They got the character wrong....*whine*

[mrhappy1489]

Richard Harris who played Dumbledore for the first two movies (before his tragic passing), I thought, absolutely, bloody nailed the role: stoic, methodical, mysterious with an air of unrivaled power. Just as I imagined him in the books...

...and then Michael Gambon took to the role. Whilst occasionally possessing some of the traits of the Dumbeldore I had grown to love in the books, he would at times crush my fanboy dreams. Random outburts: "Did you put your name in the goblet of fire!?!?" "Don't you all have homework to do!?!"

I just felt incredibly disappointed by either a) his performance or b) the direction he was given to fill the role. (Also, Dumbledore V.S Voldermort fight on screen was nipple-tinglingly amazing... but, I felt Dumbledore struggled too much).

I agree on that completely.

Richard Harris was the perfect person to cast for the role as Dumbledore was written in the books. Michael Gambon was a bit too... animated, I suppose. He was a bit too imposing as the character. He changed Dumbledore from a wizened old man with a lot of hidden power to a sprightly man with a booming voice and a lot of harsh looks. Even with the things Dumbledore did in the later books, his characterization was better filled by Richard Harris, maybe with Michael Gambon being cast as the younger Dumbledore during the scenes that explored his past.

Also, to play off of your LotR point, one thing that really did bug me is, no matter how irrelevant the time difference was in the book, the fact that they didn't convey it in the movie was just confusing. They make it appear like Gandalf rides off to Minas Tirith, studies the entire history of the One Ring, and returns to The Shire in the course of a few days. Also, while it didn't bug me, Aragorn in the books was always rather assured in his possession of the throne of Gondor, and for the movies they flip-flopped it around so they could give his character a personal turmoil to overcome.

Of course, the LotR movies did get a lot of those little things mixed or changed around, but it's not really all that surprising considering what they were working with. And I still love them, enough to have the extended editions of all three films.

I remember reading it somewhere, that Michael Gambon wanted to bring a completely different character to the table in memory of Richard Harris. Rather than simply emulating him, he retired his version of Dumbeldore in favour of a new version he could call his own. This is what changed my perspective a little bit on his version of Dumbeldore, because you can see him trying to work within the parameters of the original novel, but also attempting to allow Richard Harris's character the due respect it deserved. With reference to LOTR, I was a little peeved (having read the books after) that they left out the character of Erkinbrand (I think that's how you spell it), so they could get rid of Eomer for most of the movie and Aragorn look even more badass. It was frustrating because I really liked Karl Urban's Eomer and would have liked to have seen plenty more of him. Also Faramir, definitely faramir, the bastard deviates so much, I'm surprised they didn't just rename him.

 

[Furioso]

Not a book, but it still really pisses me off how they portrayed Lucas in Super Smash Brothers Brawl. Having not played Mother 3 or Earthbound before SSBB I thought Lucas was the whiny, lame, crybaby sidekick of Ness or something

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

No. I look at adaptations as just that - adaptations. They're an interpretation of the source material. If you want it to be the same thing, go read/watch/play the original and don't read/watch/play the adaptation. It's really simple.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

They also ruined the entire Mouth of Sauron character and missed the whole point of the books in that detail. Remember reading the books? When the Black Gates open and the Mouth of Suaron comes out and declares Frodo dead and the ring returned to his master, you believe it--or at least have no reason to know otherwise--as last we saw, Frodo was indeed about to die or be captured. The character is completely missing from the movie in its original form and only appears in the extended cut, for starters. We also know from the start the ring bearer and Sam are perfectly fine because, for some reason, Jackson decided to create entire scenes. The gate opens, the Mouth comes out for no reason and tells us Frodo is dead, then dies.

The Mouth of Sauron was supposed to represent just how far Men had fallen, a race of errant and tormented men of Gondor, long ago surrendered to the darkness. He was the right hand of the dark lord, come to seduce and tempt Aragorn into giving up a battle he couldn't win. Sauron cunningly and cruelly sent the image of Men's future--warped, vile and completely lacking in everything humanity stood for--to greet the last defiant push of the free world. Cutting him down and bravely leading the battle of hope directly into the heart of the enemy when all seems lost--that is what Aragorn was doing. But no. Instead we have just another example of Jackson missing important and meaningful metaphor, to instead find more time for special effects and battle scenes.

Fail.

If we are bitching about LOTR's I'm going to put up my choice, Faramir.

I think Faramir was one of teh few characters they movie did wrong. In the books Faramir resisted the Ring, eve saying to Frodo that if he saw it lying on the ground he would not pick it up. There was no plan by him to use it.

