Completely Unneeded Changes from a Book to a Movie

[Domenic]

Yes, yes, I'm aware that things usually have to be simplified for the audience, but I think one of the worst movie adaptions of a book was The Outsiders. They changed the East and West side to North and South - Unneeded, and they changed Ponyboy's parents from being killed to being run over by a train--?

This is just the first and mind-numbing of examples that I could think of. Don't you hate it when things are completely and unneededly changed when the books are adapted into a movie?  

[Yavie Feels Pretty]

I couldn't stand the way they wrote poor Gimli in the second and third Lord of the Rings movies. They turned the poor dwarf into battleaxe-weilding comic relief. In the book, he was funny as well, but in a more intelligent, sarcastic way.

It's very difficult to put a book into a movie, I suppose. Perhaps it just shouldn't be attempted, in some cases.

 

[Mephiisto]

Yes, i agree with both of your statements. I also think that the Harry Potter series was a lot better as a book series, rather than a movie series.  

[lady_ruler_of_the_zombies]

I agree with all of you, just look at Eragon. The books were great and the movie was...I don't even know what it was! Then like PrivateJenkins said, Harry Potter was way better as a book series. I can't even fathom how they're going to do the next movie when they removed Winky from it.  

[KadajNu]

A good movie can never beat a good book. The Lord of the Rings is a good example. The books were wonderful. I read them all the time. But the movies... ugh. They were well done, and they had some darn good CGI, but they would have been better if they had been like the books. I got really mad while watching the third one. Denethor made me so mad in the move. He was such a cool guy in the books. I liked him! But they just made him an old, slobbering, dumb guy. It made me so mad.  

[Masamune no Hi]

And where was Tom Bombadil? The Barrow Wights? The Scouring of the Shire? I'm sure they need to cut things to shorten the length, but why did they get rid of so much.  

[red_moon_wolfess]

I agree, Harry potter was slaughtered as a movie. Lord of the rings however was supriseingly accurate; all that could be included was, rember the movie was at least 2 hours long so cut them some slack with Tom Bombadil and all! Besides, that leaves us book-lovers with something to brag about in Lord of the rings trivia. 3nodding

However there is one particular book that has recently been ticking me off in theators....

Eragon

The first book was fair but the movie killed it. They changed so much about the book it may as well have been a whole seprate story. My main complaint being that we are two books into the series and hardly know anything about King Galbatorax asside from his name and the fact that he is a dragon rider; yet the first half hour into the movie we are walking through the guy's frikkin castle! WHAT THE HELL MAN?! scream  

[Belladonna 2086]

Oh, I agree! I was somewhat satisfied with the first Harry Potter movie, but when the rest came out, I was horrified. How could they cut out such important events? In the second movie, I was really looking forward to Nearly-Headless Nick's Deathday party....and it wasn't there. What the hell?? And then in the fourth movie...cutting out the Quidditch World Cup game like that? No Veela? No Winky? Showing ol' boy junior there in the beginning in Harry's vision/dream? NO. I, too, understand that certain things had to be cut to allow for time, but to rearrange the story like that? That was bogus.  

[red_moon_wolfess]

Belladonna 2086

Oh, I agree! I was somewhat satisfied with the first Harry Potter movie, but when the rest came out, I was horrified. How could they cut out such important events? In the second movie, I was really looking forward to Nearly-Headless Nick's Deathday party....and it wasn't there. What the hell?? And then in the fourth movie...cutting out the Quidditch World Cup game like that? No Veela? No Winky? Showing ol' boy junior there in the beginning in Harry's vision/dream? NO. I, too, understand that certain things had to be cut to allow for time, but to rearrange the story like that? That was bogus.

Personaly the third and fourth ones pissed me off like no other. The third book was my faveorate out of the whole series, and continues to be so I had high hopes for it as a movie....

silver buck becomes a white pulsateing sheild, dementors can now fly rather than float, wearwolves are not hairless last time I checked. scream

and in the fourth one, the only reson I even saw it was to watch Draco Malfoy bouncing around the dungen like a demented-farrot-pinball.... no... now he just floats up and down for a little wile. stare

quite frankly, I am hesitent on seeing the fifth one now. The only reson I want to see that one is to watch Fred and George turn the third floor corrador into a swamp then fly out like heros into the sunset on their brooms. Somehow I doubt thats going to happen  

[Marcello the painter]

You know a book is worth reading if you can find a bad movie imitation review. A few examples being The Outsiders, Eragon, and Harry Potter. All previously mentioned. I think the only good movie from book I've ever seen is The Chronicals of Narnia The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.  

[Apsalas]

What about "Hannibal" by Thomas Harris? The book and the movie endings were completely different. Personally, I don't even watch a book based movie without reading the book first.

Some people say it ruins the movie, but the movie ruins the book.  

[Saffyre Tempest]

I feel that way about a lot of book-based movies. Queen of the Damned and Les Miserables bug me the most. Les Miserables ended up being more of a love story than a story about Jean Valjean's struggles. Queen of the Damned... was mutilated, turned from a book that detailed the origin of Rice's vampires into a movie that let Stuart Townsend frolic around a stage as little more than an angsty pretty boy.  

[Lady Dionish]

I remember a few years back watching the movie Ella Enchanted. It was pretty good, so I decided to read the book. I loved it! A few months later my family and I decided to watch the movie together. I could not believe I liked the movie the first time around. It was awful! It was almost completely different from the book!  

[Zoe green eyes]

If I watch a book based movie that I have read the book to then I don't even compare the book to the movie because I know I will be dissapointed. Although If I watch the movie and haven't read the book then I don't even bother reading the book especially If I thought the movie was good in the first place. I just don't leave myself up to being dissapointed it is just fruitless. We can not change the movie industry so why bother.  

[Londo Mollari]

I think the problem with this is that people try to treat the book and the movie as the same entities, when they are not.

The book has one voice: the author's.

In the movie, the author's voice is the basis, but it is the director's story to tell, and they must tell it in a way that is emotionally resonant to them, as well as, in some cases, pleasing the people providing them the money to make it.

I agree there are some times when bizarre changes are made, and I don't doubt some of it is simply pandering or dumbing-down. The movie Eragon comes to mind on this one.

On the other hand, the changes made in The Lord of the Rings generally had reasoning behind them. Also, the arc of the story was essentially intact. Yes, certain events were cut - I particularly missed The Scouring of the Shire - but ultimately I think the movie still worked. The only change they made that I felt was contrary to Tolkien's intention was having Frodo push Gollum off the ledge, because that destroyed the point Tolkien was trying to make: That Bilbo's mercy was ultimately what saved the world. Still, most audiences want a hero, not an abstract moral construct like mercy, to save the day...oh well.

As far as Harry Potter goes, I thought some of the changes were ill-conceived when put in the context of the whole seven-year arc (the loss of the Marauder's Map history in particular). But to complain because favorite scenes were cut from the movie is silly. Yes, Draco bouncing around as a ferret is awesome, but it contributes nothing to the plot, other than showing that Moody is watching Harry's back - which they movie did in fact show in a shorter and more succinct form.