Five Movies that were Great Films but Horrible Adaptions
Contrary to popular belief Hollywood has been running out of ideas allot longer than you'd think. Most of their ideas have stemmed from adaptations, first it was books, then it was comics and now video games. With most adaptations there tends to be one singular agreement with fans, the source material is always leagues from whats on screen, of course we do get the rare exception when the film is just as good as the book (The Green Mile) or when the adaption just falls flat on it's face never to be heard or seen from again (Dragon Ball Evolution or anything from Uwe Bowll) but sometimes there is that one oddity that seems to break all odds. Sometimes the adaption is horrible but a great film is produced in the process, how does this happen? One could argue that a good and competent Director actually knows what works on screen and what works only on the page. When a Director can make this decision it can work out in the movies favor, but of course there are some who just throw plot points away for the sake of time and convenience without really delving into how that could ruin the entire plot structure of the story.
I've seen allot of movies, many of which are adaptations to some form of a popular medium. I've seen bad and I've seen really good, but some adaption are just baffling because they are such good films but for some reason they are cruddy adaptations. Here is a list of the top Five Movies that are Great Films but Horrible Adaptations.
5. V For Vendetta
Directed By: James McTeigue
Starring: Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving and Jon Hurt
Released: March 17th 2006
Based on the Graphic Novel by: Alan Moore and David Lloyd
Released March 1982
To say that Alan Moore is a grouch is an understatement, the guy is crazy, but he's one of the most influential minds in the comic industry working to date. V for Vendetta was originally conceived in the 80's and takes places in the not to distant future (the 90's in the comic) where a Nuclear war has waisted most of the world, the United Kingdom has become the one major super power in the world and is controlled by a totalitarian government party called Norsefire. Donned in a Guy Fawkes mask the terrorist known only as V begins his mission to fulfill his personal vendetta and liberate the world from this police state.
Now I personally love the graphic novel it has some very strong political themes and both Moore and Lloyd create a believable police state future that is both intriguing and terrifying. The character V has become a cultural icon during the course of the comics and film and has become the unofficial mascot for the Internet organization Anonymous.
Now Alan Moore (who wrote the comic) absolutely despises this movie, in fact he hates almost all of the film adaptions of his movies. Watchmen aside (since it is a pretty good adaption) V for Vendetta is a pretty bad adaption of the book. Almost half of the story was removed from the movie, the movie didn't have the same gut punch that the comic had but for some reason the film turned out to be a pretty entertaining film. However the whole subplot revolving around Adam Susan (Sulter in the film) and his love for the supercomputer Future is removed along with other plots in the novel. The other difference is that there is no virus outbreak in the novel, the Norsefire party was legally elected due to the past war. The character of V is also very different, the film only shows a small glimmer of the insanity behind the mask where as the novel does not stop to show you how brutal this man can be. Some of the punishments he dishes out to the government officials are very twisted and imaginative whereas in the film he only uses lethal injections (of the virus I assume) to kill those responsible for ruining his life this list goes on and on of things that were changed and cut from the original story, I highly suggest reading the novel the film bogs down the message that is so prominent in the source material.
That being said V for Vendetta is a fantastic movie and is a personal favorite of mine, another personal favorite of mine based on the source material and the film is
4. David Lynch's DUNE
Directed by: David Lynch
Starring: Kyle MacLaughlan, Sean Young and Francesca Annis
Released: December 14th 1984
Based on the Novel by Frank Herbert
Released: 1965
Frank Herbert's Dune is my favorite book series of all time, Herbert masterfully created a science fiction world that was rich in culture and filled with a very unique history. Not since Middle Earth has there been a world that was so carefully created. Herbert used the Desert planet Arrakis as a tool to help showcase problems that were going on (and still are) at the time. There are five other books in the original series and a slew of additional prequels and interequels written by Herberts son Brian Herbert and author Kevin A. Anderson. Dune tells the story of young Paul Atredies prince of his home world Caladan, when Paul's family gains control of the desert planet Arrakis and the rare resource the Spice Melange from their enemies House Harkonnen, they are quickly thrust into a political plot designed by the Emperor of the Galaxy. Paul's family is assassinated leaving both his mother Jessica and himself to fend for the lives on the harsh desert world. Forming an alliance with the natives (the Fremen) Paul becomes the fabled Muad'Dib and goes out to claim vengeance against the murder of his house and is confronted with the belief that he might be the universes supreme being.
