surprisingly bad adaptations

[dehro]

..or maybe not so surprising, if not to se just how they've gone and ruined something well beyond how one thought it could be possible to ruin something.
since we have one for good adaptations...

I'll throw a few in straight away:

avatar the last airbender: the movie. it was never not going to suck..but the sheer ammount of suckage exceeds the darkest expectations

Eragon.. the book was..enjoyable. the movie was a waste of time and money.

the league of extraordinary gentlemen..,.. tom sawyer??? and poor old Sean Connery said no to playing gandalf for this crap?

the D&D movies :smallbiggrin:...sooo bad!

[Arcane_Secrets]

..or maybe not so surprising, if not to se just how they've gone and ruined something well beyond how one thought it could be possible to ruin something.
since we have one for good adaptations...

I'll throw a few in straight away:

avatar the last airbender: the movie. it was never not going to suck..but the sheer ammount of suckage exceeds the darkest expectations

Eragon.. the book was..enjoyable. the movie was a waste of time and money.

the league of extraordinary gentlemen..,.. tom sawyer??? and poor old Sean Connery said no to playing gandalf for this crap?

the D&D movies :smallbiggrin:...sooo bad!

Battlefield Earth. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was bad...but it was at least 'watch it once through' bad and be grateful that it was on television so you didn't pay money for it.

In comparison, Battlefield Earth is pure nausea-inducing, change the channel bad.

[GoblinArchmage]

the D&D movies :smallbiggrin:...sooo bad!

I don't know what you are talking about. Wrath of the Dragon God was awesome. I've never seen the first one, though.

[Cikomyr]

The animated version of The Lord of the Rings

Starship Troopers ; The Movie

[comicshorse]

The animated version of The Lord of the Rings

Starship Troopers ; The Movie

Gotta say I quite liked both of those

Hated the 'Hitchhikers' movie though. They did know it was meant to be funny , right ?

[dehro]

Battlefield Earth. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was bad...but it was at least 'watch it once through' bad and be grateful that it was on television so you didn't pay money for it.

In comparison, Battlefield Earth is pure nausea-inducing, change the channel bad.

are you saying the book is good though?

[Cikomyr]

are you saying the book is good though?

I give the point to Dehro

[Dr.Epic]

the league of extraordinary gentlemen..,.. tom sawyer??? and poor old Sean Connery said no to playing gandalf for this crap?

It's worse when you take a look at the comic by Alan Moore. PG13 my butt. Also, WHO'S BRIGHT IDEA WAS IT TO MAKE MINA A VAMPIRE!?!?!?!?!?:smallfurious: Let's take the best character from the series, and give her a trait that undermines the reason why she's the best character from the series.


the D&D movies :smallbiggrin:...sooo bad!

Second one is at least based on the actual game.

Also, Wanted. Let's take a great comic with an amazing, original concept and just turn it into another stupid, generic (dull) action film that rips most of its ideas off from the Matrix and has bland characters.

[Tavar]

The Redwall cartoon that aired at some point. It seems to drag on and on regarding non-canon filler parts, and then speed through the canon parts.

[Pokonic]

The Redwall cartoon that aired at some point. It seems to drag on and on regarding non-canon filler parts, and then speed through the canon parts.

By contrast, the episodes of Watership Down a freind of mine has managed to preserve are almost Disney-quality.

[tensai_oni]

There's such a thing as a surprisingly bad adaptation? I always assume they're horrible until I see proof to the contrary.

[Devonix]

I don't know what you are talking about. Wrath of the Dragon God was awesome. I've never seen the first one, though.

I actually don't quite get this. I've seen both movies and HATED Wrath of the Dragon God.

The first one however is one of those Bad but fun movies. I didn't see it as an actual Adventure story, instead I saw it as a group of first time gamers or such just playing in an adventure module. Snails stole the show as I have seen many Rogues played just like him.

[Devonix]

It's worse when you take a look at the comic by Alan Moore. PG13 my butt. Also, WHO'S BRIGHT IDEA WAS IT TO MAKE MINA A VAMPIRE!?!?!?!?!?:smallfurious: Let's take the best character from the series, and give her a trait that undermines the reason why she's the best character from the series.



Second one is at least based on the actual game.

Also, Wanted. Let's take a great comic with an amazing, original concept and just turn it into another stupid, generic (dull) action film that rips most of its ideas off from the Matrix and has bland characters.
Seconded for Wanted. He's the Villan part of the point of it is at the end you realize that he's a complete jerkass evil guy and is giving you the reader the finger. And you love him for it.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I actually don't quite get this. I've seen both movies and HATED Wrath of the Dragon God.

The first one however is one of those Bad but fun movies. I didn't see it as an actual Adventure story, instead I saw it as a group of first time gamers or such just playing in an adventure module. Snails stole the show as I have seen many Rogues played just like him.

See, that's why I liked WotDG. It played out exactly like a D&D campaign, albeit with one player's girlfriend stuck in a side adventure the whole time.

[Dr.Epic]

I'm tempted to say Treasure Planet. I love the film, but considering the setting, it's technically a bad adaptation.

[The Glyphstone]

It's The Gamers with a much bigger budget, which might be why some people dislike it (as something on a far smaller budget outdid it in humor), but I enjoyed it thoroughly.


On-topic, Howard The Duck.:smallbiggrin:

[Devonix]

See, that's why I liked WotDG. It played out exactly like a D&D campaign, albeit with one player's girlfriend stuck in a side adventure the whole time.

I agree that WotDG is better rules and setting wise. But it just felt off. and was trying a bit too hard to be serious for me to take it as an actual D&D campaign. There was none of the silly stuff and player comraderie that you get in the other movie.

[Cazaril]

There's such a thing as a surprisingly bad adaptation? I always assume they're horrible until I see proof to the contrary.

My general attitude exactly...

For something that actually was worse than my expectations: I was pretty excited about the Prince Caspian movie before it came out, because the first Narnia movie was such a good adaptation. And then they went and put in an entirely useless battle scene that had absolutely nothing to do with what happened in the book. I was pretty grumpy about it. :smallannoyed:

[t209]

I'm tempted to say Treasure Planet. I love the film, but considering the setting, it's technically a bad adaptation.

But I love this movie!
I think Super Mario Brothers and Doom movie is the worst adaption ever!

[STsinderman]

Both modern Fantastic Four movies were terrible and the second Iron Man was pretty tragic. Though with those exceptions most of the recent marvel adaptations have been very well craft and I am greatly looking forward to the avengers movie.

[Traab]

The vast majority of all video game adaptations of movies. Especially the ones that are themselves adaptations of books/comics. Honestly, a shorter list would be to say how many DIDNT stink. The developers were basically hired for cheap and not asked to do much, because it doesnt matter, it says spiderman/ironman/harry potter on the cover, so everyone will buy it no matter what.

[Arcane_Secrets]

are you saying the book is good though?

That's a good point:

No, I'm not. However, what I'm saying is that they still managed to take a bad, overly long book, and turned it into a movie that was legendarily even worse.

[dehro]

There's such a thing as a surprisingly bad adaptation? I always assume they're horrible until I see proof to the contrary.

there is to the extent that they manage to ruin even the least "ruinable" things in the source material.
for example in Avatar they manage to **** up the special effects, wich was expected, but they also manage to ruin the characters, the plot and generally make as bad a movie as is possible..which must have exceded just about anyone's expectations.

[Krazzman]

Both modern Fantastic Four movies were terrible and the second Iron Man was pretty tragic. Though with those exceptions most of the recent marvel adaptations have been very well craft and I am greatly looking forward to the avengers movie.

I have to disagree here... except for Captain America (which was mostly propagandistic bull....) the last bad Marvel movie I can remember is Electra.

[Mauve Shirt]

All of the Harry Potter movies that weren't exactly like I wanted them to be!!!!
Yes I know that's ridiculous. But I'm not talking "that room looked better in my mind." I'm talking "You left out some important parts and I am disappoint."
They aren't "surprisingly bad" though... I had really high expectations.

[Omergideon]

My general attitude exactly...

For something that actually was worse than my expectations: I was pretty excited about the Prince Caspian movie before it came out, because the first Narnia movie was such a good adaptation. And then they went and put in an entirely useless battle scene that had absolutely nothing to do with what happened in the book. I was pretty grumpy about it. :smallannoyed:

I would say that the added scene worked for the film on a thematic level, and was also fun to watch. Not in the source material of course, but it was something I thought added to the film rather than detracting from it. Also, if Caspian had not been a moron then it would have worked I think. Twas a decent plan.


Anyway, a suprisingly BAD adaptation........hm............not sure I can think of any here. I was not suprised by most of the poor adaptations.

[The Glyphstone]

I have to disagree here... except for Captain America (which was mostly propagandistic bull....) the last bad Marvel movie I can remember is Electra.

And Captain America was awesome...propagandist? Of course it was propagandist, the main character walks around wearing an American flag and punching Nazis! You can't get more propagandist than Captain America, it's kinda the reason the character exists.:smallbiggrin:

[Cheesegear]

I was absolutely horrified by the Dragonlance movie. HOW DO YOU MESS UP DRAGONLANCE!? DRAGONLANCE!!!

Otherwise, a legitimately surprisingly bad adapation, as in, I was surprised that it was so bad was Ghost Rider. Nicholas Cage is a confirmed comics fan (, and Ghost Rider is one of his favorites - even having a Ghost Rider tattoo - and that was pretty much the reason why he wanted the part so bad. ...So why did it all go completely wrong?

