I hate it when they say they are making a film of a book but then just use the title and perhaps some names and ideas. I've been seeing some previews of coming attractions for films that are making me long for exceptions to the first amendment, they are screaming for prior restraint. Around the World in Eighty Days by Jules Verne was one of my favorite books as a kid. The 1956 film version was true to the spirit of the book and won the Best Picture Oscar. The current release seems to have no relationship to the book and is instead a vehical for Jackie Chan's site gags and stunts. Even worse is I Robot. Asimov intended his stories to be a rebuttal of the typical robot story of his day where they robots go out of control and become destructive. He felt that like anything else robots would have safety features to prevent that, specifically the Three Laws of Robotic:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

The story themselves were often logic problems working out the consequences of the laws in unusual circumstances. The heroes were the technical people at U.S. Robots and Mechanical men, especially Susan Calvin. In the film it appears that the hero will be a dectective who is out to show how the robots are destructive. Asimov referred to such stories of killer robots as falling victim to the Frankenstein Complex. The stories are the philosophical antithesis of the author's views. I don't hold the Garfield canon sacred but even that film goes against the source material. The essense of Garfield's character is laziness. He does not get involved in energetic adventures. In all these cases it seems to me that the filmakers want to make a film then appropriate the title of a different story to get people to see it knowing that they wouldn't want to see the film they are actually making. They cynically know that they will be attracting patrons that will not enjoy the film. So what are adaptations that you have found offensive to the spirit and details of the source?

This is just a bad year for movies!� I mean no LotR this year!

Cheaper By The Dozen comes to mind now.� The only similarities between the book, the original film, and the remake seem to be that there's a family with twelve kids.� It's been a while since I read it, but I don't recall the passage where the Gilbraith clan soaks Ashton Kutcher's underwear in meat!

�The title is fine, I mean it's not like it was unique to that particular story. But the movie was promoted as being a remake and as being based on the books by the Gilbraiths.� And it has absolutely nothing to do with them. Therein lies the problem.

What really pained me was when I saw a copy of the book in the YA section of our library with Steve Martin on the cover.� It wasn't a novelization of the new movie, it was the real book.� I'm all for getting kids to read Cheaper By The Dozen, but luring them in with a photo from a film that has no real connection to it is just wrong.

I bought a copy of Tom Clancy's The Sum Of All Fears right about the time the movie came out. I made sure to buy the last copy they had with the old-style cover, not the copy with Morgan Freeman and Ben Affleck on the cover.

-- Pauley

The recent Soderberg adaptation of Solaris was apparently drawn on the Tarkovsky film, not on the original Lem, but I found it supprisingly true to the source, which I recently re-read. This is rare for your average film made from cut-rate material, let alone based on a work of an author of Lem's stature.

You didn't read the fine print - its

I

never read Asimov's I

Robot

Interesting fact (for me anyways):� My friend's�first cousin is the screenplay adaptor for I, Robot.� Now I know who to be irritated with, besides Wild Wild Will Smith.

Lawnmower Man.

They keep trying to make movies out of Vonnegut books. His style just totally doesn't lend to success in the movie form. I did like the TV movie of Harrison Bergeron though.� (With Samwise!) Short stories work better, I guess.

I never saw Simon Birch but I heard people were so upset at how A Prayer for Owen Meany was adapted that the name had to be changed.

The Neverending Story is my all-time favourite book. The first screen adaptation was essentially a very true retelling of the first half of the book. Great movie. The second movie is ostensibly an adaptation of the second half of the book from where the first film left off. Great idea. The only problem is that it's just God-awful.

ewewewewew there are no words for my hatred of the cheaper by the dozen remake. and i haven't even seen it.

Yeah, Andrea beat me to it.� Prayer For Owen Meany is one of my favorite books of all time, and the movie butchered it.� Basically "movie-fied" the first quarter of the book, and turned the point around all screwy.� I feel the same way about it as I felt about the new Harry Potter:� An admirable attempt, but if the book is too thick to fit into the typical�American 2-hour attention span,�DON'T TRY.��Do SOMETHING -- break it into two movies, don't make a movie of�it, ANYTHING but ruining the story for a buck.� Or, in the case of my local theater, eight.�

the hitchikers guide to the galaxy damn well better be a high budget version of the BBC series, since that was almost word-for-word the same as the book(s). :D

eta: *sigh* yay john malkovich - but who tf is Humma Kavula?