It is pretty complicated stuff and thats because Dune is not a simple novel, there are many sub plots within the book revolving around political intrigue and assassination, think of Game of Thrones but in space and you have the Duniverse. So when director David Lynch was attached to the project hope was given that there might be a great Dune movie. Lynch's artistic flare is exactly what a Dune film needs, however the movie was a financial disaster and David Lynch doesn't even like admitting he directed it. That's because Universal Studios was watching over his shoulder during the entire production, they controlled the movie because they felt that Lynch could not adapt the movie. The end result was a major disappointment for fans but over the years the 1984 film has become a cult classic.
If you attempt to read the book again after watching the film you can't help but visualize the world Lynch put on the screen. For a film that was such a failure Lynch was able to capture the essence of Dune. However with his unique style the film became one big acid trip, odd things were added like the Baron Harkonnen randomly having boils all over his face and having the rest of the Harkonnens having heart plugs which served no purpose in the film, to Feyd (played by Sting) being a complete sadistic psychopath. But worse or maybe the oddest yet is that one character is forced to drink the milk of a cat in order to gain an antidote to a poison that's coursing through his veins........what!? Even half of the story is cut, which is not the problem here, it's cut by the use of a terrible narration "Paul and Chani's love grew" it's the same problem with Pokemon Origins, almost a year's worth of character development is given in one line, it's absolutely impossible to believe in the relationship between these two characters unless you've read the book. And this narration is not only in that one scene, its in the entire movie. Universal thought that audience members would not be able to handle the themes of Herbert's work so they spoon fed information to the audience, audience members were even given a pamphlet of terms when walking into the theater.... ARE YOU KIDDING ME!
The film is so strange and out there that many people have been turned off from the franchise entirely, when people think of Dune they don't think of the great book by Herbert but the strange film by Lynch. Studios are even having a difficult time remaking the film because of the bad taste audiences had with this movie.
Despite it's faults adaption wise I can't help but love this movie, there is a certain charm to it that makes you want to come back for more, it is unfortunate that Lynch did not have final say on the movie.
3. A History of Violence
Directed by: David Cronenberg
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello and Ed Harris
Released: September 23 2005
Based on the Graphic Novel by John Wagner
Released: 1997
A History of Violence is about a small town cafe owner who becomes a town hero after stopping a robbery. Soon after his family starts to get harassed by a group of mob men who claim to know the cafe owner. That's all I can say about the plot without giving to much away, a History of Violence is directed by one of my personal favorites (Cronenberg) and is based on the comic created by Judge DREDD creator John Wagner. However only the first half is anything but truthful to the story, after that the film begins to take many liberties with the plot changing characters names, locations, and even the mob boss at the end (played by William Hurt who was nominated for the roll) was completely different then what was written on page. However this is one awesome movie, the violence is unforgiving and gives a good look on the effects that violence has to a community and those involved, it has been a very long time since I've seen the movie but it's one hell of a ride.
But the changes were completely intentional screenwriter Josh Olsen (who got nominated for the screenplay) only used the graphic novel as a source to spread out the ideas that interested him in the original work. The novel is one giant flashback that shows what the main character's connection with the mob is , the film a more sequential story and only lightly touches on what actually happened. and You would think that this would turn out horribly but Olsen wrote a very dark and interesting story that I highly recommend you watch if you haven't yet.
