Sign in to follow this  
ClassicMovies_fan_chick

Book vs Film Adaptation: The BIG difference between the book's story and that of the film adaptation

23 posts in this topic

Since the creation of film, MANY books from the renown to unknown have been adapted for the screen.

 

With any film, the story won't always be told exactly as it is written.

 

Some done excellency while others are not. Another reason is disagreements with the author. Then there's certain themes in the book which the producers and director chose to leave out.

 

Here are some films which fall into these categories: 

 

*Gone with the Wind: 

Book version, Scarlett has more children and the rest of the content is more than what we see in the film

Film version, they lowered most of what was written in the book to make it the exact film length that it is

 

*The Shining

Book version, had more to do with a addiction

Film version, was more focused on parental figure's descent into insanity and a child's supernatural ability

 

*Lolita

Book version, deals with the topic of perversion

Film version, deals more with the resistance of perversion and trying to do the right thing

P.S. I always thought Stanley Kubrick did an excellent job with the retelling

 

*Count of Monte Cristo

Book version, another female character is in the story as a minor and there a son

Film version(s), no other female character and there's not always a son

 

*Band of Angels

Book version, more serious and has more graphic content

Film version, lighter tone and but still focused on the main characters and the theme of racism and bigotry

 

*It

Book version, villain is a different entity

Film version(s), we see the evil entity is a clown

 

*Prince of Tides

Book version, the relationship between the main characters 

Film version, was more about the romance between them

 

*1984

Book version, imaginative look at what life would be like had WWII not happened

Film version(s), not one has ever been able to capture the book same quality

 

*Colour Purple, The

Book version, more of a LGBT relationship between the heroine and secondary female character

Film version, Steven Spielberg didn't wanted to take the film THAT far so left that out 

 

 

https://www.listchallenges.com/best-books-made-into-movies

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls050071819/

https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/books-made-into-movies

http://www.paperbackswap.com/Books-Made-Movies/tag/8969/

 

Which books made into films have you notice a major change when you first saw it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why mention only books that sold a lot of copies? I am sure there are lesser known books adapted into films that fit this criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Why mention only books that sold a lot of copies? I am sure there are lesser known books adapted into films that fit this criteria.

I was trying to think of some that were lesser known but couldn't think of any.

Only one which comes to mind now is 'Deliverance'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hepburn Fan said:

Hey, the new girl gets around. I am answering this question wrong but,"The Five People You Meet In Heaven," is nearly a perfect copy from book to film.

Yes, that is so true.

Jon Voight is great in that film!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could go into my usual gripe about how Paul Thomas Anderson in "There Will Be Blood" was so role-model struck by one supporting character from Upton Sinclair's "Oil", he threw out the rest of the book, made up an entire story about how mean and cool and badass he wished he could be like the character, kept the entire plot of the book offstage while filming "everything else that happened" so he could turn the story into his usual snipe at fake preachers, and pretty much completely ignored any remote point about oil-worker unions that the author was originally trying to make.

On the other side, you could devote a whole thread to "Buy the Title & Run" overmarketed 00's-10's children's-book movies that have absolutely, positively, obnoxiously, NOTHING to do with anything that happens in their original books:  Shrek, Peter Rabbit, Stuart Little, The Polar Express, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Night at the Museum, Where the Wild Things Are, the list gets longer every Christmas, and leaving out the Paddington movies, those are just the American ones.

And then, for a laugh, look up Amazon and see what happened in Ian Fleming's original James Bond 007 novels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ClassicMovies_fan_chick said:

I was trying to think of some that were lesser known but couldn't think of any.

Only one which comes to mind now is 'Deliverance'. 

KINGS ROW (1942) is a lot milder, compared to what's in the book. Because of the production code, they had to eliminate references to incest and homosexuality. And the euthanasia of Maria Ouspenskayay's character is downplayed and mostly takes place off-camera.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ClassicMovies_fan_chick said:

Since the creation of film, MANY books from the renown to unknown have been adapted from the screen.