I thought Slaughterhouse Five was pretty true to the book.

Most of the adaptations of Jane Austen novels leave something to be desired, but Mansfield Park pretty much only got the title and character names right. In a way the film's story was more interesting than the novel's, but I was so busy being shocked by how far from the "canon" it was that I couldn't appreciate it as a movie until much, much later. That and if I had told the professor of my Jane Austen course that I liked the movie she probably would have flunked me.

Did someone forget to close a tag?

That one I haven't seen...but Mother Night and Breakfast of Champions did nothing for me.

The hard part is not only staying true to a book but staying true to the book's vision. Does that make any sense?

I have yet to read any of the books (which makes me mad at myself) but I love the adaptations I see. Makes me wonder what I'll end up thinking of the books, when doing it in reverse. :)

the hitchikers guide to the galaxy

ugh, too many Americans in the cast. I fear it will suck.

The films are pretty close to the books as far as characterizations and plots go. If anything I'd expect the books to be more enjoyable (well, except that you can't see Colin Firth or Hugh Grant or Alan Rickman or Emma Thompson or Kate Winslet....or hear the cute British accents...) because there's also an element of the sort of quiet witty sarcasm/satire of a smart woman writing about some pretty silly people...that doesn't really come through in the movies. Except for Clueless. Anyway, point being, if you like the movies I'd say it's pretty likely you'll like the books. Except with Mansfield Park, there's really no way to tell.

Start with Pride and Prejudice.

and it wasn't me for a change.

I honestly feel quite differently about movie adaptations. They're not supposed to be a precise summary. It's an *adaptation*. Some things that work wonderfully in books either would take up too much film time or would not work in a film to please the average moviegoer. After all, that's how they make money, which, unfortunately, is what the commercial art forms are all about.

"The point is that fidelity should never have to be the main point of a film adaptation of a book. It is an adaptation, a different sort of animal, and changes have to be made." --- Laura Shadbolt (granted, a friend of mine, but one that I respect and tend to agree with ;P)

A good point...but I think what a lot of people object to when the original work is drastically changed in the adaptation is this new film, whether it be good or bad, is going to benefit from the reputation of the original work. So in theory a crap-ass movie that's not at all faithful to the book's story could profit from being associated in name.

Let's just pause here and talk about those great movies that have made that tricksy transition from the screen to the page. I REALLY enjoyed the written version of "Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey." It successfully captured the film's subtle nuances that might have so easily been lost. So many great books have been based on Keanu Reeves movies. /facetiousness.

but one could argue that that's not an adaptation, but a bastardization :)

I thought the '95 version of P&P was a generally faithful adaptation of the book...BUT my little bile-filled heart has been breaking ever since I heard Kiera Knightly (sp?) and some other hacks are going to be in a new one. *weeps* Why must they mess with perfection!!!

I have no problem with some changes being made - you're absolutely right that some things from books just wouldn't work on-screen, and that that's what adapting is about. But it sounds like some of the movies people have mentioned here aren't even faithful to the point or the spirit of the book. And if the book's argument or main idea is one of those things that doesn't work on screen, why would you make a movie out of it? And if all you're going to do is film something the book made you think of...give it a different title or something.

Is the '95 version the BBC mini-series with Colin Firth? Because, I adored that. :) And I hadn't even heard of this new version! Ack! I mean, I like Kiera Knightly but she really doesn't strike me as an Elizabeth Bennet. Granted, that's one of my favorite characters from anything ever and perhaps I have impossible standards but... *Sigh. Of course I'll have to see it anyway.... O:)

I agree. There were changes in LOTR that I strongly objected to but I would never think of calling it evil. Those were simply decisions I disagreed with. Now if they changed the story so that the climax is a swordfight between Frodo and Sauron I'd have personally killed Peter Jackson.

Yep, the one with Colin *swoon* Firth. I thought Ehle did a pretty good job, just as I had imagined Elizabeth would have been. I just can't see Kiera as her. She's too thin...and young...there's some info about it on the IMDB site for the '95 P&P.

In a completely irrelevant, piggish, and "guy-like" manner, I will take the initiative in spite of the previous posts' unflappable logic and say, ". . . . mmmmmmmm, Keira Knightly . . .� *drool*"

I don't know what you're talking about ;)

Don't worry I'll take care of it. That worked.

gordon, exactly.

