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

[rob_simple]

It's a terribly thing to say, but I always felt the thing that made Richard Harris' performance more effective was that he seemed to be at death's door while making the films, giving his performance an wisened and mystical element.

OT: I find I have more of a problem reading books after the film; I couldn't read Fight Club without picturing Ed Norton and Brad Pitt and I think I'd have had a different experience going in blind.

The only thing I can think that relates to what you ask is Priest: although I'm still not sure that, despite what they say, the film had any association with the manga other than the title; they have literally nothing in common other than featuring men of the cloth, so far as I can tell.

 

[spartan231490]

I agree 100000000000% with the dumbledoor assessment. He just couldn't pull off dumbledoor.

That said, no character mishaps from book to tv has ever been so soul-crushingly inept as "legend of the seeker". In the books, the main character was a man of unconscious authority, unassuming nobility, and inner strength.. The kind of character that you can't help listen to and respect(at least a little), even if you hate everything he stands for. His grandfather was a stern, gentle man who could be extremely intimidating if he chose to. The love interest wore her authority like a cloak, and had an air of aloof dignity and purpose.

In contrast, the main character of the tv show fell flat. He came across without any strength or authority whatsoever. Even with an army at his back and a sword in his hand, every line that was supposed to be intimidating or inspiring just came across as arrogant and idiotic.

The Grandfather came across like a lunatic. He did ok during his intimidation scenes, though the wide-eyes were too comical to do anything but hinder such attempts, but any attempt to be the gentle mentor failed miserably because he looked and acted like a lunatic.

The worst offender of all was the love interest. I don't know if it was the script, the director, the actress, or all three, but instead of aloof dignity, she was desperate and contemptible. Worst, between the dress they put her in, the lines that were written, and the way she kept throwing her chest at the screen like she was afraid her boobs wouldn't fall out(particularly in the first episode), she came across like a total slut.

I could have accepted the plot changes, it comes with the territory, but when they turned those characters upside down so that their interactions more resembled the 3 stooges than anything in the books, I realized that no tv adaptation of a book would ever be so low as "legend of the seeker."

 

[Flamezdudes]

Season 1 was almost perfect for Game of Thrones, but Season 2 just mucked up so many events and characters... It really annoys me way too much, but I adore the books so it pissed me off to see them changed so much

I really think its better sometimes to watch adaptations first, then originals so that way you can enjoy both.

That's what happened to me with the film Let The Right One In, which I loved and then went on to love the book it was made from aswell. However I probably wouldn't have loved the film as much as I do if I read the book first as lots of it was cut to fit the film.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Eragon. It wasn't ever really a great book, but I adored it as a kid, and the horrendous film adaptation was the first time I EVER remembered being disappointed in a movie. It was really awful.

Oh you had to remind the world that that abomination exists didn't you?! GOD! That was beyond awful. Just go and think about what horrors you've unleashed upon this thread.

OT: Anime example!

The end of the second season of The World God Only Knows (featuring the one and only Katsuragi Keima AKA the God of Gaming AKA my Avatar) sort of twisted his character towards the end of the second season... Like they forced him to say that the Real holds some merit out of fucking nowhere. You even glance at the manga and you know it's glaringly out of character.

Like they wanted to wrap up the last season with some crappy faux closure.

I like what the manga has done with his character, both balancing his godliness and distaste of the Real with him actually growing attached to the other main characters, despite their Realness. Though I doubt he would admit much of it.

But the anime threw all subtlety, pacing and proper character development out the window and lobbed a flawed as heck reason as to why he should give a fuck about the Real.

Also LOTR, watched the films first, pretty fucking good. But found the books to be woefully boring beyond belief.

Too. Much. Description.

Also when I got to the words "the ring was destroyed" in the third book I had to quickly check how big the book was since those words are bang on the halfway point of the book.

There's having an epilogue and then there's taking the piss. Yes, there's some shit that happens in the Shire or something. I really don't care, any excuse to stop reading that boring, boring, just boring book.

