Which change did YOU find the most unforgivable? Let us know below, and be sure to check out our video of the Top 20 Book to TV Show Adaptations of the Century So Far - th-cam.com/video/a3oRouNPnZY/w-d-xo.html
You forgot about the movie Hostage with Bruce Willis. Which happens to be based on the the novel by Michael Crais. They changed 3 things. 1. They cut out the trailer scene of which Talley finds a bunch of cereal boxes and one of car thieves' mom's head in a jar in their fridge. 2. The chief was corrupt by the mob. 3. The whole ending of the book was changed for the movie.
@@louff4tw746 then you’ll know that in the books Ron stood up against Sirius (on a broken ankle) and not Hermione in PoA. Ron also continuously defend Hermione and Harry against Professor Snape, Ron was freaking out a lot more when Hermione was tortured by Bellatrix. In the books Ron was continuously the loyal friend through and through.
Precisely. As is that poor kid getting in a mortal accident less than an hour after winning a court case that gave her the right to make her own medical decisions
Charlie and Grandpa figured out how to rescue themselves ... and Charlie still turned the candy back over to Mr. Wonka. I think the fizzy drink scene is more "Charlie isn't perfect", but he is bright and he is kind ... and he was willing to lose everything when he gave the candy back, knowing he'd broken a rule. So, for me, not such an unforgivable change.
I agree with you on how they turned it to proof that he was a good kid. Though, I still find it ironic that the movie that focused mostly on Charlie was called “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”, while the one that focused more on Willy Wonka was called “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.” And poor Rold Dahl just had such crap luck with movie adaptations of his novels not living up to his vision. He hated the change to the end of The Witches as well and disowned that movie for it.
I was thinking the same thing. He gave that candy back and his family truly needed the money "Slugworth" was going to pay for it. I think we are to assume the others ran straight to Slugworth with the Gobstopper even though they were much better off financially. So, he was redeemed by being the only one who was not going to betray Wonka. The most disappointing part for me as a kid was, they did not show the other characters leaving the factory. This is described in the book. We see that they 1) all survived and 2) ALL got the chocolate.
@@themayhemofmadness7038 I don’t blame Dahl for hating the ending of The Witches (1990). After watching the 2020 version with the book’s ending and hearing about the changes ending in the 1990 film, I’d also be mad too.
@@LB-gz3ke In the 2005 remake we get to see the other children leave the factory. I hated in the 1971 version that all we got was Mr. Wonka's promise to Charlie that the other kids would be fine.
I'm happy they changed the ending for My Sister's Keeper. Jodie Picoult's twist endings are very important to her stories and I appreciated that the creators of the film decided to keep the book's ending a surprise.
Regarding "My Sister's Keeper" I felt like another point was "will" vs "obligation". Once Anna wins her case, her lawyer believes she'll still donate her kidney. She wanted her voice heard, not kill her sister. So by changing the ending they are also making her character selfish.
In the book's ending, Anna died, didn't she? So if that's her being selfless, it's counter-productive in my opinion. It sent a message that in life, you are either being selfish and live or selfless and die. Anna is 11 year old, she deserves to live. I have just recently watched an episode about child marriage and it made me sympathize with her even more. Anna's lawyer asked Sara a valid question: She protected Kate but who protected Anna? Anna'd donated since the moment she was born. Why should the kidney donating define her?
@@lochuynh5387 My point was that Anna took her family to trial, but in the end she was still feeling conflicted about donating the kidney. Now she had all the power to do it (no one was forcing her), she was considering it. I believe that it made her character even more complex. The movie took the easy way out, not allowing her character to develop even further. Anna's death is absolutely tragic. I cried so hard. And then her sister gets the kidney, has a miraculous recovery and lives with guilt feelings. I love the book, tragedy and all because it made it unique.
@@lochuynh5387 I agree. Except in the book she is thirteen. I like the book a lot more than the movie. Anna felt obligated to give her kidney without being asked if she wanted to. There was a small part of her that wanted to say no and just wanted that option. Kate knew that she just wanted to be a kid and be able to try out for hockey and have kids and just live a normal life without having to be a donor her whole life. All the characters in the book seemed so much more interesting than in the movie too
@@crasicatlady I think making Anna a tragic hero definitely left a strong impression. It also puts all the attention on her. While I agree that attention is a good thing, it also leaves a negative impact when it's monopolized. As you can see, we have been only talking about Anna as if her character makes or breaks the story. In the movie, Kate felt as much an essential character as Anna to me. She didn't ignore what's going on with her family just because she's sick. She said the disease was not only killing her but also killing her family: Jesse's dyslexic was neglected, Brian was feeling less and less like Sara's husband while Sara used all her time to take care of Kate, even Sara's sister only worked part-time job and used the remaining time to help her. That's why she made Anna fought that case and it made her more than a patient to me. What we often don't notice is that being a burden kills people as much as their disease. I love a tragic story as much as the next person but wholesomeness, resolution and positive message are important to me too. I rather seeing the family learn to deal with grief, heel and continue to live their lives than leaving them stuck between grief, guilt and resentment forever.
I agree with Faramir, he was/is my favourite character in the books, but in "Two Towers" Jackson throw away the most important part of his personality. Sam says that Faramir reminds him of Gandalf. And that's the point, because Faramir proves that people can be better, can grow up and evolve. For me he was hope for a future, not Aragorn, who... well, it's really hard to think of him as a normal human.
I think Peter Jackson wanted to make this 'grow and evolve' part more visible, by showing him struggling. When he decides to let Frodo go he knows that this means that he loses any chance of gaining the love of his father, and might likely die for it. This gives it for me even more impact than just the easy decision in the book.
@@andreasmeelie1889 Faramir was never tempted by the ring in the book. He never brought the hobbits to osgilieth. His character was purely good. Even Aragon was tempted by the ring.
I really like the hobbit and harry potter movies, you've just gotta think of them as separate things and enjoy them for what they are, rather than what the source material wanted them to be.
Movies that have the exact opposite ending from the book have always been a pet peeve of mine, including very well known movies like Our Town (she lives) and Breakfast at Tiffanies (she stays).
That's the whole point. Not that it's worthless, I wouldn't put it that way. But you can move heaven and earth to achieve something, but at the same time the world keeps turning and other things happen that can put a wrench in what you're doing and make it all for naught. That's life. And that was the point.
You made some interesting points. Especially Ginny, looking back, I guess that love line felt forced upon as the movie progressed. Another subject, what about the story/movie Roald Dohl’s Witches? With the endings different?
Ender's Game, the movie ending was such a betrayal...the film had a number of problems, cutting out most of Peter and Valentine's story which also removed most of the politics, not isolating Ender in the final battles, etc., but sending Ender off in a space capsule, by himself, makes no sense.
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.
Can we just say the entirety of Insurgent? I remember reading the book and loving it but as soon as I saw the movie adaptation, they changed so many things that I couldn't even begin to remember the book. That and every version of Phantom Of The Opera.
#5: Actually the fizzy lifting drinks were from the book. Mr. Wonka mentioned that he tested one on an Oompa Loompa, but the Oompa Loompa refused to burp and kept floating up in the air and was never seen again.
#5 did and still does annoy me to this day. Grandpa Joe was the one who talked Charlie into breaking the rules; it was his fault Charlie almost lost the grand prize. I agree with #4; Ginny could've been SO much better.
"A Walk to Remember" with Mandy Moore--made no sense. In the book she is dying and the last time she walks outside of a wheelchair is when she walks down the aisle. They completely omitted this. They also had it set in present day when the book was a memory and it made more sense that they didn't have the medical treatments back then.
Um, why are you putting the blame on Peter Jackson for the Hobbit films? It was the STUDIO that demanded a film trilogy. This is NOT news. But it is a bit despicable to act like Jackson had much of a choice. Blame him if you must for making it more "adult" but, then again, Tolkien wrote "The Hobbit" years before he produced the Lord of the Rings trilogy.and Tolkien originally intended for the Rings trilogy to be as much a children's tale as "The Hobbit" had been but, as many writers discover, the story took a darker and more complex tone as he wrote it. So, if Jackson (or Guillermo del Toro who was originally supposed to direct the film) had made "The Hobbit" a "children's tale," it would've had a much different tone compared to the Rings trilogy and people would've inevitably complained about THAT.
A bit obscure and a comic strip to movie change (the books started after the movie) but the 1966 Modesty Blaise movie making Modesty and Willie Garvin lovers, violating a core factor in what made MB popular to begin with! The character’s creator novelized the film but left all that out and at least once in every book that followed reminded readers Modesty and Willie were not lovers and could never be.
The changes to LOTR, Sister's keeper, and Willy Wonka are understandable. Bombadil had very little impact throughout the novel. Charlie and his GF almost got chopped up and acknowledged their wrongdoing. Anna death in the novel is less believable and honestly destroys the whole point in fighting overall.
I disagree. The original book, as flawed as it was, was at least straightforward. For example, the book doesn’t spend too much time focusing on other unimportant and one-note characters trying to find Golden Tickets. It keeps its focus on Charlie and the other 5 kids whereas the first half spends WAY too much focusing on other characters trying to find Golden Tickets even though they’re not really that important to plot or contribute anything other than to show the obsessiveness and greed of how many are willing just to find a frigging golden piece of paper and even one of them stops the story just for a stupid gag which is that detective scene. Honestly really didn’t need that scene. Was completely unnecessary and superfluous to the plot and should have been cut of the final picture to improve the pacing. At least the ones with the therapist and the computer were short and quick and didn’t stop the pacing. And unlike the film, the book remembers the other contestants and shows them leaving the factory unharmed albeit having some permanent changes to their physical appearances. So ironically the book tells the story better as I think pacing is a crucial part of having an engaging story and sometimes there are moments in Willy Wonka just looses track of the story with the gags in the Golden Ticket contest that it almost makes the first half of the film too drawn out and even boring.
Honestly i wouldn't call the change to my sister's keeper "unforgivable" in both the book and movie kate wanted to die peacefully. In the book however because kate made her little sister sue for medical emancipation she feels responsible for her sister dying immediately afterwards and taking her kidneys. In the book kate has to live with the guilt of being the indirect cause of her own sisters death even though it was kate who wanted to pass away. In the movie however anna won the case and even though she WANTED to save her sister she knew that in doing so she would take away her sisters own will. I think the movie did the story justice unlike the surpise twist of "you won the case by you still die regardless." Its one of those plot devices that i feell happen only because the author wrote themselves into a corner and didn't know how to move forward without some kind of tragedy. The message is still the same in both circumstances but with the added messages of listen to your sick loved ones. What kind if life could kate have lived with the guilt of making her sister sue for emancipation causing her death and inevitably prolonging her life against her wishes. Its not a good ending and in many ways the movie was better
I saw the movie My Sisters Keeper first then I read the book soon after; the book is better. Another book of Jodi Picoult’s that I think should be adapted, and hopefully stays true to the material, is Nineteen Minutes.
What the Harry Potter movies did with Ginny really upset me. She became one of my favorite characters while reading the books. esp. while reading book 6.
She was so fierce and witty in the books and her relationship with Harry was developed beautifully. Whereas in the films, she literally had no personality at all and I have heard from people who have only watched the films that they thought the Harry/Ginny pairing was weird af, which it WAS in the films! But in the books it all made sense!
@@91clarie when people tell me that Harry and Ginny shouldn’t be a thing, I ask, “did you read the books?” And of course they lie. I can always tell because of that statement, “Harry and Hermione should have been together. Ginny makes no sense.”
@Sarah Granger I agree. Ron is my absolute favorite and I loved his and Hermione's chemistry in the books. They totally ruined his character in the movies. They gave all of Ron's best lines in the books to either Harry or Hermione. It annoyed me so much.
About the remake. I'm not really looking forward to it since I found out what characters will be there. Even though I love Percy Jackson, I won't Be watching a Disney remake+
I think the movie ending of My sister´s keeper is better. It's more realistic. The whole idea of having a baby just for "spare parts" is wrong and Kate was already too sick to heal like that and live a long life while her sister fought for hers and eventually died.I was a bit upset when I read the book and it ended like this. It didn't feel right. Even so, she helped her sister a lot when she was alive.
^ Their arguments usually are that the darker ending was better fitting for the story, when Kate choosing to die is also a pretty dark ending. And just bc an ending is darker doesn’t mean it’s better.
@redrasegarden Agreed. One series that I think pulls it off is A Series of Unfortunate Events, bc the main theme of is that terrible can happen or be done to people, and that it can all depend on circumstances and luck (for lack of better terms), and the narrator says right at the beginning that this won’t have a happy ending. My Sisters Keeper’s message is that one child should not be used as spare parts for another, as that is horrific, then ends with that child’s body being used as spare parts for another.
The Ginny character changes aside, the end of Deathly Hallows part II actually made me angry. Spoiler Alert: It took the whole point of the the last two books, including Dumbledore’s death and threw them out the window. Voldemort should never have been able to have the final battle with Harry. The Elder Wand recognized Harry as its true owner and didn’t work against him at all. There was no tying up of their magic like at the end of book four. It was drawn out for drama and action that didn’t occur in the book. The whole point in Dumbledore having Snape kill him was so Voldemort wouldn’t kill Draco for the wand’s loyalty. Draco disarming him gave Draco the Elder Wand’s loyalty which then transferred to Harry when he disarmed Draco. The Elder Wand would not have worked against Harry!
