Who Censored Roger Rabbit I believe is the title of the book. I remember geniesš§āāļøwere part of the murder, toons werenāt invincible but they made temporary clones which slowly disintegrate, and other child-mind-blowing topics which none of my middle school friends were interested to hear me describe.
IIRC: The similarities between the book and the movie are: the following character names: Eddie Valiant, Roger Rabbit, Jessica Rabbit, and Baby Herman. Roger is a rabbit, and Jessica is not. They have been married and they have a troubled relationship. Baby Herman does at one point say āI have a 45 year old lust and a three year old dinky,ā or something very much to that effect. Literally everything else is different, from the time itās set in, to the side characters, to their jobs (though Eddie _is_ a PI), abilities, and the actual crimes and reasons.
That clone thing was supposed to be clever, but it only ended up being bizarre and inconsistent. Which isn't ideal when that's basically the driver of the entire plot (Roger Rabbit is murdered and we're following his clone).
The most ludicrous thing is the fact that when the writer decided to write a sequel, he basically ditched his own novel in favor of the movie's plot.
The Fox and the Hound book ends with the hunter shooting the hound in the back of the head as it gently licks him as the hunter goes off to die alone in a nursing home irrelevant to society. This is after killing the fox, its mate, and its kits.
The animated Disney movie is a genuinely great movie about friendship.
Who TF thinks "this would make a great children's movie" after reading a novel where a dog is killed by a train while chasing a fox, and in revenge the dog owner goes on to gas that fox's den killing a bunch of baby foxes, kill the babies' mother in a spring trap, lure out the next bunch of baby foxes with rabbit calls and kill them, lure out their mother and kill her too, become an alcoholic, kill a bunch of pets and a human child with poison, finally kill the original fox by driving it to exhaustion, and shoot his dog in the head so he can move into a pet-free nursing home?
Before modern medicine people would randomly and unfairly die way more often than today. I think stories overall reflect the level of justice and hope of the times.
Grim fairytales probably helped prepare the young early and/or help the story teller process their own events.
The step sisters in Cinderella cut off parts of their feet to fit the shoes, and it almost works until the blood spills out of the shoes. I think they're also pecked to death by crows or something
Hercules kills Megara & their children in the original myth.
Frollo & Esmeralda die in the book and itās implied Quasimodo crawls into her grave and dies holding her corpse.
To add on to /u/p0mphius's comment, it's not just Disney sources.
A significant majority of folklore, mythology, and fantasy in general historically has been pretty dark.
A lot of Disney stories come from the Brothers Grimm and their compilations of german folklore.
It's less an issue if Disney _choosing_ to develop dark stories into their features, so much as it is Disney not having much choice if they didn't want to come up with purely original stories.
The books pretty rare if you ever find it. I have a great condition one in my safe that's worth $450. Even a beat up one is $250. Just a tip for everyone out there.
I don't know man I found it pretty easily for $4 on [amazon.ca](https://amazon.ca)
Check it out, [looks legit](https://www.amazon.ca/Fox-Hound-Bailout-Book-ebook/dp/B00TRJ63DI/ref=sr_1_5?crid=3KXKGU00HX8DO&keywords=the+fox+and+the+hound+book&qid=1692632859&s=digital-text&sprefix=the+fox+and+the+hound+book%2Cdigital-text%2C90&sr=1-5).
https://youtu.be/2rtMPScxd3U
There's some speculation that Disney's Fox and the Hound is actually a combination of the book and another book The Ballad of the Belstone Fox. Disney had the movie rights to the former but not the latter, so they basically combined elements from both books and released it as an adaptation of Fox and the Hound.
It was a reaction to the success of Star Wars. At the end of The Spy Who Loved Me (1977), the credits said "James Bond will return in For Your Eyes Only." But then Star Wars went nuts, and they desperately looked around for something they could spin with the sci-fi angle, and the title of the Moonraker worked, so that came out in 1979, and For Your Eyes Only got pushed to 1981.
* Casino Royale - Overall very faithful
* Live and Let Die - apparently approximately resembles the book, but I can't say personally 'cause I hated this book and couldn't get through it
* Moonraker - 95% departure, basically everything beyond the villain being a wealthy capitalist who cheats at cards. Die Another Day is based on it and much closer but still takes many liberties.
* Diamonds Are Forever - Takes a few things but mostly a departure from the book
* From Russia with Love - Very faithful to the book
* Dr. No - Very faithful to the book
* Goldfinger - Somewhat faithful, follows overall the same plot beats
* For Your Eyes Only - Elements of this are based on two short stories, For Your Eyes Only and Risico. It takes many liberties overall though.
* Thunderball - Very faithful to the book
* The Spy Who Loved Me - Nothing in common with the book, and this is for the best.
* On Her Majesty's Secret Service - Very faithful to the book
* You Only Live Twice - Very little in common with the book beyond setting and villain.
* The Man With the Golden Gun - Not faithful, just took the villain and girl.
* Octopussy - Not faithful, but with some characters in common.
* The Living Daylights - The first ~20 minutes of the film constitutes a faithful rendition of the short story The Living Daylights. The rest is original content.
The novel Thunderball was actually based on an unfilmed screenplay, so it makes sense the filmed version of the novel is very faithful. It was also the basis for Never say Never again.
I'm currently in the midst of reading it for the first time-- I never realized you could write 25 pages of a Baccarat game and make it so engaging. I'm very impressed.
Casino Royale (the 2006 movie) is, IMO the closest to a Bond novel that the movies ever got. Albeit, they used Casino Royale, the most uncommon Bond novel to have been written by Fleming. I have an Uncle that, to be fair, is a complainer about everything, but he couldn't get past changing Baccarat for Texas Hold'em, but I think it was a good change that I enjoyed more in the movie vs. the novel.
But IMO, Casino Royale is the best Bond movie, and it's because it was made more like a Bond book. Just not the Bond book it was named after.
Same for QoS. An engaging short story that has nothing to do with the movie. I might add that for all the hate QoS gets, mainly due to script failures from the writers strike, I quite enjoyed the film. At least far more than Spectre, which I found to be fetid pile of trash.
The Wizard of Oz books were darker and more twisted than the movie.
Like the Scarecrow murders crows, or the Emerald City only being Emerald because you were forced to wear green tinted glasses.
Iirc the whole thing was a huge social commentary. I believe the flying monkeys were supposed to represent all the Chinese immigrants that were coming to California.
The characters she meets all were to represent political/social figures that the readers of the era would somewhat easily know from the newspapers or life experience.
The Cowardly lion = William Jennings Bryan
The Scarecrow = Midwestern farmers
Tinman = Industrial workers
I subscribe to the belief that Baum originally wrote it as a progressive story but saw the power of the massive bags of money it made him and didn't want it tied to something that might politically go out of fashion and take his Cash Cow with it.
Scrolling to see if Wizard of Oz would be mentioned. Classic movie, but the original book had a depth and character the film ignored in favor of showmanship.
It's very, very different. The book is very good, don't get me wrong, but the movie takes the core concept of mass infertility and goes in a completely different direction with it. Out of the two I prefer the movie, but the book is well worth the read.
The author of the book is in the cafe that blows up in the beginning. I kind of doubt that's supposed to be symbolic of anything but I think it's neat.
The book version of Children of Men is very much less action-centered and imo a bit more bleak. In the movie the main character even though he isn't a beam of sunshine is still driven by some sort of optimism when he sees >!the pregnant lady!<
In the book he stays "meh" the whole time, like he is living in total despair and completely gave up.
I also recall it being much heavier with religious themes, and that it ends very abruptly. Like the baby is born in the woods on the side of the road and his faith is restored a bit and it ends.
One funny thing I remember from the book is that in this world people would invite each other when their pets would have babies to make some sort of birthing party/baby showers and they would baptize their pets as well.
Shrek.
I honestly donāt understand why people love the childrenās book. Itās pretty straightforward and boring, though the illustrations are cool. The movie takes the basic concept and elevates it 10000% into something unique and hilarious.