 

With any film, the story won't always be told exactly as it is written.

 

Some done excellency while others are not. Another reason is disagreements with the author. Then there's certain themes in the book which the producers and director chose to leave out.

 

Here are some films which fall into these categories: 

 

*Gone with the Wind: 

Book version, Scarlett has more children and the rest of the content is more than what we see in the film

Film version, they lowered most of what was written in the book to make it the exact film length that it is

 

*The Shining

Book version, had more to do with a addiction

Film version, was more focused on parental figure's descent into insanity and a child's supernatural ability

 

*Lolita

Book version, deals with the topic of perversion

Film version, deals more with the resistance of perversion and trying to do the right thing

P.S. I always thought Stanley Kubrick did an excellent job with the retelling

 

*Count of Monte Cristo

Book version, another female character is in the story as a minor and there a son

Film version(s), no other female character and there's not always a son

 

*Band of Angels

Book version, more serious and has more graphic content

Film version, lighter tone and but still focused on the main characters and the theme of racism and bigotry

 

*It

Book version, villain is a different entity

Film version(s), we see the evil entity is a clown

 

*Prince of Tides

Book version, the relationship between the main characters 

Film version, was more about the romance between them

 

*1984

Book version, imaginative look at what life would be like had WWII not happened

Film version(s), not one has ever been able to capture the book same quality

 

*Colour Purple, The

Book version, more of a LGBT relationship between the heroine and secondary female character

Film version, Steven Spielberg didn't wanted to take the film THAT far so left that out 

 

 

https://www.listchallenges.com/best-books-made-into-movies

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls050071819/

https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/books-made-into-movies

http://www.paperbackswap.com/Books-Made-Movies/tag/8969/

 

Which books made into films have you notice a major change when you first saw it?

"The Princess Bride" and "Christmas Holiday".

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EricJ said:

I could go into my usual gripe about how Paul Thomas Anderson in "There Will Be Blood" was so role-model struck by one supporting character from Upton Sinclair's "Oil", he threw out the rest of the book, made up an entire story about how mean and cool and badass he wished he could be like the character, kept the entire plot of the book offstage while filming "everything else that happened" so he could turn the story into his usual snipe at fake preachers, and pretty much completely ignored any remote point about oil-worker unions that the author was originally trying to make.

On the other side, you could devote a whole thread to "Buy the Title & Run" overmarketed 00's-10's children's-book movies that have absolutely, positively, obnoxiously, NOTHING to do with anything that happens in their original books:  Shrek, Peter Rabbit, Stuart Little, The Polar Express, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Night at the Museum, Where the Wild Things Are, the list gets longer every Christmas, and leaving out the Paddington movies, those are just the American ones.

And then, for a laugh, look up Amazon and see what happened in Ian Fleming's original James Bond 007 novels.

I have read the James Bond books. It certainly is dark and more serious than the films.

 

Books of the early 2000s and this decade soon ending, I wasn't into the hype of the films. One books series adapted to film I never liked to this: 3090465.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the novel Strangers on a Train, Guy Haines is an architect, not a tennis player.  Bruno Anthony's name is Charles Anthony Bruno.  And most importantly, Guy does in fact commit the reciprocal murder.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I'll bite but only because I already did it back on November 01, 2007, another site. :D

The 1959 novel "McCabe" by Edmund Nuaghton vs McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1973).

Its a paperback, 190 pages, cover (I'll scan it for you later) shows McCabe with a handlebar mustache, derby hat, suit with an ascot  with a revolver in his hand seated in the street of a typical Western town (too built up and finished looking for the story) with Mrs. Miller standing beside him leaning her elbow on his shoulder with a typical Marilyn Monroe facial pose in a red bustier and pantaloons.

Across the top it says "A Classic of its Kind" - The New York Times, below that the title "McCabe" and below that it proclaims "The bestselling Western that inspired the hit movie "McCabe & Mrs. Miller"

The first chapter takes us to the belfry of the church as McCabe watches for Butler, the Kid, & the half Breed so it takes us right to the final showdown at the git go its raining & its windy he hears shots coming from his place. He lights a cigar & waits.

