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

[NinjaDeathSlap]

(Was so sure that this thread was going to be about the new Dante)

I kinda agree about Dumbledore. He was indeed eccentric in the books but I thought at times that part of his character was overplayed to the detriment of everything else. I didn't have too much of a problem with it though due to Michael Gambon just being such a sublime actor.

 

[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".

And Fire Benders can't create their own fire unless they're a fucking master or something. I love how M. Knight Shamylamylamylamylamylan has to shoehorn a "twist" into these things like he does with movies he's actually written from scratch. *Gasp*, Sozin's comet will give the fire benders power, guys!

No shit. And he had to go and change it instead of it making them more powerful, it just lets them create their own fire. And why was the Fire Nation Indian when characters like Zuko were the palest people in the actual damn show?

Probably so he could give himself a cameo like he always bloody does... Michael Bay and Shamylando Calrissian should form a crime fighting duo that goes around kicking the shit out of people's favorite cartoon franchises.

Yeah, and the Water Tribe, who are supposed be really tan eskimo-types, are white as freakin' mayonnaise. AND nobody can bend an element faster then about 2 feet every goddamn minute. AND when Aang goes into the Spirit World, he talks to Roku's dragon instead of Roku.

Man, this is all making me want to go back and watch the show again.

 

[The Funslinger]

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".

And Fire Benders can't create their own fire unless they're a fucking master or something. I love how M. Knight Shamylamylamylamylamylan has to shoehorn a "twist" into these things like he does with movies he's actually written from scratch. *Gasp*, Sozin's comet will give the fire benders power, guys!

No shit. And he had to go and change it instead of it making them more powerful, it just lets them create their own fire. And why was the Fire Nation Indian when characters like Zuko were the palest people in the actual damn show?

Probably so he could give himself a cameo like he always bloody does... Michael Bay and Shamylando Calrissian should form a crime fighting duo that goes around kicking the shit out of people's favorite cartoon franchises.

Yeah, and the Water Tribe, who are supposed be really tan eskimo-types, are white as freakin' mayonnaise. AND nobody can bend an element faster then about 2 feet every goddamn minute. AND when Aang goes into the Spirit World, he talks to Roku's dragon instead of Roku.

Man, this is all making me want to go back and watch the show again.

I already have been on the gaps between Korra episodes. I'm near the end of season 3 now...

 

[Skoosh]

A lot of times when I hear people complain about the movie, it's because details were lost in translation. Obviously the book will have many more subplots than a movie though, and I feel those people miss the point. A movie should convey the themes and feel of the book. It should bring the main plot, atmosphere, and message to the big screen and stand on its own.

That being said, OP, your friend is being an idiot about Game of Thrones. It's easily just as good as the books (personally I'm enjoying the show a bit more now that the second season is taking its own path). Lord of the Rings is a good example too, of movies that did it right. Yeah, you don't have Bombadil (yay!) and some characters are downplayed like Faramir (aww) but in the end, they were still huge movies that crammed as much as they possibly could while still staying true to the themes and feel of the books. It was like Middle Earth came to life.

Movie that fucked things up though? I Am Legend. Completely missed the point of even the title. It started things up well, loved seeing the destroyed city and such, but then the second half completely fell apart. They cut characters when there were only 2 characters to begin with! The title is all about how before, vampires were the thing of legend and horror, but afterwards he hunted them indiscriminately, and he became the thing of their legends and horrors. Blerg, just...annoying.

 

[Sion_Barzahd]

LOTR, especially since they cut my favourite scene from the end of the films.

Also Eragon. The films didn't seem even close to following the plot from the books.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

LOTR yes missed bits that I can let slide as well as most of Harry Potter but these are the things I draw the line at. The Half Blood Prince for Harry Potter and general fuckupedness The Legend of the Seeker. The Half Blood Prince because it missed one of the main points of the book and just the whole of the Legend of the Seeker except for Zhedd(in comparison to others).

On the Legend of the Seeker though I am glad they got rid of the ridiculous levels of rape in it though. Seriously, the writer of the series looks like he hates minor women characters almost as much as Matt Ward hates Sisters of Battle. Although, the book series is quite hit and miss the show could have done better.

 

[Elamdri]

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.

Actually, the lawyer in the book is the most atypical character. He's like a good guy and survives the book.

 

[BENZOOKA]

50 is young for a hobbit, so I saw no problem there. Frodo was pretty much suffering the whole journey, one of the most essential themes of the story is the love and friendship of Frodo and Sam. Merri was the wisest and smartest hobbit all along. Aragorn would never even glanced a flirting look at another female. Elfs are not like humans. Dwarfs neither. Personality-wise that is.

There's way too many things that LoTR movies got wrong to go any deeper than that.

Oh, and the Hobbit-trailer which slightly hints that there is or was some chemistry between Gandalf and Galadriel... no facepalm is massive enough for that.