Also the Ultramarines movie. Bad.

[horngeek]

My general attitude exactly...

For something that actually was worse than my expectations: I was pretty excited about the Prince Caspian movie before it came out, because the first Narnia movie was such a good adaptation. And then they went and put in an entirely useless battle scene that had absolutely nothing to do with what happened in the book. I was pretty grumpy about it. :smallannoyed:

To be fair, Prince Caspian was never going to be entirely faithful to the book, due to the lack of real urgency in the book. You need to add some sort of driving force.

Although... a glorified fetch quest?

Really, guys? I mean, I still liked it, but...

[grolim]

For me it's Dune. The only saving graces for that movie is they nailed the casting and the look with the wardrobe and the sets. But the script was beyond salvaging. It had almost nothing to do with the books and while I understand with such a long book you have to make some cuts they cut a LOT of plot important parts and left in useless fluff.

Also two words.....weirding modules! 'nuff said.

[Sunken Valley]

Percy Jackson.

Percy Jackson.

Percy Jackson.

Percy Jacksooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon!

Also Golden Compass and the BBC adaption of Framed

[Traab]

I was absolutely horrified by the Dragonlance movie. HOW DO YOU MESS UP DRAGONLANCE!? DRAGONLANCE!!!

Otherwise, a legitimately surprisingly bad adapation, as in, I was surprised that it was so bad was Ghost Rider. Nicholas Cage is a confirmed comics fan (, and Ghost Rider is one of his favorites - even having a Ghost Rider tattoo - and that was pretty much the reason why he wanted the part so bad. ...So why did it all go completely wrong?

Also the Ultramarines movie. Bad.

You know, I actually liked the ghost rider film. Its just, its kind of a hard comic to translate to a single film well as there is a lot of background to it. I mean, its a big time info dump of demon lore just to try and figure out what the hell is happening. But it covered the main points fairly well.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I agree that WotDG is better rules and setting wise. But it just felt off. and was trying a bit too hard to be serious for me to take it as an actual D&D campaign. There was none of the silly stuff and player comraderie that you get in the other movie.

Yeah, but on the plus side, it didn't have a Wayans brother.


Also, on the subject of the Super Mario Bros. movie: it's a terrible adaptation (but let's be honest, the only way to faithfully adapt pre-64 Mario would have involved dropping a ****load of acid and calling it a day), but as a stupid B-movie it's fun as hell.

[Grinner]

Battlefield Earth. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was bad...but it was at least 'watch it once through' bad and be grateful that it was on television so you didn't pay money for it.

In comparison, Battlefield Earth is pure nausea-inducing, change the channel bad.

You know, I saw about half of that movie, up till the humans found the military airbase, and didn't think it was altogether that bad. Maybe I'm just weird or something?

[Yora]

The vast majority of all video game adaptations of movies.
Wait! So you are implaying that there is at least one good one?
Which one would that be?

[Krazzman]

And Captain America was awesome...propagandist? Of course it was propagandist, the main character walks around wearing an American flag and punching Nazis! You can't get more propagandist than Captain America, it's kinda the reason the character exists.:smallbiggrin:

No, if it were Nazi's it would have been more matching to the whole, it was against super COCKY Nazis, that made their "salut" (don't know the english word for it...) with both arms and with fists instead of the palm...

The propagandism wasn't the problem, it was the bull... that came with it. Jay we have a Super Soldier let him make marketing!!!

This together with the run after the car to stop the spy... after this I couldn't quite take this movie serious.

[Prime32]

Wait! So you are implaying that there is at least one good one?
Which one would that be?Goldeneye maybe?

[turkishproverb]

Wait! So you are implaying that there is at least one good one?
Which one would that be?

Super Star Wars-Return of the Jedi? Super Back to the Future 2? Goldeneye 007 (Ag, sworsaged)? Lego Star wars?

Ghostbusters the video-game is more sequel than adaptation...

[Dragonmuncher]

There are plenty of good adaptations! Well. There are SOME good adaptations!

Spider-man 2: The Movie: The Game was excellent. Mmm swinging mechanics...


One terrible adaptation people haven't mentioned yet is "The Seeker: The Dark is Rising"

Ugh.

[Yora]

Whoops, my mistake. I thought it said movie adaptations of games. :smallbiggrin:

[Manga Shoggoth]

For me it's Dune. The only saving graces for that movie is they nailed the casting and the look with the wardrobe and the sets. But the script was beyond salvaging. It had almost nothing to do with the books and while I understand with such a long book you have to make some cuts they cut a LOT of plot important parts and left in useless fluff.

Ye Gods that was a dire film...

Actually, when I re-read the books I was surprised how many of the things appearing in the film were actually in the book, but as unimportant background detail.

My main complaints about the film were:


Shallow plot (compared to the book).
The way they did "voice". In their defense, that was always going to be horribly difficult.
Guild navigators and the weird hyperspace sequence. (The navigators didn't fold space. They just used precience to see the safe path. They weren't (openly, at least - there were rumours) horribly mutated either - that was Leto in the later books).
The scenes with Baron Harkonnen as a CE axe-crazy nutter. He wasn't.
The final scenes, where we get rain on Arrakis. Thus wiping out every sandworm in existance and destroying the spice.


They did get some things right - as you say, most of the costumes and sets were good, and Alia was downright creepy.

The depressing thing is that as a film in its own right it wasn't bad at all. It is just that as an adaptation of Dune, it stank.


EDIT: I'm told that there was a film adaptation of Jonathan Livingstone Seagull (That staple of my student days). Apparantly the film is considered one of the 50 worst films ever made.

[dehro]

masters of the universe, anybody?

possibly not quite that surprising though

[Nerd-o-rama]

Oh. Another adaptation that got listed here but was a fun movie despite being a terrible, godawful, nowhere-even-in-the-same-realm-as-the-point adaptation?

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

[hamishspence]

Guild navigators and the weird hyperspace sequence. (The navigators didn't fold space. They just used precience to see the safe path. They weren't (openly, at least - there were rumours) horribly mutated either - that was Leto in the later books).

Edric in Dune Messiah was fairly mutated.

[H Birchgrove]

Frank Herbert actually liked the film, or at least parts of it, and incorporated elements of it into his later novels. Including the part that spice makes you mutate if you use it long enough/too much of it (like the navigators/human computers).

[Ravens_cry]

Super Star Wars-Return of the Jedi? Super Back to the Future 2? Goldeneye 007 (Ag, sworsaged)? Lego Star wars?

Ghostbusters the video-game is more sequel than adaptation...
I hear The Warriors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Warriors_%28video_game%29) video game was pretty good.

[random11]

No, if it were Nazi's it would have been more matching to the whole, it was against super COCKY Nazis, that made their "salut" (don't know the english word for it...) with both arms and with fists instead of the palm...

The propagandism wasn't the problem, it was the bull... that came with it. Jay we have a Super Soldier let him make marketing!!!

This together with the run after the car to stop the spy... after this I couldn't quite take this movie serious.

It don't think it was a bad movie.
The double-evil Nazis were silly (what, regular Nazis aren't evil enough for you?), but despite this they managed to give them more or less clear goal and motivation, which is more than I expected from this movie.

Also, the thing about using him for the show is a great excuse of why he took a flashy red white and blue outfit, along with a "shoot here" shield to a war zone.
Sure, it wasn't what Captain America was in the comics, but that version would probably look kind of awkward in our times.

[random11]

The latest Three Musketeers movie!

I knew it was going to be a bad adaptation from the trailers, but it was still a surprise of how hilariously bad it was.
I went to see it with my brother and we just couldn't stop laughing.

Among the common jokes we had there are:

- Are you sure we're in the right movie? is this the three musketeers or the new avengers movie?

- Did they have X in the 17th century?
No...
How about Y, did they have THIS in the 17th century?
NO!!!

I'll avoid other jokes, mostly in fear of spoilers, but I can promise you this: BEST BEER MOVIE OF THE YEAR!!!

[Maxios]

The Percy Jackson movie. It felt like the writer's skimmed through the book summary on wikipedia, took the most basic info from it, and then decided to come up with their own thing.
I heard they're making a seqel to it, but I don't even know how they can do it (they eliminated many elements from the books that came important later on).

[MCerberus]

Has anyone seen Timeline?
I mean I expected it to be bad, they just went above and beyond.

[Karoht]

avatar the last airbender: the movie. it was never not going to suck..but the sheer ammount of suckage exceeds the darkest expectationsThe second I heard M Night Shamalan was directing I turned my attention elsewhere. I figured that the fan turnout might somehow still bring in the big bucks. Sadly not. I'm still not entirely sure why people give money to M Night Shamalan to make films these days. I have the same comment for Uwe Bole.


the league of extraordinary gentlemen..,.. tom sawyer??? and poor old Sean Connery said no to playing gandalf for this crap?Little known comic that really traded on it's charm. Charm tends not to translate well for films. It was also in that stretch where the world was still searching for a good superhero team movie, and DC decided to throw it's hat in the ring. I was honestly not very surprised.


the D&D movies :smallbiggrin:...sooo bad!I keep trying to explain this to people, just because it has the badge of DnD doesn't make it good. This doesn't even apply to the game these days, why would it apply to the film about the game?


@Battlefield Earth
The book is far worse and goes into scientology. For reals. The film is generally accepted by fans actually be better than the source material.


