Follow TV Tropes

Following

History AdaptationExplanationExtrication / LiveActionFilms

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** The films' prologue briefly explains the story of the 19 rings that were forged alongside the One Ring (three for the Elves, seven for the Dwarves, nine for the Men); while we're told that the nine human ring-bearers became the ''Nazgûl'' (Ringwraiths) after being corrupted by their rings, audiences who haven't read the books are left to wonder what happened to the other ten. The books explain that the Dwarves' seven rings were lost after their kingdoms were consumed by dragons, while Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel ''still'' have the Elves' three rings.[[note]] Gandalf was given the ring ''Narya'' by the Elf lord Círdan, Elrond inherited the ring ''Vilya'' from the Elf lord Gil-galad after his death, and Galadriel has carried the ring ''Nenya'' since it was forged.[[/note]] Extra-attentive viewers might notice those three characters wearing rings that resemble the ones donned by the Elves in the prologue, but might wonder why they're able to freely wear them without being corrupted. The answer is that the Elves' three rings are a separate class of rings that were forged by the Elf smith Celebrimbor rather than by Sauron, and they're impervious to Sauron's magic.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** For that matter, very little about [[BigBad Sauron]] is ever explained, leaving casual viewers who haven't read the books to wonder who (and what) he actually '''is''', and how he became so dangerously powerful. In a nutshell: he's one of several lesser deities called ''Valar'' (specifically, a lesser order of Valar called ''Maiar'') who serve Middle Earth's supreme creator god ''Eru Ilúvatar''. Long before the events of the story, he went rogue and joined another rogue Valar called Melkor (aka "Morgoth") as his [[TheDragon right-hand man]], and later [[DragonAscendant took up Morgoth's cause]] after he was defeated and exiled in his attempt to destroy the world. In other words: he's a FallenAngel in the vein of Lucifer.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The original ''X-Men'' trilogy might leave some viewers wondering how Professor Xavier can afford a sprawling Westchester mansion with its own stealth jet--since he has no apparent source of income, and doesn't appear to charge tuition to his students. The comics explain that he's the heir to a vast family fortune, and the mansion is an ancestral manor that's been in his family for five generations.[[note]] May overlap with AdaptationInducedPlotHole, since the movies' version of Xavier appears to be ''British'', yet somehow apparently inherited a mansion in upstate New York.[[/note]]
** The movies' portrayal of ComicBook/{{Cyclops}} keeps most of his notable traits from the comics, but they omit his backstory, leaving most of those traits unexplained. In particular: he's shown to be much closer to Professor Xavier than the other X-Men, and he [[BlessedWithSuck can't control his optic blasts]] (forcing him to wear his ruby quartz glasses constantly). The comics explain that he lost his parents in a plane crash when he was a child, and the Professor is [[ParentalSubstitute the closest thing he has to a father]]; he suffered significant brain damage in the crash, which left him permanently unable to control his powers when they manifested.

to:

** The original ''X-Men'' trilogy might leave some viewers wondering how Professor Xavier can afford a sprawling Westchester mansion with its own stealth jet--since he has no apparent source of income, and doesn't appear to charge his students tuition to his students.or board. The comics explain that he's the heir to a vast family fortune, and the mansion is an ancestral manor that's been in his family for five generations.[[note]] May overlap with AdaptationInducedPlotHole, since the movies' version of Xavier appears to be ''British'', yet somehow apparently inherited a mansion in upstate New York.[[/note]]
** The movies' portrayal of ComicBook/{{Cyclops}} keeps most of his notable traits from the comics, but they omit his backstory, leaving most of those traits unexplained. In particular: he's shown to be much closer to Professor Xavier than the other X-Men, and he [[BlessedWithSuck can't control his optic blasts]] (forcing him to wear his ruby quartz glasses constantly). at all times). The comics explain that he lost his parents in a plane crash when he was a child, and the Professor is [[ParentalSubstitute the closest thing he has to a father]]; he suffered significant brain damage head trauma in the crash, which left him permanently unable to control his powers when they manifested.