 

[triggrhappy94]

I saw the movie for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and really liked it.
So, I decided to read for an assignment in english.
Now, the movie was good, but early on all I could do while reading was remember scenes from the movie. The only lasted for the first couple chapters.
There's a lot of small things from the book that would have been impossible to adapt to a movie effectively. A lot of the commentary and theme was cut out too, which is a little disapointing.
As far as characters go, it's hard to say. The movie adaptation deffinately helped me a lot in visualizing each scene. I think it's worth mentioning that I think the only time the reader ever gets to read a scene that Lacerda is in is during the race. Every other time their interactions with him are just reffered to later. In the movie he shows up a couple times.

I'd deffinately suggest reading the book first, it's a really easy and short (only like 200 pages) read.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Legend of the Seeker. I started by watching the first episode of the TV series. Was alright, nothing really jumped out as weird, and nothing special either. Then I learnt it was based on a series of books called the Sword of Truth. Since I love to read, I started doing just that. They could not have gotten the series more wrong if they tried. The TV series was a mockery of the books.

I've seen that show the producers said they intentionally took the characters and stories to a different direction because it would've been boring to the bookreaders to anticipate everything, or something like that

But then why not just make up an entire new IP instead of butchering one that will turn fans away from it? I don't get that.

 

[BlueKenja]

Probably already been said but anytime they do one of the "Rincewind" Discworld novel adaptions and have David Jason playing Rincewind. Rincewind is not old. He's introduced as an early-mid 20s loser and as the books progress his age is always vaguely defined with him generally looking around 40 by the end in the Kidby artwork.
Hell, Death even notes that Rincewind's age isn't obviously young or old and doesn't even know if or when he'll ever die.

 

[MetalDooley]

One thing I guess I was sort of annoyed by was the decision to make everyone 3-5 years older. It changes the story at certain points a -lot-. An example without giving any spoilers. I guess some might be able to guess it.

Teenager fights skilled veteran.

Adult fights skilled veteran.

Those five-six extra years they added made it a bit less dramatic imo.

I guess there are lots of reasons for making the characters this much older,

Apparently the only reason they changed the characters ages was because they had to make Daenerys Targaryen 18 otherwise they couldn't have included the sex scenes with her and Drogo.And because they made her older they decided to increase everyone's age by a few years

 

[Nikolaz72]

One thing I guess I was sort of annoyed by was the decision to make everyone 3-5 years older. It changes the story at certain points a -lot-. An example without giving any spoilers. I guess some might be able to guess it.

Teenager fights skilled veteran.

Adult fights skilled veteran.

Those five-six extra years they added made it a bit less dramatic imo.

I guess there are lots of reasons for making the characters this much older,

Apparently the only reason they changed the characters ages was because they had to make Daenerys Targaryen 18 otherwise they couldn't have included the sex scenes with her and Drogo.And because they made her older they decided to increase everyone's age by a few years

I doubt that could possibly be the only reason. Because after reading the first book I must say, age changes the story completely. Whenever Robb is an adult ready to take his fathers place, or a 'child' is just.. Well.. A big difference. (spoiler) He 'cried' infront of Bran. (spoiler) I mean, in the books his a young teenager who is pretty much forced to act like a king waayy too early. In the series its almost like he was made for it. And while not being perfectly was certainly ready.

Also, most of the Nights Watch kids being 13-16 instead of.. Well, a good way up in their 20's also changes a lot.

Again, both are great. But if I was in charge I wouldnt have changed the whole plot so that they could show a couple of extra sex-scenes. Im sure there would be a big audience anyway. Some extra whore-scenes with Baratheon and Tyrion to make up for it. I mean, by the time we reached season 12 (Speculating that there will be 2 seasons per book) They would be of age anyway.

 

[MetalDooley]

I doubt that could possibly be the only reason. Because after reading the first book I must say, age changes the story completely. Whenever Robb is an adult ready to take his fathers place, or a 'child' is just.. Well.. A big difference. (spoiler) He 'cried' infront of Bran. (spoiler) I mean, in the books his a young teenager who is pretty much forced to act like a king waayy too early. In the series its almost like he was made for it. And while not being perfectly was certainly ready.

Also, most of the Nights Watch kids being 13-16 instead of.. Well, a good way up in their 20's also changes a lot.

Again, both are great. But if I was in charge I wouldnt have changed the whole plot so that they could show a couple of extra sex-scenes. Im sure there would be a big audience anyway. Some extra whore-scenes with Baratheon and Tyrion to make up for it. I mean, by the time we reached season 12 (Speculating that there will be 2 seasons per book) They would be of age anyway.

Seems silly I know but apparently that is the reason.I saw an interview with George R.R Martin where he more or less admitted that

 

[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.