Book adaptations are often judged based on how accurately they can communicate the ideas of the source material, but it’s possible to create a great movie that fails as an adaptation. Many of the best book adaptations ever take a loose approach to the idea of transliteration, extracting the essence of a story while coming up with countless new ideas to make it more suitable for the medium of film. Not all books are natural candidates for big-screen adaptations, so changes are often necessary.
While readers and even authors can get upset if a movie adaptation doesn’t stick to the source material, it’s sometimes the best thing to do. Trying too hard to bring every aspect of a book to life is riddled with difficulties, so another approach is to ignore the idea of fidelity entirely. In these cases, fans of the movies might not even know that they were originally based on books, since the directors and screenwriters have injected so many of their own ideas.
Pinocchiowas only Disney’s second animated feature-length movie, but it’s still praised as one of thebest animated moviesof all time. Fans of the Disney classic might be shocked if they decide to read Carlo Collodi’s book to compare, because it’s a much darker tale with a sadder ending. In the book, Pinocchio kills Jiminy Cricket early on, although he’s just a minor character who doesn’t even have a name and later returns as a ghost. Pinocchio is a much meaner and more cynical character in the book, and he has his feet burned off before being hanged. Ultimately, he’s brought back to life and he gets a positive ending.
10 Great Book Characters Failed By Movie Adaptations
Even in some of the best movies adapted from books, the greatest and most beloved literary characters can devolve into shadows of their former selves.
Of course,Pinocchioisn’t the only Disney movie that takes a liberal approach to its source material. Many of the studio’s old classics lighten the tone of the books and fairy tales that they’re based on. For example, in the original version ofThe Little Mermaid,Ariel doesn’t magically lose her voice, but her tongue is cut out.The Jungle Book, Alice in WonderlandandPeter Panare also guilty of watering down their source material.Pinocchiois just one of the most egregious offenders in Disney’s catalogue.
Steven Spielberg has often taken his own approach to book adaptations, chopping and changing them to his tastes. He changes the characters inJurassic Park,mashes several books together forThe Adventures of Tintinand draws from a broader pool of pop-cultural references inReady Player One.None of his adaptations are as radically different asJaws,however, and it can be quite a shock to read the book after watching the movie. Spielberg’s classic thriller strips away many of the book’s subplots, and it changes the fate of some characters.
Peter Benchley’s novel includes a lot of extraneous details which don’t make their way into the movie.
Peter Benchley’s novel includes a lot of extraneous details which don’t make their way into the movie, and the movie is probably better as a result.One subplot that Spielberg emits is the love affair between Hooper and Brody’s wife.There’s also a strange plot about the mayor being tied to organized crime. These are just two unnecessary subplots which would be distracting on film, since they would draw attention from the intriguing dynamic between Hooper, Brody and Quint, which is part of what makesJawsso compelling. The refined simplicity of the movie also allows for maximum impact when the shark rises to the surface.
Annihilationby Jeff VanderMeer is a strange and thought-provoking novel, but many of its ideas seem impossible to film. For his adaptation, Alex Garland takes a loose approach that allows him to retain the novel’s mysterious and creepy style of sci-fi while coming up with many of his own visuals. He also makes some changes to the structure and to the characters. For starters, he gives them names, while VanderMeer keeps things vague and refers to them only by their job titles. There’s more conflict within the team in the book, but the movie shows the team as a more united entity.
Annihilationis the first book in Jeff VanderMeer’sSouthern Reachseries.
The deepermeaning ofAnnihilationis extremely vague, in both the book and the movie.Some of Garland’s strange visuals don’t have obvious answers, which reflects how the team of scientists only find more questions as they journey deeper into the anomaly. The Shimmer - or “Area X,” as it’s known in the book - generates plenty of conflicting theories. Some of the details, like the doppelgängers and the lighthouse, are present in both the book and the movie, but these are the rare exceptions. The mutant bear is one example of something completely original in the movie, replacing a shape-shifting entity of light and noise known as"the Crawler" in the book.
It would be forgivable to think thatShrekwas a completely original movie, since the book isn’t that famous and the movie doesn’t exactly highlight William Steig’s contributions. This is fair, because Steig’s children’s book barely resembles the DreamWorks movie in any way. Both the book and the movie are about a green ogre named Shrek, but there aren’t many more similarities. The book starts when Shrek is kicked out of his family home, literally, so that he can go and cause chaos in the world. This is already different from the movie, since Shrek’s family are never mentioned, and he is reluctantly forced on an adventure so that he can regain his solitude at home.
10 Movie Adaptations Where You Really Should Read The Book First
Reading the book before watching its film adaptation can greatly enrich the viewing experience and enhance understanding of the movie’s story.
