Topic: Book to movie inconsistencies that are genuinely annoying and unneeded (Read 39686 times)

MadassAlex · « **on:** 06 May 2009, 10:08 »

Today I was thinking about The Lord Of The Rings and it struck me that, no matter how good the movies were, they simply sucked a lot of the badass out of the books. Let me cite one example from The Fellowship Of The Ring:

Movie

After Frodo is stabbed by the Morgul blade, Aragorn desperately tries to get him to Rivendell before the blade shard can do its work. The day is saved by Arwen, Aragorn's warrior-girlfriend with really sensitive tear glands and a disco party shining out of her ass. She mounts Frodo upon her horse and rushes him to the Ford of Bruinen, where the Ringwraiths hesitate to enter elven territory. She essentially flushes them away with some kind of water spell after uttering the relatively badass "If you want him, come and claim him".

Book

Frodo gets stabbed by the Morgul blade as above, but instead of being rescued by Arwen, an male elf named Glorfindel shows up. Glorfindel has history, culminating in him essentially slaying a Balrog single-handedly. He's a massive badass.
He takes Frodo to the Ford of Bruinen, and this is where shit really changes up. At first the Ringwraiths don't want to cross because they know that Glorfindel is such a massive badass. He dares them to cross.
Then, Frodo dares them to cross. This is a massive difference. Let's get this straight - Frodo, a hobbit from one of the most rural areas of Middle Earth, invites the nine greatest emissaries of the Dark Lord Sauron, Lord Of The Rings, to come and take him. He's essentially saying, "One foot over that line, motherfuckers. One foot".
To top it off, we find out that it's Gandalf who summoned that waters of the ford, which makes a massive difference since it reveals that Gandalf was taking measures to keep Frodo safe as best he could with the time and resources he had after he inexplicably left the book when the hobbits most needed him.

Other moments of unnecessary change and badass-decay include but are not limited to:

- The elves appearing at Helm's Deep. This sucked the meaning right out, as it was supposed to be the reforging of the Last Alliance. It meant so much more at Minas Tirith in the books, when the entire force of the enemy was arrayed against Gondor, and you essentially had all the dark beasts of Mordor against the defenders of Gondor, the Rohirrim, the elves, and Aragorn's fucking army of the undead.

- Aragorn's warrior-relationship with Eomer. This shit was awesome in the books. They fought side-by-side on multiple occasions, culminating in them cutting a swathe through Orcs and meeting during the Battle Of Pelennor Field.

- Elrond is an asshole. It took his daughter giving up her, what, Elfdom? to reforge Narsil and give it to Aragorn - despite the fact that it's rightfully his in the first place, costs Elrond nothing and could be used both as proof of heritage and to strike fear into the enemy.

So, forum, what are moments in movie adaptions of books that make you simply ask "why? Why would do you that? It was perfect. Perfect. Weep"?

0bsessions · « **Reply #1 on:** 06 May 2009, 10:30 »

To be entirely fair to the movie, most of those have a very good reason:

Explaining them as they turned out in the book would make a three fucking hour movie even longer. Arwen saved Frodo because it was quicker than introducing a character who never shows up again and explaining just how much of a badass he is.

None of them made the movie any worse, they just made it more compact, which is pretty necessary when your trilogy racks up a combined 12 1/2 hours of running time without even delving into the extended editions.

Blue Kitty · « **Reply #2 on:** 06 May 2009, 10:45 »

The only one I am really sad about was what they did to Galactus in the second Fantastic Four movie, but even this falls into, "Would have to be explained"

Will · « **Reply #3 on:** 06 May 2009, 10:49 »

Memoirs of a Geisha is one of the worst offenders for book-to-movie inconsistancies...it's been a while since I read or watched it, but I remember being highly annoyed with how much they changed the actions of the lead character in the movie, for what seemed to be no other purpose than to make it a Happy American Romance.

I still like the movie for the breathtaking visuals and cinemetography, but that really bothered me a lot.

