- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Your favorite change from book to movie (possible spoilers)
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:51 pm
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:51 pm
So I had seen Hunt for Red October multiple times before picking up the book. Clancy had seemed like a dense read any time I had attempted one of his but October stuck. So in the movie they made a big deal of Ryan being the only one who could possibly think that Ramius would be defecting and that he had to convince a lot of people of that fact. I literally laughed out loud when I got to that part in the book and everyone is pretty much "well yeah, he's defecting, seems obvious" 
On a side note, I haven't read too too many books turned movie (my fair share), but October was BY FAR the biggest variation from page to screen. Just across the board, even with most character descriptions, the book was almost a completely different entity. It's as if they took a few names and the submarines and did their own thing.
On a side note, I haven't read too too many books turned movie (my fair share), but October was BY FAR the biggest variation from page to screen. Just across the board, even with most character descriptions, the book was almost a completely different entity. It's as if they took a few names and the submarines and did their own thing.
18
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:54 pm to sicboy
what is the question?
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:54 pm to sicboy
Pretty much everything in Children of Men.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:56 pm to OMLandshark
Terry Gilliam's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas did a good job
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:07 pm to sicboy
Pretty much everything in Jaws. The book was awful, almost a completely different story. Hooper was smashing brody’s wife, and the affair was like half the story.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:11 pm to sicboy
Peter Jackson did a masterful job adapting LOTR.
Most of what was taken out was necessary and he did a great job adapting tons of material into a masterpiece of a movie trilogy, IMO.
Most of what was taken out was necessary and he did a great job adapting tons of material into a masterpiece of a movie trilogy, IMO.
This post was edited on 10/30/17 at 11:14 pm
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:22 pm to 632627
quote:
Pretty much everything in Jaws. The book was awful,
Jaws was the #3 best seller that year.
But the criticism is what you say:
"None of the humans are particularly likable or interesting" and confessed the shark was his favorite character "and one suspects Benchley's also."
Steven Spielberg shared the sentiment, saying he initially found many of the characters unsympathetic and wanted the shark to win, a characterization he changed in the film adaptation.
Apparently Benchley wrote 3 drafts of the screenplay and was replaced.
This post was edited on 10/30/17 at 11:23 pm
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:23 pm to sicboy
quote:
October was BY FAR the biggest variation from page to screen
Wasn't 'The Shining' completely different from the book as well?
LOTR and the Harry Potter series have to be up there in terms of successes. I know a lot was left out of both series, but expecting anything more I think would be too much . They all were pretty good and not too long, even thought I could watch a 7-hour LOTR or Harry Potter movie without complaining
A couple that I thought that were weird on film after reading the book were 'The Dinner' and 'Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children'.
'The Dinner' was a great book. So much detail in it, which I think was hard to put on film. Peregrine's movie wasn't horrible, but part of the charm and creepiness was the photos the author used and it was a bit odd seeing them try to recreate it on the big screen.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:25 pm to sicboy
The Firm. Enjoyed both book and movie.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:33 pm to McCaigBro69
The Shining is different...
And Kubrick announces in the beginning of the film according to room 237...Jack and family pass a Red Bug crashed on the mountain road...driving in their Yellow Bug...
In the book, the Bug was red.
And Room 237 says...this is Kubrick telling King, this ain't your movie anymore.
I'm taking a premise and doing whatever I want.
There’s only one person on the face of this earth whose blood would boil upon seeing that crushed red VW bug up on the screen?
Can you just imagine being Stephen King watching this movie in a theater with no graceful way to escape? Watching with your friends who are commenting on everything from your prized story being reversed, inverted and turned upside down in the most brilliant of fashions, than coming upon this scene and seeing a smashed red VW bug on the way to The Overlook? The same VW that brought the Torrances there in your novel and now whose color some dreadful omnipresent director has changed to an awful yellow.
I know very little about Stanley Kubrick’s personality but I feel, if I’m right, this is a bit on the nasty side, "Shined" from the mind of one genius to another. The red VW could represent Stephen King’s original story, and it’s been crushed by the towering brilliance of Stanley Kubrick’s movie. This may have been Stephen King’s cameo in this movie. Could he possibly be the driver?
I’m sure this is why after seeing it Stephen King described Kubrick’s film as “a big beautiful Cadillac, with no engine.” My, my, what a big truck and what big cajones [ko'xones].
And Kubrick announces in the beginning of the film according to room 237...Jack and family pass a Red Bug crashed on the mountain road...driving in their Yellow Bug...
In the book, the Bug was red.
And Room 237 says...this is Kubrick telling King, this ain't your movie anymore.
I'm taking a premise and doing whatever I want.
There’s only one person on the face of this earth whose blood would boil upon seeing that crushed red VW bug up on the screen?