I totally agree. Plus, the way of his death is not the same, in the book Voldemort dies like any human being and not dissolving in the air. And that is the message, for all his quest for immortality and power, Voldemort died like any other wizard.
@@MoonTsubasaHime I prefer Harry snapping the elder wand in half. It ends the wand's bloody line of provenance. It differentiates him from Dumbledore, who might have been too curious to destroy such a significant artifact.
@@melodramatic7904 Totally agree. I’m fine with how they extended the final battle in the movie, though I do wish they had included more of Harry and Voldemort’s conversation. But Harry just snapping the Elder Wand without fixing his own first still bugs me 11 years later.
Eragon had some cool concepts, especially the way magic worked… but aside from that, the series is pretty bad. It makes sense the movie was worse. It’s really not a good series.
I am happy about the change in my sister's keeper. In my opinion Anna dying so unexpectedly is just comes of as shock effect what many writers do when they write in an unexpected death of a main character.
I mean it’s shocking, but it’s not done for shock value. In an ideal world Anna doesn’t exist because Kate didn’t get cancer, so it’s very poetic that, in the end, Anna dying and saving Kate one last time gives the parents the two kids they were always meant to have. It’s a beautifully tragic ending that is completely destroyed in the movie.
@@crystalpritchard5065 Not really I think it's handled better here because in the book the mom actually cares about Anna but in the movie she doesn't at all and even when everyone around her tells her she's taking things too far even Kate I get that life unpredictable and shit happens but Anna didn't deserve to die and Kate didn't get her wish so no one wins except the mom that way
@@andreeat2142 that’s the point though. It was wrong for Anna parents to have her solely so that she could be spare parts for Kate; they never let her have a life outside of Kate’s needs, she never got to be her own person. Killing her in the end and having her safe Kate emphasizes this point, it’s shows how much her parents trivialized her life, that as much as they loved her, they saw her as spare parts for their first daughter. I agree it’s a cruel fate for a character but that’s literally the point.
I also liked the movie ending better. For once: It was more realistic. Kate's life (or more her misery) could only be prolonged. "Healing her" with a kidney would just have been extremely stupid and unrealistic. But mostly: The move stood way more firm to the question if it is alright to "create" a donor child to get spare parts at all. I live in a country where all of that is completely illegal and sure that has influenced me but even if US-citizens are ok with something like that being legally possible.. "Does the fact that it is scientific possible make it ok?" Is just a question that NEEDS to be asked. And killing Anna who fought for her right of being worth of living her own life of to magically safe Kate with a kidney while removing the child that isn't needed anymore after Kate is healed... In my opinion that end does not ask the questions that need to be asked.
I liked the movie ending; siblings shouldn't be forced to be experiments (where they are made purely to harvest organs out of). I think it sent a way more unusual, intense message about life - everyone knowing life can be fragile/unpredictable anyway
I can forgive many changes, but there's one that I will never forgive or get over: DID YA PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIYRE?! Dumbledore asked calmly.
LOL yes... that's top of my list of "Dumbest HP book to movie changes" and close next is the fact that Lily's eyes in the final movie don't match Harry's.... like... how do you ruin that?
@@andreca90 OMG I'm so glad to see someone else annoyed by the eyes thing. Seriously, there was ONE casting requirement for young Lily: she had to have Daniel Radcliffe's eyes. That's it. That was their only assignment 🤣
Harry Potter movies have another unforgivable changes: Grindelwald. In the books he rathet dies then telling Voldemort that Dumbledore has the elder wand. Considering their connections that's a huge difference, and a redeemtion arc.
Forgot these: *Ella Enchanted* - lifting the curse *The Giver* - shoehorned love interest/making Asher uninteresting *Percy Jackson* - aging up the characters *Voyage of the Dawn Treader* - adding green smoke subplot *Artemis Fowl* - too many plots
I kind of forgive Dawn treader because they were trying to add a narrative. They didn't think "Let's explore these islands while searching for these 7 lords" was a strong enough motivation. They also needed to pull the witch back in (no idea why) and to add a real Climax with STAKES
@@yiwoon_cr8s it kind of does. Especially given the prophecy of the second one. If they were intending to follow the entire series, they shot themselves in the foot. Plus all the other changes they made that were notably abhorrent.
I just tell myself the Ella's Enchanted movie is a different story, just with the same curse and characters. The movie by itself is fun but it was my favorite book as a kid, so I was disappointed the first time I saw it because the story is so different.
@@jessiem3169 Ugh... Ella Enchanted the movie was such a massive disappointment. It’s really not the same curse at all though. The book makes it clear that the curse causes Ella pain when she doesn’t obey immediately. Her learning what level of pain she can tolerate before she has to obey is a huge part of her character arc. It helps her figure out her loopholes, her limitations, and is instrumental in developing her determination to break her curse. The book curse also doesn’t give Ella skills she doesn’t actually have in order to obey a command-movie karate scene I’m looking at you. Or make her freeze in mid-air! Because that’s not realistic. And one thing Gail Carson Levine’s story got perfect was keeping the curse realistically grounded despite the story being a fantasy. The movie is a cute Shrek wanna-be. But it is not Ella Enchanted. They stripped everything unique and surprising from Levine’s book, including how it’s a literal Cinderella story, and gave us a damsel in distress devoid of a personality who only fights back when commanded to do so, until the very end after she has broken the curse. And the way the movie breaks the curse is just trash. She looks in a mirror and commands herself not to be obedient? Seriously? The whole point of her character arc is that she learns that she has been wanting to break her curse for a selfish reason, when what actually breaks it is her selfless choice to save Char and her kingdom by refusing to marry him and become queen. She can’t risk that her curse could be used to harm him or hurt the kingdom. The movie missed the entire point of Ella’s character arc. And I can’t stand what they did to Char either. He wasn’t a stupid, disinterested teen who fell for Ella because she’s pretty and supposedly not interested in him. Book Char was deeply interested in his kingdom and he fell for Ella because she made him laugh and she was a smart, interesting, uniquely skilled, independent woman. The book deserves a new adaption from people who actually understand it and want to highlight its uniqueness.
Honestly, I liked the movie ending of My Sister's Keeper better. The book ending kind of made the whole ethical debate and Anna's will meaningless in the final outcome, while the movie honored both her and Kate's right to have the final say over what happens to their bodies. For me, it was much more meaningful than the random car crash that magically resolved everything. Jodi is kind of the M. Night Shyamalan of cheap nonsensical last minute twists and sometimes it works for me better, but here it really missed the mark.
In Half-Blood Prince they omitted lot of the flashback scenes that tell Voldermort's backstory. In the book we get to see Voldermort's family like his grandfather, uncle, and mother. And we also learn how Merope bewitched Tom Senior into falling in love with her thus Tom Riddle Jr aka Voldermort was born. The movie shows none of that. The film only shows when Dumbledore shows up at the orphanage to tell Tom he is a wizard.
Ya that annoyed me too. The book pretty much explained Voldermorts entire backstory. One of the movies does mention like hes a half blood or whatever but half blood prince explains the entire thing and why he is the way he is. It also bothered me that the book and movie were called half blood prince since it really had no plot point other than being snapes book and the reveal at the end about Snape even tho the majority of the book was about Harry trying to get Memories of Voldermorts past to figure out where he hid the items.
They threw those out the window in favour of whatever was going on with Ron, Hermione, Cormag and Lavender as well as Ginny and Dean's on again-off again relationship just for Ginny to be with Harry, but the romantic scenes between the two were awful. Don't know if Bonnie was just uncomfortable with romantic scenes in general, or if the tension wasn't how it needed to be, but either way, I can see why Ginny's novel counterpart is loved more by fans.
@@grahamdamberger7130 I don't know why they thought the romantic teenage drama was more important than Voldermort's backstory. At that scene where Hermione said that she wanted to throw up at Lavender calling Ron her "Won-won" I wanted to join her!
I’ll always be upset that Faramir tries to take the ring in the movie, he is such a great character in the book and portrayed as wise and guesses the value of Frodo’s quest
Unpopular opinion: I prefer Faramir from the films, I totally see how changing his behaviour made sense - he was also tempted like Boromir at first, but on the contrary to his brother, he managed to overcome the temptation and let Frodo go. IMO it makes his character more interesting and human, because it shows that he is not perfect, too.
In the film commentary, they discussed this. They had built up the fact that the ring moved people to do things beyond their control and made everyone want it. To then have a character that just said, "meh, no thanks" THEY felt negated the ring's power.
I actually like the ending to My Sister's Keeper movie better. I liked them both. But, I thought it ended up being kind of cool that we got to explore both possibilities.
Even though the ending of the novel of "My Sister's Keeper" was controversial, it still delivered a crushing blow on the fragility of life, and how things don't always work out the way you expect them to. I'm with Jodi on this stance, although Kate's death was more expected, it takes away from the book's message.
The debacle with The Hobbit trilogy was largely due to studio interference. The studio head wanted another LOTR, and pushed for extra films and action scenes.
Plus Peter Jackson wasn't supposed to direct the films. Guillermo Del Toro was to direct The Hobbit but for whatever reason had to leave so Jackson was forced to step back in. Jackson was burnt-out from filming LoTR and that is why The Hobbit was CGI heavy.
Yes! I feel bad that Peter Jackson gets so much flack for The Hobbit movies but he came into the process very late and so much had already been decided and, like you said, the studio had their ideas on what the movies should be which is probably part of the reason the original director decided to leave the project.
I came here for this comment. It wasn't that he "Couldn't help himself" He was doing his best to create enough content for three movies when I think he wanted to only do two.
Personally, I believe the most unforgivable thing they changed in My Sister's Keeper was eliminating the lawyer's ex-GF from the story. I've seen the movie and read the book, and while I can understand both arguments about each ending I personally favor the movie ending. I felt is was bittersweet compared to the book ending that just felt bitter. In the movie ending Kate got the peaceful death she wanted that set her free from the suffering and burden of her cancer that was consuming her whole family with it. In the book, Kate is left feeling responsible for Anna's death since she made Anna do the court stuff and so is obligated to live her life burdened with that guilt(instead of the cancer) so that Anna's death won't be for nothing(having to live life for the both of them in a sense). In the book, Kate already felt as though she was robbing Anna of the chance to live her life as she pleased, and by the end she's left feeling that's she's literally robbed Anna of her life entirely. So in a sense, the book ending basically feels like life/karma is punishing Kate for selfishly making Anna fight(when she didn't totally want to) so Kate could die, and instead Kate lives by receiving Anna's kidney anyway as a result of losing Anna. In other words, Kate gained a new life at the expense of her sister's life. To compare the burden of cancer to the burden of knowing your choices likely make it at least partially your fault for someone's death, I personally feel that cancer is the "lesser of 2 evils" so to speak. That's why I personally favor the movie ending, 'cause the book ending just seems cruel to me.
As someone who is currently battling stage lV breast cancer, I completely agree. I would much rather die from my cancer than feel responsible for the rest of my life for someone else’s death. I’m not afraid to die because I know there’s more after this earth experience. It would be torture to have to live my life feeling responsible for someone else’s death.
I'd like to add The Bourne Identity. In the book his love interest is an renowned economist. He saves her from being raped, which is how she knows she can trust him, so she is willing to risk everything to help him. Also, without her finance knowledge Bourne would never have succeeded/survived. In the movie she is a nomad with no money, no job, no future. She loses nothing by associating with Bourne (okay she is frequently in danger). She also does almost nothing to help him save for one scene where she flirts with a man to gain information. It was a terrible degradation of an interesting character.
And then they kill her off in the opening of the sequel. Suuuuuuucked. I know they had to change the plot to make it a contemporary thriller but that was no reason to shortchange Marie like that.
@@kristentaylor5359 The only thing the movie took from the book was the title. World War Z, the book, is a thought-provoking piece that highlights different groups of people through the use of interviews after a zombie apocalypse has occurred. What part of that sounds unfilmable? A film student with little to no budget could have made a more faithful adaptation than Hollywood did.
@@cocoanutt27 It would be a difficult story to film, it jumps all over the place and doesn't have a central character. Also, it takes the main theme of the book, not just the name
I watched My Sister's Keeper long before the book ended up on my Kindle. When I read the book, I was crushed a second time, and angry. All of a sudden it felt that they needed to have a, for lack of a better way of putting it, "feel good" ending. Anna gets to live her life, Kate was going to die no matter what, etc. Upon reading the book, the ending was SOO much more powerful and devastating, that it really tainted the movie for me. I am glad you had it at number 1.
YES!!! I hated how much they changed Ron in the movies. He is my favorite character in the books and they completely ruined him by making him the bumbling idiot I will never forgive the movies for that.
The biggest example of that was in Chamber of Secrets. In the book Ron was the one who explained what a "mudblood" was. Hermione had no clue what it meant other than figured that Malfoy had insulted her. In the movie it was Hermione that explained the meaning of that word. It didn't make sense as to how she knew what it meant if she wasn't in the Wizarding world until she started Hogwarts.
Maybe because I saw the movie before reading the book that I like the movie ending better. I was pissed that the little sister died anyway and was essentially used as a means to keep her sister alive in the end. I can understand life is unpredictable and precious with the movie’s ending as well. Considering the mother really only had been focusing on her oldest daughter and never considered her younger.
