Least Faithful Adaption of All Time?

[BoosterBronze]

I was thinking, is this upcoming "Underdog" movie the least faithful adaptation of a property ever?

This isn't outrage talking. I have no emotional investment in the old Underdog show, but it seems the upcoming movie does diverge pretty boldly from the show.

Examples:

Underdog and the characters are anthropomorphic animals with jobs VS. Underdog is a pet dog of a human.

Underdog/Shoeshine Boy is humble almost to the point of being obnoxious VS. He has attitude.

Underdog talks in rhyme VS. Not talking in rhyme.

Underdog's power is from a pill VS. From a scientific accident.

I mean besides the name and the memorable themesong (which we all love), this seems to have zero connection with the old cartoon.

If this isn't the least faithful, most divergent adaptaion of a property, what do you suppose is?

[hoffmandu]

I'd go with Starship troopers.

[BoosterBronze]

I'd go with Starship troopers.

But ST movie and book are still both mainly about humans fighting giant bugs in space. Even though philisophical and character points are twisted, you could watch the movie and recognize it as Starship Troopers.


And speaking of Starship Troopers, there's a great comedy/review of it on YouTube... and a convienient link right in my signature! Wow!

[Kaiju]

The Lawnmower Man. The title is the same nearly everything else is totally different than the short story.

[Cyke]

The best example in my mind might just be from recent threads, but... I'd have to mention American Godzilla. My opinion of the movie's quality aside, this GINO didn't have much in common with its original counterpart (ability-wise or character-wise), nor did it have the symbolism and metaphors from the very first movie. There were no subliminal messages that the first movie was so famous for, aside from the writers' clear hatred of Siskel & Ebert. There was no color commentary from the humans, either.

Though, I do admit, it was a nice touch that they kept the original's roar in there.

[The Batman]

Steel maybe? Halle Berry's Catwoman film?

[hoffmandu]

The Lawnmower Man. The title is the same nearly everything else is totally different than the short story.

i think this is the clear winner. This film used LawnmowerMan in name only. Jesus, the OG story is nothing like this. In fact, from what I remember, it was about a naked guy crawling behind a mower, eating the grass............

[The Shelf]

Mario Bros.? Just throwing it out there.

[brundlefly]

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

I want to say Constantine instead, just for neutering the character and taking him out of his natural environment (England), making the whole exercise rather pointless. But I've got go with "LXG," as the producers dubbed it, for all the dunderheaded fiddling done to both the characters and story.

[SlightlyMad]

Bladerunner.

There's about 2 pages in Do Androids dream of electric sheep? that are potrayed in the movie, the rest of it takes the characters rough story of the book, but Ridley Scott takes it in a completely different way & it works!

[Pauly T]

Pick a Bond movie... any Bond movie.

[hoffmandu]

Pick a Bond movie... any Bond movie.


Casino Royale?

[Thorlief]

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

I want to say Constantine, too, just for neutering the character and taking him out of his natural environment (England), making the whole exercise rather pointless. But I've got to list "LXG," as the producers dubbed it, first for all the dunderheaded fiddling done to both the characters and story.

I second LXG, one of the worst movies I've ever seen
The graphic novel is made of gold, and the plot could have worked soo well on screen. But NO, they went from making Quatermain leader to completely ruin Mina's badassiness, from including Tom Sawyer who's boring as hell just to appeal Americans to completely change Hyde's physical traits and funny racist remarks (ok..the racist remarks maybe couldnt have been included in a movie but at least keep him the violent trainwrecker he's in the comics)
in short: Nemo, Hyde, Mina, Griffin comic counterparts= badass
Nemo, Mina, Hyde, Tom Sawyer, Dorian Gray (ugh) in the movie= boredom

and I could go on and on and on. I'm already accepting bets for Watchmen

[The Batman]

LXG is a great example. Man that movie departed from the original. About the only interesting thing they brought to it was including Erik, the Phantom of the Opera, in the story. Of course, like everything else, they made a mess of it.

From Hell? How unfaithful was that? It's been awhile since I've seen the movie.

[hugh45]

But ST movie and book are still both mainly about humans fighting giant bugs in space. Even though philisophical and character points are twisted, you could watch the movie and recognize it as Starship Troopers.


And speaking of Starship Troopers, there's a great comedy/review of it on YouTube... and a convienient link right in my signature! Wow!


Have you ever watched SST2? I'm always waiting for it to come on tv,
I don't want to spend money on it.

[Shellhead]

i think this is the clear winner. This film used LawnmowerMan in name only. Jesus, the OG story is nothing like this. In fact, from what I remember, it was about a naked guy crawling behind a mower, eating the grass............

I agree. That said, the movie version of Lawnmower Man was a lot more interesting.

[hoffmandu]

I agree. That said, the movie version of Lawnmower Man was a lot more interesting.

I agree, in fact, I found the story a little revolting.

[Murrocko]

Catwoman. Only thing that was similar to the source material was that she was a feline based thief .

[Black Atom]

The cartoon adaptation of the Double Dragon video game. Went from being about two brawling twins taking down a street gang from two ninja masters with magical swords that transform them into dragon warriors who fight an army of magical shadows.

[literally exaggerated]

Children of Men had basically nothing in common with the source material beyond the most basic premise, but it kicked absolute ass.

[DaeJi]

Lawnmower Man and Resident Evil.

[Tobias March]

Howard the Duck, surely!

[Jared]

Lawnmower Man and Resident Evil.

Resident Evil kept the basic premise of Zombies created by an evil corporation.

Doom, on the other hand, completly changed its premise for the movie.

