Top 10 Least Faithful Book to Film Adaptations

While the film has become something of a cult classic in later years, it didn't do very well upon its original release. The book was released in 1977, and the film came out in 1980, back when books were still a primary form of entertainment. So, it's easy to see that the vast majority of the audience had read the book first.

In the film, Jack Nicholson's Jack Torrance starts as the irritable patriarch of his family and simply descends into madness from isolation. In the novel, he starts as a caring father until his alcoholism takes its toll. Book Wendy was also more strong-willed and protective of Danny, whereas the film's version, played by Shelley Duvall, is a complete doormat. Stephen King was not amused by how Stanley Kubrick changed her character. There was also no hedge maze in the book. Oh, and the whole iconic "Here's Johnny!" scene? That didn't happen in the novel.

When "Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory" was released in 1971, it barely made a profit but has since become a cult classic. In the original novel by Roald Dahl, it was meant to be more of a cautionary tale, and the character of Willy Wonka was quite different from the one Gene Wilder portrayed on screen.

The film was also a whimsical musical filled with many catchy songs like "The Candy Man," "Pure Imagination," and "I Want It Now!" Dahl was very unhappy with the adaptation and refused to allow any more of his works to be translated onto the big screen. Will we ever see an adaptation of "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator"? It doesn't look likely.

While some book-to-film adaptations have to cut out a good chunk of content to allow a decent run time, Peter Jackson did the opposite with J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit and stretched it over three films. The Hobbit trilogy changed many things from the book, like the Battle of the Five Armies, but probably the biggest change that really agitated viewers who also read the book was the inclusion of Legolas from The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I'm guessing Orlando Bloom needed the paycheck.

On one hand, I'm not going to pay $10/ticket to see Peter Jackson regurgitate Tolkien's classic word for word. But on the other hand, this kind of filler was just overkill for some.

What people might not know about this Disney classic is that it's loosely based on The Frog Princess by E.D. Baker. However, the settings and characters are very different. In the book, the story presumably takes place during medieval times in a mysterious land known as Greater Greensward. But the movie takes place in New Orleans in 1926.

The heroine in the book is the princess of the land and is forced into an arranged marriage. But Disney did things differently by making the leading lady Tiana, an African-American waitress who dreams of owning her own restaurant. As you can tell, the similarities between the book and film are few and far between. But it's still an enjoyable film nevertheless.

When Jurassic Park was released in 1993, it took the world by storm with its realistic dinosaur animatronics and CGI effects. It's still considered a classic even today. So, when Michael Crichton released The Lost World, a sequel to his hit novel Jurassic Park, it was only natural that Steven Spielberg would adapt it into a film two years later. However, the film is very different from the novel.

In the novel, Ian Malcolm was bitten in the leg by a T-Rex and hasn't fully recovered yet, and Lewis Dodgson from Jurassic Park returns with two lackeys to go to Isla Sorna to steal some unhatched dinosaur eggs to save his company, Biosyn. In the film, he's replaced by John Hammond's corporate nephew, Peter Ludlow, who takes control of InGen from his uncle and leads a group to Isla Sorna to capture the dinosaurs and bring them back to the mainland. Also, in the book, all of the dinosaurs stay on Isla Sorna, so the whole T-Rex in San Diego climax at the end of the film was totally original.

The films are a far cry from the novels, but when you consider how violent Crichton's books can get, it's probably for the best.

For many years, Theodor 'Dr. Seuss' Geisel's book and the animated special "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" have been enjoyed during the Christmas season. The story is about how the titular Grinch tries to prevent Christmas from coming to Whoville by stealing all the material elements. But he soon finds out there's more to this festive holiday than 'ribbons, tags, packages, boxes, and bags.'

Considering the book was only 69 pages long and designed for young children, it's easy to see why the Grinch's backstory was expanded. Probably the biggest and most noteworthy change is how Cindy Lou Who went from a simple mention to a key character. And this is just my personal opinion, but I think Jim Carrey and Taylor Momsen had a special chemistry that somehow worked. It's just a shame "The Cat in the Hat" starring Mike Myers was so terrible. It caused Audrey Geisel to disallow any more of her late husband's work from being adapted into live-action movies.

Many would argue that The Love Guru ended Mike Myers's acting career, but his performance in this train wreck was even worse. Following the premise of an anthropomorphic cat entertaining two children of a single mother, the movie adds quite a bit of side-story material that just feels shoehorned in. The biggest example is the mother's boyfriend, who acts like a successful businessman but is really an unemployed slob.

With all the extra stuff they needed to add to make this a full-length feature film, and the hidden adult jokes, it's easy to see why Audrey Geisel laid down the hammer on any more live-action adaptations of her late husband's work.

Forrest Gump is a charming tale about how it's not how you start but how you finish. It tells the story of how a dim-witted child from Alabama becomes very successful in life, from being a star football player to a war hero and running a successful shrimp business. But the movie made some changes from Winston Groom's 1986 novel.

In the movie, Tom Hanks's portrayal of Gump is morally squeaky clean and lovable, never uttering a swear word. But in the novel, he swears a lot, chain-smokes marijuana, and even spends time in jail and a mental hospital. Plus, they had to edit out some of his more outlandish exploits, like being a professional wrestler and an astronaut. The ending was also less happy in the novel.

Essentially took the title of a successful book and wrote an entirely different story.

What a lot of people don't know is that Jumanji is actually based on a picture book of the same name, written and illustrated by Chris Van Allsburg and published in 1981 by Houghton Mifflin. While it follows the same premise of a magical board game, the movie adds many elements. For example, the game is buried a century before Alan Parrish discovers it in a construction site in 1969. Speaking of which, Alan and Sarah Whittle do not appear in the book, and Peter and Judy's parents are very much alive, while in the movie, they died in a car crash on their way to Canada for a ski trip.

Also, *SPOILER ALERT!* when Alan wins the game at the end, the board game turns back the clock to 1969, and history is changed. Naturally, the movie wouldn't have been as successful if it had stuck to the source material.

There has never been a book series quite like J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series. After the books started selling out, Warner Bros. took the initiative to adapt them into full-length films, the likes of which the United Kingdom and the rest of the world haven't seen since James Bond. While content from the books had to be changed for the big screen, Order of the Phoenix saw the most changes. Considering it's the longest book in the series at 870 pages in the United States, it's easy to see why.

One of the most notable omissions was Ron trying out for Quidditch, much to Rupert Grint's chagrin. In fact, the only scene in the movie involving flying brooms is when Fred and George disrupt the O.W.L.s exam, blast all the decrees Dolores Umbridge imposed, and then leave to open a joke shop in Diagon Alley. Of course, Rowling knew that the cut content couldn't be helped.

Whoever directed this clearly didn't read the actual book and ruined the plotline of the entire series, making it about the demigods overthrowing the Olympians. Every character is about five years older than they should be (12), Grover is Black, and this has literally nothing to do with Kronos trying to overthrow the Olympians.

What a tragedy. The book was phenomenal, and the movie just tore the entire plot to shreds. But they're coming out with a Disney+ series directed by Rick Riordan himself, so maybe we'll actually get to see a great film adaptation!