It should be pointed out that stealing the Fizzy Lifting Drinks was Grandpa Joe's idea, Charlie just went along with it. When Harry Potter is inevitably remade as a seven-season long television or streaming epic, they'll have time to properly flesh out Ginny's character.
I’m glad Divergent’s getting more talk now. Yes while the Allegiant adaptation wasn’t perfect, I personally believed that the actors did their best in bringing their characters to life & their development. The other reason why it flailed was that the creators were depending too much on the sci-fi tech for visual appeal for a dystopian sci-fi film. Plus there’s the added thing of making the last installment into a tv spinoff rather than finishing the ending, which none of the actors sign up for & that was a smart decision. If there’s gonna be a tv adaptation of Divergent let it be a reboot so it’ll do Roth’s books more justice. My heart still loves the films especially the actors who play Tris & Tobias, but with the recent resurgence of book adaptations like Percy Jackson, Lord of the Rings, & Eragon, here’s hoping the new cast & crew will do a good job as well.😊
There's also the fact that YA Dystopia had lost it's popularaty by the time Allegiant came out, wich probably convinced the producers to stop investing in the proyect.
You forgot The Dark Tower. I'm up to "The Song of Susanna" now and it's staggering how much they changed for the sake of a Hollywood flick. It's only connected to the book through a few lines and a series of copyrighted names.
Actually you can't really add dark tower because it doesn't follow the books at all. Why do people keep missing the movie says inspired by the dark tower book series.
I can’t 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.
The funny thing about the big change in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory between the book and the movie is that Roald Dahl wrote the screenplay, too, so he was the one who deviated from his own novel, LOL.
Roald Dahl wasn't the sole screenwriter - he was the only credited screenwriter, but that's hardly the same thing. David Seltzer was the uncredited writer, who changed many things against Dahl's will such as the fizzy lifting drink. Overall, the few things that survive from Dahl's original script are the references to characters and situations that would only appear in Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator (which would only be published after the film's release) such as the Vermicious Knids. Another bit Dahl did not write was Wonka's first appearance, leaning on his cane and leaving it behind, which came from Gene Wilder himself. I (and many others) feel it's a great introduction to Wonka's character, but Dahl absolutely HATED it.
Just because he wrote the first draft and is the credited writer doesn’t mean his script was the one that was used in production. Look up the term script doctor, lots of screenplays get rewritten by other writers who are billed and credited differently. It’s pretty common to the point where “and” vs “&” in the credits denotes weather writers were coauthors or both wrote scripts that were then used in part but not full.
to be fair about charlie breaking the rules, it is probably more realistic that a kid like him would do one little bad thing, but he does make up for it by leaving the gobstopper with wonka
I read The Shining before i watched the film - I didn't like a lot of the changes made also, like the death. I try now to see the book and movie as separate stories now since they're so different in many ways.
@@ashh4929 I loved the ending of the book Hannibal. But of course movies can't end like that, so it was drasticly changed to stupidity. A doctor would never cut off his entire hand to escape hand cuffs, when cutting two fingers and chunk of palm would do it (leaving a very functional 2 fingers and thumb). Scott directed so many excellent movies, why did he allow this monstrosity of a rewritten ending into one of his films? Probably money . . .
For me "Hunger Games" (Panem) is missing. They changed the fact from who Katniss got the mockingjay thing (Sorry for my bad english, I am no native speaker)
I understand the author's disagreement with changing the ending as it changed the message. But a part of me also feel it's more realistic in terms of having at least one girl survive. Kate kept relapsing, so if this was real life, there was high chance of her relapsing even if she was in remission after the operation. Then there would have been no more Anna to save her. But of course going with life's unpredictable, we can assume she was permanently cured.
The ending of Love Story was absolutely horrible and unforgivable. In the book, the phrase "love means never having to say you're sorry" is used as a reconciliation between father and son, just as Jenny had used it to illustrate how love forgives all things when she first said it. In the movie, it's used to drive the wedge between father and son even deeper, pretty much to the 'unforgivable' stage, which is 100 percent the opposite of the book's message.
In the 90s movie version she would have been a better match with the elder cousin. They could have fallen in love while she nursed him back to health... I mean they changed so far from the book anyway, they could have really leaned into it and made a really good movie. The younger brother didn't deserve her anyway in the book or the movie.
I definitely agree with #1. I read this book in high school, bawling my eyes out during lunch as they described the car crash sequence. Watching the movie and the change they made was down right frustrating and just never sat well with me. :(
I remember reading My Sister’s 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 couldn’t 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 book’s ending.
Actually, it's all the other children that weren't punished. They merely suffered the consequences of their own actions AFTER being warned not to do what they did (with the exception of Veruca, though she's gone completely off the rails by the time she goes down the chute). They were all ultimately rescued and restored by Wonka/Oompa Loompas. On the other hand, Charlie and his grandpa are left to save themselves, received a tongue-lashing that peeled half the wallpaper off the walls AND lost the lifetime supply of chocolate. After being told off, Charlie not only accepts the judgement in silence but shows contrition--returning the Everlasting Gobstopper without being asked to (against his Grandpa's advice) Remember how great a sacrifice this was given how poor he and his family are and how much money they were offered for it. This is incredibly telling of Charlie's character. I love this as it shows that having good character doesn't mean you DON'T make mistakes, but is revealed by how you respond when you DO; because no one is perfect, and it's HARD to do the right thing. Wonka recognizes this and he cherishes it. I think we should all cherish it--rather than chasing after the unattainable. p.s. Charlie's situation was different in that it is his Grandfather that holds Charlie back and suggests they take a drink. None of the other parents do this. Yes, Charlie doesn't resist at all but it wasn't either his idea or his intent as he was clearly following the others out of the room. This doesn't excuse his participation at all, but you said he did EXACTLY the same thing as the other kids, and he didn't. I'm just being pedantic.
What the Harry Potter films did with Ron's character was much worse. He was far more important than Ginny and the bastardization of his character was there almost from the beginning.
ginny isnt the only character that got a disservice in the movies, they did ron wrong too. they really dumbed ron down and gave his moments to hermione. like in the philosophers stone, ron has to remind her that shes a witch to beat the devils snare. then in the prisoner of azkaban, its ron who says ‘if you want to kill harry then you’ll have to kill us too.’ they made hermione this seemingly flawless character which she really isnt and portrayed ron like this bumbling idiot when he is really the glue that keeps the trio together.
I really like both adaptations. The burton one has a bit of a darker feel to it and when I read the book I definitely got a dark vibe from it. But I also like the original
I definitely do like both versions. Since when is weirdness a negative of Tim Burton? It's a feature, not a glitch, as they say. I didn't mind at all that they tried to explain why Wonka was so odd.
I love that version. 😌The original version with Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka creeped me out.😨There was that creepy song he sang in that tunnel, then those horrid, creepy looking, monotone sounding oompa-loompas.
I love My Sister's Keeper. It's one of my I need a good cry movies. I've never read the book, so with the movie we got with all the other adaptations in it, if Anna died in a car accident and Kate got to live with her kidney. I honestly would rolled my eyes, probably would have been pissed. I would have thought, "That's some Hollywood BS right there." There was just something so tragically real about how the family was dealing with Kate's cancer and Anna dying in a car accident and Kate getting the kidney anyways, would have cheapen the movie. And how is the message of the fragility of life is lessened when an 18 year old dies of cancer that she was fighting since she was a toddler, when compared to an 11 year old dying in a car accident? Both deaths are unfair and tragic.
“The main character wins the right to her body! Oh… she dies in a car crash and has to give up her kidney without her consent anyway, therefore making the entire point of the book moot.”
@@SEGASister exactly, classic Jodi Picoult Another good one, perfect match - Mum kills priest for sexually abusing her child, oh wait the priest donated his bone marrow and it was the recipient who actually molested the child
I was smart enough to watch the movie first and I'm glad i need i probably wouldn't have been interested knowing that Anna life was only to save her sister.
No idea there was such a divide where the endings were involved, at least not until I watched clips from the movie years later. While I get liking the source material and preferring the emotional impact of a sudden death, to me it made everything Anna fought for in the first place completely pointless. The book lovers can see it however they please of course, but in the end my personal take away was that Anna still ended up being a spare set of parts for her sister in the end. Had I read the book first, or at all, I'd have felt so cheated by the end. As if there had been no point at all in reading it just for Anna to die out of nowhere and end up being the thing she desperately wanted to no longer be. Kate was more than ready to go and her simply explaining it to her mother was a lovely part of the film showing how far both characters came from the start of their respective stories.
I liked the 90's Mansfield Park as its own movie, but not as a JA adaptation. My biggest movie change pet peeve is in the first Narnia movie. While I enjoyed the movie as a whole, they did bastardize my favorite line from the book. In the book when the kids and the beaver approach Aslan's camp, Lucie says she is nervous about meeting a lion. Mrs. Beaver says you should be & Lucie asks if he's safe. Mrs. Beaver says of course he's not safe, but he's good. He's the King. In the movie they give part of the line to Tumnus, but not until the very end. I was so upset! Mrs. Beaver's line in the books just encapsulates who Aslan is and they ruined it.
The whole "Artemis Fowl" movie. They changed so many things and messed up whole motivation/plot arcs. For example: Commander Holly Short gets a hard time from her superior, Colonel Root, because she is the first female officer in the unit and has to prove herself (and validate the trust that Root put in her when he accepted her into his squad). It explains why she is overly ambitious at times, why the Colonel is so hard on her but still supports her instead of firing her/letting her die, why it is such a big deal that she is pulled into the plot as a whole. In the film, Colonel Root is a woman, for no good reason as far as I can tell - and the whole careful character-build goes up in flames.
The HP movies are great but the books are better. Plus Hinny is much better in the books. I kinda wish their relationship was done right in the movies.
For as bad as Faramir trying to take the ring is, the scene from LOTR that gets MY goat is Gollum talking Frodo into sending Sam away on the stairs. It is a monumentally colossal slap in the face of everything that the dynamic between Frodo and Sam is in the book and I honestly find that scene quite literally unwatchable.
For Allegiant it was supposed to be a 2 part film. I think they were going to kill her off in Ascendant. But because of abysmal box office and reviews the studio was gonna make it a TV movie. In I am Legend I prefer the alternate ending because it's more accurate to the book. Harry Potter series they did both Ron and Ginny dirty. Some of Ron's best moments in the books were given to other characters and he did things that Ron in the book would never do.
Harry Potter was supposed to put back the Elder Wand with Dumbledore instead of breaking it in half. And also, even though there is a deleted scene, they were supposed to show that Dudley and Harry squashed the beef at the beginning of part 1 of deathly hallows. Those, to me, are the BIGGEST things that made me MAD AF💯
@@glowormrdr6183 It's a saying in the USA that means they ended whatever arguments or fights or disagreements they've had. Jonathon Green, Lexicgrapher on Quora explains: "Beef" is usually described as having animosity towards someone. "Squashing the beef" is ending that animosity. Beef meaning ‘to complain’ is a coinage of the mid-19th century. This quote comes from an anonymous burglar's memoir, published in New York in 1865 (though the burglar himself was English and had fled from London): 1865 Leaves from the Diary of a Celebrated Burglar: With the intention of finding out whether he was likely to ‘beef’ or not, Tom asked his sister Til how much his ‘poke’ was ‘up to’. 'Poke' here means a wallet (which had been pickpocketed), and 'up to' means worth, i.e. whether he complained (to the authorities) depended on how much the wallet contained. (Leaves is a fascinating book and a boon for the lexicographer - every instance of slang, and there are at least 1000, comes neatly bracketed in quote marks.) As regards the etymology of beef, it seems to go back to the cry of hot beef! meaning ‘stop thief!’ (quasi-rhyming slang but more by coincidence than design, since it is far older than rhyming slang's first widespread use in the 1820s-30s); thus the 18th century cry hot beef, to raise a hue and cry. This became ‘to raise an alarm’ or ‘make a fuss’ - the presence of crime was now irrelevant - and thence ‘to shout’. The 'complain' use followed that. Then (both in the late 19th century) came ‘to argue’, ‘to give someone away to the authorities’, and so on.
I prefer snapping the elder wand in half. It instantly ends the long line of wizards that have fought each other over it. It also contrasts him with Dumbledore, who would probably have been too curious to destroy such a historically significant and powerful magical artifact.
@@GenerationNextNextNext The context was confusing as it seemed to be referencing the handshake, not the general intent. And being a sexagenarian American, if it confused me, it might confuse many. It is NOT a "saying" unless it's generally familiar.
I still hate that Dumbledore yells at Harry Potter when he asks him if he had put his name in the Goblet Of Fire when he asked him calmly in the fourth book, Ludo Bagmen, and other characters are absent(Winky and the other house elves don't appear, the SPEW subplot is absent, Dobby doesn't wear the hats he wore in Harry Potter and the Order Of The Phoenix, etc.), The Dursleys don't appear, the Burrow being burned in Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows part 2 was unnecessary, etc. Mike Teavee is a video game fanatic in Charlie and The Chocolate Factory(2005) instead of being a Western movie fan, Charlie Bucket and Grandpa Joe drink the fizzy lifting drinks in Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory when they followed the rules in the book, Veruca Salt and Violet Bureaguard become best friends when they never interacted with each other, the Mrs. Teavee, Mrs. Salt, and Mr. Gloop aren't with Augustus Gloop, Veruca Salt, and Violet Bureaguard in Charlie and The Chocolate Factory(2005), The Grinch has a backstory on why he hates The Whos in How The Grinch Stole Christmas(2004), The Cat In The Cat In The Hat(2003) is obnoxious when he's nice in the book, and he cleans the house with his machine, Thing 1 and Thing 2 don't get caught by Sally's brother in the movie, Sally's brother isn't the narrator(Sally and her brother were nice in the book, but Sally's brother is bad in the movie, the mother is a physical character in the movie, when she wasn't shown in the book, etc.), Rita Skeeter turning herself into a beetle to get her false stories from The Slytherin students in Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire book is absent in the movie, Ron Weasley and Harry Potter speak like Crabbe and Goyle in Harry Potter and The Chamber Of Secrets, but they have their normal voices in the movie, etc. 🎥🎥🎬🎬🎬🎬🎬🎬
That's why I liked the original Dumbledore better than the replacement. He'd never snap at Harry like some sort of abusive authority figure. RIP Richard Harris.
