digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The Ten Least Faithful Screen Adaptations That Came Out...Good

doubleviking.com — 99% of the time when someone hears their favorite book is being adapted into a movie, buildings begin to burn, mobs begin to form and death threats are sent out. And with just cause...but, here is a pretty good list of 10 screen adaptations that weren't faithful at all to the original source and still turned out to be pretty decent movies.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • TSAU956, on 05/12/2008, -3/+14The animated Lord of the Rings has to be one of the worst things I've ever seen. All I remember was that scene where the people (I can't remember what they were) slowly got up from hiding in the bushes, singing. That scene singlehandedly kept me away from reading Lord of the Rings (at the time anyway).
    • bakagaigin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There was a cartoon LOTR, and it wasn't very good (though it's a guilty pleasure for me every now and then), and a cartoon Hobbit, which was FREAKING AWESOME. So...yeah..
    • atcdev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7There's rather a lot of singing in the LOTR books too (at least a few editions even provide sheet music). A couple of the early conflicts is resolved entirely through singing (care to join me in a few verses of 'Hey, Tom Bombadil' anyone?).

      I suspect both directors agonized over how deal with this, Jackson's decision to pretend it never happened was probably wise.
    • vornan19, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I thought the animated Hobbit to be not unfaithful. Instead there are whole chapters removed and scenes exagerated. Watching it years ago with a friend (who doesn't read fiction or much at all) I kept pausing the play and explaining what was missing from between the movie's scenes.

      We also found LOTR animated with some live action incorporated to be creative indeed.
    • orlandogeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually if you watch both of the Lord of the Rings animated movies and then watch the epics that Peter Jackson created, there are some scenes where the imagery is almost identical.
  • allancorbett, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1lol, came >_>



    The site won't load for me already so I posted an immature comment instead.
  • Kourgin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2 thats a kickass article, covers alot of stuff that i wish they hadnt done.

    goodjob :D
  • metaknite, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0The Hobbit, good? I think not.
  • drinklord, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Its "well", not good, and I'm only laying out the grammar rules because in this case it was confusing. Initially, I thought you were beginning a second sentence with "Good" and then it just got chopped off.

    Well = Adverb
    Good = Adjective
    • MadModMike, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1But...how can there be an adverb without a verb/adjective/adverb?
    • DrewBlood, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Good is an adjective describing the screen adaptations. I agree it was a little confusing but it's not that big a deal.
    • CLShortFuse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@drinklord: Look at you correcting grammar when the first word you say is grammatically incorrect. "it's" not "its"

      I don't read books, it's not my thing personally, so kudos for those directors to make the changes to make it enjoyable. Though some things in, say, World of the Wars bugged me. And like in Batman (1989), the Joker killing Bruce's parents!?

      But the best screen adaption has to be Muppet Treasure Island, based on Treasure Island
    • SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It should be "well." "Well" modifies the verb phrase "came out." "Good would be used if it said something like "These unfaithfull screen adaptations are good."
  • acdcfanbill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Life of Brian gets dugg in my book.
    • ChagrinRiddle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Life of Brian was definitely way better than it's source material...
    • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Agreed. Atleast the Life of Brian said it is fiction, unlike its source material...
    • wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy."
  • Farik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I have to disagree quite strongly with the Fear and Loathing comment. I loved the movie, and enjoyed reading the book so much more after viewing the movie.
    • XatM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Yeah and I thought the film of Fear and Loathing was incredibly close to the book, long sections of it were taken word for word.
    • ChagrinRiddle, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I haven't read the book, but after seeing the movie I know I don't want to...
      I watched Fear and Loathing for the first and only time with a friend of mine who loves it. After it was over I asked her what is was actually about. She told me "What do you mean? It's about the American Dream!!"