@Video Game adaptations.
Are there ANY good ones?
Also, I'm not a fan of the Legend of Zelda games, but I have extremely high hopes for a film based on the franchise. But I expect Nintendo to fail at their first film. The Mario Bros film from the 90's doesn't count.

[MCerberus]

@Video Game adaptations.
Are there ANY good ones?
Also, I'm not a fan of the Legend of Zelda games, but I have extremely high hopes for a film based on the franchise. But I expect Nintendo to fail at their first film. The Mario Bros film from the 90's doesn't count.

What are you talking about, Mario Bros was hilarious.
Mostly because I've only seen it in the context of bad movie night.

Like how Yoshi is some weird reincarnation of the king or something. And bowser is a mob boss that turns people into monkeys because... ?

[Ravens_cry]

@Battlefield Earth
The book is far worse and goes into scientology. For reals. The film is generally accepted by fans actually be better than the source material.


That movie has fans?!:smalleek:
I read the book, yes it was bad. When I read it, I had never heard of Scientology, and thought the comment about psychologists was the a case of Future Imperfect, where the past is poorly remembered,and thought it somewhat amusing.

[Tiki Snakes]

The Mario Brothers film did give the world one single, wonderful thing. (http://youtu.be/e5qoWqkq6XU)
A meme.

[Nerd-o-rama]

The Mario Brothers film did give the world one single, wonderful thing. (http://youtu.be/e5qoWqkq6XU)
A meme.

I think you meant to link this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=733O0xJDx8o)

[Muz]

The interesting thing about the Dune movie was that it's really quite interesting if you've never read the book.

...And you see the long version.

...And, admittedly, you are 15 at the time, as I was.

I promptly read the book and was confused by the lack of weirding modules, but Feyd shall always look like Sting to me. :smallbiggrin:

[Killer Angel]

@Video Game adaptations.
Are there ANY good ones?


mmm... it's a hard call.
I would say Resident Evil (the first one) and Final Fantasy (even if, to be fair, this one has nothing in common with the game, except the name).

[GoblinArchmage]

mmm... it's a hard call.
I would say Resident Evil (the first one) and Final Fantasy (even if, to be fair, this one has nothing in common with the game, except the name).

Do you mean Spirits Within? Yeah, that was not bad. Anything that involves Steve Buscemi and Ving Rhames is going to be pretty good.

[GolemsVoice]

No, if it were Nazi's it would have been more matching to the whole, it was against super COCKY Nazis, that made their "salut" (don't know the english word for it...) with both arms and with fists instead of the palm...

The propagandism wasn't the problem, it was the bull... that came with it. Jay we have a Super Soldier let him make marketing!!!

The Nazis were silly, that's right (as another poster said, these Nazis are double-evil, so they make a double-salute. Logical), but I thought commercialising their first superhero seemed like the stereotypical American thing to do, no offense. Just look at the old cartoons where Donald Duck features in short propaganda films about the evils of Nazi dictatorship and the true value of American freedom. They're equally hilarious and strange today.

Of course, I guess each nation would parade the first supersoldier around if they should ever make one, particularly during wartime.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Edric in Dune Messiah was fairly mutated.

Ah, thank you. I stand corrected.



Frank Herbert actually liked the film, or at least parts of it, and incorporated elements of it into his later novels. Including the part that spice makes you mutate if you use it long enough/too much of it (like the navigators/human computers).

The mutations were a whispered rumour in the first book (Paul plans on trying to spy on the navigator, and is dissuaded by his father, who would prefer not to lose shipping priviliges). As hamishspence noted, it was expanded somewhat in later (pre-film) books.


The interesting thing about the Dune movie was that it's really quite interesting if you've never read the book.

...And you see the long version.

...And, admittedly, you are 15 at the time, as I was.

I promptly read the book and was confused by the lack of weirding modules, but Feyd shall always look like Sting to me. :smallbiggrin:

Indeed, taken in it's own right, it is a good film, and for the most part looks right. The problem is that it is a very poor adaptation of the book. I had the same problem with the Lord of the Rings films (although they were far better adaptions than Dune...)

(And the "weirding modules" was a lift and shift of the term "weirding way", which referred to the Bene Gesseret/Reverend Mother techniques).


@Battlefield Earth
The book is far worse and goes into scientology. For reals. The film is generally accepted by fans actually be better than the source material.

I always heard the reverse - the book was a lot better than the film. Mind you, I haven't seen the film and only read the first half of the book (the part the film was based on). I lost interest when I started the second half...

The first half of the book isn't bad, but you have to remember that Hubbard is effectively writing old-fashioned pulp fiction in a novel (remember - he used to be a pulp writer).

[Aotrs Commander]

mmm... it's a hard call.
I would say Resident Evil (the first one) and Final Fantasy (even if, to be fair, this one has nothing in common with the game, except the name).

I thought the Spirits Within was absolutely dreadful, myself. I thought Advent Children - though leaning a bit too heavily on rule-of-cool and not much else - at least made a pretense of being Final Fantasy at some points.

[DiscipleofBob]

Percy Jackson.

Percy Jackson.

Percy Jackson.

Percy Jacksooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon!

This,

This,

and

Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis

Seriously, whenever someone makes a movie adaptation of a book and they want to make "creative changes," someone needs to get slapped upside the head.

And they're making Sea of Monsters. :smallsigh: Is it too much to ask for one at least decent Greek mythology movie? *sees Immortals* Is it too much to ask for at least two decent Greek mythology movies?

[Karoht]

And they're making Sea of Monsters. :smallsigh: Is it too much to ask for one at least decent Greek mythology movie? *sees Immortals* Is it too much to ask for at least two decent Greek mythology movies?
Is it too much to ask for a decent historically inspired Greek/Roman film?
*sees 300*
Is it too much to ask for two decent historically inspired Greek/Roman films?

Amen brother. Greek myth and history is remarkably rad. More films = good.
But, the tale of the Odessy has been adapted many times, mostly into mini-series, and I don't think I have enjoyed a single one. I do think that as far as cinema goes, audiences would be open to a film series of the epic tale, but my expectations of such a film are already about as low as they could possibly get.
The length is an issue, the constant setbacks right after triumph is another.

[MCerberus]

Is it too much to ask for a decent historically inspired Greek/Roman film?
*sees 300*
Is it too much to ask for two decent historically inspired Greek/Roman films?

Amen brother. Greek myth and history is remarkably rad. More films = good.
But, the tale of the Odessy has been adapted many times, mostly into mini-series, and I don't think I have enjoyed a single one. I do think that as far as cinema goes, audiences would be open to a film series of the epic tale, but my expectations of such a film are already about as low as they could possibly get.
The length is an issue, the constant setbacks right after triumph is another.

You don't like "Oh Brother, Where art Thou"?

[Karoht]

You don't like "Oh Brother, Where art Thou"?Okay, good point. Though I prefer my greek stories to be a bit more in period (or at least an attempt at it), but I did indeed forget this adaptation. Proof it can be done though.

[Soras Teva Gee]

For me it's Dune. The only saving graces for that movie is they nailed the casting and the look with the wardrobe and the sets. But the script was beyond salvaging. It had almost nothing to do with the books and while I understand with such a long book you have to make some cuts they cut a LOT of plot important parts and left in useless fluff.

Also two words.....weirding modules! 'nuff said.

It really says something when Sci-Fi Channel can totally show up your movie on a made-for-TV budget.

[Terraoblivion]

Endless Eight. How awful an adaption it is is quite legendary and pretty much single-handedly switched the dominant discourse about the entire Haruhi Suzumiya franchise.

[Killer Angel]

Do you mean Spirits Within? Yeah, that was not bad.

Yep, I was refering to the spirits within.


I thought the Spirits Within was absolutely dreadful, myself.
It appears that playgrounders have different position on that one... :smalltongue:
I'm on the "not bad" side.

[Tiki Snakes]

Endless Eight. How awful an adaption it is is quite legendary and pretty much single-handedly switched the dominant discourse about the entire Haruhi Suzumiya franchise.

...yeah. Lovingly done, though. Which just made it weirder.

Also, Spirits Within was pretty meh, all in all. I'd say it counts as a Suprisingly Bad Adaption, definately. It wouldn't be if they released it today, but back then memories of final fantasy 7 were still relatively fresh in my mind.

[thompur]

It's The Gamers with a much bigger budget, which might be why some people dislike it (as something on a far smaller budget outdid it in humor), but I enjoyed it thoroughly.


On-topic, Howard The Duck.:smallbiggrin:

You win.:smallbiggrin:

[Ravens_cry]

...yeah. Lovingly done, though. Which just made it weirder.

Also, Spirits Within was pretty meh, all in all. I'd say it counts as a Suprisingly Bad Adaption, definately. It wouldn't be if they released it today, but back then memories of final fantasy 7 were still relatively fresh in my mind.
That move turned me against photo-realistic CGI humans as a mug-game. Stylization creates much more emotive and approachable characters. I felt much more engagement from the TF2 "Meet the . . ." series than anything from those porcelain-skinned barbie dolls.

[Tyndmyr]

I have to disagree here... except for Captain America (which was mostly propagandistic bull....) the last bad Marvel movie I can remember is Electra.

Captain America IS propaganda. That is the entire point of the chars existence.

Electra did suck terrible though. Ghost Rider was rough.


But the worst? Probably Dresden Files.


Wait! So you are implaying that there is at least one good one?
Which one would that be?

