Top 10 Most Unforgivable Book to Movie Changes
video description
Date: 2023-11-21
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 30
Bryn
I can see how J Picoult like the major change in MY SISTER'S KEEPER, but the original ending would have been a bit much because of the twist re. who was behind the case; it does make a big surprise for people who go to the novel because of the movie.
THE OMEGA MAN made much the same change to I AM LEGEND.
Christopher Priest was quite happy with THE PRESTIGE, but every change the movie made was for the worst (in some cases, not a question of taste, but of historical fact, the biggest and silliest being the Tesla machine producing live duplicates instead of corpses.
Robert Redford did a couple of biggies - Roy Hobbs lost in the movie of THE NATURAL (but you had to know about baseball terms to realise it, and most of the world doesn't, but it would have looked out of place in the texture of the movie. His character would have died in THE HORSE WHISPERER, but onscreen it means the wife has to chose between her husband the other guy, which comes over well, and it wouldn't have been much of a choice between husband and dead guy.
All kinds of bad stuff done to THE HOBBIT and THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
A few versions of THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK have a relatively young Louis XIV supplanted by a twin who makes things nicer, but Louis XIV was one of the consistently successful tyrants in European history - no turning nice. Dumas was also screwed by versions of THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO that led Edmund end up with his original squeeze.
Any ending of THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME with any kind of happy ending, but the animation especially that screws up Hugo's message of character being more important than looks by making Phoebus nice.
IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - Tibbs keeps having to be saved by the white cop.
THE ENGLISH PATIENT - Laszlo is responsible for the fall of Tobruk to the Germans, but there were no 'secret passes' in the desert that the British wouldn't have known about; Tobruk fells because the Italians broke the Gazala line; Caravaggio is an innocent mutilated by a German officer for no good reason; in the book he was tortured by the Italians when he was caught spying in Italy.
THE GUNS OF NAVARONE - Mallory and Stavrou's antipathy and the ridiculous back story for it.
APOCALYPSE NOW - HEART OF DARKNESS was about European invaders being nasty for Africa; A-N was about Asia being nasty for American invaders.
MY SON, MY SON: The son of the book was a multiple murderer who gets caught and executed in Britain; the movie has him be killed in World War One.
JEW SUSS - the 1940 German version makes the central character a villain.
reply
I can see how J Picoult like the major change in MY SISTER'S KEEPER, but the original ending would have been a bit much because of the twist re. who was behind the case; it does make a big surprise for people who go to the novel because of the movie.
THE OMEGA MAN made much the same change to I AM LEGEND.
Christopher Priest was quite happy with THE PRESTIGE, but every change the movie made was for the worst (in some cases, not a question of taste, but of historical fact, the biggest and silliest being the Tesla machine producing live duplicates instead of corpses.
Robert Redford did a couple of biggies - Roy Hobbs lost in the movie of THE NATURAL (but you had to know about baseball terms to realise it, and most of the world doesn't, but it would have looked out of place in the texture of the movie. His character would have died in THE HORSE WHISPERER, but onscreen it means the wife has to chose between her husband the other guy, which comes over well, and it wouldn't have been much of a choice between husband and dead guy.
All kinds of bad stuff done to THE HOBBIT and THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
A few versions of THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK have a relatively young Louis XIV supplanted by a twin who makes things nicer, but Louis XIV was one of the consistently successful tyrants in European history - no turning nice. Dumas was also screwed by versions of THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO that led Edmund end up with his original squeeze.
Any ending of THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME with any kind of happy ending, but the animation especially that screws up Hugo's message of character being more important than looks by making Phoebus nice.
IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - Tibbs keeps having to be saved by the white cop.
THE ENGLISH PATIENT - Laszlo is responsible for the fall of Tobruk to the Germans, but there were no 'secret passes' in the desert that the British wouldn't have known about; Tobruk fells because the Italians broke the Gazala line; Caravaggio is an innocent mutilated by a German officer for no good reason; in the book he was tortured by the Italians when he was caught spying in Italy.
THE GUNS OF NAVARONE - Mallory and Stavrou's antipathy and the ridiculous back story for it.
APOCALYPSE NOW - HEART OF DARKNESS was about European invaders being nasty for Africa; A-N was about Asia being nasty for American invaders.
MY SON, MY SON: The son of the book was a multiple murderer who gets caught and executed in Britain; the movie has him be killed in World War One.
JEW SUSS - the 1940 German version makes the central character a villain.
reply
Viewer
For Divergent, it's not really the movie's fault that the final installment wasn't made. You can't call that a change from the book if they never even got to the part.