Chapter 2 gives us the intro of McCabe to the town of Presbyterian Church four years before (the original title of the film was to be "The Presbyterian Church Wager") He rode up to it from Bearpaw (a company town, he didn't like company towns) he liked small towns because he could set up the biggest game and didn't have to cut anyone in. He rides up past canvas tents always a signal of a new camp & up to Sheehan's Hotel & Saloon just like in the film.
The film here follows the book closely, McCabe's conversation "You don't know nothing about me, and I don't know you. Lets make this a nickle game..." is right out of the novel. 

But then we get more info direct info than we get in the film, Sheehan introduces himself and says he owns the place and McCabe says he's "John McCabe" Sheehan asks "You ain't Pudgy McCabe?" and McCabe nods. "The gunfighter?" McCabe answers "that will beat any other opinion. Sheehan, "You the one that killed Bill Roundtree"? McCabe, "the very same".

Then Sheehan says as in the film "That man's got a big rep boys, he's got a big rep".

We find out that after Sheehan asks "you don't look pudgy to me" that McCabe says he's "been in this country a long time, enough to thin any man out".

As the chapter continues we find out that they mine zinc in Presbyterian Church, with two pretty good deposits up in the hills, and that the local miners prospect for new strikes whenever they can. McCabe & Sheehan strike a bargain & McCabe begins to run a 12 hour game every day at Sheehan's. The town grew Germans & Swedes came to work the steady deposits and Chinese also came to work the ore. The town grew enough to build a second saloon and McCabe built it. Sheehan felt that McCabe had tricked him and went about telling the town folk that McCabe would fail, and he would have if it wasn't for the opium McCabe sold the Chinese, McCabe figured that they would get it anyway, and he became an interpreter and protector for the Chinese. Edit 12/10/10 - The film actually alludes to/mentions the Chinese opium trade, I never caught it before but it comes up in a conversation between McCabe & Sheehan outside Sheehan's soon after he sets up the poker game (at Sheehan's). McCabe asks Sheehan who handles the "mud" for the Chinese and Sheehan basically indicates he's not interested and doesn't know, where upon McCabe laughs at him in effect relating that, as a business man, he's completely missing a big money opportunity in Presbyterian Church

Then McCabe advertised that he was going to build a genuine **** house and Mrs. Constance Miller comes to Presbyterian Church. Mrs. Millers is described as "...a pretty woman.  About 31, slim, not exactly small. She had eyebrows that accented the blueness of her eyes, high cheekbones, and a finely cut nose. Her face was narrow her throat long. The body in the tight dress was small and her breasts seemed to be small too, but from the way they moved as she leaned back they weren't nothing but hers". She wears a wedding band that she takes it off and plays with when she's nervous but she tells McCabe that she's never been married. She wore the ring because it gave her a respectable tone.

McCabe & Mrs. Miller strike a 50/50  bargain on the house and a carpenter from Bearpaw comes up and builds it from an Eastern magazine a heavy building with frills on the eaves. In the book she uses the line "You ought to use something besides that cheap Jockey Club Cologne, if you want to make out your a dude". that's used in the film.

Chapter 3 starts with the relationship between McCabe & Mrs. Miller and what the towns people speculated about them & how Mr. Elliot the preacher looked down upon them. McCabe spent more time in Mrs. Millers bedroom than anyone else and they begin to develop a sometimes rocky relationship despite neither of them wanting to at first. Constance Miller tells McCabe her sad life story and the times that they fight over things ends with her calling him a "son of a ****" and her going on a "toot" for a week at a time. Now the film portrays her as an opium addict rather than an alcoholic. Whether this was an editorial decision when the book was published that changed back to its original manuscript when the book was filmed, would be interesting to find out.  McCabe falls in love with Constance despite all and in this chapter we have his bringing her flowers, his soliloquy in the film about him having "poetry in me" and the line about "couldn't you one time be sweet when there wasn't no money around".

