Radically changing plot lines in movies made from books

[mykl]

Why do script writers feel the need to make radical departures from the books that the movies are being based upon.

For example, Starship Troopers. The story told in the movie was changed so dramatically it was almost unrecognizable. And not because it was not possable to film the story as told by Heinlein.

A second example would be A & E's adaptation of the Hornblower books written by C S Forrester. While the adaptation is entertaining, they take serious liberties with the story as told by Forrester. And mind you, this is a story taking place during the Napolionic Wars. It's not like they use a lot of special effects. The sets they built could just as easily have been used without making any serious modifications to the original plot.

I am a big fan of David Webers Honor Harrington stories, and they are so popular I have no doubt they will eventually wind up on the big screen. I cringe at the thought of how the producers will butcher that opportunity. And it will still probably make billions.

Shogun, and Noble House are two exceptions, but only because they were executively produced by the same person who wrote them (James Clavell).

[VersesBatman]

Forrest Gump is very different from the book.

[Kal-L, The Original]

You mean the book was good, VB? :lol:

Sometimes they edit things from the book because of time or budget. That can make a certain amount of sense. and then there are some things that just flow better on screen than what was written in the book. It's when they do it to make some kind of "point" that it really annoys me.

As for Starship Troopers, perfectly true to the source material or not I think Heinlein would have loved it. When I watch it everything about it reminds me of his work.

[VersesBatman]

I didn't say good I said different. :lol:

[Kal-L, The Original]

Originally posted by VersesBatman
I didn't say good I said different. :lol:

Oh, so it was awful, too? Sorry-- misunderstood. :rotfl:

[VersesBatman]

Yeah. The movie was corny, but in the book, Forrest was very unlikable. He swore, he was onry.

[greenshady]

And sometimes they change the story in the movie so it will be suitable to a broader audience.

[VersesBatman]

Definatly. Forrest Gump wasn't very sweet like the movie.

[Kal-L, The Original]

Originally posted by VersesBatman
Definatly. Forrest Gump wasn't very sweet like the movie.

I don't know-- I think any change in that character would have been an improvement from what I saw on the screen.

But greenshady's right-- so much money is put into the production of film and tv that execs feel they have to appeal to broadest possible audience. Which leads to some really bad choices sometimes, but sometimes actually produces a better story.

Tekwar, for example. The books are a fight to get through, but I thought the tv show was all right.

[MBCorp]

Alot of times when they make books into movies they take out all of the stuff that made people love the book and replace it instead with shiny hollywoodish junk.

A good example of a book being butchered by the movies is The League of Extraordinary Gentleman. Great comic, lousy movie.

[VersesBatman]

Forrest would have been more realistic.

[Kal-L, The Original]

I don't know, I liked League-- the movie and the comic. But I did like the comic better.

[Doc Holliday]

They butchered The Bourne Identity and the Bourne Supremecy.

The movie version of the Bourne Identity is almost completely changed from the book. Only the basic plot ideas remain.

The movie version of the Bourne Supremecy is absolutly NOTHING at all like the book. There is nothing from the book in that movie. At all! They took the title, and that's it!

Grrr! I can't even watch those movies! Why did they have to butcher brilliant books like that?!

[ferd]

I love both the movie and the book 'Gone with the wind' but they did some major changes when they adapted it for the big screen. Most obviously cutting out two of Scarlett's three children. They also completely cut out Will Benteen who IMHO was a *major* character in the book and the progression of Scarlett's character during the war recovery at Tara. I also missed Dilcey (Prissy's mom) in the movie.

Of course I realize if they made the movie just like the book it would've been 1000 hours long :lol:

Yeah, I agree with Forrest Gump. I love the movie, but the book was SO different. Forrest seemed so harsh and hard. If I wouldn've read the book first I wouldn't have watched the movie.

[VersesBatman]

GWTW also changed how Gerald O'Hara died.

[Summers]

Harry Potter and PoA was ruined as a movie. It kept some elements of the book like the Lupin, Sirius, time travel, and Buckbeak. But everything was changed or didnt elaborate more like the book did. They are going to have to extra work at explaining some things that they left out in PoA movie.

Lois Duncan's I Know What You Did Last Summer completely different compared to the movie. but still great scary young adult book to read.

[mykl]

My theory is that it's an ego thing. They see a book that has sold in the millions and think, I can do better than that. But they can't. Sometimes they just want the rights to the character because it already has public recognition. Starship Troopers has been in constant publication since the early sixties and sold something like 500 million copies. The Hornblower series started in the early fifties and has sold about the same number, in just about every language on the planet.

I Robot is another example of a butchered book.

Ironically, if you haven't read the books, these movies can be somewhat entertaining. OK they can be very entertaining. But the original stories were entertaining or they wouldn't have sold the number of copies that they did.

Just as an item of interest, I read somewhere that to have script approval you must be a member or a past member of the screen writers guild. That is how James Clavell was able to control the Shogun and Noble House mini series. Well, that and the fact he was the producer.

Like I said earlier, I cringe at what they will do to David Webers Honor Harrington books. Hopefully he will at least get paid enough to make it worth the high blood pressure he is going to get from watching his stories get mangled by Hollywood.

[Chi Town]

I doubt few people would have lined up to Starship Troopers had they written it true to the book. The book after all was a take on government. There is an underlying tone in the movie as to what the book was about. The line
"Service guarantees citizenship" was the biggest give away. That and the uniforms.

I did read most of the Horatio Hornblower Books. It was a very good series but then again most of the strategy was going on in his head. With the exception of the story told from Mr. Bushes point of view. It would have been hard to translate on the screen.

They tried the whole what are they thinking angle in Dune where you could hear the thoughts but it came out sort of weird (imo like the book as good as it was. )

Unfortunately you have to change the book to appeal to the mass audience even though they would never read the genre on their own.

[mykl]

Reguarding Starship Troopers, I would partially agree with you. The basic plot to the book would have been very easy to bring to the big screen. They left out powered armor, and promoted several characters far beyound their importance in the novel. They also blended several characters. With A & E's adaptation my complaint is much the same, Archie is an invented character that was not in the books. Much like Chloe in Smallville. Pellew was a minor character who was really only in the first couple of stories. In the mini series he plays a character who is a blend of several characters from the book. I am curious to see if they will try to incorporate him into the stories reguarding the Atropos and the Lydia. All of this being said, I enjoy the HH series. If I had known in advance what they would do with Starship Troopers, I would have passed.