Good Books, Bad Movies [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Dumbledore lives

2012-05-22, 01:32 AM

According to my sources the Twilight films were significantly worse than the books that spawned them, though I have no personal experience with either.

The Harry Potter movies were more of a disappointment than bad films, though arguments can be made for the good and the bad of each film. I personally hated Prisoner of Azkaban, but that does not seem to be what most critic's say.

Then there are films like Cat in the Hat, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, and The Lorax which took Dr. Seuss's work and did some very bad things with it. Awful terrible things.

Ninjadeadbeard

2012-05-22, 01:39 AM

I've also never really seen an adaption of Dune that really caught the feeling of the novels. David Lynch's movie was pretty, but too divorced from the original story. The two miniseries were a bit better, but not much.

David Lynch is the devil for Dune adaptations. I personally enjoyed the miniseries, as it was one helluva lot closer to the books and there was even a second one that covered the second and third book.

And then there's V For Vendetta. On its own, the V For Vendetta movie was pretty okay. As an adaption to the graphic novel, it was utterly horrendous.

I still don't know why people hate that movie. I loved it. Loved Watchmen too.

Now, a bad adaptation...does Shakespeare count? Romeo+Juliet was just wretched as a modern movie.

Feytalist

2012-05-22, 02:01 AM

David Lynch is the devil for Dune adaptations. I personally enjoyed the miniseries, as it was one helluva lot closer to the books and there was even a second one that covered the second and third book.

I'm aware, yes. That's why I said the two miniseries. I've watched them both, but they still didn't really capture the feeling of the 'verse, I think. They were... too polished, I guess?

I still don't know why people hate that movie. I loved it. Loved Watchmen too.

I hate it simply because it was called V For Vendetta. If it was called literally anything else, I would have been fine with it. But calling it by its original name implies you're at least trying to stay true to the original. They didn't even try. And what's worse, they skewed the whole theme of the graphic novel. They threw out at least 90% of the characters, three side plots, and totally misrepresented the character of V, which is probably the worst transgression.

But like I said, the movie itself isn't bad. But "V For Vendetta" it ain't.

Dumbledore lives

2012-05-22, 02:02 AM

I still don't know why people hate that movie. I loved it. Loved Watchmen too.

The problem with the adaptation is it made V a good guy. In the comic he may have been a protagonist, but he was also an anarchist who was perfectly willing to kill, and did it with little mercy. It also changed the government to be Bad Guys when they really weren't in the comics. That and changing some other fairly significant plot elements just made it not a very good adaptation, though an alright movie on its own.

Watchmen has a whole 'nother problem, though I don't really feel entitled to talk about what was wrong with it since I was fairly neutral about the whole thing, though the opening sequence was amazing.

Cespenar

2012-05-22, 02:14 AM

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Killer Angel

2012-05-22, 04:27 AM

There are many. Let's name something not already listed...

from books: starship troopers
from comics: the punisher

Omergideon

2012-05-22, 04:41 AM

I thought Watchmen was a decent Comic Book, with a good Movie Adaptation. As in a good movie AND a good adaptation.

Kick-Ass is not the most faithful adaptation of the source material either. It is so much better in the film than the comic ever was.

Mostly it seems that the more faithful the adaptation (in some ways) the worse the movie. At least when it is book or comic to film.

Killer Angel

2012-05-22, 05:22 AM

Mostly it seems that the more faithful the adaptation (in some ways) the worse the movie. At least when it is book or comic to film.

Do we really want to discuss the faithfulness of the film Wanted, to Millar's work? :smalltongue:

The Succubus

2012-05-22, 05:37 AM

I think it's a problem that some books really do not translate well to screen, or in some case fans are just too overprotective of their "vision" of how a book should be cellulised.

Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a prime example of this. The screenplay was written by Douglas Adams and yet when it hit the screen there was outrage and much QQing along the lines of "This isn't Hitchikers! It doesn't follow the book at all and Arthur + Trillian making out at the end, wtf?" and so on.

With the above, you simply cannot look at it as being a book adaption. Hell, the book wasn't even the original version - that honour goes to the radio adaption. You have to look at it as a film being set in the same universe. I imagine the same is true for V for Vendetta as well (I wouldn't mind getting my paws on the book version though ^^).

The best adaption I've seen was Fear And Loathing in Las Vegas - the Terry Gilliam film. Yet even though it captures the book's spirit exactly, it doesn't follow it to the letter - it simply wouldn't work.

I guess what I'm trying to say is you have to give film adaptions some leeway, purely because paper is a different medium to film.

Mauve Shirt

2012-05-22, 05:41 AM

The Harry Potter movies were more of a disappointment than bad films, though arguments can be made for the good and the bad of each film. I personally hated Prisoner of Azkaban, but that does not seem to be what most critic's say.

THANK YOU! I will never forgive the third movie for forgetting to include the most important plot point. :smallannoyed:

Eloel

2012-05-22, 06:28 AM

If we're going
"Book > Movie" instead of +ve book, -ve movie, we also have the LotR trilogy.

Seriously, Tom Bombadil :smallyuk:

Melayl

2012-05-22, 07:51 AM

[QUOTE=Dumbledore lives;13269037Then there are films like Cat in the Hat, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, and The Lorax which took Dr. Seuss's work and did some very bad things with it. Awful terrible things.[/QUOTE]

Amen to that! The poor Doctor is likely crying in his grave after those atrocities...

I'd have to second the Potter series and LOTR as well. Actually, pretty much every book to movie adaptation, in my opinion.

Emmerask

2012-05-22, 07:51 AM

Well there is Percy Jackson...

The books are not really good, though readable... but the movie was really really bad...

John Cribati

2012-05-22, 07:55 AM

According to my sources the Twilight films were significantly worse than the books that spawned them, though I have no personal experience with either.

No. No they were not.

The movies weren't Narrated by Bella, and as such were vastly superior.

Plus, all of the actors hate the books with a passion that transfers itself into their acting and actually makes the movies enjoyable.

Dienekes

2012-05-22, 07:59 AM

A lot of Moore comics being thrown around, with some good reasons. But mostly I thought they were enjoyable. V for Vendetta is a well made, engaging film. Despite the fact that the Evil Government made fascist decisions which somehow happened before the Evil Government was even in power. Yes, it pales in comparison to the comic but that does not necessarily make it bad, just worse.

On the same token League of Extraordinary Gentleman was a dumb, fun action romp. That had almost nothing in common with it's namesake other than the fact it was a league that did have extraordinary gentleman in it. Remarkably average as a film, but terrible as an adaptation.

Anyway actually bad movies: Daredevil, Cat in the Hat, Howard the Duck, Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four 2, Bicentennial Man, The Time Machine, Batman and Robin.

Omergideon

2012-05-22, 08:01 AM

Do we really want to discuss the faithfulness of the film Wanted, to Millar's work? :smalltongue:

Oh it was hideously unfaithful, and all the better as a movie for it. Thus the theory holds strong.:smallbiggrin:

Telonius

2012-05-22, 08:08 AM

"Earthsea." Well, not so much a movie as a two-part TV monstrosity, but I think it qualifies.

I strongly suspect I would put "The Dark is Rising" on the list, but I refuse to see it.

"The Scarlet Letter" (1995 version). It's my least favorite Hawthorne work, but it's an absolute butchering of the source material.

The Succubus

2012-05-22, 08:09 AM

If we're going
"Book > Movie" instead of +ve book, -ve movie, we also have the LotR trilogy.

Seriously, Tom Bombadil :smallyuk:

Don't be silly, there's no-one called Tom Bombadil in LotR. I've listened to a 13 hour radio adaption, played 4 different computer game versions and seen the nine-hour film trilogy. I'm sure at least one of those versions would have featured a scene featuring a guy that can see through Sauron's magic, wear the Ring without ill effects and is possibly some sort of Maiar in disguise.

comicshorse

2012-05-22, 08:09 AM

It also changed the government to be Bad Guys when they really weren't in the comics.

Huh ? In the comics the government was a facist dictatorship whose police were free to rape and murder at their whim, who monitored the population and pumped out lying propaganda every day and who had exterminated anybody in the country who they disaproved of.

Alan Moore's genius is for dialogue and characters not plots. As the Watchmen movie fixed the problem of the teleporting squid, the V movie fixed the problem of the riduculously coincedental assassination of the Leader just when he needed to die.

DiscipleofBob

2012-05-22, 08:14 AM

Lightning Thief is probably the worst example. It's like everyone on the staff only glanced over the wiki before making the film. It's horrendous.