I'll forgive the SPEW subplot being omitted from Goblet Of Fire because I kind of got annoyed with it in the book. But the one thing that I can't forgive is that Aunts Sponge and Spiker didn't die in the movie. In the movie they pursued James and company across the ocean while they were simply crushed to death by the giant peach.
i love the lotr movies but that scene with faramir had me so pissed at Jackson. it totally betrayed faramirs character because he wasn't like his brother, but more like strider
In the film adaptation of Dean Koontz's "Odd Thomas", the film was pretty good but it's a shame that 1) they didn't have the ghost of Elvis and 2) they diminished Ozzie Boone's character to a cameo of Patton Oswalt.
The best thing anyone can do is to view source material and adaptations as separate entities. I have yet to see an adaptation that is entirely faithful to the source material. Especially when it comes to adapting books to the screen, a lot of details are lost. That's not to say any alteration is fine because it's an adaptation. They should try to achieve a faithful adaptation, or as much as possible, as the medium allows (what works in books might not work in movies, and vice versa; that's a fact no one can get around). Changing storylines, characters or, worst of all, violating its spirit and turning it into something else, should not be encouraged or applauded. It's almost like the director and screenwriters are saying they can write a better story than the author whose work they are adapting. It's an increasingly hot topic these days, handled with a lot of toxicity, both from those who love the source materials and those who love the adaptations. The first are deemed purist and elitist by adaptation lovers, while the second are deemed not true fans by source material lovers. And so it goes back and forth. It's a generalization, of course, but for the most part it holds true, if you look at social media, at least. Right now The Rings of Power is a prime (pun intended) example of this.
Honestly, I liked the ending of the movie for my sister's Keeper movie because the mom was so terrible to Anna and Anna didn't deserve to die, I'm not saying Kate did deserve to but I feel the mom didn't deserve to win. Because literally she wasn't caring about any of her kids even Kate. Yes she was trying to save her but she wasn't listening to her wishes. As when Kate wants to go to the beach Sara refuses to let her go and Kate cries. Because when you are sick you want to enjoy what time you have left not stay in the hospital. So even if people say Sara was being a mother and fighting until the end. She was forcing Anna to donate her organs, forgetting about Jesse all together when he needs help too, and not even bothering to listen to what Kate wants. Because even in the book Kate is tired of being sick and wants to go, and Sara won't listen. i do admit though I wish the mom had gotten arrested at the end of the movie or the book because she was definitely abusive. So this is why it works better in the movie because in the book yeah the mom basically gets what she wants. And I get want the author was trying to go for but it's still not fair to any of the kids not just Anna but also the other two kids as well. Because the only person who wins that way is the mom.
I saw Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and the Return of the King (I haven't seen The Two Towers, though). I've read all three books and have seen the Rankin Bass adaptation of The Hobbit. For me, that is the definitive version of The Hobbit.
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.
Unpopular Opinion I honestly believe ‘My Sister’s Keeper’ movie version’s ending is better than the book version. I saw the story as Anna’s right over her own body against her given responsibility to save her sister from her parents. The movie’s version completes that story with Anna winning her right and facing the consequences of her choices. While I believe Anna had every right over her body and no 11 year old should be forced in her situation, it’s important to highlight the consequences and why it was such a complex situation to begin with. I think the book’s version doesn’t conclude that story and honestly comes across as throwing a plot twist for the sake of a plot twist. I understand the argument of the book’s story is about how random life can be. But I think the story of someone’s control over their body stands out more, is more unique to follow and should had been the main focus. Plus, I honestly thinks it’s a slap in the face for Anna and actually Kate too of having Anna ending up giving her kidney to Kate (literally without her say) after she won the right for her body with Kate’s support and encouragement. It’s such a delicate subject and I don’t think a random car crash was needed other than to manipulate the audience’s emotions.
I just made a similar comment! You read my mind! It's like they were punishing Anna for making her own decision, trying to paint her as selfish. The car crash was to basically state she should have given up her body parts as asked because it would have happened anyway. I feel like that stripped the agency of the main character. And now the sister is alive but without her sister, so what did she really gain? She's alive, but is she really living?
That’s classic Jodi Picoult, she had a similar plot twist in ‘Handle with Care’ a the family sued their obstetrician for wrongful birth (their younger daughter had osteogenesis imperfecta) and won, giving them enough money to comfortably look after her but then the daughter drowned. Meanwhile both the mum and older daughter lost their best friends because they were the obstetrician and her daughter
Yeah it's been a while since I read the book but I remember thinking "Oh, so none of what I just read actually even mattered. Okay." And it didn't seem like it was saying anything about life being fragile and random, the message I got was more like fate stepping in to say "No, actually, this character WAS born solely to be spare parts for her sister and that is what she will be."
I read the book and was really, really hoping for a ballsy ending. That didn’t happen. The whole book built up to it and then the ending was trash. I hated it. I then tried to read two other of her books but there was the same dismal ending - one about an Amish woman and the other about the autistic kid (I’m on the spectrum and I had high hopes). She can’t write an ending to save her life and I will NEVER read another of her books. It still makes me mad.
If I remember correctly because it’s been years since I read the book, winning the court case didn’t mean she wasn’t going to give her sister the kidney, what she won was the choice. We as readers don’t know what she would’ve chosen to do with that win, maybe she would’ve donated the kidney anyway. I always found the end of the book poetic because in an ideal world, Anna doesn’t exist because Kate didn’t get cancer. Her parents were only meant to have two kids and in the end, they have those same two kids still. Anna was always meant to save her sister, and in the end she did.
How is Breaking Dawn not on this list? The whole "oh the whole battle was just one of Alisons visions" was so annoying! A) because its a cheap gimmick but B) SHES NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE WOLVES IN HER VISIONS! The movie has always driven me crazy with this.
I 100% agree! I was like that isn't part of the book at all! And her name was actually Alice. Not sure if autocorrect got you or if maybe you may have forgotten.
Personally, I've never read the shining (to me, scary books are WAY scarier than movies - in other words too scary for me! 😬😱) but I LOVE Kubric's version of the story, it's one of my favourite scary movies. And I've never thought for a second that Halloran's death had anything to do with the character being black. It was a genius subversion of expectations. Because the audience believes the whole time that he's going to show up to save the day. He's the solution, he's the savior, he's the ex machina that never materializes! I have always found that to be a genius part of the movie, and one of my favourite parts. He doesn't get killed "for nothing"; he gets killed specifically to kill audience hope and expectation. I think it's genius!
I know this is days late but honestly Linda you should read the book then watch the film again. Believe me I grew up afraid of my own shadow then slowly became less of a chicken sh*t & a few years ago dived into horror novels (still don't touch certain genres though & i don't care admitting it lol.) Tbh The Shining isn't really a scary book imo it's more suspenseful & has you thinking "wtf is going on here??" You should give it a try & if it's still too scary for you I'll take full responsibility lmfao. Also Doctor Sleep the book & movie are SOOO good especially as a follow up on Danny. But yeah give it a whirl & if you do and love it please let me know! :)
I know they couldn’t include everything from book to film regarding Harry Potter but there was so much that left many gaping holes and had many of us scratching our heads. I love the films but get lost in the books, we never got to see Nearly Headless Nick after the 2nd film, no Peeves.
Given that Gene Wilder did a great job in Willy Wonka, but they changed the character of the grandfather being too, I guess, too selfish. He was somewhat a pain.
A few others - the Lawrence Olivier version of Wuthering Heights that leaves out the second part of the story - over a third of the book, and the entire second generation’s story
Even though it would have made the movie even longer, the Scouring of the Shire was the most jarring part of the LOTR books for me. It's actually the core of Tolkien's message : he was a pessimist, and the message of the books was pretty clear : even though the Ring is destroyed and Aragorn king and Sauron defeated, the world will never be the same. The heroes don't come back to their heaven-like village to finally rest, they find the Shire destroyed by Saruman. No one cares for Frodo, Merry and Pippin turn out to be the heroes of the Shire in the eyes of the Hobbits. It was much more of a bitter ending than the one we got in the movie (even though I loved the movie).
In my eyes, the Percy Jackson movies were the most unforgivable movie adaptations ever made. So glad the series is getting a second chance with Rick Riordan actually involved this time.
Honestly for the most part changing books doesn't bother me that much. I've learned to not expect too much as well as separate movies from book, and I find I end up loving movies that other hate due to changes. Most times I find it's about whether the movie was just done well in general or not. For example, I throughly disliked Allegiant... but I feel it was just done/written bad. I absolutely LOVE Beautiful Creatures, yet there are *so many* changes. I will always remember going "this isn't how the book goes! No, this isn't what happens." During the fight scene in Breaking Dawn Pt 2 though. In the end I love how they did the movie, but damn in the moment that first time... 😅😅
Which change did YOU find the most unforgivable? Let us know below, and be sure to check out our video of the Top 20 Book to TV Show Adaptations of the Century So Far - th-cam.com/video/a3oRouNPnZY/w-d-xo.html
You forgot about the movie Hostage with Bruce Willis. Which happens to be based on the the novel by Michael Crais. They changed 3 things. 1. They cut out the trailer scene of which Talley finds a bunch of cereal boxes and one of car thieves' mom's head in a jar in their fridge. 2. The chief was corrupt by the mob. 3. The whole ending of the book was changed for the movie.
Agreed
Peter Pan
the entire percy jackson and eragon movies
WORLD WAR Z. it should have been a feauxcumentary.
Could have also mentioned almost all of Ron Weasley's best moments being given to Hermione and reducing him to just comic relief
Agreed!
And SO MUCH more
What good moments? 😂 abandoning Harry And Hermione? - someone who read the books several times
@@louff4tw746 then you’ll know that in the books Ron stood up against Sirius (on a broken ankle) and not Hermione in PoA. Ron also continuously defend Hermione and Harry against Professor Snape, Ron was freaking out a lot more when Hermione was tortured by Bellatrix. In the books Ron was continuously the loyal friend through and through.
Also Ron suggested to save the elves during the war
Conceiving a child to be used for spare body parts for a dying child is royally fucked up.
People do it though.
Precisely. As is that poor kid getting in a mortal accident less than an hour after winning a court case that gave her the right to make her own medical decisions
Why did the doctor go along with it(if he did)?
@@jackilynpyzocha662parents have the right to make all medical decisions for minors, if a parent says "use my kid to save my other kid" they will.
Charlie and Grandpa figured out how to rescue themselves ... and Charlie still turned the candy back over to Mr. Wonka. I think the fizzy drink scene is more "Charlie isn't perfect", but he is bright and he is kind ... and he was willing to lose everything when he gave the candy back, knowing he'd broken a rule. So, for me, not such an unforgivable change.
I agree with you on how they turned it to proof that he was a good kid.
Though, I still find it ironic that the movie that focused mostly on Charlie was called “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”, while the one that focused more on Willy Wonka was called “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.”
And poor Rold Dahl just had such crap luck with movie adaptations of his novels not living up to his vision. He hated the change to the end of The Witches as well and disowned that movie for it.
I was thinking the same thing. He gave that candy back and his family truly needed the money "Slugworth" was going to pay for it. I think we are to assume the others ran straight to Slugworth with the Gobstopper even though they were much better off financially. So, he was redeemed by being the only one who was not going to betray Wonka. The most disappointing part for me as a kid was, they did not show the other characters leaving the factory. This is described in the book. We see that they 1) all survived and 2) ALL got the chocolate.
@@themayhemofmadness7038 I don’t blame Dahl for hating the ending of The Witches (1990). After watching the 2020 version with the book’s ending and hearing about the changes ending in the 1990 film, I’d also be mad too.
@@LB-gz3ke In the 2005 remake we get to see the other children leave the factory. I hated in the 1971 version that all we got was Mr. Wonka's promise to Charlie that the other kids would be fine.
Also Charlie was just curious, whereas the other kids were greedy and demanding about the things they took/tried to take.
I'm happy they changed the ending for My Sister's Keeper. Jodie Picoult's twist endings are very important to her stories and I appreciated that the creators of the film decided to keep the book's ending a surprise.
Same I felt for Kate, but I'm not upset with Anna getting to live her life. Kate's life was important but so was Anna.
Regarding "My Sister's Keeper" I felt like another point was "will" vs "obligation". Once Anna wins her case, her lawyer believes she'll still donate her kidney. She wanted her voice heard, not kill her sister. So by changing the ending they are also making her character selfish.
Except Anna wanted to donate. Kate asked her to do the trial because she knew she wouldn’t survive the operation and was ready to die.
