I'm reading the Running Man right now and it started to get me thinking, where's the line on what makes a movie a book adaptation. I'm about halfway through the Running Man right now and it is vastly different from the movie, I heard the book was different, but I didn't realize how different. It so far off, I really don't understand how the movie could be considered an adaptation and it got me thinking about other book to films like this. The Jason Bourne Movies, the first had a little connection to the book, but the second doesn't even try to keep any sembelence of the book's plot. Payback, a movie that takes the basic plot and throws out everything else. Don't get me wrong, The Bourne movies are a lot of fun, The Running Man is a great chessy '80s action flick and Payback is one of my favorite movies. However, I just wonder how far you push the envelope before you can no longer call the movie an adaptation of the book. I really don't think Payback, The Running Man or The Bourne Supremacy should be able to call themselves adapations. There are more I'm sure (The Lost World springs to mind), but these are the three that were on top of my head.