      I guess maybe it's a bit like 2001: A Space Odyssey: Start using your own drugs about half-way through and the movie gets way better from there.
    • hugalager, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My thoughts exactly... he totally missed the mark on this one. The movie is as close to the book as any other book/movie I've experienced
    • pants428, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2gotta agree, on that one, the film and book are both great... If you don't get the book, you've probably not ever done drugs
    • geodescent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What's interesting is that the script for Fear and Loathing is so close to the final product that you can read the script and remember each individual scene in the movie. http://www.awesomefilm.com/script/fearandloathing.html (txt dump)
    • FearNLoathing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not that I'm biased or anything, but I'd say the book is at least as good as the movie :)
    • squirpy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My thoughts exactly. Fear and Loathing is one of the most faithful movie adoptions that I've ever seen.
  • MrBabyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Surprised "Blade Runner" is not on that list. "Do Androids Dream...", while an excellent book, bears little in common with its movie adaptation, yet both are phenomenal works.
    • Thrag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I was about to say the exact same thing. Blade Runner was awesome, but only had a passing similarity with the also awesome book.
    • fauxXenophanes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Do a Google search on" the edge of bladerunner", excellent documentary from Britian. Interviews with Author,Cast and behind the scenes folks - Great Stuff.
    • DrewBlood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Or Total Recall for that matter. Whether it's good is debatable but it's well liked at least. We Can Remember It For You Wholesale was waaay different!
    • balerhgae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Most PK Dick inspired movies are nothing like his books. Total Recall, Paycheck (ugh!), etc. Blade Runner, while being completely different storyline wise, really managed to capture the atmosphere of Do Androids... I thought so, anyways. So did PK Dick, apparently.

      A Scanner Darkly is another exception. That was pretty much exactly what I had in my head when I read the book. Even down to Keanu Reeves. I thought he was good for that part, because Arctor is supposed to be so braindead, and Reeves IS so braindead.
  • commongiga, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I thought Dr. Strangelove was based on the book Fail-Safe, not Red Alert.
    • aviazn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5No, the movie Fail-Safe was based on the book Fail-Safe, although it was pretty much the same plot as Red Alert, from what I understand. I remember reading somewhere that Kubrick was racing the guys behind the Fail-Safe movie to get theirs out first so that when Fail-Safe did come out, it was like it had already been parodied.
  • drunkjack, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3Buried as spam. Never heard of this site before this, won't ever go there again. Poorly written, dumbass article. ***** that guy.
    • RunnyBabbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Because you're only allowed to digg things from the same five websites, over, and over, and over again.
  • dmfunk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0He makes the Dune movie sound like crap, which it isn't. But other than that, good stuff!
    • bagboyrebel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I really didn't like the original dune movie, but the Sci-Fi channel version was awesome.
    • SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've never heard of anyone liking the Lynch version of Dune. I didn't like it, and I'm a David Lynch fanboy.
    • balerhgae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like it. I'm a Lynch fanboy AND a Dune fanboy... it could have been a lot better, sure. (I mean, the weirding modules? WTF?) But it's visuals are awesome. All the ornateness and stuff. Plus, the acting is alright.
      If you were to mix the sci-fi tv version with the Lynch version, you'd have the definitive, awesome, dune movie.
  • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1fight club
    • gzim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14are you serious? that book WAS the movie, (save for the ending)
    • flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2damn good book and movie. I read the book after seeing thew movie but they went hand in hand most of the way.
    • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2are you effin serious? the movie was barely related outside of the schizophrenic thing

      that, and the book read like a 12 year old wrote it
  • spike57, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Why isn't "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" in that list.
    • atcdev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Every version of Hitchhikers has been different :

      The radio play was different to the novel was different to the TV series was different to the computer game was different to the comic was different to the film (and Douglas Adams wrote all but the last two). So in a round about way the movie was faithful in that it was unfaithful to anything done previously.
    • joesmeat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Because Hitch Hikers the movie was awful.
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The title said least faithful screen adaptions that came out GOOD. That movie quite literally made me weep for the memory of that amazing book. So many people will never read that awesomeness that is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy just because the movie was so terrible. The best part of that book was it's subtle sarcastic wit, especially in the narrative. The movie tried to cherry pick jokes, water them down, and shove them forcefully down your throat.
    • skytimelapse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Whatever, I thought the movie was great. It may not have been exactly what you wanted it to be (British Trillian probably) but Adams exec produced and cowrote the screenplay (and came up with a lot of the new material for it). With the two hour time limit they did a great job.
  • himthatwas, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Fear and Loathing? There's nothing wrong with that book at all, it reads easily and utilizes a conversational tone that keeps ones attention, it's like having a chat with a crazy person. The movie was very close to the source as far as I'm concerned, or was the author talking about the Bill Murray version?
    • gossipninja, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3there wasnt a bill murray version, bil lmurray was "where the buffalo roam", a movie based on a different Hunter S. Thompson work.

