Changes made in Adaptations

[Binker]

Ever since the first book was adapted in other media; adaptations offered changes to a story's narrative, concept, and even characters when that next step is amde. Reasons for that include complexities being simplified; maybe some things from original can't be in reality from the actors/actresses playing the characters; new ideas offered to old ideas and concepts, etc. A wide range of examples can be made; Superman, from the comics to radio, television to film and animated, and back to the comics again. Star Trek; from television of one generation, to film, to later shows of other generations, and a film for the current generation, etc.

But the reason why I'm making this thread is because of this: some changes are good, but then some are bad, and sometimes those changes are bad because either they are bad, or they are called bad just because the fans/audiences just don't want to accept those said changes. I know I've used superhero films for comparsions, but to just add two more: Batman fans hated Keaton cast as Batman until the film was released, and there are people who still see him as THE Batman. And speaking of Batman; Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy has been widely acclaim, but there have been fans who dislike the grounded realism, because that would mean certain elements such as action sequences, for example, will not be as exciting as they are from the source material. But are those actual changes being bad, or is that just unacceptable changes because they are changes? See what I mean.

Now, your turn. What adaptations of any genre that you've seen had changes that you like, and what changes did you not like? And also, what changes from the source material can you accept in an adaptation?

 

[jacobed]

The ending to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I can not express how much I hated the incredibly weak final battle between Harry and Voldemort. What they did in the movie was soo much better.

 

[jacobed]

The ending to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I can not express how much I hated the incredibly weak final battle between Harry and Voldemort in the book. What they did in the movie was soo much better.

 

[redhawk23]

Project Mayhem's grand scheme is so much better in the film of Fight Club. In the movie they blow up the headquarters of the major credit companies so that "everyone goes back to zero". In the book they blow up one building at the base to make it fall down on top of a history museum.

 

[redhawk23]

The ending to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I can not express how much I hated the incredibly weak final battle between Harry and Voldemort in the book. What they did in the movie was soo much better.

In the movie though, no one else is watching and then afterwards people are just kind of chilling in the great hall. While I am glad it wasn't just a monologue and then a death there was something to be said for Voldemort being somewhat humiliated in the end, Harry explaining to him exactly how and why he failed, both in his plans and as a person in general.


While changes from the source are usually ok, and often necessary, I don't like changes where it completely misses the thematic point of the story or character's actions, or when things are changed to the degree that its basically a completely separate thing that happens to share a title.

Thats not to say that things that completely change the themes and the point can't be perfectly good or even great in their own rights, but just in terms of an adaptation, they fail, if they ever attempted in the first place.

It's widely recognized that by design Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" has fairly little to do with what Stephen King was going for.

 

[lililatigresse]

It's not really a change but I just love how Peter Jackson cut out Tom Bombadil from the Fellowship of the Ring. That's the best idea he had.

And I hate how he made Faramir kind of a stupid man.

 

[Binker]

I forgot to mention the X-Men films: those are completely different than their comic counterparts, and yet they're great. (Except for X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and don't judge me, but I won't place X3 there).

 

[Max J Power]

Ones I liked:

-Sideways. I liked the novel a lot, but the movie improved on it by replacing some of the funny side plots with more character-driven moments, ultimately making the movie have better character development.
-Casino Royale. The main positive change is that the book pretty much ended after Bond was saved from torture (except for an excessively long period of Bond and Vesper living it up at a hotel), and the movie added the more climactic chase scene. That sounds trite, but it was way better than the bore that was the ending of the book. I also liked that the card game was changed from baccarat to poker, because poker is more suspenseful and everyone already knows how to play it. No one needs to make a 140-minute movie longer by taking more time to explain baccarat to the audience.
-Kick-Ass. I preferred Big Daddy as a "real superhero" in the movie to the comic's take, where he was basically Kick-Ass as an adult. The real superhero/fake superhero dynamic was interesting; in the comic, the part where Big Daddy's real origin came to light came off like Millar's half-cocked attempt at deconstruction.
-Drive. The movie expanded the Driver's relationships with the supporting characters. The book mostly just used them to move the plot along.
-High Fidelity. The book and movie are very similar, and both are very good, but the movie made Rob a little more likable, which made some of the plot points toward the beginning a bit easier to swallow.

 

[DACrowe]

Changes I liked:

-Taking out Scarlett O'Hara's children by her first marriages in Gone with the Wind.

-The entire reworking of The Godfather's plot.

-"Rollo Tomosei" in LA Confidential.

-The happy ending in Breakfast at Tiffany's. One of the best in Hollywood history and a nice change from a forgettable novella.

-Taking out the mob, Hooper sleeping with Brody's wife, Hooper's death and how the shark died in Jaws.

-James Whale's complete reinvention of Frankenstein in his two films.

-Kick-Ass being a post-modern celebration/entertainment/satire of its genre instead of the one-note joke it is in the book.

-I actually prefer the idea of Eddie Brock being Peter's dopplenganger better than his "character" in 616. Sadly, the execution is just as weak as in the comics.

There are more.