this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2025
151 points (98.1% liked)

Ask Lemmy

34253 readers
1240 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 79 points 2 days ago (22 children)

vaguely gestures at World War Z

[–] Plum@lemmy.world 38 points 2 days ago (6 children)

WTF was that movie? Did they buy the rights to the title, but not the content?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago

Pretty much how that stuff happens.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Davel23@fedia.io 23 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The best part of that movie is Peter Capaldi being listed as "W.H.O. Doctor" in the credits.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] baldingpudenda@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago

Can you imagine a mockumentary with photos, reenactments, Redeker interview, military helicopters recording a supply drop following the redeker plan and thankful survivors, a historian explaining the Pakistan India war, live head cam footage of the Battle of Yonkers as that soldier retells his experince. It ends with some Drill Instructor explaining the box formation and taking your time with shots. Cuts to a drone going up and showing survivors in formation and hundreds of zombies in a large circle around them.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] Coolbeanschilly@lemmy.ca 50 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (6 children)
[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

They might not qualify as "crimes against mankind", but they definitely felt like it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 50 points 2 days ago (6 children)

I, Robot.

Asimov was explicitly trying to get away from the trope of "robots take over humanity". To be clear, the first short story that became I, Robot was published in 1940. "Robots take over humanity" was already an SF trope by then. Hollywood comes along more than half a century later and dives head first right back into that trope.

Lt Cmdr Data is more what Asimov had it mind. In fact, Data's character has direct references to Asimov, like his positronic brain.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I, Robot was about as far from the source material as you could get.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip 15 points 2 days ago

The only thing that advertisement masquerading as a movie has in common with the Asimov work is the title.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] JPSound@lemmy.world 44 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Literally everything about World War Z. Absolute travesty. The book is a unique and genuinely thought provoking new take on the zombie genre. The movie is an insult to every bit of world building Max Brooks created.

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I say this to people and then always have to clarify:

It's not that the World War Z movie is a bad adaptation of the book, it's that it's NOT an adaptation of the book at all. Other than the name, and the fact that it has zombies, there are literally no similarities between the book and the movie.

The characters are different, the settings are different, the format is different, the plot is different, the way the zombies act is different. Literally EVERYTHING.

Calling it an adaptation is like if you took The Neverending Story and changed its title to The Lord of The Rings and called that an adaptation.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SEND_BUTTPLUG_PICS@lemmy.zip 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I thought the movie was pretty enjoyable but it shouldn't have been named after the book. It would have been a decent zombie movie on its own.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 44 points 2 days ago (12 children)

The Dark Tower. Good movie in its own right, especially if you like Idris Elba.

First, they took 8 Stephen King books, some of which were like 2" thick, and decided to turn it into a 90-minute PG-13 film. A single film.

Second, because the racist element was so offensive (a Black woman taken out of the 1970s, who has personally experienced racism toward her, is taken to a foreign world, an alternate reality, where she basically is led by an old white man (modeled after Clint Eastwood) and naturally she feels a certain type of way about that) they decided they were going to change it up. Make her white, and him Black. Hence casting Idris Elba as a guy based on Clint Eastwood. Then they dropped her character entirely. I will argue that Elba made a hell of a Gunslinger, but the reason they cast him was because they wanted to turn the whole racism plot on its head. For no good reason. It was fine in the books (this would be The Drawing of the Three, and The Waste Lands, the second and third books).

But for all that, it was an entertaining action flick with a bunch of Stephen King references. I quite like it. As a reader of the books and a fan of Stephen King, I shouldn't, but the movie itself was good.

Honestly that the movie exists at all is the worst change, though.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 19 points 2 days ago

Idris Elba was an unexpected choice, but I was all for it. Unfortunately, you’re right about the rest of the film. SO much wasted potential.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I only read the first three or four books, but the movie didn't include a single thing I remember from thee early books that I liked. No crab taking fingers, no giant robot bear, no talking train, or anything else. It seemed to me like they had some other script and slapped a Dark Tower veneer on it.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I realized there was trouble when the producers were being interviewed and stated they had a hard time finding an entry point to the universe and I was like "Bitch, FIRST LINE - 'The man in black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.'"

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Visstix@lemmy.world 39 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Please don't fuck up project hail mary.. please don't fuck up project hail mary..

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 34 points 2 days ago

The Hobbit. Like, all of it

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 33 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The Hobbit

From the shitty shoehorned romance to wholesale elimination of plot points in the original story. Yeah, there was definitely some drama in the whole production of the film, but nonetheless it was crap.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] noahm@lemmy.world 32 points 2 days ago (29 children)

Most of David Lynch's Dune.

[–] UKFilmNerd@feddit.uk 18 points 2 days ago (3 children)

From what I remember, 1984's Dune is basically the book condensed down into the highlights. If you've read the book, fine but otherwise, it must be quite confusing.