For Mortal Engines, they attempted to give Hester scars accurate with the book, but the prosthetics wouldn't stay in place for all the action scenes and stuff, so they had to make changes.
For I Am Legend, changing the ending here was the right call, and I will stand by that claim. Due to the different approach they took with the Darkseekers, they couldn't go with the book ending. The Darkseekers were shown to be violent, lacking intelligent, bloodthirsty monsters who were little more than rabid animals that killed off all of the world's population, human and animal alike. You can't suddenly humanize them and pretend they were like that the whole time. That would be like if in the Lion King, after the hyenas ravaged the pride lands and killed all the animals, they made it that the lions were the bad guys who had been tormenting the hyenas the whole time, it doesn't go with everything that was shown. There was no possible way to turn the Darkseekers into the good guys in the movie due to the change in their nature from the book they were given.
For The Hobbit, while it may have been better to keep the story focused more on Bilbo, aiming the movies at an older audience was the right move. After the maturity of the LOTR movies, to suddenly release a kiddy prequel, it wouldn't draw in the same fans or crowd, who would be expecting and wanting something more mature. Think of how something like Ewok Adventures resinated with the fans after what we got with the original Star Wars trilogy.
For Willy Wonka, I think the point was to show that while Charlie made mistakes and wasn't perfect, he wasn't like the other bad kids and owed up to his mistakes and took responsibility, which earned him Wonka's respect and forgiveness despite breaking the rules. Plus, if you think about it, it was his grandfather who convinced him to break the rules.
For Harry Potter, I agree that Ginny deserved much better and they messed up her role and character arc, but I look at it as something that happened due to needing to save time.
For The Shining, as much as I loved Dick and was bummed that he got killed off, I think it was the right call. Not only did it give a great jump scare, it amped up the suspense and tension. The whole time you think he's going to come and save the day, and to subvert expectations like that made the situation for Danny and his mom seem all the more dire and terrifying.
reply
For Divergent, it's not really the movie's fault that the final installment wasn't made. You can't call that a change from the book if they never even got to the part.
For Mortal Engines, they attempted to give Hester scars accurate with the book, but the prosthetics wouldn't stay in place for all the action scenes and stuff, so they had to make changes.
For I Am Legend, changing the ending here was the right call, and I will stand by that claim. Due to the different approach they took with the Darkseekers, they couldn't go with the book ending. The Darkseekers were shown to be violent, lacking intelligent, bloodthirsty monsters who were little more than rabid animals that killed off all of the world's population, human and animal alike. You can't suddenly humanize them and pretend they were like that the whole time. That would be like if in the Lion King, after the hyenas ravaged the pride lands and killed all the animals, they made it that the lions were the bad guys who had been tormenting the hyenas the whole time, it doesn't go with everything that was shown. There was no possible way to turn the Darkseekers into the good guys in the movie due to the change in their nature from the book they were given.
For The Hobbit, while it may have been better to keep the story focused more on Bilbo, aiming the movies at an older audience was the right move. After the maturity of the LOTR movies, to suddenly release a kiddy prequel, it wouldn't draw in the same fans or crowd, who would be expecting and wanting something more mature. Think of how something like Ewok Adventures resinated with the fans after what we got with the original Star Wars trilogy.
For Willy Wonka, I think the point was to show that while Charlie made mistakes and wasn't perfect, he wasn't like the other bad kids and owed up to his mistakes and took responsibility, which earned him Wonka's respect and forgiveness despite breaking the rules. Plus, if you think about it, it was his grandfather who convinced him to break the rules.
For Harry Potter, I agree that Ginny deserved much better and they messed up her role and character arc, but I look at it as something that happened due to needing to save time.
For The Shining, as much as I loved Dick and was bummed that he got killed off, I think it was the right call. Not only did it give a great jump scare, it amped up the suspense and tension. The whole time you think he's going to come and save the day, and to subvert expectations like that made the situation for Danny and his mom seem all the more dire and terrifying.
reply
Izu
Ill never get over My sisters keeper. The movie is so shallow that the ending doesnt bother me the most. It fits rhe rest. Instead that for once everyone (herself as well) has to really take notice what Anna wants and needs, the movie has Kate central and the others only react to her. The book shows how others are suffering, how different it is for each person and how this is contraintuitive or conflicting. The book ending is so brutal because the reader and Annas family lerns, what an amazing person she is and how she can now live her life and do things like playing hocky, but then, right after the jurney full of hurt, after her being a fully funtioning person, it is all taken away. She never knew life without suffering and never will. Her future is taken away and the family now has a great emtyness after realizing, that even when they thought otherwise, they really only had her as a donator. Of course the book shows how it isnt black and white and that the family is evil or whatever, but they all couldnt live thier life. Kates cancer took up the space and time. After the courtcase they learned how to change that, but without Anna.
