Most Inaccurate Adaptations

[chaseter]

Well then every movie in here has the basic plot of their source material but different details. Changing characters, changing sub plots, changing major action sequences...all of those are details.

 

[SuperFerret]

Yep.

 

[chaseter]

So there are no inaccurate adaptations?

 

[SuperFerret]

Well, no. There are ones who deviate from the basic plot and themes of the original work, such as Catwoman.

 

[chaseter]

Well a woman is killed to be revived by cats and then uses her newly found powers to take revenge on the people that killed her. Batman Returns did the same thing.

 

[SuperFerret]

So as an adaption of the Batman Returns Catwoman, it's fine. But if you've seen Multiplicity (another Keaton flick), you know what clones of clones are like.

 

[corby]

Eragon was a pretty bad adaptation.

 

[echostation]

X-men 3 was a pretty bad adaptation of all that is pretty much X-men.

The Smurf I can already tell you is a **** adaptation of the cartoon... Ok Who smurfed? Where the smurf are we? I just smurfed in my mouth.

These are the kinds of dialogues this piece of **** film has in its trailer alone. Can someone just please eliminate Raja Gosnell from ever directing a film again. Just get him to be some technical coordinator or something, but this guy on the level of Uwe Boll bad.

 

[Asr]

War of the Worlds - not a bad film, but as an adaptation, it is awful.

Which movie, or do you mean both? (1953 & 2005)

I'd like to see a movie that actually properly adapts the book's Victorian England setting. Man that'd be sweet.

 

[Speedball]

Eragon was a pretty bad adaptation.

Seriously!
How hard is it to translate Star Wars in a fantasy setting to the big screen?!

 

[flickchick85]

I'd like to see a movie that actually properly adapts the book's Victorian England setting. Man that'd be sweet.

If Cowboys & Aliens does well, I'd count on it. Or at least, something like it if it's "too soon" for another WotW remake. With C&A, Battle:LA, I Am Number Four, Paul, Mars Needs Moms, and Super 8 (probably?), it would seem that aliens are trying desperately to make a Hollywood comeback like it's 1996 again. So far, yeah, they're failing. But all it takes is for one of these to be a runaway hit to inspire several coat-tail-ers. If that runaway hit ends up being the one with "aliens in a historical setting," and with the current popularity of Sherlock Holmes? Yeah, you can bet someone's gonna pitch "aliens in Victorian England."

 

[Ipodman]

Eragon was a pretty bad adaptation.

Even if it was a bad adaptation, I actually liked that movie. Dragons man.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

X-men 3 was a pretty bad adaptation of all that is pretty much X-men.

I read someone saying over on the X boards that they thought , taken as an adaptation of the 90s cartoon show, XMTLS was pretty good that way. I have to agree, that is exactly what it is like.
The 90s cartoon show was a pretty good, but a little dumbed down, and kiddified, adaptation of the Clremont/Byrne run, so you could say the first two films were direct adaptations of that source material, whereas the Last Stand was the cartoon version, so it got some things right, but other things were not so intelligently done as the original works.

The Smurf I can already tell you is a **** adaptation of the cartoon... Ok Who smurfed? Where the smurf are we? I just smurfed in my mouth.

These are the kinds of dialogues this piece of **** film has in its trailer alone. Can someone just please eliminate Raja Gosnell from ever directing a film again. Just get him to be some technical coordinator or something, but this guy on the level of Uwe Boll bad.

I have never seen a Uwe Boll film, but the two Scooby Doo movies are not badly made in a technical sense at all. Velma, Scooby and Shaggy especially(he is a revelation) are very well done, but the movies are full of dumb jokes and could have been a lot better(if they stuck to the cool, dark, haunted house vibe of the original pre-Scrappy toons, rather than going for a bright technicolour yawn all the colours of the rainbow and then some pallette). But as kids films they were not that bad.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

War of the Worlds - not a bad film, but as an adaptation, it is awful.

The 1953 version? Yeah, not a fan of it at all. I'll say it.

The 2005 version was wayyy more accurate. The better movie too.