 

[solemnwar]

snip

I have read Eragon and watched the movie.
So yeah i have experienced how something from a book das been ruined in a movie.
But still i am still very proud to be one of the first witnesses of the case, where the whole book has been ruined in a movie.
They didn't even get the hair color right, not for one bloody character.

Oh god, this. I saw the movie poster and immediately went "no". Never saw the damn thing, and I consider the books a guilty pleasure FFS. I was that appalled.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

snip

I have read Eragon and watched the movie.
So yeah i have experienced how something from a book das been ruined in a movie.
But still i am still very proud to be one of the first witnesses of the case, where the whole book has been ruined in a movie.
They didn't even get the hair color right, not for one bloody character.

I said Percy Jackson because I chose not to see the Eragon movie. I took one look at it, realized the elves weren't actually elves and if the studio can't take the time to at least attach fake pointy ears to the actress who plays Arya, why should I take the time to see the movie?

 

[Bat Vader]

I think I can speak for any of the fans of the book when I say everyone in Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief.

Think that's bad? The Jurassic Park book and movie could almost be considered separate stories entirely.

Spoiler: Jurassic Park The Movie

A Kindly old man who just so happens to run a multimillion dollar genetics company wants to use new technology and science to let the world experience the wonders of Dinosaurs. He invites several people to his "Dinosaur Theme Park" including famous Paleontologist Alan Grant, a stubborn, tired man who doesn't like children. His lovely assistant Ellie. Along with a cowardly, annoying lawyer that is more worried about "price" then if the people were happy. Ian Malcolm, a mathematician who's skeptical about the park's safety regulations and theorizes that if the dinosaurs get out, many people's lives will be at risk. Finally, he brings his beloved grandchildren to show them the wonders of the park and give them the joys of seeing dinosaurs!

Unfortunately, meddling from a greedy scientist results in the Dinosaurs getting loose. A few people die, including the park's game warden Robert Muldoon, the Lawyer, and the Scientist himself. Luckily through courage and tenacity, the remaining people on the island escape to safety! The old man is regretful that his park put people's lives in danger, and vows to insure the Dinosaurs are protected and no one has to lose their lives to his park again!

Spoiler: Jurassic Park The Novel

A greed, egotistical old businessman who runs a multimillion dollar genetics company wants to use new technology and science to make millions off of the millions of people who'd pay to see real, live, dinosaurs. He invites several people to his "Dinosaur Theme Park" in hopes of getting an endorsement. Including famous Paleontologist Alan Grant, a young, handsome man who enjoys seeing children become interested in Dinosaurs and "the ancient world". His lovely assistant Ellie. Along with a lawyer that is rightfully worried about the expenses of the park. Ian Malcolm, a mathematician who's smart enough to be cautious about the Park's safety, he predicts that there will be an untold amount of people killed if things go awry. Finally, he brings his Grandchildren, he needs to gauge how the "Child Statistic" would react to the park after all!

Predictably, meddling from a greedy scientist results in the Dinosaurs getting loose. A countless members of staff die, the Lawyer, Ian Malcolm, even the greedy old man himself! The only people who managed to survive were those who actually had experience dealing with dinosaurs, including Robert Muldoon, Grant and Ellie, and luckily the children! The park is firebombed by the military, and the company's plans of building a new park are foiled. Unfortunately, it seems that not all the dinosaurs are killed, and the world will most likely never be the same again.

While the movie is a somewhat scary family adventure flick, the novel is very realistic and bloody.

I hate how Muldoon died in the film. He was like the Boba Fett of the island. I was just waiting for him to do something awesome during the film.

 

[Richardplex]

Eragon. It wasn't ever really a great book, but I adored it as a kid, and the horrendous film adaptation was the first time I EVER remembered being disappointed in a movie. It was really awful.

Oh you had to remind the world that that abomination exists didn't you?! GOD! That was beyond awful. Just go and think about what horrors you've unleashed upon this thread.

OT: Anime example!