Now this is important because the whole point of Faramir was that in the end he was a better man then Boromir or his dad. Even though he was bookish and quiet, he was the most moral out of the family. Which in turn added to the tragedy with how much Denethor prefered Boromir over him as we the reader, not only sympathise with Faramir due to how horrible it is to have a loved one prefer someone else over you but also that Faramir was the better person, when he was tested he didn't fall like Boromir did.

It just grinds my gears as Faramir was always my favorite character.

I agree. Faramir is basically a non-character in the films.

Thirded. What they did to Faramir pissed me off so much that despite having seen the first two movies in theaters, to this day I haven't watched the third one. I can get around it now because A.) I'm not 12 years old anymore, and B.) it's been forever since I've read the books, but that still grinds my gears.

They also made pretty much the entire cast idiots. I was listening to the BBC radio dramas recently, and it's amazing how intelligent and well read all the characters come off as -- even the less "wise" ones, like Merry and Pippin -- and Sam, for that matter. Frodo may as well be on the white council, as intelligent and knowledgeable as he comes off. The dialog in the BBC prodcuction is, as far as I can tell, almost word for word from the books. Compare it to the movies, and you've got to wonder what they were thinking. My guess is that, as snobby as this is going to sound, they didn't want the characters to be smarter than the audience. Lowest common denominator, and all that.

Edit: I once saw someone describe movie Faramir as "Far-from-the-goddamn-book-amir." Sums it up quite nicely, I think.

 

[shrekfan246]

I remember reading it somewhere, that Michael Gambon wanted to bring a completely different character to the table in memory of Richard Harris. Rather than simply emulating him, he retired his version of Dumbeldore in favour of a new version he could call his own. This is what changed my perspective a little bit on his version of Dumbeldore, because you can see him trying to work within the parameters of the original novel, but also attempting to allow Richard Harris's character the due respect it deserved.

Well, I never minded Michael Gambon's Dumbledore, I just thought he... wasn't quite as good, but I suppose that makes sense and I can respect it.

With reference to LOTR, I was a little peeved (having read the books after) that they left out the character of Erkinbrand (I think that's how you spell it), so they could get rid of Eomer for most of the movie and Aragorn look even more badass. It was frustrating because I really liked Karl Urban's Eomer and would have liked to have seen plenty more of him. Also Faramir, definitely faramir, the bastard deviates so much, I'm surprised they didn't just rename him.

And I really need to read the trilogy again (I was crazy young when I read them the first time) but yeah, Faramir was about the biggest thing that my eleven year old brain recognized as being massively different when I saw the movies, apart from the things that were simply omitted entirely. He wasn't supposed to bring them to Osgiliath, dammit!

 

[lithiumvocals]

Jurassic Park the Movie: John Hammond is a nice, old Santa Claus-esque man.

Jurassic Park the Book: John Hammond is an absolute money grubbing bastard. Gets eaten by dinosaurs.

Not to mention the fact that in the book, Muldoon, the badass Australian hunter guy, survives. If there was one guy who you'd think would have the skill set to survive in that situation it would be him. In the movie he gets taken out like a punk.

To be fair, it did give us one of the greatest movie lines of all time.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Jurassic Park the Movie: John Hammond is a nice, old Santa Claus-esque man.

Jurassic Park the Book: John Hammond is an absolute money grubbing bastard. Gets eaten by dinosaurs.

Not to mention the fact that in the book, Muldoon, the badass Australian hunter guy, survives. If there was one guy who you'd think would have the skill set to survive in that situation it would be him. In the movie he gets taken out like a punk.

To be fair, it did give us one of the greatest movie lines of all time.

Also, while I love the book and consider it much better than the movie, at least his on screen death in the movie was better than his offscreen death in the books; he's mentioned in The Lost World as having died of a heart attack, if I remember correctly. That's one of two changes from book to movie that sort of made sense. The other one is not having Malcolm die at the end, since it wound up being retconned on the first page of the second book anyway.

Edit: Then again, getting eaten by a raptor is a lot less cool than literally blowing up several of them with a rocket launcher. I think it's time to re-read those books again.

 

[Angryman101]

snip

You're right to not read the books until you finish the series. I read up to book 4 before this second season started, and I could think of nothing but criticism and comparisons to the awesome books while, when it first came out, I was just amazed at the first season's quality.
If you love a book series, it's always going to be different from on-screen material because there are things tv programs have to do that books don't and things prose can do but on-screen action can't.

 

[theravensclaw]

EVERY SINGLE STEPHEN KING ADAPTATION TO FILM! Seriously I just want one that is done right for once. Okay the Mist was close but seriously thats about it. everything else has been chewed up and spat out onto film. I dread what is going to happen to the Dark Tower Books.

 

[Sandernista]

I don't want to point out all the wrongs and errors in each scene and characteristics that protagonists may have that were simply not evident in the novels.