[Raziel]

I, Robot. It was more of a Matrix prequel than the book.

[SPAfreak]

...Resident Evil.

Resident Evil is actually a great adaptation of a video game. It's not that great of a movie but you can easily workout the gameplay, playable characters and storyline. I actually find it to be one of the best video game movies of all time.

The biggest flaw in the movie is that they either should have stuck with the Red Queen story or left it out entirely in favor of the zombies. Of course without the zombies it wouldn't have been a Resident Evil movie. It would have been a much better high-tech haunted house movie though.

[Jared]

I, Robot. It was more of a Matrix prequel than the book.


Hell, it was better as a Matrix prequel than the actual prequel story in Animatrix, which didn't really fit well with the backstory we were told in the movies.

[cactusmaac]

Cat On A Hot Tin Roof.

Since this was made in the 50s, they removed all the sexual innuendo which pretty much was the story.

[a. non]

The 1956 adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-Four, where Winston and Julia actually topple Big Brother

[The Batman]

Of course they did, otherwise the filmmakers would've probably been blacklisted as communist sympathizers.

[StoneGold]

LXG is a great example.

No. It is a terrible example. It may not be very good, but it has a bunch of 19th century fictional characters teaming up to fight another 19th century fictional character. Not the same as Moore's story? Then it was about as faithful as any other superhero movie. I don't seem to recall the Green Goblin trying to drop Mary Jane off a bridge.


Unless he's done it at some point since after they resurrected him. I haven't paid that much attention, but you get the point. It may have been a lousy movie, but even as Norrington movies go, it was far more faithful than, say, Blade. The only similarities Blade had to the Tomb of Dracula character were his name and that his mother had been bitten by a vampire just prior to his birth. And that he kills vampires. Everything else, from the tone of the story, to his methods, to his powers, to the way he looked, to his villains and their methods (yeah, there was Frost, but Frost was an old looking dude in the comics) to every other damn thing was changed. LXG was basically just a dumbed down version of LoEG. Everything was basically the same, just stupider, and rearranged to kowtow to actor demands. Like, I could read LoEG and watch LXG and realize that LXG was the movie version of LoEG. Which is more than I can say for, oh, let's say House of the Dead.

[StoneGold]

I, Robot. It was more of a Matrix prequel than the book.

Damn near any Asimov story, really.

[Shellhead]

I agree, in fact, I found the story a little revolting.

I was stunned when Marvel decided to publish a comic version of that story:

http://image.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/large/10806373230.29.gif

[a. non]

Of course they did, otherwise the filmmakers would've probably been blacklisted as communist sympathizers.

Damn your logic :p

[ChrisIII]

The "Lost World:Jurassic Park" movie makes several changes from the novel, the whole "Conservationists vs. Hunters"/Rival expeditions plot is really not in the book at all (Although a small group of Biosyn hunters attempt to steal Dinos). Sarah is no longer Ian's girlfriend, and Kelly is not his daughter. There is no T-rex in San Diego segment. Nick Van Owen, Roland Tembo and several other characters were created especially for the film. Hammond isn't in it at all (Having died in the first book). Site B also remains a secret, instead of becoming the off-limits 'preserve' it is at the end and in III.


Plus although I haven't read the novel, I've heard "Congo"-another Crichton film-is very different as well.

[The Batman]

No. It is a terrible example. It may not be very good, but it has a bunch of 19th century fictional characters teaming up to fight another 19th century fictional character. Not the same as Moore's story? Then it was about as faithful as any other superhero movie. I don't seem to recall the Green Goblin trying to drop Mary Jane off a bridge.


Unless he's done it at some point since after they resurrected him. I haven't paid that much attention, but you get the point. It may have been a lousy movie, but even as Norrington movies go, it was far more faithful than, say, Blade. The only similarities Blade had to the Tomb of Dracula character were his name and that his mother had been bitten by a vampire just prior to his birth. And that he kills vampires. Everything else, from the tone of the story, to his methods, to his powers, to the way he looked, to his villains and their methods (yeah, there was Frost, but Frost was an old looking dude in the comics) to every other damn thing was changed. LXG was basically just a dumbed down version of LoEG. Everything was basically the same, just stupider, and rearranged to kowtow to actor demands. Like, I could read LoEG and watch LXG and realize that LXG was the movie version of LoEG. Which is more than I can say for, oh, let's say House of the Dead.


Fair point, LXG does stay true to the premise of LoEG. That being said, I approach something like a Spider-Man movie or a Batman movie less as an adaptation of a particular storyline from the books, like I do with something like LoEG, and more of a case of the filmmakers taking these characters and trying to tell their own story with them.

[SPAfreak]

Plus although I haven't read the novel, I've heard "Congo"-another Crichton film-is very different as well.

They both sucked. The adaptation has that going for it.

[mgs]

Pick a Bond movie... any Bond movie.

they were books? O.o

I'd have to say Dungeons and Dragons. Horrible adaptation of the rpg, cartoon, books, anything else, you name it!

[StoneGold]

Fair point, LXG does stay true to the premise of LoEG. That being said, I approach something like a Spider-Man movie or a Batman movie less as an adaptation of a particular storyline from the books, like I do with something like LoEG, and more of a case of the filmmakers taking these characters and trying to tell their own story with them.

How could LXG have been that, though? It was licensed and was being worked on as a movie before the comic was ever even published. It was more based on an idea by Alan Moore than it was based on anything that he wrote. You'd have a better case for From Hell than LXG if you wanted to bitch about Moore movies not being faithful to the source.