** ''Film/XMenDaysOfFuturePast'' is rather vague about why the Sentinels conquered all of humanity in the film's BadFuture, despite being designed solely to hunt and kill Mutants. The comic book storyline explains that it was a twisted case of GoneHorriblyRight: Bolivar Trask programmed his robots to stamp out the Mutant race by any means necessary, but didn't consider how many ordinary humans carried the "X-gene" that causes mutation; the Sentinels proved to be a little too good at their jobs, and eventually began building concentration camps for processing and detaining all humans with the X-gene.

to:

** ''Film/XMenDaysOfFuturePast'' is rather vague about why the Sentinels conquered all of humanity in the film's BadFuture, despite being designed solely to hunt and kill Mutants. The comic book storyline explains that it was a twisted case of GoneHorriblyRight: Bolivar Trask programmed his robots to stamp out the Mutant race by any means necessary, but didn't consider how many ordinary humans carried the recessive "X-gene" that causes mutation; the Sentinels proved to be a little too good at their jobs, and eventually began building concentration camps for processing and detaining all humans with the X-gene.X-gene, killing any humans who tried to stop them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Actually, Brock sees Peter unmasked in the church just prior to merging with the symbiote, while MJ being important to him isn’t particularly a secret in-universe.


** Besides the powers, the symbiote is supposed to retain the memories of the previous user. That's how Brock learns Spider-Man's secret identity and stuff like Mary Jane being important to him. Again the movie fails to establish these facts, so the climax feels even more tacked on.

Added: 502

Changed: 15

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The issue of Aragorn as heir to the throne of Gondor. If Boromir can recognise the heir of Isildur simply from the name 'Aragorn', then why isn't he king already? In the books, the issue is far more complicated; while Aragorn is the only surviving heir, he's only distantly related to the old Kings of Gondor, and he also comes from a line that had previously been excluded from the Gondorian succession. In fact, he's technically the heir of ''Arnor'', Gondor's northern counterpart that fell many centuries ago, which is only obliquely mentioned or implied a few times in the films. Gondor's line of kings actually descends from Anárion, Isildur's brother--meaning that Aragorn's claim to the throne is actually based on a lineage that split off three thousand years ago. (Arnor's last king, Arvedui, did have a valid claim on the throne due to having married Fíriel, but his claim was rejected due to Arnor's dire state at the time.) The movies explained this as Aragorn himself being reluctant to become king, for fear of falling to petty evil the same way his ancestor Isildur did.

to:

** The issue of Aragorn as heir to the throne of Gondor. If Boromir can recognise the heir of Isildur simply from the name 'Aragorn', then why isn't he king already? In the books, the issue is far more complicated; while Aragorn is the only surviving heir, he's only distantly related to the old Kings of Gondor, and he also comes from a line that had previously been excluded from the Gondorian succession. In fact, he's technically the heir of ''Arnor'', Gondor's northern counterpart that fell many centuries ago, which is only obliquely mentioned or implied a few times in the films. Gondor's line of kings actually descends from Anárion, Isildur's brother--meaning that Aragorn's claim to the throne is actually based on a lineage that split off three thousand years ago. (Arnor's last king, Arvedui, did have a valid claim on the throne due to having married the crown princess Fíriel, but his claim was rejected due to Arnor's dire state at the time.) The movies explained this as Aragorn himself being reluctant to become king, for fear of falling to petty evil the same way his ancestor Isildur did.


Added DiffLines:

** In both versions, Frodo attempts to share his lembas with Gollum, but Gollum immediately spits it out in disgust and explains that he can't eat elf food. It's not really explained in the films how Gollum is familiar with the taste of elven cooking, but in the books, Gollum is said to have been held captive in Mirkwood for a while, with him escaping shortly before the events of the story (in fact, Legolas's original reason for arriving at Rivendell was to inform Elrond and company of this fact).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** In the novel, Bob and friends freak out and get angry because Barris brings home an 18 speed bike he bought from someone, but Luckman only counts 9 gears (6 in back, 3 in front), leading them to think Barris got ripped off. Later, when Bob gets debriefed by his superiors, he's told that they're pulling him out because the drugs he uses while undercover are starting to affect his brain too much. They saw the group's reaction to the bike gears, due to the house being under surveillance, and they explain to Bob that the problem was that the group was adding the two sets of gears instead of multiplying them, which is how multiple speed bikes work. Bob's inability to figure out the problem indicates to them that his cognitive faculties are being eroded along with the other users. In the movie, this is not brought up in the debriefing, and the bicycle scene remains somewhat bizarre and unexplained.
** In a scene where the characters are riding in a tow truck after their car broke down on the highway, Luckman says "If I'd known it was harmless, I would have killed it myself." In the book, the statement is explained via {{Flashback}} as an in-joke among the group about how different classes of people view the world differently.[[labelnote:More detail]]At one time they hung out with a rich girl because she'd buy them drugs they normally couldn't afford, and she hung out with them so she could [[SlummingIt pretend she was part of the drug culture]]. One day she saw a bug crawling on a wall, and asked them to come in and kill it. They explained the bug wasn't dangerous, and in fact it's useful because it eats other bugs. She responded with the aforementioned quote.[[/labelnote]] In the movie, it just sounds like an incredibly random thing to say.

to:

** In the novel, Bob and friends freak out and get angry because Barris brings home an 18 speed 18-speed bike that he bought from someone, but Luckman only counts 9 gears (6 in back, 3 in front), leading them to think that Barris got ripped off. Later, when Bob gets debriefed In the book, this scene is intended to show that Bob's cognitive faculties are being eroded by his superiors, he's told that they're pulling him out because the drugs he uses drug use while undercover are starting to affect undercover, since he didn't realize that his brain too much. They saw friends were wrong about the group's reaction to the bike gears, due to the house being under surveillance, and bike: they explain to Bob that the problem was that the group was were adding the two sets of gears instead of multiplying them, which is how multiple speed multiple-speed bikes work. work (each gear in front connects to each gear in back). The movie keeps the scene where Bob's inability to figure out the problem indicates to them superiors explain that they're pulling him out due to his cognitive faculties are being eroded along with drug use affecting his brain, but they don't explain that they were tipped off by his reaction to the other users. In argument about the movie, this is not brought up in bike, leaving the debriefing, and the bicycle scene remains somewhat bizarre and unexplained.
** In a scene where the characters are riding in a tow truck after their car broke breaks down on the highway, Luckman says blurts out "If I'd known it was harmless, I would I'd have killed it myself." myself!" In the book, the statement is explained via {{Flashback}} {{flashback}} as an in-joke among the group about how different classes of people view the world differently.[[labelnote:More detail]]At differently: one time they hung out with of their old housemates was a spoiled rich girl because she'd buy them drugs they normally couldn't afford, and she hung who once freaked out with them so she could [[SlummingIt pretend she was part of the drug culture]]. One day when she saw a bug crawling climbing on a the wall, and asked them the others to come in and kill it. They it; when they explained that the bug wasn't dangerous, and in fact it's useful because was harmless, she replied ''"If I'd known it eats other bugs. She responded with the aforementioned quote.[[/labelnote]] In the movie, was harmless, I'd have killed it just sounds like an incredibly random thing to say.myself!"''.

Added: 366

Changed: 126

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The T-rex only being able to see things that were moving was also in the book, but there it was shown to be a result of the dinosaurs' impure genetic makeup, which resulted in various health issues such as poor vision. In the movie, Grant immediately deduces that it can't see them if they're standing still, and it's treated as an in-universe paleontology fact.



*** This question was compounded when ''Film/JurassicWorld'' established that Isla Nublar did survive in the movie continuity.

to:

*** This question was compounded when ''Film/JurassicWorld'' established that Isla Nublar did survive in the movie continuity.continuity, meaning that either the bombing did not take place in the movie canon, or the damage from it was less than one would expect.

Changed: 167

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* In the 1995 adaptation of ''Literature/ALittlePrincess'', Sara wakes up to find her attic room filled with food, clothing and other luxuries. In the book, these things were brought to her in secret over a number of weeks by Ram Dass, the Indian man living next door, while she slept. In the film, they're just ''there'' with no explanation. Ram Dass is however implied to [[MagicRealism be magical in some way]], as it's also he who [[spoiler: helps Sara's amnesiac father to remember her [[SparedByTheAdaptation (he died in the book)]].]]

to:

* In the 1995 adaptation of ''Literature/ALittlePrincess'', ''Film/ALittlePrincess1995'', Sara wakes up to find her attic room filled with food, clothing and other luxuries. In the book, these things were brought to her in secret over a number of weeks by Ram Dass, the Indian man living next door, while she slept. In the film, they're just ''there'' with no explanation. Ram Dass is however implied to [[MagicRealism be magical in some way]], as it's also he who [[spoiler: helps Sara's amnesiac father to remember her [[SparedByTheAdaptation (he died in the book)]].]] way]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* ''Film/{{Hombre}}'': In the movie, the bandits who rob the stagecoach know that Mr. Favor, the Indian agent who is one of the passengers, is a crook who has been embezzling from the funds he is supposed to be using to feed the Apache on the reservation. How do they know this? The movie doesn't explain but the source novel by Creator/ElmoreLeonard does, saying that one of the bandits used to work for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, procuring beef for the reservation, and found out that Favor was skimming off funds.

Removed: 722

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
the Hollywood Tactics in Starship Troopers were intentional; the characters are meant to be blundering idiots.


* ''Film/StarshipTroopers'', adaptation of ''Literature/StarshipTroopers'' had the Mobile Infantry fighting battles that were ''extremely'' unsound tactically. Infantry, unsupported by armor or artillery, making direct frontal attacks on a numerically-superior enemy? HollywoodTactics at their worst. ''However'', it's also true to the book... sort of. The Mobile Infantry ''did'' operate without armor support, but only because their powered armor suits let the MI itself fill the traditional roles of [[SwissArmyWeapon armor, artillery, and even close air support (up to and including nuclear weapons.)]] When the powered armor was taken out of the movie, the justification for the MI operating unsupported went with it.

Changed: 161

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The issue of Aragorn as heir to the throne of Gondor. If Boromir can recognise the heir of Isildur simply from the name 'Aragorn', then why isn't he king already? In the books, the issue is far more complicated; while Aragorn is the only surviving heir, he's only distantly related to the old Kings of Gondor, and he also comes from a line that had previously been excluded from the Gondorian succession. In fact, he's technically the heir of ''Arnor'', Gondor's northern counterpart that fell many centuries ago, which is only obliquely mentioned or implied a few times in the films. Gondor's line of kings actually descends from Anárion, Isildur's brother--meaning that Aragorn's claim to the throne is actually based on a lineage that split off three thousand years ago. The movies explained this as Aragorn himself being reluctant to become king, for fear of falling to petty evil the same way his ancestor Isildur did.

to:

** The issue of Aragorn as heir to the throne of Gondor. If Boromir can recognise the heir of Isildur simply from the name 'Aragorn', then why isn't he king already? In the books, the issue is far more complicated; while Aragorn is the only surviving heir, he's only distantly related to the old Kings of Gondor, and he also comes from a line that had previously been excluded from the Gondorian succession. In fact, he's technically the heir of ''Arnor'', Gondor's northern counterpart that fell many centuries ago, which is only obliquely mentioned or implied a few times in the films. Gondor's line of kings actually descends from Anárion, Isildur's brother--meaning that Aragorn's claim to the throne is actually based on a lineage that split off three thousand years ago. (Arnor's last king, Arvedui, did have a valid claim on the throne due to having married Fíriel, but his claim was rejected due to Arnor's dire state at the time.) The movies explained this as Aragorn himself being reluctant to become king, for fear of falling to petty evil the same way his ancestor Isildur did.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* ''Film/MinorityReport'' completely did away with the ending of the short story due to its MindScrew nature. In the short story TheReveal is that there were ''three'' minority reports, the first pre-cog reported a future where Anderton committed a murder, the second a future where Anderton read the first report and refused to commit the murder, and the third a future where he read both the two earlier reports and committed the murder; three very different futures, and some of them contingent on predictions of the others. It is also mentioned that the only reason this could happen is that Anderton, as head of Pre-Crime, had access to the raw data from the pre-cogs rather than the cleaned-up version from the analysis computer. The film favors a far simpler turn of events that places less importance on how Pre-Crime actually works. There Anderton accidentally awakens a precog, who shows him a vision of her mother's murder - which was arranged by the BigBad. Anderton retrieves the vision and shows it to the BigBad - who then decides HeKnowsTooMuch, and hires a junkie to confess to the murder of Anderton's son, the one thing that would drive Anderton to murder.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
As the example states: Top Gun isn't an adaptation. Since the explanation hinges on a Real Life fact, this sounds more like an example of a Genius Bonus. It would probably fit better on that page.


* ''Film/TopGun'': For an "adaptation" from RealLife, the WhatTheHellHero speech that Viper gives Maverick and Goose after his first training flight against Jester. The film fails to fully explain why Viper is angry at Maverick for pursuing Jester below the hard-deck: it makes it sound like Jester was trying to be a RulesLawyer. Under real air combat training rules, going below the hard-deck is equivalent to ''crashing''--the hard deck is meant to represent the ground--meaning that Mav won the encounter by default when Jester went below 10,000 feet, but chose to pursue him for an air-to-air kill anyway because of his ego (which possibly implies that Viper and Jester were trying to bait Mav into breaking a rule so they'd have an excuse to take him down a notch).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** [[ColorCodedForYourConvenience The significance of various colors]] was always a central part of the Oz mythos in the books, as Oz was portrayed as a society built around the celebration of color and beauty. This is why some of the most iconic elements of the story are instantly identifiable by their color: Dorothy wears [[IconicOutfit a blue gingham dress and red ruby slippers]] [[note]]Though they were silver shoes in the book[[/note]], she travels along a yellow brick road to reach a city of green emeralds, there's a deliberate shot of a red brick road that leads in the opposite direction from the yellow brick road, and [[DeliberatelyMonochrome scenes in Oz are filmed in color while scenes in Kansas are filmed in monochrome]]. The movie retains the original book's striking use of color, but it generally doesn't explain ''why'' the various colors are significant. In the book, the Munchkins instantly trust Dorothy because she wears blue, which is the color of Munchkinland; various characters assume that Dorothy is a witch because her dress is patterned with white checks, and only sorceresses wear white; the Yellow Brick Road is yellow because it leads to Winkie Country (the land west of Munchkinland ruled by the Wicked Witch), whose color is yellow; the Red Brick Road in Munchkinland leads to Quadling Country, whose color is red; and the Emerald City is green because it's an independent capital city that lies at the center of the four regions of Oz, and thus has its own color.

to:

** [[ColorCodedForYourConvenience The significance of various colors]] was always a central part of the Oz mythos in the books, as Oz was portrayed as a society built around the celebration of color and beauty. This is why some of the most iconic elements of the story are instantly identifiable by their color: Dorothy wears [[IconicOutfit a blue gingham dress and red ruby slippers]] [[note]]Though slippers]][[note]]Though they were silver shoes in the book[[/note]], she travels along a yellow brick road to reach a city of green emeralds, there's a deliberate shot of a red brick road that leads in the opposite direction from the yellow brick road, and [[DeliberatelyMonochrome scenes in Oz are filmed in color while scenes in Kansas are filmed in monochrome]]. The movie retains the original book's striking use of color, but it generally doesn't explain ''why'' the various colors are significant. In the book, the Munchkins instantly trust Dorothy because she wears blue, which is the color of Munchkinland; various characters assume that Dorothy is a witch because her dress is patterned with white checks, and only sorceresses wear white; the Yellow Brick Road is yellow because it leads to Winkie Country (the land west of Munchkinland ruled by the Wicked Witch), whose color is yellow; the Red Brick Road in Munchkinland leads to Quadling Country, whose color is red; and the Emerald City is green because it's an independent capital city that lies at the center of the four regions of Oz, and thus has its own color.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
fixed grammar


** In the book, Bill the Pony is much more fleshed out as a character. The Hobbits buy him (for three times his value) after their own horses are set free while they're staying in Bree. His poor health improves in Rivendell, and when the kraken-like creature in the lake outside Moria attacks, Sam thinks BIll is killed by it, and grieves for him. In the movie, Sam sets Bill free before they get to Moria, and appears like he was just really attached to the animal for no real reason.

to:

** In the book, Bill the Pony is much more fleshed out as a character. The Hobbits buy him (for three times his value) after their own horses are set free while they're staying in Bree. His poor health improves in Rivendell, and when the kraken-like creature in the lake outside Moria attacks, Sam thinks BIll Bill is killed by it, and grieves for him. In the movie, Sam sets Bill free before they get to Moria, and appears like he was just really attached to the animal for no real reason.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** In the book, Bill the Pony is much more fleshed out as a character. The Hobbits buy him (for three times his value) after their own horses are set free while they're staying in Bree. His poor health improves in Rivendell, and when the kraken-like creature in the lake outside Moria attacks, Sam thinks BIll is killed by it, and grieves for him. In the movie, Sam sets Bill free before they get to Moria, and appears like he was just really attached to the animal for no real reason.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** The movie also never explains why the female Tribute from District 5 is called Foxface. In the book, it's a nickname Katniss assigns to the girl (due to her sly, fox-like appearance) because she doesn't know her name. In the movie characters just call her that, making it seem like her parents named her that for some reason.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* When Creator/StanleyKubrick adapted ''Film/TheShining'', he did this with several plot points. Kubrick cut out the explanation of who "Tony" is, the story of the dead lady in the bathtub, and the story of the fellow in the dog costume that Horace Derwent debases--but he left all of those moments in the movie, without explanation. He also revised the story's climax, cutting out the exploding boiler, but still took care to show the boiler in a couple of scenes. It's fairly likely that the absence of explanation for most of these elements was deliberate, though, [[Administrivia/TropesAreTools since the lack of exposition adds to the film's mystery and ability to shock the audience.]]

to:

* When Creator/StanleyKubrick adapted ''Film/TheShining'', he did this with several plot points. Kubrick cut out Creator/StanleyKubrick's ''Film/TheShining'' turns some plotlines from the explanation book--mentions of who "Tony" is, the story of "Tony", the dead lady in the bathtub, and the story of the fellow in the dog costume that Horace Derwent debases--but he left all of those moments in the movie, without explanation.debases--into bizarre one-off scenes. He also revised the story's climax, cutting out the exploding boiler, but still took care to show the boiler in a couple of scenes. It's fairly likely that the absence of explanation for most of these elements was deliberate, though, [[Administrivia/TropesAreTools since the lack of exposition adds to the film's mystery and ability to shock the audience.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''Film/BladeRunner'' is loosly based on the novel ''Literature/DoAndroidsDreamOfElectricSheep'', where it was a major plot point that most of the world's animals have gone extinct; the novel explains that owning live animals is a popular social trend, and people regularly buy robotic facsimiles of animals if they can't afford real ones. The movie doesn't really explain this, but keeps a couple of references to it. For example: Tyrell owns a robotic owl, and Zhora uses a robotic snake in her dance act (commenting ''"If I could afford a real snake, do you think I'd be working here?"'' when Deckard asks if it's real). One of the questions in Rachael's Voight-Kampff test also hinges on the idea that collecting dead butterflies would be a sick thing for a child to do, while another hinges on the fact that owning calfskin items is illegal.

to:

* ''Film/BladeRunner'' is loosly loosely based on the novel ''Literature/DoAndroidsDreamOfElectricSheep'', where it was it's a major plot point that most of the world's animals have gone extinct; the novel explains that owning live animals is a popular social trend, trend due to animals' rarity, and people regularly buy robotic facsimiles of animals if they can't afford real ones. The movie doesn't really explain this, but keeps a couple of references to it. For example: Tyrell owns a robotic owl, and Zhora uses a robotic snake in her dance act (commenting ''"If I could afford a real snake, do you think I'd be working here?"'' when Deckard asks if it's real). One of the questions in Rachael's Voight-Kampff test also hinges on the idea that collecting dead butterflies would be a sick thing for a child to do, while another hinges on the fact that owning calfskin items is illegal.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* ''Literature/TheHuntForRedOctober'': In the book, Ramius blames the Soviet state for his wife's death due to a botched surgery (caused by a combination of poor-quality medicine and the incompetence of a drunk doctor who avoids any prosecution because he's politically well-connected) as well as the state's prohibition on religion denying him the means to assuage his grief. In the film, Jack only says that Ramius is defecting on the anniversary of his wife's death, without giving any explanation for why his wife's death triggered such an action.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''Film/BladeRunner'': [[Literature/DoAndroidsDreamOfElectricSheep The book]] made a big deal about how real animals have almost died off and everyone is socially obliged to own one to show off their "empathy". The movie doesn't really explain this but keeps a couple of references to it -- the artificial owl and someone's reaction that collecting (and killing) butterflies would be a sick thing for a child to do. The latter especially is a bit random without the explanation.

to:

* ''Film/BladeRunner'': [[Literature/DoAndroidsDreamOfElectricSheep The book]] made ''Film/BladeRunner'' is loosly based on the novel ''Literature/DoAndroidsDreamOfElectricSheep'', where it was a big deal about how real major plot point that most of the world's animals have almost died off gone extinct; the novel explains that owning live animals is a popular social trend, and everyone is socially obliged to own one to show off their "empathy". people regularly buy robotic facsimiles of animals if they can't afford real ones. The movie doesn't really explain this this, but keeps a couple of references to it -- it. For example: Tyrell owns a robotic owl, and Zhora uses a robotic snake in her dance act (commenting ''"If I could afford a real snake, do you think I'd be working here?"'' when Deckard asks if it's real). One of the artificial owl and someone's reaction questions in Rachael's Voight-Kampff test also hinges on the idea that collecting (and killing) dead butterflies would be a sick thing for a child to do. The latter especially is a bit random without do, while another hinges on the explanation.fact that owning calfskin items is illegal.



** It's explained in the book that the White Witch's Turkish Delight is [[VerySpecialEpisode instantly addictive]], making Edmund's betrayal over a supply of candy seem far less petty.

to:

** It's explained in the book that the White Witch's Turkish Delight is [[VerySpecialEpisode [[GRatedDrug instantly addictive]], making Edmund's betrayal over a supply of candy seem far less petty.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The 1939 film version portrays the Winged Monkeys as the unquestioningly loyal servants of the Wicked Witch of the West, but never wastes any time explaining ''how'' they came into her service (the fact that they're her {{Mooks}} is presumably enough explanation for most people). But Creator/LFrankBaum's original novel, ''Literature/TheWonderfulWizardOfOz'', specifically explained that the Monkeys were bound to obey the Witch's commands because she possessed a magical golden cap that gave her power over them. It also explained that they ''weren't'' technically her Mooks, as they were only required to obey three commands from the bearer of the golden cap; the Witch used up her last command when she had the Monkeys capture Dorothy and her friends.

to:

** The 1939 film version portrays the Winged Monkeys as the unquestioningly loyal servants of the Wicked Witch of the West, but never wastes any time explaining ''how'' they came into her service (the fact that they're her {{Mooks}} is presumably enough explanation for most people). But Creator/LFrankBaum's original novel, ''Literature/TheWonderfulWizardOfOz'', specifically explained that the Monkeys were bound to obey the Witch's commands because she possessed a magical golden cap that gave her power over them. It also explained that they ''weren't'' technically her Mooks, as they were only required to obey three commands from the bearer of the golden cap; the Witch used up her last command when she had the Monkeys capture Dorothy and her friends. Since the whole Golden Cap thing is largely a ChekhovsGun that pays off in a story arc that was excluded from the film, it's not really needed in the film anyway.

Changed: 369

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The issue of Aragorn as heir to the throne of Gondor. If Boromir can recognise the heir of Isildur simply from the name 'Aragorn', then why isn't he king already? In the books, the issue is far more complicated; while Aragorn is the only surviving heir, he's only distantly related to the old Kings of Gondor, and he also comes from a line that had previously been excluded from the Gondorian succession. The movies explained this as Aragorn himself being reluctant to become king, for fear of falling to petty evil the same way his ancestor Isildur did.

to:

** The issue of Aragorn as heir to the throne of Gondor. If Boromir can recognise the heir of Isildur simply from the name 'Aragorn', then why isn't he king already? In the books, the issue is far more complicated; while Aragorn is the only surviving heir, he's only distantly related to the old Kings of Gondor, and he also comes from a line that had previously been excluded from the Gondorian succession. In fact, he's technically the heir of ''Arnor'', Gondor's northern counterpart that fell many centuries ago, which is only obliquely mentioned or implied a few times in the films. Gondor's line of kings actually descends from Anárion, Isildur's brother--meaning that Aragorn's claim to the throne is actually based on a lineage that split off three thousand years ago. The movies explained this as Aragorn himself being reluctant to become king, for fear of falling to petty evil the same way his ancestor Isildur did.

Added: 771

Changed: 1

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* The film adaptation of ''Literature/{{Timeline}}'' foregoes the language difficulties presented in the book. In the book, the medieval characters speak a mixture of Middle English, Old French, Occitan and Latin, with the time travelers needing earpiece translators to understand them while they themselves struggle to be understood. In the film, the medievals simply speak modern English and French and have no trouble understanding the time travelers.

to:

* The film adaptation of ''Literature/{{Timeline}}'' foregoes the language difficulties presented in the book. In the book, the medieval characters speak a mixture of Middle English, Old French, Occitan and Latin, with the time travelers needing earpiece translators to understand them while they themselves struggle to be understood. In the film, the medievals simply speak modern English and French and have no trouble understanding the time travelers.travelers..
* ''Film/TopGun'': For an "adaptation" from RealLife, the WhatTheHellHero speech that Viper gives Maverick and Goose after his first training flight against Jester. The film fails to fully explain why Viper is angry at Maverick for pursuing Jester below the hard-deck: it makes it sound like Jester was trying to be a RulesLawyer. Under real air combat training rules, going below the hard-deck is equivalent to ''crashing''--the hard deck is meant to represent the ground--meaning that Mav won the encounter by default when Jester went below 10,000 feet, but chose to pursue him for an air-to-air kill anyway because of his ego (which possibly implies that Viper and Jester were trying to bait Mav into breaking a rule so they'd have an excuse to take him down a notch).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* ''Film/OnceUponATime2017'' leaves out so much of the source novel, ''To the Sky Kingdom'', that you'd have to either read the novel or watch the more faithful adaptation ''Series/TenMilesOfPeachBlossoms'' just to understand what's happening. Among ''many'' other things, the film doesn't explain who Mo Yuan is, why Bai Qian keeps his body in a block of ice, or why Qing Cang was imprisoned in the bell.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* ''Film/ZackSnydersJusticeLeague'': The lines of the "reactionary terrorists" Wonder Woman fights are changed, omitting mention of them blaming the [[Film/ManOfSteel Kryptonian]] [[Film/BatmanVSupermanDawnOfJustice attacks]] as retribution against modern technology, making them more like TerroristsWithoutACause now.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* ''Film/TheMartian'': A couple of examples of this trope create minor FridgeLogic moments for anyone who hasn't read the book.
** Mark Watney never makes any attempt to search for the communications antenna that was torn away in the severe wind-storm that got him stranded on Mars in the first place. This is never touched on in dialogue, but in his first log entry in the book he rules out the idea as impractical: Not only could it have been blown anywhere within a search area of several square kilometres but it's almost certainly completely buried in sand. And it's a line-of-sight microwave dish, not something he could jury-rig a substitute for with spare electrical cable.
** Some people also noticed that living on nothing but potatoes would leave Mark dead from various vitamin deficiencies long before he could be rescued. This is something he brings up when planning the improvised potato farm: The food NASA sent along on the mission was chosen to be calorie-dense and shelf-stable first, nutritionally balanced second, so their supplies also included an abundance of multivitamin tablets.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* ''Film/{{Watchmen}}'':
** The movie never explains how the distinctive blots on Rorschach's mask constantly shift and move, leaving some viewers to wonder how a dirt-poor street vigilante got his hands on such a seemingly advanced piece of synthetic fabric (especially since the story takes place in the 1980s, when such materials weren't widely available). The book explains that it's one of many synthetic materials developed through Doctor Manhattan's experiments with physical matter, and Rorschach acquired it when he was working in a garment shop before becoming a crime-fighter.[[note]] The fabric was originally intended to be used in a dress, but the buyer returned it because she didn't like how it looked. Rorschach claims that the buyer was none other than [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese Kitty Genovese]], whose brutal murder partly inspired his black-and-white view of morality.[[/note]]
** The movie leaves it somewhat ambiguous why Laurie decides to move in with Dan so soon after Doctor Manhattan leaves Earth, seemingly implying that she's just lonely and seeking solace. The book explains that she was previously kept on retainer by Doctor Manhattan's handlers in the military, who encouraged their relationship in hopes that she could keep him from becoming too detached from humanity. After Manhattan leaves, the military cuts off her expense account and kicks her out of Rockefeller Military Research Center, leaving her jobless and homeless.[[note]] The Director's Cut includes an additional scene where Laurie flees the base after two soldiers attempt to interrogate her, possibly implying that she also fears for her safety.[[/note]]
** The movie explains very little about Edgar Jacobi (aka "Moloch the Mystic") beyond vaguely implying the he's a former enemy of Rorschach and company. In the book, Hollis Mason's in-universe biography ''Under the Hood'' explains that he's a former crime lord who got his start as a stage magician, and eventually got rich by running vice operations out of the nightclubs where he performed his magic act.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* David Lynch's adaptation of ''Film/{{Dune}}'' is one big mess of this. Hardly anything is given a proper explanation, and the film even features a few setups to plot threads whose payoffs are not included.

to:

* David Lynch's adaptation of ''Film/{{Dune}}'' Creator/DavidLynch's ''Film/Dune1984'' is one big mess of this. Hardly anything is given a proper explanation, and the film even features a few setups to plot threads whose payoffs are not included.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* ''Film/TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy'' has Ford approaching Arthur with a shopping trolley filled with cans of beer and packets of peanuts. In the [[Literature/TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy book]] he explains that these are necessary for combatting TeleportationSickness but not here. With teleportation not being mentioned, we also aren't told how Arthur and Ford got on board the Vogon ship.

Top