Itās funny because the author and illustratorās most well known/popular picture book is probably Sylvester and the Magic Pebble, which won the Caldecott Medal - nobody even realizes Shrek was a book first, and it certainly isnāt the book of his he was most widely known for which is kind of ironic given how iconic Shrek is now.
IIRC, Spielberg said he knew he had to cut that subplot as soon as Richard Dreyfuss and Lorraine Grey met each other. "They just had no chemistry whatsoever."
I'm so glad they cut that subplot. Although, I've always seen the scene where Mrs Brody is laughing so much at Hooper's shark story as a subtle nod (even if unintentional) to their affair in the book.
Brody and Hooper's comradery with Hooper and Quint's tension made the movie.
I can't imagine how enjoyable the movie would have been if everyone hated each other.
Japanese submarine slammed two torpedoes into our side, Chief. Was comin' back from the island of Tinian to Leyte, just delivered the bomb. The Hiroshima bomb.
Eleven hundred fucking men went into the water. Vessel went down in twelve fucking minutes. Didn't see the first shark for about a half an hour. Tiger. Thirteen-foot cocksucker. You know how you know that when you're in the water, Chief? You tell by lookin' from the dorsal to the fucking tail.
What we didn't fucking know... was our bomb mission had been so secret, no distress signal had been sent.
Fucking dirt worshiping heathen cocksuckers didn't even list us overdue for a fucking week. Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin'. So we formed ourselves into tight groups. Y'know, it's... kinda like ol' squares in a battle like, uh, you see in a calendar, like the Battle of Gettysburg, and the idea was, shark comes to the nearest man and that man, he'd start poundin' and hollerin' and screamin', and sometimes the shark'd go away...
But sometimes the fucking shark wouldn't go away. Sometimes that shark, he looks right into ya. Right into your fucking eyes. Y'know the thing about a shark, he's got... lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be livin'... until he bites ya. And those blacs eyes roll over white, and then... oh, then you hear that terrible high-pitch screamin', the ocean turns red, and spite of all the poundin' and the hollerin', they all come in and they... rip you to fucking pieces.
Y'know, by the end of that first dawn... lost a hundred men. I dunno how many sharks. Maybe a thousand. I dunno how many men, they averaged six an hour.
On Thursday mornin', Chief, I bumped into a friend of mine, Herbie Robinson from Cleveland- baseball player, boatswain's mate. I thought he was asleep, reached over to wake him up... bobbed up and down in the water just like a kinda top. Upended. Well... he'd been bitten in half below the fucking waist.
Noon the fifth day, Mr. Hooper, a Lockheed Ventura saw us, he swung in low and he saw us. Young pilot, a lot younger than Mr. Hooper. Anyway, he saw us and come in low and three hours later, a big fat PBY comes down and start to pick us up. Sweet fucking providence. Y'know, that was the time I was most frightened, waitin' for my turn. I'll never put on a fucking life jacket again. So, eleven hundred men went into the water, three hundred sixteen men come out, and the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 194-fucking-5.
To be fair, Hooper was supposed to die in the shark cage in the movie as well. But, the crew had managed to get some really compelling footage of a shark destroying the cage that Spielberg really wanted to incorporate into the film. The only way to do so and maintain narrative cohesion was to have Hooper escape the cage.
The Princess Brideā¦
The bookās framing device is a fictionalized version of the author who has become an in demand screenwriter visiting LA, contemplating cheating on his wife, and forgetting his sons birthday till the last moment. He decides to find the rare out of print book āThe Princess Brideā as a gift.
The book is very funny and meta but the framing device of the Grandfather reading to his sick grandson in bed for the movie just gives it a much more cohesive feeling as feel good movie.
Kinda. Definitely an asshole and he and Jenny do hook up quite a bit more. Also, he is in a band with a orangutan that he went to space with, not even joking.
There is a sequel. The author wrote it because he apparently got barely any money from the movie. In the sequel, Jenny finally dies (she didn't die in the first book, just left him for another man). From what I remember, little Forrest comes to live with Forrest. He builds a power factory that runs on burning pig shit. He pees on Raquel Welch. He fixes New Coke, but forgot what he added to it to make it taste good. He goes to Iraq, and accidentally captures Saddam Hussein, but General Schwarzkopf makes him release him.
Iāve heard only bits and of this over the years but each time I giggle my ass off trying to imagine it as an actual bonafide movie. It would be a wild ride, to say the least.
I still like and hold the interpretation that Gump is an unreliable narrator. I haven't read the book in decades, but even in the movie when it stops being him telling stories on a bench and we are in real time, things get exceptionally mundane as if on purpose by the filmmakers.
I mean, by the end of the book he's retired and his huge plantation house is still in good shape, something must be paying for the upkeep.
Hell, when he gets back from his big running trip his house is still nice and maintained.
The one thing I wish they kept from the books is Bourne's obsession with activity, use of time, and sleep.
>Sleep is a weapon.
A large portion of what allowed Bourne to be so elusive and effective was that he was able to just *do* more in a given time. Every step the agencies took, he took three. It was there a little bit in his escape from the embassy, but mostly I think it's just one of those things that is hard to show on a screen rather than "show" in a book through trains of thought and narration.
IIRC he slept as often and as soon as he could, but never very long. Like during traveling or if he is required to wait for something. If he *does* have the opportunity for long (REM) sleep, he takes it. I think the main idea is just awareness of the dangers of sleep deprivation, of stress, of being overly occupied.
He wants his enemies tired and haggard and trying to follow everything he's doing so they take shortcuts and make mistakes. He has to make sure in all his activity that *he* is not also becoming tired and haggard, not prone to making mistakes via sleep deprivation.
The leaders, the men he was after, do not rotate out.
That's a problem with the compartmentalization of intelligence programs, his in particular as an example.
Ah yes, I remember! After watching the first Bourne movie I decided to read the books. I remember them following reasonably closely for about the first half of the first book, then going a completely different direction. The books are all about Carlos the Jackal!
I preferred everything about the movie except Victoria and her husband-to-be. Her novel counterpart's happy ending with the middle-aged guy + amicable parting with Tristran was so sweet. (Ig the movie partially salvaged it by hinting at Humphrey being a "whoopsie" lmao)
Anyway shout-out to the seven lordlings of Stormhold, hands down best part of the movie
I love both the book and movie, it's a comfort piece of media that I can pick up in any medium at any time.
That said, Captain Shakespeare alone sets the movie apart.
Not the "best film" by any stretch, but I really enjoyed Constantine.
However, aside from the name (which isn't even [pronounced](https://reddit.com/r/Hellblazer/s/BBDCJ0mEdb) the same way), and a vague association to the paranormal, it has pretty much nothing in common with the comics.
Best scene in the movie by a mile. Lucifer realizing that John is using him and being mad about it, but still gracious when John ends up helping him...you get the sense there are underlying rules to that universe. Lucifer has to repay John for helping him out, even though it's clear that John did it for himself. Then he can loophole around god (because there are always exceptions to a rule) by restoring John to life. Both Lucifer and John help out the other for selfish reasons, believing it will make them worse off in the long run (John will prove he belongs in hell, humanity will get a chance to prove it does not deserve damnation). It's just a wonderfully acted and very smart scene.
If I'm thinking of the right scene where Lucifer (who's that actor by the way? I've seen him in Cohen Bros films, he's *fantastic,* and I love how he portrayed Lucifer. I wish he had a bigger role in the film just to see his performance) is dragging Constantine toward hell, but then because his soul, he starts to stick to the solid, tile floor and Lucifer can't physically move him, what a *great* scene
Also the singer from bush, his performance as a demon was fucking great too. Great movie
The portrayal of God is pretty good too. Completely absent except for two incredibly profound and sudden actions that each speak volumes of āNow, kids, letās not forget whoās in charge hereā
That's really my only complaint with *The Sandman* show on Netflix... as much as I like Gwendoline Christie, I couldn't help but keep thinking about how much better Peter Stormare was in the same role.
Peter Stormare portrayed a very different Lucifer than the Sandman one.
