that reason is to be a cosmic punchline).

        Second, I would suggest you don’t compare it to the overwhelming number of pale imitations. There are famous, successful authors who learned to write humor reading the HGttG, and for every one of them there are thousands of untalented failures who think “lol so random” is all it takes to be funny. To complain about how Adams’ writing reminds you of stupid cliches is like complaining about how a Van Gogh painting looks like hotel art.

        The last thing I’ll say is you don’t have to like the books. Taste is subjective, and you might not find the books funny. That’s OK. Read something that makes you laugh, makes you think, and makes you want to keep reading. But if you say you don’t understand why something is enjoyable to everyone else, you’re going to get long-winded rants from internet strangers who care very deeply about the thing you don’t understand. You don’t have to read those, either. I probably should have started with that bit.

        • @Steeve@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 years ago

          Dude this is such a lame reply. I gave my personal opinion of the book and you wrote a whole condescending lecture of hand wavy arguments about how my opinion is apparently objectively wrong and then had the gall to follow it up with:

          The last thing I’ll say is you don’t have to like the books. Taste is subjective, and you might not find the books funny

          Yeah, no shit. I didn’t like the book and frankly I don’t need your permission to not like the book.

          • themeatbridge
            link
            fedilink
            02 years ago

            Except you didn’t say you didn’t like it, you said you didn’t get it, and proved you didn’t get it with an invalid criticism.

            Hope the rest of your day is as pleasant as you are.

            • @Steeve@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              I found the book…

              This is my opinion, I do not need you to validate my opinion. Surprised you managed to finish the book when you couldn’t be bothered to actually read my comment. Go be a condescending twat elsewhere.

              • themeatbridge
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                I don’t get that series.

                Also you. I’m sorry about your memory problems. Maybe that’s why you struggled with the books? At least maybe you’ll forget about me and fuck off.

  • @qbus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    152 years ago

    Any visual media that you’ve seen after you’ve read the source book. A better way to look at it. It is which movie was better or as good than its book.

    Jurassic Park was a better movie than the book. The Martian the movie was as good as the book.

    • JokeDeity
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      Fight Club. I actually enjoyed the dumbass movie doesn’t-work-that-way ending more than the mental break of the main character in the book.

    • @ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I got this.

      Ready Player One.

      The movie was a pretty entertaining Sci film that took the overall concept/plot of the book and then did its thing.

      The book was like a Sci fi incel fan fiction. Like an incel white night wet dream.

      Reading the book first had me almost skip ever seeing the movie, but the movie wasn’t nearly so cringe.

      • @morphballganon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        Uh, the movie made some serious mistakes, namely having them decide to shut down the Oasis 2 days per week, at the end? Where the hell did that come from? There are in-universe people who rely on the Oasis for their livelihoods and self-worth. Fuck 'em, right? And also the main characters are not a “clan” and having Z affirm they were a clan to Og was a middle finger to the book’s whole spiel on not being a clan.

  • @GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    352 years ago

    Starship troopers. I say this not because the movie is bad (it’s not, I think it’s exactly what it meant to be and did it well), but that the movie and the book are thematically opposites. The book is very pro military authoritarian. The movie is a satire of that.

    • @Crackhappy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 years ago

      As a very long time reader of the Dark Tower series, I was super excited to see what they would do with it. I couldn’t watch more than 5 minutes before I had to shut it off, it was just so fucking BAD.

      • @HipHoboHarold@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        That was probably a good idea. I made it about 30 minutes in. The movie kept moving further and further away from the books. And it was in the weirdest ways. I’m not sure what all it showed in the first 5 minutes, but Randal suddenly has a group of people to help him, and they’re using sifi technology with computers to open portals instead of the doors. I get things will always change from book to movie. I go in expecting it. And usually it’s not a huge deal. But I just don’t get the decisions they decided to make.

      • @lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        Imo the Amazon series is good if you just mentally separate it from the source material, which you honestly have to do with pretty much every adaptation if you’ve read it, so it isn’t like it’s a new phenomenon.

        • @BenVimes@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          I’m probably on my own in being a big fan of the books and also liking the first season for the most part. Despite the changes, the world felt recognizably like Randland. I only really hated the last episode.

          But that last episode was an absolute trash fire. It wasn’t just different, it was wrong. A bunch of characters and story elements are either killed off, not present to begin with, or in the wrong place at the start of the second season.

          I’m willing to forgive a lot of that due to the troubles the production had with COVID and the loss of one of the main actors. All that was on top of regular old studio meddling that happens with these things.

          My hope then is that the second season will go about trying to correct everything and put all the characters where they are supposed to be at the start of season three, which I’m assuming will align with the third book.

          • @folkrav@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            0
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            See, having not read the books, there’s no way for me to know anything is “wrong”, so the finale didn’t particularly stand out as better or worse than the rest of the season. Said season was not insanely good, but a decent piece of entertainment to me.

            • @BenVimes@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              22 years ago

              I’ve seen S2E1 so far. It was a bit slow, but at least Egwene and Nynaeve are mostly in the right spot, and Perrin is almost exactly where he’s supposed to be (a bit strange considering of the five main characters he was the one with the biggest change to his backstory)

  • chriscrutch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    282 years ago

    No one appears to have yet mentioned Forrest Gump. In the book he was a chess grandmaster who wrestled professionally and was an astronaut. Also, the book sucks.

    • @Mothra@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      102 years ago

      I haven’t watched or read it. Are you saying the movie is better than the book in spite of bastardizing it?

      • mub
        link
        fedilink
        92 years ago

        Yip. Also, they were very slightly totally different.