Just like the movie, the book features a donkey, a dragon and a princess, but the book version of Shrek defeats the dragon by breathing fire at it, and he marries the princess because he’s attracted to how ugly she is. Princess Fiona’s human form is an invention of the movie, as are Lord Farquaad, the displaced fairy tale creatures and most of the obstacles Shrek faces. As the franchise has continued,Shrekhas deviated even further from the book. The book has no sequels, butShrek 5is on the wayto resurrect the franchise, showing how it has outgrown its source material.
TheForrest Gumpmovie is far more popular than the book ever was. Winston Groom’s novel didn’t make much of an impact when it was first published, and it might be all but forgotten today if not for the movie, even though Robert Zemeckis' adaptation isn’t very faithful to the book. One major difference is Forrest’s character, who has moments of violence and rudeness in the book. Tom Hanks' portrayal of the character smooths out these rough edges, and he never curses and never shows any skills with physics or mathematics like he does in the book.
One major difference is Forrest’s character, who has moments of violence and rudeness in the book.
As well as the main character being different, the movie changes a lot of the plot. Forrest’s friendship with Bubba and the specifics of his shrimp business are changed for the movie, and some of the novel’s wildest subplots are completely excluded. If the movie had stuck to the blueprint of the novel,it would have shown Forrest becoming a world-class chess player and venturing into space alongside an orangutan. It’s probably for the best that these stories were left out, since there are already enough adventures for Hanks' character to embark upon.
The title change underlines how radically differentBlade Runneris compared toDo Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?In fact, the terms “Blade Runner” and “replicant” don’t even appear in Philip K. Dick’s popular sci-fi novel. Deckard is referred to only as a police officer or a bounty hunter. Ridley Scott took the title of his movie from a completely unrelated sci-fi novel written by Alan E. Nourse, which shows how he wasn’t afraid to ignore his source material when he saw fit, and blend different influences into something unique and original.
Many ofBlade Runner’s most interesting images and ideas have nothing to do with the novel.
Blade Runnermakes numerous changes to Dick’s novel, some of which are merely superficial, but many of which have a huge impact on the plot. For example, the lack of backstory inBlade Runnermakes the hazy dystopia more mysterious, even if it isn’t central to the story. Bigger changes include the fact that Deckard has a wife in the novel, Rachel is well-aware that she’s a replicant, and there’s a strange religion known as “Mercerism” that has become the predominant faith in the post-apocalyptic society. Many ofBlade Runner’s most interesting images and ideas have nothing to do with the novel.
The Shiningis one of thebest Stephen King adaptations, but the author has often spoken about his dissatisfaction with Stanley Kubrick’s interpretation of his novel. Kubrick has form for loosely adapting books, and he makesLolita, A Clockwork OrangeandBarry Lyndonhis own. EvenDr. StrangeloveandThe Killingare extremely loose adaptations of novels.The Shiningis particularly noteworthy since the book is so popular, and it’s not too common that an author decries an adaptation of their work as vocally as King has done.
10 Movie Adaptations So Different From The Books That Their Authors Hated Them
Movie adaptations of books are never perfect, but sometimes they change the characters and the plot so much that the original authors hate them.
King’s main issue withThe Shiningmovie adaptation is the way that Kubrick shifts focus from the hotel as an evil force.King places more emphasis on the haunted past of the Overlook, while Kubrick suggests that the evils come from within Jack. Rather than a story of a good man being corrupted, the movie is about a man with his own demons who finally loses the battle to keep them in check. There are plenty more changes too. For example, Danny’s psychic abilities play a more prominent role in the book, Hallorann survives, and some iconic images like the twins and the hedge maze are Kubrick’s own inventions.
Roald Dahl famously hatedWilly Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,the 1971 adaptation of his beloved children’s bookCharlie and the Chocolate Factorystarring Gene Wilder. The negative experience of seeing his work being butchered caused him to be extremely guarded about his novels, and it’s only since his death that there have been many more adaptations.Fantastic Mr. Foxis probably the most radical of all Roald Dahl adaptations, as it barely resembles the book at all. Wes Anderson merely uses the relatively short book as a starting point.
Fantastic Mr. Foxwas written for a young audience, and it’s far simpler than other books likeDanny the Champion of the Worldor evenCharlie and the Chocolate Factory.Anderson turns it into a heist thriller about a father struggling to leave his criminal past behind and settle down with his family.It’s easier to list what the movie has in common with the book than what it changes, because most of the characters, the plot and the dialogue are completely original.Fantastic Mr. Foxis one ofWes Anderson’s best movies, and he returned to Roal Dahl for more inspiration with his series of short films for Netflix in 2023.