The end of the second season of The World God Only Knows (featuring the one and only Katsuragi Keima AKA the God of Gaming AKA my Avatar) sort of twisted his character towards the end of the second season... Like they forced him to say that the Real holds some merit out of fucking nowhere. You even glance at the manga and you know it's glaringly out of character.

Like they wanted to wrap up the last season with some crappy faux closure.

I like what the manga has done with his character, both balancing his godliness and distaste of the Real with him actually growing attached to the other main characters, despite their Realness. Though I doubt he would admit much of it.

But the anime threw all subtlety, pacing and proper character development out the window and lobbed a flawed as heck reason as to why he should give a fuck about the Real.

Lack of subtlety also showed with that last episode about his adoration with that badly drawn girl. Hilarious in the manga when they scattered references to her throughout. Cringeworthy when it's all put together in a single episode. It's a shame, up until the end they translated the manga to anime fantastically.

OT: I haven't really seen a character done wrong before. I've seen everything go wrong (Fate/Stay Night) but not the character thing, likely because I see an adaptation and swiftly turn around.

Closest in memory is Steins;Gate, in the anime Hououin is far less mental, The Zombie is less Tsun-Tsun and more Dere-Dere, and they made her FAR more likeable to the point where she's one of my favourite characters in the anime and I dislike her in the visual novel, Daru's nature gets toned down significantly and Shining Finger is less dual natured due to the limits of showing text in anime. Though I liked every one of these changes, bar Shining Finger's, though that's understandable given above, and that's the only adaptation I've seen that I think is superior to the original.

 

[the.gill123]

For me, since I don't really read that often, it has to be The Lovely Bones. Everything was wrong, except the casting of Susie Salmon and the first 30 minutes, after which I flicked through the rest of the film and probably watched in total an additional 10 minutes, all of which I was shouting and cringing at.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

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.

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.

 

[malestrithe]

No, because I never get that emotionally invested in a project. Also, I understand that the vision inside my head will not be the same thing the people involved will want. Sorry, but that's reality.

 

[370999]

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.

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.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

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.

 

[370999]

snip

Hell even Denethor got slightly shafted, in the books his madness being a result of gazing into the plantir for too long to try and come up with effective strategies against Sauron, which Sauron made sure he only saw the how powerful his armies were, thus becoming sure of how hopeless the fight against Sauron would be. He never however did a Saruman and considered changing sides though, just lost hope in ever being able to win.

Not as major as Faramir, but it did mean he lost a bit of nuance.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Well, it's not a book, but I'm gonna nominate Aang of "The Last Airbender" fame anyway. In the TV show, he's a happy little kid, and his name rhymes with "bang". In the movie, he's a completely emotionless stick of wood, and his name rhymes with "gong".

And don't think it's just bad acting. They wrote him as some kind of warrior monk, when he's nothing like that in the show. And in case you missed it, THEY GOT HIS NAME WRONG. I'm sorry, I meant they got his name "wrang".

 

[Woodsey]

Do you know, I had the funniest dream last night. I opened a thread and in it, the OP actually had the nuts to complain about Michael fucking Gambon.

"Nay!" said I, "'tis only a dream". And yet, here we are.

(Also, the thing about the Hobbits: they are older but they age slower, I'm sure. The real difference is that I'm pretty sure Gandalf appears at the Shire and talks to Frodo, and then several years later they set off upon their merry quest.)

snip

The films are adaptations of the books. They are adaptations because they are different mediums. Films cannot contain every single piece of iconography found in the books, at least not in their theatrical run. They filmed the Mouth of Sauron because Jackson did understand the relevance (he explains it himself when they talk about creating the scene), but shit gets cut. The folly/susceptibility of man is already covered by Boromir and his Pappy anyway. And the ring-wraiths. And Isildur. I mean yeah, it's a slightly different angle on it but it's pretty obvious why it got cut for the initial release.

As for us knowing Frodo and Sam were alright, that's a perfectly legitimate use of dramatic irony.