By: Andrew Nickerson

Movies have long been one of the world’s best forms of entertainment, thus finding material for them is a huge responsibility for studios. Therefore, it’s no surprise that one of the oldest standbys on that front is popular books. Whether classic or contemporary, fiction or fact, stories that delight the masses in print are almost guaranteed to ensure future generations do the same in theaters.

            Yet, adapting such tales has long been a wrestling match between authors and studios, especially when it comes to keeping things authentic, with many factors going into such decision-making either way. One factor is run time, especially with longer novels; people can’t realistically expect an audience to sit through a feature going through every intimate detail of a 900-page novel. Another is budget, particularly when it comes to more elaborate sci-fi/fantasy gems, since perfecting the minutiae in such would be impossible if there’s no means to pay for it. A third is creative license, which studios take full advantage of after purchasing a story’s rights; once that occurs, filmmakers can rewrite/interpret a tale any way they see fit. This most commonly occurs with older novels, namely those adapted for children’s entertainment, for extreme violence simply won’t work in those conditions. Now, this doesn’t mean a finished product can’t be wonderful or (as some critics boast) better than the original, but that doesn’t eliminate the debate.

            However, the sheer differences between original and adaptation can sometimes be quite breathtaking, often twisting storylines or giving them entirely different outcomes. Granted, this doesn’t always happen, but when it does, some fans can’t help feeling “What gives?” as they leave the theater. To better illustrate this, we’re going to look at four such dramatic transformations, just so you can get a reference to the stark differences.

First up is the original summer blockbuster, Jaws, adapted from the novel by Peter Benchley. There are multiple major differences between it and the original, starting with the former eliminating a major story arc involving the mob. Another big difference is the character of marine biologist Matt Hooper, who’s really nice in the movie, but in the book is a cocky jerk who openly hits on Chief Brody’s wife. That same difference carries over to the sequence on the Orca, starting with the scene in shark cage: in the movie, Hooper escapes, but in the book he doesn’t. Furthermore, it’s the vengeful Quint who kills the shark in the book via a harpoon, only to have it snag his leg and drag him down with the animal at the end.

Second is Oliver!, a film based on the stage musical adaptation of Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist. Both adaptations took huge liberties with the script, starting with toning down the nastiness of Mr. Bumble, the man running the orphanage in the beginning. It also tones down the nastiness of Fagin, the man running the gang of pickpockets Oliver falls in with in London; in the movie, he’s a loveable rascal, but in the book he’s venomous enough to where, in one scene, he hits Oliver with a club. Another change involves both Fagin and his infamous protégé, the Artful Dodger, more specifically how it ends for the pair: in the movie, they literally dance off into the sunset, hoping to restart their ring, but in the book Fagin is arrested and hanged for his crimes, while Dodger is also caught, runs his mouth at a judge, and gets thrown in jail. But the biggest change regards the omission of a key story arc with Mr. Brownlow, the man who saves Oliver, his daughter Rose, and evil villain Monks who ultimately reveals the boy’s true identity.

Number three on our list is Congo, adapted from Michael Crichton’s bestseller. It’s filled with big changes, one of the more infamous ones being treasure hunter Herkermer Homolka, who was invented for the movie. Another difference is protagonist Karen Ross, who’s tough but has a strong moral compass in the film, but in the book is an icy corporate peon, loyal to a fault. A third change regards Kahega, guide Munro Kelly’s BFF: in the movie he dies, but in the book he doesn’t. A final significant change regards the infamous gorillas guarding Zinj. In both the movie and book, they kill by crushing victims’ skulls, but in the former they do it bare-handed, whereas in the latter they use large stone paddles.

Finally, we look at one of the greatest adaptations of recent memory: the Lord of the Rings trilogy, adapted from J.R.R. Tolkien’s immortal work. As entertaining as they are, the volume of changes is breathtaking, with this being a small list of such:

-Initial film Fellowship of the Ring famously cut a story arc involving woodland character Tom Bombadil.

-The famed sword that cut the ring from evil Sauron’s hand is actually reforged in Fellowship, while the films moved it to the third volume, Return of the King.

-After Bilbo leaves the ring to Frodo, several decades pass in the book, which is also when the latter’s BFF Sam marries and has children; in the films, the former doesn’t happen and the latter is moved to Return.

–Fellowship ends shortly after the tale’s namesake companions leave Elrond, the land of Galadriel, but the films moved it to after the death of Boromir and the Fellowship’s split.

-In the second book, The Two Towers, the battle at Helm’s Deep is strictly between the men of Rohan and the Uruk-Hai; the movie added elven reinforcements.

-Faromir lets Frodo and Sam go in the book Two Towers, whereas the film has him try to bring them to Gondor.

–Two Towers actually ends after the incident where Gollum betrays Frodo and Sam and the subsequent battle with Shelob, the Spider Queen.

–Return of the King leaves out a major story arc involving the cleansing of the Shire.

            There’re countless other examples of dramatic differences, many of which have made for some impressive films. Furthermore, this isn’t meant to detract from the entertainment value of either the original format or its on-screen counterpart. Rather, I’m simply pointing out changes, and would greatly encourage others to continue watching more such classics while comparing them to their texts down the road; it might even be fun.

###

Andrew’s originally from Massachusetts, and is a lifelong reader. He has a BA in History (English minor) from UMASS Lowell and JD from Mass. School of Law. He can be found on Twitter (@AndrewNickers19) daily, analyzing characters via Sun Tzu.