20 Movies Based On Books That Are Nothing Like The Book

Stephen King's The Shining has been adapted multiple times since it was first published in 1977. Still, the one adaptation that stands above the rest is director Stanley Kubrick's 1980 film starring Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall. The movie gets a lot right about the location, characters, and situation but strays enough from the book that King has bashed it for decades. One of the author's biggest gripes is the casting of Nicholson to play Jack Torrance. King felt that Jack was shown to be unhinged from the outset, but in his book, his descent into madness comes gradually. Of the many deviations from the novel, the more glaring examples include establishing the Overlook Hotel as more of an evil entity than a mere location in the book. The film doesn't portray it as such, lessening its place as a character in its own right. Wendy is also a more nuanced character in the novel, while she's far more passive in the film. Additionally, the hedge maze and the creepy “Come play with us” Grady twins don't exist in the novel. The book also places much more emphasis on Danny's psychic abilities, and sees Jack's death play out very differently, with him dying as the hotel is destroyed in a boiler explosion. King hated the movie so much that he created his own miniseries adaptation years later. Even without approval from the author of the source material, The Shining stands as one of the genre's true greats, so it's one of those situations where book loyalists don't love it while everyone else does.

Shrek is one of those movies that popped up out of nowhere and likely felt completely original to most viewers. In truth, though, it's based on a children's book called Shrek!, by William Steig. The movie follows the titular ogre (voiced by Mike Myers) as he teams up with a talking donkey (Eddie Murphy) to embark on a quest and win back his swamp home. Steig's book, on the other hand, sees Shrek leaving his home to travel the world after being kicked out by his parents - not a crowd of encroaching fairy tale creatures. This Shrek has the ability to breathe fire, which proves useful as he defeats a knight and rescues a princess who is uglier than he is. The film pivots from the plot almost immediately, but it honors the novel's themes and general structure - as well as maintaining Shrek's donkey companion. Ultimately, Dreamworks's Shrek improves upon the source material by crafting more dynamic characters, which helped spawn a very successful movie franchise.

The Dark Tower series is considered to be Stephen King's magnum opus, consisting of nine books published from 1982 to 2012. The first book, The Gunslinger, introduces the series protagonist, Roland Deschain, a member of a knightly order of skilled fighters known as gunslingers. Roland hunts for his adversary, “the man in black," as he treks across a desert. The 2017 film The Dark Tower is loosely based on aspects from several of the books in the series, while focusing on the basic narrative structure of the first. Because it deviates to include elements that don't occur in the novel, the film isn't much like the book. Tonally, the adaptation also strays a bit into sci-fi rather than fantasy - for example, the doorways between worlds are shown as technological portals in the film, whereas in the novels they seem to be ordinary doors that operate via magic. Additionally, Roand's goal in the book is to reach the Tower, and nothing will get in his way. In the film, Roland (played by Idris Elba) forsakes his duty to protect the Tower and dedicates his life to seeking revenge for his father's death. This is a significant change to the protagonist's primary goal, and it's one of many. Though King shared some positive sentiments about the adaptation, he also expressed disapproval of the movie losing the “toughness” of the novels in order to fit a PG-13 rating.

The 1994 film Forrest Gump was a massive success, earning numerous awards and cementing Tom Hanks as one of the greatest actors of his generation. The film is based on Winston Groom's book of the same name, but deviates significantly from the source in several areas. Most notable is Forrest's personality, which is humble and sweet in the movie. In the book, Forrest is foul-mouthed, sometimes violent, swears a lot, and a savant in math and physics. Additionally, Forrest in the book is a master of chess, while Forrest in the film doesn't show talent in that area. Other characters like Bubba are portrayed differently, and Forrest has many other adventures that are left out of the film entirely, but the most significant change concerns the ending. Like the film, the book features Jenny having a son that she reveals to be Forrest's. The film ends with Jenny passing away and Forrest raising their son alone, but she remains alive and well in the novel, and Forrest doesn't have a role in his son's life, since Jenny is married to another man. It's fair to say a faithful adaptation of the novel wouldn't have played as well as the film that was developed. Still, the book did come first, so there may be those who prefer it.