Fun Fact, this was the last major Hollywood film that was released on VHS
2. Mary Poppins
Directed by: Robert Stevenson
Starring: Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyck and David Tomlinson
Released: August 26th 1964
Based on the Novel By: P.L Traverse
Released 1934
This children's musical is a classic, if you haven't watched it I question your sanity. Although the fun musical and cartoon scenes are wonderful author P.L Traverse absolutely hated the film. Did you know that Mary Poppins is a four book series? Because I didn't we never saw sequel films because Traverse wouldn't allow it. Mary Poppins is about a magical nanny that comes to look after a bakers children.
In the novel Mary Poppins has a harsher more cruel side than what is depicted in the film, Traverse did not like how there was an added love story, how there was animated penguins. She absolutely hated the film to the core, she hated it so much she traveled to America just to sabotage the production. However the film was a huge critical success despite the adaptation problems, Julie Andrews won an Oscar for her performance as Poppins and the film also won for best song and visual effects, it was also nominated for 13 other Oscars which is the highest amount any Disney film has been nominated for.
Speaking of critically acclaimed g films, our final and obvious choice is
1. The Shining
Directed by: Stanley Kubrick
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Shelly Duvall and Danny Lloyd
Released: May 23 1980
Based on the Novel By: Stephen King
Released: January 1977
The Shining is a horror classic, I don't think I even need to say what it's about, this movie has had such a cultural impact on society that almost everyones seen it, it's even considered one of the best horror movies of all time. Stephen King was horribly unsatisfied with the movie, and rightfully so most of the plot was completely removed for things that Kubrick wrote in the film. In fact most of the famous lines and scenes from the movie are not even in the novel. Jack's character is also completely changed, in the novel you actually had a sense of this man's slip into insanity, in the film there is already this looming feeling that he's already lost it. Wendy whose played by Shelly Duvall is also completely butchered, she's a cowering whimpering mother compared to the woman who actually takes charge by the end of the novel and has an actually arc.
King hated this film so much he help write a mini series in the 90's that is more truthful to the novel. Kubrick decided to leave most of the mystery in the novel to the imagination of the audience making the ending very vague. In the novel almost every question is answered, the hotel which is more of a backdrop in the film is an actual character in the novel. Although this is one crappy adaption to Kings eerie novel the film has stood the test of time. Kubrick is one of my favorite directors and this movie is masterful, everything he adds to the movie really messes with your mind, to the creepy music to that dammed pattern on the floor. I can see why King is upset with this movie, its almost nothing like he wrote, however it's the perfect example of a crappy adaption but a wonderful movie.
I've seen allot of movies, many of which are adaptations to some form of a popular medium. I've seen bad and I've seen really good, but some adaption are just baffling because they are such good films but for some reason they are cruddy adaptations. Here is a list of the top Five Movies that are Great Films but Horrible Adaptations.
5. V For Vendetta
Directed By: James McTeigue
Starring: Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving and Jon Hurt
Released: March 17th 2006
Based on the Graphic Novel by: Alan Moore and David Lloyd
Released March 1982
To say that Alan Moore is a grouch is an understatement, the guy is crazy, but he's one of the most influential minds in the comic industry working to date. V for Vendetta was originally conceived in the 80's and takes places in the not to distant future (the 90's in the comic) where a Nuclear war has waisted most of the world, the United Kingdom has become the one major super power in the world and is controlled by a totalitarian government party called Norsefire. Donned in a Guy Fawkes mask the terrorist known only as V begins his mission to fulfill his personal vendetta and liberate the world from this police state.
Now I personally love the graphic novel it has some very strong political themes and both Moore and Lloyd create a believable police state future that is both intriguing and terrifying. The character V has become a cultural icon during the course of the comics and film and has become the unofficial mascot for the Internet organization Anonymous.