Reed · « **Reply #4 on:** 06 May 2009, 11:06 »

I, FUCKING ROBOT

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #5 on:** 06 May 2009, 11:23 »

yeah, V for Vendetta actually had a shitload of minor differences but none of them really bother me much because they did such a (surprisingly) great job with that movie, and most of the changes were sort of necessary. i only wish they would have put more emphasis on the religious aspect of the governement in the movie though, because in the comic it's obvious that it is a Christian dictatorship and they sort of downplay religion's involvment for the movie.

0bsessions · « **Reply #6 on:** 06 May 2009, 11:28 »

The Golden Compass.

Seriously, what?

Like, I can understand moving the big battle. Movie wise, you want that near the climax, but they pretty much demolished the ending by not really even having one.

Nodaisho · « **Reply #7 on:** 06 May 2009, 11:47 »

That pointless stupid romance subplot in Prince Caspian. I mean seriously, what the fuck?

0bsessions · « **Reply #8 on:** 06 May 2009, 11:59 »

Prince Caspian was just a pile of shit and I'm not sure what they were thinking. Rachel insists they changed a shit ton of stuff, but I wouldn't know as someone who never read the books. What I do know is that it didn't make it any easier or more appealing to the movie going audience, because I didn't understand fuck all what was going on for most of that pile of shit they called a movie.

JD · « **Reply #9 on:** 06 May 2009, 12:03 »

Quote from: Dire bacterium on 06 May 2009, 11:06

I, FUCKING ROBOT

QFT

scarred · « **Reply #10 on:** 06 May 2009, 12:21 »

Harry Potter 3. Right in the beginning. He's doing magic under the covers in bed.

UNDERAGE WIZARDS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO MAGIC OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL. This very issue is the reason he runs away from Privet Drive after accidentally blowing up his Aunt - he knows the Ministry of Magic already knows and should be on their way to expel him from Hogwarts rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble

Ozymandias · « **Reply #11 on:** 06 May 2009, 12:24 »

Dudes.

I, Robot isn't even a cohesive book. It's a collection of stories.

The movie is an amalgamation of several Asimov Robot stories and I think it turned out very well for what it was.

scarred · « **Reply #12 on:** 06 May 2009, 12:29 »

I, Robot:

0bsessions · « **Reply #13 on:** 06 May 2009, 12:30 »

Quote from: scarred on 06 May 2009, 12:21

Harry Potter 3. Right in the beginning. He's doing magic under the covers in bed.

UNDERAGE WIZARDS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO MAGIC OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL. This very issue is the reason he runs away from Privet Drive after accidentally blowing up his Aunt - he knows the Ministry of Magic already knows and should be on their way to expel him from Hogwarts rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble

That wasn't really all that inconsistent and the precedent was set by the second movie.

In the books, it's established that the ministry can detect when magic is used in a household, but not who does it. This is why the Weasleys consistently get away with all the shit the twins pull. This was, however, never established in the movie's as it's really not a particularly simple and clear thing to explain without having multiple examples for precedence (Such as having Harry get in trouble in book two because Dobby used magic in his house when Harry's the only registered magic user there).

Harry's stressing over his Aunt is fine and not at all inconsistent with what is established in the movies. Practicing spells while studying is a far different thing than maliciously engorging one's relative and then leaving her to float her way over an English suburb. The latter is sensibly and easily noticeable, the former is not without taking time to explain it to the audience.

Your motion is denied. I declare fan nerd outrage.

If you want to be outraged over a Harry Potter movie fuckup, bitch about the fact there was no clear resolution to what happened with Barty Crouch Jr. in the fourth movie. The lack of a resolution results in very little of the overall plot of Order of the Phoenix making sense, as Barty being alive makes it VERY hard for the Ministry to deny the plot to bring Voldemort back.

scarred · « **Reply #14 on:** 06 May 2009, 12:46 »

It doesn't matter if it's a different thing, it's still illegal. The simple face is that no one under the age of 17 is allowed to use magic when they're not in school. Otherwise, we'd see the Weasley children using spells to wash dishes, etc. in the Burrow. They never did, 'cause they weren't allowed to by law, despite the fact that it would be proactive and there weren't any Muggles around for miles and miles.