V, on the other hand, was actually pretty damn faithful.

[rick]

One of the classic examples of least faithful adaptations is the old movie serial of Captain America and I'll throw in the movie update from 1990.


In the serial, Cap was actually Grant Gardner, crime fighting District Attorney, without a Nazi, a shield or wings on his head in sight.

And in the movie, the Red Skull was Italian.

[a. non]

Forrest Gump was radically altered from the book. I mean, where was the cannibal scene in the movie?

[StoneGold]

And in the movie, the Red Skull was Italian.

Yeah, but that's like saying Spidey wasn't faithful because of the webshooters. Cap was crap, but as things go, it was relatively faithful. I mean, Skull being an early recipient of the SSS and the Skull being a side effect of that is just as faithless, but no one really gives it a second though, mostly because it's actually a pretty good idea. The Italian thing doesn't really change anything. You could do a good Cap movie with an Italian Red Skull. Granted, it's a stupid change, but it wasn't, say the Karate Kid.


I'll give you the serial though, that's for sure.

Which isn't really fair, since it wasn't really an adaptation, they just had to license the name from DC. But there's a pretty huge difference between the martial arts master of the Legion of Superheroes and Daniel Larusso.

[StoneGold]

Speaking of movie serials, the Lone Ranger Republic serial. Although this one is kind of wacky. In the movie, Texas Rangers ride into a valley, get ambushed, and one survives to be rescued by Tonto to become the Lone Ranger. Here's the thing: this was the first time this origin had ever been used! There had never been an origin before. The Ranger was just some dude in a mask. In fact, Tonto had more of an origin. The Ranger had found him trapped by a mine explosion! The guys that did the radio show just liked the origin for the serial enough to swipe it.

What they didn't like was the device of there being five people posing as the Lone Ranger, slowly getting bumped off, until the real Lone Ranger reveals his identity to the world.

[jesse_custer]

How was V for Vendetta that faithful? It totally jacked up Moore's conflict of fascism vs. anarchism and instead turned the conflict into the same neo-liberlism vs. neo conservatism debate that has been old since like 5 years ago. Moore did a really good job of explaining this in an interview. Plus, having a Matrix fight in the movie is about as un-Moore as you can get. It would be faithful to Moore if Moore became a retarded transgendered individual, went back in time, and stopped himself from writing the original graphic novel while replacing it with the limp, politically safe version we saw in theaters.

[Toku King]

The Stuart Little trilogy. I win.

[jesse_custer]

I guess I'll throw in Disney's version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. The book was dark and brilliant, the cartoon hackneyed and ridiculous.

[Jared]

Plus although I haven't read the novel, I've heard "Congo"-another Crichton film-is very different as well.

They both had an expedition attacked by killer grey gorillas and a volanic eruption at the end. The main differences had to do with the intelligence and origins of the gorillas being a factor in the book, and Ernie Hudson's character was white. And of course, being written in the 70s, the technology in the book is seriously out of date. Being able to send brief text messages from Africa was a big deal, and incredibly expensive.

[StoneGold]

How was V for Vendetta that faithful? It totally jacked up Moore's conflict of fascism vs. anarchism and instead turned the conflict into the same neo-liberlism vs. neo conservatism debate that has been old since like 5 years ago. Moore did a really good job of explaining this in an interview. Plus, having a Matrix fight in the movie is about as un-Moore as you can get. It would be faithful to Moore if Moore became a retarded transgendered individual, went back in time, and stopped himself from writing the original graphic novel while replacing it with the limp, politically safe version we saw in theaters.

Because a faithful movie doesn't mean a 1:1 translation. Very few movies are Sin City. Yeah, it was a relatively neutered version of the original work, but as these things go, it was pretty faithful. Seriously, if you don't count V as faithful to the original, virtually every adapted work is faithless.

[Jared H.]

I've recently had this pointed out to me:

"The Lawnmower Man" is supposedly tied to the Steven King short story.


I know: I was shocked, too.



Edit: and someone else long ago beat me to the punch. Foot, meet mouth.

[Rattlehead]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, they took a really dark and violent Indie comic and turned it into a children's property. They did a good job of it of course, but it's not at all faithful.

[DaeJi]

Resident Evil is actually a great adaptation of a video game. It's not that great of a movie but you can easily workout the gameplay, playable characters and storyline. I actually find it to be one of the best video game movies of all time.

The biggest flaw in the movie is that they either should have stuck with the Red Queen story or left it out entirely in favor of the zombies. Of course without the zombies it wouldn't have been a Resident Evil movie. It would have been a much better high-tech haunted house movie though.

Resident Evil was able being stuck in a huge mansion with a ton of zombies. The movie was about being in a high-tech lab where lasers kill most of the characters well before any zombies pop up. They didn't even use the characters from the game. I mean damn! Resident Evil the movie wasn't a great anything; nor was Doom or really any video game movie for that matter. You think that having plot basically given to them the writers and directors could make something work! Just use the same plot and characters form the game and you would have good movie! They did with Harry Potter and look how great those movies are doing!
I fear for the Warcraft movie; following the trend of other video game adaptions it will probably be the epic story of a young play sucked into the gaming world, where he has to overcome his own loserness and save the world!... or something dumb like that.

[Black Atom]

Damn near any Asimov story, really.

Or many of the Philip K. Dick adapatations, like this year's Next adapted from "The Golden Man". So little similarity between the concepts that it seems they could've gotten by without a credit to Dick at all. That's what generally happens when you try to make 90 minute film out of a 12-page short story.