I have gripes about technicallities in Peter Jackson's adaptation.

but overall. very true to the spirit. it WAS LoTR. I thoroughly adore the films. (that doesn't mean i can't nik-pick, however ;D)

Hear, hear.� It's all about the spirit of the film.� Harumph harumph harumph!� (I'm a� member of Parliament.)

Oh, I completely agree that Keira Knightley is absolutely drool-worthy, but so far the only roles I've liked her in (and I liked her a lot in them) were the sort of tom-boy-ish ones and while Elizabeth Bennet is not exactly the epitome of lady-like, she's also not the kind of character you want to see whip out a sword � la Eowyn or punch some one � la Hermione, which I fear may be where a Keira Knightley portrayal would want to go. Also, ditto on the too skinny and the too young. Lizzy is supposed to be beautiful but you're not supposed to look at her and go "my God, she's hot!"

This scares me wholly.

Please let them make it work!

� What I didn't like about the film version was the insertion of modern era morality concerning Fanny's attitude toward the slave trade. There was a huge deal made about the father running slave ships that just wasn't part of the Austen story.� I mean, obviously she should have been morally outraged that the family's fortune was made trading in human cargo, but nowhere in the book does she indicate that she is.� Slavery�was an accepted part of the times when it was written.� I guess the film makers thought they'd be considered immoral and socially irresponsible if they didn't condemn the actions of the slave traders, but it's not true to Austen and it's really inaccurate as a period piece.

� It reminded me of the godawful version of Little Women with Winona Ryder (horribly miscast as Jo) which was just so incredibly mid 90s PC it wasn't funny.� I mean, Meg wouldn't wear a silk dress because the silk was woven by exploited child laborers? No, Meg didn't wear silk because they couldn't afford it.� It wasn't principle, it was poverty.� And on a different tack from the issue of inserting untimely values, don't get me started on the casting of Gabriel Byrne as Professor Bhaer.� He's not supposed to be swoonable!!�� Yeah. I just really hate that movie.

I second that motion.� I get the feeling they'll do it justice, but those books are SO important to me.� Sewiously.� Like, on a level with LOTR.� I need to go read them again.� Now.

i think john irving was the one who asked that they change the name of the movie, and the character. i never saw simon birch because i love owen meany too much.

i really dig the idea of zooey deschanel as trillian.

Geez, Owen Meany, The Coens, . . . we should hang out together.� Come to Minnesota.

I shouldn't have seen the movie.� Watched it w/ friends who never read the book, they loved it, and I said, "Blech."� Like I was writing for Mad magazine or something.

so many great books have been based on Keanu Reeves movies.

no way. liekomg hav u red the book versionz of "much adu abt notihng" and "frances ford cupolas' drakula"????? its liek who-evr wrotte the buks nevr even WACHED the movies!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!

no, you should come to chicago. all the cool kids are here.

Really?� Hmm, . . . I never fit in at the cool table.� But you DO have Michael Maki . . .

keira is indeed teh sex. but she's not elizabeth, unless they're going to make elizabeth all butch 'n' fierce and ass-kickingly sexy. which, would be wrong. i think jennifer ehle and colin firth were perfect, and i don't know why they want to mess with it again.

god, yes. winona ryder and gabriel byrne were horribly miscast. and i hated the attempts to make it pc. for the same reason i hated (to use a completely unconnected example) steven spielberg's lame "updates" to e.t., like changing guns to walkie-talkies. wtf?

well, the name change worked - I certainly never knew Simon Birch was an adaptation of Owen Meany. If I had, I probably would've gone to see it. and then be disappointed.

The film version of The World According to Garp is actually really good. It only deals with the first half of the novel, if I recall, which is a good way of going about adapting something so huge. Robin Williams as Garp - it works. And John Lithgow is great as Roberta (I think that's her name...).

Aww...Much Ado About Nothing wasn't that far off...

(I mean, Don Pedro could totally be black!)

Precisely.

And, my guess is they want to mess with it again because they think it'll make money. ;)

Word. Word word word. The damn slave-trade thing. And stupid "Fanny Price" talking to the stupid camera all the stupid time and being all stupid self-confident. Stupid stupid stupid. And what the hell did they do with the necklaces?!