  • ego_slam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16From Article, "Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas: Have you ever tried reading this "classic" book? It's the definition of illegible drivel."

    Has this person ever actually read anything but webpages and the menu at Taco Bell? Hunter S. Thompson was one of America's best modern writers, and inspired a whole generation. A drug addled generation, but a generation nonetheless. His articles and later his books are the one of the best ways to have your finger on the pulse of middle to late 1900's America. To have someone label anything by HST as "illegible drivel" is the sign of a truly ignorant writer.
    • cgeorge, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4More like the sign of someone with an opinion. Get over yourself.
  • miyamotofreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I prefered the Godfather book to the film. And I thought the film was pretty faithful.
    • JuyLe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I liked both, but being a huge Deniro, Pacino and Brando fan, I prefer the film by a bit.
  • zjungleist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11They missed Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. That's not even the name of the freakin book. They changed the title the sell candy. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the movie version, is far more accurate, and also not all that good.
    • ChagrinRiddle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4From what I heard the Gene Wilder version changed the name of the movie because "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" apparently made people think it was going to be about Vietnam or something, and I see where it's coming from with "Charlie" but to think "and the Chocolate Factory" doesn't actually correct that thought immediately...
  • StarCrusher, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Why isn't Starship Troopers on the list?
    • gossipninja, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3The starship troopers book was political commentary and rocked, the movie was mindless action with NPH being a badass in a gestapo coat, and also rocked.
    • brundlefly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah. The novel was some didactic *****, whereas the movie is some really fun satire.
  • soviyet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I thought Contact belonged on there. I only found out recently that some of the best themes from that film were unique to the film.
    • fauxXenophanes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Great film. Who would have thought you would get that chemistry from Foster and Mac ??
    • gandhi2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You missed the point of the article. Sagan's novel is actually GOOD, and the movie was not that popular...mostly because it was also a good film. The director had some, you know, integrity, and didn't cave when the producers brought forth the idea of having the aliens appear Roswell-style, shoot the ***** out of the VLA and kidnap the President of the United States. How can directors not understand this stuff?

      The object of the game is to examine good novels that turned into ***** products that sold well, but had little to do with the original.
  • ambrosious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"I know I just raised the blood pressure of a lot of LOTR fanatics, but hear me out. As someone who hates Lord Of The Rings and Tolkien in general, the Hobbit cartoon is right up my alley. It's trippy and weird and actually FUN, something the original material (and all of Tolkien) lacks entirely. You may fling rocks at your computer screen now"

    ... how can you possibly think those horrible animated adaptations were good in any way? Besides, not all good/interesting literature is required to be "fun" to be good. Buried for lameness.
    • atcdev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The Ralph Bakshi LOTR was about as failthful to the original as the Jackson versions (if you discount stopping half way through when the money ran out). If you watch it through 'seventies' goggles it's not too bad for a for something so ambitious - the modern LOTR is just heaps better.
    • Cameleopard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, I liked the LOTR and Hobbit adaptations mostly because I like Bakshi's style of animation. That, and I like the almost archetypal, hippified folk music in LOTR. But, to the point, the hack blogger was talking specifically about the Hobbit movie and not the LOTR movie which you lump in and gripe about. Reading comprehension: get some.
  • gandhi2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13What a sophomoric and unvalidated attempt to bash very good literary works. Obviously written by somebody who has little understanding of the written word, yet feels qualified to compare screen plays to actual...uh...literature. I suppose Crichton is God, then, huh?