Fjolnir

2012-05-22, 08:27 AM

I think it's a problem that some books really do not translate well to screen, or in some case fans are just too overprotective of their "vision" of how a book should be cellulised.

Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a prime example of this. The screenplay was written by Douglas Adams and yet when it hit the screen there was outrage and much QQing along the lines of "This isn't Hitchikers! It doesn't follow the book at all and Arthur + Trillian making out at the end, wtf?" and so on.

I guess what I'm trying to say is you have to give film adaptions some leeway, purely because paper is a different medium to film.

My 2 biggest issues with the hitchhikers movie were the "restaurant at the end of the universe" ending (implying a coordinate in space rather than time) and that ford seems surprised that zaphod has two heads (the whole "fliptop head" bothered me too but not as badly) Everything else can be explained with the entire "The continuity is no continuity" that happens between the various source materials, explained by the novels as "the whole sort of general mish-mash"

Melayl

2012-05-22, 08:54 AM

I strongly suspect I would put "The Dark is Rising" on the list, but I refuse to see it.

What do you mean? No such monstrosity ever existed. Nope, not ever. No, not even then. Never happened...

Eloel

2012-05-22, 09:08 AM

Oh, almost missed it.

"And then there were none" should ring bells. I refuse to comment on it.

Radar

2012-05-22, 09:17 AM

As far as LoTR adaptations go, latest movies are well done. Look, what they did to the books in the 70's to get a good perspective.

David Lynch is the devil for Dune adaptations. I personally enjoyed the miniseries, as it was one helluva lot closer to the books and there was even a second one that covered the second and third book.
Being close to the books is not always the most important factor. Personaly, I find the newer mini-series... sterile. Lynch at least gave the movie soul (and a great soundtrack helped with that).

Hubert

2012-05-22, 09:35 AM

Mostly it seems that the more faithful the adaptation (in some ways) the worse the movie. At least when it is book or comic to film.

I do not agree with that. Watchmen was in my opinion a very good movie, and it is also a nearly "copy/paste" translation of the comic.

In general, I think a good adaptation must be in the first place a good movie on its own. Watchmen is a literal translation and is a good movie on its own, the third Harry Potter movie is a much less literal translation but is also a good movie on its own (better than the more literal first two movies).

By the way, I think that the first Twilight movie is superior to the book, and is actually not that bad. :smallredface:
(Now the other movies...)

Feytalist

2012-05-22, 09:48 AM

Huh ? In the comics the government was a facist dictatorship whose police were free to rape and murder at their whim, who monitored the population and pumped out lying propaganda every day and who had exterminated anybody in the country who they disaproved of.

Remember that the fascist government were in charge only because every other option had failed. In the comic, Leader had quite a few monologues that showed that he really cared for his country and its people, and would do anything to protect them. Also remember the scenes that shows the general populace sitting and listening to Fate. They were shown to be accepting of the situation.

So the comic painted the government in a relatively good light. The movie made them into always CE bad guys. Which is a total divorce from the theme of the original work.

Being close to the books is not always the most important factor. Personaly, I find the newer mini-series... sterile. Lynch at least gave the movie soul (and a great soundtrack helped with that).

Yeah, that's what got me about the miniseries as well. But I still have little love for the Lynch version.

I do not agree with that. Watchmen was in my opinion a very good movie, and it is also a nearly "copy/paste" translation of the comic.

So we're going to just ignore the whole giant squid thing, then?

If you want to showcase the quality of a faithful adaption, try Sin City. Wholly lifted almost frame-by-frame from the graphic novels, and it worked perfectly and looked great. Then again, Frank Miller was involved in the production, so I guess that helps.

Mx.Silver

2012-05-22, 10:05 AM

I Am Legend.

On the subject of terrible adaptations that may or may not be bad films, I must mention Disney's butchering of The Jungle Book. And also the epitome of not bothering to do the research that was Disney's Hercules.
Even some of their 'better' adaptations often include some rather odd changes, such as the character renaming, cutting and gender-swapping that occurs in 101 Dalmatians.

Alan Moore's genius is for dialogue and characters not plots. As the Watchmen movie fixed the problem of the teleporting squid, the V movie fixed the problem of the riduculously coincedental assassination of the Leader just when he needed to die.
I wouldn't consider either of those to be problems, given the context. Also worth noting that the V for Vendetta film's decision to completely remove Fate from the story does create a few plot-holes.

Drolyt

2012-05-22, 10:13 AM

Serpentine

2012-05-22, 10:17 AM

Kick-Ass is not the most faithful adaptation of the source material either. It is so much better in the film than the comic ever was.I don't understand this. I read the comic for the first time a little while ago, and I only counted one or two minor changes (one being the crime those first guys Kickass encountered were committing), and one major change (the nature of Big Daddy). Other than those, it was basically exactly the same, except expanded upon (kinda understandable, considering it'd be a pretty short movie if they had to stick directly to the comic).

My absolute worst adaptation is Ella Enchanted. The book is great, a real twist on a bunch of different fairy tales with a strong yet flawed main character, and interesting plot turns. The movie... I can't even sit and watch the whole thing. After about 10 minutes I want to scream and throw things at the TV. I mean, as a stand-alone movie, as far as I can tell, it's absolutely horrible: shallow, poor acting, thin plot. As an adaptation... it's downright insulting.
An example of one of the things that really bugs me: the premise of the book is that a ditzy fairy godmother gave Ella "the gift of obedience". That is, if someone tells her to do something, she has to do it. This actually has the opposite of the intended effect: although she has to do what she's told, the fact that she has no choice turns her into a pretty willfull, rebellious girl. If someone, say, tells her to do the dishes, she'll do it but break things and do a bad job of it and make a big mess until they switch to asking her to do it. She's completely conscious the whole time, fully able to twist and subvert the command (within limits), and aside from the fact that she's doing what she's told there's no way to tell that she's forced to do it by magic. Moreover, she frequently attempts to resist it - I believe the record was a couple of minutes resistance, but it makes her feel extremely sick and nearly causes her to pass out. It ends up being kind of a big plot point.
In the movie, if someone tells Ella to do something, she turns into a stiff, blank-faced zombie who marches around doing the task incapable of talking, subverting or resisting in any way. She becomes a puppet, completely helpless and boring.
Blarg. Rage.

Also: Animorphs. The TV series was terrible. I'm waiting for someone to make an anime out of it.

The Succubus

2012-05-22, 10:19 AM

Also: Animorphs. The TV series was terrible. I'm waiting for someone to make an anime out of it.

Animemorphs? =p

Tavar

2012-05-22, 10:23 AM

What's the major plot point that the Third Harry Potter movie left out?

John Cribati

2012-05-22, 10:28 AM

What's the major plot point that the Third Harry Potter movie left out?

The fact that Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs, who created the Marauders' map, were Professor Lupin, Peter Pettigrew, Sirius Black, and James Potter, respectively.

Bulldog Psion

2012-05-22, 10:38 AM

That godawful Dune movie has to be right up there at the peak. The Bene Gesserit talking so stupidly when they're using the Voice -- Baron Harkonnen bathing in oil, for God's sake -- shooting at the shai hulud with World War I machine guns -- the shai hulud itself looking like it was about 6 inches long in the long shots -- Paul Mud-Daub (oops, Muad'Dib) sliding down a slope on his face and standing up without a hair out of place .... ugh.

Those abominations of LotR by that talentless hack Jackson have to be a close second. Histrionic, boring, meandering -- taking an exciting bunch of books and turning them into that yawnfest -- and the character assassination of Aragorn, transforming him into a skulking, furtive, frightened clown in every scene he appears in.

The dwarf with the pseudo-Scottish accent ... Denethor ... Arwen slicing the elephant's hocks somehow ... long sequences of Elrond gabbling pompously about little or nothing (I guess it was cheaper than special effects though) ... not a bit of color in the film, which is basically all shades of cat vomit grey, even the green fields of Rohan ... and so utterly, incredibly boring ...

He should have just come out and said, "yeah, I hate Tolkien's work totally and wish he hadn't written it", instead of spending millions just to vandalize it.

DiscipleofBob

2012-05-22, 10:44 AM

My absolute worst adaptation is Ella Enchanted. The book is great, a real twist on a bunch of different fairy tales with a strong yet flawed main character, and interesting plot turns. The movie... I can't even sit and watch the whole thing. After about 10 minutes I want to scream and throw things at the TV. I mean, as a stand-alone movie, as far as I can tell, it's absolutely horrible: shallow, poor acting, thin plot. As an adaptation... it's downright insulting.