I just want to point out that the television series is now it's own beast. While similar to the books it's completely taken it's own path and good on it. It's doing an amazing job of it and I love it.

In fact I will probably prefer the TV show if it keeps going at this pace it'll finish a decade before the books.

OT: This really isn't much of a problem for me as I really think of the source material and the adaptation as different properties.

That said, The Last Airbender, and Eragon[footnote]These are the ones who really jump to mind[/footnote] really pissed me off.

 

[TheMann]

Jurassic Park the Movie: John Hammond is a nice, old Santa Claus-esque man.

Jurassic Park the Book: John Hammond is an absolute money grubbing bastard. Gets eaten by dinosaurs.

Not to mention the fact that in the book, Muldoon, the badass Australian hunter guy, survives. If there was one guy who you'd think would have the skill set to survive in that situation it would be him. In the movie he gets taken out like a punk.

To be fair, it did give us one of the greatest movie lines of all time.

Yeah, can't argue with that. It really wasn't a bad movie at all, a lot of things just got rearranged to fit the running time and get it a lower MPAA rating as if the film followed the book exactly it would have be rated 'R' for sure. I read the book when it first got published. A few years later when I heard a movie was being made I thought, "Oh man, this is going to be gruesome." Nope, not really.

Also, while I love the book and consider it much better than the movie, at least his on screen death in the movie was better than his offscreen death in the books; he's mentioned in The Lost World as having died of a heart attack, if I remember correctly.

Really? I never read The Lost World. That's pretty lame.

 

[Freaky Lou]

Every named cast member in Fantastic Four.
I've never seen a more fundamental misunderstanding of a franchise in my entire life.

I mean, yeah Batman & Robin is 120 minutes of total horse shit but it's at least evocative of the Adam West era Batman.

I'd agree with the exception of Johnny Storm, who I thought came off perfectly in the movie. That is much more of a testament to Chris Evans' acting than good writing, though, because his script was still terrible; he just nailed Johnny Storm's attitude and bearing.

 

[sarahvait]

Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes. I adore both classic adaptions (the BBC Granada series with Jeremy Brett) and modern retellings (BBC Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch) of the Sherlock stories. And I really love RDJ's work.

But his version of Sherlock just...isn't Sherlock for me. I actually talked about this is a previous thread:




What really gets me most of all is that RDJ created a really interesting character. If they had presented the movies as a brand new detective IP, I would have thought that it was a really cool new detective character, one to join the ranks with Sherlock Holmes and the like. Or maybe presented RDJ's character as a descendant of Sherlock Holmes, a grizzled world weary man trying to live in the shadow of his famous ancestor and ultimately prove his own mettle.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Really? I never read The Lost World. That's pretty lame.

Yeah. There's a scene where they're talking about the former employees of the park, and how most of the survivors didn't last long even after getting out of there. It's been years since I read the book, but I think it had something to do with either why the main characters couldn't just contact one of them, or why the antagonists had little to worry about from InGen with their evil plot. It's a really good book, despite that and the retcon. I really do need to read those books again.

 

[mrhappy1489]

I remember reading it somewhere, that Michael Gambon wanted to bring a completely different character to the table in memory of Richard Harris. Rather than simply emulating him, he retired his version of Dumbeldore in favour of a new version he could call his own. This is what changed my perspective a little bit on his version of Dumbeldore, because you can see him trying to work within the parameters of the original novel, but also attempting to allow Richard Harris's character the due respect it deserved.

Well, I never minded Michael Gambon's Dumbledore, I just thought he... wasn't quite as good, but I suppose that makes sense and I can respect it.

With reference to LOTR, I was a little peeved (having read the books after) that they left out the character of Erkinbrand (I think that's how you spell it), so they could get rid of Eomer for most of the movie and Aragorn look even more badass. It was frustrating because I really liked Karl Urban's Eomer and would have liked to have seen plenty more of him. Also Faramir, definitely faramir, the bastard deviates so much, I'm surprised they didn't just rename him.

And I really need to read the trilogy again (I was crazy young when I read them the first time) but yeah, Faramir was about the biggest thing that my eleven year old brain recognized as being massively different when I saw the movies, apart from the things that were simply omitted entirely. He wasn't supposed to bring them to Osgiliath, dammit!

Dude, he wasn't even suppose to be tempted by the ring. He was basically meant to say when he saw the ring (paraphrasing a bit), "Wow, that shit ain't gonna help no Gondor, get your ass to Mordor quick smart, for I am not tempted." Once again, this was another character being altered to make Aragorn appear holier than thou. Basically movie Aragorn is the paragon of the world and the most incorruptible person to exist. I love the movies and they are my personal favourites, but it is frustrating that Mr. Jackson thought that Aragorn needed to be this Unattainable good guy, while everyone else was just at the mercy of the ring and weak willed.