MovieChat Forums > Gulliver's Travels (2010) Discussion > How faithful is it to the book?

How faithful is it to the book?

posted 13 years ago by Bob_Saccamano
44 replies | jump to latest

I never like, read the book, but I thought the movie was awesome. I know that the book was written by an English dude, so I assume that Gulliver was not from New York but from like London or whatever. Were there like any other big changes from the book? Like, did Gulliver get the girl at the end? I know many movies have a happier ending than the book, so that's why I am wondering. Also, were all those pop culture references in the book as well? I am not sure, because OK, Star Wars is probably known in England as well, so the author could have seen the movies, but there was a line about Jack Bauer and that is a character from the American TV show "24" that English people probably don't know about, that's why I think that part wasn't in the book.

[–] number1212 13 years ago

I haven't seen the movie, but I do know that the part where he peed out the fire was from the book.

[–] karlbaird 13 years ago

It's a strong contender for the worst film Jack Black has ever made.

[–] cumpeled 10 years ago

Thank you. (Not to mention contender for worst movie ever made, with or without Black).

[–] McNuIty 13 years ago

I hope this post is a joke, if so, I have a feeling that the OP will agree with some of my statements below. Having said that: the book is from the 16th century, so it really doesn't matter if the English have heard of Starwars (which they of course have - come on(!)...). I have read the book, but I have however not seen the film.

The book is a brilliant satire on the whole of society, and really not for kids as it is very allegorical (and for todays readers; requires a lot of historical knowledge as well). So what pisses me off in general is that this book, written by the arguably best satirist of all time (Jonathan Swift), has in recent times been converted into nothing more than a 'childrens story' or light entertainment.. I fear Swifts intention has not only been lost in translation, but is all together missing. Thank you Hollywood. I am not going to criticize the film however, as I haven't seen it. Cannot imagine that it will ever make my dvd-collection though..

[–] ltarex 13 years ago

It's as faithful as Twilight is to Dracula. Both are about vampires. Both the book and the film are about a guy on the land of tiny people. That's where the similarities end.

"A voice from behind me reminds me. Spread out your wings you are an angel."

[–] Bob_Saccamano 13 years ago

I don't know what you are talking about. Twilight is not based on the movie Dracula, it's based on a book, also called "Twilight". I didn't read it, but my sister says it's awesome.

[–] TheIcon2 13 years ago

I don't know what you are talking about. Twilight is not based on the movie Dracula, it's based on a book, also called "Twilight". I didn't read it, but my sister says it's awesome.

Thats the point.

[–] hellspawned-1 13 years ago

Twilight is a washed out version of the grandiose and mystical vampire mythos, including but not exclusively, Dracula. That's the whole point. Most movies based on Gullivers Travels barely resemble the original, all the depth and witty, spot-on satire, lost, as Twilight takes a deep, thought-provoking book and turns it into a pointless emo-melodrama, sprinkled in glitter.

[–] Bob_Saccamano 13 years ago

16th century? Really? Wow, that's like super old!

[–] McNuIty 13 years ago

I have to make a side-note on my original post. Got my thoughts mixed up and went to the wrong side of the 1700s as i wrote my reply, lol. The book is from the beginning of the 18th century..

[–] SwaSwa 13 years ago

Nitpick: the book was written in the 18th century.

EDIT: I noticed you corrected yourself. Nevermiiind.

[–] brupey-1 12 years ago

The book is from like the 18th century!

[–] nateba 13 years ago

I never like, read the book, but I thought the movie was awesome.....that's why I think that part wasn't in the book.

All right, all right! We get it! Down boy!
By all accounts (if the box office speaks truly) we will not be subjected to the further adventures of Jack Black in Brobdingnag.

cinefreak

[–] mrconfusion87 13 years ago

Not too faithful, very loosely based - sort of how Jack Black would have written it!

When I saw Jack Black in the trailer for this, I knew the film was NOT meant to be taken seriously and go there just to laugh and laugh I did! very much! :D

The Joker: You prefer a magic trick, instead? Watch me make this pencil disappear

[–] nateba 13 years ago

The Ted Danson version, a TV movie from a couple years ago was not bad in terms of following the story. This version would appear to be more for fans of Jack Black then for fans of Jonathan Swift.

cinefreak

[–] FizzyGillespie 13 years ago

Not to scare you or anything, but the Ted Danson version turns 15 years old this year.

[–] nateba 13 years ago

Not to scare you or anything, but the Ted Danson version turns 15 years old this year.

I know you didn't mean to scare me but: uhuhuhu!!!!! (shudder!!!)

cinefreak

[–] GenericID 13 years ago

Jonathon Swift was Irish, not English. As was Bram Stoker, the guy who wrote Dracula.

It seemed crucial to say....

[–] ben101-1 13 years ago

"Jonathon Swift was Irish, not English. As was Bram Stoker, the guy who wrote Dracula"
Yeah ,pisses me off too when people presume they're english.

[–] stephen-brailsford 12 years ago

True swift was Irish, however Gulliver was not. The charicter is English and came from Nottingham. Small point, not wholey relivent, but valid none the less.

[–] ttaskmaster 11 years ago

'English' is often used interchangably with 'British', especially from those well outside the UK or general Commonwealth and, in the past, by those within it.
I dislike such usage intensely!!

The Spacehunter Forum:
http://spacehunter.phpbbhosts.co.uk/

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ilovesmovies 13 years ago

This poster can't be for real. It's very unlikely that Jonathan Swift watched Star Wars given that Gullivers Travels was written in the 1700's. And he won't have seen "24" either, although in England they do have TV and even that thing you americans call... the internet. And Jonathan Swift was Irish, not English. And had he been born today, he too would probably have seen star wars and "24" cos guess what, they have Cinema and "the internet" there too.

please tell me you were kidding.

[–] Hugehuw 13 years ago

I don't know where to start with this one... Bob, let me assure you that the English (that's me) have heard of Star Wars. Crikey, we've even heard of 24 (Season 3 is the best by the way. Controversial?).

The point with Dracula / Twilight was that Twilight is based on Vampires. Bram Stoker's Dracula was the first (literary) vampire story. Or in other words, there was a very limited connection between the two.

As to how the book ends - I really recommend that you read it. It's a classic, and really different from the film. It is worth the time, trust me

[–] Kiwi26 13 years ago

DO you really think the OP is going to read a book? Any book?

[–] jmcnamara-1 13 years ago

The OP has other options, like the various other film adaptaions, such as the 1939 Fleishcer animated film, or 1960's The 3 Worlds of Gulliver, or the 1996 Ted Danson miniseries.

[–] Bob_Saccamano 13 years ago

Hey, I resent that! I've read books. I have read the Bible. That's a book! I've read hundreds of Spider Man, X-Men and Daredevil books. I have also read dozens of Japanese books. Have you ever read a Japanese book? Just because I didn't know some Irish dude from the 17th century or whatever doesn't mean I am some kind of ignorant dumbass. Do you know every classical book there is? Like, if I say "The Divine Comedy", you would probably think it's a sitcom about a priest or whatever - but you would be wrong! It's a classical Italian book about a dude who travels to hell to rescue his beloved. I bet you didn't know that!

[–] fox13 13 years ago

You oviously didn't read The Divine Comedy. It's not a tale "about a dude who travels to hell to rescue his beloved". Maybe you did play Dante's Inferno on PS3 and tought it was like the book? It's not.

[–] grazianon2 12 years ago

dude, you're definitely trolling.

[–] ben101-1 13 years ago

"Bram Stoker's Dracula was the first (literary) vampire story"
Carmilla by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu predates Dracula by more than twenty years and i'm sure theres older stories than carmilla if you look hard enough.

[–] brushfyr 13 years ago

Wow... I find this really despressing. I wish the OP was a troll, but I think this was a real question. Crap, I'm going to eat something then try to forget I read this thread

[–] Dino_Riders 13 years ago

Man, I sure hope they were a troll, or it could be another sign of the western world's decline in education.

The book was written in 1726, and this takes place in the modern day, how similar can they really be? Does the OP really think they had iphones in 1726? lol

[–] bussemand 13 years ago

You could always click on OP's username and read his other comments...
I'd say we are dealing with a seasoned troll or at least one with some higher level of intelligence.
The troll is subtle but i give him 7/10, because people are still fairly quick to pick up on his trolling ways.

[–] fingerst 13 years ago

I don't think the OP is serious or trolling; it's satire that Swift himself would be proud of.

"Sir, let those laugh that win."- Barry Lyndon