Movies with obvious differences from the books they're based upon

[Edward216]

I thought this could make an interesting discussion. I'm talking about any detail that was changed when a book was made into a movie. You can include stuff that's in a book that's left out of a movie if you want to but I'd rather stick to things that are actually seen in the movie but either way it's OK.

I'll start things off. In the 1979 movie the Black Stallion, the main character Alec who's a young boy, is played by Kelly Reno. Now Reno did have freckles and dark brown hair. But in the book of The Black Stallion in the very first few pages of the very first chapter it's plainly stated that Alec has freckles and bright red hair.

Ed.

[Torgo]

I'll use the 1931 Frankenstein as an example as there's so many movie versions, in the movie Frankenstein's monster has low intelligence, mind of a child basically. In the book though he has high intelligence, learned how to read, and could speak more than a few basic words.

Planet Of The Apes (1968) the apes have no technology, live in hut-like homes. In the book it's based on they have advanced technology, could even fly planes, lived in a big modern looking city.
This was all changed mainly due to budget constraints.


The 1979 Salem's Lot miniseries, one of the major changes was Kurt Barlow was a bald Nosferatu looking vampire, that growled and never spoke. In the book, he looks normal, and is very well spoken and refined, in the 2004 minseries Rutger Hauer portrays him closer to the book.

The Running Man, the movie version with Ahnold, everything is contained into one area with distinct characters set to kill him. In the book, first off he's just a regular guy desperate for money for his family, he has a pre-determined amount of time to survive and is let loose in a city where anyone can try to hunt him down.

I was going to do the Dark Tower differences, but I would be here all day.

[Penny Lane]

The Scarlet Letter (1995) starring Demi Moore was so bad and so far removed from Nathaniel Hawthorne's novel. It was just plain awful! There was a movie filmed for PBS starring Meg Foster in 1980 which stayed pretty close to the book. I have it on dvd.

Another example is 1967's "Valley Of The Dolls" which kind of followed the original novel but the end was totally different than the book. Actually the movie wasn't bad. Sharon Tate was one of the stars along with Barbara Parkins and Patty Duke.

In both of these novels the endings were tragic but in the movies it was the opposite.

And Demi Moore as Hester Prynne?! Comical!

[JamesG]

The 2001 film Hannibal had a very different ending from the novel it is based on. Director Ridley Scott and the cast said at the time that they all "didn't like" Thomas Harris' ending.

In the book Hannibal and Clarice Starling have become lovers and now live the high life in Argentina. Clarice also ate some of Paul Krendler's brain (from the infamous 'brain scene' in the film) and allows Hannibal to suck on her breast after pouring wine over her, which wasn't in the film at all. Hannibal had also exhumed her father's bones and had Clarice "say goodbye" to him in some weird sort of therapy session.

(Though it should be noted that Hannibal had Clarice drugged during this and it wasn't made it clear if he continued to do so when they both went away to Argentina.)



In the film, Clarice is still doped up but does not partake in cannibalism w/ Lector. She tries to attack him and winds up handcuffing his wrist to hers. He threatens to cut off her hand to escape, but instead spares her life.

It is unknown if he amputated his own hand or struck it w/ such a hard blow to break it, but he is seen wearing a sling on an airplane after.

[Edison]

The Shining (1980) - Of all the changes, what Kubrick did to Dick Hallorann really..well.. to quote Princess Leia Organa: This is some rescue!