The Invasion (vs. The Invasion of The Body Snatchers)...only as the horror aspect. they ignored the actual scaryness of it with more of an adventure thriller sci-fi feel..

The Invasion was such a terrible movie.

Children of Men greatly deviates from the novel, but the film is superior to the book at the end of the day.

There's a book?

The intro. The first 5 or 6 chapters are completely different than the movie.
There is a juvenile rex that kills Ed

Dr. Harding is not in the movie

The Raptors play a lot bigger role and kill so many other people like Wu.

Dodgson and Biosyn play a lot bigger role than just a one scene meeting with Nedry.

The possibility of reproduction is discovered early on.

Gennaro isn't a loser lawyer that gets eaten on the toilet.

Raft and the river T-Rex chase

The aviary and the pteradons

The Rex chases the jeep with Muldoon and Gennaro in it.

The underground utility tunnels with the golf cart and the raptor

Hammond dies.

That is all I can remember for now. The book is so different than the movie. I love the movie and the book but damn what a loose adaptation.

The beginning of Jurassic Park has a few nods to the book, in both beginnings, a raptor attacks and kills a worker. What sucks is it's not as good as it is in the book.

The baby Rex is just awesome. Doesn't all that happen as Muldoon and Malcolm watch?

Dr. Harding not being in the movie is a big "eh" for me.

The raptors play a bigger role in the movie than the T. Rex, that's for sure. But the T. Rex sells better than the raptors. Or, at least they thought it would.

The Biosyn subplot would have cramed the movie too much.

The raft chase, to me, was where I stopped caring about the T. Rex in the book. It was as if it followed them everywhere. Which got annoying. I'm glad they actually cut down the Rex attacks in the book.

The aviary is in Jurassic Park 3, which is just for the best. Too much happened in the book, to be honest.

The tunnel system not being in the movie made me mad. Them not bombing the island made me mad. Muldoon dying WHEN HE CLEARLY LIVED pissed me off. Same for Hammond living instead of dying.

Oh and, it took them almost too long (the very ending of The Lost World) to imply that dinosaurs naturally got off the island. I mean, sure it would have been on ships like the T. Rex going to San Francisco, but the dinosaurs wondered onto the ships on there. I forgot if it was raptors that got onto the mainland or not too.

 

[Donnie Darko]

I'm surprised no one has said anything about Disney movies. I love them all, but whenever they take a fairytale or other story, they really do change a whole lot to make it more upbeat and family-friendly by today's standards.

 

[Milu]

Steve Matin's Cheaper by the Dozen. One of the only links to the source material is the whole twelve children thing.

 

[Rowsdower!]

X-men 3 was a pretty bad adaptation of all that is pretty much X-men.

The Smurf I can already tell you is a **** adaptation of the cartoon... Ok Who smurfed? Where the smurf are we? I just smurfed in my mouth.

These are the kinds of dialogues this piece of **** film has in its trailer alone. Can someone just please eliminate Raja Gosnell from ever directing a film again. Just get him to be some technical coordinator or something, but this guy on the level of Uwe Boll bad.

Just looked up his filmography. WOW. That guy has directed some utter dogsh**.

My interest in the Smurfs movie has somehow been lowered. I didn't think it was possible to be any lower than it already was after seeing that horrid trailer, but now I know that it's being directed by the guy who did Beverly Hills Chihuahua, the Scooby *****e films, Big Momma's House and the THIRD Home Alone movie, I can safely say that The Smurfs might be the worst adaptation of all time and probably the worst film of the century.

I feel like someone just took a smurf in my face.

 

[mongoose-mania]

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events was a pretty poor adaptation. I don't recall James and the Giant Peach being much better, either.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Seriously!
How hard is it to translate Star Wars in a fantasy setting to the big screen?!