That would be Silent Hill, the one good video game adaptation to a movie.

[Karoht]

I have to disagree here... except for Captain America (which was mostly propagandistic bull....)I personally felt that it made light of the propaganda material. The musical numbers and the war bond drive was exactly that.
It was also a slap in the face to the character. You survived a 1 of a kind experimental proceedure and turned into a super human? Great, go make us some money, bullets ain't cheap. Your ladyfriend? Yeah, she's not even going to bother to write.
I thought it said something about [stereotyped] american values, both past and present. A very un-propaganda message to basically call your own country out for being more focused on economy than on people. But that is probably straying into a political discussion so I'll stop there.

As for the historical correctness, bond drives like that did happen, in the US, Canada (I think) and England. I'm now rather curious if the American ones did have some guy in a goofy looking suit with a shield jump out on stage and read off some poorly rehearsed platitudes and advertisements (possibly even taped to the back of the shield) for war bonds and supporting the home front.

Curse you sir, now I have to go and investigate such. To the wiki-mobile!

Speaking of which. 60's Batman TV show and film. Sure, it falls into that category of "so bad it's good" and it was surprisingly successful, but as far as the comics go, I wouldn't call that even remotely a decent adaptation.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, sure, for today's grim and gritty Gotham Noir Dark Knight, no. But that isn't what it was adapting, it was adapting the Silver Age Batman, in all its riotous silliness (http://atopfourthwall.blogspot.com/2008/11/batman-147.html), old chum.

[thompur]

Well, sure, for today's grim and gritty Gotham Noir Dark Knight, no. But that isn't what it was adapting, it was adapting the Silver Age Batman, in all its riotous silliness (http://atopfourthwall.blogspot.com/2008/11/batman-147.html), old chum.

Well said. And in spite of it all, it still had the best version of the Riddler ever(The incomparable Frank Gorshin)!

[MCerberus]

Speaking of which. 60's Batman TV show and film. Sure, it falls into that category of "so bad it's good" and it was surprisingly successful, but as far as the comics go, I wouldn't call that even remotely a decent adaptation.

You really have to look at the context of the times. They were mandated to have all the cops take in the criminals, obey all authority, and hang out more with batgirl and catwoman without ever being romantically involved.

It's hilarious social commentary after the fact though... Remember this is the time where comic Lex Luthor was stealing pies (and that's terrible).


On topic though: How can you cast Jim Carrey as the Riddler and fail that badly?

[Telonius]

Earthsea, 2004 adaptation for Sci-Fi channel. This one had more severe "whitewashing" problems than Last Airbender, and mangled its source material to the point where the characters were hardly recognizable. Plus, one of the most egregious modern examples of the guy-in-a-rubber-suit monster. It was so bad that the original author, Ursula Le Guin, completely (http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2004/12/a_whitewashed_earthsea.html) disavowed (http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Earthsea.html) the monstrosity.

[Axolotl]

Also, Wanted. Let's take a great comic with an amazing, original concept and just turn it into another stupid, generic (dull) action film that rips most of its ideas off from the Matrix and has bland characters.Is it that surprising? I mean did you really think they'd get away with having any of what made the comic good in a big budget film? I mean I'm surprised Millar was able to do it in the comic, there's no way Hollywood would risk putting it in a film. Although I will say casting Angelina Jolie as a character designed to look like Halle Berry is a work of inspired idiocy.

Speaking of stupid casting for comics, Constantine. I mean who looked at a witty, cynical Liverpudlian drawn to look like Sting and decided that Keanu Reeves was the best choice to play him? Nevermind stripping all the edginess from the series.

Until recently I would have said Watchmen but really the only part they totally messed up on was the ending. It made me realise that the main difference from an indulgent, overly-ambitious mess of a movie and a genuine sci-fi cult classic is about twenty years. Also those goddamn prequels made me realise how lucky we were.

[darthbobcat]

How about Studio Ghibli's Tales From Earthsea? I never read the books, but either it was a bad adaptation, or the fantasy novel buying public has much worse taste than I thought.

[dehro]

How about Studio Ghibli's Tales From Earthsea? I never read the books, but either it was a bad adaptation, or the fantasy novel buying public has much worse taste than I thought.

it wasn't too bad an adaptation per sé... it puts together several books in a rather liberal way... not entirely butchering it... I think where it fails is in trying to do western fantasy in manga style... purely from a graphic pov, it's somehow... dissatisfying.
which is funny because it's actually the exact opposite as how the author has received the movie..she disliked the story as it took absolute liberties with the original source, but liked the graphic style.
I just can't really watch classic fantasy in anime style.. (a bit like Lodoss Wars..which I've hated, back in the day)

but yeah..one of Studio Ghibli's lesser products

[Avilan the Grey]

I am very mainstream in my movie-going... so I have missed a lot of stuff.

However:

Batman Forever
Animated LOTR
"Final Fantasy" (which had nothing to do with the game, AFAIR?
Fantastic Four (and lets not mention the FF saturday morning cartoon version :smalltongue:)
Conan (all versions)


Also, personally, I found Thor to be a huge disappointment. Not awful, but compared to the Awesome that was Iron Man, Iron Man II and Capt. America... it was a huge letdown.

[Closet_Skeleton]

"Final Fantasy" (which had nothing to do with the game, AFAIR?

Final Fantasy hasn't been a game since the early 90s. Its more of a brand than a series.

[Cheesegear]

You know, I actually liked the ghost rider film.
[...] I mean, its a big time info dump of demon lore just to try and figure out what the hell is happening. But it covered the main points fairly well.

It breaks the Show, Don't Tell rule quite blatantly. I am a fan of Ghost Rider in the comics, if that makes a difference...

But, his main power - the Penance Stare - isn't exactly filmable. He looks at you, and you feel bad. Err...Right. Put that on camera.

Let's hope Spirit of Vengeance will be good. Although, we already know that they're taking some major liberties with the IP (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/168750-ghost-rider-sequels-blackout-wont-follow-marvel-mythology), so who knows?

[Eldariel]

"Lunar Legend Tsukihime" anime. Compared to the VN and even manga it's so bad that most of the fans appear to ignore its existence entirely; and given I haven't heard many bad words about the VNs and the manga, that's saying something. It's probably single-handedly responsible for Tsukihime being apparently significantly less well known than Fate/Stay Night.

Somehow managing to simultaneously botch up all the carrying scenes of the VN (and making each like 1 minute long tops) and most of the characters and butchering the story and adding fillers to a 12 episode series for good measure manages to mess up the foolproof.

[random11]

Neverending story.

Hard to say if it counts as "surprising", I saw the movie years before I read the book.

The adaptation between the book and the movie was bad since it missed the second half of the book, and several crucial parts of the first half.
Despite that, it was still a good and fun adventure movie.

Second movie was an even worse adaptation, and a terrible movie.

I'll pretend the third never existed.

[DiscipleofBob]

Captain America IS propaganda. That is the entire point of the chars existence.

Electra did suck terrible though. Ghost Rider was rough.

Captain America was fairly true to the comics. It's main problem in my opinion that it was too rushed. Too many and too long montages to explain the passing of time. I know you need to go through the entire story of Captain America in one movie so he's ready for the Avengers, but if you were that pressed you shouldn't have had his troop on blowing up EVERY Hydra facility across Europe. My historian fiance loved it because according to her, everything in the movie except for the explicitly comic book stuff (the tights, the secret lab, the futuretech guns) even the finest details were historically accurate down to the buttons on the uniforms.

Elektra I enjoyed on a campy B-movie level, and the same with Ghost Rider. The thing is, how can you take a "superhero" that's a motorcycle-riding, chain-wielding flaming skull and expect to make a serious movie out of it? I loved Ghost Rider because of how campy it was at times.


On topic though: How can you cast Jim Carrey as the Riddler and fail that badly?

You know what? I actually like the Riddler in Batman Forever. Seemed surprisingly true to the character compared to the rest of the movie. And while Tommy Lee Jones chewed the scenery at what was supposed to be a tragic character, I can hardly blame him since the only reason he took the role was for his kid.

But I'll still take Carrey's Riddler over Devito's Penguin or Nicholson's Joker. The latter wasn't bad acting-wise but writing the whole backstory of the Joker into the movie kind of misses the point, so more the writers' fault than Nicholson.

[Ravens_cry]

From, what I've heard, the Doom movie.
You have a space marine, he goes to Mars and Kicks. Hells. ASS.
How hard can that be? The Doom comic may have been awful, but it was wonderfully awful, the exact same kind of awful you would want from the movie, the ultimate blood, guts and explosions flick.

[DiscipleofBob]

From, what I've heard, the Doom movie.
You have a space marine, he goes to Mars and Kicks. Hells. ASS.
How hard can that be? The Doom comic may have been awful, but it was wonderfully awful, the exact same kind of awful you want from the movie, the ultimate blood, guts and explosions flick.

The Doom movie may have been bad, but it gets points for having the BFG and for having an entire First-Person-Shooter action sequence.

[Ravens_cry]

The Doom movie may have been bad, but it gets points for having the BFG and for having an entire First-Person-Shooter action sequence.
But it loses a couple hundred points for calling it the "Bio-Force Gun".
We all know that is NOT what it means.