Holy shit, I'm debating Harry Potter legislature over the internet.

0bsessions · « **Reply #15 on:** 06 May 2009, 12:49 »

So you never smoked, drank or looked at porn before you were eighteen, then?

0bsessions · « **Reply #16 on:** 06 May 2009, 12:52 »

Maybe not YOUR government. I live in America, Jens.

Cartilage Head · « **Reply #17 on:** 06 May 2009, 13:02 »

Prince Caspian was a pile of shit.. but I think it is because it is the most difficult to adapt of the Narnia books. I mean, hardly anything happens in Prince Caspian. I also hated the romantic subplot.

Can I complain about musical adaptations here? Because if so.. Rent. Oh god why?

0bsessions · « **Reply #18 on:** 06 May 2009, 13:04 »

Yes, yes. My point, though, as illustrated in my initial response, is that it was never established in the movies that the Ministry of Magic has any manner of really knowing that Harry was doing it. It's only a problem because nerd outrage is making it a problem. The only two times Harry's gotten in trouble for misuse of magic are situations where witnesses can potentially be accounted for, specifically the flying car in the second, blowing up his aunt in the third and the use of a patronus in the fifth, ALL of which were done in front of a 'muggle.' The practicing of spells under his sheet in the third was not, nor was the routine use of magic by all involved at the Quidditch Cup.

The opening to Prisoner of Azkaban is entirely consistent with the world set forth by the movies. The biggest problem with translated material is fan outrage caused by fans with an inability to acknowledge a separation between book/comic and movie. The same thing is consistently a problem with comic book adaptations.

To be perfectly honest, when it comes down to it, the entire plotline of misuse of magic in the books is markedly inconsistent and probably a good reason as to why they didn't delve into it when not necessary in the movies. If the ministry could tell when an underage wizard uses magic, there'd be little call for Crouch accusing Harry of conjuring a dark mark in the woods in Goblet of Fire.

scarred · « **Reply #19 on:** 06 May 2009, 13:08 »

You do know that he didn't do it in the book, right?

EDIT: Anyway, I'm able to separate the books from the movies, but if they went ahead with the Dobby-pudding fiasco in movie 2, there's no reason for Harry to be doing magic at the Dursleys' place in movie 3 - especially when it's clearly visible from the window.

Ozymandias · « **Reply #20 on:** 06 May 2009, 13:25 »

This is the most retarded argument I've ever seen and there is a gun control argument going on in Meebo right now.

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #21 on:** 06 May 2009, 13:46 »

zing!

Nodaisho · « **Reply #22 on:** 06 May 2009, 15:42 »

Quote from: scarred on 06 May 2009, 13:08

especially when it's clearly visible from the window.

Light coming from a window isn't odd. Having a pudding floating out of a window would be.

0bsessions · « **Reply #23 on:** 06 May 2009, 15:59 »

Artificial light? The devil's work, I say!

Avec · « **Reply #24 on:** 06 May 2009, 16:26 »

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist.

Inlander · « **Reply #25 on:** 06 May 2009, 17:25 »

Actually the change that really bugged me the most about in the Lord of the Rings movies was what they did to Saruman's character. In the book he's basically a good guy who's completely corrupted by the lure of the ring. In the movie he's just Sauron's lackey. The movie version really diluted the point of how and why the ring was so dangerous - it just made it into a boring black and white "us vs. them" scenario. It irritated me, I like my narratives to be a bit more subtle than that.

MadassAlex · « **Reply #26 on:** 06 May 2009, 18:00 »

Quote from: 0bsessions on 06 May 2009, 10:30

Explaining them as they turned out in the book would make a three fucking hour movie even longer. Arwen saved Frodo because it was quicker than introducing a character who never shows up again and explaining just how much of a badass he is.

