The Sword and Laser discussion

I've never met a person who hasn't seen the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz. However, for those of us who read the book, this movie is very different. The movie's popularity means some things will never go back to what Baum wrote.

For example:
The ruby red slippers will never be the silver shoes.
Dorothy will be older with brown hair versus a Shirley Temple-like child.
The witch will be green with a broomstick instead of one-eyed with an umbrella.

What other novels have you seen made in other media and that film/TV has forever changed what you loved in the book? For good or for bad.

What an interesting question! Hmm, supplanting the book’s imagery with movie stuff…

Well, Jaws immediately comes to mind. None of the characters are remotely the same, with the exception of Quint. Also, the Richard Dreyfus character (view spoiler)[dies brutally in the book. (hide spoiler)] Similarly, Jurassic Park made significant changes to the story, including changing the ending. Crichton preferred Spielberg’s version so much that The Lost World is a sequel to the film rather than his own novel. I don’t think another author has ever done that, allowing a movie to supplant his own ideas.

Roald Dahl *hated* Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, but like your example of Wizard of Oz, the movie has completely replaced the book in popular imagination. Everyone I know who’s read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory vastly prefers the musical. (Cue a dozen people here claiming they feel the opposite.😂)

A really interesting case is Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? versus Blade Runner. The stories are almost polar opposites of each other, yet they somehow reach the same conclusion. The imagery of the movie is incompatible with that of the novel, yet I couldn’t help but imagine the settings as I read the book, which was a weird experience.

The Fight Club DVD commentary between author Chuck Palahniuk and screenwriter Jim Uhls, who adapted Fight Club, is fascinating, because Palahniuk is full of effusive praise about the adaptation and Uhls barely says a word. I completely agree that Uhls took the book to an entirely new level, making it more cohesive, essentially turning the novel into a rough draft.

Stephen King’s story “The Mist” doesn’t have an ending. They just sort of drive off into the fog. But the movie… my god, there aren’t many films that have as brutal and bleak an ending as that. (view spoiler)[Thomas Jane’s character is trapped in a car with his young son and another couple. They are surrounded by monsters who are about to tear them to pieces, so Jane shoots the other three in a mercy killing, literally moments before the army comes through and defeats the creatures. If he’d waited another 30 seconds they’d all be saved; instead they’re dead by his hand and he has to live with the guilt. Crushing. (hide spoiler)] The film’s ending is a billion times better… and worse.

Trike wrote: "What an interesting question! Hmm, supplanting the book’s imagery with movie stuff…

Well, Jaws immediately comes to mind. None of the characters are remotely the same, with the excep..."

The Mist is a great example. That ending was perfect in the movie. Even King acknowledged how great it was.

Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies have completely overwritten what my mind came up with when reading the books, from characters to scenery.

Gump and Co. is another perfect example. This book was written with the movie in mind. The author just kept adding scenes were Forrest could meet famous people on influential days. Including, Tom Hanks winning an Oscar for the biopic he did.

Phillip wrote: "Gump and Co. is another perfect example. This book was written with the movie in mind. The author just kept adding scenes were Forrest could meet famous people on influential days. In..."

The screenwriter came up with both “Life is like a box of chocklits” and “Run, Forrest, run!”, which sum up the character.

Damnation Alley actually DIDN'T ruin the book for me, because the movie is some bizarre boring derivation that has little to do with the book.

John (Taloni) wrote: "Damnation Alley actually DIDN'T ruin the book for me, because the movie is some bizarre boring derivation that has little to do with the book."

I really liked the movie (I was 12 when it came out in ‘77), but I looove the book.

However, the film’s Landmaster is cooler than the truck in the book, even though the book’s “car” makes more sense. No windows, only viewscreens, etc., but I kept envisioning the Landmaster as I read.

Movie: https://images.app.goo.gl/Q2iDW3VE9QZ...
Book: https://images.app.goo.gl/oWdjCkmAsRF...
Rogue One truck: https://images.app.goo.gl/4dnU1LXCt5e...

I love Damnation Alley the movie.

Phillip wrote: "I've never met a person who hasn't seen the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz. However, for those of us who read the book, this movie is very different. The movie's popularity means some things will never..."

On the flip side, the original B&W version of Lord of the Flies - not that horrible color remake - practically used the book as a shooting script. I have a LaserDisk (no kidding - also a Sony player for my collection) of the film with a separate soundtrack of Golding reading the book. Amazing stuff.

When I was a cadet at USAFA, we watched the B&W as part of a psychology/sociology course.

But seriously avoid the color remake.

Chris wrote: "Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies have completely overwritten what my mind came up with when reading the books, from characters to scenery."

Which is why I avoid Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies like a COVID infection & wish I'd never seen the LOTR movies.

A lot of comic characters are different now because of the MCU. Star Lord wasn't a goofball, but I doubt any kid will take him seriously after Chris Pratt's portrayal. There are countless more examples, even among DC characters.