Richard Matheson's 1954 novel, I Am Legend, has been adapted multiple times. Will Smith's 2007 I Am Legend is the third, following The Last Man on Earth and The Omega Man, and despite keeping the title, it's still wildly different from the novel. Matheson's book is set in 1976 in Los Angeles, California, after an apocalyptic war has destroyed civilization. The plot revolves around a pandemic that killed most of the human population, transforming the rest into vampires. The story follows Robert Neville, a lonely survivor who barricades himself in his home to survive. He has flashbacks of his wife and daughter's death and works to find a cure. After three years of isolation, he meets a woman in the daylight who apparently has immunity to the plague, but it turns out she's a plant attempting to capture Neville and bring him to justice. The film is similar, in that it still follows Neville (Will Smith). The most significant deviation comes from the monsters (here called “Darkseekers”), which are somewhat akin to vampires in that they can't stand sunlight, but otherwise are closer to the image of zombies popularized by 21st century movies. In the book, Neville is the legend he believes he is - he works tirelessly to “cure” the infected, but in reality, he is the monster from the vampires' point of view. He is a legend in his mind, but the book ends with him understanding this and dying by suicide. The film's theatrical ending is almost the complete opposite , as Neville's self-sacrifice to protect the cure is intended to cement his heroic identity as a savior of mankind. However, the film does have an alternate ending that is closer in spirit to the novel's ending.

World War Z is an intended tentpole Brad Pitt film loosely adapted from Max Brooks's 2006 novel World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War. Even calling it a loose adaptation is generous, as the film is almost nothing like the book. Brooks wrote it as a follow-up to his hit novel The Zombie Survival Guide, published a few years earlier. The novel is formatted as a collection of various accounts of a worldwide zombie plague. Its stories include those from people all over the globe and their contributions and impacts of the so-called “Zombie War," so it takes place after the effects are widespread. The movie, on the other hand, takes place as the zombie infection first begins to spread. It also ditches most of the characters from the novel and centers around a single subject, Pitt's Gerry Lane, a former UN investigator who searches the world for a cure to the plague. In one sense, Lane's interactions with many international allies somewhat mimic the general tone of the novel's use of vignettes, but that's about where the similarities end. Other key differences include the portrayal of zombies, which are shown to be much faster-moving and more dangerous in the film. Overall, the book is more focused on how authorities and common people might respond to an actual zombie outbreak, with all the complexity that entails, while the film aims to tell a more straightforward action-packed story with an optimistic Hollywood ending.

Stephen King's work has been adapted into many successful and popular films, including the 1987 action flick The Running Man. Like King's 1982 novel, the film is set in a dystopian near-future United States, where the economy is in ruins and violence runs rampant. The book's plot follows Ben Richards as a participant in a reality show called “The Running Man.” Contestants win money by surviving while elite hitmen are sent to kill them. The film is only moderately similar in that the character's name, Ben Richards (Arnold Schwarzenegger), is the same. Also, there's a reality TV show with a similar premise. One key difference stands out from the beginning: the film's version of the game show only features criminals as contestants, fighting for their freedom, while the novel shows that the contestants are enticed to participate due to dire financial circumstances. The movie includes new characters and establishes the protagonist as a wronged police helicopter pilot forced to compete in the game with the hope of winning a pardon. Added characters and a complete change to the nature of the deadly TV show make the movie very dissimilar from the source material. That said, the film is still an engaging entry in Schwarzenegger's filmography that has its fans. A new adaptation of King's novel went into development in 2021 with Edgar Wright attached to direct, so there's hope the book will be faithfully adapted to the screen one day.