We also learn about McCabe the gunfighter, he uses in the book a specially tuned Colt Peacemaker that has a stronger spring and no trigger, so that he just thumbs back the hammer and lets go to shoot. We also read about him being a great shot. In the film his status as a gunman is always left ambiguous.

Chapter 4, we begin to learn that the Snake River Mining Company wants to buy out the town cheap. We get various rumors and such from the different townsfolk, a rail spur will be built, the company will hire as many men as it takes to kill everyone and take the town over and that they own the courts and that you can't fight them. Sheehan begins to turn from just being McCabe's competion to a threat with his decision to sell out to the company when they make their move. He starts to advise the townsfolk & the miners to also sell out. The townsfolk begin to look at McCabe as their protection.

Chapter 5, Constance & McCabe fight about the position McCabe is in vs the Mining Company, she wants him to be smart & sell out. The Company man arrives in Presbyterian Church with Sheehan. The Company man, Sheehan & McCabe have a business meeting at the Hotel about the buy out. McCabe turns down the Company offer.

Chapter 6, Constance & McCabe again fight this time about his turning down the company offer. Constance worried wants him to see a lawyer in Bearpaw.

Chapter 7, McCabe heads to Bearpaw to see the lawyer (in the film he's shown trying to find the company man and reconsider the offer before seeing the lawyer) on the way he's on guard for bushwhackers. The lawyer in the book has practically the whole chapter, the gist of it is that he wants McCabe to sign out a warrent against Sheehan & file a suit against the company. The purpose is to have McCabe as a martyr, a rebel who took a stand, one man who was able to stand against the company. The warrants & suit is so the company can't deny he ever existed. When McCabe asks the lawyer what do you think is going to happen the lawyer replies "I told you you are going to die... everybody does, achieve  more dignity doing it than you have any right to expect".

Chapter 8, Here arrives the threat in the form of the Cowboy who turns out is just looking for the **** house, the Carradine part in the film. He has with him a banjo which he tries to pluck out "Golden Slippers".

Chapter 9, Is the arrival of the hired killers, Butler, the half breed & the Kid.. We get the first confrontation in McCabe's saloon, which is a standoff McCabe has a revolver on them the whole time. (in the film we get the confrontation in Sheehans, and the Butler line "that man never killed anyone") Here end of the standoff has McCabe declaring to Butler "that kid can put down any times he wants....but the second he does I guarantee you a new ****".

Chapter 10, The killers impress the town for a week with gun play. Constance & McCabe's relationship is again dealt with. And we get the wager sequence of which the original working title of the screen play was based on. Unarmed Sheehan, Butler The kid & the Half Breed with a crowd of townies enter McCabe's Saloon. Sheehan declares "Boys, There'll be a new day and a new way of doing things in this town, and you better get on the right side now."
McCabe answers "I wouldn't put too much money on that". Sheehan answers "I suppose you think you'll come out alive".  McCabe declares "odds are 15 to 1 against me". So they make a bet on McCabe's life.

Chapter 11, Here finally Constance & McCabe finally admit to each other that they are in love and they make love. 

Chapter 12, During the night McCabe has a dream and in this dream we get the Bill Roundtree story.

Chapter 13, Rain falling hard 3AM, McCabe wakes up gets his clothes and quietly leaves Constance's bedroom. He goes over to his saloons kitchen and here he has a three raw egg & whiskey breakfast, the first time in the book. In His office he finds the lawyer sleeping at his desk, he wakes him him up and tell him to leave but before he does he signs the papers the lawyer has brought. McCabe arms himself with his revolver and a second regular revolver that he keeps in a brace that he won in a poker game. Then McCabe heads to the livery stable to get a ladder to put his plan in action. The ladder he takes to the church so he can get up into the steeple to watch for the killers.