In the book's ending, Anna died, didn't she? So if that's her being selfless, it's counter-productive in my opinion. It sent a message that in life, you are either being selfish and live or selfless and die.
Anna is 11 year old, she deserves to live. I have just recently watched an episode about child marriage and it made me sympathize with her even more.
Anna's lawyer asked Sara a valid question: She protected Kate but who protected Anna?
Anna'd donated since the moment she was born. Why should the kidney donating define her?
@@lochuynh5387 My point was that Anna took her family to trial, but in the end she was still feeling conflicted about donating the kidney.
Now she had all the power to do it (no one was forcing her), she was considering it. I believe that it made her character even more complex. The movie took the easy way out, not allowing her character to develop even further.
Anna's death is absolutely tragic. I cried so hard. And then her sister gets the kidney, has a miraculous recovery and lives with guilt feelings. I love the book, tragedy and all because it made it unique.
@@lochuynh5387 I agree. Except in the book she is thirteen. I like the book a lot more than the movie. Anna felt obligated to give her kidney without being asked if she wanted to. There was a small part of her that wanted to say no and just wanted that option. Kate knew that she just wanted to be a kid and be able to try out for hockey and have kids and just live a normal life without having to be a donor her whole life. All the characters in the book seemed so much more interesting than in the movie too
@@crasicatlady I think making Anna a tragic hero definitely left a strong impression. It also puts all the attention on her.
While I agree that attention is a good thing, it also leaves a negative impact when it's monopolized. As you can see, we have been only talking about Anna as if her character makes or breaks the story.
In the movie, Kate felt as much an essential character as Anna to me. She didn't ignore what's going on with her family just because she's sick. She said the disease was not only killing her but also killing her family: Jesse's dyslexic was neglected, Brian was feeling less and less like Sara's husband while Sara used all her time to take care of Kate, even Sara's sister only worked part-time job and used the remaining time to help her.
That's why she made Anna fought that case and it made her more than a patient to me. What we often don't notice is that being a burden kills people as much as their disease.
I love a tragic story as much as the next person but wholesomeness, resolution and positive message are important to me too. I rather seeing the family learn to deal with grief, heel and continue to live their lives than leaving them stuck between grief, guilt and resentment forever.
I agree with Faramir, he was/is my favourite character in the books, but in "Two Towers" Jackson throw away the most important part of his personality. Sam says that Faramir reminds him of Gandalf. And that's the point, because Faramir proves that people can be better, can grow up and evolve. For me he was hope for a future, not Aragorn, who... well, it's really hard to think of him as a normal human.
I think Peter Jackson wanted to make this 'grow and evolve' part more visible, by showing him struggling. When he decides to let Frodo go he knows that this means that he loses any chance of gaining the love of his father, and might likely die for it. This gives it for me even more impact than just the easy decision in the book.
So what Faramir do differently from the books in the movie?
I honestly didn’t understand that part in the video.
@@andreasmeelie1889 Faramir was never tempted by the ring in the book. He never brought the hobbits to osgilieth. His character was purely good. Even Aragon was tempted by the ring.
I’m surprised the Percy Jackson movies weren’t even mentioned
THANK YOU for mentioning Mansfield Park. Oh, it drives me nuts what they've done to it. Over and over. BLEAH!!!
I really like the hobbit and harry potter movies, you've just gotta think of them as separate things and enjoy them for what they are, rather than what the source material wanted them to be.
I’m one of those who love the Hobbit movies instead of the book. The book to me was boring, and I loved the movies.
Movies that have the exact opposite ending from the book have always been a pet peeve of mine, including very well known movies like Our Town (she lives) and Breakfast at Tiffanies (she stays).
What? Someone changed Our Town? But the whole of Act 3 **is** her being dead and accepting it!
I liked the end of My Sisters Keeper in the movie better than the novel.
The ending in the novel makes the whole story seem worthless at the end.
True. It made me want to throw the book
That's the whole point. Not that it's worthless, I wouldn't put it that way. But you can move heaven and earth to achieve something, but at the same time the world keeps turning and other things happen that can put a wrench in what you're doing and make it all for naught. That's life. And that was the point.
@@meganmoon6197 I literally did throw the book I was so mad at the book ending and gave Jodi one more chance and she blew it with that book too!
You made some interesting points. Especially Ginny, looking back, I guess that love line felt forced upon as the movie progressed. Another subject, what about the story/movie Roald Dohl’s Witches? With the endings different?
Ender's Game, the movie ending was such a betrayal...the film had a number of problems, cutting out most of Peter and Valentine's story which also removed most of the politics, not isolating Ender in the final battles, etc., but sending Ender off in a space capsule, by himself, makes no sense.
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.
Some things that might become new additions to this list in the future are the series of Game of Thrones, and House of the Dragon.
Can we just say the entirety of Insurgent? I remember reading the book and loving it but as soon as I saw the movie adaptation, they changed so many things that I couldn't even begin to remember the book.
That and every version of Phantom Of The Opera.
#5:
Actually the fizzy lifting drinks were from the book. Mr. Wonka mentioned that he tested one on an Oompa Loompa, but the Oompa Loompa refused to burp and kept floating up in the air and was never seen again.
True. But in the book Grandpa Joe and Charlie didn't sneak a drink like in the movie.
#5 did and still does annoy me to this day. Grandpa Joe was the one who talked Charlie into breaking the rules; it was his fault Charlie almost lost the grand prize. I agree with #4; Ginny could've been SO much better.
"A Walk to Remember" with Mandy Moore--made no sense. In the book she is dying and the last time she walks outside of a wheelchair is when she walks down the aisle. They completely omitted this. They also had it set in present day when the book was a memory and it made more sense that they didn't have the medical treatments back then.
Um, why are you putting the blame on Peter Jackson for the Hobbit films? It was the STUDIO that demanded a film trilogy. This is NOT news. But it is a bit despicable to act like Jackson had much of a choice. Blame him if you must for making it more "adult" but, then again, Tolkien wrote "The Hobbit" years before he produced the Lord of the Rings trilogy.and Tolkien originally intended for the Rings trilogy to be as much a children's tale as "The Hobbit" had been but, as many writers discover, the story took a darker and more complex tone as he wrote it. So, if Jackson (or Guillermo del Toro who was originally supposed to direct the film) had made "The Hobbit" a "children's tale," it would've had a much different tone compared to the Rings trilogy and people would've inevitably complained about THAT.
A bit obscure and a comic strip to movie change (the books started after the movie) but the 1966 Modesty Blaise movie making Modesty and Willie Garvin lovers, violating a core factor in what made MB popular to begin with! The character’s creator novelized the film but left all that out and at least once in every book that followed reminded readers Modesty and Willie were not lovers and could never be.
The changes to LOTR, Sister's keeper, and Willy Wonka are understandable. Bombadil had very little impact throughout the novel. Charlie and his GF almost got chopped up and acknowledged their wrongdoing. Anna death in the novel is less believable and honestly destroys the whole point in fighting overall.
I agree about Charlie breaking the rules. But overall I think the original film told a stronger story than the book.
I disagree. The original book, as flawed as it was, was at least straightforward. For example, the book doesn’t spend too much time focusing on other unimportant and one-note characters trying to find Golden Tickets. It keeps its focus on Charlie and the other 5 kids whereas the first half spends WAY too much focusing on other characters trying to find Golden Tickets even though they’re not really that important to plot or contribute anything other than to show the obsessiveness and greed of how many are willing just to find a frigging golden piece of paper and even one of them stops the story just for a stupid gag which is that detective scene. Honestly really didn’t need that scene. Was completely unnecessary and superfluous to the plot and should have been cut of the final picture to improve the pacing. At least the ones with the therapist and the computer were short and quick and didn’t stop the pacing. And unlike the film, the book remembers the other contestants and shows them leaving the factory unharmed albeit having some permanent changes to their physical appearances. So ironically the book tells the story better as I think pacing is a crucial part of having an engaging story and sometimes there are moments in Willy Wonka just looses track of the story with the gags in the Golden Ticket contest that it almost makes the first half of the film too drawn out and even boring.
Honestly i wouldn't call the change to my sister's keeper "unforgivable" in both the book and movie kate wanted to die peacefully. In the book however because kate made her little sister sue for medical emancipation she feels responsible for her sister dying immediately afterwards and taking her kidneys. In the book kate has to live with the guilt of being the indirect cause of her own sisters death even though it was kate who wanted to pass away. In the movie however anna won the case and even though she WANTED to save her sister she knew that in doing so she would take away her sisters own will. I think the movie did the story justice unlike the surpise twist of "you won the case by you still die regardless." Its one of those plot devices that i feell happen only because the author wrote themselves into a corner and didn't know how to move forward without some kind of tragedy. The message is still the same in both circumstances but with the added messages of listen to your sick loved ones. What kind if life could kate have lived with the guilt of making her sister sue for emancipation causing her death and inevitably prolonging her life against her wishes. Its not a good ending and in many ways the movie was better
Percy Jackson: everything!
I saw the movie My Sisters Keeper first then I read the book soon after; the book is better.
Another book of Jodi Picoult’s that I think should be adapted, and hopefully stays true to the material, is Nineteen Minutes.
I don't remember the story I Am Legend. The same way you guys do. In the book he wasn't even a scientist, just some average guy.
Most of Stanley Kubrick’s movies, including The Shining, are overrated! I liked the stories where Dick survived!
What the Harry Potter movies did with Ginny really upset me. She became one of my favorite characters while reading the books. esp. while reading book 6.
She was so fierce and witty in the books and her relationship with Harry was developed beautifully. Whereas in the films, she literally had no personality at all and I have heard from people who have only watched the films that they thought the Harry/Ginny pairing was weird af, which it WAS in the films! But in the books it all made sense!
@@91clarie when people tell me that Harry and Ginny shouldn’t be a thing, I ask, “did you read the books?” And of course they lie. I can always tell because of that statement, “Harry and Hermione should have been together. Ginny makes no sense.”
What does eps mean?
@@DaniqueEmiliaSteinfeld typo on my part, it should have went esp.(i'll fix it) but it's short handed for especially.
@Sarah Granger I agree. Ron is my absolute favorite and I loved his and Hermione's chemistry in the books. They totally ruined his character in the movies. They gave all of Ron's best lines in the books to either Harry or Hermione. It annoyed me so much.
For me the most unforgivable changes were both Percy Jackson movies. Glad to be getting a remake on Disney+.
Agreed, I love those books and have read all of them. The movies made me so mad
About the remake. I'm not really looking forward to it since I found out what characters will be there. Even though I love Percy Jackson, I won't Be watching a Disney remake+
@@PlagueDoctor447 I’ll give it an episode or two to prove itself
I agree with you but because they are on Disney+ they’re not exactly gonna be any more book accurate than the movies were
@@gilbertmillers4865 one can dream
I think the movie ending of My sister´s keeper is better. It's more realistic. The whole idea of having a baby just for "spare parts" is wrong and Kate was already too sick to heal like that and live a long life while her sister fought for hers and eventually died.I was a bit upset when I read the book and it ended like this. It didn't feel right. Even so, she helped her sister a lot when she was alive.
Do people really hate it? You’d think they’d be happy that the main character lived
^ Their arguments usually are that the darker ending was better fitting for the story, when Kate choosing to die is also a pretty dark ending. And just bc an ending is darker doesn’t mean it’s better.
@@islasullivan3463 I’ve heard this argument. It has to be executed perfectly to work
@redrasegarden Agreed. One series that I think pulls it off is A Series of Unfortunate Events, bc the main theme of is that terrible can happen or be done to people, and that it can all depend on circumstances and luck (for lack of better terms), and the narrator says right at the beginning that this won’t have a happy ending.
My Sisters Keeper’s message is that one child should not be used as spare parts for another, as that is horrific, then ends with that child’s body being used as spare parts for another.
The Ginny character changes aside, the end of Deathly Hallows part II actually made me angry. Spoiler Alert: It took the whole point of the the last two books, including Dumbledore’s death and threw them out the window. Voldemort should never have been able to have the final battle with Harry. The Elder Wand recognized Harry as its true owner and didn’t work against him at all. There was no tying up of their magic like at the end of book four. It was drawn out for drama and action that didn’t occur in the book. The whole point in Dumbledore having Snape kill him was so Voldemort wouldn’t kill Draco for the wand’s loyalty. Draco disarming him gave Draco the Elder Wand’s loyalty which then transferred to Harry when he disarmed Draco. The Elder Wand would not have worked against Harry!
Omg then Harry just snapped the Elder Wand and threw it away like it was nothing!
I totally agree. Plus, the way of his death is not the same, in the book Voldemort dies like any human being and not dissolving in the air. And that is the message, for all his quest for immortality and power, Voldemort died like any other wizard.
@@MoonTsubasaHime I prefer Harry snapping the elder wand in half. It ends the wand's bloody line of provenance. It differentiates him from Dumbledore, who might have been too curious to destroy such a significant artifact.
@@takatamiyagawa5688 I also preferred him snapping the wand but I hate that they didn't include him fixing his original wand first.
@@melodramatic7904 Totally agree. I’m fine with how they extended the final battle in the movie, though I do wish they had included more of Harry and Voldemort’s conversation. But Harry just snapping the Elder Wand without fixing his own first still bugs me 11 years later.
How is ERAGON not mentioned? How is that not number ONE? They changed literally everything in that movie pretty much.
