There is this trend that is somewhat disconcerting to me. In fact sometimes it pisses me off, other times I'm really happy. I love movies ( crazy about them actually); it's kinda like my world away from the real world. They let me escape or move from this unpredictable nature of our world into one with a happier end. Movies always have it better at the end (at least most of them). Things usually start well then go to bad then the hero is born, arguments arise, then get settled and things end perfectly well.
Anyway, somehow I've been coming across novels I've watched their movie adaptations and like I said earlier, the differences are weird. A lot of times you notice the movies being significantly different from the written works they were adapted from. It could be minor things like age or name. Sometimes age or race of the character or a complete change in the story especially the ending. Most times the movies lack details seen in the books. I understand that there is only so much you can pick into an average 2 hours movie but changing important details can make the story completely different.
Take "Around the World in 80 days" by Jules Verne and the movie adaptation starring Jackie Chan as an example.
There were lots of changes I loved; my favorite being the character- Passeportout played by Jackie Chan. Passeportout from the book was too boring. They changed him from French to Asian. Jackie Chan brought the character to life. The character became funny. He even was more at the center of the story than Phileas Fogg.
Changes to the item stolen actually made sense to account for the change in the race (of Passeportout). Overall, I think I prefer the movie version.
One that I particularly prefer the novel version to the movie is "John Carter of Mars". The book was filled with more action than twice the movie. It had better developed characters, awesome villains. I generally don't like the villains but in this book, I loved the villains especially the skeleton men of Jupiter. I wish they were adapted into the movie. The thing is heroes are judged by the obstacles and villains faced. The book definitely delivered on that part.
The movie was so damn superficial with severely underdeveloped characters. No wonder they didn't make that much profit on the box office. The good thing (for me) is that I read the book after the movie. So I was far from disappointed with the book.
"Tuck Everlasting" by Natalie Babbitt is another one I read lately that has differences as well as similarities that made both peculiar.
It's about a family that found a fountain of youth in the forest (more like a small spring). They drank the water with their horse and never died or aged. Not a bad synopsis; lots of people want to be young forever. The part I think is bad is making Winnie Foster older than in the book. I guess it was to make her more appealing (romantically) to Jessie Tucker and not just as a cute little kid in the book.
I liked the fact that they didn't really change how it ended. In a lot of cases, the movie versions would go for the "they lived happily ever after" ending which would have made the novel completely different form the movie.
This time they went for the same end, with Winnie Foster living out her life and the Tucks still living their ageless lives.
I heard the Harry Potter series are a bit different from the movies. I haven't had the opportunity to read the books. I guess I don't want to be disappointed or maybe I just don't want to read them at all.
I have noticed one thing that tends to change people's opinions about movie adaptations and that is the actors playing the characters. Some people tend to respond positively when their favorite actors or actresses play a part in any movie. A perfect example is myself and Around the world in 80 days. I mostly love it because I love Jackie Chan plus the story about Phileas Fogg (the movie version at least); being a scientist and developing new stuff.
I didn't realize that this factor influenced my objectivity towards the movie when I started writing this but my point is still made.
I wish there's a way to just know in advance which one would be better (before both versions are released) and pick the better version without accidentally seeing the worse one.
If there's any story you found significant differences between the written and screen versions, please drop a comment. I would love to see them.
THANKS FOR READING!