Now Alan Moore (who wrote the comic) absolutely despises this movie, in fact he hates almost all of the film adaptions of his movies. Watchmen aside (since it is a pretty good adaption) V for Vendetta is a pretty bad adaption of the book. Almost half of the story was removed from the movie, the movie didn't have the same gut punch that the comic had but for some reason the film turned out to be a pretty entertaining film. However the whole subplot revolving around Adam Susan (Sulter in the film) and his love for the supercomputer Future is removed along with other plots in the novel. The other difference is that there is no virus outbreak in the novel, the Norsefire party was legally elected due to the past war. The character of V is also very different, the film only shows a small glimmer of the insanity behind the mask where as the novel does not stop to show you how brutal this man can be. Some of the punishments he dishes out to the government officials are very twisted and imaginative whereas in the film he only uses lethal injections (of the virus I assume) to kill those responsible for ruining his life this list goes on and on of things that were changed and cut from the original story, I highly suggest reading the novel the film bogs down the message that is so prominent in the source material.
That being said V for Vendetta is a fantastic movie and is a personal favorite of mine, another personal favorite of mine based on the source material and the film is
4. David Lynch's DUNE
Directed by: David Lynch
Starring: Kyle MacLaughlan, Sean Young and Francesca Annis
Released: December 14th 1984
Based on the Novel by Frank Herbert
Released: 1965
Frank Herbert's Dune is my favorite book series of all time, Herbert masterfully created a science fiction world that was rich in culture and filled with a very unique history. Not since Middle Earth has there been a world that was so carefully created. Herbert used the Desert planet Arrakis as a tool to help showcase problems that were going on (and still are) at the time. There are five other books in the original series and a slew of additional prequels and interequels written by Herberts son Brian Herbert and author Kevin A. Anderson. Dune tells the story of young Paul Atredies prince of his home world Caladan, when Paul's family gains control of the desert planet Arrakis and the rare resource the Spice Melange from their enemies House Harkonnen, they are quickly thrust into a political plot designed by the Emperor of the Galaxy. Paul's family is assassinated leaving both his mother Jessica and himself to fend for the lives on the harsh desert world. Forming an alliance with the natives (the Fremen) Paul becomes the fabled Muad'Dib and goes out to claim vengeance against the murder of his house and is confronted with the belief that he might be the universes supreme being.
It is pretty complicated stuff and thats because Dune is not a simple novel, there are many sub plots within the book revolving around political intrigue and assassination, think of Game of Thrones but in space and you have the Duniverse. So when director David Lynch was attached to the project hope was given that there might be a great Dune movie. Lynch's artistic flare is exactly what a Dune film needs, however the movie was a financial disaster and David Lynch doesn't even like admitting he directed it. That's because Universal Studios was watching over his shoulder during the entire production, they controlled the movie because they felt that Lynch could not adapt the movie. The end result was a major disappointment for fans but over the years the 1984 film has become a cult classic.
If you attempt to read the book again after watching the film you can't help but visualize the world Lynch put on the screen. For a film that was such a failure Lynch was able to capture the essence of Dune. However with his unique style the film became one big acid trip, odd things were added like the Baron Harkonnen randomly having boils all over his face and having the rest of the Harkonnens having heart plugs which served no purpose in the film, to Feyd (played by Sting) being a complete sadistic psychopath. But worse or maybe the oddest yet is that one character is forced to drink the milk of a cat in order to gain an antidote to a poison that's coursing through his veins........what!? Even half of the story is cut, which is not the problem here, it's cut by the use of a terrible narration "Paul and Chani's love grew" it's the same problem with Pokemon Origins, almost a year's worth of character development is given in one line, it's absolutely impossible to believe in the relationship between these two characters unless you've read the book. And this narration is not only in that one scene, its in the entire movie. Universal thought that audience members would not be able to handle the themes of Herbert's work so they spoon fed information to the audience, audience members were even given a pamphlet of terms when walking into the theater.... ARE YOU KIDDING ME!
The film is so strange and out there that many people have been turned off from the franchise entirely, when people think of Dune they don't think of the great book by Herbert but the strange film by Lynch. Studios are even having a difficult time remaking the film because of the bad taste audiences had with this movie.
Despite it's faults adaption wise I can't help but love this movie, there is a certain charm to it that makes you want to come back for more, it is unfortunate that Lynch did not have final say on the movie.