[StoneGold]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, they took a really dark and violent Indie comic and turned it into a children's property. They did a good job of it of course, but it's not at all faithful.

The movie is a bit more than the cartoon. Although I still think this fits more under not exactly faithful than least faithful. Otherwise you could say the same about most crappy cartoon properties that were made out of R rated movies, some of which were actually pretty faithful to the character. If crappy shows. I'm thinking pretty specifically of Robocop.


Although if you want a wacky one, the Rambo cartoon. Even saying it has nothing to do with the book, they took a damaged Vietnam vet who destroyed a small Northwestern town and who had to be tricked by the CIA into performing a black ops mission in which they abandoned him for dead into a government agent making the world safe for democracy. Who doesn't kill anyone. Yeah, the character model looked vaguely like Stallone, and the music was dead on, but everything else was just wacky.

[Tobias March]

Because a faithful movie doesn't mean a 1:1 translation. Very few movies are Sin City. Yeah, it was a relatively neutered version of the original work, but as these things go, it was pretty faithful. Seriously, if you don't count V as faithful to the original, virtually every adapted work is faithless.

I disagree, maintaining the themes of the text, while making necessary changes for running time and such is quite different from what was done to V. The character of Finch had a well-defined path in the book, yet in the film he simply 'intuits', the nature of the camp V was confined in. Also his partner becomes just another face in the crowd at the end, as opposed to the new V's assistant. Speaking of which, Evie is left twisting in the wind, as suddenly we have a 'Good Triumphs Over Evil', ending completely missing the point of why V's revolution is merely the first stage before reconstruction begins. He is a monster after all, born in fire.

A safer comment would be that Vendetta is the most faithful adaptation of a Moore book. But as it stands it's a fairly inaccurate depiction of the source material.

[Jared]

Although if you want a wacky one, the Rambo cartoon. Even saying it has nothing to do with the book, they took a damaged Vietnam vet who destroyed a small Northwestern town and who had to be tricked by the CIA into performing a black ops mission in which they abandoned him for dead into a government agent making the world safe for democracy. Who doesn't kill anyone. Yeah, the character model looked vaguely like Stallone, and the music was dead on, but everything else was just wacky.

On that note: Conan the Adventurer (which I really liked).

[StoneGold]

A safer comment would be that Vendetta is the most faithful adaptation of a Moore book. But as it stands it's a fairly inaccurate depiction of the source material.

Again though, we are talking about relative degrees of faith. I probably should have put pretty damn faithful compared to instead of pretty damn faithful, but whatchya gonna do? Stuff like Finch is going to get pared down, just because it's a movie, and there isn't enough space for entire character arcs for all the characters. As for how faithful the themes were, there were pages of arguments of that when the movie came out, and I'm not looking to reopen that kettle of fish. But compared to most of the movies being metioned here, it's pretty damn faithful.

[StoneGold]

On that note: Conan the Adventurer (which I really liked).

Yeah, definitely. And like you said, for what it was, it was pretty damn fun. Shall we count the ways in which the Adventurer was the same as the Howard character?

They were named Conan.
They were Cimmerian.
They said Crom occasionally.
They didn't like magicians, but had a tendency to run into them a lot.
They were physically able.
Their fathers were blacksmiths.


And that's about it. Oh, and maybe they both had some levels of headstrongness, but Conan never got a lesson in morality about it after 22 minutes.

[Shellhead]

Seriously, the answer is The Lawnmower Man. How many others mentioned in this thread involved a change in genre? The short story Lawnmower Man was just a weird horror story involving the greek god Pan. The movie Lawnmower Man is a science-fiction story involving virtual reality and psychic powers. Notice the difference? Stephen King sure did, and he sued to get his name pulled from the movie.

[blackdragon6]

resident evil

[Jack]

I loved Conan the Adventurer. In fact, I now have the theme tune in my head.

On a side note, however, maybe we could almost count the sequel series to CtA.

[jesse_custer]

Seriously, if you don't count V as faithful to the original, virtually every adapted work is faithless.

Some adapted films that were more faithful:

Sin City
To Kill a Mockingbird
The Godfather
Interview with the Vampire
Glengarry Glen Ross

Of course, I agree there are varying degrees of faithfulness. Take Blade Runner. It's quite different from the novel. But it still upholds the main theme of the novel and the deviations are pretty cool. V doesn't uphold the main theme of the source and its deviations are pretty lame. Having said that, I thought it was OK, just not what it was cracked up to be.

[Jared]

I loved Conan the Adventurer. In fact, I now have the theme tune in my head.
.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZZDiyY2ZBY

I'll jump at any excuse to listen to this...over and over and over.

[Black Atom]

Mario Bros. is surely less faithful than Resident Evil. I think the theme of the RE movies persists, despite the changes.

Toei's Spider-Man adaptation, in which Spidey gets his powers from a spider-like alien and pilots giant robots, probably had more in common with most Sentai shows than any Spider-Man we know of.

[Dizzy D]

Blueberry: the comic and movie do have several things in common:
- they are both set in the Wild West.
- the main character has the same name.
- their sidekick is a hard-drinking deputy.

The comic though is a pretty straight-forward, spaghetti-style western, while the movie is heavy into shamanistic spirit quests under the influence of peyote with hardly a gun fired in the entire movie.

[Shellhead]

Turning the concept of this thread upside down, I think that Sperminator is the most faithful porn adaptation of a mainstream movie. In Sperminator, the evil cyborg/robots of the future send back the Sperminator to impregnate Sarah Conner with defective sperm, in order to cause her to give birth to a John Connor with birth defects. Reese (played by Ron Jeremy) is sent back in time by the heroic resistance movement to properly become the father of John Connor. Everytime the Sperminator catches up with Reese and Sarah, they are able to distract him with an inflatable love doll.