Stephen Spielberg's incredibly successful adaptation of Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ did so well that it was a foregone conclusion that a sequel would follow. For his part, Chrichton wrote the sequel - something he'd never done before - at the request of his fans. Spielberg also wanted to do a sequel, so the author essentially wrote The Lost World so it could be adapted into a film. Spielberg's adaptation of the first novel is very close to the book, though it leaves a lot out that eventually found its way into subsequent entries in the franchise. The acclaimed director didn't follow the novel as well the second time around, combining some characters, changing the antagonist, and significantly altering the ending. In the book, the entire story takes place on Isla Sorna, while the film relocates the finale to San Diego, California. The entire sequence, which is probably the most memorable from the film, features a T. rex running rampant through the city. This aligns with Spielberg's penchant for fabulous filmmaking, as he likely thought the spectacle of the California ending worked better for the silver screen.

How to Train Your Dragon is YA series by Cressida Cowell consisting of 12 books. The Dreamworks film series of the same name is very successful, but it bears very little resemblance to Cowell's story. In fact, the narrative is so different that an argument could be made that the movie (and its sequels) are entirely different properties that have almost nothing in common except for the title and character names. In the book, Toothless is a runt dragon, not the impressive, rare species shown in the films, and Hiccup is able to converse with him in Dragonese. Most dragons in the book are small but loyal, though Toothless is notably stubborn and a prolific complainer. The film's dragons don't talk at all, and are much larger, with most being big enough for humans to ride. Additionally, the film invents a war between humans and dragons, with Hiccup being the first to figure out how to befriend and train the creatures. In the books, the Vikings have been training dragons for generations, and Hiccup isn't particularly skilled at it, struggling to get Toothless to obey him. The movie also invents the character of Astrid to serve as a love interest for Hiccup, though she may be based on a character named Camicazi who appears beginning in the third book. The HTTYD franchise is an incredibly successful one for DreamWorks Animation, and it's fair to say that a faithful adaptation of the book wouldn't work well as a movie, so the changes are inarguably for the better. Despite this, fans of the books have the right to feel disappointed that the same name is used to advertise an entirely different story.

The Spy Who Loved Me is the tenth James Bond film that takes its title from Ian Fleming's tenth novel in his series. Besides the title and the fact that the film is about James Bond, nothing from the book made it into the movie, which features an entirely new plot. That's not surprising, given how poorly the novel did with fans. It's written in first person perspective from an entirely different character, and Bond does not appear until well into the story. Due largely to this sudden change in style, the book was poorly received by fans. Contrary to the usual trend with film adaptations that deviate from the books, Fleming was the one responsible for the complete story overhaul in the movie. He stipulated that should it be developed into a film, only the title could be used. This was probably a good move, because the film was well-received and remains a fan favorite (unlike the book).

Artemis Fowl is based on Eoin Colfer's novel of the same name, which kicks off the wildly popular YA series about the eponymous young Irish criminal mastermind. The long-anticipated movie adaptation draws elements from the first and second books of the series, though it jumbles up much of the story in the process. Many aspects of the first two books' plots are kept - like Artemis capturing LEPrecon officer Holly Short, as well as the introduction of recurring villain Opal Koboi. At the same time, a great deal of character development is dumped, large portions of plot are cut completely, and a ton of content not found in the novel is added to patch over the gaps. In one example of the character changes, Artemis is a distinctly selfish and ambitious criminal in the books, although he does develop more of a conscience as the series goes on. The film portrays him as a sensitive young man with a good head on his shoulders from the start. Given how much is different, the critics weren't kind to Artemis Fowl, and critic Hoai-Tran Bui of Slash Film was particularly brutal with the following review: But even if Artemis Fowl completely misunderstands the appeal of the original books, the least it could do is be an entertaining movie, right? Unfortunately, Artemis Fowl opts to be a profoundly joyless exercise in generic children's fantasy tropes.