3. A History of Violence
Directed by: David Cronenberg
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello and Ed Harris
Released: September 23 2005
Based on the Graphic Novel by John Wagner
Released: 1997
A History of Violence is about a small town cafe owner who becomes a town hero after stopping a robbery. Soon after his family starts to get harassed by a group of mob men who claim to know the cafe owner. That's all I can say about the plot without giving to much away, a History of Violence is directed by one of my personal favorites (Cronenberg) and is based on the comic created by Judge DREDD creator John Wagner. However only the first half is anything but truthful to the story, after that the film begins to take many liberties with the plot changing characters names, locations, and even the mob boss at the end (played by William Hurt who was nominated for the roll) was completely different then what was written on page. However this is one awesome movie, the violence is unforgiving and gives a good look on the effects that violence has to a community and those involved, it has been a very long time since I've seen the movie but it's one hell of a ride.
But the changes were completely intentional screenwriter Josh Olsen (who got nominated for the screenplay) only used the graphic novel as a source to spread out the ideas that interested him in the original work. The novel is one giant flashback that shows what the main character's connection with the mob is , the film a more sequential story and only lightly touches on what actually happened. and You would think that this would turn out horribly but Olsen wrote a very dark and interesting story that I highly recommend you watch if you haven't yet.
Fun Fact, this was the last major Hollywood film that was released on VHS
2. Mary Poppins
Directed by: Robert Stevenson
Starring: Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyck and David Tomlinson
Released: August 26th 1964
Based on the Novel By: P.L Traverse
Released 1934
This children's musical is a classic, if you haven't watched it I question your sanity. Although the fun musical and cartoon scenes are wonderful author P.L Traverse absolutely hated the film. Did you know that Mary Poppins is a four book series? Because I didn't we never saw sequel films because Traverse wouldn't allow it. Mary Poppins is about a magical nanny that comes to look after a bakers children.
In the novel Mary Poppins has a harsher more cruel side than what is depicted in the film, Traverse did not like how there was an added love story, how there was animated penguins. She absolutely hated the film to the core, she hated it so much she traveled to America just to sabotage the production. However the film was a huge critical success despite the adaptation problems, Julie Andrews won an Oscar for her performance as Poppins and the film also won for best song and visual effects, it was also nominated for 13 other Oscars which is the highest amount any Disney film has been nominated for.
Speaking of critically acclaimed g films, our final and obvious choice is
1. The Shining
Directed by: Stanley Kubrick
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Shelly Duvall and Danny Lloyd
Released: May 23 1980
Based on the Novel By: Stephen King
Released: January 1977
The Shining is a horror classic, I don't think I even need to say what it's about, this movie has had such a cultural impact on society that almost everyones seen it, it's even considered one of the best horror movies of all time. Stephen King was horribly unsatisfied with the movie, and rightfully so most of the plot was completely removed for things that Kubrick wrote in the film. In fact most of the famous lines and scenes from the movie are not even in the novel. Jack's character is also completely changed, in the novel you actually had a sense of this man's slip into insanity, in the film there is already this looming feeling that he's already lost it. Wendy whose played by Shelly Duvall is also completely butchered, she's a cowering whimpering mother compared to the woman who actually takes charge by the end of the novel and has an actually arc.
King hated this film so much he help write a mini series in the 90's that is more truthful to the novel. Kubrick decided to leave most of the mystery in the novel to the imagination of the audience making the ending very vague. In the novel almost every question is answered, the hotel which is more of a backdrop in the film is an actual character in the novel. Although this is one crappy adaption to Kings eerie novel the film has stood the test of time. Kubrick is one of my favorite directors and this movie is masterful, everything he adds to the movie really messes with your mind, to the creepy music to that dammed pattern on the floor. I can see why King is upset with this movie, its almost nothing like he wrote, however it's the perfect example of a crappy adaption but a wonderful movie.
Comments
Post a Comment