It is my favorite book and I cry everytime I read it. For me the biggest unforgivable change for the movie (after making it all about Kate) is that Jessy has such a small role. The parents fight for Anna (because of her role as donator - they need her, but they gave up on their son. He has no one to talk to and sets fires so that he can feel close to his father and like he has an effect on the family/in life. They put him aside and this injustice (again) isnt shown in the movie.
reply
Ill never get over My sisters keeper. The movie is so shallow that the ending doesnt bother me the most. It fits rhe rest. Instead that for once everyone (herself as well) has to really take notice what Anna wants and needs, the movie has Kate central and the others only react to her. The book shows how others are suffering, how different it is for each person and how this is contraintuitive or conflicting. The book ending is so brutal because the reader and Annas family lerns, what an amazing person she is and how she can now live her life and do things like playing hocky, but then, right after the jurney full of hurt, after her being a fully funtioning person, it is all taken away. She never knew life without suffering and never will. Her future is taken away and the family now has a great emtyness after realizing, that even when they thought otherwise, they really only had her as a donator. Of course the book shows how it isnt black and white and that the family is evil or whatever, but they all couldnt live thier life. Kates cancer took up the space and time. After the courtcase they learned how to change that, but without Anna.
It is my favorite book and I cry everytime I read it. For me the biggest unforgivable change for the movie (after making it all about Kate) is that Jessy has such a small role. The parents fight for Anna (because of her role as donator - they need her, but they gave up on their son. He has no one to talk to and sets fires so that he can feel close to his father and like he has an effect on the family/in life. They put him aside and this injustice (again) isnt shown in the movie.
reply
Donna
the big difference between Charlie and the other kids, was the other kids were obnoxious all on their own, the girl chose to eat the gum that turned her into a blueberry, even though she was told not to, the TV kid jumped onto the shrinking platform because he wanted to, despite his mother telling him not to, the kid that fell into the chocolate river was drinking the chocolate even being told not to by Wonker and his mother, Veronica demanded that her father buy her a golden goose, so the kids made the decisions to break the rules, but in Charlies case, it was his grandpa that convinced him to drink the lifting drink, it wasn't Charlies decision because he was not an obnoxious kid, he knew the rules, he just did what his grandpa convinced him to. this in itself separated Charlie from the rest of the kids, and why Willy Wonker chose Charlie to take over from him. That's how I saw it when I was a kid, and it still makes sense today.
reply
the big difference between Charlie and the other kids, was the other kids were obnoxious all on their own, the girl chose to eat the gum that turned her into a blueberry, even though she was told not to, the TV kid jumped onto the shrinking platform because he wanted to, despite his mother telling him not to, the kid that fell into the chocolate river was drinking the chocolate even being told not to by Wonker and his mother, Veronica demanded that her father buy her a golden goose, so the kids made the decisions to break the rules, but in Charlies case, it was his grandpa that convinced him to drink the lifting drink, it wasn't Charlies decision because he was not an obnoxious kid, he knew the rules, he just did what his grandpa convinced him to. this in itself separated Charlie from the rest of the kids, and why Willy Wonker chose Charlie to take over from him. That's how I saw it when I was a kid, and it still makes sense today.
reply
shanghaiallie
Every movie adaptation of The Three Musketeers is the worst. Inevitably the whole book is thrown out except the broadest strokes (four hot young actors, lots of sword fights, women in corsets. Most don't even try to adapt a fraction of the actual story beyond Milady bad, does bad things, gets killed. All the political intrigue gets cut, all the differences between the four main characters get cut, all the best scenes get cut (D'Artagnan getting into four duels at once, Athos barricading himself in a tavern basement for a month, Porthos's miserable chicken dinner with his mistress's husband, holding the outpost at La Rochelle while eating breakfast. In the TV show they kill off the Cardinal by the end of the first season when he's the main villain in whole book. I know it's not exactly high literature or anything but it was my favorite as a kid and I can't think of another book that's been adapted so badly so many times.