[Morty]

Earthsea, 2004 adaptation for Sci-Fi channel. This one had more severe "whitewashing" problems than Last Airbender, and mangled its source material to the point where the characters were hardly recognizable. Plus, one of the most egregious modern examples of the guy-in-a-rubber-suit monster. It was so bad that the original author, Ursula Le Guin, completely (http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2004/12/a_whitewashed_earthsea.html) disavowed (http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Earthsea.html) the monstrosity.

Dear gods, this. They turned it into a Harry Poter clone. Switching Ged's True Name and everyday name around was just the start...

[Emmerask]

All of the Harry Potter movies that weren't exactly like I wanted them to be!!!!
Yes I know that's ridiculous. But I'm not talking "that room looked better in my mind." I'm talking "You left out some important parts and I am disappoint."
They aren't "surprisingly bad" though... I had really high expectations.

Agreed 100%,
especially the ending was a HUUUGE disappointment. I mean they tried so hard to make it more epic and what they came up with was anything but.
All the suspense of the last battle was pretty much sapped away, the story pretty much destroyed and then the action wasn´t even good... what where they thinking?
I honestly hoped that they would at least get the final confrontation right after all these BIG mistakes they have already made in deathly hallows but nope, complete fiasco...

One of the worst if not the worst adaptation to date.

[dehro]

urgh..yes..Thor
a rather insipid plot, so much so that I still haven't decided if the guy playing Thor is a slab of meat that can't act or just didn't have much to work with.
no idea about the comic (I've read one or two, come to think of it..stand alone stories..dunno how that compares to the rest nor by what author).. but the movie was bland to the point of being sleep inducing, stellar cast notwithstanding.

[Emmerask]

The only worthwhile part in Thor was the "ANOTHER!" scene the rest was... meh not really bad but not good by any stretch of the imagination.

[polity4life]

I was absolutely horrified by the Dragonlance movie. HOW DO YOU MESS UP DRAGONLANCE!? DRAGONLANCE!!!


For the longest time, I despised this movie. I bought it day one and it was so awful in every meaningful and meaningless way. The animation was terrible. The art, namely anything that wasn't a main character, was pulled directly from 3.0/3.5 concept work as seen in the PHB, DMG, and MM. The main character designs left something to be desired but at least they were somewhat on the mark. The incorporation of 2D and 3D was so jarring that it was painful to watch unless I was boozing. The story pacing was even faster than the book, if that was possible.

And that got me to thinking: the first trilogy of Dragonlance isn't that well written and the characters are largely one or two dimensional, and not that interesting. The first book especially plays out like a D&D campaign (and yes, I know the genesis of the story and setting), which doesn't make for a compelling narrative.

So taking a story that works well in context and in print, putting it in motion with awful animation, compounded with the original writers' desire to keep the dialogue and story true to the source, it's really no wonder that this project became an abomination.

Nevertheless, it was heartbreaking to see something I loved as a child presented so poorly.

[MCerberus]

Elektra I enjoyed on a campy B-movie level, and the same with Ghost Rider. The thing is, how can you take a "superhero" that's a motorcycle-riding, chain-wielding flaming skull and expect to make a serious movie out of it? I loved Ghost Rider because of how campy it was at times.

It's the exact sort of movie you'd expect Nick "not the bees" Cage. The problem is I never see the charm in any project he's associated with and just consider most of them not very good.

[Axolotl]

It's the exact sort of movie you'd expect Nick "not the bees" Cage. The problem is I never see the charm in any project he's associated with and just consider most of them not very good.As a former Nic Cage hater myself I just have to ask, have you seen Raising Arizona, Kick-Ass, Wild at Heart or Bad Lieutenant? Because I have to say, Cage in a good movie is very different from Cage in a bad movie.

[DiscipleofBob]

I respectfully disagree on Thor. Possibly better than the first Iron Man IMO. The plot was everything it needed to be, and there was always a nice balance between the Norse stuff, the real world stuff, and the comic book stuff.

[Karoht]

Speaking of Nick Cage

Sorcerers Apprentice.
Wow Disney. Way to take a work of art with one of your most cherished characters, and take a big fat dump on it.
I liked the film enough for the first watch through, and it was visually quite good and even clever in parts. But it was the inverse of what they attempted with Pirates. Minimal source material extrapolated upon very poorly, where Pirates extrapolated on it well. Again it wasn't Cage's fault that the film was poor.
I here there were directoral issues, and the FX really were rather uncertain until the last few edits. But that was just rumor mill.

[kpenguin]

Speaking of which. 60's Batman TV show and film. Sure, it falls into that category of "so bad it's good" and it was surprisingly successful, but as far as the comics go, I wouldn't call that even remotely a decent adaptation.

I disagree. I would say that the 60's Batman TV show was, in fact, the most comics accurate adaption of Batman in existence.

Of course, they were adapting the Batman of the era. Pick up a Batman comic of the time period and you'll see that Adam West' portrayal was spot on.

[Karoht]

I disagree. I would say that the 60's Batman TV show was, in fact, the most comics accurate adaption of Batman in existence.

Of course, they were adapting the Batman of the era. Pick up a Batman comic of the time period and you'll see that Adam West' portrayal was spot on.Yes, I should probably retract my previous statement.
While the 60's comic didn't have Bat anti-shark repellant spray, my memory did in fact blank out the fact that it did indeed have equally absurd bat-solutions to bat-problems.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The Doom movie may have been bad, but it gets points for having the BFG and for having an entire First-Person-Shooter action sequence.

They replaced the daemons with genetic manipulation. That alone gives me no interest in it.

[MCerberus]

They replaced the daemons with genetic manipulation. That alone gives me no interest in it.

Speaking of demons and replacing:

Max Payne

[dehro]

I haven't read the comic...but I suspect that the movie Spawn deserves to be mentioned here as well.

[An Enemy Spy]

I was absolutely horrified by the Dragonlance movie. HOW DO YOU MESS UP DRAGONLANCE!? DRAGONLANCE!!!

Otherwise, a legitimately surprisingly bad adapation, as in, I was surprised that it was so bad was Ghost Rider. Nicholas Cage is a confirmed comics fan (, and Ghost Rider is one of his favorites - even having a Ghost Rider tattoo - and that was pretty much the reason why he wanted the part so bad. ...So why did it all go completely wrong?

Also the Ultramarines movie. Bad.

There's a Dragonlance movie?

[An Enemy Spy]

As a former Nic Cage hater myself I just have to ask, have you seen Raising Arizona, Kick-Ass, Wild at Heart or Bad Lieutenant? Because I have to say, Cage in a good movie is very different from Cage in a bad movie.

The problem with Nick Cage is that I don't think he really cares if the movie is good or bad. He seems to be one of those those actors that will agree to be in absolutely anything.

[The Glyphstone]

Money, Dear Boy is a time-honored Hollywood tradition. Plus, Cage doesn't have the serious star power to get leading roles thrown at him all the time, so he's pretty much stuck with what he can get.

[kpenguin]

Y'know, no one seems to hate on Christopher Walken for accepting any and every movie role that's thrown at him.

[DiscipleofBob]

Y'know, no one seems to hate on Christopher Walken for accepting any and every movie role that's thrown at him.

Not for long anyway. Someday they'll find the bodies buried in his backyard.

[Cheesegear]

Cage in a good movie is very different from Cage in a bad movie.

QFT. He's not a bad actor. Face Off he was good in. I liked him in City of Angels as well. He wasn't bad at all in Gone In 60 Seconds, and I liked him in one of the National Treasure movies, but I forget which one. I think NT is the rare breed of movie where the sequel was better than the original? Though I could be wrong, I haven't seen either of them in a while and I forget which is which.


I haven't read the comic...but I suspect that the movie Spawn deserves to be mentioned here as well.

I liked Spawn. And it received mixed reviews. I know watching it now, I find it 'too' dark and depressing. But when I was a teenager I remember Spawn being an awesome movie. So I don't know if it deserves to be here.

[No brains]

I am about to tell you of a horror beyond reckoning. The closest any human being ever came to describing the mindraping abomination of this comic book adaptation was when AVGN said,"...pukes snot up my ass."

I speak of course of the Man-Thing movie.

I got dumber by watching it. It was truly an example of staring into the goatse and having the abyss stare back.

[Ravens_cry]

I haven't read the comic...but I suspect that the movie Spawn deserves to be mentioned here as well.
Let's put it this way, the animated series was much better.
Admittedly, that was on HBO and basically VAULTED the Animation Ghetto.
Not kid friendly AT ALL.

[darthbobcat]

it wasn't too bad an adaptation per sé... it puts together several books in a rather liberal way... not entirely butchering it... I think where it fails is in trying to do western fantasy in manga style... purely from a graphic pov, it's somehow... dissatisfying.
which is funny because it's actually the exact opposite as how the author has received the movie..she disliked the story as it took absolute liberties with the original source, but liked the graphic style.
I just can't really watch classic fantasy in anime style.. (a bit like Lodoss Wars..which I've hated, back in the day)

but yeah..one of Studio Ghibli's lesser products

Well, my big issue, and apologies if it was in the book (again, didn't read them, just know they have a good reputation) was
the movie had a simple philosophical message. You can't prolong your life artificially because death is a necessary component of life. This was hammered in very bluntly at several points.

So then Cob kills Therru. For a second, I thought, "Oh snap! The hero's having his philosophy thrown back in his face! He's just told the villain that the threat of death and the transitory nature of life was what made life worthwhile.

And then Therru turned into a dragon when there had been absolutely zero hint that she had been anything but human for the whole movie. So everything was wonderful, yay completely unearned happy ending.

