What are the best adaptations that are quite UNfaithful to the source material?
11-22-06, 12:00 PM
#51
Suspended
Best unfaithful adaptations:
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Birds
... both from very short, relatively unknown and undetailed short stories.
Worst unfaithful adaptations:
The Da Vinci Code
... from a highly-detailed novel millions of readers practically memorized;
and A Beautiful Mind, which forgot to mention that its hero, John Nash, was gay and that his schizophrenia had been aggravated by the government's persecution of homosexuals. Both these adaptations were by Akiva Goldsman, by the way, and both films were directed by Ron Howard.
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Birds
... both from very short, relatively unknown and undetailed short stories.
Worst unfaithful adaptations:
The Da Vinci Code
... from a highly-detailed novel millions of readers practically memorized;
and A Beautiful Mind, which forgot to mention that its hero, John Nash, was gay and that his schizophrenia had been aggravated by the government's persecution of homosexuals. Both these adaptations were by Akiva Goldsman, by the way, and both films were directed by Ron Howard.
Last edited by baracine; 11-22-06 at 12:19 PM.
11-24-06, 06:56 AM
#52
DVD Talk Limited Edition
The film Paper Moon, which was originally a book called Addie Pray, was much better paced overall. The film ends when Moses drops off Addie at the aunt's, then drives off. Addie races after his car and eventually catches up to him, and says, you still owe me two hunnred dollars!. The book, while good for 1/3, really slowed down towards the end, which went from Moses dropping Addie off, then Addie racing after the car, then going on another adventure - this time involving an old lady that Addie gets sweet on (not in the sexual way).
Another two examples of the films being superior:
1) The Poseiden Adventure (seems to have too many characters in the book, including the parents of 'Sis' and Robin, the two kids)
2) L.A. Confidential - nothing bad about it, per si, but I suppose the writing style was hard to get into.
Another two examples of the films being superior:
1) The Poseiden Adventure (seems to have too many characters in the book, including the parents of 'Sis' and Robin, the two kids)
2) L.A. Confidential - nothing bad about it, per si, but I suppose the writing style was hard to get into.
11-24-06, 07:05 AM
#53
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by Meglos
The Spy Who Loved Me
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE
DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER
THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN
FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
OCTOPUSSY
(FROM) A VIEW TO A KILL
THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
11-25-06, 06:19 AM
#54
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 61,822
Received 1,164 Likes
on
776 Posts
Originally Posted by Buttmunker
2) L.A. Confidential - nothing bad about it, per si, but I suppose the writing style was hard to get into.
I don't know, I liked both but of the many things that were changed or ignored in the movie was that the Mexican girl had much larger role in the book than just some random victim of rape. Also, Kim Basinger's role was minor in the book but much expaned in the movie. They pretty much made her a central character in the film but she wasn't. That always bothered me. But I guess they needed a pretty white face for a love interest.
11-25-06, 11:33 PM
#55
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by baracine
The Da Vinci Code
... from a highly-detailed novel millions of readers practically memorized;
... from a highly-detailed novel millions of readers practically memorized;
11-25-06, 11:52 PM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I haven't read the book, the Criterion DVD for Rififi has an interview with Jules Dassin where he talks about changing several things for the movie and the author asking where his book was in comparison to the movie. All the changes seemed like they were definitely for the better and Dassin really transformed it into something spectacular.
11-26-06, 09:23 AM
#57
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by baracine
Worst unfaithful adaptations:
The Da Vinci Code
... from a highly-detailed novel millions of readers practically memorized;
The Da Vinci Code
... from a highly-detailed novel millions of readers practically memorized;
Which was why it was so dreadful, but that's just my opinion.
11-26-06, 09:45 AM
#58
Suspended
Originally Posted by Matt Millheiser
Umm... not that I'm the biggest fan of the novel, but it was a very faithful adaptation of the book. No major discrepancies, no plot changes, no major characters written out or minor characters beefed up. It was as faithful and slavish an adaptation as you could imagine.