Chapter 14, we are back to where we left off after the first chapter, the killers leave McCabe's saloon and split up. Once McCabe sees where they are going he puts he plan in action. Rain still falling he follows behind the kid as he makes his way up the street, careful to try and stay upon hard ground when he gets within range he aims at the kid's back as he does so his boot finds a soft spot in the mud and when he pulls up his foot the boot makes a sucking sound that that kid hears. He whirls around with both guns blazing but McCabe 's shot is true and he falls, but not before he hits McCabe in the thigh. McCabe runs limping into the General Store and sits in barber's chair near the back with a clear shot to the front of the store. 

Butler comes around the corner and sees the dying kid he tries to get the kid to tell him where McCabe is hiding but the Kid just wails that he's dying and wants a doctor. McCabe can't get a good shot a Butler and Butler moves off down the street while the Breed comes up the street from the opposite end.  McCabe is watching across the street in the storefront windows reflection and sees the Breed. The Breed walks up right in front of the General Stores window, he's watching the dying Kid instead of for McCabe. McCabe shoots him through the glass and he falls into the plate glass. 

Butler runs back sees  the Breed laying across the broken window and figures that McCabe is in the General Store. He cuts through an alley to get to the back of the store in time to shoot the escaping McCabe in the back as he  tries to get to cover behind a zinc ore wagon. McCabe's momentum carries him into a ditch on the far side of the wagon. Laying in the runoff water he's fighting to stay conscious. Butler waits a bit but decides he wants to get to McCabe before he dies so that Butler can see the reaction in McCabe's eyes that Butler is about to kill him.  As Butler gets to the ditch he gets the fist bullet in his neck the next in the chest, the forth shot went into his side, the fifth through his temple. 

Mrs. Miller holding her skirt with one hand and McCabe's shotgun in the other comes around the corner and sees Butlers Body. She reaches McCabe who's barely alive and and she comforts him as he dies, his last words to her were "Tell them for me ...I loved you". 

Mrs. Miller hears someone calling out, it was Sheehan he was calling Butlers name. She **** both barrels on the shotgun, and here are the last lines of the novel "she leaned against the wagon wheel with the shotgun in the folds of her skirt. She though she should wait until Sheehan got real close. The wind shifted entirely into her face and she heard the cowboy as she waited. He was playing Golden Slippers on his banjo again". 

The End.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was walking a dog in the West Brompton Cemetery in London many years ago and came upon the grave of Louis Leonowens, who lived into his 60s, married twice, fathered two children and led a rich life. 

I don't mind it so much when the facts of a novel are changed for a film, but I found it pretty odd that, in the film Anna and the King of Siam, Anna's son Louis dies in a riding accident, as a child. That just seems wrong, particularly since he did not die in Margaret Landon's book on which the film was based. Both book and film are fictionalized biographies, but why kill off a small boy, who is based on a real person, in the film?  At least the musical version, The King and I, does not kill off Louis.

Louis_Leonowens.jpg

Louis Leonowens

I think A Passage to India is David Lean's finest film. Even when Lean diverges from the facts of that great E.M. Forster novel, he is true to the spirit, with his images. Forster has been lucky, in terms of the film adaptations of his novels. 

The Grapes of Wrath makes changes to Steinbeck's novel. That doesn't bother me. Although Steinbeck's book is powerful, I prefer Ford's adaptation.  After all, Shakespeare made changes to his source material.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry Potter (series): Without talking about each of the 8 movies individually, the film series did a great job of maintaining the events that occurred in the book series. The plot stayed quite consistent to the original source material. 

Lord of the Rings (trilogy): Having just re-read the books and re-watched the movies simultaneously, I have to say the films and books correlate quite well with each other. I'm sure if I really think, I could come up with some minor differences, but that's about it. 