[ChrisIII]

The Bond films sort of have bits and pieces of Fleming here and there, but aren't really faithful adaptations, although bits and pieces of novel sequences show up here and there. For example, "Live and Let Die"-the film is based EXTREMELY loosely on the book, while two of the book's prominent scenes made it into FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (Bond being dragged by the boat) and LICENSE TO KILL (Felix getting maimed and Bond throwing the guy who maimed him to the sharks). The most faithful are probably From Russia With Love and Casino Royale, and even the latter took an hour to to get to where the book begins (The stuff in Africa and Miami international is not in the book).

A similar thing happens in the JP films-the aviary sequence and the Rex attack on the river were in the novel and were in early versions of the JP1 scripts, but probably due to budget reasons were cut from the film. However they did appear somewhat in JP3. Likewise, the compy scene which is one of the JP prologues is also the opening scene of TLW.

[90'sCartoonMan]

I guess I'll throw in Disney's version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. The book was dark and brilliant, the cartoon hackneyed and ridiculous.

Going along with that I have to say Hercules. I loved Disney's version of it, but as far as adapting myths go, they pretty much went in their own direction. Hera was his loving mother, Hades was a Devil-like character, Hercules owned Pegasus, etc.

[Jack]

The Bond films sort of have bits and pieces of Fleming here and there, but aren't really faithful adaptations, although bits and pieces of novel sequences show up here and there.Homosexuals can't whistle!

[adamthered]

Turning the concept of this thread upside down, I think that Sperminator is the most faithful porn adaptation of a mainstream movie. In Sperminator, the evil cyborg/robots of the future send back the Sperminator to impregnate Sarah Conner with defective sperm, in order to cause her to give birth to a John Connor with birth defects. Reese (played by Ron Jeremy) is sent back in time by the heroic resistance movement to properly become the father of John Connor. Everytime the Sperminator catches up with Reese and Sarah, they are able to distract him with an inflatable love doll.

:D Stellar!

[StoneGold]

Some adapted films that were more faithful:

The Godfather


Just because this one is easier to find...

One of the primary parts of Puzo's novel which was not used for the movie was the flashback story of Don Corleone's earlier life, including his arrival in America, marriage and fatherhood, Don Fanucci's murder, and his rise in importance in the mafia, all of which were later used in The Godfather Part II.

Many subplots were trimmed in the transition from the printed page to the screen, including: singer Johnny Fontane's misfortunes with women and his problems with his voice; Sonny's paramour Lucy Mancini's new-found love in Dr. Jules Segal (a character entirely missing from the film), who not only repairs Lucy's loose vagina but puts Michael in touch with the surgeon who repairs Michael's facial bones (which had been damaged by Capt. McCluskey) and also operated on Johnny Fontane's vocal cords, thus restoring his singing voice; Jack Woltz' increasing pedophilia; Kay Adams's home life; Luca Brasi's demonic past; Don Corleone's ingenious plan used to take Michael out of exile in Sicily; the detailed attack on the two men who assaulted Bonasera's daughter, which was led by Paulie Gatto and was only alluded to in the film; and information about Fredo Corleone, indicating that his frantic seduction of showgirls is a coverup for deeply closeted homosexuality. (This theme is elaborated in Mark Winegardner's sequel The Godfather Returns.)

Incidentally, the novel makes it clear that Lucy was not pregnant by Sonny when she moved to Las Vegas, thus leaving no room for Vincent Mancini of The Godfather, Part III. Curiously, Puzo wrote the screenplays of all three movies, so the contradiction was well known to him.

Characters with smaller roles in the film than in the novel include Johnny Fontane, Lucy Mancini, Rocco Lampone, and Al Neri (the latter two are reduced to non-speaking roles). Characters dropped in the film adaptation beside Dr. Segal include Genco Abbandando (only spoken of, he appears in The Godfather II; Genco actually appeared in a deleted scene for Godfather part I which was released on the Bravo network. The scene occurs after Connie's wedding and shows Don Corleone and his sons visiting Genco in the hospital), Nino Valenti (Johnny Fontane's "nice guy" friend, dying from alcoholism) and Dr. Taza from Sicily. Also, in the book, Michael and Kay have two sons, but in the movies they have a son and a daughter.

The novel and film also differ on the fates of Michael's bodyguards in Sicily, Fabrizio and Calo. The film has them both surviving (Calo, in fact, appears in the third installment). In the book, however, Calo dies along with Apollonia in the car explosion, and Fabrizio dies at the end as one more victim in the famous "baptism scene", shot in his restaurant in America after he's traced and found (he is killed in a scene in The Godfather Saga, which was deleted from The Godfather: Part II).

The ending of the book differs from the end of the movie: whereas in the film Kay suddenly realizes that Michael has become "like his family," the drama is toned down in the book, where Tom Hagen lets her in on secrets for which, according to him, he would be killed should Michael find out. During the film's baptism scene, the heads of the remaining four of five families are assassinated. In the novel, only Barzini and Tattaglia, previously at war with the Corleones, are killed.

[Cyke]

I was stunned when Marvel decided to publish a comic version of that story:

http://image.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/large/10806373230.29.gif

That is a very, very creepy cover.

[HectorP]

Not saying it tops The Lawnmower Man, but the Firestarter movie is nothing compared to its source. I didn't take it seriously at all after having read the book. It looks dated as hell.

