Adaptations you like more than the original work

[Tengu_temp]

What it says in the title. Adaptations from any source to any other source are fine. Do note that this is about personal tastes, not some objective quality.

First, the example I give every time: the first two LotR movies. I'm not in the camp that says the books are dry and unreadable, though I'm not in the camp that says they're awesome either. I think they're okay. But these two movies, they are better than okay - much more gripping, filled with atmospheric and epic moments. They changed some things for the worse, but overall I still like them more. Not Return of the King though - this one just doesn't feel as epic when it should be the most grand of them all, and it changed too many things for the worse. Denethor and the ghosts spring to mind.

Apocalypse Now may be only loosely based on Heart of Darkness, but I'd say it counts as an adaptation. It's a great, extremely iconic movie, while the original book was a torment to plow through, unengaging, horribly written and filled with uninteresting non-characters and pseudo-philosophy. I'd take my smell of napalm over that every morning.

There are many mecha shows that I like much more when they appear in Super Robot Wars games. Aquarion is the best example - the show is fairly mediocre, but it's so cool in SRW Z!

[Terraoblivion]

Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. In general by not filtering everything through Kyon's thoughts both Haruhi and he become more complex, ambiguous characters. The voice acting and animation quality also help get emotional nuances through better than Tanigawa managed as a writer. That doesn't mean the books aren't good as well, but they lack the impact that KyoAni has managed to get into the anime.

[Fri]

I distinctively think I had a similar thread before...

Anyway what I mentioned at that previous thread was...

Starship Trooper: Razack's Roughneck.

You know, the 3d cg animated series. Outdated visual aside, I still think this is the best thing ever produced from the Starship Trooper name. It combines the good part of the movie and the good part of the novel, putting aside most of the bad parts, and adapt it into a surprisingly good animated series.

And the other one. I'm pretty sure it's not actually better than the original ghostbuster series, or even the original animated series, but this need to be mentioned just from the surprising goodness it has.

Extreme Ghostbusters. How can you imagine that a 90s XTREMEd series and putting stereotypical things like disabled character and token black guy, can be that good? Great characters, creative and actually scary monsters, relatively good writings for a kid's cartoon, and all that.

[Tengu_temp]

Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya

I feel dumb for forgetting that.

[Tanuki Tales]

Extreme Ghostbusters. How can you imagine that a 90s XTREMEd series and putting stereotypical things like disabled character and token black guy, can be that good? Great characters, creative and actually scary monsters, relatively good writings for a kid's cartoon, and all that.

Second this.

And I need to see if they've collected this into a DVD box set yet...

One of the best 90s shows there was.

[Prime32]

Do spinoffs count for this?

Extreme Ghostbusters reminds me of Alienators: Evolution Continues. Much better than the movie it was based on.

"We're carbon-based and arsenic is our poison, therefore..." *skims finger along periodic table* "The aliens are vulnerable to selenium!"
...yeah.

Along similar but less extreme lines: Stargate SG-1. Atlantis and Universe not so much.


Also, Fullmetal Alchemist. The first anime adaptation just felt... more than Brotherhood, even if they had to change the plot due to the manga not being finished yet. It had a good English dub too.

[Ravens_cry]

The Godfather compared to the book.
Seriously, the book has this overlong sub-plot that is excised entirely about the woman from the wedding.
I can't go into much details thanks to forum rules, but it's painful.
The rest is pulpy schlock, fun but nothing special, but the movie is a masterpiece.
I agree on Stargate SG-1 verses Stargate the film.
Jack O'Neill is far superior to Jack O'Neil.

[thompur]

Buffy, The Vampire Slayer.
How the Grinch Stole Christmas-the animated version from the '60's, of course.
The Lion King-Stage adaptation from the film. Julie Taymor's greatest artistic contribution to humanity.:smallbiggrin:

[Mx.Silver]

Ghost in the Shell. While still good, I'd say the original manga is definitely weaker than both the films and Stand Alone Complex.