    Hunter S. Thompson is undoubtedly one of the greatest news writers of all time. To write off his works as "illegible drivel" goes to show how little of writing this guy understands. Sure, Thompson is drivel, but goddam was he good at it. And that Gilliam strayed more than a few words off the key parts of the book? *****. Most of the passages are verbatim from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Gilliam and Depp work closely with Thompson, and Depp pulled off the character brilliantly. It would've been awesome to have an adaption of Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail.

    Most of the comments the author is writing is simply ripping on decent works of writing to praise the ***** films that came from them. I didn't read the Blade comics, but I did know him when he was part of Nightstalkers and the Midnight Sons. And they weren't bad. In the movies, Hollywood took a ***** on the integrity of the comic series, just as they've done with every single other ***** comic book flick. It was flashy, witty, goth, and full of Hollywood glitterz... The formula leads to a ***** product that can't really be equated to the original. Sorry.

    And I'm just plain sorry. The end products of both the Dune and Hobbit aren't even in the same camp as their literary counterparts. Come on, as unpalettable as Herbert may be, compressing the ENTIRETY of the last books into a scene where it magically rains? Ass-*****. And the Hobbit? Oh god, I think I'm going to ***** vomit....the ***** quality of animation, the cheesy rotoscoping, the ***** STUPID music. Released by the same company that did Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and Santa Claus is Coming to Town(remember those lame Christmas specials), and later picked up for redistribution by Disney. Bad Disney! Stay the ***** off my literature. No cookies.

    Next time you compile such a list, you might to think more careful, and make sure you are on topic. Perhaps it would be more apt to title it "Movies that compromised the integrity of the original work, but because the public is so ***** dumb, made huge box office numbers." And before you sit down at the keyboard to review, you might want to gather a) some background info, b) the actual work you are critiquing, c) your ***** brain.
    • JohnHyperion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@gandhi2: "I didn't read the Blade comics, but I did know him when he was part of Nightstalkers and the Midnight Sons. And they weren't bad. In the movies, Hollywood took a ***** on the integrity of the comic series, just as they've done with every single other ***** comic book flick. It was flashy, witty, goth, and full of Hollywood glitterz... The formula leads to a ***** product that can't really be equated to the original. Sorry."

      You didn't read the Blade comics, yet say the film is crap compared to them? Pure drivel. I actually did read the Blade comics before the movie, and the movie improved every aspect of it. It brought the character fully out of the PG superhero world and brought a style all it's own. It is near universally considered to be an example of how comic book based movies do not have to follow the source in order to be good films. The film had 10 times more intergrity than 90% of the Blade comics before or since. I say since, because Marvel has continually attempted to, and continually failed, to emulate the quality of the movie in comic form since it's release.
    • gandhi2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"You didn't read the Blade comics, yet say the film is crap compared to them? "
      The film character is crap compared to what he was in Nightstalkers. I read some of Blade after the fact, and it's not a bad underground comic(yeah, chumpo, that's right...Marvel did NOT originally produce the comic). Same as League of Extraordinary Gentlemen...the movies can't even really be compared to the comics. Not to say they are more probably better or worse, but just so far from the original content that they aren't the same beast.

      Truth is the format just doesn't read well in the form of a movie most the time. The timing is always wrong, the dialogue just doesn't translate to the screen, and invariably, directors bend over and take it up the tailpipe for their studio masters when it comes to creative control. For as much as Marvel has ***** up lots of good comics bringing them to Hollywood, at least Stan Lee had the courage of his convictions when he sold out. I blame McFarlane. I really would kind of like to see Warren Ellis' works translated to movies, but I just don't think that Spider Jerusalem or Elijah Snow would work, especially after they'd been hacked up by producers and writing teams. Didn't we learn the lesson in Constantine? And goddamit, who was it that approved Ghost Rider? Leave. Them. Alone. Please, god please.
    • gandhi2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0My bad, Blade is released under the umbrella corp of Marvel, although not directly from them.
    • JohnHyperion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you're going to get info from Wikipedia, read the article instead of just looking at the picture. Blade has always been a Marvel character and premiered in Tales of Dracula (Strange Tales was just a recent marketing thing, not the first appearance of Blade). It's clear you know nothing about the character and are just ranting against Hollywood. Stop. You can pick from several other comic book movies, but using Blade makes you look clueless since everyone, including Marvel, has acknowledged how superior the film version was to the comic version.
    • gandhi2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You nailed me on my facts, for which I had already apologized. Obviously, you were more a fan of the series than I. You get a gold star and a cookie. Yeah, yeah, I got all huffity and *****, and got smacked from it. Point for you. Now move along.