Total Recall is based on Philip K. Dick's short story “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale,” which follows menial office worker named Douglas Quail who dreams of visiting Mars. He heads to Rekal Incorporated to have memories of Mars implanted, but unlocks suppressed memories of his life as a government assassin responsible for killing a political opponent of Earth's government. This upends his life when his wife leaves him, and government agents unveil the truth about his identity. The film has a similar beginning, centering around a construction worker named Douglas Quaid (Arnold Schwarzenegger), who has recurring dreams about Mars. He goes to have an implanted memory of being a secret agent on Mars, but wakes up before the implant is completed, unlocking erased memories of being an undercover agent meant to infiltrate a rebellion. From there, the film diverges wildly from the plot, expanding on how Quaid is actually an entirely different person, and the Quaid personality is contrived and implanted. The film deals with themes of not knowing what is real, which the story explores as well - with fewer gunfights. The film also adds several subplots, including those dealing with mutants, a corrupt businessman named Cohaagen, and alien technology that brings blue skies to Mars. It's fair to say that Dick's story could have developed into the film's plot had it been a full novel, but much of what's seen in the film is entirely new or different from the source.

2014's Seventh Son is loosely based on Joseph Delaney's 2004 fantasy The Spook's Apprentice, part of the Spook's series, which spans 20 sequels and spin-off novels. The film is adapted from the first book, which sees young Tom Ward training to battle witches, boggarts, and other creatures, but condenses and changes much of the story and character development. This is particularly obvious when looking at Tom, who is only 13 years old at the start of the novel, yet played by Ben Barnes, who was 31 at the time of his casting. Aging Tom up didn't help it at the box office, and the film garnered negative attention from critics, who called out the lackluster attempt at mimicking popular fantasy book-to-screen franchises such as Harry Potter or Game of Thrones. Fans of the books, who were possibly expected to enjoy seeing it on the big screen regardless, don't see it as a faithful adaptation. In Matt Maielli's review for The Pitt News, he calls the film “An abysmal attempt at striking fantasy gold.” He points out the director's inability to honor the source material as a significant affront that the film cannot overcome. Unsurprisingly, Seventh Son was a box office flop. Meanwhile, the novel series has continued to release new entries up through 2023.

What To Expect When You're Expecting is one of the best-selling pregnancy guides of all time, with millions of copies sold and and more bought by expecting parents each day. One thing that the self-help book is not is a narrative story, but that didn't stop Hollywood from taking a swing at making it into one. 2012's What to Expect When You're Expecting is a romantic comedy starring Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Lopez, Elizabeth Banks, Chance Crawford, Ben Falcone, Brooklyn Decker, Matthew Morrison, Anna Kendrick, Dennis Quade, Rodrigo Santoro, and Chris Rock. It follows five couples as they tackle becoming new parents and is split into stories focusing on each couple's ups and downs of being expectant parents. Its only similarities to the book are the title and the fact that it deals with people expecting children.

The Fly is based on George Langelaan's short story of the same name, and it's a remake of the first adaptation released in 1958. Director David Cronenberg's vision is less an adaptation of Langelaan's story and more of a high-concept adaptation of Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis due to its focus on the main character's transformation. Langelaan's story begins with the scientist's wife, Helène, reporting that she killed her husband, then winding up in an asylum. She pens a manuscript about what happened and gives it to her brother-in-law, who learns that his brother, André, created a machine he called a disintegrator-reintegrator capable of transporting matter from one location to another. In an experiment, André transported himself, but a housefly entered the pod, and when he emerged, he had the head and arm of a fly. Cronenberg's film takes the concept and keeps the themes and general structure of the story intact. In the film, rather than only swapping specific body parts, the fly is absorbed into Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum). Initially, he's fine, but over time, he slowly transforms into a gigantic anthropomorphic fly-like creature intent on forcing his pregnant girlfriend, Ronnie (Geena Davis), through the same process. The endings of both versions are somewhat alike, though, with Ronnie/Helène forced to help in ending Seth/André's lives.

