• DarkFuture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    I Am Legend

    The ending was completely and utterly different than the book, which destroyed the gut punch at the end of the book that was kind of the whole theme of the book.

    I don’t even remember the book as a whole. But I remember the ending. Then they Hollywooded it and it was awful.

  • rmuk@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    The Lawnmower Man

    In the book, an unassuming everyman stumbles upon the fact that a local landscaping company is actually a front for a demon who has an arrangement that involves making human sacrifices of those that discover his supernatural nature.

    In the movie, a Cyber Virtual Reality 3D Battles ON 3D CYBERSPACE Stunning Effects 3D Internet Pierce Brosnan Warfare Nineties Futuristic VR Headset Technology BATTLE In 3D Mind Expanding Guns, and one of the characters is a man who has a lawnmower.

    Edit: Shit, okay, I just read this on Wikipedia and nearly wet myself:

    A feature film, The Lawnmower Man, starring Jeff Fahey and Pierce Brosnan, was released in 1992 by New Line Cinema. This film used an original screenplay entitled “CyberGod”, borrowing only the title of the short story. The film concerns a scientist, Dr. Lawrence Angelo (Brosnan), who subjects mentally challenged Jobe Smith (Fahey) to virtual reality experiments which give him superhuman abilities. The film was originally titled Stephen King’s The Lawnmower Man. King won a lawsuit to have his name removed from the film, stating in court documents that the film “bore no meaningful resemblance” to his story. King then won further damages in 1993 after his name was included in the home video release.

  • ramsgrl909@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    The Dark Tower. Everything. An 8 book series smashed into 1 terrible movie. Who ever green lit that should be fired.

  • klemptor@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    The movie version of A Clockwork Orange was based on the American version of the book, which left out the entire last chapter. In that chapter, at 18 years old Alex pretty suddenly grows out of his violent and criminal ways and wants to start a family. Some say this ending is more optimistic but I actually think it’s darker, because it shows that any normal person you meet might’ve at some point been a wanton brute reveling in the chaos and pain they so arbitrarily inflicted. And that they can just move on and start living like a normal person.

    • kip@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      This is a good take although I still prefer the sinister ending of the film over the redemptive one in the book. Later editions include a foreword by burgess lamenting the omission of the 21st chapter in part because he wrote three acts of seven chapters for the symmetry of it and the symbolism of 21 being the age of majority

  • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    The book Annihilation centered on a “tower” that was a mysterious, fleshy, downward spiraling tunnel with creepy writing on the walls. The imagery was so unsettling.

    For some reason it is entirely absent from the movie. Like… that was half of the point of the book - a “tower” that climbed down into the earth instead of towards the sky. Why would you cut that?

  • DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    Stephen King - Dreamcatcher

    In the book the character Duddits had the shining, yes that motherfucking shining.

    In the movie they made him an undercover alien. Man what a let down.

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yeah, the 80s version took a lot of liberties, most of which didn’t work out. The ending specifically.

      But I still like the visuals and the music and the actors more than the new movies. Yeah, I know the new ones have crazy CG visuals, but the set designs from the 80s version were just more…unique in my opinion. That made the world feel more interesting. And I liked the 80s Baron way more than the new Baron, despite really respecting Stellan Skarsgard. Kenneth McMillan played a really psychotic Baron.

    • rabidhamster@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      As a Dune lover, I have a soft spot for the 1980s version. The thing I tell people before watching is, “this isn’t Dune, this is a fever dream David Lynch had about the idea of Dune.”

        • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          I mean, how was it different in the movie? As I recall it was still a vocal thing. They could have done a better job explaining where it came from but I don’t remember it being egregiously different.

          • stringere@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 days ago

            Voice is not a weapon like a gun or knife. Voice commands people. It’s like speed hypnosis/mind control achieved through voice manipulation.

            • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 days ago

              Like I said, I don’t really remember instances in the movie of the voice being used in a way inconsistent with that description. I’m not arguing, I’m asking for examples to jog my memory.

  • xylogx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    Ready Player One. So much about the movie adaptation of this book infuriates me, but the fact they replaced Wargames with the Shining is a crime against humanity!!!

  • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    I know we’re not into Harry Potter now, but the past is the past and I can’t forget how annoyed I was when the movie based on the third book, Prisoner of Azkaban, came out. I was a very disappointed teenager.

    It was a whirlwind story to me at the time. I remember exactly where I was when I read it, as the moment that revealed the friendship between Harry’s father James, Professor Lupin, Peter Pettigrew, and the alleged-murderer, Sirius Black, became seared into my brain. It was such a pivotal part of the overall story to me, that that twist alone made it my favorite in the series. So when the movie came out, I expected the use and development of The Marauder’s Map to be a key highlight. It was a huge deal in the books, after all.

    Yet in the movie, the map is just a neat thing Harry gets to use. Nobody mentions that Harry’s own father helped create it. The movie never even tells who the Marauders are, even though the reveal of their backstory was the key emotional crux of the Shrieking Shack scene. To omit their story entirely felt like a gut-punch.

    I didn’t understand at the time why the director (Alfonso Cuaron) decided to straight-up change everything that made that story so compelling to me and my friends. To this day, I still don’t understand.

    • FreshParsnip@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Yet subsequent movies mentioned the nicknames Wormtail and Padfoot. A lot of things in the films must have been confusing to people who didn’t read the books. Another weird thing I’ve noticed is that in the fourth movie, Barty Crouch Jr steals from Snape to make polyjuice potion and he blames Harry. But those who only watched the movies and didn’t read the books wouldn’t have known that Harry and his friends stole from Snape to make polyjuice potion before.

      • stringere@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        In the book (short story?) the protagonist dies and the reason he is legend is that he was the last human and was like a boogeyman because of his hunting and killing them.

        • stringere@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          Going over the wikipedia article as a refresher and I totally forgot about how he (author Richard Matheson) had some cool biological explanations for the vampirism.

          From Wikipedia:

          Neville additionally discovers that exposing vampires to direct sunlight or inflicting wide oxygen-exposing wounds causes the bacteria to switch from being anaerobic symbionts to aerobic parasites, rapidly consuming their hosts when exposed to air and thus giving them the appearance of instantly liquefying. However, he discovers the bacteria also produce resilient “body glue” that instantaneously seals blunt or narrow wounds, explaining how the vampires are bulletproof. Lastly, he deduces now that there are in fact two differently reacting types of vampires: conscious ones who are living with a worsening infection and undead ones who have died but been partly reanimated by the bacteria.