Considering there are very few movies that have been creatively successful in that regard, sci-fi, fantasy or otherwise, I imagine it is extremely hard, and even a very talented individual would have to push themselves to get it done right. And the truth is, there are very few filmakers as good as Peter Jackson, George Lucas(back in 70-77 anyway, the experience of making SW burnt him out), or Speilberg.
I suppose the Harry Potters are alright, but they are mostly set in the school grounds with a lot of talk, so they don't have the strain that one of those types of SW films would normally have.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

GI Joe. They deliberately took out the "real American hero" stuff just so they could sell it to overseas markets. Bad move.

again a blinkered view. to me and loads of other fans action force (gi joe) was never the real American hero but always a global task force. so to you it was unfaithful to me it took a good element from an alternate version of the show

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Just looked up his filmography. WOW. That guy has directed some utter dogsh**.

[...] I didn't think it was possible to be any lower than it already was after seeing that horrid trailer, but now I know that it's being directed by the guy who did Beverly Hills Chihuahua, the Scooby *****e films, Big Momma's House and the THIRD Home Alone movie, I can safely say that The Smurfs might be the worst adaptation of all time and probably the worst film of the century.

I feel like someone just took a smurf in my face.

I am not the type of person who would watch HAIII, or Big Momma's house under any conditions, even if i was Clockwork Oranged up, i have trained my eyeballs to 360 for movies like that, but under certain 'conditions' I would definitely watch a movie called Beverly Hills Chiuanana.
But, his SD films are not shoddily made on a technical level like Uwe Boll's movies are apparently.

My interest in the Smurfs movie has somehow been lowered.

C'mon, we have all been waiting on this Smurfs movie since back in the early 80s, I mean, holy mackeral, we are finally getting the Smurfs! on the big screen!

lol, honestly, I had no idea anyone was looking forward to this movie at all. Do kids these days even know who the Smurfs are? I don't know, thinking about it, it could be utter genius, esp if they are interacting with our world somehow, like Planet of the Apes III. Maybe like Micheal Bay with Transformers, this guy has found the perfect vehicle to channel all of his Scooby-Chinuanana mojo into, and this is going to be a classic.
They should definietly bring out some Gargamel mouth wash as a tie in.

 

[Donnie Darko]

Hank Azaria as Gargamel does have me curious, though...

 

[Lord]

I have something to beat catwomans inaccuricy.
Uwe Boll movies based on video games:
In the name of the king had nothing to do with the games, absolutelly nothing.
Alone in the Dark should have been set in the 19th century, that would have been cooler and the only thing in comon with the game was the main character, now what i have that nobody can beat in alone in the dark is that it was based on horror games but uwe boll changed the original screenplay BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THAT IT DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH CAR CHASES.

 

[Rez]

You need to re-read the book. Sure there is a lot of stuff in the movie from the book but they left out a **** ton.

Here look, I can name like 10 things just off the top of my head that the movie differs from:

The intro. The first 5 or 6 chapters are completely different than the movie.
There is a juvenile rex that kills Ed
Dr. Harding is not in the movie
The Raptors play a lot bigger role and kill so many other people like Wu.
Dodgson and Biosyn play a lot bigger role than just a one scene meeting with Nedry.
The possibility of reproduction is discovered early on.
Gennaro isn't a loser lawyer that gets eaten on the toilet.
Raft and the river T-Rex chase
The aviary and the pteradons
The Rex chases the jeep with Muldoon and Gennaro in it
The underground utility tunnels with the golf cart and the raptor
Hammond dies

That is all I can remember for now. The book is so different than the movie. I love the movie and the book but damn what a loose adaptation.

You need to reread my post. I even said that they left out a lot and that the movie would need to be 5 hours to have everything in the book. But what is IN the movie is essentially all from the book. Also, Harding is in the movie, but only for one scene, like Wu.
Like someone else said, you're complaining about details. So some of the supporting characters who live die and some of those who die live. So what? The characters who were cut down or not in the movie at all don't die because no one would care. Maybe it was for budget reasons, maybe it was to amp up the isolation factor- they have all the faceless scientists leave, so no, we don't get a Wu death, or random guys next to the door getting jumped on by raptors.
Just because a movie doesn't have scenes does not make it a bad adaptation. You have to go on what is ONSCREEN. And virtually everything on screen is right out of the book, just streamlined.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Ron Howard's adaptation of The Dark Tower.