Oh god I forgot about Ella Enchanted (or possibly repressed the memory of it). Good book and a neat twist on the genre, but that damn movie got me to hate Cary Elwes. I didn't think that was possible.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-05-22, 11:03 AM

Most movie adaptations aren't as good as the source material. That's not very interesting to me. The opposite is pretty interesting though. For example, I think that the Hunger Games movie was infinitely superior to the book.

I have no interest in seeing the movie, but from what I've heard, they completely failed to convey that Catnip was faking the romance. Which is a major plot point.

Reverent-One

2012-05-22, 11:13 AM

He should have just come out and said, "yeah, I hate Tolkien's work totally and wish he hadn't written it", instead of spending millions just to vandalize it.

If he thought that at all, you might have a point.

DiscipleofBob

2012-05-22, 11:33 AM

Those abominations of LotR by that talentless hack Jackson have to be a close second. Histrionic, boring, meandering -- taking an exciting bunch of books and turning them into that yawnfest -- and the character assassination of Aragorn, transforming him into a skulking, furtive, frightened clown in every scene he appears in.

The dwarf with the pseudo-Scottish accent ... Denethor ... Arwen slicing the elephant's hocks somehow ... long sequences of Elrond gabbling pompously about little or nothing (I guess it was cheaper than special effects though) ... not a bit of color in the film, which is basically all shades of cat vomit grey, even the green fields of Rohan ... and so utterly, incredibly boring ...

He should have just come out and said, "yeah, I hate Tolkien's work totally and wish he hadn't written it", instead of spending millions just to vandalize it.

Have you actually read the books? That's not vandalizing the original work, that's frighteningly accurate.

(With the exception of Tom Bombadil, half of me wants to see how a Peter Jackson produced Tom Bombadil would play out, the other half is saying "No really, it's Tom Bombadil. Keep him out of the movie.")

hamishspence

2012-05-22, 11:37 AM

Have you actually read the books? That's not vandalizing the original work, that's frighteningly accurate.

I can see his point about Aragorn in particular. Gimli got made a bit more bumbling, and Legolas's combat feats a bit more over-the-top, among other things.

ThirdEmperor

2012-05-22, 11:44 AM

I Am Legend
The Dark Is Rising
Kick-Ass
Eragon (Okay, the book wasn't good persay, but the movie was terrible even in comparison)
Minority Report
Total Recall
Dune
Ghost Rider
Dungeons and Dragons 1&2

Tvtyrant

2012-05-22, 11:50 AM

The D&D movies were atrocious. Just... Awful.

Also, the entire first set of batman movies. Even the first one was basically just Jack Nicholson being awesome.

Nai_Calus

2012-05-22, 11:59 AM

The movie version of John Grisham's The Firm was neither faithful nor good. Though I will freely admit that the climatic all-night file copying job would make a terrible film scene.

Serpentine

2012-05-22, 12:00 PM

But Adam West is awesome :smallfrown:
Histrionic, boring, meanderingHey now, I might prefer The Hobbit, but the LotR books aren't that bad!
:smalltongue:

Oh god I forgot about Ella Enchanted (or possibly repressed the memory of it). Good book and a neat twist on the genre, but that damn movie got me to hate Cary Elwes. I didn't think that was possible.Oh God, Cary Elwes was in it? I didn't see his parts, or forgot about them.
Why? :smallfrown: (http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/)

Tavar

2012-05-22, 12:00 PM

The fact that Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs, who created the Marauders' map, were Professor Lupin, Peter Pettigrew, Sirius Black, and James Potter, respectively.

I'm pretty sure that is mentioned. Doesn't Lupin at the end reveal that it was his fathers?

And, even if it's not, I'd hardly call it a key plot point. Where else does it come up? Heck, what part of any of the books plots changes?

DiscipleofBob

2012-05-22, 12:03 PM

Oh God, Cary Elwes was in it? I didn't see his parts, or forgot about them.
Why? :smallfrown: (http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/)

I'm sorry to say that he was the main villain, poisonous crown and everything.

RIP Cary Elwes' dignity.

comicshorse

2012-05-22, 01:12 PM

Remember that the fascist government were in charge only because every other option had failed. In the comic, Leader had quite a few monologues that showed that he really cared for his country and its people, and would do anything to protect them. Also remember the scenes that shows the general populace sitting and listening to Fate. They were shown to be accepting of the situation.

So the comic painted the government in a relatively good light. The movie made them into always CE bad guys. Which is a total divorce from the theme of the original work.

Seriously no. I don't care how patriotic the Leader is that doesn't excuse the slaughter of a significant portion of the population because he hates their ethnicity or sexual orientation. Mass murder is still evil. The government in the comic is evil, they may pump up propaganda that they are doing what's good for the country(or even believe it in some deluded cases) but they are card carrying EVIL.
Yes the people are accelpting this but that is the point of the comic to wake them up and make them realize how enslaved they are and what horrors are being carried out in there name.
I'd argue the theme of the comic is how complicit 'ordinary' people often are in the hideous things regimes do in their name and how we must all take responsibility for the m rather then just giving them our tacit support by just keeping quiet and keeping our heads down. ( See V's tv broadcast to the mation)

Dienekes

2012-05-22, 01:33 PM

Seriously no. I don't care how patriotic the Leader is that doesn't excuse the slaughter of a significant portion of the population because he hates their ethnicity or sexual orientation. Mass murder is still evil. The government in the comic is evil, they may pump up propaganda that they are doing what's good for the country(or even believe it in some deluded cases) but they are card carrying EVIL.
Yes the people are accelpting this but that is the point of the comic to wake them up and make them realize how enslaved they are and what horrors are being carried out in there name.
I'd argue the theme of the comic is how complicit 'ordinary' people often are in the hideous things regimes do in their name and how we must all take responsibility for the m rather then just giving them our tacit support by just keeping quiet and keeping our heads down. ( See V's tv broadcast to the mation)

I agree the government was evil in the comics. But they were most definitely human. We saw how they worked, how they thought. We saw how Susan honestly believed he was a good man and a savior. We saw that the Finger was lead by a corrupt lunatic. We saw that possibly they were useful. Every other nation was nearly destroyed but somehow Britain marched on. While they had done evil, unspeakable things, society was functioning. Barely, admittedly, but functioning.

That's what the movie didn't portray very well (or even tried to portray), the comic is about an evil government facing an equally evil man. A man who is willing to sacrifice and destroy everything just so that the future will fit his view of how things should be. It's very telling that the last we see of the society at large is that if anything it had gotten more violent and destructive after V's plans reach fruition. It leaves the reader wondering if it was all worth it, and if the evil government was the better of the two options presented. While yes, society had let themselves reach the morally bankrupt situation they were in through inaction, by the end they were the ones acting morally bankrupt.

All these uncertainties and moral ambiguity is swept under the rug in the movie to a scene blaring the 1812 Overture in triumph. Still good, but very different.

Ninjadeadbeard

2012-05-22, 02:15 PM

Tengu_temp

2012-05-22, 02:40 PM

The Dune movie is amazingly campy. It's worse than the book, but it's not a bad movie per se, just a grossly inaccurate and extremely eighties adaptation. It's a fun watch.

As for Lord of the Rings? Seriously, I think the first two movies are better than the books. The third one changes way too much, though, and not for the better - it's a much less gripping movie, and lots of things that were supposed to be serious and epic just come off as silly.

"Earthsea." Well, not so much a movie as a two-part TV monstrosity, but I think it qualifies.

This. So very much this. The Earthsea trilogy (let's mercifully ignore the books written 20+ years later) is classic fantasy with great atmosphere and interesting cultures that are not simply medieval Europe equivalents. The TV miniseries butchers pretty much the whole plot, atmosphere and message of the books, and feels like a prolonged episode of Hercules or Xena without any of the camp that made these shows fun.

Gnoman

2012-05-22, 03:56 PM

I'm pretty sure that is mentioned. Doesn't Lupin at the end reveal that it was his fathers?

And, even if it's not, I'd hardly call it a key plot point. Where else does it come up? Heck, what part of any of the books plots changes?

It's not so much a key plot point as much as a character point. A huge part of the backstories for the Potterverse characters revolves around James Potter's circle of friends. Leaving out that bit of backstory (where you see the first hints of what James was really like) contributes to a weakening of the characterization.

Drolyt

2012-05-22, 05:50 PM

I have no interest in seeing the movie, but from what I've heard, they completely failed to convey that Catnip was faking the romance. Which is a major plot point.
True, and that makes the story different, but in my opinion that is different as in better. Really, Katniss comes off as much more likable and heroic in the movie.