[jesse_custer]

I know The Godfather film isn't spot-on like the novel, but it's still a more faithful adaptation than V for Vendetta. Thematically, it's pretty true to what Puzo said in the book.

[jpk]

Dolph Lundgren's Punisher movie. WTF?

[ultramandingo]

I guess I'll throw in Disney's version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. The book was dark and brilliant, the cartoon hackneyed and ridiculous.

... disney's version of any thing has been watered down to sell happy meals , heck the original evil step sisters cut their toes off to try and make their feet fit in that glass slipper

[ultramandingo]

Turning the concept of this thread upside down, I think that Sperminator is the most faithful porn adaptation of a mainstream movie.

.......do they still do porn versions of hollywwood flicks ? ifso what are the porn title for all the latest superguy movies? if they do a " power man and iron fist " they wont have to change the title

[the goddamn batman]

There's a Lord of the Rings prono. I don't know if it's a midget thing or not.

[Magneto_X]

I'd go with Starship troopers.

Strangely enough I prefer the movie to the book.

It was more entertaining, I could relate more to characters, the war wasn't vague and it had nude hot girls in it. :D

For the OP I have to say Catwoman.

[rick]

Yeah, but that's like saying Spidey wasn't faithful because of the webshooters. Cap was crap, but as things go, it was relatively faithful. I mean, Skull being an early recipient of the SSS and the Skull being a side effect of that is just as faithless, but no one really gives it a second though, mostly because it's actually a pretty good idea. The Italian thing doesn't really change anything. You could do a good Cap movie with an Italian Red Skull. Granted, it's a stupid change, but it wasn't, say the Karate Kid.
.


No I’m sorry but I have to disagree with you here.

There are changes in a movie that don’t alter a major factor of a story, such as the organic web shooters, but then there are small things that completely miss a major point and cause a serious change to the story, such as turning the perennial Cap villain, one who is in fact meant to be in his own way, the anti-Cap into just another gangster.

Of course the Cap movie was just filled with problems since the writer and director were convinced that nobody was interested in the costume stuff but were actually more attracted to the “man out of time” angle in the first place.

But no, you simply can’t do a good Cap movie with an Italian Red Skull.

[Magneto_X]

I want to say Constantine instead, just for neutering the character and taking him out of his natural environment (England), making the whole exercise rather pointless. But I've got go with "LXG," as the producers dubbed it, for all the dunderheaded fiddling done to both the characters and story.

Constantine was a good movie. Other then the main character having the same name as John from Hellblazer it had nothing to do with the property.

They seemed to ripoff the Dresden Files 80% of the time, too. Only instead of fighting demons & other non-Christian related deities (which are rare in the book & the entities that do come from Christianity that it uses are far more frightening then what Constantine had to deal with).

That reminds me. Where's my real Dresden Files movie(s), Hollywood?

That type of property works on the big sceen, not a low budget tv series.

[Magneto_X]

I, Robot. It was more of a Matrix prequel than the book.

Agreed.

At the end I was waiting for Duex Machina to show up. lol

[StoneGold]

No I’m sorry but I have to disagree with you here.

There are changes in a movie that don’t alter a major factor of a story, such as the organic web shooters, but then there are small things that completely miss a major point and cause a serious change to the story, such as turning the perennial Cap villain, one who is in fact meant to be in his own way, the anti-Cap into just another gangster.

Of course the Cap movie was just filled with problems since the writer and director were convinced that nobody was interested in the costume stuff but were actually more attracted to the “man out of time” angle in the first place.

But no, you simply can’t do a good Cap movie with an Italian Red Skull.

Let me put it this way - the odds would be extremely against it. But I don't think it's entirely impossible.


But you have to admit, the bit about the Skull being a SSS prototype was pretty cool. If anything, it was the one really cool thing in the movie.


Well, that and when Ned Beatty got raped by the hillbillies.

[Thorlief]

as weird as it may sound I don't dislike 1991's Cap. Ok, the movie sucks, the fight scenes suck, the special effects if any suck, the budget is lower than an episode of 90210 but there's something I would save:
Matt Salinger is not bad as Cap or Steve Rogers. He's got the right face, maybe he lacks muscles, maybe he'snt got Ian Mc kellen expressivity but imo he's spot on
his costume and Skull's makeup definitely don't suck; consider the budget and look at the results, I dont find it horrible
the story is a typical comic nonsense

faithful? Just like any other super hero movie out here

[Thorlief]

No. It is a terrible example. It may not be very good, but it has a bunch of 19th century fictional characters teaming up to fight another 19th century fictional character. Not the same as Moore's story? Then it was about as faithful as any other superhero movie. I don't seem to recall the Green Goblin trying to drop Mary Jane off a bridge.


Unless he's done it at some point since after they resurrected him. I haven't paid that much attention, but you get the point. It may have been a lousy movie, but even as Norrington movies go, it was far more faithful than, say, Blade. The only similarities Blade had to the Tomb of Dracula character were his name and that his mother had been bitten by a vampire just prior to his birth. And that he kills vampires. Everything else, from the tone of the story, to his methods, to his powers, to the way he looked, to his villains and their methods (yeah, there was Frost, but Frost was an old looking dude in the comics) to every other damn thing was changed. LXG was basically just a dumbed down version of LoEG. Everything was basically the same, just stupider, and rearranged to kowtow to actor demands. Like, I could read LoEG and watch LXG and realize that LXG was the movie version of LoEG. Which is more than I can say for, oh, let's say House of the Dead.