Glorfindel's background isn't explained in the book, either, you need to read The Silmarillion for that. So, essentially, in the book, he was introduced and never shows up again (but it's clear that he's badass anyway).

Quote from: 0bsessions on 06 May 2009, 10:30

None of them made the movie any worse, they just made it more compact, which is pretty necessary when your trilogy racks up a combined 12 1/2 hours of running time without even delving into the extended editions.

They are all at least instances of badass decay and at most ridiculously unnecessary and stupid. Why move the reforging of Narsil to the third movie and have Elrond personally deliver it? That's retarded, because the plot made it convenient and more meaningful to do it during Fellowship. Why have the elves show up at Helm's Deep instead of the infinitely more crucial Minas Tirith? No matter what, this kind of thing would've taken the same amount of time to go through.

Quote from: Inlander on 06 May 2009, 17:25

Actually the change that really bugged me the most about in the Lord of the Rings movies was what they did to Saruman's character. In the book he's basically a good guy who's completely corrupted by the lure of the ring. In the movie he's just Sauron's lackey. The movie version really diluted the point of how and why the ring was so dangerous - it just made it into a boring black and white "us vs. them" scenario. It irritated me, I like my narratives to be a bit more subtle than that.

Mmm, agreeing with this. In the book, it's clear that Sarumen, for a while, had the same idea as Boromir or Denethor - to use the power of the Ring against Sauron for the good of all.

Jimmy the Squid · « **Reply #27 on:** 07 May 2009, 03:17 »

X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Pretty much the entire film but I think it mostly qualifies as nerd rage.

Second opinions anyone?

jimbunny · « **Reply #28 on:** 07 May 2009, 09:32 »

Interthreaduality!

StaedlerMars · « **Reply #29 on:** 07 May 2009, 13:13 »

My favourite part of the book, was easily where the Rohirrim arrived at the start of the seige, right after Gandalf denies the Witch King, and then cut their way through the ranges of orks. The way Tolkien described this moment of despair for Gondor, and how the men of the West thought they were completely alone, and then the Rohirrim arrived, and Eowyn kills the Witch King was amazing. And then the arrival of the Aragorn on the boats.

The movie in no way did it justice.

EDIT: and of course the taking out of Tom Bombadil, although I understand why.

Inlander · « **Reply #30 on:** 07 May 2009, 16:29 »

What? I was practically dancing in the streets when I heard they'd axed that prattling fool of a character!

McTaggart · « **Reply #31 on:** 07 May 2009, 21:51 »

Wait, Witch King? And who was Eowyn again? Man there was so much more crap in these books than any story really needed.

MadassAlex · « **Reply #32 on:** 07 May 2009, 23:48 »

Agreed on Tom Bombadil, but disagreeing with the post right above mine. If you don't know who the Witch King or Eowyn are, then you pretty much missed a fair bit of the plot anyway and have no place in such a discussion.

Jimmy the Squid · « **Reply #33 on:** 08 May 2009, 01:11 »

Just re-watched Order of The Phoenix and there is only one real problem I have with that film. At the beginning when Harry and his escorts arrive at 12 Grimmauld place, Moody taps his stick/cane/staff on the ground and the house appears. How much harder would it have been to have the letter from Dumbledore knocked up by the prop department and just have Moody give Harry the parchment? Maybe a quick close up of the letter over Harry's shoulder and there, done. That kind of irritated me.

scarred · « **Reply #34 on:** 08 May 2009, 01:23 »

Speaking of Order of the Phoenix, did anyone else catch what Sirius says to Harry right before he dies?

"Nice one, James!"

I thought it was a really nice and subtle, nuanced way of summing up Sirius' mental confusion / wishful thinking without wasting a ton of screen time on it.

McTaggart · « **Reply #35 on:** 08 May 2009, 01:30 »

Quote from: MadassAlex on 07 May 2009, 23:48

Agreed on Tom Bombadil, but disagreeing with the post right above mine. If you don't know who the Witch King or Eowyn are, then you pretty much missed a fair bit of the plot anyway and have no place in such a discussion.