[Manga Shoggoth]

A few Manga/Anime ones:

Angelic Layer: Went from 27-odd issues of Manga (collected in 5 volumes) to a 7-DVD set. The Anime was much better than the Manga (although the Manga wasn't bad...)

Apart from the odd bit of filler (far less than many anime adaptions, and some of it was quite good), the characters were better fleshed out, and there was a much better reason for the Shu apparantly abandoning Misaki.

Azumanga Daioh: I'm not sure why I like the Animation better, it just "is".


Martian Successor Nadesico: I never really "got" the Manga this was based on, and it was a little to serious for me. On the other hand, the Amimation was hilarious, and managed to be serious without taking itself too seriously.

[Prime32]

Martian Successor Nadesico: I never really "got" the Manga this was based on, and it was a little to serious for me. On the other hand, the Amimation was hilarious, and managed to be serious without taking itself too seriously.Actually the manga was based on the anime...

[Tengu_temp]

Oh man, the Nadesico manga. I haven't actually read it but my friend did, and from what he said, its plot is bizarre. And not in a good way. It also completely ruins many of the characters, and the artstyle will haunt your nightmares.

But yes, the anime was first.

[Reverent-One]

Also, Fullmetal Alchemist. The first anime adaptation just felt... more than Brotherhood, even if they had to change the plot due to the manga not being finished yet. It had a good English dub too.

This. At least up to where the plots entirely diverge after Greed's arc.

[Terraoblivion]

I'd say that for Azumanga Daioh it is that the anime makes you connect more with the characters, making the jokes have a bit more impact. That and that Azuma isn't a master of the format with 4komas and the result is worse comedic timing.

[Lord Seth]

The Vampire Diaries: I'm a fan of the TV series (no really, it actually is pretty good once you get past the early episodes), so I tried out the book series, and...yeah. I'll be sticking with the TV show. The first two books were really boring, and while the third was a tremendous improvement, it still wasn't that amazing. Now to be fair the TV series wasn't that great at first either, but even its weaker earlier episodes were better than the first books in the series.

Twilight: Okay, unlike The Vampire Diaries I didn't actually like the adaptation, but I thought it was better than the book. It removed or reduced some of the plot holes, got rid of some of the padding, set up a few things a little better, and overall was just a better version of the book. Plus, even if you dislike it, watching it is a lot quicker than reading through the book. I don't know if this is true for the sequels (haven't read or seen them), but the first movie was definitely better than the first book. Not good...but better.

Batman: The Animated Series: Good enough that they actually re-adapted some elements into the original series (e.g. Harley Quinn, Mr. Freeze). Actually, the DCAU in general my count.

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic: I'm not as into it as some people are, but I definitely like it more than the toy line.

[paddyfool]

How has Blade Runner not been mentioned yet? I mean, I like Phillip K ****'s books, but this film managed to be so much more than the book it was based on.

Also, a new one from just a couple of years back is the stage musical (http://www.timminchin.com/matilda/) version of Matilda. It's actually a thing of genius.

EDIT:


The Lion King

The question is, though, do you prefer the Lion King or Hamlet?

[comicshorse]

Dexter. The books are okay but I think the TV series approach to his relationship with his sister is better. Not to mention I really don't like the way the books went supernatural later on.

[Androgeus]

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. While the original is awesome, I do think the adaptation is more awesome.

[thisisnotspam]

Lord of the rings, possibly because i saw the films first.

Marvel's Thor, although i didn't read Marvel's nordic themed comics i did see a few cartoons and i thought such a take on norse mythology is just pathetic, but the film was very fun and enjoyable.

[Dr.Epic]

Homestar Runner - technically the webseries is based on a children's book.:smallwink:

[Ravens_cry]

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. While the original is awesome, I do think the adaptation is more awesome.
So, the book is better than the radio series?

[Soras Teva Gee]

Trigun: The anime is a solid condensation of all the important themes that all the details of the manga never really improved upon. The manga is good, the anime is a timeless classic.