I was thinking the exact same thing! :D
Eragon had some cool concepts, especially the way magic worked… but aside from that, the series is pretty bad. It makes sense the movie was worse. It’s really not a good series.
Yeah, almost a third of the book's content is just missing, and the final battle was under the dwarves' mountain, not in the enchanted forest.
I think it is not mentioned because the film was a total failure, and rightfully so.
Hence why I watched that movie once🤬They murdered that book!🤬
I am happy about the change in my sister's keeper. In my opinion Anna dying so unexpectedly is just comes of as shock effect what many writers do when they write in an unexpected death of a main character.
I mean it’s shocking, but it’s not done for shock value. In an ideal world Anna doesn’t exist because Kate didn’t get cancer, so it’s very poetic that, in the end, Anna dying and saving Kate one last time gives the parents the two kids they were always meant to have. It’s a beautifully tragic ending that is completely destroyed in the movie.
@@crystalpritchard5065 Not really I think it's handled better here because in the book the mom actually cares about Anna but in the movie she doesn't at all and even when everyone around her tells her she's taking things too far even Kate I get that life unpredictable and shit happens but Anna didn't deserve to die and Kate didn't get her wish so no one wins except the mom that way
@@crystalpritchard5065 it s a fucked up ending ... like ana s life was there to be sacrificed
@@andreeat2142 that’s the point though. It was wrong for Anna parents to have her solely so that she could be spare parts for Kate; they never let her have a life outside of Kate’s needs, she never got to be her own person. Killing her in the end and having her safe Kate emphasizes this point, it’s shows how much her parents trivialized her life, that as much as they loved her, they saw her as spare parts for their first daughter. I agree it’s a cruel fate for a character but that’s literally the point.
I also liked the movie ending better.
For once:
It was more realistic. Kate's life (or more her misery) could only be prolonged.
"Healing her" with a kidney would just have been extremely stupid and unrealistic.
But mostly:
The move stood way more firm to the question if it is alright to "create" a donor child to get spare parts at all.
I live in a country where all of that is completely illegal and sure that has influenced me but even if US-citizens are ok with something like that being legally possible..
"Does the fact that it is scientific possible make it ok?"
Is just a question that NEEDS to be asked.
And killing Anna who fought for her right of being worth of living her own life of to magically safe Kate with a kidney while removing the child that isn't needed anymore after Kate is healed...
In my opinion that end does not ask the questions that need to be asked.
I liked the movie ending; siblings shouldn't be forced to be experiments (where they are made purely to harvest organs out of). I think it sent a way more unusual, intense message about life - everyone knowing life can be fragile/unpredictable anyway
I can forgive many changes, but there's one that I will never forgive or get over:
DID YA PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIYRE?! Dumbledore asked calmly.
That was the weirdest change ever... Dumbledore being calm is what makes his rare screaming moments so intimidating...
LOL yes... that's top of my list of "Dumbest HP book to movie changes" and close next is the fact that Lily's eyes in the final movie don't match Harry's.... like... how do you ruin that?
Same
@@andreca90 OMG I'm so glad to see someone else annoyed by the eyes thing. Seriously, there was ONE casting requirement for young Lily: she had to have Daniel Radcliffe's eyes. That's it. That was their only assignment 🤣
That was absolutely bizarre. I know Michael Gambon can act, I have liked him in several roles, but he was a terrible Dumbledore.
Harry Potter movies have another unforgivable changes: Grindelwald. In the books he rathet dies then telling Voldemort that Dumbledore has the elder wand. Considering their connections that's a huge difference, and a redeemtion arc.
Forgot these:
*Ella Enchanted* - lifting the curse
*The Giver* - shoehorned love interest/making Asher uninteresting
*Percy Jackson* - aging up the characters
*Voyage of the Dawn Treader* - adding green smoke subplot
*Artemis Fowl* - too many plots
I kind of forgive Dawn treader because they were trying to add a narrative. They didn't think "Let's explore these islands while searching for these 7 lords" was a strong enough motivation. They also needed to pull the witch back in (no idea why) and to add a real Climax with STAKES
ok but Percy Jackson aging up the characters didn't change anything at all
@@yiwoon_cr8s it kind of does. Especially given the prophecy of the second one. If they were intending to follow the entire series, they shot themselves in the foot. Plus all the other changes they made that were notably abhorrent.
I just tell myself the Ella's Enchanted movie is a different story, just with the same curse and characters. The movie by itself is fun but it was my favorite book as a kid, so I was disappointed the first time I saw it because the story is so different.
@@jessiem3169 Ugh... Ella Enchanted the movie was such a massive disappointment.
It’s really not the same curse at all though. The book makes it clear that the curse causes Ella pain when she doesn’t obey immediately. Her learning what level of pain she can tolerate before she has to obey is a huge part of her character arc. It helps her figure out her loopholes, her limitations, and is instrumental in developing her determination to break her curse. The book curse also doesn’t give Ella skills she doesn’t actually have in order to obey a command-movie karate scene I’m looking at you. Or make her freeze in mid-air! Because that’s not realistic. And one thing Gail Carson Levine’s story got perfect was keeping the curse realistically grounded despite the story being a fantasy.
The movie is a cute Shrek wanna-be. But it is not Ella Enchanted. They stripped everything unique and surprising from Levine’s book, including how it’s a literal Cinderella story, and gave us a damsel in distress devoid of a personality who only fights back when commanded to do so, until the very end after she has broken the curse. And the way the movie breaks the curse is just trash. She looks in a mirror and commands herself not to be obedient? Seriously? The whole point of her character arc is that she learns that she has been wanting to break her curse for a selfish reason, when what actually breaks it is her selfless choice to save Char and her kingdom by refusing to marry him and become queen. She can’t risk that her curse could be used to harm him or hurt the kingdom. The movie missed the entire point of Ella’s character arc.
And I can’t stand what they did to Char either. He wasn’t a stupid, disinterested teen who fell for Ella because she’s pretty and supposedly not interested in him. Book Char was deeply interested in his kingdom and he fell for Ella because she made him laugh and she was a smart, interesting, uniquely skilled, independent woman.
The book deserves a new adaption from people who actually understand it and want to highlight its uniqueness.
Honestly, I liked the movie ending of My Sister's Keeper better. The book ending kind of made the whole ethical debate and Anna's will meaningless in the final outcome, while the movie honored both her and Kate's right to have the final say over what happens to their bodies. For me, it was much more meaningful than the random car crash that magically resolved everything. Jodi is kind of the M. Night Shyamalan of cheap nonsensical last minute twists and sometimes it works for me better, but here it really missed the mark.
I didn’t read the book yet.
In Half-Blood Prince they omitted lot of the flashback scenes that tell Voldermort's backstory. In the book we get to see Voldermort's family like his grandfather, uncle, and mother. And we also learn how Merope bewitched Tom Senior into falling in love with her thus Tom Riddle Jr aka Voldermort was born. The movie shows none of that. The film only shows when Dumbledore shows up at the orphanage to tell Tom he is a wizard.
Ya that annoyed me too. The book pretty much explained Voldermorts entire backstory. One of the movies does mention like hes a half blood or whatever but half blood prince explains the entire thing and why he is the way he is. It also bothered me that the book and movie were called half blood prince since it really had no plot point other than being snapes book and the reveal at the end about Snape even tho the majority of the book was about Harry trying to get Memories of Voldermorts past to figure out where he hid the items.
They threw those out the window in favour of whatever was going on with Ron, Hermione, Cormag and Lavender as well as Ginny and Dean's on again-off again relationship just for Ginny to be with Harry, but the romantic scenes between the two were awful. Don't know if Bonnie was just uncomfortable with romantic scenes in general, or if the tension wasn't how it needed to be, but either way, I can see why Ginny's novel counterpart is loved more by fans.
@@grahamdamberger7130 I don't know why they thought the romantic teenage drama was more important than Voldermort's backstory. At that scene where Hermione said that she wanted to throw up at Lavender calling Ron her "Won-won" I wanted to join her!
I’ll always be upset that Faramir tries to take the ring in the movie, he is such a great character in the book and portrayed as wise and guesses the value of Frodo’s quest
I totally agree. Faramir was the ‘good’ brother. I did not like what Peter Jackson did.
Unpopular opinion: I prefer Faramir from the films, I totally see how changing his behaviour made sense - he was also tempted like Boromir at first, but on the contrary to his brother, he managed to overcome the temptation and let Frodo go. IMO it makes his character more interesting and human, because it shows that he is not perfect, too.
In the film commentary, they discussed this. They had built up the fact that the ring moved people to do things beyond their control and made everyone want it. To then have a character that just said, "meh, no thanks" THEY felt negated the ring's power.
@@taraevans1108 Yet that is exactly why Faramir was such a good man. It is the exceptions that make the rule stronger
@@brontewcat I understand. Was just letting them know how the director and writers justified it.
I actually like the ending to My Sister's Keeper movie better. I liked them both. But, I thought it ended up being kind of cool that we got to explore both possibilities.
Even though the ending of the novel of "My Sister's Keeper" was controversial, it still delivered a crushing blow on the fragility of life, and how things don't always work out the way you expect them to. I'm with Jodi on this stance, although Kate's death was more expected, it takes away from the book's message.
Exactly I remember reading it after the movie I was so surprised but I thought it was a better ending then the movie.
The book was so much better. The movie robbed people smh
@@HUeducator2011 I agree. I like the book better.
same the book tied itself together and the movie just sacrificed so much and for what?
The book was amazing. I hated the movie!
The debacle with The Hobbit trilogy was largely due to studio interference. The studio head wanted another LOTR, and pushed for extra films and action scenes.
Plus Peter Jackson wasn't supposed to direct the films. Guillermo Del Toro was to direct The Hobbit but for whatever reason had to leave so Jackson was forced to step back in. Jackson was burnt-out from filming LoTR and that is why The Hobbit was CGI heavy.
Yes! I feel bad that Peter Jackson gets so much flack for The Hobbit movies but he came into the process very late and so much had already been decided and, like you said, the studio had their ideas on what the movies should be which is probably part of the reason the original director decided to leave the project.
I came here for this comment. It wasn't that he "Couldn't help himself" He was doing his best to create enough content for three movies when I think he wanted to only do two.
Personally, I believe the most unforgivable thing they changed in My Sister's Keeper was eliminating the lawyer's ex-GF from the story. I've seen the movie and read the book, and while I can understand both arguments about each ending I personally favor the movie ending. I felt is was bittersweet compared to the book ending that just felt bitter. In the movie ending Kate got the peaceful death she wanted that set her free from the suffering and burden of her cancer that was consuming her whole family with it. In the book, Kate is left feeling responsible for Anna's death since she made Anna do the court stuff and so is obligated to live her life burdened with that guilt(instead of the cancer) so that Anna's death won't be for nothing(having to live life for the both of them in a sense). In the book, Kate already felt as though she was robbing Anna of the chance to live her life as she pleased, and by the end she's left feeling that's she's literally robbed Anna of her life entirely. So in a sense, the book ending basically feels like life/karma is punishing Kate for selfishly making Anna fight(when she didn't totally want to) so Kate could die, and instead Kate lives by receiving Anna's kidney anyway as a result of losing Anna. In other words, Kate gained a new life at the expense of her sister's life. To compare the burden of cancer to the burden of knowing your choices likely make it at least partially your fault for someone's death, I personally feel that cancer is the "lesser of 2 evils" so to speak. That's why I personally favor the movie ending, 'cause the book ending just seems cruel to me.
As someone who is currently battling stage lV breast cancer, I completely agree. I would much rather die from my cancer than feel responsible for the rest of my life for someone else’s death. I’m not afraid to die because I know there’s more after this earth experience. It would be torture to have to live my life feeling responsible for someone else’s death.
I hope you are okay now🫂🫶❤️@@NsTheName
I'd like to add The Bourne Identity. In the book his love interest is an renowned economist. He saves her from being raped, which is how she knows she can trust him, so she is willing to risk everything to help him. Also, without her finance knowledge Bourne would never have succeeded/survived. In the movie she is a nomad with no money, no job, no future. She loses nothing by associating with Bourne (okay she is frequently in danger). She also does almost nothing to help him save for one scene where she flirts with a man to gain information. It was a terrible degradation of an interesting character.
And then they kill her off in the opening of the sequel. Suuuuuuucked. I know they had to change the plot to make it a contemporary thriller but that was no reason to shortchange Marie like that.
I'm surprised there weren't any "dishonorable" mentions like Eragon, Percy Jackson, Twilight, and World War Z.
And Stephen king’s misery also
Twilight books were way more amazing than the movies led on. But that's the only book series I read front to back.
the World War Z book was unfilmable as is, so it just provided a basis for the movie. I enjoyed both for what they were
@@kristentaylor5359 The only thing the movie took from the book was the title. World War Z, the book, is a thought-provoking piece that highlights different groups of people through the use of interviews after a zombie apocalypse has occurred. What part of that sounds unfilmable? A film student with little to no budget could have made a more faithful adaptation than Hollywood did.
@@cocoanutt27 It would be a difficult story to film, it jumps all over the place and doesn't have a central character. Also, it takes the main theme of the book, not just the name
I watched My Sister's Keeper long before the book ended up on my Kindle. When I read the book, I was crushed a second time, and angry. All of a sudden it felt that they needed to have a, for lack of a better way of putting it, "feel good" ending. Anna gets to live her life, Kate was going to die no matter what, etc. Upon reading the book, the ending was SOO much more powerful and devastating, that it really tainted the movie for me. I am glad you had it at number 1.
