Films That Are Least Faithful to the Novel

All Bond movies to thread. Starting with "From Russia With Love" (about 50% of the novel is in the movie) to "Moonraker" (none of the novel, except the title, the name of the villian, and the rocket exhaust pit scene).

I haven't read the Stephen King book Running Man was based on, but apparently the film had little to do with it besides the future setting.

Lawnmower Man to thread

stephen king even sued to get his name off of it, and that guy lets them keep making children of the corn movies

And also, which one (novel or movie) you feel is better...

Sorry, missed this part. "FRWL" is a good Cold War spy novel, but a 100% faithful adaption would have been boring, so the film's deviation from the novel makes it a better film. I haven't read the novel "Moonraker".

Again, not really a novel, but the film From Hell is vastly different from Moore's comic. And also not so good.

"Starship Troopers" - the movie version is very different and nowhere near as good as the novel.

Erm the movie is great satire.

The Big Sleep
The Wings of the Dove
O Brother, Where Art Thou?

(xpost) So is the novel, although maybe unintentionally so.

http://www.tendernesstour.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/scarlet_letter.jpg

Watch out Demi, Dracula's gonna bite!

The Natural (ending esp, obv)

The original Casino Royale scores very high here, but so do most of the Bond movies. It's probably wrong to even think of them as films of their respective books. Name of the Rose is fantastically pointless, as far as one-off shots go.

About Schmidt a serious contender here. I'm pretty sure the sum total of overlap between novel and movie is: a) the guy is named Schmidt b) he's old c) he doesn't like the guy his daughter is marrying.

Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey was an impressionistic pastiche based quite loosely on the Artsy Clarke book.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/142/345018695_c75caba54a_o.jpg

Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey was an impressionistic pastiche based quite loosely on the Artsy Clarke book.

Kubrick and Clarke wrote the screenplay at the same time Clarke was doing the novel version (the book actually came out after the film), so it's not really an adaptation rather than an alternative take. Though I think the story was partially based on an earlier Clarke short story.

Well Naked Lunch is about as far from the book as you can get, although I don't know if it really counts.

The change of ending in the film version of Roald Dahl's the Witches is maybe worth a mention.

I'd like to point out that most PK Dick characters are paunchy middle aged dudes in the book, and not like Arnie and Tom Cruise etc.

An anonymous source *COUGH*Louis*COUGH* has just reminded me that I Robot is somewhat different to its source text.

All three films in the Bourne trilogy are completely different from the books they're named after.

The Power of One film changes the original story completely. It really, really sucked.

Day Of The Triffids the movie has very little to do with the book. There are monster plants that kill people in it, and some of the characters have the same names (but are completely different people). That's about it.

I remember loving The Beach (novel) and watching the film and thinking the film completely diverged from the book in the second half. But now I can only remember what happened in the film, not the book.

If you're using a conservative definition of "faithful," rather than a spiritual one: Tristam Shandy by a mile.

P.S. Stephen King sued to have HIS name taken off Running Man, or Richard Bachman's?

I Am Legend

And yeah I really hated the film Tristam Shandy despite "getting it," I suppose.

And for the record I vastly prefer the movie Starship Troopers.

It seems to me that an intentional satire of fascism + an homage to B movies is superior to the novel's unsavory politics.

Charley, movie of Flowers for Algernon, a book that did not feature a public-announcement-worthy psychedilic biker freakout at the end.

lol what

It's colled Charly (sorry) and here's the scene.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7234686230850055352&q=charly+algernon&total=20&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

wtf

I can't quit watching it.

http://www.blaxploitation.com/images/poster_gifs/poster_the_getaway.gif

Pretty much all that was retained from the book were a handful of characters, a few locations, and a couple of plot points. A lot of the material that was rejigged or cut/replaced in order to make the leads more sympathetic.

Planet of the Apes doesn't take much from Pierre Boulle besides the central concept and the surprise ending (altho the book's is closer to the one Tim Burton used).

Again, not really a novel, but the film From Hell is vastly different from Moore's comic. And also not so good.

See also League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Which is a real shame, as a super-faithful adaptation would have made a cracking, snappy 90-minuter.