reply
Every movie adaptation of The Three Musketeers is the worst. Inevitably the whole book is thrown out except the broadest strokes (four hot young actors, lots of sword fights, women in corsets. Most don't even try to adapt a fraction of the actual story beyond Milady bad, does bad things, gets killed. All the political intrigue gets cut, all the differences between the four main characters get cut, all the best scenes get cut (D'Artagnan getting into four duels at once, Athos barricading himself in a tavern basement for a month, Porthos's miserable chicken dinner with his mistress's husband, holding the outpost at La Rochelle while eating breakfast. In the TV show they kill off the Cardinal by the end of the first season when he's the main villain in whole book. I know it's not exactly high literature or anything but it was my favorite as a kid and I can't think of another book that's been adapted so badly so many times.
reply
LaceyMaeBenson
It's not unforgivable, however after reading EVERYTHING on Westoros (yes even the one about every single faction, family, plots of land & basically livestock) I was very disappointed House of the Dragon didn't highlight the fact all of the dragons featured on the show, including the 3 used by Aegon the conquer & his sisters/wives all breathed different color fire related to the color of their hide. I know it's not that big of a deal but I thought that fact was amazing and would've loved to see it.
Also, definitely agree with The Shining. Just read the books (Shining & Dr Sleep) and finally watched both movies. yeah I'm 30 yrs old & I physically had to look away during the redrum scenes and certain partz with Jack & Shelley. Also don't understand changing the room # whatsoever like why? Lol. The novel of The Shining is amazing & Dr Sleep the book and movie blow the adaptation of the shining out the water imo.
reply
It's not unforgivable, however after reading EVERYTHING on Westoros (yes even the one about every single faction, family, plots of land & basically livestock) I was very disappointed House of the Dragon didn't highlight the fact all of the dragons featured on the show, including the 3 used by Aegon the conquer & his sisters/wives all breathed different color fire related to the color of their hide. I know it's not that big of a deal but I thought that fact was amazing and would've loved to see it.
Also, definitely agree with The Shining. Just read the books (Shining & Dr Sleep) and finally watched both movies. yeah I'm 30 yrs old & I physically had to look away during the redrum scenes and certain partz with Jack & Shelley. Also don't understand changing the room # whatsoever like why? Lol. The novel of The Shining is amazing & Dr Sleep the book and movie blow the adaptation of the shining out the water imo.
reply
fanjoy
I prefer the movie ending to My Sister's Keeper because it allows the daughters to choose their own paths, instead of letting their disgusting mother (who produced one daughter for spare parts, is fine with prolonging the suffering of the other because it's what SHE wants, and seems to have mostly forgotten her son) get exactly what she wanted. She's an obsessive, selfish woman and a terrible mother. With some stories, I'm ok with the villain winning. Not this one.
In the author's original ending, the villain definitely wins. She gets exactly what she wants: Her preferred daughter gets what she needs from the spare parts daughter, and goes into a long remission. Meanwhile, the spare parts daughter is out of the way basically the second she's served her purpose, removing that burden from the mother's life. Congrats, Mom of the Year. You win. Disgusting.
reply
I prefer the movie ending to My Sister's Keeper because it allows the daughters to choose their own paths, instead of letting their disgusting mother (who produced one daughter for spare parts, is fine with prolonging the suffering of the other because it's what SHE wants, and seems to have mostly forgotten her son) get exactly what she wanted. She's an obsessive, selfish woman and a terrible mother. With some stories, I'm ok with the villain winning. Not this one.
In the author's original ending, the villain definitely wins. She gets exactly what she wants: Her preferred daughter gets what she needs from the spare parts daughter, and goes into a long remission. Meanwhile, the spare parts daughter is out of the way basically the second she's served her purpose, removing that burden from the mother's life. Congrats, Mom of the Year. You win. Disgusting.
reply
fairywingsonroses
I haven't actually seen all of the Harry Potter. movies, but I've read 6 of the books, and even in the books, it felt like Harry and Ginny were just thrown to gather on a whim with no actual chemistry between them. I understand why Rowling did it. She wanted Harry to have a family in the Weasleys, but he already had that without being with Ginny. While the chemistry between Ron and Hermione is believable, it's still not as organic as the chemistry between Hermione and Harry. Honestly, one of the biggest grievances I have with the movies I have seen is the fact that the movies never mention the story of how the Marauder's Map came to be and Harry's father's role in it. I feel like this becomes critical in later books as Harry tries to reconnect with his family and their past.
reply
I haven't actually seen all of the Harry Potter. movies, but I've read 6 of the books, and even in the books, it felt like Harry and Ginny were just thrown to gather on a whim with no actual chemistry between them. I understand why Rowling did it. She wanted Harry to have a family in the Weasleys, but he already had that without being with Ginny. While the chemistry between Ron and Hermione is believable, it's still not as organic as the chemistry between Hermione and Harry. Honestly, one of the biggest grievances I have with the movies I have seen is the fact that the movies never mention the story of how the Marauder's Map came to be and Harry's father's role in it. I feel like this becomes critical in later books as Harry tries to reconnect with his family and their past.
reply
Tjeerdtrekkie
The Hobbit being unnecessarily long is only really a problem or concern for people who read the book. Its the case with at least half of the movies on this list.