If the movie had stuck to its guns, I wouldn't have loved it, but I would have had much more respect for it.

[Avilan the Grey]

Speaking of Nick Cage

Sorcerers Apprentice.
Wow Disney. Way to take a work of art with one of your most cherished characters, and take a big fat dump on it.

Hey, I love that movie. Seriously.


QFT. He's not a bad actor. Face Off he was good in. I liked him in City of Angels as well. He wasn't bad at all in Gone In 60 Seconds, and I liked him in one of the National Treasure movies, but I forget which one. I think NT is the rare breed of movie where the sequel was better than the original? Though I could be wrong, I haven't seen either of them in a while and I forget which is which.

Personally I enjoyed him very much in Raising Arizona, The Rock, and a few other works.

[Killer Angel]

They replaced the daemons with genetic manipulation. That alone gives me no interest in it.

yeah. It was a totally stupid change... they modified the basic fluff of Doom (worsening it), without any motivation or need for the story itself.

[darthbobcat]

I respectfully disagree on Thor. Possibly better than the first Iron Man IMO. The plot was everything it needed to be, and there was always a nice balance between the Norse stuff, the real world stuff, and the comic book stuff.

I rather enjoyed it myself. The only part of the plot I didn't care for was the tacked on romance, but I liked the story of the stuffy guy learning some humility.

Of course, it's the same plot as Arthur, which is why MAD made Arthor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh6WEy054Wk&feature=related

[Turcano]

The animated version of The Lord of the Rings

I myself will go with the live-action version of The Lord of the Rings.

*ducks*

[Manga Shoggoth]

And then Therru turned into a dragon when there had been absolutely zero hint that she had been anything but human for the whole movie. So everything was wonderful, yay completely unearned happy ending.

If the movie had stuck to its guns, I wouldn't have loved it, but I would have had much more respect for it.

I think that's because the book the character she is based on really was a dragon. Having read the book I spent most of that scene thinking "You're annoying a dragon...."

However, the philosophical message the film comes by honestly - it is pretty much the point of "The Farthest Shore". The film would have been a lot better if they had just done a straight adaptation of the book instead of doing a hatchet job and yanking in the dragon character for coolness. I mean, The Farthest Shore had plenty of dragons in if they really wanted them...

I say think in the above because the book in question (Tehanu) was a sequel written long after the original three, and I have only read it once - and had to force myself to do that. The anime may well be a dreadful interpretation of the first three books (Wizard of Earthsea, Tombs of Atuan, The Farthest Shore), but I consider it to be a shining model of excelence compared to Tehanu.

[dehro]

Hey, I love that movie. Seriously.



Personally I enjoyed him very much in Raising Arizona, The Rock, and a few other works.

see..the problem with that is that the movies were good despite him.. which only tells us how good the movies were.. and further somehow enhances his status as an actor. I firmly believe that half the actors with billing status could have done the same job, if not better, without anybody missing Nicolas Cage.
yes, sometimes his droopy face is just right for the role (I'm thinking Kick-ass, oddlly enough).. but most often it isn't or even makes things worse. it's so bad that I often choose to watch his movies with the quiet confidence that they're going to be decent-to-rather-good ones.. despite the fact that I dislike him as an actor. I can't remember a movie where his performance is what marks the success of a movie..the man is just lucky his agent manages to get him so many cool parts to play in movies that for one or the other reason manage to do well.

I guess family ties do matter, after all.

[Avilan the Grey]

see..the problem with that is that the movies were good despite him.. which only tells us how good the movies were.. and further somehow enhances his status as an actor.

No, I am enjoying HIM in these movies, not the movies despite of him.

[Yora]

I myself will go with the live-action version of The Lord of the Rings.
I stand behind that for Return of the King. The movie is really boring and doesn't even look good. I know a number of people who only have the first two on DVD.

[dehro]

No, I am enjoying HIM in these movies, not the movies despite of him.
you're weird


we shall have to agree to disagree then :smallwink:

[nyarlathotep]

see..the problem with that is that the movies were good despite him.. which only tells us how good the movies were.. and further somehow enhances his status as an actor. I firmly believe that half the actors with billing status could have done the same job, if not better, without anybody missing Nicolas Cage.
yes, sometimes his droopy face is just right for the role (I'm thinking Kick-ass, oddlly enough).. but most often it isn't or even makes things worse. it's so bad that I often choose to watch his movies with the quiet confidence that they're going to be decent-to-rather-good ones.. despite the fact that I dislike him as an actor. I can't remember a movie where his performance is what marks the success of a movie..the man is just lucky his agent manages to get him so many cool parts to play in movies that for one or the other reason manage to do well.

I guess family ties do matter, after all.

I can tell you several bad movies he is the best part of. For instance the remake of Wickerman just wouldn't be the same with someone else in that bearsuit.

[Avilan the Grey]

I stand behind that for Return of the King. The movie is really boring and doesn't even look good. I know a number of people who only have the first two on DVD.

Well if had to choose, I would leave out the two towers. ROTK is the best of the three, by far.

[dehro]

I can tell you several bad movies he is the best part of. For instance the remake of Wickerman just wouldn't be the same with someone else in that bearsuit.

I've heard so many bad things about that movie that it doesn't surprise me overmuch. I haven't watched it though..I liked the original one and after what I have read, I'm not likely to watch the remake
I'll take your word for it.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Nicholas Cage is just one of those guys that has fun in whatever role he's playing, no matter how bad the film is or how inappropriate his casting in it is. Kinda like Samuel L. Jackson, but good in a goofy way instead of good in a badass way.

[darthbobcat]

I think that's because the book the character she is based on really was a dragon. Having read the book I spent most of that scene thinking "You're annoying a dragon...."

However, the philosophical message the film comes by honestly - it is pretty much the point of "The Farthest Shore". The film would have been a lot better if they had just done a straight adaptation of the book instead of doing a hatchet job and yanking in the dragon character for coolness. I mean, The Farthest Shore had plenty of dragons in if they really wanted them...

I say think in the above because the book in question (Tehanu) was a sequel written long after the original three, and I have only read it once - and had to force myself to do that. The anime may well be a dreadful interpretation of the first three books (Wizard of Earthsea, Tombs of Atuan, The Farthest Shore), but I consider it to be a shining model of excelence compared to Tehanu.

I didn't mean to imply that the movie's message was come by dishonestly; simply that it was way more a case of telling rather than showing, and I didn't really get a feel on the main character's personality well enough to get why he chose that moment to accept it. Also, I don't think they ever directly told the audience that Cob's necromancy was what was causing the problems in nature, the lack of balance. THAT'S more important to the story than the message; you can be subtle with the message, but the audience needs to know things like that!

Also, maybe I should rescind this... having never read the books, from the sounds of it, the anime was better than some of them.

[Karoht]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_name_of_the_king
Compared to it's source material... yeah, no.

EDIT:
OH MY GAWD!
Someone gave Uwe Boll money to make a sequel?

[dehro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_name_of_the_king
Compared to it's source material... yeah, no.

EDIT:
OH MY GAWD!
Someone gave Uwe Boll money to make a sequel?

oh my gawd...someone gave Uwe Boll money?

[Tiki Snakes]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_name_of_the_king
Compared to it's source material... yeah, no.

EDIT:
OH MY GAWD!
Someone gave Uwe Boll money to make a sequel?

I can't say I've ever heard of it. I'm guessing that's not suprising.

Also;


Sequel
Main article: In the Name of the King 2

Despite being considered a bomb, Boll has begun work on a sequel.[12] Filming began on December 1, 2010 for a 2011 release. Dolph Lundgren and Natassia Malthe are starring.
Genius. :smallbiggrin:
Apparently it went straight to DVD. Who'da thunkit?

[Manga Shoggoth]

I didn't mean to imply that the movie's message was come by dishonestly; simply that it was way more a case of telling rather than showing, and I didn't really get a feel on the main character's personality well enough to get why he chose that moment to accept it.

I didn't think that you were. I was just noting where the elements in your point were drawn from. And yes, indeed, it should have been better explained in the movie.

Actually, this shows up one of my major bugbears with film adaptations: details that only make sense if you have read the books. Dune also suffered from this - the film really only made sense if you had already read the book, in which case you knew what awful drek the film was.


Also, maybe I should rescind this... having never read the books, from the sounds of it, the anime was better than some of them.

No, your point still stands. "Tales from Earthsea" is still a very poor adaptation of the Earthsea stories. It's just that the last Earthsea novel (Tehanu) is so much worse that "Tales" is good by comparison with it.

A shame, because the first three books are fairly good.

[MCerberus]

Re: Cage

At some point you start remembering the actor and seeing their previous roles. Watch The Matrix and then Fellowship of the Ring to see this in action. I think Cage is a good enough ham to pull off the 'bad actor' routine, and his appearance in bad movies brings with it a lot of negative emotion from previous roles.


I'm not saying he can't be a good actor, just that the boat sailed on that title a long time ago.

[Friv]

I had a lot of fun watching Sorcerer's Apprentice. I mean, objectively, it was kind of a terrible movie. The plot made no sense, the pacing was atrocious, the characters all juggled Idiot Balls like it was going out of style, and several people were just flat-out murdered for no good reason. But the effects were pretty cool most of the time, and far more importantly, everyone involved really seemed to be enjoying themselves. Nick, Jay Baruchel, and Alfed Molina put in exactly the right level of hamminess and sincerity to make their lines work, and they basically carried the movie.