[–] steeznson@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

1984 Dune is a very mixed bag despite the pedigree of the folks making it

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 14 points 2 days ago (5 children)

It's still my favorite version. Though, I still wonder if Jowarsky's Dune would have been better.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
[–] floo@retrolemmy.com 32 points 2 days ago (9 children)

Jurassic Park. The original was a horror/thriller that would have had to be unrated if they made it literally from the book. Instead, we got a PG-13 family film that really did not live up to the book.

In fact, it’s the first time that I read the book before seeing the movie, and I learned to never ever do that again.

[–] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 36 points 2 days ago (3 children)

to 4yo me, JP was a horror film. I mean, the kitchen sequence alone. And the run underground in the dark in search of the fuses, only to find a severed arm.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Funny thing though, Jurassic Park is STILL wildly successful, and if it had followed the book, most people would have never heard of it today.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The most egregious that i remember must be Artemis Fowl.

I remember liking the book quite a lot for making fairies into the opposite of pushovers. It also had a mean edge to it that other teen fantasy lacked.

The movie is just... Not that.

[–] Xkaliber@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago

I hated the fact that the movie steered away from the fact that Artemis Fowl was a frigging criminal mastermind and instead made him a mid rebel with a relatable motivation... Have the same grouse about Ender's Game too

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 days ago

I watched the movie first. The only good thing about it is it inspired me to read the book to see what the movie missed. Upon reading all the books, I think the vest way to adapt them to screen would be an animated series that is beat for beat faithful to the books.

My biggest issue with the film is, if they didn't want a villain protagonist, why adapt a book with a villain protagonist?

[–] SacredHeartAttack@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago (5 children)

EVERY SINGLE CHOICE made in Ready Player One. What a disappointment.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (4 children)

What a disappointment.

That's my thought on both the book and the movie. Perhaps its not the book's fault. There was so much hype surrounding it when it came out I thought it must be awesome. Instead I found the same simply story I'd read in a dozen other books, except this one drowning in a sea of 80s and 90s pop culture references. If it was a simply summer read without the hype I likely would have liked it for what it was.

I had similar disappointment when I finally read Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code". I read that same type of story a dozen times in other much better books but everyone was saying it was a groundbreaking book.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] cobysev@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Personally, I'm still irritated at the end of Hannibal (the 2001 movie). Spoilers for the end of the film and book ahead:

In the book, Clarice Starling has gone as far as she can in her FBI career. She became famous for solving big cases, moved up the corporate ladder, but that glass ceiling kept her from advancing. Too many misogynistic "good ol' boys" at the top, who not only prevent her from excelling in her career, but take every tiny mistake and blow it up into a potentially career-ending scenario.

Enter Hannibal Lecter; the suave and highly intelligent cannibal serial killer. He's outraged that Clarice's coworkers and bosses are actively objectifying her and ruining her career.

Long story short, at the end of the book, Hannibal rescues Clarice and gives her misogynistic boss an impromptu (and tasty!) lobotomy. Clarice ends up running away with Hannibal, because she realized he's the only person who respects her as an intelligent human being and not a piece of ass.

The movie chose to keep her loyal to the FBI and combative against Hannibal, even though the FBI actively tried to destroy her life. Hannibal escapes alone and the film just kind of ends. It was a complete non-ending.

The whole point of Silence of the Lambs and its sequel, Hannibal, was that Clarice was a woman trying to survive in a "man's job," yet proved she could belong - and excel - through her own skill and intellect. Silence of the Lambs did a pretty good job showing that on the big screen, but Hannibal didn't get the point of the story and decided the hero shouldn't end up with a cannibal, period. They treated him as more of an irredeemable monster.

It's kind of the "man vs. bear" meme, except replace the bear with a cannibal serial killer, and the girl still chose the cannibal as the safer choice to her co-workers.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Not a movie, but a show. "Foundation".

Look, I get it, if you want to tell your own sci fi story that has nothing to do with Asimov, great! Good for you!

But don't pretend it's Foundation.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Eh. I've been watching it, and I think it's a decent adaptation. Entirely faithful to the original? No. But the core trilogy of was written in the 1950s, and it's absolutely a product of its time. I for one am glad they left the misogyny back in the 1950s where it belongs. Also, the original books were very much in the "our friend the atom" era of nuclear power, the era where they were predicting power too cheap to meter and no one had ever heard of a nuclear plant meltdown. The inclusion of the genetic dynasty was an inspired choice. And frankly, I'm glad we're not depicting a far future where everybody is white.

But I think the TV series is faithful to the core themes of the books. It still explores the contrast between the "trends and forces" and "great man" theories of history. It still explores the fascinating concept of predicting the future mathematically. It still shows the slow and inexorable decline of a great galactic empire. And the Mule in the show is every bit a force of malevolent evil as the Mule in the novels.