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask) is a self-help book written by David Reuben in 1969. It's one of the first books of its kind, and it increased sex education in the United States. The book sold well, but it isn't a narrative story. That didn't stop Woody Allen from buying the film rights and stripping everything but the title and chapter headings. The 1972 film, directed by Allen, is broken into seven chapters dealing with various aspects of sex and sexuality. Allen used the titles as a guide in crafting his stories, and the film is hilarious. The titles include the following: Do Aphrodisiacs Work? What Is Sodomy? Why Do Some Women Have Trouble Reaching an Orgasm? Allen also appears on-camera in four of the chapters. The final chapter features him and others dressed as sperm ready to parachute during sex in a military-style action to impregnate an ovum. It's funny, to be sure, but it's as far from the source material as Allen could have possibly gone.

Jumper is a film that follows David Rice (Hayden Christensen) from childhood into adulthood, but his life isn't ordinary. He develops the ability to teleport and enjoys all the benefits of being able to jump into and out of a bank vault undetected. His actions eventually gain the attention of Roland (Samuel L. Jackson), leader of the Paladins - a group that hunts the people they call “Jumpers.” The film is a fun examination of what being able to teleport might actually be like, and Jackson is excellent in it. That said, it's wildly different from Steven Gould's sci-fi novel that forms its basis.Beyond keeping Rice's name and his ability to teleport, the entire plot of the film is invented. The book doesn't include Paladins or anything like them - instead, David finds members of the government taking notice of him and works to avoid contact with them. The book developed into a franchise, and one of the later installments (2008's Jumper: Griffin's Story) expands upon a character invented for the movie. Overall, though, it's fair to say the film isn't a faithful adaptation of the first book.

He's Just Not That Into You is a self-help book published in 2004 that aims to help single women deal with men who aren't interested in them. The title essentially tells you precisely what the book is about, and it does the same for the film. The movie is a romantic comedy starring Ben Affleck, Jennifer Aniston, Drew Barrymore, Jennifer Connelly, Kevin Connolly, Bradley Cooper, Ginnifer Goodwin, Scarlett Johansson, and Justin Long. In the movie, nine people navigate their romantic problems via developing storylines linking the ensemble together. Though it retains the title and general theme of the self-help book, the movie is an entirely original property, inventing a narrative to suit the catchy title. Regardless, both are very successful in their own right.

The Box is based on a short story by Richard Matheson called “Button, Button.” The story revolves around Norma, who is given a box with a button. If she presses the button, a random stranger will die, but she'll receive $50,000. It was previously adapted into an episode for The Twilight Zone in 1986 and a feature film in 2009. The film begins with the same idea: Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur Lewis (James Marsden) receive a box with a button. If they push the button, they will receive $1 million in cash, but a random person they don't know will die. Norma presses the button, and someone dies, bringing about the promised $1 million. The couple are then told that the box will then be given to someone they don't know who will be presented with the same offer, but they try to return the money, feeling guilty for getting someone killed. As the plot develops, it includes many supernatural elements that aren't in the short story. Norma and Arthur meet other victims of the box. The first act is a fairly faithful adaptation of the story, but the subsequent two acts are entirely invented - which makes sense, since the story simply isn't long enough to span a feature film on its own.

The Big Short is adapted from Michael Lewis's nonfiction book The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine. The book details the 2007-2008 financial crisis and how the US housing bubble pop played a role in kicking off the chaos. The film adaptation follows the same structure and story but makes numerous changes to the characters and events. This was likely done to make the story work in a cinematic format, but the differences are a bit glaring. In addition to altering many characters' names, some of the exact events are tweaked in terms of which people are involved, and Mark Baum's personal issues are different (though this was requested by the family of of Steve Eisman, the real man Baum is based on). The film also avoids detailing the Lehman Brothers' collapse, the alleged corruption at Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, and other tweaks separate it from the source material. Overall, it's a reasonably faithful adaptation, but it does make several changes to real events to serve the narrative.