The adapted novel that comes to mind for me is I Am Legend by Richard Matheson. The book was adapted into a movie three times and each movie added different ideas.
The Last Man on Earth (1964) starred Vincent Price. They made the vampires from the book into more zombie-like creatures. There were other deviations including the ending.
The Omega Man (1971) starred Charlton Heston. The vampires are created by a bacterial plague. The crucifixion scene was added on.
I Am Legend (2007) starred Will Smith. The movie uses ideas from the novel and from The Omega Man. The plague is started by a cancer vaccine gone wrong. The ending changes Robert Neville’s motivations.

It didn’t ‘change a book I love’ because I saw the film first, but I read The Bourne Identity after loving the film, and I could not STAND Marie St. Jacques. Everything about her drove me crazy. Now, it’s possible I wouldn’t have liked her anyway, but I think the bulk of my dislike was that I had really loved Franka Potente’s portrayal of a very different Marie in the film. That girl was so cool and Marie St. Jacques…blah! :P

A reverse example: I am probably the last person ever who got into the James Bond books before the movies (thanks to reading my parents’ paperback copy of You Only Live Twice at far too young an age) so I’ve always had a very strong sense of Bond as a character separate from any of the screen portrayals, and I’ve always judged the films by how well they adapt the books.

Ruth wrote: "A reverse example: I am probably the last person ever who got into the James Bond books before the movies (thanks to reading my parents’ paperback copy of You Only Live Twice at far too..."

I've read a bunch of 007 novels, but I had seen many of the movies 1st. My pipe dream for the franchise is for them to reboot & adapt (not necessarily faithfully), but in the original cold war era of the novels. A proof of concept example (kinda) is The Man from U.N.C.L.E. starring Henry Cavil.

^^ this would be awesome! In the meantime I think the recent adaptation of The Ipcress File did a good job of showing a still glamorous but more serious approach to the Cold War spy thriller.

Ian (RebelGeek) wrote: "Ruth wrote: "...The Man from U.N.C.L.E. starring Henry Cavil."

That film was highly underappreciated.

Henry Cavil is kind of my hero.

Yeah...Henry Cavil wasn't a bad Superman. But that script was awful.

I tend to read the novel after I see the movie, but here are some that come to mind:

The film added the (view spoiler)[possibility that the killings were imagined. A question that I think makes the story much more interesting (hide spoiler)].

I'm a fan of PKD, but any version of the movie is better than this book imo. The movie changed one thing that would've been interesting (view spoiler)[Pris & Rachel were supposed to be the same design (same actress), but in the casting process, they decided to use 2 actresses. I would love to see versions from an alternate universe where they made the movie with either actress as both characters (hide spoiler)].

The Dark Tower movie (which got screwed up by the studio imo) was a flop & at least delayed further plans for the IP. I actually enjoyed the film a lot 8/10. Casting the amazing Idris Elba as Roland was a huge change. In the novels (view spoiler)[Roland is white & being white was a huge part of his relationship with Odetta/Susannah & her arc. It's like by changing his race, they were maybe discarding her character from future films, etc. I hope they start from scratch with a streaming show. (hide spoiler)]

Every MCU movie. 'Nuff said.

John (Taloni) wrote: "Yeah...Henry Cavil wasn't a bad Superman. But that script was awful."

The movie was by someone who doesn’t get Superman.

Ian (RebelGeek) wrote: "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick - I'm a fan of PKD, but any version of the movie is better than this book imo. The movie changed one thing that would've been interesting (view spoiler)."

I would also say that the movie introduced the idea that (view spoiler)[Deckard might be a replicant (hide spoiler)] which adds a lot to the story. And of course the film changed "bounty hunter" into the much more interesting "Blade Runner," borrowed from Alan E. Nourse.

Oh yeah! I love that Blade Runner 2049 didn't answer that question either.

Not to open up that can of worms again, but I feel the "Deckard is a replicant" theory would take away from the central question "What makes a human?"
As is, the contrast between the extremely emotional replicants and the very cold Deckard showcases that point brillantly.

On topic, The Boys is an example of taking the initial premise but doing so much more with it in the TV series, as well as curtailing a lot of the super gratuitous Sex & Violence (while still being one of the most violent and perverted TV series on air)

Nils wrote: "Not to open up that can of worms again, but I feel the "Deckard is a replicant" theory would take away from the central question "What makes a human?"..."

Or it would add some really interesting wrinkles, especially when combined with the theme of Empathy from the novel.

I missed the previous comments due to the weird Goodreads password snafu I had, but I just thought of another one: Planet of the Apes.

The 1968 film is, for me, the definitive version of that story. The book is good and the allegory still holds up (especially these days), but whenever I think of the book I picture Charlton Heston having those experiences. The ending of the Tim Burton film more closely matches the book, but the less said about that movie the better. The recent trilogy is superb and easily the best iteration of the idea, but yeah, the OG Apes are my mental go-to.

Trike wrote: "I missed the previous comments due to the weird Goodreads password snafu I had, but I just thought of another one: Planet of the Apes.

The 1968 film is, for me, the definitive version of that stor..."

Good example!