The Hobbit (trilogy): Why on earth was this even extended into a trilogy? Quantity is not equivalent to quality. There are tons of minor, as well as major, discrepancies between the films and book (yes, singular). There is an abundance of added characters and plotlines that do almost nothing to propel the story forward. This is one I have not finished yet (it's been about a month) because I am having trouble finding the willpower to continue on. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NickAndNora34 said:

The Hobbit (trilogy): Why on earth was this even extended into a trilogy?

Money. A way for them to stretch it out and sell one story three times. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A whole generation of high school students were no doubt stunned to receive F's on their book reports of The Scarlet Letter when they chose to watch the 1995 movie version with Demi Moore and Gary Oldman instead of reading the book!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sewhite2000 said:

A whole generation of high school students were no doubt stunned to receive F's on their book reports of The Scarlet Letter when they chose to watch the 1995 movie version with Demi Moore and Gary Oldman instead of reading the book!

But it will be rooted in their educational subconscious nevertheless--After all, there is a generation who will swear on bibles that the 2002 version of The Time Machine is, quote, "better" than the 1960 version.  ?

No relation to those who think that the '03 live-action Peter Pan is one of the, quote, "best" versions of that story ever done, including the Disney.  (And cannot be persuaded that Hook did not fly, Wendy did not have a repressively-PC "Aunt Millicent", and Nana was not Beethoven from the John Hughes comedies.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ClassicMovies_fan_chick said:

Since the creation of film, MANY books from the renown to unknown have been adapted from the screen.

 

Yep, and as you can see, we knew you meant FOR the screen!  ;)

Although many of us also know that many COMIC books have been adapted from the screen, and too, I think there WERE some paperbacks that were "screen to book" adaptations.  ;)

Some of MY favorite movies have been adapted from a few obscure books, and many big "hits" have been too. 

THE OWTLAW JOSEY WALES: adapted from "Gone to Texas" by Forrest Carter

A couple favorites of mine adapted from other seemingly obscure books---

THE SILENT PARTNER; a Candian production starring ELIOTT GOULD and CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER, adapted from the Anders Bodelson 1968 novel "Think Of A Number", not even a best seller in the author's native Denmark!

THE NATURAL;  The '84 ROBERT REDFORD movie, adapted from the 1952 debut book by Bernard Malmud.  Didn't exactly fly off the shelves either.

I believe too, that both BEING THERE(novel by Jerzy Kosinski) and FORREST GUMP( Winston Groom), like those mentioned above that were FAR different stories than the books they were adapted from also fall into this category.  And too, on my short list of "Movies that were BETTER than the book!"  ;) 

Sepiatone

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

Yep, and as you can see, we knew you meant FOR the screen!  ;)

Although many of us also know that many COMIC books have been adapted from the screen, and too, I think there WERE some paperbacks that were "screen to book" adaptations.  ;)

Some of MY favorite movies have been adapted from a few obscure books, and many big "hits" have been too. 

THE OWTLAW JOSEY WALES: adapted from "Gone to Texas" by Forrest Carter

A couple favorites of mine adapted from other seemingly obscure books---

THE SILENT PARTNER; a Candian production starring ELIOTT GOULD and CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER, adapted from the Anders Bodelson 1968 novel "Think Of A Number", not even a best seller in the author's native Denmark!

THE NATURAL;  The '84 ROBERT REDFORD movie, adapted from the 1952 debut book by Bernard Malmud.  Didn't exactly fly off the shelves either.

I believe too, that both BEING THERE(novel by Jerzy Kosinski) and FORREST GUMP( Winston Groom), like those mentioned above that were FAR different stories than the books they were adapted from also fall into this category.  And too, on my short list of "Movies that were BETTER than the book!"  ;) 