Dumbledore lives

2012-05-22, 06:04 PM

Drolyt

2012-05-22, 06:10 PM

Dienekes

2012-05-22, 06:16 PM

I actually thought about adding I Am Legend on my list earlier, but I think the beginning had too many distinctly good parts to be considered a bad movie. It isn't until about halfway through it starts to really get boring.

And having watched both endings, while the alternate ending was closer to the original story it was still too different to really matter and in my opinion was still pretty dull.

Drolyt

2012-05-22, 06:42 PM

Dienekes

2012-05-22, 06:59 PM

I'm going to be honest, I'm not clear on how "close to the original" is a point in favor of quality.

Well since the most interesting and memorable thing about the original book was it's ending, it can be argued that the ending was what makes something an I Am Legend movie as opposed to just some other vampire flick. Especially when you look at the name I Am Legend and just why it makes sense as the story concludes. So theoretically being closer to that ending would be better. But since it wasn't really all that close, and was still handled in a pretty dull manner it doesn't actually get any points.

Mauve Shirt

2012-05-22, 07:24 PM

It's not so much a key plot point as much as a character point. A huge part of the backstories for the Potterverse characters revolves around James Potter's circle of friends. Leaving out that bit of backstory (where you see the first hints of what James was really like) contributes to a weakening of the characterization.

True enough. It's a big deal and they let it sit at one line.
WHICH THEY ALSO DID at the end of the 8th, when they relegated the ENTIRE REASON HARRY COULD BEAT VOLDEMORT to 2 sentences that he says to Ron and Hermione instead of directly in Voldemort's face in front of the entire school.

Amiel

2012-05-22, 08:24 PM

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

That movie was more than atrocious; but it was rather camp.

There are many. Let's name something not already listed...

from books: starship troopers
from comics: the punisher

I quite enjoyed Starship Troopers; while it didn't have the impact or "gravitas" as Heinlein's novel, it was quite a satisfying movie.

The fact that Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs, who created the Marauders' map, were Professor Lupin, Peter Pettigrew, Sirius Black, and James Potter, respectively.

Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't you (general you) have inferred that knowledge from or after watching the entire movie (and it was mentioned they were animagus)?
Lupin was a werewolf, hence Moony.
Sirius could turn into the Grim (or something like it, the Black Dog), hence Padfoot.
James had the deer as his Patronus, hence Prongs.
Pettigrew was able to turn into a rat, hence Wormtail.

The movie 300 was a terrible, atrocious movie.

Crow

2012-05-22, 08:37 PM

I remember watching I Am Legend and wanting him to friggin nuke the city when the zombies got his dog. Man, I think I'd have done the same thing he did!

Anyhow, we need to remember that this is a thread about good books and BAD movies. Whether the movie is faithful to the book isn't the issue, so much as how that adapation turned out as a movie.

Now, to the person who said Total Recall was a bad movie: Is that more that it was a terrible adaptation, or that you feel the movie was bad as a movie? Because as a movie, I thought it was fantastic.

ThirdEmperor

2012-05-22, 09:03 PM

Crow

2012-05-22, 09:27 PM

I think it was awful as a movie in general. I know it was meant to be a mindscrew sort of movie, but the thing with mindscrews is the plot has to have some level of clarity or it just ends up as a muddled mess.

I dunno, I was pretty darn young when I watched it. Maybe I'll take a second look.

It didn't make sense when I first saw it (think I was 12). I went back and watched it as an adult and it all made sense. It was awesome.

Killer Angel

2012-05-23, 02:06 AM

People are saying I am Legend was a terrible adaptation, but I think it works really well if you watch the deleted ending. The one where instead of blowing himself and the vampires up he opens the cage and they casually walk in, take their female, and walk out. Changes the movie entirely, like everything that happens, and they decided with the stupid theater ending. I really liked the movie, with the actual ending.

QFT. The alternate ending is far better.

I quite enjoyed Starship Troopers; while it didn't have the impact or "gravitas" as Heinlein's novel, it was quite a satisfying movie.

Really? the only parts good (IMO) were the propaganda clips.

Now, to the person who said Total Recall was a bad movie: Is that more that it was a terrible adaptation, or that you feel the movie was bad as a movie? Because as a movie, I thought it was fantastic.

QFT. The movie was quite enjoyable. Must also be said that not always the films "based" on Philip ****'s stories, share something with said stories, other than the title (with Blade Runner the most notorious example).

Feytalist

2012-05-23, 02:26 AM

QFT. The movie was quite enjoyable. Must also be said that not always the films "based" on Philip ****'s stories, share something with said stories, other than the title (with Blade Runner the most notorious example).

Not even the title. Blade Runner is based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Total Recall is We Can Remember It For You Wholesale. The Adjustment Bureau is Adjustment Team. Minority Report was the only one I know of that actually kept the title, and it's also the one that sticks most to the original story. "Most" being a relative term.

Edit: Also A Scanner Darkly. I forgot about that one.

Killer Angel

2012-05-23, 02:35 AM

Not even the title. Blade Runner is based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Total Recall is We Can Remember It For You Wholesale. The Adjustment Bureau is Adjustment Team.

Ah, yes, you're obviously right. I'll also add the film "screamers", Vs the novel "Second Variety" (another bizarre adaptation, to be gentle).

Minority Report was the only one I know of that actually kept the title, and it's also the one that sticks most to the original story. "Most" being a relative term.

Yes, if we leave aside the total different ending and a bunch of other things...

Omergideon

2012-05-23, 02:41 AM

I don't understand this. I read the comic for the first time a little while ago, and I only counted one or two minor changes (one being the crime those first guys Kickass encountered were committing), and one major change (the nature of Big Daddy). Other than those, it was basically exactly the same, except expanded upon (kinda understandable, considering it'd be a pretty short movie if they had to stick directly to the comic).

They changed 2 major areas. Firstly the motivation of Big Daddy, and I think changing something that important about a major character is a significant thing. Secondly they changed completely the resolution of Kick Ass' story what with him getting the girl and all. Again this is a pretty big thing to change about a story. Especially since the climax and ending of a story is one of the most important things in a narrative.

Beyond that it is mostly smaller changes, but 2 massive ones are a sign of a less than perfectly faithful adaptation (note in both cases I like the changes. A lot)

Eldan

2012-05-23, 02:43 AM

Huh. Second Variety, really?

That could actually make a pretty interesting movie. Just make the setting as depressing as possible. I'm thinking half The Road, half Matrix's real world in aesthetics and mood.

And I just recently saw The Adjustment Bureau. Not that close to the story, but a pretty good movie.

Killer Angel

2012-05-23, 06:00 AM

Huh. Second Variety, really?

That could actually make a pretty interesting movie.

It would have totally been a perfect episode for The Twilight Zone...

DiscipleofBob

2012-05-23, 09:14 AM

@Kick-Ass:

It's worth mentioning that the movie adaptation was pretty much all the work from the original author.

Supposedly the story goes that the author wrote Kick-Ass in a format that could just as easily be presented as a movie storyboard, then when a studio came to him for the movie pitch, the author's conditions were that they make several key changes in the movie, including the ending.

Sunken Valley

2012-05-23, 09:37 AM

I have no interest in seeing the movie, but from what I've heard, they completely failed to convey that Catnip was faking the romance. Which is a major plot point.

It's implied. Besides, that's more a part of book 2.

@Kickass: They also changed two more factors. The entire nature of the big action scene at the end was altered. It looks better on film so okay. Also, Red Mist's reveal is a twist in the comic but something the audience are in on in the film.

Now for my two examples:

Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief: Not only made Hades a villain (when the books are one of the few accurate portrayals), removed the villain of the book, made Luke look very stupid for giving Percy the wings, Percy saved his mother and the overarching big bad was not present. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.

Golden Compass: Completely removed the subtext, switched events around and bizarely cut off half....

Dragosai

2012-05-23, 02:45 PM

{Scrubbed}

Tengu_temp

2012-05-23, 02:56 PM

Way to make sweeping statements there.

Dienekes

2012-05-23, 02:58 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

This would be fine if there were not some movies better, sometimes much better, than the book (The Godfather, Forest Gump, the Maltese Falcon, Fight Club, The Shining, Silence of the Lambs, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest to name a few that I've watched and read). And quite a lot more that I would consider about even.

Manga Shoggoth

2012-05-23, 03:02 PM

The Dune movie is amazingly campy. It's worse than the book, but it's not a bad movie per se, just a grossly inaccurate and extremely eighties adaptation. It's a fun watch.