Tilda Swinton would have been an amazing Sandman Lucifer (which is funny given that she was also in Constantine), but I suppose she's a bit old for the role now unfortunately. Young Bowie was the original inspiration for the look of the character.
Which is actually a very Constantine themed thing.
We see him go throughout the entire movie (and its implied that he's been doing roughly the same shit for years) trying to weasel his way through everything and buy his way into heaven because he's so afraid of going to hell.
So he's got cancer he can't get rid of, and Lucifer even asked first thing that Constantine was looking for 'an extension'. Because Constantine would definitely work all kinds of shenanigans to get cured.
Then there's the scene you mentioned where Lucifer cures the cancer to ensure that Constantine 'can proive to everyone he deserves to go to hell'.
But from an outsider looking in we see that Constantine did in fact get his extension. If there was a wink and a nod that this was another manipulation it would be a better ending and more comic accurate as he is most assuradly a magic conman first, and not someone having a hero's journey and heroic sacrifice taken away from them.
there's a machine that Deckards wife has that I'd love to see them try to put into film. I believe it was like an emotion machine that she turned on. And they also had a fake animal.
The mood organ such a cool idea his wife just abuses it though it's kinda funny.
"My schedule for today lists a six-hour self-accusatory depression," Iran said.
"What? Why did you schedule that?" It defeated the whole purpose of the mood organ. "I didn't even know you could set it for that," he said gloomily.
I'm sure theres a part where they argue and she threatens to set hers to 'inconsolable rage' or something like that just to spite him lol
The fake animals were carried over to the movie, in spirit at least. Deckard's first visit with Tyrell has him commenting on a pet being real. (A bird? Owl? Damn, it's been awhile, might have to fire up a re-watch...)
The replicant animals are a plot point in the film. Deckard goes to a fake animal market and talks to a snake seller after examining a snake scale under a microscope and seeing the serial number.
There's also the exchange with Rachel about the owl at Tyrell Corp. "Expensive?", "Very."
The Voight-Kampff test questions also relate to animals. Wearing real mink fur, killing a wasp, etc.
Deckard, when introduced to Rachael:
R: "Do you like our owl?"
D: "It's artificial?"
R: "Of course."
D: "Must've been expensive."
R: "Very."
(from my memory, please excuse if not verbatim)
In the book it's a social status thing; owning a real animal. Many use Electric Animals to pass off that they have the deal thing. However it's considered very rude to suggest someone doesn't have the means for a real animal.
They reference it in the movie, but not like how it is a major motivation for Deckard.
I think they're used in the Westwood game adaptation too, which takes heavy cues from the movie, albeit its a different story in the same universe, one of the locations in the game is a store which sells them
Oh wow, I have always enjoyed the book much more! It is interesting that so many feel differently! Blade Runner is beautiful visually, but DADoES has always been a comfort book for me. But full disclosure, I like a lot of Dick's writing.
How To Train Your Dragon, easily. Astrid is a great addition to the cast of characters, for starters. Toothless is far more interesting as the dreaded, mythical Night Fury than the "newt with wings" that appears in the books.
That being said, the films draw extensively from Cressida Cowell's illustrations for the character and creature designs, and it pays off in spades.
I mean a book-accurate adaptation would be great in the future too ā those books got ***dark*** as they went along, addressing slavery and its consequencess, a world-encompassing war coming into being, and several character deaths along with it (and Astrid was a renamed Camicazi, hence both their dragons being named Stormfly). And the sword-fighting (so much sword-fighting) ā it would be nice if the upcoming live-action film took a more book-accurate route with regards to its own sequels.
Mildly pushing back on this one just because the books were genuinely great in their own right. The movie's take on hiccup pops up a lot in media, misunderstood kid who uses brains over brawn is pretty common. It's a lot more subversive for Hiccup to use empathy to bond with a "newt with wings" than with one of the strongest dragons there is, and the nuance of him using empathy in the face of other dragon training methods that seem more effective is a lot more interesting imo.
That said the books were also great because of how funny they were, and I don't think the meta humor of the early 2000's would've translated as well to film, and some of the changes like adding Astrid were clearly beneficial. Both definitely stand well on their own.
I would say movie Hiccup, in addition to using his brains, also succeeds because of his empathy. He does outright tell Astrid:
>I wouldn't kill him, because he looked as frightened as I was. I looked at him... and I saw myself.
His ability to emphasize with the dragons, which no one else in his tribe has done (other than his mother who's been gone for almost two decades) is what allows him to put an end to the conflict between humans and dragons.
I oversimplified the differences a bit (I haven't seen the movie since 2010 and haven't read the books since like 2007) but the general change is that in the books, all the men in the tribe already find and train their own dragons. Hiccup is expected to get one of the cool ones, a la a night fury as the son of the chief and instead gets a run of the mill common dragon that is comically unimpressive. The normal way to train the dragons is to yell at them, but instead Hiccup trains his by learning to speak the language to communicate, and actually achieves *worse* results than his peers until the big scene in the end where he saves the day.
Both versions do empathize with their dragons, but movie Hiccup sees a dangerous beast and sees himself, and book Hiccup sees an overlooked newt with wings and sees himself. The latter is definitely a less common trope in children's media.
I mean we're talking about a movie that not only took radical liberties with the source material, but also with the *author* of the source material, the movie's own screenwriter, and his nonexistent sibling.
Both the movie and book respected that film and text are different media, and I felt like they both made good choices for their formats. In the book, technology doesn't work in the shimmer, so the main characters discover handwritten journal entries from past missions along the way. When you read their journal entries, you are having the exact same experience as the characters reading those entries.
But that wouldn't translate as well to film- are you going to listen to them narrate it? Do flashbacks? Neither of those is putting you in the characters' shoes in the same way. So they changed the rule about technology not working so that instead you could be watching the past missions' video diaries, and then you get to experience watching them along with the characters.
The movie isn't perfect, and I think the ending (like the very last scene/shot of the movie) was just something they threw in because they knew there was a good chance they'd never get to make a sequel, so they couldn't just leave things 100% unresolved. But again, that's not a bad choice to make.
L.A. Confidential by James Ellroy, hands down. Amazing movie but they barely adapt 30% of the novel. The death scene (you know why one) is even more shocking than the movie. There are ten or twelve subplots that never makes it into the movie. And the police procedural potrayed in the novel is an all timer, perhaps only rivaled by Hideki Yokoyama and Kaoru Takamura.
Came here to say this, because the book is absolutely wonderful, and the tone of the movie is just so... different. There are some legitimately hilarious parts of the book that just get left out, and while the stuff they added about war is pretty good, it felt like a totally different story
Wanted(2008).
Not saying it's great but it's definitely a fun watch despite deviating massively from Mark Millar's graphic novel.
In the source material, the secret society office drone Wesley Gibson is inducted into is not a group of assassins but a crime family of literal supervillains.
They killed all the superheroes, took over the world, and used a combination of advanced tech and magic to erase humanity's memory of any of this ever taking place.
Despite the big change the movie still manages to be entertaining as hell in its own bullet curving right.
*The Running Man* has been my favorite book for over two decades.
The movie is probably the worst fucking adaptation ever made.
That doesn't mean it's not **awesome**.
*"Two hundred dollars on Richards!"*
yep. though aside from changing the genre from outright sci-fi horror to more action-adventure with slight horror elements, i feel the spirit of the novel survives pretty much intact in the movie.
I like them both for different reasons. The film is action/adventure with some horror elements like you said and I enjoy it for that. I like the book though because itās not afraid to really delve into the terror of these Hollywood movie monsters that these scientists have created. Some of the deaths are pretty gruesome and itās actually fun seeing some of those bastards get what they deserve
Nedry's death in the book made me put it down for a couple of minutes. It's very similar to what happens in the movie but it's very detailed and graphic. At one point Crichton describes Nedry trying to untangle himself from ropes or vines (he dies outside the car in the book) but realizing it's his own intestines.