In all honesty, The LOTR�films bored me, for the most part.�� I really hoped that there would be dancing bears, but alas.

i actually didn't have much of a problem with much ado--the main change, as far as i remember, was making beatrice and benedick the main couple rather than the secondary one--which was actually a smarter choice, cos they were the more interesting couple. :)

And stupid "Fanny Price"� ...

Really?� I love Fanny Brice!� .oO Everyone knows that I'm a second hand rose Oo.

Oh.� Nevermind.

I haven't seen or read it in a long time, but I remember thinking that Branagh had left the text remarkably intact. It's true, though, that somehow it still felt like B&B had become the stars. Maybe that's 'cause Branagh cast himself as Benedick. :) Or maybe just 'cause the more entertaining couple takes more of your attention when staged. Or maybe he actually cut/rearranged more than I noticed.

much more than the stupid bimbo they had in the bbc series. trillian was not supposed to be a high-pitched whore. she was supposed to be smart and teh sexah.

it was really more to do with the direction, and the fact that branagh cast himself and emma thompson in those roles. and that robert sean leonard and kate beckinsale may be great eye candy, but they're really not compelling actors. :P

I know I said that Keira Knightly was teh sex, but I'm going to have to say the same for Zooey.� Yum.

This reminds me of a thing I was reading that Kate Beckinsale was pretty hurt that the people who made Pearl Harbor kept saying that one of the reasons she was cast was because she wasn't beautiful.

I heard that and was all...'wha-huh?' because I've always found her gorgeous.

Can't be eye candy and unattrative all at once. :)

Did anybody notice that, in the opening credits there's the "Starring...Kennith Brannagh..Emma Thompson...etc...etc" (the actors' names listed alphabetically) then the "Also Starring....Kate Beckinsale...etc...etc" (also alphabetical).� Now, Kate Beckinsale plays a main character in the movie, but her credit is moved back to the "also starring" category with the maids and the henchmen and extras with one line.� I think she got bumped from the "Starring" category because her name would have come before Kennith Brannagh's.� He wouldn't have been able to do that Directed by Kennith Brannagh Produced by Kennith Brannagh Adapted by Kennith Brannagh Starring Kennith Brannagh Kennith Brannagh love fest.�

...and if you saw Elf, you know she (Zooey Deschanel) can sing, too. Quite well, in fact.

-- Pauley

Mmmmm.� That's my favorite thing about her.� That throaty, classic voice.� mmmmmmm. . . .

�

I hated the 1990s version of it. I think the whole cast was terrible.

My favorite is the 1940s version with June Allyson who was perfect as Jo. That one seemed true to the book.

I didn't see the movie, but I read the story recently, and I remember thinking "They made a whole movie out of this?" Didn't seem like there was enough there.

The Neverending story part 2 is the only movie that I actually fell asleep during while watching it in the theatre.

Really, Melissa? I don't remember it particularly being the first half of the novel...

Clearly, it's time for me to reread. :-)

TROY! A wonderful 2,500 year old epic thrown to the pop culture dogs! Of evil film adaptations, this one turns my stomach inside out

---

Quoth the Rimbo...

An admirable attempt, but if the book is too thick to fit into the typical American 2-hour attention span, DON'T TRY. Do SOMETHING -- break it into two movies, don't make a movie of it, ANYTHING but ruining the story for a buck. Or, in the case of my local theater, eight.

---

Really? You didn't like the new Harry Potter? Explain yourself, sonny. :-).

Anyway, more to your point, I don't think I could disagree with you more. When you make a movie of another piece of art it's called an adaptation for a reason. Cinema and Literature are fundamentally different art forms.

That chasm needs to be bridged somehow...and it is my belief that it takes a very particular skill-set (one not evidenced by most hollywood writers) to do it. You need to pitilessly cut extraneous material. You need to get rid of scenes where nothing happens outside someone's mind. Yeah, those three pages of singing? Yeah, that doesn't work on screen so well...

And, finally, I fail to see how anything Chris Columbus or Peter Jackson, or whoever does could "ruin a book" for you. What do you mean? It's still sitting there on the shelf, same as it's ever been. Like Hollywood is to blame because you read "Frodo" and see Elijah Wood? Frankly, I'd pay good money for that sort of thing. ;-)