But thats the thing. You can't call a movie bad just for not following a book. You can call it a bad adaptation but it doesn't immidiately have to be a bad movie (or movies. The Harry Potter movies for instance were not bad at all. It was just a bad adaptation.
The point of a film adaptation is to give a director the freedom to experiment with their own vision on a story and do a different take on it (and to profit and make money out of it but you know. It can either turn out good or bad.
Film adoptations don't replace the original novels. If you want the book version just read the book.
reply
The Hobbit being unnecessarily long is only really a problem or concern for people who read the book. Its the case with at least half of the movies on this list.
But thats the thing. You can't call a movie bad just for not following a book. You can call it a bad adaptation but it doesn't immidiately have to be a bad movie (or movies. The Harry Potter movies for instance were not bad at all. It was just a bad adaptation.
The point of a film adaptation is to give a director the freedom to experiment with their own vision on a story and do a different take on it (and to profit and make money out of it but you know. It can either turn out good or bad.
Film adoptations don't replace the original novels. If you want the book version just read the book.
reply
lstarsabb
For my sister's keeper I feel for the author, but i'm glad they changed the ending. I am glad that ii watch the movie first because I wouldn't have watched the movie if i read the book first. I feel for Kate and she was dealt a terrible hand, but that didn't mean her life was more important than Anna's.
I know book readers are going to say but it's what she wanted she was manipulated and guilted her whole life by her parents that it was her job to save her sister. Her choice was never going to be her own. If she said no she would have felt like she killed her sister. That was not fair to put that on her just because they wanted to cheat death. I don't care if undermines the message of the book. I stand on that.
reply
For my sister's keeper I feel for the author, but i'm glad they changed the ending. I am glad that ii watch the movie first because I wouldn't have watched the movie if i read the book first. I feel for Kate and she was dealt a terrible hand, but that didn't mean her life was more important than Anna's.
I know book readers are going to say but it's what she wanted she was manipulated and guilted her whole life by her parents that it was her job to save her sister. Her choice was never going to be her own. If she said no she would have felt like she killed her sister. That was not fair to put that on her just because they wanted to cheat death. I don't care if undermines the message of the book. I stand on that.
reply
Youmna
The hyperfocus on Hermione is the HP movies pissed me off because a) it made Harry and Ron seem like two dimwits who cant do anything on their own and are just two meatheads who need Hermione to survive. Like yes, Hermione was a crucial part of their survival. But Ron actually came up with a lot of spells and ideas that got them out of binds. Harry is more than just good at Dark Arts. And b) they hyperfocused on the wrong things ans made her too much of a goodie two shoes. Hermione is a badass who hexes Rita Skeeter and fights for elves' right and constantly questions the system. She also knows Hogwarts' history by heart and knows exactly which rules to break to avoid getting in trouble.
reply
The hyperfocus on Hermione is the HP movies pissed me off because a) it made Harry and Ron seem like two dimwits who cant do anything on their own and are just two meatheads who need Hermione to survive. Like yes, Hermione was a crucial part of their survival. But Ron actually came up with a lot of spells and ideas that got them out of binds. Harry is more than just good at Dark Arts. And b) they hyperfocused on the wrong things ans made her too much of a goodie two shoes. Hermione is a badass who hexes Rita Skeeter and fights for elves' right and constantly questions the system. She also knows Hogwarts' history by heart and knows exactly which rules to break to avoid getting in trouble.
reply
Bryn
You seem to go after MANSFIELD PARK for not being PRIDE AND PREJUDICE?
SABOTAGE - in Conrad's source novel THE SECRET AGENT, the saboteur was trying to stir up feeling against refugees in Britain, at the behest of a government that didn't like expats badmouthing it; that would have been a pretty good message for the 1930s of the Hitchcock film, but instead Verloc was trying to make trouble in England so the British wouldn't notice what was going on abroad (piss-poor premise, and it had a silly romantic resolution.
THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE - Shaw kills his parents and then himself as an act of redemption; in the book, Marco uses the brainwashing to have Shaw do the murders-suicide
reply
You seem to go after MANSFIELD PARK for not being PRIDE AND PREJUDICE?
SABOTAGE - in Conrad's source novel THE SECRET AGENT, the saboteur was trying to stir up feeling against refugees in Britain, at the behest of a government that didn't like expats badmouthing it; that would have been a pretty good message for the 1930s of the Hitchcock film, but instead Verloc was trying to make trouble in England so the British wouldn't notice what was going on abroad (piss-poor premise, and it had a silly romantic resolution.
THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE - Shaw kills his parents and then himself as an act of redemption; in the book, Marco uses the brainwashing to have Shaw do the murders-suicide
reply
Imp
The whole movie of Artemis Fowl was unforgivable. There were some changes from the book that were annoying but could have worked if it had been an actually good movie? (Example, Root being a woman. If they had another conflict around Holly being and LEPrecon officer that would have been great. But the most unforgivable thing was Artemis being turned good so easily and quick, and acting like a child. It took like 3 or 4 books to get him to turn good. And he only ever acted like a child in tiny flashes. The weirdest thing was that the first scene was almost verbatim from the book! honestly I like to pretend that movie just didn't happen. Its less heartbreaking that way.
reply
The whole movie of Artemis Fowl was unforgivable. There were some changes from the book that were annoying but could have worked if it had been an actually good movie? (Example, Root being a woman. If they had another conflict around Holly being and LEPrecon officer that would have been great. But the most unforgivable thing was Artemis being turned good so easily and quick, and acting like a child. It took like 3 or 4 books to get him to turn good. And he only ever acted like a child in tiny flashes. The weirdest thing was that the first scene was almost verbatim from the book! honestly I like to pretend that movie just didn't happen. Its less heartbreaking that way.
reply
Jadelynn
Calling the hobbit relatively short is a bit subjective. It didnt take me long to read it as a kid but I read a lot and was an advanced reader, it may have taken others a lot longer. Also it was for kids but handled plenty of adult themes. And the story is told from Bilbo's point of view, however, I like the movies delving into the side characters a bit more and giving them more personality. I don't remember much about the dwarves personality in the book except for thorin. They were a lot like the old duck tales version of houey dewey and louie. Totally interchangeable with maybe a few differences but nothing that really made them stand out for me.
reply
Calling the hobbit relatively short is a bit subjective. It didnt take me long to read it as a kid but I read a lot and was an advanced reader, it may have taken others a lot longer. Also it was for kids but handled plenty of adult themes. And the story is told from Bilbo's point of view, however, I like the movies delving into the side characters a bit more and giving them more personality. I don't remember much about the dwarves personality in the book except for thorin. They were a lot like the old duck tales version of houey dewey and louie. Totally interchangeable with maybe a few differences but nothing that really made them stand out for me.
reply
Izzybeau818
7: 38 u left out where charlie is punished he doesnt win and got away with it you left out where Willy wonka yells at the grandpa for stealing fizzy lifting drinks and you get nothing. It was Charlie who did the right thing in the end giving Willy back the gob stopper instead of selling it to slugworth as the grandpa suggested. Showing no one is perfect but even if u make a mistake you can still do the right thing. Charlie saw how upset Willy was and knew how he felt he couldnt trust anyone which is why he locked himself up in the factory but passed the test in doing the right thing just cause
reply
7: 38 u left out where charlie is punished he doesnt win and got away with it you left out where Willy wonka yells at the grandpa for stealing fizzy lifting drinks and you get nothing. It was Charlie who did the right thing in the end giving Willy back the gob stopper instead of selling it to slugworth as the grandpa suggested. Showing no one is perfect but even if u make a mistake you can still do the right thing. Charlie saw how upset Willy was and knew how he felt he couldnt trust anyone which is why he locked himself up in the factory but passed the test in doing the right thing just cause
reply
Eylina
For me Percy Jackson adaptation was the most disappointing. Before I read the book, I really had no idea why the fans hated it so much. I used to think, it might be like Harry Potter where some of the character's personality were altered (Ron, Ginny, Dumbledore) but to my utter shock when I read the book, I did not find any similarities with the movie at all. It was like two completely different story with Greek mythology as the base If I was the author, I would have sued them. The entire story was altered and to make it worse the characters were aged up, I do not understand why
reply
For me Percy Jackson adaptation was the most disappointing. Before I read the book, I really had no idea why the fans hated it so much. I used to think, it might be like Harry Potter where some of the character's personality were altered (Ron, Ginny, Dumbledore) but to my utter shock when I read the book, I did not find any similarities with the movie at all. It was like two completely different story with Greek mythology as the base If I was the author, I would have sued them. The entire story was altered and to make it worse the characters were aged up, I do not understand why
reply
propertyofranger
Ill never forgive them for the dreadful film ending of My Sisters Keeper. I loved the book and had been excited for the movie, but I ended up leaving the cinema feeling completely outraged. The novels ending was painful and beautifully poignant. The movies ending was a slap in the face to anyone who had become invested in the story. The ending was so haphazardly thrown together, it completely ruined the whole point of the story. Its always upsetting when movie adaptations fail to do justice to the original source material.