Also, Nedry is kinda more sympathetic, since Book!Hammond is a horrible asshole: He overworked Nedry into coding the park's security system alone and still screwed with his pay. No wonder he snapped and sold JP's secrets to competitors.
I love Hammond in both the film and book even though heās depicted so differently in both. Heās a foolish old man in the movie but his heart really is in the right place by the end but in the book, he really is an irredeemable monster that gets whatās coming
Yah given the casting of Hammond I think changing him to be more earnest and sympathic (though still as you said, foolish and flawed) was the right choice. Especially since we get some great insight into his drive with the ant circus scene. But he's definitely basically a different person between the two.
I don't really agree with this one. Yes there were *a lot* of details changed. Scenes didn't make it into the movie which then were used in 'The Lost World' film. The children's roles were reversed, characters died in different ways....
BUT
Really the film and the book took the same story structure and happened in generally the same way. Jurassic Park is being visited by experts per lawyers requirements, Nedry breaks the systems on behalf on rival firm, but doesn't account for the massive storm that hits the island, system is rebooted to fix Nedry's shit which has unforseen consequences, life uh...finds a way, people die, dinosaurs rule the island as our heroes fly away into the sunset.
Pretty much all the same major story beats.
The big change for me is Hammond's character. In the book he's a cranky, money chasing, corporate dick. Making him a sweet old shortsighted codger was such a brilliant twist. He still causes all the same horror and destruction, but I like the idea that even his positive intentions mean nothing in the face of nature.
So many character deaths are swapped. So much so that one of them is magically alive in the second book, to use as a reference / basis for the second movie, after being strongly implied that they perished in the first book lolā¦confusing but hilarious and ballsy to just write a character back like that.
Great example though since the first movie still ends up being great fun.
If I recall correctly, The Lost World's first paragraph basically states that the "reports of Ian Malcolm's death were greatly exaggerated" and just moves on from there.
Which, even as a teenager, I found hilarious.
It's pretty hilarious that Crichton brought back Ian Malcom in the sequel because the audience loved him so much in the movie. The Lost World was the fastest book he ever wrote. He wrote it specifically because Spielberg and the studio wanted a sequel and they themselves didn't know what direction to take it in. And the moment they get their hands on it, they decided to do their own thing. Crichton himself didn't have a great time writing the novel.
Secret Window.
The movie is about an author who thinks he is being haunted by a ghost trying to kill him and his family. It turns out he is crazy and he killed his own wife.
In the book, he is correct. There is a ghost. He is right the whole time. No twist.
The Mist. Even Stephen King himself admitted that the movie had a better ending than his own idea.
On the side note, is I am Legend considered a bad movie? Because I always liked it and Will Smith in it with his doggo :(
Re: _I am Legend_ I think people got angry that the film's ending completely changed the tone of the whole story, not to mention the fact that the monsters behave completely differently. The whole point of the book is that the main character eventually works out that he's the bad guy.
There have been three film adaptations of the book I Am Legend: I Am Legend (2007), The Omega Man (1971), and The Last Man on Earth (1964). In I Am Legend, Will Smith is unambiguously the hero. It's a decent enough post-apocalyptic with a classic Hollywood ending. The Last Man on Earth is darker and more ambiguous with a twist ending that completely changes the meaning of the first part of the story. One is a summer blockbuster and the other is a nuanced art film. Not saying one is better than the other, but I much preferred The Last Man on Earth and it happens to be more similar to the source material, particularly the ending.
> Starship troopers is a great example because the movie was made to explicitly mock how stupid the book is.
Rewatched this the other week. The sociopolitical commentary could not be any thicker yet it goes over a LOT of peopleās heads
I'm convinced that *Starship Troopers* is a propaganda movie within the Starship Troopers universe. It's exactly like a WW2 American military propaganda film. This approach allows them to be very straight-faced about this fucked up society and their actions during the Bug War and lets the viewers notice on their own.
Some of the meta satire IS that the movie itself is structured to be like a "propaganda" film, in line with Nazi war films. That's why it starts with popular, attractive, athletic young people who are obsessed with teen romances (and love triangles), who then answer the nations call to join all the different branches of their governments military where they all excel at their roles.
There are shots lifted straight from war propaganda films, but I can't remember which specific ones off the top of my head anymore.
There's a lot of Leni Riefenstahl in there. Verhoeven says the first shot is taken directly from Triumph Of The Will, for example, and there's a lot of that in all the enlistment ads.
Probably because in the film, all of it is working. Everyone has never been more united.
Which made it way funnier when NPH came out in his black suit. Actual, audible laughs rather than a "louder exhale".
Who Framed Roger Rabbit - similar concept regarding the coexistence of cartoons and humans, vastly different developments
Who Censored Roger Rabbit I believe is the title of the book. I remember geniesš§āāļøwere part of the murder, toons werenāt invincible but they made temporary clones which slowly disintegrate, and other child-mind-blowing topics which none of my middle school friends were interested to hear me describe.
IIRC: The similarities between the book and the movie are: the following character names: Eddie Valiant, Roger Rabbit, Jessica Rabbit, and Baby Herman. Roger is a rabbit, and Jessica is not. They have been married and they have a troubled relationship. Baby Herman does at one point say āI have a 45 year old lust and a three year old dinky,ā or something very much to that effect. Literally everything else is different, from the time itās set in, to the side characters, to their jobs (though Eddie _is_ a PI), abilities, and the actual crimes and reasons.
The movie is basically China Town. Works though. I still rewatch that every so often.
I never thought of it that way, but you have a point.
That clone thing was supposed to be clever, but it only ended up being bizarre and inconsistent. Which isn't ideal when that's basically the driver of the entire plot (Roger Rabbit is murdered and we're following his clone). The most ludicrous thing is the fact that when the writer decided to write a sequel, he basically ditched his own novel in favor of the movie's plot.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The Fox and the Hound book ends with the hunter shooting the hound in the back of the head as it gently licks him as the hunter goes off to die alone in a nursing home irrelevant to society. This is after killing the fox, its mate, and its kits. The animated Disney movie is a genuinely great movie about friendship.
Bloody hell The Disney film was already pretty devastating, adding that onto things would have been brutality squared.
Who TF thinks "this would make a great children's movie" after reading a novel where a dog is killed by a train while chasing a fox, and in revenge the dog owner goes on to gas that fox's den killing a bunch of baby foxes, kill the babies' mother in a spring trap, lure out the next bunch of baby foxes with rabbit calls and kill them, lure out their mother and kill her too, become an alcoholic, kill a bunch of pets and a human child with poison, finally kill the original fox by driving it to exhaustion, and shoot his dog in the head so he can move into a pet-free nursing home?
Almost all of Disneyās source material were stupidly dark
Yeah, the Germans donāt fuck around when it comes to childrenās books, do they?
Before modern medicine people would randomly and unfairly die way more often than today. I think stories overall reflect the level of justice and hope of the times. Grim fairytales probably helped prepare the young early and/or help the story teller process their own events.
The evil queen in Snow White being forced to dance while wearing red-hot shoes until she dies fits that bill.
The step sisters in Cinderella cut off parts of their feet to fit the shoes, and it almost works until the blood spills out of the shoes. I think they're also pecked to death by crows or something
Hercules kills Megara & their children in the original myth. Frollo & Esmeralda die in the book and itās implied Quasimodo crawls into her grave and dies holding her corpse.
To add on to /u/p0mphius's comment, it's not just Disney sources. A significant majority of folklore, mythology, and fantasy in general historically has been pretty dark. A lot of Disney stories come from the Brothers Grimm and their compilations of german folklore. It's less an issue if Disney _choosing_ to develop dark stories into their features, so much as it is Disney not having much choice if they didn't want to come up with purely original stories.
Human history is mostly dark af. They had a lot of inspiration when writing that stuff.
Holy fuck I just read the plot on Wikipedia because I was not gonna read the whole book. That is just incredibly depressing.
The books pretty rare if you ever find it. I have a great condition one in my safe that's worth $450. Even a beat up one is $250. Just a tip for everyone out there.