As for Uwe Boll, well... yeah, his adaptations in general could probably win a "worst etc" award or twelve. It's a shame, because he comes across as fairly intelligent in interviews. I just don't understand where the actual movies come from.

[The Glyphstone]

Dolph Lundgren in an Uwe Boll movie? Poor guy, he must be really hurting for steroid money.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Uwe Boll's movies come from a combination of two factors, only one of which still applies:

1) A German tax loophole that allowed him to make scads of money from making movies that intentionally failed, like a legal version of the Springtime for Hitler (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpringtimeForHitler) scam. (Ironically, actually producing Springtime for Hitler would be illegal in Germany). This loophole is now closed.
2) He's an arrogant son of a bitch who hates video games, video gamers, and everyone who disagrees with him, and is out to prove his superiority by making terrible films to show how terrible video games are. Or something. He's not really consistent with anything but "I am the greatest genius film has ever known".

[nyarlathotep]

Uwe Boll's movies come from a combination of two factors, only one of which still applies:

1) A German tax loophole that allowed him to make scads of money from making movies that intentionally failed, like a legal version of the Springtime for Hitler (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpringtimeForHitler) scam. (Ironically, actually producing Springtime for Hitler would be illegal in Germany). This loophole is now closed.
2) He's an arrogant son of a bitch who hates video games, video gamers, and everyone who disagrees with him, and is out to prove his superiority by making terrible films to show how terrible video games are. Or something. He's not really consistent with anything but "I am the greatest genius film has ever known".

I thought that the loophole was closed back in 2008 or so.

[DiscipleofBob]

I feel really bad for Nicholas Cage. He's basically stuck doing whatever crap-tastic movie Disney tells him to since he bought a big house in Hollywood (before you get judgmental remember that's pretty much the standard for a successful actor in Hollywood) but then couldn't sell it when he needed to, so now he's stuck paying off this giant home that he doesn't even want to live in and taking every crap role offered to him just to make money.

Though admittedly every time I see him I can't help but think David Schwimmer in Friends.

[Tyndmyr]

I had a lot of fun watching Sorcerer's Apprentice. I mean, objectively, it was kind of a terrible movie. The plot made no sense, the pacing was atrocious, the characters all juggled Idiot Balls like it was going out of style, and several people were just flat-out murdered for no good reason. But the effects were pretty cool most of the time, and far more importantly, everyone involved really seemed to be enjoying themselves. Nick, Jay Baruchel, and Alfed Molina put in exactly the right level of hamminess and sincerity to make their lines work, and they basically carried the movie.

While I agree it was not nearly as bad as expected, I seriously wanted to kill the kid just for having that voice.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I thought that the loophole was closed back in 2008 or so.

I thought I said that. Twice.

[No brains]

Re: Cage

At some point you start remembering the actor and seeing their previous roles. Watch The Matrix and then Fellowship of the Ring to see this in action. I think Cage is a good enough ham to pull off the 'bad actor' routine, and his appearance in bad movies brings with it a lot of negative emotion from previous roles.


I'm not saying he can't be a good actor, just that the boat sailed on that title a long time ago.

Are you sure you're not confusing Cage and Hugo Weaving? I don't remember Nick in either the Matrix or Fellowship...

[pffh]

I thought I said that. Twice.

Then how is he still making movies?

[Ravens_cry]

Apparently some of his more recent movies, are actually, almost acceptable. I hear Postal wasn't as bad and stayed pretty true to the source material, at least the sequel of the original game anyway.
I guess having to care whether succeeds or not made him care about his chosen craft.

[MCerberus]

Are you sure you're not confusing Cage and Hugo Weaving? I don't remember Nick in either the Matrix or Fellowship...

I was describing the effect and not Nicholas Cage himself there, and it's really noticeable for me with those two movies.


Mister Baginssss.
My name is Frodo

[No brains]

I was describing the effect and not Nicholas Cage himself there, and it's really noticeable for me with those two movies.


Mister Baginssss.
My name is Frodo

I actually think Hugo's performance in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert is evidence of him being an extraordinary and versatile actor. :smallsmile:

[Tiki Snakes]

I actually think Hugo's performance in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert is evidence of him being an extraordinary and versatile actor. :smallsmile:

He's generally pretty good whenever I see him, but he could probably do with some more varied roles from time to time (which is likely beyond his control).

Also;
Welcome to Rivendell....Mr Anderson. (http://youtu.be/VGr4fde4puk)

[Karoht]

Dolph Lundgren in an Uwe Boll movie? Poor guy, he must be really hurting for steroid money.Nah, it's viagra money now, due to all the steroid damage.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Then how is he still making movies?

I think he's somehow making money off of his fame for being a terrible and really loud director. Also, as stated, he's no longer trying to make his movies fail. They're just crap and turn a profit somewhere in the bizarro world of movie-producer accounting anyway.

[Prime32]

They're just crap and turn a profit somewhere in the bizarro world of movie-producer accounting anyway.Did you know that officially, the Star Wars franchise has never turned a profit? Because of this, Darth Vader's suit actor has never been paid (just to rub things in, they never told him they were going to dub over his lines).

[Ravens_cry]

Did you know that officially, the Star Wars franchise has never turned a profit? Because of this, Darth Vader's suit actor has never been paid (just to rub things in, they never told him they were going to dub over his lines).
Wow, part of me is almost impressed by that.
The Dark Side of accounting that is.

[No brains]

Speaking of Hugo Weaving and surprisingly bad adaptations, I actually thought the adaptations of Alan Moore's graphic novels were actually not surprisingly bad.

I do think the changes made to V were appropriate for the time, even if they did taste of delicious ham. I also liked the change to Vie- Viet- uh, Ozman- DAMMIT YOU KNOW WHO's plan. It made the story more coherently held together and unified, especially in the wake of removed subplots, than "suddenly- ALIENS!"

That said, I revile how Rorschach and Manhattan's speeches were butchered while the crappy, crappy joke where Laurie describes things as being "tangled up" while Manhattan puts on a tie is preserved to perfection. It doesn't make me violently hate Zack Snyder, but I do wish at least a bad case of constipation upon him for that crime.

[Ravens_cry]

One of my pet peeves was that, in the book, Ozymandias had a much more athletic build, a bodybuilder/superhero physique, not the weedy little thing he was in the movie.
I don't think I want to know what it says about our culture that multiple cities had to be destroyed to attempt the same shock effect as one in the book.

[Nerd-o-rama]

One of my pet peeves was that, in the book, Ozymandias had a much more athletic build, a bodybuilder/superhero physique, not the weedy little thing he was in the movie.
I don't think I want to know what it says about our culture that multiple cities had to be destroyed to attempt the same shock effect as one in the book.

It shows that Alan Moore wasn't cynical enough. I always considered only attacking an American city to be the least sensible part of the villain's plan.

And Ozy's casting was probably the weakest of the main players in the film, both in appearance and the actor's style.

[Ravens_cry]

It shows that Alan Moore wasn't cynical enough. I always considered only attacking an American city to be the least sensible part of the villain's plan.

No 'cynical' isn't the word I would use.

[Dienekes]

Speaking of Hugo Weaving and surprisingly bad adaptations, I actually thought the adaptations of Alan Moore's graphic novels were actually not surprisingly bad.

I do think the changes made to V were appropriate for the time, even if they did taste of delicious ham. I also liked the change to Vie- Viet- uh, Ozman- DAMMIT YOU KNOW WHO's plan. It made the story more coherently held together and unified, especially in the wake of removed subplots, than "suddenly- ALIENS!"

That said, I revile how Rorschach and Manhattan's speeches were butchered while the crappy, crappy joke where Laurie describes things as being "tangled up" while Manhattan puts on a tie is preserved to perfection. It doesn't make me violently hate Zack Snyder, but I do wish at least a bad case of constipation upon him for that crime.

I actually take a different look at V. Now I enjoy the movie, despite the plot hole, but I do think it was way more interesting as the murderous anarchist verses the oddly humanized fascists, instead of the "fascists are bad" message that the movie shows.

[Avilan the Grey]

Personally I think Alan Moore is a "surprisingly bad adaption" since I tend to prefer the adaptions to his own work (except watchmen, which I have no desire to watch). I just don't get why he is hailed as a genius, he is depressing, boring and dull.

[Axolotl]

Personally I think Alan Moore is a "surprisingly bad adaption" since I tend to prefer the adaptions to his own work (except watchmen, which I have no desire to watch). I just don't get why he is hailed as a genius, he is depressing, boring and dull.Just out of curiosity, which of his works have you actually read?

[Dienekes]

Personally I think Alan Moore is a "surprisingly bad adaption" since I tend to prefer the adaptions to his own work (except watchmen, which I have no desire to watch). I just don't get why he is hailed as a genius, he is depressing, boring and dull.

Any examples?
V striped all of the moral ambiguity of the original works while dumbing down the message
From Hell is a mess of a movie
As was League of Extraordinary Gentleman, but on top of that it pandered rather needlessly tot he American audience (Secret Agent Sawyer? Really?) While disrupting the dynamic of the characters and absolutely butchering Mina Harker, turning her from an intelligent professional strong female lead into a vampiress femme fatale who... falls for Secret Agent Sawyer.

I mean sure if you don't like darker storylines Moore isn't for you. That's cool, I can't stand the Pony show. But I really don't see much good coming from most of his adaptations.