Hey it ain't my fault that samey fantasy* and characters with similar names all sort of blur together.

*I am not saying that the lord of the rings was a ripoff of whatever.

MadassAlex · « **Reply #36 on:** 08 May 2009, 01:40 »

I am totally sympathetic to that.

But "Witch King" is such a massive title.

Inlander · « **Reply #37 on:** 08 May 2009, 03:10 »

I can't remember the Witch King. There were so many damn kings in that trilogy.

MadassAlex · « **Reply #38 on:** 08 May 2009, 03:37 »

Big daddy Ringwraith.

Inlander · « **Reply #39 on:** 08 May 2009, 03:53 »

Really? He had a title??

MadassAlex · « **Reply #40 on:** 08 May 2009, 04:10 »

Yes.

He has history.

0bsessions · « **Reply #41 on:** 08 May 2009, 08:14 »

The Witch King of Angmar, was it?

Eowyn was the female Rohirim who killed him, with Merry or Pippin's help (I forget which one, it's been a while) because "no man" could kill him.

He was essentially the leader of the nine riders. I don't think the title was given in the movies, not that I think it's particularly necessary.

Alex C · « **Reply #42 on:** 08 May 2009, 09:06 »

Yeah, it was Angmar. Gandalf spoke the title when he said that Sauron had yet to reveal his deadliest servant, but that was the only time it was ever mentioned.

MadassAlex · « **Reply #43 on:** 08 May 2009, 11:18 »

Speaking of which, the structure of power, even in the books, is very convoluted and weird. The way Tolkien describes the power of some elves, you'd think they may as well ally with the Men Of The West just for a short stint before they head off West, just so the loose ends are tied up.

Kugai · « **Reply #44 on:** 08 May 2009, 13:06 »

The Lord Of The Rings trilogy, like any film adaption of a major work like that, has it's faults but I think I can safely say that at least PJ did a damned good job of adapting such a literary epic. With him, at least it was in the hands of someone who truly wanted to get it as close to the book as possible.

Some books get butchered when the assholes in Hollywierd get their hands on them, Paul Verhoven's adaption of Heinlein's Starship Troopers comes immediately to mind as well as the hack job De Laurentis did of Dune.

mberan42 · « **Reply #45 on:** 08 May 2009, 13:23 »

If you guys haven't heard, Dune is being remade yet again, this time by Peter Berg.

scarred · « **Reply #46 on:** 08 May 2009, 14:22 »

Quote from: mberan42 on 08 May 2009, 13:23

If you guys haven't heard, Dune is being remade yet again, this time by Peter Berg.

But the SciFi miniseries was so good? Whyyyyy

Kugai · « **Reply #47 on:** 08 May 2009, 15:09 »

Quote from: Jeans on 08 May 2009, 13:41

Starship Troopers was a perfect movie. Sorry, you're wrong.

Objectively.

Starship Troopers was a complete butchery of a classic Sci-fi Novel. As far as I'm concerned Verhoven should be flogged in Public Square for what he did to it.

Hmmm

Another remake of Dune - I enjoyed the Mini-series that was produced a couple of years ago, felt it was a lot better than the De Laurentis film. Hope that this remake will be as good or even better.

Dimmukane · « **Reply #48 on:** 08 May 2009, 15:18 »

Erm...David Lynch directed Dune, De Laurentis was the producer. If you already knew that, my bad.

As far as Starship Troopers goes, I never read it. I've read a lot of other Heinlein, though, and I think Starship Troopers was pretty spot on.

Dazed · « **Reply #49 on:** 08 May 2009, 16:10 »

I read the book. The movie butchered the book. Butchered horribly and without mercy.

Quote from: Imdb

Director Paul Verhoeven admits to never finishing the novel, claiming he read through the first few chapters and became both bored and depressed.

I think if you're directing a movie supposedly based on source material you should probably read the source material.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Book to movie inconsistencies that are genuinely annoying and unneeded (Read 39686 times)