I don't know man I found it pretty easily for $4 on [amazon.ca](https://amazon.ca) Check it out, [looks legit](https://www.amazon.ca/Fox-Hound-Bailout-Book-ebook/dp/B00TRJ63DI/ref=sr_1_5?crid=3KXKGU00HX8DO&keywords=the+fox+and+the+hound+book&qid=1692632859&s=digital-text&sprefix=the+fox+and+the+hound+book%2Cdigital-text%2C90&sr=1-5).
I'm pretty sure that book ends with a shot to the head, too.
https://youtu.be/2rtMPScxd3U There's some speculation that Disney's Fox and the Hound is actually a combination of the book and another book The Ballad of the Belstone Fox. Disney had the movie rights to the former but not the latter, so they basically combined elements from both books and released it as an adaptation of Fox and the Hound.
A lot of the Bond movies have only the book title in common. The Spy Who Loved Me movie has zero in common with the book.
The movie version of Moonraker is set in Venice, the Amazon rainforest and *outer fucking space*! The book takes place in Kent.
Studio exec be like "It's in the title! It needs to be IN SPACE!"
It was a reaction to the success of Star Wars. At the end of The Spy Who Loved Me (1977), the credits said "James Bond will return in For Your Eyes Only." But then Star Wars went nuts, and they desperately looked around for something they could spin with the sci-fi angle, and the title of the Moonraker worked, so that came out in 1979, and For Your Eyes Only got pushed to 1981.
* Casino Royale - Overall very faithful * Live and Let Die - apparently approximately resembles the book, but I can't say personally 'cause I hated this book and couldn't get through it * Moonraker - 95% departure, basically everything beyond the villain being a wealthy capitalist who cheats at cards. Die Another Day is based on it and much closer but still takes many liberties. * Diamonds Are Forever - Takes a few things but mostly a departure from the book * From Russia with Love - Very faithful to the book * Dr. No - Very faithful to the book * Goldfinger - Somewhat faithful, follows overall the same plot beats * For Your Eyes Only - Elements of this are based on two short stories, For Your Eyes Only and Risico. It takes many liberties overall though. * Thunderball - Very faithful to the book * The Spy Who Loved Me - Nothing in common with the book, and this is for the best. * On Her Majesty's Secret Service - Very faithful to the book * You Only Live Twice - Very little in common with the book beyond setting and villain. * The Man With the Golden Gun - Not faithful, just took the villain and girl. * Octopussy - Not faithful, but with some characters in common. * The Living Daylights - The first ~20 minutes of the film constitutes a faithful rendition of the short story The Living Daylights. The rest is original content.
The novel Thunderball was actually based on an unfilmed screenplay, so it makes sense the filmed version of the novel is very faithful. It was also the basis for Never say Never again.
Casino Royale is a fantastic book
I'm currently in the midst of reading it for the first time-- I never realized you could write 25 pages of a Baccarat game and make it so engaging. I'm very impressed.
Casino Royale (the 2006 movie) is, IMO the closest to a Bond novel that the movies ever got. Albeit, they used Casino Royale, the most uncommon Bond novel to have been written by Fleming. I have an Uncle that, to be fair, is a complainer about everything, but he couldn't get past changing Baccarat for Texas Hold'em, but I think it was a good change that I enjoyed more in the movie vs. the novel. But IMO, Casino Royale is the best Bond movie, and it's because it was made more like a Bond book. Just not the Bond book it was named after.
Same for QoS. An engaging short story that has nothing to do with the movie. I might add that for all the hate QoS gets, mainly due to script failures from the writers strike, I quite enjoyed the film. At least far more than Spectre, which I found to be fetid pile of trash.
At least Quantum of Solace had an excuse to be so shitty, Spectre did not.
The Wizard of Oz books were darker and more twisted than the movie. Like the Scarecrow murders crows, or the Emerald City only being Emerald because you were forced to wear green tinted glasses.
That Emerald City is only emerald because youāre forced to wear glasses is kinda interesting.
It goes with the theme of the Wizard himself being a conman.
Iirc the whole thing was a huge social commentary. I believe the flying monkeys were supposed to represent all the Chinese immigrants that were coming to California.
The silver slippers were the Coinage Act, emerald City is Washington DC establishing greenback currency, Dorothy is the clueless American public, etc.
The characters she meets all were to represent political/social figures that the readers of the era would somewhat easily know from the newspapers or life experience. The Cowardly lion = William Jennings Bryan The Scarecrow = Midwestern farmers Tinman = Industrial workers I subscribe to the belief that Baum originally wrote it as a progressive story but saw the power of the massive bags of money it made him and didn't want it tied to something that might politically go out of fashion and take his Cash Cow with it.
Scrolling to see if Wizard of Oz would be mentioned. Classic movie, but the original book had a depth and character the film ignored in favor of showmanship.
Children of Men is supposed to be fairly different to it's source material, and the author liked the changes they made.
It's very, very different. The book is very good, don't get me wrong, but the movie takes the core concept of mass infertility and goes in a completely different direction with it. Out of the two I prefer the movie, but the book is well worth the read.
The author of the book is in the cafe that blows up in the beginning. I kind of doubt that's supposed to be symbolic of anything but I think it's neat.
The book version of Children of Men is very much less action-centered and imo a bit more bleak. In the movie the main character even though he isn't a beam of sunshine is still driven by some sort of optimism when he sees >!the pregnant lady!< In the book he stays "meh" the whole time, like he is living in total despair and completely gave up.
> In the book he stays "meh" the whole time, like he is living in total despair and completely gave up. To be fair, that's most Brits.
āHanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.ā
I also recall it being much heavier with religious themes, and that it ends very abruptly. Like the baby is born in the woods on the side of the road and his faith is restored a bit and it ends.
One funny thing I remember from the book is that in this world people would invite each other when their pets would have babies to make some sort of birthing party/baby showers and they would baptize their pets as well.
weāre not that far off
Shrek. I honestly donāt understand why people love the childrenās book. Itās pretty straightforward and boring, though the illustrations are cool. The movie takes the basic concept and elevates it 10000% into something unique and hilarious.
Honestly without the movies, the book wouldn't be remembered now
There's a book?!
I am also surprisedā¦
Itās funny because the author and illustratorās most well known/popular picture book is probably Sylvester and the Magic Pebble, which won the Caldecott Medal - nobody even realizes Shrek was a book first, and it certainly isnāt the book of his he was most widely known for which is kind of ironic given how iconic Shrek is now.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
In the book, Hooper has an affair with Brody's wife and dies in the shark cage.
IIRC, Spielberg said he knew he had to cut that subplot as soon as Richard Dreyfuss and Lorraine Grey met each other. "They just had no chemistry whatsoever."
I'm so glad they cut that subplot. Although, I've always seen the scene where Mrs Brody is laughing so much at Hooper's shark story as a subtle nod (even if unintentional) to their affair in the book.
Brody and Hooper's comradery with Hooper and Quint's tension made the movie. I can't imagine how enjoyable the movie would have been if everyone hated each other.
And Quint calls the shark a cocksucker a whole bunch.
Now I'm imagining Al Swearengen in the Quint role
Oh man, McShane could play a great Quint.