Sepiatone

I'm glad you mentioned books that have been written after the film, based on the screenplay. There are quite a few of these. I've never read any but I wonder if they change or embellish some story points.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a kid, I very often read novelizations of movies that came out at the same time as or after the movie. These were quite common with the Hollywood popcorn fare, especially in the era before VCRs were common in the home and you were dependent on the movie either returning to the theater or airing on TV to see it again. I read adaptations of everything from Alan Dean Foster's Star Wars (credited to George Lucas) and the sequels, The Shaggy D.A., Beyond the Poseidon AdventureConvoyCapricorn OneBenji,  Star Trek: the Motion PictureClose Encounters of the Third Kind and many more. Very often, these adaptations would include a scene or two not in the film. I don't know the reasons for sure, of course, but my guess in hindsight is probably that they were not embellishments but rather appeared because the writer of the book had a copy of an earlier version of the screenplay and so included scenes that later got cut or were never filmed usually for running-time purposes. The Star Wars novelization, for example, includes a scene with Han Solo and Jabba the Hut that finally appeared (with a CGI-altered Jabba) in the CGI-enhanced version of the original movie and also a whole subplot about Luke and his best friend Biggs Darklighter, who reveals to Luke he's running off to join the Rebellion, that occur before Luke find the droids. Those scenes were filmed - I even saw stills of them in a Star Wars photostory book that came out about the same time as the novel. But they've never been released, not even as DVD extras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

Yep, and as you can see, we knew you meant FOR the screen!  ;)

Although many of us also know that many COMIC books have been adapted from the screen, and too, I think there WERE some paperbacks that were "screen to book" adaptations.  ;)

Some of MY favorite movies have been adapted from a few obscure books, and many big "hits" have been too. 

THE OWTLAW JOSEY WALES: adapted from "Gone to Texas" by Forrest Carter

A couple favorites of mine adapted from other seemingly obscure books---

THE SILENT PARTNER; a Candian production starring ELIOTT GOULD and CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER, adapted from the Anders Bodelson 1968 novel "Think Of A Number", not even a best seller in the author's native Denmark!

THE NATURAL;  The '84 ROBERT REDFORD movie, adapted from the 1952 debut book by Bernard Malmud.  Didn't exactly fly off the shelves either.

I believe too, that both BEING THERE(novel by Jerzy Kosinski) and FORREST GUMP( Winston Groom), like those mentioned above that were FAR different stories than the books they were adapted from also fall into this category.  And too, on my short list of "Movies that were BETTER than the book!"  ;) 

Sepiatone

Thanks for pointing out that word error. ;)

 

Yes, it is true that the opposite happens; the screen story becomes a novel itself.

Namely 'Dances with Wolves', originally a screenplay but Kevin Costner loved it so much he convinced the writer to novelize it!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

THE NATURAL;  The '84 ROBERT REDFORD movie, adapted from the 1952 debut book by Bernard Malmud.  Didn't exactly fly off the shelves either.

Now, if you want to talk about changes to Malmud's book, try the ending...

Also, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was that much more annoying when pointing out that F. Scott Fitzgerald's original story was a short story, only a few pages long, and basically a summary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK:

I found Malmud's book so forgettable I don't REMEMBER how it ended.  ;)

And, like "Benjamin Button", many a great "classic" movie was adapted from a short story.  From one source I read, the play "Everybody Comes To Rick's" was adapted from a short story of the same name.

Sepiatone

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some books are written with the movie in mind. I am sure that when Stephen King pens his latest story, he's devising scenarios that will translate well to the screen so he can sell the rights to a Hollywood studio.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere or other --maybe on another website--I drew up a list of what I feel are the most faithful instances of book-to-movie. There's more than just 'a few'.

Or, I went even further and cited the rare cases where the movie is fully equal to the book (even if differing slightly). It had at least twenty titles...surprisingly, dominated mostly by action-thrillers (I can't immediately recall why this is, unless my own penchant for them?)

Not sure where that list is now, but some of the titles would definitely have been these:

  • The Day of the Jackal
  • The French Connection
  • The Spy Who Came in From the Cold
  • The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3
  • Black Sunday
  • Seven Days in May
  • The Manchurian Candidate
  • Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People (both with Guinness)
  • The Maltese Falcon ('41)
  • Murder on the Orient Express

Each of these adaptations are (I feel) fully as exuberant as each respective novel they came from.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us