reply
Ill never forgive them for the dreadful film ending of My Sisters Keeper. I loved the book and had been excited for the movie, but I ended up leaving the cinema feeling completely outraged. The novels ending was painful and beautifully poignant. The movies ending was a slap in the face to anyone who had become invested in the story. The ending was so haphazardly thrown together, it completely ruined the whole point of the story. Its always upsetting when movie adaptations fail to do justice to the original source material.
reply
LaineyBug2020
Should have gone with The Little Mermaid. Part of the spell's consequences is that every step she takes feels like walking on knives, the prince never falls in love with her because he thinks she's mentally handicapped since she can't talk, he falls in love with and marrys some chick from a monastery, the mermaid's sisters try to get her to kill them in their wedding bed so she can turn back into a mermaid but she sacrifices herself instead. And oh ya, mermaids don't have souls they just turn into sea foam when they die.
reply
Should have gone with The Little Mermaid. Part of the spell's consequences is that every step she takes feels like walking on knives, the prince never falls in love with her because he thinks she's mentally handicapped since she can't talk, he falls in love with and marrys some chick from a monastery, the mermaid's sisters try to get her to kill them in their wedding bed so she can turn back into a mermaid but she sacrifices herself instead. And oh ya, mermaids don't have souls they just turn into sea foam when they die.
reply
TesstoSauce
I remember reading My Sisters Keeper for the first time at age 14 and understanding the nuances of an ending that holds more psychological weight towards the meaning of the story than a realistic ending. I couldnt stop thinking about it and what it meant. It sold the meaning of the book to me. I was disappointed to see the ending so jarringly changed in the movie but at the same time, it was hard to picture the movie working with the books ending.
reply
I remember reading My Sisters Keeper for the first time at age 14 and understanding the nuances of an ending that holds more psychological weight towards the meaning of the story than a realistic ending. I couldnt stop thinking about it and what it meant. It sold the meaning of the book to me. I was disappointed to see the ending so jarringly changed in the movie but at the same time, it was hard to picture the movie working with the books ending.
reply
yolander
I have to agree about My Sister's Keeper, the books ending was so heart-wrenching and made me cry and cry her fathers reaction to finding her in the car, the father making the noises when when he heard the things the doctors were saying because he knew what that meant. It me feel a great deal of emotions, the movie on the other hand made me very angry when I saw the ending! I felt cheated.
reply
I have to agree about My Sister's Keeper, the books ending was so heart-wrenching and made me cry and cry her fathers reaction to finding her in the car, the father making the noises when when he heard the things the doctors were saying because he knew what that meant. It me feel a great deal of emotions, the movie on the other hand made me very angry when I saw the ending! I felt cheated.
reply
Mega
Honestly I'm more upset about how Peter J. Changed Torin and his nephews dead than the move on the PoV, I even liked how they expanded a little the world of the Middle earth, but I don't like that they keep alive a character that was long dead on the book and making him responsible of their fall, bc in the book their dead hit you in a deep level, specially Torin's final speech with Bilbo.
reply
Honestly I'm more upset about how Peter J. Changed Torin and his nephews dead than the move on the PoV, I even liked how they expanded a little the world of the Middle earth, but I don't like that they keep alive a character that was long dead on the book and making him responsible of their fall, bc in the book their dead hit you in a deep level, specially Torin's final speech with Bilbo.
reply
Magdalen
Lord of the Rings - Return of the King
Frodo and Gollum's slap-fight over the side of Mount Doom.
The WHOLE POINT is that Gollum stumbles over the edge due to being so exultant at finally getting the ring: The moral being that evil, in its arrogance, will destroy itself.
Completely ruined when Gollum falls, not due to his own misstep, but because Frodo slaps him around.
reply
Lord of the Rings - Return of the King
Frodo and Gollum's slap-fight over the side of Mount Doom.