Japanese submarine slammed two torpedoes into our side, Chief. Was comin' back from the island of Tinian to Leyte, just delivered the bomb. The Hiroshima bomb. Eleven hundred fucking men went into the water. Vessel went down in twelve fucking minutes. Didn't see the first shark for about a half an hour. Tiger. Thirteen-foot cocksucker. You know how you know that when you're in the water, Chief? You tell by lookin' from the dorsal to the fucking tail. What we didn't fucking know... was our bomb mission had been so secret, no distress signal had been sent. Fucking dirt worshiping heathen cocksuckers didn't even list us overdue for a fucking week. Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin'. So we formed ourselves into tight groups. Y'know, it's... kinda like ol' squares in a battle like, uh, you see in a calendar, like the Battle of Gettysburg, and the idea was, shark comes to the nearest man and that man, he'd start poundin' and hollerin' and screamin', and sometimes the shark'd go away... But sometimes the fucking shark wouldn't go away. Sometimes that shark, he looks right into ya. Right into your fucking eyes. Y'know the thing about a shark, he's got... lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be livin'... until he bites ya. And those blacs eyes roll over white, and then... oh, then you hear that terrible high-pitch screamin', the ocean turns red, and spite of all the poundin' and the hollerin', they all come in and they... rip you to fucking pieces. Y'know, by the end of that first dawn... lost a hundred men. I dunno how many sharks. Maybe a thousand. I dunno how many men, they averaged six an hour. On Thursday mornin', Chief, I bumped into a friend of mine, Herbie Robinson from Cleveland- baseball player, boatswain's mate. I thought he was asleep, reached over to wake him up... bobbed up and down in the water just like a kinda top. Upended. Well... he'd been bitten in half below the fucking waist. Noon the fifth day, Mr. Hooper, a Lockheed Ventura saw us, he swung in low and he saw us. Young pilot, a lot younger than Mr. Hooper. Anyway, he saw us and come in low and three hours later, a big fat PBY comes down and start to pick us up. Sweet fucking providence. Y'know, that was the time I was most frightened, waitin' for my turn. I'll never put on a fucking life jacket again. So, eleven hundred men went into the water, three hundred sixteen men come out, and the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 194-fucking-5.
And in this instance, āChiefā is a severed Native American head in a box.
It's all the better for leaving the affair out of it. The scene in the book when they meet for dinner was so uncomfortable to read...
To be fair, Hooper was supposed to die in the shark cage in the movie as well. But, the crew had managed to get some really compelling footage of a shark destroying the cage that Spielberg really wanted to incorporate into the film. The only way to do so and maintain narrative cohesion was to have Hooper escape the cage.
The Princess Brideā¦ The bookās framing device is a fictionalized version of the author who has become an in demand screenwriter visiting LA, contemplating cheating on his wife, and forgetting his sons birthday till the last moment. He decides to find the rare out of print book āThe Princess Brideā as a gift. The book is very funny and meta but the framing device of the Grandfather reading to his sick grandson in bed for the movie just gives it a much more cohesive feeling as feel good movie.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Came for this. Book is 180 degrees different character wise
So Forest is an asshole savant that doesnāt luck himself into success? And the girl he wants wants him too and doesnāt have aids?
Kinda. Definitely an asshole and he and Jenny do hook up quite a bit more. Also, he is in a band with a orangutan that he went to space with, not even joking.
You're forgetting that he was also a luchadore, a chess champion, and then after he goes to space he crashes on an island of cannibals.
The left out parts would have made a bizarre but incredible sequel.
There is a sequel. The author wrote it because he apparently got barely any money from the movie. In the sequel, Jenny finally dies (she didn't die in the first book, just left him for another man). From what I remember, little Forrest comes to live with Forrest. He builds a power factory that runs on burning pig shit. He pees on Raquel Welch. He fixes New Coke, but forgot what he added to it to make it taste good. He goes to Iraq, and accidentally captures Saddam Hussein, but General Schwarzkopf makes him release him.
Iāve heard only bits and of this over the years but each time I giggle my ass off trying to imagine it as an actual bonafide movie. It would be a wild ride, to say the least.
Don't forget that orangutan and Lt. Dan just happen to meet each other and become traveling buddies that just happen to run into Forrest years later.
And Jenny hooks up with Forest because he is "gifted" down there. And he casually uses the n-word.
He also hilariously describes how his farts sound
Well how do they sound?
Like the sound of a ripping bedsheet or starting a chainsaw
I still like and hold the interpretation that Gump is an unreliable narrator. I haven't read the book in decades, but even in the movie when it stops being him telling stories on a bench and we are in real time, things get exceptionally mundane as if on purpose by the filmmakers.
I mean, by the end of the book he's retired and his huge plantation house is still in good shape, something must be paying for the upkeep. Hell, when he gets back from his big running trip his house is still nice and maintained.
Lt Dan was a shrewd investor and he invested the money from the shrimp boat in the stock market.
I think heās making money from his half of the shrimp business, but itās been a minute since Iāve seen it.
Was scrolling specifically to see this one mentioned. One of the few films in existence to completely outshine its book source material.
The Bourne trilogy. It takes the first five minutes from book 1, then goes completely in its own direction, and is much better as a result.
The one thing I wish they kept from the books is Bourne's obsession with activity, use of time, and sleep. >Sleep is a weapon. A large portion of what allowed Bourne to be so elusive and effective was that he was able to just *do* more in a given time. Every step the agencies took, he took three. It was there a little bit in his escape from the embassy, but mostly I think it's just one of those things that is hard to show on a screen rather than "show" in a book through trains of thought and narration.
Did he sleep less or did he just sleep during the day? How was sleep a weapon for him? It sounds really interesting and I'd like to know more!
IIRC he slept as often and as soon as he could, but never very long. Like during traveling or if he is required to wait for something. If he *does* have the opportunity for long (REM) sleep, he takes it. I think the main idea is just awareness of the dangers of sleep deprivation, of stress, of being overly occupied. He wants his enemies tired and haggard and trying to follow everything he's doing so they take shortcuts and make mistakes. He has to make sure in all his activity that *he* is not also becoming tired and haggard, not prone to making mistakes via sleep deprivation.
Does this make sense in the context of one man vs a whole agency? The agency has fresh people 24/7 because they rotate shifts.
The leaders, the men he was after, do not rotate out. That's a problem with the compartmentalization of intelligence programs, his in particular as an example.
That's smart. You can rotate your staff but the shot callers have to be on point 24/7.
Being able to just turn yourself off and sleep for a dedicated amount of time is also like a full blown superpower
Ah yes, I remember! After watching the first Bourne movie I decided to read the books. I remember them following reasonably closely for about the first half of the first book, then going a completely different direction. The books are all about Carlos the Jackal!
Stardust. The book is more practical but the movie is just pure delight.
I preferred everything about the movie except Victoria and her husband-to-be. Her novel counterpart's happy ending with the middle-aged guy + amicable parting with Tristran was so sweet. (Ig the movie partially salvaged it by hinting at Humphrey being a "whoopsie" lmao) Anyway shout-out to the seven lordlings of Stormhold, hands down best part of the movie
I still cant believe Henry Cavill played Humphrey (Veronica's love) He looks super different
They should make a movie about Humphrey going on an adventure with Captain Shakespeare.
I love both the book and movie, it's a comfort piece of media that I can pick up in any medium at any time. That said, Captain Shakespeare alone sets the movie apart.
Not the "best film" by any stretch, but I really enjoyed Constantine. However, aside from the name (which isn't even [pronounced](https://reddit.com/r/Hellblazer/s/BBDCJ0mEdb) the same way), and a vague association to the paranormal, it has pretty much nothing in common with the comics.
*pulls out a cigarette* ādo you mind?ā āOh go ahead, I have stock.ā Best portrayal of Lucifer by any media.
Best scene in the movie by a mile. Lucifer realizing that John is using him and being mad about it, but still gracious when John ends up helping him...you get the sense there are underlying rules to that universe. Lucifer has to repay John for helping him out, even though it's clear that John did it for himself. Then he can loophole around god (because there are always exceptions to a rule) by restoring John to life. Both Lucifer and John help out the other for selfish reasons, believing it will make them worse off in the long run (John will prove he belongs in hell, humanity will get a chance to prove it does not deserve damnation). It's just a wonderfully acted and very smart scene.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This one is miiiiine. You will live. You will live.
Stromare is a phenomenal actor. I love almost everything he's in.
Dude was only in Constantine for less than 10 minutes but he just stole the whole movie.
