In name only

[Arthur]

'Salem's Lot The vampires are humanoid in he book wile in the TV-film the main one is a Nosferatu

[Arthur]

Christine in the book it is the ghost of a former owner that possesses the car, but in the film Christine is evil even in the assembly line production plant

[Arthur]

The Lost World The book has a dinosaur that is basically a giant killer chameleon predator - the film takes the dinosaurs to the US mainland - both versions are rubbish

[Phillip]

Mostly I'm talking drastic changes where faithful readers can't explain the movie/TV plot. However, this can still be a good film. The difference between considering the movie garbage (The Dark Tower) versus an "alternate" universe (Who Framed Roger Rabbit).

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

~ Giulia ~ wrote: "I love both Howl's Moving Castle the book and the movie, even if they're very different and in the second half they diverge completely. "


Agreed. The stories are very different, but I really enjoy both.

[DivaDiane]

That’s why I didn’t mention the other movies based on Philip K Dick stories, Phillip. I feel like Blade runner was so different that I liked it and the book equally. The other movies tried to stay closer to the story but got it so wrong that I was really annoyed.

[CBRetriever]

Blade Runner bothered me a lot because there is a The Blade Runner by Alan E. Nourse. I thought the movie was going to be based on that book, so I was really confused as I watched the movie. Thee was eve a screen play for the Nourse by written by William S. Burroughs: Blade Runner: A Movie

[Ada]

Phillip wrote: "Have you found any other examples. Which ones do you recommend enjoying both versions, despite being completly different, and which do you have a specific preference?"

I'm not totally sure if I'm right with this one because I read and saw both of them when I was a kid. Also I read the books in Dutch and saw the television series in English and somehow everything in English sounds scarier to me.

But reading the 'Kippenvel' series didn't do as much as for as what watching the Goosebumps series did. I think Kid-Me preferred the books though because they were less scary...

Maybe someone else do know how much these two differ?

[Cheryl]

Ada wrote: "somehow everything in English sounds scarier to me..."

I'm sorry.

I didn't know that there were films, but I agree that the book covers of Goosebumps seem to be the scariest part of them. They're pretty tame according to my sons.

[Becky]

Ada wrote: "Also I read the books in Dutch and saw the television series in English and somehow everything in English sounds scarier to me."

I actually have a similar issue with reading vs watching. I find things that I can read easily much more scary when watched. For example, The Exorcist. The movie STILL freaks me out to this day (despite the fact that I've seen it dozens of times), but the book, which was excellent, hardly affected my Scare Nerves at all.

I think it's the visual aspect - I just respond differently to it. Maybe it's similar for you with the Goosebumps series? :)

[Micah]

CBRetriever wrote: "Blade Runner bothered me a lot because there is a The Blade Runner by Alan E. Nourse..."

Ha! That's really annoying. Hadn't heard that before, though.

I'd like to say Nourse stole the titel from PKD but of course PKD's book was not titled "Blade Runner" and both of the books were published before the movie.

[Micah]

Oh … Wikipedia has the answer:

Fancher [one of the movie's screenplay writers] found a cinema treatment by William S. Burroughs for Alan E. Nourse's novel The Bladerunner (1974), titled Blade Runner (a movie). Scott liked the name, so Deeley obtained the rights to the titles.

[Ada]

Cheryl wrote: "Ada wrote: "somehow everything in English sounds scarier to me..."

I'm sorry. "

Hahaha I can't stop laughing. Perfect delivery!

[Arthur]

Ada wrote: "Phillip wrote: "Have you found any other examples. Which ones do you recommend enjoying both versions, despite being completly different, and which do you have a specific preference?"

I'm not tota..."

The Iron Man by Ted Hughes - filmed as The Iron Giant, very different in both cases but both great - would like to have seen the dragon in the film though

[Trike]

Becky wrote: "I actually have a similar issue with reading vs watching. I find things that I can read easily much more scary when watched. For example, The Exorcist. The movie STILL freaks me out to this day (despite the fact that I've seen it dozens of times), but the book, which was excellent, hardly affected my Scare Nerves at all.

I think it's the visual aspect - I just respond differently to it."

This is just how our bodies and brains work. We basically have three layers of cognition which go in this order: sound -> sight -> reading. The theory is that this is the case because of how our brains developed.

Visual stimuli bypasses our mental filters entirely, therefore affecting us more deeply because we aren’t processing it critically. Language is a latecomer to our abilities, evolutionarily speaking, so it requires more mental work, and therefore has to get through more filters.

Sound is the most primal of all, bypassing our brain entirely. It’s effectively hardwired directly to our nervous system. That’s why a loud noise will cause us to jump before we even register the sound: it’s an ancient survival mechanism. You see this in animals readily, especially cats. A loud noise will send them into full avoidance mode instantaneously. Humans have it, too, but we tend to condition ourselves out of the most extreme reactions.

So a scary movie that effectively utilizes a sight and sound combination will terrify us more immediately *and* more intimately precisely because it’s doing an end-run around our defenses. That’s why jump scares in horror flicks always combine an object and a sharp, loud noise. That combo turns our autonomic nervous system against us.

If you want to diminish the effect, simply watch a scary movie with sound turned off. The impact is dramatically decreased. Compare that to a scary radioplay, which will be massively terrifying because the sound effects and music cues will practically cause your body to react beyond your control.