Fate Zero: It might be an artifact of translation but I do not find light novels particularly engaging. Mind you I've only tried a small sample but Fate Zero was particularly so. Seeing the Holy Grail War come to life in glorious high budget animation is nothing but win and awesome.

Spice and Wolf: Same basic factor at work, also the dub work is surprisingly nice.

(I'd probably add Slayers here too but I can't verify them. However I can't think they'd make very good reading if things are at all similiar)

[BiblioRook]

Stardust
As a movie it ranks as one of my all-time favorates. As a book? While not horrible, it's definaltely my least favorate of Neil Gaiman's novels.
Also, Shakespeare? Completely stole the spotlight in that move (Robert De Niro as a ruthless but closeted flamboyantly gay sky pirate)... completely absent from the book.

[Dr.Epic]

Kick-Ass, though both kicked plenty of ass!:smallbiggrin::smallwink:

[Fri]

I can't believe I forgot these ones.

Planetes

The manga is an award winning realistic sci-fi series already, but the anime actually makes it better by putting new characters and filler episodes! It's weird how something can be much better by putting fillers. I guess the fillers makes it longer and add more character and setting developments.

and a similar one is.

Patlabor

Similar with planetes, a realistic sci-fi series that turns better by adding fillers and new characters. The fillers truly what makes the anime series great.

[turkishproverb]

The Godfather: The original was mediocre, the movie was great.

[Fri]

And talking about old cartoons, what do you think about the animated godzilla, the one based on american godzilla :smallbiggrin:?

[Remmirath]

In the way of things already mentioned, I agree about Blade Runner and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Other than that... Jurassic Park. I wasn't particularly fond of the book. Same goes for Ice Station Zebra. In both cases, I thought the book was all right, but like the movie a fair amount.


So, the book is better than the radio series?

I think so, although I do also like the radio series. So, Hitchhiker's Guide also. (Not the movie or TV series, though, although I suppose the TV series had a certain... something.)

[Androgeus]

So, the book is better than the radio series?

Indeed, I was being needless vague to see who got where I was coming from.

[Thanqol]

Apo -


Apocalypse Now may be only loosely based on Heart of Darkness, but I'd say it counts as an adaptation. It's a great, extremely iconic movie, while the original book was a torment to plow through, unengaging, horribly written and filled with uninteresting non-characters and pseudo-philosophy. I'd take my smell of napalm over that every morning.

- aw. I wrote one of my major essays on that.

Something no one else has said...

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Have you ever actually read the Final Problem? Sherlock Holmes gives some flat exposition on how bad a dude Moriarty is and then runs off ahead of Watson. When Watson gets to Reichenbach Falls, Holmes is already dead and Watson's basically reading his suicide note. For one of the all-time most iconic villains, Moriarty in Doyle's work is actually really kind of a non entity.

I love the original Holmes stories to bits, but really, they suffer from a lot of problems. There have been some magnificent adaptations. Game of Shadows is my favourite of them, not least because it's amazing fun throughout.

[tomandtish]

MoneyBall. The book seemed more geared to the stats people. It never really dragged me in. The movie made it more approachable. I actually cared if his idea worked.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Actually the manga was based on the anime...


Oh man, the Nadesico manga. I haven't actually read it but my friend did, and from what he said, its plot is bizarre. And not in a good way. It also completely ruins many of the characters, and the artstyle will haunt your nightmares.

But yes, the anime was first.

Blast! I'll have to move the post to the other thread...

Tengu_temp: You are right - preserve your sanity - don't read the manga. I only brought it out of obsessive completeness, and I think it cured me of it.


Indeed, I was being needless vague to see who got where I was coming from.

Interestingly, I am far more tolerent of the different versions of Hitchhiker (Radio series, record, books {most of them, anyway}, TV series, film, "new" radio series) than I am of almost anything else. Adams made no bones about the fact that he wrote them differently so he could try and do different things. In fact I really enjoyed the film and TV adaptions.

On the other hand, I really dislike the "seqel" written by some other author whose name I cannot be bothered to remember. One of the few occasions I read something to the sound of my teeth grinding.