it makes sense, but there's one thing to consider: a Spider Man movie or any other superhero movie has to rearrange and condense the contents of years and years of storyline in 1.30, theres no way Doc Ock story could have been the same, or Green Goblin, or Venom..or whatever it pops in mind

When you have a six issues story with a big fat "the end" at the end there's no way it can't be fit it into a 2 hours movie without messing the whole characterizations, scenario, villain and such stuff. LXG novel doesnt have a terribly complicated plot, Moore wanted it to be a pure old school action/adventure story: fast, engaging, great villain, great final showdown and that's really about it. It's not like when you have to analyze 25 years of Norman Osborne, pick up what it could work on screen and slap it all over Dafoe

LXG is a short saga with a clockwork screenplay, it could have been the perfect superhero movie if done properly. You still think story's too long for a movie? Cut out Gray and send back Sawyer to Georgia, so you have no more excuses

[Asmith]

One of the classic examples of least faithful adaptations is the old movie serial of Captain America and I'll throw in the movie update from 1990.


In the serial, Cap was actually Grant Gardner, crime fighting District Attorney, without a Nazi, a shield or wings on his head in sight.

And in the movie, the Red Skull was Italian.

An even less faithful adaption has to be The Shadow serial. It's out on DVD under the title International Crime. Don't know the date - looks to be late 30s

In this adaption The Shadow is Lamont Cranston: happy-go-lucky smooth talking and verbose crusading radio talkshow host. Who investigates an international banking fraud that involves a murder with his wisecracking whacky girlfriday/love interest. Through a series of some comic misadventures and sluething they solve the case!

As a stand alone it's not too bad - but it has much more in common with the Thin Man series of films than The Shadow. Other than the characters name, and I think the 'who knows what evil...' line is the radio show sign off, there is nothing to really join it to The Shadow. It's odd they bothered.

But speaking of strange adaptions - the Jon Sable tv series 'Sable' missed the mark of the comic rather poorly. Other than the basic 5 word concept: Mercenary helps solve peoples problems, they skewed away from the character in the comics. Hell - I think the old curly haired Doctor Strange movie had a better sense of its source material!

[Toku King]

Seriously, the answer is The Lawnmower Man. How many others mentioned in this thread involved a change in genre? The short story Lawnmower Man was just a weird horror story involving the greek god Pan. The movie Lawnmower Man is a science-fiction story involving virtual reality and psychic powers. Notice the difference? Stephen King sure did, and he sued to get his name pulled from the movie.

No. The Stuart Little trilogy.

[rick]

Let me put it this way - the odds would be extremely against it. But I don't think it's entirely impossible.


But you have to admit, the bit about the Skull being a SSS prototype was pretty cool. If anything, it was the one really cool thing in the movie.


Well, that and when Ned Beatty got raped by the hillbillies.


I actually did like the movie, even with the Skull not being a Nazi, and Cap only being in uniform for about 15 minutes.

It just could have been so much more.

[rick]

But speaking of strange adaptions - the Jon Sable tv series 'Sable' missed the mark of the comic rather poorly. Other than the basic 5 word concept: Mercenary helps solve peoples problems, they skewed away from the character in the comics. Hell - I think the old curly haired Doctor Strange movie had a better sense of its source material!

I never saw Sable but I heard it was really awful.

As for Doctor Strange, while I admit that it suffers from the budget and acting quality of all of those CBS Marvel movies from the 1970's, it actually does a better job of sticking to the source material then most of the ones they put out.

[IamtheRock3]

adaption- The movie. It actully was the adaptiono of some movie about a flower. Made into a movie about a guy trying to adapt that book. That was a real book. Made the author a craze crack head

[jesse_custer]

Um, Adaptation wasn't supposed to be a faithful adaptation. It had the underlying satiric theme of how people can't adapt things correctly. Brilliant film.

[Tobias March]

adaption- The movie. It actully was the adaptiono of some movie about a flower. Made into a movie about a guy trying to adapt that book. That was a real book. Made the author a craze crack head

Yeah but she loved it, plus she got to be played by Meryl Streep....whose scenes while high were hilarious :)

[SPAfreak]

Resident Evil was able being stuck in a huge mansion with a ton of zombies. The movie was about being in a high-tech lab where lasers kill most of the characters well before any zombies pop up. They didn't even use the characters from the game.

I'm pretty sure that we're not going to argue the other over to our point of view on this one. I could care less about a literal translation. What Anderson did with the movie was keep the atmosphere of the game along with a lot of the broad themes. What you're suggesting, a bunch of zombies in a house, is really a generic horror movie. The lab accident, the scenes in the mansion, the commandos raiding the lab and the aftermath don't make for the most original plot either but they make for a more complete movie. This way we get to see the evil corporation and the accident that caused the zombies. I personally think that it works. Plus, like I said, it's the video game movie that I feel would best translate into a game, especially one with the RE series gameplay and storytelling style. THAT is why I think it's a good adaptation.

[DaeJi]

I just have a lot of anger towards video games movies, and when one can't even use the same characters it gets under my skin :(. And I hate Anderson with a passion.

[Magneto_X]

My only problem with the RE movies was that they should have had Jill Valentine as the lead. Or adapted the games closer --- like RE 0.

Sienna Guillory proved she could take what little time she had with the character & made Jill the best thing in the movie. We didn't need more Alice.

[Jade_GL]

I have to agree with Lawnmower Man.

Literally nothing to do with each other. Nothing.

I read the book after I had seen bit and pieces of the movie and it was a definite WTF moment. I an't even remember one tiny detail the two may have had in common besides the title.

In fact, I just read the wikipedia articles for both, and not one thing is the same from the short story to the movie. Wow, we have a winnah I believe.