[Bruce]

Someone mentioned Constantine/Hellblazer, and I’d also add 3 of Alan Moore’s other creations - V for Vendetta, Watchmen, and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I still have yet to read Watchmen (🙀), but the changes to other two wrecked both of them. Granted, Moore’s comic books are very difficult to adapt. I read an article years ago where Terry Gilliam said he turned down directing Watchmen because it was unadaptable. I think with something like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, one of the problems of adapting it is theres some similar satire styles to Vonnegut, which as we all know is also (mostly) unadaptable.

[Bruce]

Also, most movies based on HG Wells’ books are at least slightly different. First Men in the Moon, and maybe the 1960 version of Time Machine are the most similar.

[Bruce]

And yes, I’m someone who refuses to read Heinlein, similar to how I won’t read Ayn Rand.

[Becky]

You always make me feel so special, Trike! :P

[CBRetriever]

1968 for Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Phillip K. Dick
1974 for Blade Runner by Alan Nourse
1979 for William Burrough's adaptation of Nourse's book
1982 for Blade Runner movie

I don't remember the Phillip K. Dick book even using the term Blade Runner, so Nourse didn't steal it from him. the original Blade Runner is a fairly good book.

[Ryan, Your favourite moderators favourite moderator]

The book doesn't use the term Blade Runner. It was taken from an adapted screenplay of Nourse's novel because it sounded cooler than Do Androids Dream. Weird and unnecessary if you ask me.

[Cheryl]

Arthur wrote: "The Iron Man by Ted Hughes - filmed as The Iron Giant, very different in both cases but both great - would like to have seen the dragon in the film though"..."

Excellent example, seconded.

[Micah]

Bruce wrote: "...theres some similar satire styles to Vonnegut, which as we all know is also (mostly) unadaptable..."

And yet the film version of Slaughterhouse-Five (1972, directed by George Roy Hill) is one of the most accurate book-to-film adaptations of all.

[Micah]

Ryan wrote: "The book doesn't use the term Blade Runner. It was taken from an adapted screenplay of Nourse's novel because it sounded cooler than Do Androids Dream. Weird and unnecessary if you ask me."

Yep. Reference my message above (message 62).

[M.L.]

The Invention of Hugo Cabret - vs - Martin Scorcese's Hugo.

It's good and daring that Scorcese stepped out of his usual, but he's better with gangsters.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

John Carter vs. A Princess of Mars.

[AndrewP]

Arthur wrote: "The film version of The Snows of Kilimanjaro changes the ending - actually exactly the opposite to what happens in the book, and ruins it"

They also did that with Dan Brown's 'Inferno'. The film ending is basically the opposite of the book.

[Arthur]

Micah wrote: "Bruce wrote: "...theres some similar satire styles to Vonnegut, which as we all know is also (mostly) unadaptable..."

And yet the film version of Slaughterhouse-Five (1972, directed by George Roy ..."

The film of Vonnegut's Mother Night is close to source too though not sf - can't see how they could film Slapstick, or Lonesome No More! though

[Bruce]

I meant more along the lines of popular or classic films. While the films of those two are good, they’re not talked about too much, especially when they’re based on books by a writer as regarded - or even popular among younger readers - as Vonnegut. Not that popular or classic is everything, and I’ll be the first to say a lot of my favorites aren’t either, but still.

[Trike]

Road to Perdition was both a good graphic novel and a good movie, but they did change some things. Jude Law’s character doesn’t exist in the book, and the story is narrated by an adult Michael Jr. who became a priest. (Side note: the kid is played by Tyler Hoechlin, who is the current Superman on CW’s Supergirl.) In the book Michael Jr. does kill someone, but in the movie he doesn’t. I like the movie choice better, but I prefer the idea of an adult version of the character narrating the story.

Full Metal Jacket is based on the 3-story collection The Short-Timers. The movie is better, but some parts of the stories are so vivid you almost feel like you’re there. The third story kind of goes off the rails, like the author did a LOT of drugs when he returned from Nam and decided to write while stoned. So the movie really only uses the first two, which was a good choice. However, that part at the end of the film where the marines are walking through the devastated city while singing the Mickey Mouse Club theme song is a decent taste of the surrealism in the last story. https://youtu.be/PmILOL55xP0

[Arthur]

The Trial The Orson Welles film version has the hero blown up with dynamite - the Kyle MacLachlan version is much more authentic to the book, even using real Prague locations. There are films of 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' Dracula and Frankenstein The True Story and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein Frankenstein that are really insulting everyone by claiming to be authentic - Also can we have Lovecraft stories set in the 1930's rather than updated to the present day.

[Micah]

Arthur wrote: ...Also can we have Lovecraft stories set in the 1930's rather than updated to the present day. ..."

And that don't suk.

[Arthur]

Micah wrote:
And that don't suk." That too

[Mark]

Unless I missed it in the thread, I did not see the Studio Ghibli film Tales from Earthsea mentioned yet, which is VERY different from the (excellent) books by Ursula K. Le Guin. The author herself stated it felt like she was "...watching an entirely different story, confusingly enacted by people with the same names as in my story."

And then there is the Sci-Fi Channel adaptation of the same series, which Le Guin was famously unhappy about.

[Midiain]

A Sound of Thunder It's one of my favorite short stories but I don't even know why the movie bothered to use the same name.

Peter Pan This is the book that taught me not trust Disney when I was a kid.

The Princess Bride A rare case where I like the movie better.


A Stir of Echoes Another movie I liked better than the book. Similar but a few important differences.

All of the Jason Bourne movies. They start out similar and then could not be more different. Which is probably a good thing because I hated all the books except for the first one.

Dolores Claiborne The movie skipped almost all of the horror elements.