Which was why it was so dreadful, but that's just my opinion.
Which was why it was so dreadful, but that's just my opinion.
I disagree. In this case, the book readers were the film's captive public and they were expecting a faithful adaptation in exchange for the extra money they shelled out at the box office. The changes made only confused them. There was absolutely no good reason:
(1) to change Sophie Neveu's backstory so much that at the end her character doesn't have the consolation and emotional closure of being reunited with people she knew and loved; and
(2) to make Commissaire Fache into a member of the Opus Dei who is also a pathologically violent, easily-misled chump.
A good question to put to Jean Reno in the extras would have been: «Monsieur Reno, how does it feel to have been contractually obligated to play a part that demeans and makes hateful the sympathetic character you had been signed on to play on the basis of the book's success, especially considering that Dan Brown wrote the character with you in mind?»
Here is Bézu's part as it was written in the book ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezu_Fache ):
After reading and liking the book which depicted a well-meaning, good-hearted and competent police commissionner struggling against impossible odds and racing against the clock to get his facts straight, I didn't go to the movies expecting to see the adventures of a one-dimensional, sadistic, heartless, proto-Nazi, benighted, blundering French policeman who is also a gullible religious fanatic.
Bottom line: Howard and his screenwriter don't understand fiction, they don't understand reality and they don't understand films. They only understand making and breaking deals.
(1) to change Sophie Neveu's backstory so much that at the end her character doesn't have the consolation and emotional closure of being reunited with people she knew and loved; and
(2) to make Commissaire Fache into a member of the Opus Dei who is also a pathologically violent, easily-misled chump.
A good question to put to Jean Reno in the extras would have been: «Monsieur Reno, how does it feel to have been contractually obligated to play a part that demeans and makes hateful the sympathetic character you had been signed on to play on the basis of the book's success, especially considering that Dan Brown wrote the character with you in mind?»
Here is Bézu's part as it was written in the book ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezu_Fache ):
Spoiler:
After reading and liking the book which depicted a well-meaning, good-hearted and competent police commissionner struggling against impossible odds and racing against the clock to get his facts straight, I didn't go to the movies expecting to see the adventures of a one-dimensional, sadistic, heartless, proto-Nazi, benighted, blundering French policeman who is also a gullible religious fanatic.
Bottom line: Howard and his screenwriter don't understand fiction, they don't understand reality and they don't understand films. They only understand making and breaking deals.
11-26-06, 09:52 AM
#59
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by baracine
I'm quoting myself from another thread. The people who didn't read the book found it boring because it appeared to be faithful to the book, i.e. too complicated. The people who had read the book found it unfaithful. Here's why:
I still don't think those omissions result in an "unfaithful" adaptation. And Sophie's lack of "happy resolution" -- again, it's not something that bores heavily into the plot and, quite frankly, was a really pointless plot point to begin with.
Now compare DaVinci Code's "unfaithfulness" to that of, say, LESS THAN ZERO or THE SCARLET LETTER...
11-26-06, 09:58 AM
#60
Suspended
Originally Posted by Matt Millheiser
Like the movie wasn't long enough!
I still don't think those omissions result in an "unfaithful" adaptation. And Sophie's lack of "happy resolution" -- again, it's not something that bores heavily into the plot and, quite frankly, was a really pointless plot point to begin with.
I still don't think those omissions result in an "unfaithful" adaptation. And Sophie's lack of "happy resolution" -- again, it's not something that bores heavily into the plot and, quite frankly, was a really pointless plot point to begin with.
Spoiler:
To be fair, the only version of Victor Hugo's "Notre-Dame de Paris" ("The Hunchback of Notre-Dame") which respects the sad ending
Spoiler:
Oh, and the Prince from "The Little Mermaid" did get to "kiss the girl" in the book
Spoiler:
Last edited by baracine; 11-26-06 at 10:38 AM.