As for Lord of the Rings? Seriously, I think the first two movies are better than the books. The third one changes way too much, though, and not for the better - it's a much less gripping movie, and lots of things that were supposed to be serious and epic just come off as silly.

Actually, my feeling on the LOTR/Dune adaptations was that they were excelent films in their own rights, but not very good adaptations of the books they were based on.

So -for me - it is really Good Book, Good Movie, Bad Adaptation.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Or possibly tell me about it while looking at your photographs, perhaps?

Wookieetank

2012-05-23, 03:05 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

tl;dr: Rabble rabble rabble! :smalltongue:

I do agree that it is a bit silly to compare two vastly different media types to one another, but there is something to be said for at least catching the feel or tone of the original work. Which is what I look for in movies based off of books. If you're going to call it x, it should at least look or feel like x, but due to the different medium, I don't expect the exact same story.

Dragosai

2012-05-23, 03:10 PM

This would be fine if there were not some movies better, sometimes much better, than the book (The Godfather, Forest Gump, the Maltese Falcon, Fight Club, The Shining, Silence of the Lambs, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest to name a few that I've watched and read). And quite a lot more that I would consider about even.

You missed my point if I had to pick overall which I prefer more as entertainment /pastime reading or movies I would choose movies. I say this as someone who loves books. I am not saying that all books are better than movies, but I can see you reading my post and thinking that.

I only mean that comparing books to movies/movies to books is like comparing a car to an airplane. You cannot judge them on the same points so just don't.

Dragosai

2012-05-23, 03:16 PM

{Scrubbed}

razark

2012-05-23, 03:19 PM

I only mean that comparing books to movies/movies to books is like comparing a car to an airplane. You cannot judge them on the same points so just don't.
I want to go from point A to point B. Both a car and a plane will get me there.
I can make a decision on:
How fast I want to get there.
How flexible I want my travel plans to be.
What I might want to do on the way.
Cost of each manner of travel.

Yeah, you can judge between the two. Just like you can decide which media tells the story better.

Killer Angel

2012-05-23, 03:39 PM

I want to go from point A to point B. Both a car and a plane will get me there.
I can make a decision on:
How fast I want to get there.
How flexible I want my travel plans to be.
What I might want to do on the way.
Cost of each manner of travel.

Yeah, you can judge between the two. Just like you can decide which media tells the story better.

There's also another case.
The car took you from point A to point B. The travel was good.
Then someone says: "now there's also a plane that goes the same way!".
Only, the plain start from point A and suddenly goes to point C.
It is a whole different thing. And you can certainly discuss if point C is (in the end) better or worse than point B.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-23, 03:50 PM

You have to compare them twice. As adaptations and as a story on their own. Ive seen that everybody here is generally doing that.

Mx.Silver

2012-05-23, 04:47 PM

Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief: Not only made Hades a villain (when the books are one of the few accurate portrayals),
Sadly, that's pretty standard behaviour when it comes to Hollywood. Disney's Hercules is another infamous offender on this. It's really quite sad considering that he's arguably less of a jerk than several other members of his pantheon, certainly less so than Zeus anyway.

WalkingTarget

2012-05-23, 05:50 PM

Regarding LotR (my opinions):

What did the movies do well? Set design and getting the basic plot up there on the screen. You want to know (more or less) what happens in that great big book? Watch the films, and the there-and-back thing is presented to you and, for the most part, the world looks good.

Where did it falter as an adaptation? Changing of themes and exclusion of much of the philosophical underpinnings of the story. "The nobility of Men" (as exemplified by Aragorn and Faramir in particular, but with other examples) replaced with "Men are weak" - Aragorn holds the line there, barely, but Faramir isn't treated as well. Instead of Men fighting off the Uruk Hai at Helm's Deep, we have a troop of Elves show up. Aragorn confronts Sauron via Palantir, but is shaken rather than wresting control away from him. Similarly, Denethor is just a broken madman instead of being deceived systematically by Sauron over a period of months. The limits of the Ring's power is removed from the narrative. No Scouring of the Shire means no scene showing the everyman (everyhobbit?) standing up for himself. And so on... For some of us, these things are as interesting as the bare plot so changing them is an issue.

Why are some of the changes ok? Bombadil has no place in the narrative if the themes related to the limits of Power are removed. That's more or less why he's so easily left out in adaptations; he's not important to the narrative, only to the philosophy underlying the narrative. Aragorn's weakness is played up for dramatic tension (his real character arc predates the story in the novel, he's already come to grips with who he is by the time the plot gets moving - they move that into the main plot in the film because they don't have an appendix to go over all of that stuff). Other changes are similarly excusable. The use of cheap comic relief gags (Gimli! :smallfurious:) and the unfortunate derailing of Faramir (to provide some tension in the Frodo & Sam thread without getting the timelines too out of whack) are the only things I really have problems with.

There are other issues related to the fact that they cut out significant numbers of good guys to streamline the cast of characters (no Erkenbrand, no sons of Elrond or any other northern Rangers, no Imrahil or anybody else from the mouth of the Anduin during the fighting at Minas Tirith, no Ghan-buri-ghan), but with movies as big as these, they had to cut some people out somewhere - it's hard enough keeping track of who everybody is when you're reading it and can go back to check who somebody is. Other changes are just due to time constraints to keep the movies down to manageable lengths. Leaving these things out did cause some changes in story, though.

Amiel

2012-05-23, 07:25 PM

Really? the only parts good (IMO) were the propaganda clips.

Yeah, well I thought so (I was entertained and the propaganda clips made the movie that much more entertaining); they weren't really taking themselves seriously.
I really liked the soundtrack.

Edit: Also A Scanner Darkly. I forgot about that one.

Unfortunately I have neither seen the movie nor read the book - I've heard the movie is mostly acceptable, but that could've been a lie.

GoblinArchmage

2012-05-23, 08:42 PM

The 1930s adaptation of Frankenstein was pretty terrible as an adaptation.

Ninjadeadbeard

2012-05-24, 12:32 AM

Regarding LotR (my opinions):

Really, when they changed things it was because of dramatic tension. They made Sauron and his ilk more powerful and imposing, made the heroes a little weaker (read: more believable to a modern audience) and seriously trimmed down on anything and everything that wasn't direly important.

I was okay with the handling of Faramir as his moment of weakness is quite believable given his backstory. The cutting of vast amounts of characters is only natural. I mean, in-universe it would make sense for there to be so many characters. It makes sense for Glorfindel to show up and do something and then never appear again, because he's just one part of a mythology and his adventures are presumably elsewhere (think: Hercules and the Argonauts). But you just can't do that in a movie.

There are only two things which mar the LotR movies: The Witch-King and the Mouth of Sauron (extended cut). While I would argue that Gandalf the White and the Witch-King of Angmar should be (thematically appropriate for Tolkien) roughly equal in power, the movies have WK shatter G's staff and throw him from his horse with a single display of power. What.

And when Aragorn killed the Mouth of Sauron...He was a messenger! You can't kill messengers! I think there's a line in the book about how even Sauron would never stoop so low as to kill a diplomat.

Other than that, Great movies. Maybe the greatest, and definitely the best adaptation possible.

Gnomish Wanderer

2012-05-24, 12:56 AM

I have no interest in seeing the movie, but from what I've heard, they completely failed to convey that Catnip was faking the romance. Which is a major plot point.

In the Hunger Games? I haven't read the books but I got the feeling she was faking it in theaters, you could tell. Though a friend of mine has read the books and is convinced Katniss wasn't faking the romance through the last part of the first book and onward.

Feytalist

2012-05-24, 01:52 AM

Unfortunately I have neither seen the movie nor read the book - I've heard the movie is mostly acceptable, but that could've been a lie.

The book is great. Typical PKD oddishness, and even more so. The movie is acceptable, yes. The movie is almost unique in that it captures the atmosphere of the book very well. So yeah, it's a pretty good adaption.

WalkingTarget

2012-05-24, 07:28 AM

Really, when they changed things it was because of dramatic tension. They made Sauron and his ilk more powerful and imposing, made the heroes a little weaker (read: more believable to a modern audience) and seriously trimmed down on anything and everything that wasn't direly important.

I was okay with the handling of Faramir as his moment of weakness is quite believable given his backstory. The cutting of vast amounts of characters is only natural. I mean, in-universe it would make sense for there to be so many characters. It makes sense for Glorfindel to show up and do something and then never appear again, because he's just one part of a mythology and his adventures are presumably elsewhere (think: Hercules and the Argonauts). But you just can't do that in a movie.