Overall, is it a perfect one-to-one adaption? No, but that was never going to happen for a book like Foundation. It was long considered unfilmable. But some minor adaptations have allowed them to create a good series that explores the core themes of Asimov's work.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 27 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Just pick a scene from The Hobbit movies and there's your answer. Any scene.

[–] 5ibelius9insterberg@feddit.org 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Nononono, the singing dwarfes were absolutely true to the book. And Gandalph looking at Galadriel like a Schoolboy with a crush on his friends older Sister was definitely not in the books, but I loved it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] EponymousBosh@awful.systems 27 points 2 days ago (4 children)

OK, here's the thing. Overall, Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy is extremely good. I think it's the best Tolkien adaptation we're likely to ever get.

HOWEVER.

The random "Arwen is dying!" subplot was incredibly fucking stupid and while it didn't ruin the movies for me, it did dampen my enjoyment of them. There had to be a better way to get more screentime for Liv Tyler, surely.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Can I flip the script? Black Hawk Down was the most faithful adaptation of a book I've ever seen. As to the book, the author wanted to tell the story of the Battle of Mogadishu, faithfully. He had unprecedented, at the time, access to Defense Department files, interviewed everyone involved, strived for perfect accuracy.

When those guys are on that street corner, that's what happened.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tgirlschierke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Maybe not the worst, but this one's personal: Edge of Tomorrow's take on the fantastic All You Need Is Kill (spoilers ahead).

  • Making the movie PG-13. In chapter 2 of the manga, there is a brutal death scene showing how Keiji can't escape the Mimics wherever he goes. The series was quite bloody, and used that to its advantage.
  • Casting Emily Blunt as "Rita Vrataski". One of her defining character traits was that she was unassuming, and that you wouldn't expect that level of combat skill from her appearance.
  • While Keiji was in love with "Rita" in the original, it was unrequited–the change felt actively detrimental to "Rita's" character.

SIDENOTE: I feel like changing this was sort of unimportant, but you'll notice I'm using quotes for "Rita". That's because, in the original, her real name is unknown. She took someone else's identity.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SimpleMachine@sh.itjust.works 24 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Literally every single detail of the Eragon movie. God I hope someone actually adapts it well some day. Not that it's the world's best prose or anything but I truly believe it would be a great series with the proper director and cast. You know, where literally any of them had read and appreciated the source material.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] UKFilmNerd@feddit.uk 23 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I wouldn't call it a bad change, quite the opposite but when I read Fight Club, I was amazed how faithful the film was to the book. There are just two major changes I can remember.

In the book, Tyler Durden meets the narrator on a (nude?) beach where Tyler is erecting driftwood into the sand so that the shadow looks like a hand. (It's been a very long time since I read it, I think that's right.)

Secondly, the narrator struggles all through the story to remember the correct formula for the home made explosive. If he doesn't know, then Tyler doesn't know. Which means the explosives at the end don't go off. The buildings stay standing.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] moshankey@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (5 children)

The Dark Tower by Stephen King. It was the book in name alone.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

Wanted. It's a completely different story, in the movie it's about a loser guy discovering destiny murders that are ordered to kill people by a Loom. The comic is about a loser guy discovering a secret society of super-villans because he also has a superpower.

But I would also like to present a counter-example. Watchmen, the ending is different from the comic to the movie, and I much prefer the movie ending. In the comic the plan by the villain is to make an alien-like monster appear out of thin air, because this will make humankind unite, in the movie his plan is to blow out the major cities in the world and make it look like Dr. Manhattan did it because then humanity will unite both out of fear and trying to stop Dr. Manhattan from doing it again. I never questioned the comic, but after watching the movie I got the nagging thought of "why would an alien appearing unite mankind? They don't know if the alien destroying stuff was purposeful, them thinking Dr. Manhattan did it is better because they know it was intentional and done by someone who knows who they are"

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I know we're not into Harry Potter now, but the past is the past and I can't forget how annoyed I was when the movie based on the third book, Prisoner of Azkaban, came out. I was a very disappointed teenager.

It was a whirlwind story to me at the time. I remember exactly where I was when I read it, as the moment that revealed the friendship between Harry's father James, Professor Lupin, Peter Pettigrew, and the alleged-murderer, Sirius Black, became seared into my brain. It was such a pivotal part of the overall story to me, that that twist alone made it my favorite in the series. So when the movie came out, I expected the use and development of The Marauder's Map to be a key highlight. It was a huge deal in the books, after all.

Yet in the movie, the map is just a neat thing Harry gets to use. Nobody mentions that Harry's own father helped create it. The movie never even tells who the Marauders are, even though the reveal of their backstory was the key emotional crux of the Shrieking Shack scene. To omit their story entirely felt like a gut-punch.

I didn't understand at the time why the director (Alfonso Cuaron) decided to straight-up change everything that made that story so compelling to me and my friends. To this day, I still don't understand.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blackstampede@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I Am Legend. Just the whole thing.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›