[stealthwise]

Catwoman. Seriously, why???

I think that it would have at least been amusing if they'd gone with the original AICN script that had like, seven different catwomen in it, all created due to some evil perfume company.

[DWEarhart]

Howard the Duck

As far as adaptations go it sucked. But I love the comic and the movie on their own merits. Really - I like both. It is possible.

[GRAVEKID]

I agree with CatWoman! How can you have Catwoman without Selina Kyle? Anyone?

[Frodo-X]

The Lost World by Michael Crichton

I tell you, about all they kept for the movie were the characters' names and the island. Pretty much everything else was warped beyond recognition.

[david r]

Another candidate would be the film adaptation of The Sum of All Fears.

Tom Clancy's novel takes place in the Middle East. Hollywood changed it to Europe.

The villains in the book were Mid-East terrorists. Hollywood changed it to German Neo-Nazis.

The villains in the book detonate a nuclear bomb at the Super Bowl. Hollywood has them detonate it in some field.

The hero Jack Ryan is NOT having an affair in the book. Hollywood changed it so he IS HAVING an affair.

[Thorlief]

wow, both versions sound iper-trite to me. Nuclear bomb at Superbowl? I'm glad I stopped reading Clancy with Rainbow Six

About RE movies: BRAVO team stuck into a mansion full of zombies isnt going to work on screen..maybe just the first 30 minutes then you have to move along. If they adapted a game like RE4 with all the different (and more interesting) scenarios it could work much better in my opinion

[The Zapper]

I have to vote for Catwoman. Serious WTF.

[mattx110]

wow, both versions sound iper-trite to me. Nuclear bomb at Superbowl? I'm glad I stopped reading Clancy with Rainbow Six

About RE movies: BRAVO team stuck into a mansion full of zombies isnt going to work on screen..maybe just the first 30 minutes then you have to move along. If they adapted a game like RE4 with all the different (and more interesting) scenarios it could work much better in my opinion

this is a man who wasn't afraid of blowing up the whitehouse. nukes at the superbowl are nothing.

special note to the NSA: we're discussing fiction.

[beetlebum]

This is kind of obscure, but Valley of the Dolls. The film adaptation, which was released in 1968, was the worst film adaptation ever. No wonder it is considered one of the worst films of all time. It was nothing like the book. Even Barbara Parkins and Patty Duke who starred in the film admit it was awful. And poor Sharon Tate. She can't act, her only claim to fame was that she died too soon.Also, The Avengers. What a horrible piece of crap. Ralph Fiennes is no good as an action hero, Uma Thurman is only good in projects directed by Quentin Tarentino (though I will admit I liked my super ex girlfriend) AND JOHN AND EMMA SHOULD NEVER KISS EVER!!! Also, the Batman films after Batman Returns, where they tried to make him all kid friendly. That did not work. But sometimes, not being absolutely faithful to the original work on whence it is based can work out in a film's favour. Just look at The Saint. I loved how they modernised Simon Templar. They made him a cross between Jimmy Cooper and Batman, made him a man in search of an identity. To find out who he really was. I also admit that I liked Charlie's Angels. (Go ahead mock me). I thought making the girl's more modern and better fighters made the story lines more enjoyable. There was also a film adaptation of Charles Dickens Great Expectations that was released in 1998. It was so far removed from the book.The only good thing about it was it's soundtrack.

[Alex]

LXG is a great example. Man that movie departed from the original. About the only interesting thing they brought to it was including Erik, the Phantom of the Opera, in the story. Of course, like everything else, they made a mess of it.

From Hell? How unfaithful was that? It's been awhile since I've seen the movie.

From Hell had to be different, it either would have made the longest, most boring movie ever, or, it would have to be a documentary.
It is one of the least movie friendly comics i've ever read.

[Motormouse]

Stephen King's IT

The absolute worst adaptation.......ever!

[saintsaucey]

the indian in the cupboard. i couldn't even watch all of it it was so terrible

[The Zapper]

From Hell had to be different, it either would have made the longest, most boring movie ever Sounds like they got it right then lol.

[StoneGold]

the indian in the cupboard. i couldn't even watch all of it it was so terrible

Guh? Other than moving it to the US, and the bit where he stuck Robocop and Vader in the cupboard, it was pretty faithful.

[saintsaucey]

Guh? Other than moving it to the US, and the bit where he stuck Robocop and Vader in the cupboard, it was pretty faithful.

been a while since i seen it. you say they moved it to the states. the vader and robo cop thing bothered me. don't remember much of it otherwise.

as form oving things to the states. i loved that they did that with high fidelity that and they changed the ending. other than that it was still quite similar to the book and fantastic at that

[saintsaucey]

From Hell had to be different, it either would have made the longest, most boring movie ever, or, it would have to be a documentary.
It is one of the least movie friendly comics i've ever read.

you mean the book is worse than the movie. wow. i hated the movie

[The Batman]

No the book is great. It's just richly layered with details and contexts and goes in alot of directions that don't lend themselves well to a two hour Hollywood movie.

[Jared]

Stephen King's IT

The absolute worst adaptation.......ever!

I thought that Part I was a pretty fair adaptation of events from the book. Part II was just a rehash of it, and nowhere near as strong. But at least they left out That One Part, which nearly derails the book.

[Thorlief]

you mean the book is worse than the movie. wow. i hated the movie

eh, no. From Hell is one of the best comic books of all times: complex, dark, VERY graphic, with an incredible amount of detail. Criminology teachers often use it as a example..it just has to remain a comic book