Why do they change films adapted from Books?

[EvianBaby]

I watched My Sisters Keeper last night and was just reading about some of it online. I didn't realise it was based on a book and that the ending of the book was completely different to the ending of the film. I found the same when I read About A Boy after watching the film.

So, why do they change the endings so much? Is it that the ending of the books wouldn't fit well in a film or would just make a film drag on too long? Or do they just think they can re-write the original better?

[chaptazbru]

My Sister's Keeper tony ....

[bednobs]

hmm ive seen the films and read the books of about a boy AnD the horse whisperer and i don't remember them being different!

[mike11111]

I fear that the rot set in when A Tale of Two Cities appeared on the screen as : Carry On, Don't Lose Your Head!

[EvianBaby]

Been a while since I read About a Boy and cant remember exactly but in the book him and the girl run away, she goes a bit mental and smashes up a shop window.......I'll try and remember the rest.

[chaptazbru]

Evian - I read a book called Sleepers and the film was pretty true to the book, enjoyed it. Also The Memory Keeper's Daughter book and film were very similar, no major changes. Both good films (and books).

[jno]

EvianBaby, Lord of the Rings was remarkably close to the book, though a few things did get left out (not surprising given the length of the print trilogy). Monster success.

[jno]

incidentally, from the paper this week, this was the way they advertised the 1940 film of Pride and Prejudice:

"Five charming sisters (age 16-24) on the gayest, merriest manhunt that ever snared a bewildered bachelor. Girls, take a lesson from these husband-hunters."

Sounds good!

[LeMarchand]

As well as the aforementioned reasons, sometimes the changes are because what works in one medium doesn't in another. Jane Goldman's scripts for both "Stardust" and "Kick Ass" changed a number of things in ways that worked much better in a film. The ending of "Stardust" was much more fitting for a film than that of the book, though it did retain some of the tone.

I'd argue that some of the later "Harry Potter" films could have done with more deviation from the books (I can't believe they left in the tedious camping in the woods bit from the last book).

As for "unchanged" films, though some sections were cut for length "The Last Unicorn" was pretty close to the novel - even to the extent of whole swathes of dialogue. Mind you, the original author wrote the screenplay!