The WHOLE POINT is that Gollum stumbles over the edge due to being so exultant at finally getting the ring: The moral being that evil, in its arrogance, will destroy itself.
Completely ruined when Gollum falls, not due to his own misstep, but because Frodo slaps him around.
reply
Oni
Atleast with the Hobbit movies it was more the studio than him that decided and pushed for the three movies. Peter was also more and less pushed into the production fairly late on.
As well with Faramir i dont see him being tempted by the ring but more tempted by his father to please him. But as Galadriel he did not fall for any tempation and later showed his full quality
reply
Atleast with the Hobbit movies it was more the studio than him that decided and pushed for the three movies. Peter was also more and less pushed into the production fairly late on.
As well with Faramir i dont see him being tempted by the ring but more tempted by his father to please him. But as Galadriel he did not fall for any tempation and later showed his full quality
reply
Angela
Toy Soldiers
Only 2 scenes from the book were in the movie.
Both adaptations of Watership Down, the Netflix version being the worst. Characters were left out, Strawberry's gender was changed ( along with the reason he leaves his warren ) and the Characters are treated as interchangeable.
Both far less forgivable than any in this video.
reply
Toy Soldiers
Only 2 scenes from the book were in the movie.
Both adaptations of Watership Down, the Netflix version being the worst. Characters were left out, Strawberry's gender was changed ( along with the reason he leaves his warren ) and the Characters are treated as interchangeable.
Both far less forgivable than any in this video.
reply
Chelsea
One thing I will say in favor of the Harry Potter movies as opposed to the books, I read the book's after so I was expecting this huge amazing scene with professor mcgonagall as she prepares to defend awkwards. And yes the 1 in the book was amazing but the way they did the spell and bringing the statue's life in the movie was just too perfect.
reply
One thing I will say in favor of the Harry Potter movies as opposed to the books, I read the book's after so I was expecting this huge amazing scene with professor mcgonagall as she prepares to defend awkwards. And yes the 1 in the book was amazing but the way they did the spell and bringing the statue's life in the movie was just too perfect.
reply
Misost
Okay, so I know it couldn't possibly be on here but for all the Germans watching this: kind of the whole time travelling stuff, the whole third movie (just new things) and Gwendolyn in the first movie. I'm talking about the Rubinred, Sapphire blue and emerald green movies/ books. That really upset me
reply
Okay, so I know it couldn't possibly be on here but for all the Germans watching this: kind of the whole time travelling stuff, the whole third movie (just new things) and Gwendolyn in the first movie. I'm talking about the Rubinred, Sapphire blue and emerald green movies/ books. That really upset me
reply
M.
The Faramir change in Two Towers was jarring but RotK was even worse - as if leaving out the Palantir and butchering Denethor's entire arc wasn't bad enough, they made Frodo look like a complete idiot when he chose Gollum over Sam. worse than anything the Hobbit films did with Bilbo imo
reply
The Faramir change in Two Towers was jarring but RotK was even worse - as if leaving out the Palantir and butchering Denethor's entire arc wasn't bad enough, they made Frodo look like a complete idiot when he chose Gollum over Sam. worse than anything the Hobbit films did with Bilbo imo
reply
Carolyn
I don't mind the 90s Mansfield Park. Even though it goes a bit off book, I do find what they did quite interesting. I think it makes sense that as an introvert she's comfortable enough to let Edmund into her little world, but is quiet and reserved with everyone else.
reply
I don't mind the 90s Mansfield Park. Even though it goes a bit off book, I do find what they did quite interesting. I think it makes sense that as an introvert she's comfortable enough to let Edmund into her little world, but is quiet and reserved with everyone else.
reply
Chelsea
I think you can tell by some of these movie changes that the director obviously didn't like how it panned out in the book or the screen writer or whoever is in charge, and they changed it to what they wanted it to be, taking too many liberties with somebody's work.
reply
I think you can tell by some of these movie changes that the director obviously didn't like how it panned out in the book or the screen writer or whoever is in charge, and they changed it to what they wanted it to be, taking too many liberties with somebody's work.
reply
MC
I cant tell which ending of My sisters keeper I like better, it feels like Anna dying in a car crash is just a cop out to not have to deal with the consequences of wanting to keep her organs and kinda validates the idea of forcing Anna to give them to Kate.
reply
I cant tell which ending of My sisters keeper I like better, it feels like Anna dying in a car crash is just a cop out to not have to deal with the consequences of wanting to keep her organs and kinda validates the idea of forcing Anna to give them to Kate.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