Can you just imagine being Stephen King watching this movie in a theater with no graceful way to escape? Watching with your friends who are commenting on everything from your prized story being reversed, inverted and turned upside down in the most brilliant of fashions, than coming upon this scene and seeing a smashed red VW bug on the way to The Overlook? The same VW that brought the Torrances there in your novel and now whose color some dreadful omnipresent director has changed to an awful yellow.
I know very little about Stanley Kubrick’s personality but I feel, if I’m right, this is a bit on the nasty side, "Shined" from the mind of one genius to another. The red VW could represent Stephen King’s original story, and it’s been crushed by the towering brilliance of Stanley Kubrick’s movie. This may have been Stephen King’s cameo in this movie. Could he possibly be the driver?
I’m sure this is why after seeing it Stephen King described Kubrick’s film as “a big beautiful Cadillac, with no engine.” My, my, what a big truck and what big cajones [ko'xones].
Posted on 10/30/17 at 11:34 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Mmmmmmmm Stanley Kubrick??
Posted on 10/31/17 at 12:04 am to sicboy
"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" to "Blade Runner." Ridley Scott made a book with interesting ideas but mostly lacking in powerful imagery or engrossing narrative into a beautifully imagistic and engrossing film. Essentially, he took Dick's justly-praised ideas and improved the context immensely.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 12:56 am to randomways
The Natural. The movie, even though it goes for the feel-good Hollywood ending, was an improvement over the book.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 1:38 am to sicboy
Jaws
1. In the book, they pulled back into shore every night. In the film, they stayed out there until the shark was dead.
2. They eliminated the Matt Hooper-Ellen Brody affair. This was a subplot in the book that was never explored in the film.
3. They left Matt Hooper alive, but only because they were having shark problems. The script had to be rewritten due to the fact that they couldn't get the thing to work properly. As a result...Matt Hooper lived. In the book, Chief Brody was the sole survivor of the Orca sinking.
1. In the book, they pulled back into shore every night. In the film, they stayed out there until the shark was dead.
2. They eliminated the Matt Hooper-Ellen Brody affair. This was a subplot in the book that was never explored in the film.
3. They left Matt Hooper alive, but only because they were having shark problems. The script had to be rewritten due to the fact that they couldn't get the thing to work properly. As a result...Matt Hooper lived. In the book, Chief Brody was the sole survivor of the Orca sinking.
This post was edited on 10/31/17 at 1:40 am
Posted on 10/31/17 at 5:44 am to abellsujr
LOTR - the one thing I missed from the book was that enigmatic character Tom Bombadil.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 6:44 am to McCaigBro69
quote:
Harry Potter series
For the most part, the movie changes were bad. The things they left out wasn't terrible, but the changes for the most part were.
With the exception of Sirius' death. It was very clear that an Avada Kedavra was used on him and falling through the curtain wasn't his primary cause of death. The falling through the curtain bullshite was awful.
The biggest change I hate would be Voldemort's flaking apart death, the thud of his body from an rebounding AK was a lot better with the whole place watching the death.
This post was edited on 10/31/17 at 6:45 am
Posted on 10/31/17 at 6:48 am to Dam Guide
A Time to Kill- there were changes but both were still really good.
The Book Thief
The Book Thief
Posted on 10/31/17 at 8:00 am to sicboy
quote:
Clancy
quote:
dense
water is wet
Posted on 10/31/17 at 8:07 am to Dam Guide
I think the biggest goof of the Harry Potter movies was leaving out Sirius' mirror from OotP. No mention of it at all and then all of the sudden Harry has this broken piece of glass at the beginning of Deathly Hallows.
I did like that they made the first challenge of the Triwizard Cup more dramatic for Harry, racing around the castle. In the book he just keeps luring the dragon higher and higher and then he swoops down to grab the egg.
I did like that they made the first challenge of the Triwizard Cup more dramatic for Harry, racing around the castle. In the book he just keeps luring the dragon higher and higher and then he swoops down to grab the egg.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 8:10 am to McCaigBro69
quote:
LOTR and the Harry Potter series have to be up there in terms of successes. I know a lot was left out of both series, but expecting anything more I think would be too much . They all were pretty good and not too long, even thought I could watch a 7-hour LOTR or Harry Potter movie without complaining
LOTR did it almost perfectly, even if the Scouring of the Shire is missed.
Harry Potter really fricked up along the way though. 3 major frick-ups:
1) Removing all the mystery of Goblet of Fire. They show you in the very first scene who is behind everything. Removes the balls of the story.
2) Focusing on the love story of Half Blood Prince over the dark atmosphere and plot points. They should have sidelined Ron and Hermione for a film and just kept it focused to Harry, Dumbledore, Snape, Draco, and Voldemort. I really wish Cuaron had returned to direct this one specifically.
3) Some producer saying the end of the Deathly Hallows was too boring and making it typical Hollywood bullshite. It's ridiculous how Harry kills Voldemort with no one present or no one seeming to care.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News