The biggest: How they wrote Ron in comparison to his book counterpart.
Yep. They gave every feat of his to Hermione.🤬
YES!!! I hated how much they changed Ron in the movies. He is my favorite character in the books and they completely ruined him by making him the bumbling idiot
I will never forgive the movies for that.
The biggest example of that was in Chamber of Secrets. In the book Ron was the one who explained what a "mudblood" was. Hermione had no clue what it meant other than figured that Malfoy had insulted her. In the movie it was Hermione that explained the meaning of that word. It didn't make sense as to how she knew what it meant if she wasn't in the Wizarding world until she started Hogwarts.
Maybe because I saw the movie before reading the book that I like the movie ending better.
I was pissed that the little sister died anyway and was essentially used as a means to keep her sister alive in the end.
I can understand life is unpredictable and precious with the movie’s ending as well. Considering the mother really only had been focusing on her oldest daughter and never considered her younger.
It should be pointed out that stealing the Fizzy Lifting Drinks was Grandpa Joe's idea, Charlie just went along with it.
When Harry Potter is inevitably remade as a seven-season long television or streaming epic, they'll have time to properly flesh out Ginny's character.
praying for that day to come... and they can fix Ron as well... haha :)
I’m glad Divergent’s getting more talk now. Yes while the Allegiant adaptation wasn’t perfect, I personally believed that the actors did their best in bringing their characters to life & their development. The other reason why it flailed was that the creators were depending too much on the sci-fi tech for visual appeal for a dystopian sci-fi film.
Plus there’s the added thing of making the last installment into a tv spinoff rather than finishing the ending, which none of the actors sign up for & that was a smart decision.
If there’s gonna be a tv adaptation of Divergent let it be a reboot so it’ll do Roth’s books more justice.
My heart still loves the films especially the actors who play Tris & Tobias, but with the recent resurgence of book adaptations like Percy Jackson, Lord of the Rings, & Eragon, here’s hoping the new cast & crew will do a good job as well.😊
There's also the fact that YA Dystopia had lost it's popularaty by the time Allegiant came out, wich probably convinced the producers to stop investing in the proyect.
My daughter and I were angry at Secret Garden. They had the children using magic instead of the healing powers of nature.
See that right there is why I will never watch a newer version of that movie.
You forgot The Dark Tower. I'm up to "The Song of Susanna" now and it's staggering how much they changed for the sake of a Hollywood flick. It's only connected to the book through a few lines and a series of copyrighted names.
Actually you can't really add dark tower because it doesn't follow the books at all. Why do people keep missing the movie says inspired by the dark tower book series.
I can’t 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.
The funny thing about the big change in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory between the book and the movie is that Roald Dahl wrote the screenplay, too, so he was the one who deviated from his own novel, LOL.
And yet he’s stated for hating this movie…
I was going to say the same thing. Did he REALLY hate the movie adaptation he literally wrote?
Roald Dahl wasn't the sole screenwriter - he was the only credited screenwriter, but that's hardly the same thing. David Seltzer was the uncredited writer, who changed many things against Dahl's will such as the fizzy lifting drink. Overall, the few things that survive from Dahl's original script are the references to characters and situations that would only appear in Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator (which would only be published after the film's release) such as the Vermicious Knids.
Another bit Dahl did not write was Wonka's first appearance, leaning on his cane and leaving it behind, which came from Gene Wilder himself. I (and many others) feel it's a great introduction to Wonka's character, but Dahl absolutely HATED it.
@@patriciaesteves61 oh, did he? I wasn't aware of that! thanks for the correction. 👍🏻
Just because he wrote the first draft and is the credited writer doesn’t mean his script was the one that was used in production. Look up the term script doctor, lots of screenplays get rewritten by other writers who are billed and credited differently. It’s pretty common to the point where “and” vs “&” in the credits denotes weather writers were coauthors or both wrote scripts that were then used in part but not full.
to be fair about charlie breaking the rules, it is probably more realistic that a kid like him would do one little bad thing, but he does make up for it by leaving the gobstopper with wonka
I read The Shining before i watched the film - I didn't like a lot of the changes made also, like the death. I try now to see the book and movie as separate stories now since they're so different in many ways.
Same here. I also have to do the same with Hannibal but I don't particularly care for either ending when it comes to that particular story. 😑
The Shining movie is more inspired than faithful adaptation.
@@ashh4929 I loved the ending of the book Hannibal. But of course movies can't end like that, so it was drasticly changed to stupidity. A doctor would never cut off his entire hand to escape hand cuffs, when cutting two fingers and chunk of palm would do it (leaving a very functional 2 fingers and thumb).
Scott directed so many excellent movies, why did he allow this monstrosity of a rewritten ending into one of his films? Probably money . . .
For me "Hunger Games" (Panem) is missing. They changed the fact from who Katniss got the mockingjay thing (Sorry for my bad english, I am no native speaker)
I understand the author's disagreement with changing the ending as it changed the message. But a part of me also feel it's more realistic in terms of having at least one girl survive. Kate kept relapsing, so if this was real life, there was high chance of her relapsing even if she was in remission after the operation. Then there would have been no more Anna to save her. But of course going with life's unpredictable, we can assume she was permanently cured.
The ending of Love Story was absolutely horrible and unforgivable. In the book, the phrase "love means never having to say you're sorry" is used as a reconciliation between father and son, just as Jenny had used it to illustrate how love forgives all things when she first said it. In the movie, it's used to drive the wedge between father and son even deeper, pretty much to the 'unforgivable' stage, which is 100 percent the opposite of the book's message.
Thank you for including Mansfield Park! Fanny Price’s personality change has always bothered me
In the 90s movie version she would have been a better match with the elder cousin. They could have fallen in love while she nursed him back to health... I mean they changed so far from the book anyway, they could have really leaned into it and made a really good movie. The younger brother didn't deserve her anyway in the book or the movie.
I definitely agree with #1. I read this book in high school, bawling my eyes out during lunch as they described the car crash sequence. Watching the movie and the change they made was down right frustrating and just never sat well with me. :(
I remember reading My Sister’s 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 couldn’t 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 book’s ending.
Actually, it's all the other children that weren't punished. They merely suffered the consequences of their own actions AFTER being warned not to do what they did (with the exception of Veruca, though she's gone completely off the rails by the time she goes down the chute). They were all ultimately rescued and restored by Wonka/Oompa Loompas.
On the other hand, Charlie and his grandpa are left to save themselves, received a tongue-lashing that peeled half the wallpaper off the walls AND lost the lifetime supply of chocolate. After being told off, Charlie not only accepts the judgement in silence but shows contrition--returning the Everlasting Gobstopper without being asked to (against his Grandpa's advice) Remember how great a sacrifice this was given how poor he and his family are and how much money they were offered for it. This is incredibly telling of Charlie's character.
I love this as it shows that having good character doesn't mean you DON'T make mistakes, but is revealed by how you respond when you DO; because no one is perfect, and it's HARD to do the right thing. Wonka recognizes this and he cherishes it. I think we should all cherish it--rather than chasing after the unattainable.
p.s. Charlie's situation was different in that it is his Grandfather that holds Charlie back and suggests they take a drink. None of the other parents do this. Yes, Charlie doesn't resist at all but it wasn't either his idea or his intent as he was clearly following the others out of the room. This doesn't excuse his participation at all, but you said he did EXACTLY the same thing as the other kids, and he didn't. I'm just being pedantic.
What the Harry Potter films did with Ron's character was much worse. He was far more important than Ginny and the bastardization of his character was there almost from the beginning.
ginny isnt the only character that got a disservice in the movies, they did ron wrong too. they really dumbed ron down and gave his moments to hermione. like in the philosophers stone, ron has to remind her that shes a witch to beat the devils snare. then in the prisoner of azkaban, its ron who says ‘if you want to kill harry then you’ll have to kill us too.’ they made hermione this seemingly flawless character which she really isnt and portrayed ron like this bumbling idiot when he is really the glue that keeps the trio together.
And in Order of Phoenix film another of Ron's lines is given to Hermione. When they Discover Harry's "I must not tell lies".
Am I the only one who loved the Charlie and the chocolate factory with Johnny Depp, I looooved it.
I bought that movie
I really like both adaptations. The burton one has a bit of a darker feel to it and when I read the book I definitely got a dark vibe from it. But I also like the original
I definitely do like both versions. Since when is weirdness a negative of Tim Burton? It's a feature, not a glitch, as they say. I didn't mind at all that they tried to explain why Wonka was so odd.
I liked it. So you aren’t alone.
I love that version. 😌The original version with Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka creeped me out.😨There was that creepy song he sang in that tunnel, then those horrid, creepy looking, monotone sounding oompa-loompas.
I love My Sister's Keeper. It's one of my I need a good cry movies. I've never read the book, so with the movie we got with all the other adaptations in it, if Anna died in a car accident and Kate got to live with her kidney. I honestly would rolled my eyes, probably would have been pissed. I would have thought, "That's some Hollywood BS right there."
There was just something so tragically real about how the family was dealing with Kate's cancer and Anna dying in a car accident and Kate getting the kidney anyways, would have cheapen the movie.
And how is the message of the fragility of life is lessened when an 18 year old dies of cancer that she was fighting since she was a toddler, when compared to an 11 year old dying in a car accident? Both deaths are unfair and tragic.
Anna is 13 in the book
“The main character wins the right to her body! Oh… she dies in a car crash and has to give up her kidney without her consent anyway, therefore making the entire point of the book moot.”
@@SEGASister exactly, classic Jodi Picoult
Another good one, perfect match - Mum kills priest for sexually abusing her child, oh wait the priest donated his bone marrow and it was the recipient who actually molested the child
I was smart enough to watch the movie first and I'm glad i need i probably wouldn't have been interested knowing that Anna life was only to save her sister.
No idea there was such a divide where the endings were involved, at least not until I watched clips from the movie years later. While I get liking the source material and preferring the emotional impact of a sudden death, to me it made everything Anna fought for in the first place completely pointless. The book lovers can see it however they please of course, but in the end my personal take away was that Anna still ended up being a spare set of parts for her sister in the end. Had I read the book first, or at all, I'd have felt so cheated by the end.
As if there had been no point at all in reading it just for Anna to die out of nowhere and end up being the thing she desperately wanted to no longer be. Kate was more than ready to go and her simply explaining it to her mother was a lovely part of the film showing how far both characters came from the start of their respective stories.
I liked the 90's Mansfield Park as its own movie, but not as a JA adaptation. My biggest movie change pet peeve is in the first Narnia movie. While I enjoyed the movie as a whole, they did bastardize my favorite line from the book. In the book when the kids and the beaver approach Aslan's camp, Lucie says she is nervous about meeting a lion. Mrs. Beaver says you should be & Lucie asks if he's safe. Mrs. Beaver says of course he's not safe, but he's good. He's the King. In the movie they give part of the line to Tumnus, but not until the very end. I was so upset! Mrs. Beaver's line in the books just encapsulates who Aslan is and they ruined it.
Ginny!!! I’m listening to Jim Dale‘s audiobooks right now of Harry Potter and Ginny is a delight every time she appears. Justice for Ginny! 😅❤
The whole "Artemis Fowl" movie. They changed so many things and messed up whole motivation/plot arcs. For example: Commander Holly Short gets a hard time from her superior, Colonel Root, because she is the first female officer in the unit and has to prove herself (and validate the trust that Root put in her when he accepted her into his squad). It explains why she is overly ambitious at times, why the Colonel is so hard on her but still supports her instead of firing her/letting her die, why it is such a big deal that she is pulled into the plot as a whole. In the film, Colonel Root is a woman, for no good reason as far as I can tell - and the whole careful character-build goes up in flames.
This!
The HP movies are great but the books are better. Plus Hinny is much better in the books. I kinda wish their relationship was done right in the movies.
How on Earth could you not include Peeta Mellark’s amputation being excluded from the Hunger Games films??? 😠😠😠
For as bad as Faramir trying to take the ring is, the scene from LOTR that gets MY goat is Gollum talking Frodo into sending Sam away on the stairs. It is a monumentally colossal slap in the face of everything that the dynamic between Frodo and Sam is in the book and I honestly find that scene quite literally unwatchable.
YES. OMG, I hate that whole section of the film... awful, awful, awful.
@@fisheyenomiko I'd even go further and say that it's my least favorite scene of any of the 6 (yes, 6) movies.
For Allegiant it was supposed to be a 2 part film. I think they were going to kill her off in Ascendant. But because of abysmal box office and reviews the studio was gonna make it a TV movie. In I am Legend I prefer the alternate ending because it's more accurate to the book. Harry Potter series they did both Ron and Ginny dirty. Some of Ron's best moments in the books were given to other characters and he did things that Ron in the book would never do.
Harry Potter was supposed to put back the Elder Wand with Dumbledore instead of breaking it in half.
And also, even though there is a deleted scene, they were supposed to show that Dudley and Harry squashed the beef at the beginning of part 1 of deathly hallows.
Those, to me, are the BIGGEST things that made me MAD AF💯
"Squashed the beef??" Never heard that before; must be from wherever you're from. You should explain slang or avoid it, or you may confuse people.
@@glowormrdr6183 It's a saying in the USA that means they ended whatever arguments or fights or disagreements they've had.