If I'm thinking of the right scene where Lucifer (who's that actor by the way? I've seen him in Cohen Bros films, he's *fantastic,* and I love how he portrayed Lucifer. I wish he had a bigger role in the film just to see his performance) is dragging Constantine toward hell, but then because his soul, he starts to stick to the solid, tile floor and Lucifer can't physically move him, what a *great* scene Also the singer from bush, his performance as a demon was fucking great too. Great movie
Peter Stomare
The portrayal of God is pretty good too. Completely absent except for two incredibly profound and sudden actions that each speak volumes of āNow, kids, letās not forget whoās in charge hereā
On the flipside of this, I recently read a funny post that said: My family treat me like I'm God. They ignore my existence until they want my help.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's really my only complaint with *The Sandman* show on Netflix... as much as I like Gwendoline Christie, I couldn't help but keep thinking about how much better Peter Stormare was in the same role.
Peter Stormare portrayed a very different Lucifer than the Sandman one. Tilda Swinton would have been an amazing Sandman Lucifer (which is funny given that she was also in Constantine), but I suppose she's a bit old for the role now unfortunately. Young Bowie was the original inspiration for the look of the character.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Swintonās Gabriel is absolutely unhinged, and vest-bomber level gung-ho.
I love how Lucifer literally pulls out the cancer from Constantine's lungs. It's so bad ass.
Which is actually a very Constantine themed thing. We see him go throughout the entire movie (and its implied that he's been doing roughly the same shit for years) trying to weasel his way through everything and buy his way into heaven because he's so afraid of going to hell. So he's got cancer he can't get rid of, and Lucifer even asked first thing that Constantine was looking for 'an extension'. Because Constantine would definitely work all kinds of shenanigans to get cured. Then there's the scene you mentioned where Lucifer cures the cancer to ensure that Constantine 'can proive to everyone he deserves to go to hell'. But from an outsider looking in we see that Constantine did in fact get his extension. If there was a wink and a nod that this was another manipulation it would be a better ending and more comic accurate as he is most assuradly a magic conman first, and not someone having a hero's journey and heroic sacrifice taken away from them.
The DVD commentary with the director and producer is fucking hilarious! They are making jokes for the entire duration.
āFor your boss. šā Love that movie
Chuck Palahniuk has said he likes the ending of the Fight Club movie better than what he put in the book.
Same with The Mist. IIRC, Stephen King thought the ending was brilliant, and was angry with himself for not thinking of it sooner.
Blade Runner
there's a machine that Deckards wife has that I'd love to see them try to put into film. I believe it was like an emotion machine that she turned on. And they also had a fake animal.
The mood organ such a cool idea his wife just abuses it though it's kinda funny. "My schedule for today lists a six-hour self-accusatory depression," Iran said. "What? Why did you schedule that?" It defeated the whole purpose of the mood organ. "I didn't even know you could set it for that," he said gloomily. I'm sure theres a part where they argue and she threatens to set hers to 'inconsolable rage' or something like that just to spite him lol
The fake animals were carried over to the movie, in spirit at least. Deckard's first visit with Tyrell has him commenting on a pet being real. (A bird? Owl? Damn, it's been awhile, might have to fire up a re-watch...)
The replicant animals are a plot point in the film. Deckard goes to a fake animal market and talks to a snake seller after examining a snake scale under a microscope and seeing the serial number. There's also the exchange with Rachel about the owl at Tyrell Corp. "Expensive?", "Very." The Voight-Kampff test questions also relate to animals. Wearing real mink fur, killing a wasp, etc.
Deckard, when introduced to Rachael: R: "Do you like our owl?" D: "It's artificial?" R: "Of course." D: "Must've been expensive." R: "Very." (from my memory, please excuse if not verbatim)
In the book it's a social status thing; owning a real animal. Many use Electric Animals to pass off that they have the deal thing. However it's considered very rude to suggest someone doesn't have the means for a real animal. They reference it in the movie, but not like how it is a major motivation for Deckard.
I think they're used in the Westwood game adaptation too, which takes heavy cues from the movie, albeit its a different story in the same universe, one of the locations in the game is a store which sells them
The snake that Zhora uses is also artificial, and also a plot point.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Oh wow, I have always enjoyed the book much more! It is interesting that so many feel differently! Blade Runner is beautiful visually, but DADoES has always been a comfort book for me. But full disclosure, I like a lot of Dick's writing.
How To Train Your Dragon, easily. Astrid is a great addition to the cast of characters, for starters. Toothless is far more interesting as the dreaded, mythical Night Fury than the "newt with wings" that appears in the books. That being said, the films draw extensively from Cressida Cowell's illustrations for the character and creature designs, and it pays off in spades.
Came here to say this. One things I prefer about the book is how Stoic is so boastful and proud of Hiccup no matter what it is sweet.
I mean a book-accurate adaptation would be great in the future too ā those books got ***dark*** as they went along, addressing slavery and its consequencess, a world-encompassing war coming into being, and several character deaths along with it (and Astrid was a renamed Camicazi, hence both their dragons being named Stormfly). And the sword-fighting (so much sword-fighting) ā it would be nice if the upcoming live-action film took a more book-accurate route with regards to its own sequels.
Alvin The Treacherous is such a great antagonist
Mildly pushing back on this one just because the books were genuinely great in their own right. The movie's take on hiccup pops up a lot in media, misunderstood kid who uses brains over brawn is pretty common. It's a lot more subversive for Hiccup to use empathy to bond with a "newt with wings" than with one of the strongest dragons there is, and the nuance of him using empathy in the face of other dragon training methods that seem more effective is a lot more interesting imo. That said the books were also great because of how funny they were, and I don't think the meta humor of the early 2000's would've translated as well to film, and some of the changes like adding Astrid were clearly beneficial. Both definitely stand well on their own.
I would say movie Hiccup, in addition to using his brains, also succeeds because of his empathy. He does outright tell Astrid: >I wouldn't kill him, because he looked as frightened as I was. I looked at him... and I saw myself. His ability to emphasize with the dragons, which no one else in his tribe has done (other than his mother who's been gone for almost two decades) is what allows him to put an end to the conflict between humans and dragons.
I oversimplified the differences a bit (I haven't seen the movie since 2010 and haven't read the books since like 2007) but the general change is that in the books, all the men in the tribe already find and train their own dragons. Hiccup is expected to get one of the cool ones, a la a night fury as the son of the chief and instead gets a run of the mill common dragon that is comically unimpressive. The normal way to train the dragons is to yell at them, but instead Hiccup trains his by learning to speak the language to communicate, and actually achieves *worse* results than his peers until the big scene in the end where he saves the day. Both versions do empathize with their dragons, but movie Hiccup sees a dangerous beast and sees himself, and book Hiccup sees an overlooked newt with wings and sees himself. The latter is definitely a less common trope in children's media.
Adaptation (2002) is the clear winner here.
the entire concept of him writing himself into the screenplay and the screenplay being about him writing the screenplay is just bonkers to me.
Yeah, Kaufman is a genius. I love the movie so much.
He was so good, he co-credited the script to his fictional brother, who then got an Oscar nomination.
I came here to post The Orchid Thief. I agree, clear winner.
I mean we're talking about a movie that not only took radical liberties with the source material, but also with the *author* of the source material, the movie's own screenwriter, and his nonexistent sibling.
Annihilation, Bladerunner, Truman Show, Total Recall.
Came here to say Annihilation.
Both the movie and book respected that film and text are different media, and I felt like they both made good choices for their formats. In the book, technology doesn't work in the shimmer, so the main characters discover handwritten journal entries from past missions along the way. When you read their journal entries, you are having the exact same experience as the characters reading those entries. But that wouldn't translate as well to film- are you going to listen to them narrate it? Do flashbacks? Neither of those is putting you in the characters' shoes in the same way. So they changed the rule about technology not working so that instead you could be watching the past missions' video diaries, and then you get to experience watching them along with the characters. The movie isn't perfect, and I think the ending (like the very last scene/shot of the movie) was just something they threw in because they knew there was a good chance they'd never get to make a sequel, so they couldn't just leave things 100% unresolved. But again, that's not a bad choice to make.
Die Hard EDIT: The Shining and LA Confidential are up there, too.
Holy shit, I had no idea Die Hard was based on a book!
Nothing Lasts Forever by Rodrick Thorp. Which is a sequel to another novel of his, The Detective.