I'll grant that Faramir's failings makes sense given the "weakness" added to pretty much everybody as a theme in the movies (and for the pacing reasons I mentioned). Agreed otherwise.

There are only two things which mar the LotR movies: The Witch-King and the Mouth of Sauron (extended cut). While I would argue that Gandalf the White and the Witch-King of Angmar should be (thematically appropriate for Tolkien) roughly equal in power, the movies have WK shatter G's staff and throw him from his horse with a single display of power. What.

And when Aragorn killed the Mouth of Sauron...He was a messenger! You can't kill messengers! I think there's a line in the book about how even Sauron would never stoop so low as to kill a diplomat.

Other than that, Great movies. Maybe the greatest, and definitely the best adaptation possible.

Ugh... Must have blocked those out again. Yeah, add those to problems I have with the films in general - I think there's a reason that they got cut from the theatrical cuts of the film, but they had to be added back in later because the fans expect those scenes (I for one knew that Bruce Spence played the Mouth of Sauron and wondered where he was when I first watched RotK). I'd like to think that Jackson realized how off-key the scenes were so he cut them, but then it was too late to re-do them for the DVD.

I'm not convinced that these were the best possible adaptations of the book, but they're pretty good (which is pretty astounding given how bad things could have gone fairly easily). "Best adaptation possible" implies that there isn't anything that could have conceivably been done better, which I disagree with as an absolute statement (as a hyperbolic one, I might agree, though :smallwink:).

Omergideon

2012-05-24, 09:05 AM

As I said, often the more faithful adaptations end up being worse movies and vice versa. What works in visual media, or print, need not work in the other. In fact over slavish adherence may be as detrimental to the quality of an adaptation as overly liberal changes (irrespective of the rest of the quality of the adapted work)

As for LoTR, they were excellent films and I love them. I think they got most of the tone and feel of the books right. But there were some adapted things that got my goat. Well, one. The stripping of the dignity of Gimli and Denethor. Much more nuanced and complex characters in the books than we saw on the screen, and the story was the worse for it. Especially Denthor as a demonstration as to how the desire to do good can be twisted by the right pressure into evil.

Also, I missed Beregrond. Loved that guy.

Dragosai

2012-05-24, 09:56 AM

The Troubadour

2012-05-24, 10:10 AM

Let's see, I strongly disliked Francis Ford Coppola's "Dracula" for how it took the book's hints that Dracula was a character a bit more tragic than at first sight and turned him into a full-blown tragic, oh-so-romantic character. Seriously, we're expected to feel sorry for him in the end when Mina kills him, even though he did many despicable things throughout the movie! Not to mention I hated Hopkins' portrayal of prof. Van Helsing as a crazy, old coot.

I think the "Twilight" movies ranged from slightly enjoyable to forgettable, simply by virtue of not having Bella's inner narration or Meyer's awful writing.

I think the "Interview with the Vampire" movie was a lot better than the book, myself. I think all characters were more understandable and enjoyable, and I think the movie's pacing was a lot better.

I strongly dislike the "Lord of the Rings" movies, except for the third one, simply because they missed the entire point of the books - that it was basically a fairy tale/morality tale with a side order of epic/chivalric romance - and turned the story into a more standard Hollywood action movie.

The Troubadour

2012-05-24, 10:16 AM

I have no interest in seeing the movie, but from what I've heard, they completely failed to convey that Catnip was faking the romance. Which is a major plot point.

I haven't read the book, but I can tell you that in the movie, Katniss' romance with Peta wasn't all that genuine. There were signs of affection, but it came off more as her wanting to throw the guy a bone to encourage him, playing the audience, and (in the end) strongly faking it so that she wouldn't simply be killed.

The government in the comic is evil, they may pump up propaganda that they are doing what's good for the country(or even believe it in some deluded cases) but they are card carrying EVIL.

But V is also a violent, sociopathic lunatic in the comic. The movie turned him into a lot more of an unambiguous good guy.

Serpentine

2012-05-24, 10:44 AM

They changed 2 major areas. Firstly the motivation of Big Daddy, and I think changing something that important about a major character is a significant thing. Secondly they changed completely the resolution of Kick Ass' story what with him getting the girl and all. Again this is a pretty big thing to change about a story. Especially since the climax and ending of a story is one of the most important things in a narrative.

Beyond that it is mostly smaller changes, but 2 massive ones are a sign of a less than perfectly faithful adaptation (note in both cases I like the changes. A lot)I think the girl bit was the second minor change I forgot.
I'll grant you that changing those things altered the meaning/ultimate feeling of the movie, but plot-wise it basically changed nothing (and the only reason I add the "basically" is because "gets the girl" vs "doesn't get the girl" is a plot change). Moreover, those changes don't take away from the quality of the movie. I think, for the most part, they suit a film better than they would've suited a book - and the versions on the book suit the book better than they would've suited the movie.
As an adaptation, it is amazingly close, especially when you compare every single other adaptation in existence. I at, least, can't think of a single one that got anywhere close to as faithful. I remember noting that The Mist movie was in places word-for-word to the novella, but it had some seriously major plot changes.

Basically, I think the changes to Kickass were generally pretty minor and made sense for the adaptation, and that as far as adaptations go it was incredibly close to the original.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-05-24, 10:54 AM

Though a friend of mine has read the books and is convinced Katniss wasn't faking the romance through the last part of the first book and onward.

Ugh, I hate it that in most stories (and in the eyes of most people), that if someone feels a genuine care for someone within their age category, who's of the opposite gender, and is not related to them, it means they're going to end up together. If either of them are dating someone else, a breakup is inevitable. Seriously, when you're standing face to face with someone you know, who you have fought side-by-side with, who you are now being ordered to kill for no good reason, would you kill them, or would you kill yourself?

Tavar

2012-05-24, 11:06 AM

As someone who's seen the movie and never read the book, I think they did manage to convey that it wasn't a real attraction. By the end I would say she views him as a friend, but not really a romantic partner.

Maxios

2012-05-24, 11:09 AM

Hiro Protagonest

2012-05-24, 11:37 AM

Depends. Is this "puppy dog" romance that will only last a week, or full-blown soul mates?

Also: The Percy Jackson movie. Here's a list of the ways that it deviates from the book (at least, the ways I remember)
Everyone has an individual cabin.
Luke's cabin is full of technology, and he's even shown playing Call of Duty. In the books, it is said that no tech works in the limits of the camp.
Ares doesn't appear.
Kronos doesn't appear
The character's ages were increased
Percy rescuses his mom, and Grover stays behind with Hades' wife (I can't spell her name right)
The whole "Luke is evil thing" happens with a fight on a rooftop with Percy. In the books, it happens in the forest by camp.
Luke doesn't use a scorpion to poison Percy
Clarrise doesn't appear
The Hydra appears
Hades is evil
Annabeth is a redhead, while in the books she's blonde.
The hunt for the pearls takes up most of the movie, while in the book Percy is just given the pearls by a sea-nympth or something like that
The waterpark scene doesn't occur.
IIRC, Percy doesn't destroy Ms. Dodds, she just flies away while in the book he kills her.

Tech does work in the camp, it's just that using a cell phone or computer is basically showing up on the monsters' radar.

But all these changes sound like they destroy all the good stuff. The overarching plot, the somewhat grey morality, the accurate portrayal of Hades...

As for the romance. It's supposed to be some deep soulmate thing so they can get favor from the crowd. Then Catnip starts feeling genuine loyalty and care for Peeta, and I'm 99% sure Peeta wasn't faking the love, because he's surprised when she tells him on the train. Of course, if it was two guys or girls, and they left out the love plot, it would just be seen as a friend bond, although there will always be some slashficcers and some would root for a homosexual romance.

Tavar

2012-05-24, 02:09 PM

As for the romance. It's supposed to be some deep soulmate thing so they can get favor from the crowd. Then Catnip starts feeling genuine loyalty and care for Peeta, and I'm 99% sure Peeta wasn't faking the love, because he's surprised when she tells him on the train. Of course, if it was two guys or girls, and they left out the love plot, it would just be seen as a friend bond, although there will always be some slashficcers and some would root for a homosexual romance.

And that's how it's portrayed.

DiscipleofBob

2012-05-24, 02:18 PM

Also: The Percy Jackson movie. Here's a list of the ways that it deviates from the book (at least, the ways I remember)
Everyone has an individual cabin.
Luke's cabin is full of technology, and he's even shown playing Call of Duty. In the books, it is said that no tech works in the limits of the camp.
Ares doesn't appear.
Kronos doesn't appear
The character's ages were increased
Percy rescuses his mom, and Grover stays behind with Hades' wife (I can't spell her name right)
The whole "Luke is evil thing" happens with a fight on a rooftop with Percy. In the books, it happens in the forest by camp.
Luke doesn't use a scorpion to poison Percy
Clarrise doesn't appear
The Hydra appears
Hades is evil
Annabeth is a redhead, while in the books she's blonde.
The hunt for the pearls takes up most of the movie, while in the book Percy is just given the pearls by a sea-nympth or something like that
The waterpark scene doesn't occur.
IIRC, Percy doesn't destroy Ms. Dodds, she just flies away while in the book he kills her.

Don't forget the fight with the Echidna and the Chimera, which doesn't happen in the movie, replaced by a rather cliche Hydra fight instead.

The Troubadour

2012-05-24, 02:57 PM

Basically, I think the changes to Kickass were generally pretty minor and made sense for the adaptation, and that as far as adaptations go it was incredibly close to the original.

I haven't read the comic, so I don't know if this is accurate, but a friend told me the movie was, in general, had a lot more of a positive outlook than the comic. There was a sentence, I think I saw it in TV Tropes, which particularly conveyed the difference between the two:

Comic version: "Out of a combination of loneliness and despair, I became a super-hero."
Movie version: "Out of a combination, of optimism and naiveté."

Edit: Yeah, it was on TV Tropes.

Sunken Valley

2012-05-24, 03:02 PM

Depends. Is this "puppy dog" romance that will only last a week, or full-blown soul mates?

Also: The Percy Jackson movie. Here's a list of the ways that it deviates from the book (at least, the ways I remember)
Everyone has an individual cabin.
Luke's cabin is full of technology, and he's even shown playing Call of Duty. In the books, it is said that no tech works in the limits of the camp.
Ares doesn't appear.
Kronos doesn't appear
The character's ages were increased
Percy rescuses his mom, and Grover stays behind with Hades' wife (I can't spell her name right)
The whole "Luke is evil thing" happens with a fight on a rooftop with Percy. In the books, it happens in the forest by camp.
Luke doesn't use a scorpion to poison Percy
Clarrise doesn't appear
The Hydra appears
Hades is evil
Annabeth is a redhead, while in the books she's blonde.
The hunt for the pearls takes up most of the movie, while in the book Percy is just given the pearls by a sea-nympth or something like that
The waterpark scene doesn't occur.
IIRC, Percy doesn't destroy Ms. Dodds, she just flies away while in the book he kills her.

To be fair Ms Dodds regenerates.

Here's more
Luke is the big bad.
Luke did not sabotage the winged shoes.
And my favourite...Persephone should not be in the underworld as the film and book are set in June! The book even has Percy wish Persephone were there as she can calm Hades. Even worse she saves them.

Omergideon

2012-05-24, 03:35 PM

I'll grant you that changing those things altered the meaning/ultimate feeling of the movie,

I guess I just see this as a much bigger aspect of an adaptation than the plot. To me this is one of the biggest measures of fidelity.

Serpentine

2012-05-24, 05:24 PM

I haven't read the comic, so I don't know if this is accurate, but a friend told me the movie was, in general, had a lot more of a positive outlook than the comic. There was a sentence, I think I saw it in TV Tropes, which particularly conveyed the difference between the two:

Comic version: "Out of a combination of loneliness and despair, I became a super-hero."
Movie version: "Out of a combination, of optimism and naiveté."

Edit: Yeah, it was on TV Tropes.I'd agree with that.

Omergideon: Yeah, I'd say you can distinguish between plot fidelity and philosophical or "feel" fidelity. But even so, I'd say Kickass has pretty incredibly plot fidelity, and I'd still say "feel" wise it's closer to the original than a lot of adaptations, and no further than most.

Gnomish Wanderer

2012-05-24, 06:07 PM

Ugh, I hate it that in most stories (and in the eyes of most people), that if someone feels a genuine care for someone within their age category, who's of the opposite gender, and is not related to them, it means they're going to end up together. If either of them are dating someone else, a breakup is inevitable. Seriously, when you're standing face to face with someone you know, who you have fought side-by-side with, who you are now being ordered to kill for no good reason, would you kill them, or would you kill yourself?

I would kill them.

Seriously, I don't think I could take my own life unless it was for someone I really cared deeply about. I am vehemently against the concept of suicide, and I would not have considered it as a third option besides Kill or Be Killed.

But in regards to the movie I still think they did a fantastic job of showing that Katniss had to fake a relationship with Peeta but was slowly developing real feelings for him.
And according to my friend the second book she really is on the fence and the third book it's Peeta all the way so I don't see how she HASN'T fallen for Peeta towards the end of the first book, otherwise she wouldn't be so confused about it in Book 2.

Dumbledore lives

2012-05-24, 08:16 PM

I'd agree with that.

Omergideon: Yeah, I'd say you can distinguish between plot fidelity and philosophical or "feel" fidelity. But even so, I'd say Kickass has pretty incredibly plot fidelity, and I'd still say "feel" wise it's closer to the original than a lot of adaptations, and no further than most.

They changed the finale completely with the movie though, in the comics it was fairly low key, with Hit Girl killing everyone, and Kickass doing little, but in the movie you have jetpacks and rocket launchers, and entirely different tone. Changing Big Daddy also helped to create this tone, so by changing the theme and feel it changed the plot significantly, resulting in a very different, and in my opinion inferior product.

Serpentine

2012-05-24, 09:01 PM

Omergideon

2012-05-25, 02:28 AM

I just hated the downer ending of the book so much, and thought the new version of Big Daddy was so much more nuanced that it elevated the whole thing.

Though I think, yeah, the plot is very much as presented in the book (climax aside). But the tone was a big shift from a seeming "superheroes would all be messed up, ineffective psychotic messes who should not be trusted with anything" to a "to think being a superhero would help things is naive. Best leave it to professionals......allthough superheros in real life would be WEIRD!" tone.

I think as well Kick Ass grows up a bit more by participating in the finale to a much greater extent. He actually properly mans up enough to quit with his head held high. Ish. And is not crapped on.

Changing the ending I think inherently does change everything that went before though, by casting it in a new light. It's why I always prefer a film when I see it the second time. The ending allows me to properly view the early scenes. And a downer ending can (for instance) render every existing spot of happiness in the film more bittersweet/pointless. Vice Versa a happy ending can make the crap a character experiences early on less horrid. So changing the ending of Kick Ass from "life takes a **** on him" to "happy endings for all" completely rewrites the early scenes without changing a single image.

My 2p.

Still Kick Ass was faithful, and I thought the things they changed only improved it.

Dienekes

2012-05-25, 05:39 AM

Oh yes, that's true. They did add a whole lot to the ending. But I disagree with you on it making a bad movie - I'd say it was necessary, and I'm glad, at least, that they let Kickass have a bigger role (although I'd grant that the jetpack was somewhat unnecessary).

No. The jetpack was the single most necessary thing in the finale (with the possible exception of using Sergio Leone music)

Radar

2012-05-25, 08:43 AM

No. The jetpack was the single most necessary thing in the finale (with the possible exception of using Sergio Leone music)
You mean Ennio Morricone music. Sergio Leone was the movie director - not a composer.

Tanuki Tales

2012-05-25, 09:29 AM

Alan Moore's genius is for dialogue and characters not plots. As the Watchmen movie fixed the problem of the teleporting squid, the V movie fixed the problem of the riduculously coincedental assassination of the Leader just when he needed to die.

Sorry, no, the end of the movie made less sense by changing the threat to being Doctor Manhattan instead of aliens.

@Succubus: I thought one of the prevalent theories was that Bombadil was the manifestation of the will of Middle-Earth itself.

And now I'll throw my hat into the ring:

"Wee Free Men". An adaptation SO terrible that it was cancelled after the script was written. :smalltongue:

Dienekes

2012-05-25, 09:31 AM

You mean Ennio Morricone music. Sergio Leone was the movie director - not a composer.

You are correct sir. A shameful and pathetic mistake on my part.

comicshorse

2012-05-25, 10:34 AM

Sorry, no, the end of the movie made less sense by changing the threat to being Doctor Manhattan instead of aliens.

That's a point of view. I'd argue that 'aliens' who no-one has ever seen before, of which there is no previous evidence, of which no other evidence will be ever found make a much less likely villain for people to believe in than the god-like figure that everybody has seen, that has been around for decades and that millions have seen going slowly 'weirder' and more dangerous in the days that lead up to his 'attack'.
That's before we get into the Moore suddenlu conjuring up out of nowhere physics so the whole plot works. Or the fact that the conclusion could easily be drawn, as there is absolutely no alien follow up attack that this wasn't an attack but some kind of horrendous teleportation accident.

Tanuki Tales

2012-05-25, 10:40 AM

That's a point of view. I'd argue that 'aliens' who no-one has ever seen before, of which there is no previous evidence, of which no other evidence will be ever found make a much less likely villain for people to believe in than the god-like figure that everybody has seen, that has been around for decades and that millions have seen going slowly 'weirder' and more dangerous in the days that lead up to his 'attack'.
That's before we get into the Moore suddenlu conjuring up out of nowhere physics so the whole plot works. Or the fact that the conclusion could easily be drawn, as there is absolutely no alien follow up attack that this wasn't an attack but some kind of horrendous teleportation accident.

Yes, because Doctor Manhattan, a physical god who could wipe the world clean and who is hinted at potentially have the power to not only create life, but on a large scale and who can see his entire timeline and duplicate himself en masse is a better villain.

That wouldn't unite the people of Earth. That would drive them further apart as they languish in despair concerning facing a foe that is neither unknown or someone they really have any doubts about being unable to fight. You'd have some fools thinking they could wage war on him, some people trying to ignore it happened while hoping he doesn't come out of the sky and do it again, some people trying to hide as far and deep as they can, praying he passes them over and you'd have some waging war on all the others just to placate him.

The movie ending would screw up and drive humanity further apart and make nuclear war even more likely to occur. They're up against God, who cares if the planet gets irradiated and people die, it was going to happen anyways.

comicshorse

2012-05-25, 11:37 AM

Yes, because Doctor Manhattan, a physical god who could wipe the world clean and who is hinted at potentially have the power to not only create life, but on a large scale and who can see his entire timeline and duplicate himself en masse is a better villain.

That wouldn't unite the people of Earth. That would drive them further apart as they languish in despair concerning facing a foe that is neither unknown or someone they really have any doubts about being unable to fight. You'd have some fools thinking they could wage war on him, some people trying to ignore it happened while hoping he doesn't come out of the sky and do it again, some people trying to hide as far and deep as they can, praying he passes them over and you'd have some waging war on all the others just to placate him.

The movie ending would screw up and drive humanity further apart and make nuclear war even more likely to occur. They're up against God, who cares if the planet gets irradiated and people die, it was going to happen anyways.

Interesting point. But if its true I don't see how it doesn't equally apply to the god-like aliens who can destroy cities at will and leave no trace or sign of the presence.

Tanuki Tales

2012-05-25, 11:55 AM

Interesting point. But if its true I don't see how it doesn't equally apply to the god-like aliens who can destroy cities at will and leave no trace or sign of the presence.

Erm...they didn't leave no trace or sign. There was the huge corpse left behind and the massive psionic shockwave that'd flooded the minds of all survivors and would haunt the dreams of sensitives for years to come.

Morty

2012-05-25, 01:40 PM

comicshorse

2012-05-25, 01:45 PM

Erm...they didn't leave no trace or sign. There was the huge corpse left behind and the massive psionic shockwave that'd flooded the minds of all survivors and would haunt the dreams of sensitives for years to come.

Which leaves no trace of how they did it, where they came from, when they might do it again, etc. In fact any information that would help explain them or give even a start to ideas on how to deal with them.

Tanuki Tales

2012-05-25, 02:06 PM

Which leaves no trace of how they did it, where they came from, when they might do it again, etc. In fact any information that would help explain them or give even a start to ideas on how to deal with them.

Except Veidt kind of inferred that all the information necessary was disseminated. That's why he kidnapped so many artists, writers and scientists to craft the perfect fantasy.

Radar

2012-05-25, 03:07 PM

Such a thread cannot be complete without someone Polish mentioning the Witcher movie and TV series, so I'll do it now. Based on two fairly good books, the movie and the TV series are both complete and utter disasters on many levels. I guess it can't have been any other way, seeing as the producers bought the rights to two books of short, largely standalone stories and thought they can make a film out of that. If they'd only planned on a series, it might have worked out better...
Why? Why did you have to remind me of this crime against art and common sense? Cringe-worthy dialogs, wooden acting and Godzilla-level special effects. The horror... the horror...

On a lighter note, if a copy of an adaptation still counts as one, then take a look at this version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5Pjo0WjBcs) of Superman (or that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg8OXdDFWm0) one) - they didn't age as well as the original. On the other hand, it's not like people in USA didn't fumble early cartoon adaptations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj26N10Ymlg) of superhero comics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mlFjjzimcs&feature=relmfu) (1966 was not a good year for animation).

Morty

2012-05-25, 03:16 PM

Why? Why did you have to remind me of this crime against art and common sense? Cringe-worthy dialogs, wooden acting and Godzilla-level special effects. The horror... the horror...

Don't forget sex scenes thrown in for no rational purpose. Well, other than to try and cover up the horrendous quality of the plot.
And really, the actors aren't that bad in that movie. Some of them are quite good. It's just that there's only so much you can do when the writing is a crime against art.

Tengu_temp

2012-05-26, 11:30 AM

And really, the actors aren't that bad in that movie. Some of them are quite good. It's just that there's only so much you can do when the writing is a crime against art.

Zamachowski as Dandelion and Dymna as Nenneke are definitely the best actors there. Pity that the former is horribly miscast and looks nothing like he should, while the latter dies, which never happened in the books. :smallannoyed:

On the other hand, Geralt is played by Żebrowski, who is sometimes referred to as a Polish equivalent of Keanu Reeves, while Ciri's child actress is just awful even by child actor standards. And these two are the most important characters in the show.

Morty

2012-05-26, 11:44 AM

It's been a while since I watched it, but Żebrowski did seem to have trouble with actually emoting. As for Dandelion and Zamachowski... well, Dandelion was said to look younger than he actually was - he looked 30 when he was actually around 40 - and somewhat elf-like. Zamachowski fits neither of the two descriptions.
Otherwise yeah, like I said - there's only so much actors, even good ones, can do when the writers have no idea what the hell they're doing. What really got me was that the soldiers from Nilfgaard were looking for Ciri... only the reasons why the Empire wants her were disclosed in the books they didn't buy the rights for. So it made no sense whatsoever.

Tengu_temp

2012-05-26, 11:52 AM

For those who don't know:
This is how Dandelion looks in the games, where he looks as he should based on his book descriptions:
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070901202315/wiedzmin/images/2/2b/Jaskier_z_gry.jpg
This is how he looks in the movie/TV show:
http://images.wikia.com/wiedzmin/images/6/6d/Jaskier.jpg
He's played by a very good actor, but come on.

What really got me was that the soldiers from Nilfgaard were looking for Ciri... only the reasons why the Empire wants her were disclosed in the books they didn't buy the rights for. So it made no sense whatsoever.

Clearly, she's really an experimental golem that escaped from a Nilfgard wizard's laboratory and badly pretends to be a human girl, and they want to get her back.

Morty

2012-05-26, 04:13 PM

She might as well be, given that we're told zilch about why they really want her...
EDIT: I can't believe I forgot about this. In one of the episodes of the TV show, the one in Cintra, Geralt rides up a hill, and you can see an asphalt road with a road sign in the background. That's just sad.

Dark Elf Bard

2012-05-26, 04:18 PM

Guys.

Anyone see The Tale Of Despereaux?

NNNHH

HORRID

Wardog

2012-05-26, 08:19 PM

Let's see, I strongly disliked Francis Ford Coppola's "Dracula" for how it took the book's hints that Dracula was a character a bit more tragic than at first sight and turned him into a full-blown tragic, oh-so-romantic character. Seriously, we're expected to feel sorry for him in the end when Mina kills him, even though he did many despicable things throughout the movie! Not to mention I hated Hopkins' portrayal of prof. Van Helsing as a crazy, old coot.

Has anyone else seen the 2006 British TV movie version of Darcula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_%282006_film%29)?

Harker gets killed in Castle Dracula.
Van Helsing is a prisoner in Dracula's hideaway in England.
The last half of the book-plot is cut off: they never return to Transilvania - Dracula gets killed while they're still in England.
The whole thing was instigated by a Dracula-serving cult that claimed to be doing it to cure Holmwood's syphilis.

(Also, I know the level of sexual repression in the original Dracula is frankly ridiculous ("Oh... God! The horror! Lucy's become... voluptuous!") But for once I'd like to see an adaptation that doesn't treat it as one of - if not the - main plot points).