      Why should I care what the rest of the world thinks? Or what Marvel says for that matter? I am more inclined to dislike the product, knowing that the average idiot on the street gave it rave reviews. The medium, once the domain of those who choose to set themselves apart, has been completely gutted and ***** by money-grubbing, merchandise hawking asswipes. Not just Hollywood, although they certainly are a large part of the set. My entire point in that bit was to illustrate how horrible products often get lots of $$.
      I hate the Matrix. There. I said it in public, and imagine that I'll be ripped apart just as I've been ripped in the past. I think the story had potential for depth but they dropped the ball by giving little peeks at something grander, had lots of action and gravity-defying eye-candy, and overall the heart-pounding adventure just gave for a few flashes of adrenaline, but no real meat. It's not the sci-fi figurehead of our day or any other.

      Basically, my whole point with the post, when taken in its entirety, is that every Tom, Dick, and Harry feels like they have any grounds for critique of literature, when they lack the basic intelligence to even comprehend the medium of written word. Nitpick over details if you want, but my stance is the same. This reviewer has quite obviously done the very things of which you are accusing me: made comments on the material without even a basic understanding of them, let alone a full one.
    • balerhgae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ghandi
      +1 for saying the Matrix sucked in public. IT DID. I liked the first movie. It was fun. I didn't think it was deep, but it was a decent action flick. But it could have been a lot more. Throw in Reloaded and Revolutions, and you have one giant pile of human feces on your hands.
  • lokee73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm surprised The Running Man didn't make the list.
    (If the only requirement is least like the book.)
    • kanemano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2lawnmower man also, king said it was so dissimilar he asked to have his name removed
  • Movieman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What about Forest Gump? I read the book after I saw the movie and it sounded plain stupid to me. But the movie is still one of my favorites.
  • elhaf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would add The Firm to that list, because it had a much better ending in the movie. The book ended in a weird, implausible cop-out where the hero escapes to an island (common Grisham theme) with no consequences whatsoever and everyone bad is locked up or dead (no compromises made).
  • JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Woody Allen's Casino Royal was actually a remake of a terrible made-for-TV movie (The first Bond movie sucked).
    And how about "Thank You For Smoking"? The book and the movie are totally different, and both are good.
  • ftnalex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This article didn't mention any of the Tom Clancy films. Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger to name a few...all pretty decent movies in their own right but they don't follow the original books very well at all. And I agree that Fear and Loathing did follow much more closely than I could have predicted. Both the book and movie are really well done IMO.
  • Zopwx2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2+1 Strangelove, Shining

    But the Dune movie while interesting was nothing compared to the book, and knocking Hunter was not cool at all -1.
  • burningmonk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Although the list is alright, except for a few missing films (Children of Men is a glaring omission), the guy who wrote it immediately loses all credibility when he calls Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas "illegible dribble," but then considers the movie a fine and coherent work. The book is spectacular, and the film adapts it almost perfectly. I'm assuming this ***** (no digg, I don't mean 'twit', I mean '*****') didn't read the book and just assumed. Anyway, as a Thompson fan (as well as a Gilliam fan) I needed to get that off my chest.
    • Jiffylush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was assuming the article was inspired by Children of Men, and then it isn't even mentioned.

      I think Children of Men might be on a different list "Movies that make readers cry"
  • sfslim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6By rights, the number one spot should have been given to "Adaptation". Nominally an adaptation of Susan Orlean's "The Orchid Thief", the film quickly becomes a meta-tale about the process of adaptation, and any pretense of adherence to the original source text quickly devolves, and is ultimately abandoned altogether. Sheer genius, thanks to the "Kaufman twins".
  • kencarter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The Life Of Brian: Isn't this a whole lot funnier than the Bible? Just checking."

    OMFG! That had me laughing literally out loud (scaring the @#$% out of everyone around me in the library).

    Kudos
  • Binky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, I can't believe I'm bothering to jump into this one, but I find it insulting that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is on this list. The movie is so close to the book that I would have put it on my "The Ten MOST Faithful Screen Adaptations That Came Out...Good" list. Clearly the person who wrote this list is a moron.
    • Cameleopard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was just going to write a comment to the same effect. Thompson nixed Alex Cox (Repo Man, Death and the Compass), a wonderful director in my opinion, as the original director because his screenplay wasn't faithful enough. Gilliam's version is about as close to the book as one could get, and thankfully so. This hack of a blogger has both read the book and seen the movie and yet cannot tell that they are virtually alike? I spit in the general direction of this stupidity.
  • huckmank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Awful list. Starship Troopers would have to be near the top of any list like this as the movie is a parody on the incredibly militaristic outlook that Heinlein portrayed in his book.
  • soulpiercer7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I hated the third harry potter movie. They took a great book and messed it up. I was disappointed.

    the fourth movie made up for it. It was done very well.
    • Alchemeron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm ashamed to admit I've read Prisoner of Azkaban... and hands down, the movie is better. The screenplay is actually *smarter* than the book, something I never expected to happen.
    • rda52, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Alfonso Cuarón, is one of my favorite directors, he's the only one that made Harry Potter a real movie, who gives a damn if the Harry Potter nerds complain. i hope they bring him back from some of the other movies.
  • Caleb83, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Where the hell is Die Hard on this list?
  • CLShortFuse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Let's not forget about the Spider-Man movies
    Though it was faithful for many things, many things were changed for a more realistic portrayal. (Doc Ock for one)
  • develdevil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't understand how you can go over a list of unfaithful adaptations and miss the movie titled "Adaptation." Originally set about to be an adaptation of the book The Orchid Thief, this movie is about as unfaithful as they come and it is pure cinematic and storytelling genius. I opened up this link chanting the name Adaptation and was quite disappointed to see it missing.
  • doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Tolkien isn't "fun" enough, Hunter S. Thompson writes "illegible drivel", but a comic book gets high praise?

    Oh. I get it. This guy is twelve. Listen, kid, why don't you leave the review of books-without-pictures to the grownups, 'k?
  • SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why is The Shining on there? It's extremely close to the source material. Only reason I can figure is that Kubrick made it come across as even creepier because of the added dimensions that film allows. Same with F&L in Las Vegas. Almost exactly the same as the source material. And the idea that he found Dune to be a good movie...yikes.
  • dstz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Nice list, for once.

    No LOTR, thanks God. The Hobbit anime, cool. Also, Life Of Brian related to the famous fiction book called The Bible = bonus points!
  • aacidusX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the animated LOTR movies sucked, but the Hobbit was friggin awesome!
  • tipexy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"east of eden" amazing book, epic Steinbeck at his peak. "east of eden" the movie, powerful psychological james dean drama. The two share about 15% of their DNA, thats it. Anyone reading the book after seeing the movie would be very confused.
  • erinaner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You all missed "Cheaper by the Dozen." No similarities between the book and movie WHATSOEVER, except that they did have 12 kids in both the book and the movie. I'm not kidding when I say that's the only similarity. Names are different, occupations, location, era, events, feel, dialog, everything. Least faithful ever, but both the book and the movie were good.
  • lexypher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why is MASH not on this list?
    or Johnny got his gun?

  • squirpy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As many have pointed out the original article has a few glaring errors most glaringly involving Fear and Loathing. But it does bring up a good point. It totally ***** me off every time people attempt to make a connection between the quality of movie adapted from a book and it's faithfulness to it's original source. Books and movies are different mediums and they have different strengths and weaknesses. The same things that make a book great WILL NOT make it a good movie. In order to make a good movie adaption of a book you CANNOT be faithful to the book. If someone somehow manages to make a great movie that is completely faithful to the book, then that "book" would have been much better of as a "script".
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.