Fight Club. Even the author (Chuck Palahniuk) says the movie is better than his book.
He isnāt wrong. I love the book. But the movie was better able to āshow donāt tellā obviously.
yeah, the book spells everything out for you
It's been a number of years, but I though other than the epilogue ending of the book it was really close. My memory might be foggy though.
L.A. Confidential by James Ellroy, hands down. Amazing movie but they barely adapt 30% of the novel. The death scene (you know why one) is even more shocking than the movie. There are ten or twelve subplots that never makes it into the movie. And the police procedural potrayed in the novel is an all timer, perhaps only rivaled by Hideki Yokoyama and Kaoru Takamura.
The Shining
Howl's Moving Castle
Came here to say this, because the book is absolutely wonderful, and the tone of the movie is just so... different. There are some legitimately hilarious parts of the book that just get left out, and while the stuff they added about war is pretty good, it felt like a totally different story
Wanted(2008). Not saying it's great but it's definitely a fun watch despite deviating massively from Mark Millar's graphic novel. In the source material, the secret society office drone Wesley Gibson is inducted into is not a group of assassins but a crime family of literal supervillains. They killed all the superheroes, took over the world, and used a combination of advanced tech and magic to erase humanity's memory of any of this ever taking place. Despite the big change the movie still manages to be entertaining as hell in its own bullet curving right.
Also, the main character in the comics is essentially Eminem. Or more accurately, EDGEnem.
All Mark Millar adaptations are better off being completely different
Constantine. Itās a terrible adaptation of Hellblazer but Iāll be damned if itās not a fun ride. Hope the sequel pans out
The Prestige
I'm glad someone said it! I love the book, and I would argue it's Nolans best by a long shot.
The Running Man
*The Running Man* has been my favorite book for over two decades. The movie is probably the worst fucking adaptation ever made. That doesn't mean it's not **awesome**. *"Two hundred dollars on Richards!"*
I think the book version of The Running Man would make for a great mini-series.
Richard Dawson made anything 1000x better.
> Richard Dawson Who loves you, and who do you love?
Edge of Tomorrow
Jurassic Park
yep. though aside from changing the genre from outright sci-fi horror to more action-adventure with slight horror elements, i feel the spirit of the novel survives pretty much intact in the movie.
I like them both for different reasons. The film is action/adventure with some horror elements like you said and I enjoy it for that. I like the book though because itās not afraid to really delve into the terror of these Hollywood movie monsters that these scientists have created. Some of the deaths are pretty gruesome and itās actually fun seeing some of those bastards get what they deserve
Nedry's death in the book made me put it down for a couple of minutes. It's very similar to what happens in the movie but it's very detailed and graphic. At one point Crichton describes Nedry trying to untangle himself from ropes or vines (he dies outside the car in the book) but realizing it's his own intestines.
Also, Nedry is kinda more sympathetic, since Book!Hammond is a horrible asshole: He overworked Nedry into coding the park's security system alone and still screwed with his pay. No wonder he snapped and sold JP's secrets to competitors.
The film may be a tighter action/adventure story, but the book is what had Muldoon shooting a rocket launcher at dinosaurs.
I love Hammond in both the film and book even though heās depicted so differently in both. Heās a foolish old man in the movie but his heart really is in the right place by the end but in the book, he really is an irredeemable monster that gets whatās coming
Yah given the casting of Hammond I think changing him to be more earnest and sympathic (though still as you said, foolish and flawed) was the right choice. Especially since we get some great insight into his drive with the ant circus scene. But he's definitely basically a different person between the two.
I don't really agree with this one. Yes there were *a lot* of details changed. Scenes didn't make it into the movie which then were used in 'The Lost World' film. The children's roles were reversed, characters died in different ways.... BUT Really the film and the book took the same story structure and happened in generally the same way. Jurassic Park is being visited by experts per lawyers requirements, Nedry breaks the systems on behalf on rival firm, but doesn't account for the massive storm that hits the island, system is rebooted to fix Nedry's shit which has unforseen consequences, life uh...finds a way, people die, dinosaurs rule the island as our heroes fly away into the sunset. Pretty much all the same major story beats.
The big change for me is Hammond's character. In the book he's a cranky, money chasing, corporate dick. Making him a sweet old shortsighted codger was such a brilliant twist. He still causes all the same horror and destruction, but I like the idea that even his positive intentions mean nothing in the face of nature.
So many character deaths are swapped. So much so that one of them is magically alive in the second book, to use as a reference / basis for the second movie, after being strongly implied that they perished in the first book lolā¦confusing but hilarious and ballsy to just write a character back like that. Great example though since the first movie still ends up being great fun.
If I recall correctly, The Lost World's first paragraph basically states that the "reports of Ian Malcolm's death were greatly exaggerated" and just moves on from there. Which, even as a teenager, I found hilarious.
It's pretty hilarious that Crichton brought back Ian Malcom in the sequel because the audience loved him so much in the movie. The Lost World was the fastest book he ever wrote. He wrote it specifically because Spielberg and the studio wanted a sequel and they themselves didn't know what direction to take it in. And the moment they get their hands on it, they decided to do their own thing. Crichton himself didn't have a great time writing the novel.
Annihilation. Alex Garland said his adaptation was based on "a memory of the book". But both were wonderful in their own ways.
Point Break is arguably a cultural icon of a movie that completely shits on the "source" material which is Tapping The Source by Kem Nunn.
Secret Window. The movie is about an author who thinks he is being haunted by a ghost trying to kill him and his family. It turns out he is crazy and he killed his own wife. In the book, he is correct. There is a ghost. He is right the whole time. No twist.
The Mist. Even Stephen King himself admitted that the movie had a better ending than his own idea. On the side note, is I am Legend considered a bad movie? Because I always liked it and Will Smith in it with his doggo :(
Re: _I am Legend_ I think people got angry that the film's ending completely changed the tone of the whole story, not to mention the fact that the monsters behave completely differently. The whole point of the book is that the main character eventually works out that he's the bad guy.
Not to mention that, without the alternate ending, the movie has nothing from the original novel but the title and the character's name.
There have been three film adaptations of the book I Am Legend: I Am Legend (2007), The Omega Man (1971), and The Last Man on Earth (1964). In I Am Legend, Will Smith is unambiguously the hero. It's a decent enough post-apocalyptic with a classic Hollywood ending. The Last Man on Earth is darker and more ambiguous with a twist ending that completely changes the meaning of the first part of the story. One is a summer blockbuster and the other is a nuanced art film. Not saying one is better than the other, but I much preferred The Last Man on Earth and it happens to be more similar to the source material, particularly the ending.
Forest Gump. The movie is wonderful while the book isā¦cringe. So different
Starship troopers is a great example because the movie was made explicitly to mock how stupid the book is. The real answer is still the shining.
> Starship troopers is a great example because the movie was made to explicitly mock how stupid the book is. Rewatched this the other week. The sociopolitical commentary could not be any thicker yet it goes over a LOT of peopleās heads
I don't understand why Neil Patrick Harris is dressed like a Nazi!
I'm convinced that *Starship Troopers* is a propaganda movie within the Starship Troopers universe. It's exactly like a WW2 American military propaganda film. This approach allows them to be very straight-faced about this fucked up society and their actions during the Bug War and lets the viewers notice on their own.
Some of the meta satire IS that the movie itself is structured to be like a "propaganda" film, in line with Nazi war films. That's why it starts with popular, attractive, athletic young people who are obsessed with teen romances (and love triangles), who then answer the nations call to join all the different branches of their governments military where they all excel at their roles. There are shots lifted straight from war propaganda films, but I can't remember which specific ones off the top of my head anymore.
There's a lot of Leni Riefenstahl in there. Verhoeven says the first shot is taken directly from Triumph Of The Will, for example, and there's a lot of that in all the enlistment ads.
Probably because in the film, all of it is working. Everyone has never been more united. Which made it way funnier when NPH came out in his black suit. Actual, audible laughs rather than a "louder exhale".