Personal rant: Unnecessary changes from books to movies

[BroSCFischer]

I've been watching some old movies lately and it reminds me of a personal pet peeve: changes made to the story that are NOT to shorten it to a 2 hour long film, but are purely arbitrary, unnecessary, or purely stupid.

Some Examples:

#1.) Left Behind: The Movie - The character of Cameron "Buck" Williams is a news magazine (like Time, or Newsweek) reporter in the novel. In the movie he is a cable news network reporter (like CNN, or Fox News). The change was in my opinion to the detriment of the character because it limits him in some ways (ie: carrying a clunky camera around everywhere), and changes his way of thinking, and, in fact the entire dynamic of the character.

#2.) Jurassic Park - In the novel, Alan Grant loves kids. He loves the purity of their awe of dinosaurs, so often suppressed as an adult. In the movie, he hates kids, and is constantly complaining (either at the dig site, or at the park). I just can't figure out why the change was made. To me it was annoying that a character I had enjoyed in the book, was cantankerous and crochety, and generally unlikable.

#3) The General's Daughter - The title character had a different first name in the book than in the movie. Why change it? What purpose sis it serve to change it from Ann to Elizabeth?

Just a bit of a rant,

SC

PS: I know I mentioned a movie with strong religious overtones, but my point did NOT include those, so let's keep that form of film critique elsewhere.

[blondemarmot]

This! This is why my husband refuses to watch movies based on books with me. If I've read the book I sit there watching the movie "harumphing" the entire time and complaining bitterly when they change things from the book. I have a few movie series I stopped watching two movies in because of superfluous changes. "Oh, the book describes the guy with a crew cut, huh? I don't like that, let's give him waist length hair! That sounds fun!"

[firecat88]

This is why, if I know for sure I've read the book and liked it, I avoid the movie. I think the last book-movie I saw in its entirety was...I want to say it was Inkheart. I loveloveloved the casting choices, particularly Andy Serkis as Capricorn and Paul Bettany as Dustfinger, but they absolutely destroyed the ending. They keep the concept of Meggie (who is 12 in the books, but 16 in the movie) starting to read The Shadow into our world, but that is where the similarities end. The Inkworld books are a trilogy, but the way they ended the movie version of Inkheart makes me wonder exactly what is going to happen in the sequel that's apparently being made.

And don't even get me started on the Percy Jackson movie. I haven't watched it in its entirety, but I've seen enough clips and spoilers on Wiki and IMDb to know they kinda butchered it.

[BroSCFischer]

I didn't mention it above, but my most hated of these films is "The Count of Monte Cristo". I love the novel, but anyone who thinks you can make a decent 2-hr long movie based on it is insane. You would need at least a multi-part (I say 5 minimum) miniseries with each part 2-hrs long to even come close to doing it justice.

The Jim Caviezel version is an abomination to the name Monte Cristo.

SC

[csquared]

Mat Damon's Bourne Trilogy. The only thing they kept were the character's name and that he had amnesia.

[Kara]

#2.) Jurassic Park

I see your Jurassic Park and raise you The Lost World.

Also, I pity anyone who's ever seen a movie based on a Stephen King novel that has never read his work.

[dendawg]

I pity anyone who's ever seen a movie based on a Stephen King novel that has never read his work.

This. Especially The Lawnmower Man, which took a short story about a lawn mowing gone wrong into a Cyberpunk nightmare so bad that SK himself disavowed the movie. Thankfully, though, his later works, such as Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile have been more faithful.

[Heksubah]

Also, I pity anyone who's ever seen a movie based on a Stephen King novel that has never read his work.

This. Especially the Shining. That movie destroyed his book so badly that Stephen King did a remake years later. It's also the reason he tries to keep his hands into any of the movies made about his books ever since, IIRC.

I read tons and tons as a kid (less so now and I hate that fact) and could never bridge myself into his works until I read the Shining. Now I am quite the fan, so seeing that book... so destroyed...

[dalesys]

Flim-flam directors are SOBs, as proved by the fact they think everything tasted better after they've pissed in it.

... Oedipus, schmoedipus! As long as a boy loves his mother...

--- some Hellywood wigbig on being cautioned on the implications of a story.

[Geek King]

I can illuminate a bit on why multi-book series made into movies often get butchered on the first book of the set: The director wants a complete ending in case the sequels don't get green-lit. That way the film doesn't seem incomplete if it ends up existing only by itself. Hell, if you pay attention, the origional Star Wars: A New Hope was shot and edited so it could stand by itself if George couldn't get funding for the later installments.

Books do the same thing. If you look at Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's (Philosopher's)Stone, for example, it ends in such a way that it could be the whole story if that was the only book about Harry. Most series books do that, unless the author is well known enough to get a multiple book contract right from the beginning of the series.

[SongsOfDragons]

I don't generally get annoyed at changes from book to screen. Major changes, yeah, depends on the change and why; minor, no, it's not worth wasting time on. One I did was the ending to The Golden Compass...

I think the best way it was put was when I saw a short interview with George RR Martin just before Game of Thrones premiered on TV - he speaks of a situation where he thinks a fan will whine at him because 'Ned Stark's horse was black in the book and brown in the movie!! They ruined it!!' and his response was: "it's a horse!! Who cares what colour it is? It doesn't matter!!"

[shadowpanda]

One thing that got me, was Harry Potter's eyes should have been green, and in the films they were blue. A huuuuuuuuuge deal was made of his emerald eyes in every book, yet they digitally enhanced Dan Radcliffes eyes to be a very blue colour. Never understood that.

[XCashier]

Speaking of HP, they left out a lot of the Pensieve scenes in Half Blood Prince. One was particularly important, the Hepzibah Smith scene which showed two of the Horcruxes. That one, at least, should have been left in the movie.

Granted, movies have time restraints, plus Rowling tends to use an awful lot of Chekov's guns which don't get used until much later in the series. Still, it would've been helpful to Harry to know what to look for.

[BroSCFischer]

I see your Jurassic Park and raise you The Lost World.

Also, I pity anyone who's ever seen a movie based on a Stephen King novel that has never read his work.

Well, the Lost World novel annoyed me anyway. Ian Malcolm was dead at the end of Jurassic Park, and is somehow alive and well in the Lost World. I thought that was the most half-assed thing I ever read from a quality novelist.

As for Stephen King, I thought the Langoliers miniseries was very faithful.

SC

[Jay 2K Winger]

Speaking of books butchered for TV...

The Dresden Files.

Full stop.