Jonathon Green, Lexicgrapher on Quora explains: "Beef" is usually described as having animosity towards someone. "Squashing the beef" is ending that animosity.
Beef meaning ‘to complain’ is a coinage of the mid-19th century. This quote comes from an anonymous burglar's memoir, published in New York in 1865 (though the burglar himself was English and had fled from London):
1865 Leaves from the Diary of a Celebrated Burglar: With the intention of
finding out whether he was likely to ‘beef’ or not, Tom asked his sister
Til how much his ‘poke’ was ‘up to’.
'Poke' here means a wallet (which had been pickpocketed), and 'up to' means worth, i.e. whether he complained (to the authorities) depended on how much the wallet contained. (Leaves is a fascinating book and a boon for the lexicographer - every instance of slang, and there are at least 1000, comes neatly bracketed in quote marks.)
As regards the etymology of beef, it seems to go back to the cry of hot beef! meaning ‘stop thief!’ (quasi-rhyming slang but more by coincidence than design, since it is far older than rhyming slang's first widespread use in the 1820s-30s); thus the 18th century cry hot beef, to raise a hue and cry. This became ‘to raise an alarm’ or ‘make a fuss’ - the presence of crime was now irrelevant - and thence ‘to shout’. The 'complain' use followed that. Then (both in the late 19th century) came ‘to argue’, ‘to give someone away to the authorities’, and so on.
I prefer snapping the elder wand in half. It instantly ends the long line of wizards that have fought each other over it. It also contrasts him with Dumbledore, who would probably have been too curious to destroy such a historically significant and powerful magical artifact.
@@GenerationNextNextNext The context was confusing as it seemed to be referencing the handshake, not the general intent. And being a sexagenarian American, if it confused me, it might confuse many. It is NOT a "saying" unless it's generally familiar.
The part where Harry and Dudley make amends before the Dursleys go into hiding was in the deleted scene of Part 1.
I still hate that Dumbledore yells at Harry Potter when he asks him if he had put his name in the Goblet Of Fire when he asked him calmly in the fourth book, Ludo Bagmen, and other characters are absent(Winky and the other house elves don't appear, the SPEW subplot is absent, Dobby doesn't wear the hats he wore in Harry Potter and the Order Of The Phoenix, etc.), The Dursleys don't appear, the Burrow being burned in Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows part 2 was unnecessary, etc. Mike Teavee is a video game fanatic in Charlie and The Chocolate Factory(2005) instead of being a Western movie fan, Charlie Bucket and Grandpa Joe drink the fizzy lifting drinks in Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory when they followed the rules in the book, Veruca Salt and Violet Bureaguard become best friends when they never interacted with each other, the Mrs. Teavee, Mrs. Salt, and Mr. Gloop aren't with Augustus Gloop, Veruca Salt, and Violet Bureaguard in Charlie and The Chocolate Factory(2005), The Grinch has a backstory on why he hates The Whos in How The Grinch Stole Christmas(2004), The Cat In The Cat In The Hat(2003) is obnoxious when he's nice in the book, and he cleans the house with his machine, Thing 1 and Thing 2 don't get caught by Sally's brother in the movie, Sally's brother isn't the narrator(Sally and her brother were nice in the book, but Sally's brother is bad in the movie, the mother is a physical character in the movie, when she wasn't shown in the book, etc.), Rita Skeeter turning herself into a beetle to get her false stories from The Slytherin students in Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire book is absent in the movie, Ron Weasley and Harry Potter speak like Crabbe and Goyle in Harry Potter and The Chamber Of Secrets, but they have their normal voices in the movie, etc. 🎥🎥🎬🎬🎬🎬🎬🎬
That's why I liked the original Dumbledore better than the replacement. He'd never snap at Harry like some sort of abusive authority figure. RIP Richard Harris.
I'll forgive the SPEW subplot being omitted from Goblet Of Fire because I kind of got annoyed with it in the book. But the one thing that I can't forgive is that Aunts Sponge and Spiker didn't die in the movie. In the movie they pursued James and company across the ocean while they were simply crushed to death by the giant peach.
i love the lotr movies but that scene with faramir had me so pissed at Jackson. it totally betrayed faramirs character because he wasn't like his brother, but more like strider
In the film adaptation of Dean Koontz's "Odd Thomas", the film was pretty good but it's a shame that 1) they didn't have the ghost of Elvis and 2) they diminished Ozzie Boone's character to a cameo of Patton Oswalt.
One of the most unforgivable changes from book to movie that wasn't included was Blood and Chocolate.
That one I like the movie, but on its own, not as an adaptation of the book (as, really, it has nothing to do with the book!)
When talking about I Am Legend; how about at least a mention of "The Last Man on Earth" 1964, starring Vincent Price.
Especially considering that Price has twice the energy and charisma of Charlton Heston.
You missed Eargon. A film changed so much (and so bad) they shoeboxed themselves out of any chance of a sequel.
Yes😌They murdered that book.🤬
The best thing anyone can do is to view source material and adaptations as separate entities. I have yet to see an adaptation that is entirely faithful to the source material. Especially when it comes to adapting books to the screen, a lot of details are lost.
That's not to say any alteration is fine because it's an adaptation. They should try to achieve a faithful adaptation, or as much as possible, as the medium allows (what works in books might not work in movies, and vice versa; that's a fact no one can get around). Changing storylines, characters or, worst of all, violating its spirit and turning it into something else, should not be encouraged or applauded. It's almost like the director and screenwriters are saying they can write a better story than the author whose work they are adapting.
It's an increasingly hot topic these days, handled with a lot of toxicity, both from those who love the source materials and those who love the adaptations. The first are deemed purist and elitist by adaptation lovers, while the second are deemed not true fans by source material lovers. And so it goes back and forth. It's a generalization, of course, but for the most part it holds true, if you look at social media, at least. Right now The Rings of Power is a prime (pun intended) example of this.
Honestly, I liked the ending of the movie for my sister's Keeper movie because the mom was so terrible to Anna and Anna didn't deserve to die, I'm not saying Kate did deserve to but I feel the mom didn't deserve to win. Because literally she wasn't caring about any of her kids even Kate. Yes she was trying to save her but she wasn't listening to her wishes. As when Kate wants to go to the beach Sara refuses to let her go and Kate cries. Because when you are sick you want to enjoy what time you have left not stay in the hospital. So even if people say Sara was being a mother and fighting until the end. She was forcing Anna to donate her organs, forgetting about Jesse all together when he needs help too, and not even bothering to listen to what Kate wants. Because even in the book Kate is tired of being sick and wants to go, and Sara won't listen. i do admit though I wish the mom had gotten arrested at the end of the movie or the book because she was definitely abusive. So this is why it works better in the movie because in the book yeah the mom basically gets what she wants. And I get want the author was trying to go for but it's still not fair to any of the kids not just Anna but also the other two kids as well. Because the only person who wins that way is the mom.
I saw Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and the Return of the King (I haven't seen The Two Towers, though). I've read all three books and have seen the Rankin Bass adaptation of The Hobbit. For me, that is the definitive version of The Hobbit.
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.
Unpopular Opinion
I honestly believe ‘My Sister’s Keeper’ movie version’s ending is better than the book version.
I saw the story as Anna’s right over her own body against her given responsibility to save her sister from her parents. The movie’s version completes that story with Anna winning her right and facing the consequences of her choices. While I believe Anna had every right over her body and no 11 year old should be forced in her situation, it’s important to highlight the consequences and why it was such a complex situation to begin with.
I think the book’s version doesn’t conclude that story and honestly comes across as throwing a plot twist for the sake of a plot twist. I understand the argument of the book’s story is about how random life can be. But I think the story of someone’s control over their body stands out more, is more unique to follow and should had been the main focus.
Plus, I honestly thinks it’s a slap in the face for Anna and actually Kate too of having Anna ending up giving her kidney to Kate (literally without her say) after she won the right for her body with Kate’s support and encouragement.
It’s such a delicate subject and I don’t think a random car crash was needed other than to manipulate the audience’s emotions.
I just made a similar comment! You read my mind! It's like they were punishing Anna for making her own decision, trying to paint her as selfish. The car crash was to basically state she should have given up her body parts as asked because it would have happened anyway. I feel like that stripped the agency of the main character. And now the sister is alive but without her sister, so what did she really gain? She's alive, but is she really living?
That’s classic Jodi Picoult, she had a similar plot twist in ‘Handle with Care’ a the family sued their obstetrician for wrongful birth (their younger daughter had osteogenesis imperfecta) and won, giving them enough money to comfortably look after her but then the daughter drowned. Meanwhile both the mum and older daughter lost their best friends because they were the obstetrician and her daughter
Yeah it's been a while since I read the book but I remember thinking "Oh, so none of what I just read actually even mattered. Okay." And it didn't seem like it was saying anything about life being fragile and random, the message I got was more like fate stepping in to say "No, actually, this character WAS born solely to be spare parts for her sister and that is what she will be."
I read the book and was really, really hoping for a ballsy ending. That didn’t happen. The whole book built up to it and then the ending was trash. I hated it. I then tried to read two other of her books but there was the same dismal ending - one about an Amish woman and the other about the autistic kid (I’m on the spectrum and I had high hopes). She can’t write an ending to save her life and I will NEVER read another of her books. It still makes me mad.
If I remember correctly because it’s been years since I read the book, winning the court case didn’t mean she wasn’t going to give her sister the kidney, what she won was the choice. We as readers don’t know what she would’ve chosen to do with that win, maybe she would’ve donated the kidney anyway.
I always found the end of the book poetic because in an ideal world, Anna doesn’t exist because Kate didn’t get cancer. Her parents were only meant to have two kids and in the end, they have those same two kids still. Anna was always meant to save her sister, and in the end she did.
How is Breaking Dawn not on this list? The whole "oh the whole battle was just one of Alisons visions" was so annoying! A) because its a cheap gimmick but B) SHES NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE WOLVES IN HER VISIONS! The movie has always driven me crazy with this.
I 100% agree! I was like that isn't part of the book at all! And her name was actually Alice. Not sure if autocorrect got you or if maybe you may have forgotten.
@@AliciaNash2013 Oh that was definitely just a brain fart 😅whoops
my sisters keeper ending really annoyed me, massive Jody picoult fan, but i knew they would change the films ending they always do.
Personally, I've never read the shining (to me, scary books are WAY scarier than movies - in other words too scary for me! 😬😱) but I LOVE Kubric's version of the story, it's one of my favourite scary movies. And I've never thought for a second that Halloran's death had anything to do with the character being black. It was a genius subversion of expectations. Because the audience believes the whole time that he's going to show up to save the day. He's the solution, he's the savior, he's the ex machina that never materializes! I have always found that to be a genius part of the movie, and one of my favourite parts. He doesn't get killed "for nothing"; he gets killed specifically to kill audience hope and expectation. I think it's genius!
I know this is days late but honestly Linda you should read the book then watch the film again. Believe me I grew up afraid of my own shadow then slowly became less of a chicken sh*t & a few years ago dived into horror novels (still don't touch certain genres though & i don't care admitting it lol.) Tbh The Shining isn't really a scary book imo it's more suspenseful & has you thinking "wtf is going on here??" You should give it a try & if it's still too scary for you I'll take full responsibility lmfao. Also Doctor Sleep the book & movie are SOOO good especially as a follow up on Danny. But yeah give it a whirl & if you do and love it please let me know! :)
I know they couldn’t include everything from book to film regarding Harry Potter but there was so much that left many gaping holes and had many of us scratching our heads. I love the films but get lost in the books, we never got to see Nearly Headless Nick after the 2nd film, no Peeves.
book ginny is miles above movie ginny
Given that Gene Wilder did a great job in Willy Wonka, but they changed the character of the grandfather being too, I guess, too selfish. He was somewhat a pain.
I loved Grandpa Joe in the Book. And I was not happy with the way the writers ruined his character.
"Number 4: Ginny".
Hit the nail on the head there. I laughed too hard.
A few others - the Lawrence Olivier version of Wuthering Heights that leaves out the second part of the story - over a third of the book, and the entire second generation’s story
Even though it would have made the movie even longer, the Scouring of the Shire was the most jarring part of the LOTR books for me. It's actually the core of Tolkien's message : he was a pessimist, and the message of the books was pretty clear : even though the Ring is destroyed and Aragorn king and Sauron defeated, the world will never be the same. The heroes don't come back to their heaven-like village to finally rest, they find the Shire destroyed by Saruman. No one cares for Frodo, Merry and Pippin turn out to be the heroes of the Shire in the eyes of the Hobbits.
It was much more of a bitter ending than the one we got in the movie (even though I loved the movie).
In my eyes, the Percy Jackson movies were the most unforgivable movie adaptations ever made. So glad the series is getting a second chance with Rick Riordan actually involved this time.
Honestly for the most part changing books doesn't bother me that much. I've learned to not expect too much as well as separate movies from book, and I find I end up loving movies that other hate due to changes.
Most times I find it's about whether the movie was just done well in general or not. For example, I throughly disliked Allegiant... but I feel it was just done/written bad. I absolutely LOVE Beautiful Creatures, yet there are *so many* changes.
I will always remember going "this isn't how the book goes! No, this isn't what happens." During the fight scene in Breaking Dawn Pt 2 though. In the end I love how they did the movie, but damn in the moment that first time... 😅😅