[No brains]

It shows that Alan Moore wasn't cynical enough. I always considered only attacking an American city to be the least sensible part of the villain's plan.

And Ozy's casting was probably the weakest of the main players in the film, both in appearance and the actor's style.

(Stupid Grandmother raging across house; post may not be at top coherence)

The idea of Dr. Manhattan turning on the whole of humanity is a much more pertinent threat that demands more global co-operation than the U.S. having an extremely isolated incident of alien invasion.

Alan Moore might not have thought and American audience in the 80s would not have cared about other cities being destroyed.

(Like I said, stupid grandma bitching- post possibly incoherent. Interpret cautiously)

[Avilan the Grey]

Just out of curiosity, which of his works have you actually read?

Watchmen, League of..., V. After reading those I didn't feel like reading anything else he has done.

[turkishproverb]

(Stupid Grandmother raging across house; post may not be at top coherence)

The idea of Dr. Manhattan turning on the whole of humanity is a much more pertinent threat that demands more global co-operation than the U.S. having an extremely isolated incident of alien invasion.

Alan Moore might not have thought and American audience in the 80s would not have cared about other cities being destroyed.

(Like I said, stupid grandma bitching- post possibly incoherent. Interpret cautiously)

Except the Russians would simply see it as the American monstrosity attacking them. Can you say nuclear exchange boys and girls? I knew you could.


Watchmen, League of..., V. After reading those I didn't feel like reading anything else he has done.

And you thought those movies were BETTER than the books? :confused:

...Anyway, he's got plenty of non-downer fiction you might try. Like Tom Strong.

[Tiki Snakes]

I haven't seen V for Vendetta, and I haven't read League. But I've largely enjoyed what I've seen and read, both of the Alan Moore Originals and Adaptions. In very general terms, at least.

I think, sometimes, that he would be more enjoyable if he didn't seem so innately hostile to the media he is part of. I get a real feeling, especially from Watchmen and V, that what he's doing is trying to write (super)Heroic Comicbooks despite hating them. Or, perhaps channeling them through some weirdly negative lens.

But it's hard to guess whats actually going on in his head, especially as I know relatively little about the guy.

Oh, and the super-secret-extra-long version of Watchmen with the pirate bits put back in and so on was pretty good. I didn't see the other version though, so it's hard to compare.

[Axolotl]

I think, sometimes, that he would be more enjoyable if he didn't seem so innately hostile to the media he is part of. I get a real feeling, especially from Watchmen and V, that what he's doing is trying to write (super)Heroic Comicbooks despite hating them. Or, perhaps channeling them through some weirdly negative lens.The thing is that's really only there in his 80's stuff with Miracleman and Watchmen (and V to a lesser extent) pretty much all his other stuff is a celebration of superheroes and comics. The best example is probably Supreme which is just a giant mash up of homages to the Golden Age and Silver Age Superman comics (as well as others). But for some reason his dark stuff is the only thing people ever talk about, everyone seems to ignore all the very good stuff he has done other than Watchmen, V and the League.

[GolemsVoice]

It shows that Alan Moore wasn't cynical enough. I always considered only attacking an American city to be the least sensible part of the villain's plan.

In the comic, that's explained by the fact that Veidt had only one fake alien, and creating another one would probably take too much ressources, be heavy on the logistics of secrecy, and also cost precious time, which, in the comic, he certainly doesn't have.

[Nerd-o-rama]

In the comic, that's explained by the fact that Veidt had only one fake alien, and creating another one would probably take too much ressources, be heavy on the logistics of secrecy, and also cost precious time, which, in the comic, he certainly doesn't have.

Hence part of why I liked his movie plan better. It could result in simultaneous apocalypses in every country that mattered, making it more likely that the world would band together rather than gang up on the weakened superpower.

[No brains]

Except the Russians would simply see it as the American monstrosity attacking them.

Dr. Manhattan had a very public falling out with the U.S. that first happened on live television and then was plastered all over the news. Everyone was already very frightened of Manhattan to begin with, even the people who depended on him. I seems very plausible that Manhattan would pick up all his toys and leave a huge middle finger shaped crater for all of the termites beneath him.

The "Alien" that just stupidly death attacked New York doesn't have the same security of a lasting puppet threat as Manhattan. No more aliens ever could draw suspicion from everyone, but Manhattan is mysterious yet recognized enough that the whole world has the ability to stay afraid of him forever.

Also, several million instant deaths in only New York is a blow staggering enough to tempt the enemies of the U.S. to attack while they are still reeling. If everyone is attacked, they all huddle in fear at once and nobody can take advantage of the situation. They are also more likely to come to similar conclusions as to how to handle the problem.

But that's just my terrible adaptation of what I saw. v:smallsmile:v

[Tiki Snakes]

Dr. Manhattan had a very public falling out with the U.S. that first happened on live television and then was plastered all over the news. Everyone was already very frightened of Manhattan to begin with, even the people who depended on him. I seems very plausible that Manhattan would pick up all his toys and leave a huge middle finger shaped crater for all of the termites beneath him.

The "Alien" that just stupidly death attacked New York doesn't have the same security of a lasting puppet threat as Manhattan. No more aliens ever could draw suspicion from everyone, but Manhattan is mysterious yet recognized enough that the whole world has the ability to stay afraid of him forever.

Also, several million instant deaths in only New York is a blow staggering enough to tempt the enemies of the U.S. to attack while they are still reeling. If everyone is attacked, they all huddle in fear at once and nobody can take advantage of the situation. They are also more likely to come to similar conclusions as to how to handle the problem.

But that's just my terrible adaptation of what I saw. v:smallsmile:v

To be fair, as much as the alien attack/atrocity would have impacted america, it's not like it significantly affected it's military capabilities. If anything, I'd expect it to heighten tensions in some quarters as the world awaits America's response to the attack.

As much as America seeking to protect itself or even strike back at the aliens could conceiveably end up undoing Adrian's gambit even without the involvement of Rorshach's journal, I see similar potential issues in the film version actually.
Because in the Alien scenario it is conceivable that they might seek to strike back, whereas in the Film scenario, there is nothing that can be done to defend against Dr Manhatten and if his rage is directed at all countries, then there isn't really much to be done except hope he stays away. The threat of his intervention quickly becomes a non-issue as existing causes for tension don't simply go away.
Alternatively, a country might decide that the only way to defend against Dr Manhatten is to possess a similarly powerful individual, leading to a world-wide super-being arms race. (Which admittedly is a lot more fun than the traditional sort).

Simply put, Adrian Veidt's plan in both seems rather optimistic even without the simple fact of Rorshach's journal to bring the whole dark plan crumbling down.

[No brains]

To be fair, as much as the alien attack/atrocity would have impacted america, it's not like it significantly affected it's military capabilities. If anything, I'd expect it to heighten tensions in some quarters as the world awaits America's response to the attack.

As much as America seeking to protect itself or even strike back at the aliens could conceiveably end up undoing Adrian's gambit even without the involvement of Rorshach's journal, I see similar potential issues in the film version actually.
Because in the Alien scenario it is conceivable that they might seek to strike back, whereas in the Film scenario, there is nothing that can be done to defend against Dr Manhatten and if his rage is directed at all countries, then there isn't really much to be done except hope he stays away. The threat of his intervention quickly becomes a non-issue as existing causes for tension don't simply go away.
Alternatively, a country might decide that the only way to defend against Dr Manhatten is to possess a similarly powerful individual, leading to a world-wide super-being arms race. (Which admittedly is a lot more fun than the traditional sort).

Simply put, Adrian Veidt's plan in both seems rather optimistic even without the simple fact of Rorshach's journal to bring the whole dark plan crumbling down.

The continued threat of Dr. Manhattan is another place where Adrian can control things and make a buck for himself. Adrian knows of ways to screw with Manhattan's omniscience. He can continue to make money from his nationally neutral Antarctic company dishing out tachyon-crappers to everyone. In an effort to further understand the mechanics of Manhattan, nations pool their resources into studying the fabric of reality rather than cool new ways to kick ass (although trying to kick Manhattan's ass is still on the list). Adrian can also make a buck by being the person who educates these scientists.

Again, dumb speculation from me...

[GolemsVoice]

Hence part of why I liked his movie plan better. It could result in simultaneous apocalypses in every country that mattered, making it more likely that the world would band together rather than gang up on the weakened superpower.

I actually liked the movie ending better for the very same reasons. As others said, Dr. Manhattan is so inhuman that his thoughts are unfathomable (or so people think), and he could strike anywhere, anytime. Of course, Adrian couldn't know if

Dr. Manhattan would go with his plan. In the movie he's lucky because Manhattan agreed with Veidt's methods

[Avilan the Grey]

And you thought those movies were BETTER than the books? :confused:

League and V were more entertaining, if not "better" as such. Watchmen I never watched since I hated the comic.

[darthbobcat]

Personally I think Alan Moore is a "surprisingly bad adaption" since I tend to prefer the adaptions to his own work (except watchmen, which I have no desire to watch). I just don't get why he is hailed as a genius, he is depressing, boring and dull.

Huh. I knew that if I hung out on the internet long enough, I'd find the other geek who didn't like Alan Moore. High five!

[No brains]

Huh. I knew that if I hung out on the internet long enough, I'd find the other geek who didn't like Alan Moore. High five!

If it makes you feel any better I don't like Alan moor either.

He can write nice stories, but I don't like him.:smallsmile: