> -snip-
> ["If you're going to mess with the story, you shouldn't give the film the same title as the book"]
>
>
> This post reminded me of a time, a while ago, when I was thinking about movie adaptations that didn't stick to the stories they were adapted from. At the time, it seemed to me[1] that the best unfaithful movie adaptations -- the ones that weren't much like the book, but were great movies in their own right -- have been the ones that *aren't* named after the book that inspired them.
>
> _Blade Runner_ being an obvious example.
>
>
> Paul
>
> [1] I'm sure, now that I've said it, that someone will come up with a counterexample.

Just to give you your wish, I'll do my best: Shawshank Redemption. The original, however, was one of four novellas in a book by Stephen King (called Different Seasons) and the original story was titled "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption". So I guess the title there isn't even the same. But the movie was MUCH better than the original story.

Don "Read the story after seeing the movie expecting the usual 'Wow, the book is WAY better than the movie' and was severely disappointed" Monkey