[dehro]

Hercule poirot as played by Peter Ustinov beats the crap out of the books, which are still good.
+1 on stardust, kick-ass and blade runner.
also, the princess bride.

[Mx.Silver]

On the other hand, I really dislike the "sequel" written by some other author whose name I cannot be bothered to remember. One of the few occasions I read something to the sound of my teeth grinding.

Eoin Colfer - of the Artemis Fowl books, I think. I haven't read his sequels, since I'm sceptical about how well his style would fit with the series and also because the only time I've seen an author switch that didn't completely suck was William Horwood's sequels to The Wind in the Willows.



also, the princess bride.
Yes, also this.

[Scowling Dragon]

Demolition Man VS a Brave new world.
stupid world that just sounds like a nagging mother "Wah wah wah. If you don't read then your the scion of the apocalypse!"

Whilst demolition man was a fun action movie and was preaching balance of Correctness and Overt protection. And it showed the consequences of each side.

[Mx.Silver]

Demolition Man VS a Brave new world.
stupid world that just sounds like a nagging mother "Wah wah wah. If you don't read then your the scion of the apocalypse!"

Demonlition Man is not an adaptation of Brave New World, nor was it intended as such. One of characters has a name that references the book, but that's it.

[Scowling Dragon]

It was at least partially adapted and took themes from the book.

[Mx.Silver]

It was at least partially adapted and took themes from the book.
For it to be a partial adaptation it would have to include at least some of the same setting, characters and plot - which it doesn't. Aside from the name reference, the only notable similarity is that they both feature an 'outsider' protagonist who ends-up in a dystopic future society. Beyond that it has about as much to do with Brave New World as Equilibrium does.

[Thufir]

Buffy, The Vampire Slayer.

Does that really count as an adaptation?


Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. While the original is awesome, I do think the adaptation is more awesome.

I've never actually heard the original rasdio series, but based on having read the scripts, I'm not sure which I'd prefer between the radio and the books.

I find it hard to think of any adaptation I prefer to the original. Where I think something is a bad adaptation I can pick it apart, but where I think it's a good adaptation, I will like both and have difficulty comparing them because they're in different media.

[Bulldog Psion]

I'll have to second Blade Runner. The movie is excellent, the book ... not so much. It's kind a textbook example of taking a mediocre work and turning it into something excellent with an adaptation.

After seeing the Godfather movies, I never read any of the books, because I heard they weren't as good, and I preferred not to clutter my mind with an inferior rendering of the events.

[Dr. Bath]

The Men in Black animated series based off the film based off the comics was brilliant. Not sure how it stands up against the comics but I'd say it edges out the film(s) it was directly based off.

Also surprised how many people are saying Blade Runner. Do Androids Dream was excellent and the film (whilst also very good) I didn't think really captured the book at all. It was just a completely different beast.

Depends how you define the 'goodness' of an adaptation I suppose.

[Gnoman]

The live action Death Note movies were an improvement over both of the other formats, although the pacing was a little off. The fact that the film version ends with

L writing his own name into the Death Note as a trap for Light, which works,

Is a large part of why.

[Bulldog Psion]

Just out of curiosity, how are the Hellboy movies compared to the comics? I've seen the movies, enjoyed them, but never read the comics, so I'm curious about whether this is a case of a superior, inferior, or equal adaptation in the opinions of those familiar with both.

[Giggling Ghast]

Just out of curiosity, how are the Hellboy movies compared to the comics? I've seen the movies, enjoyed them, but never read the comics, so I'm curious about whether this is a case of a superior, inferior, or equal adaptation in the opinions of those familiar with both.

There are significant differences between the films and comics. To list them off:

1) The comics version of Hellboy is a virtually unstoppable badass with a healing factor that would make Wolverine blanche white.

2) However, the forces arrayed against Hellboy and the BPRD are so unbelievably powerful that they complete negate his physical advantages. Members of the BPRD whose names aren't Abe Sapien or Liz tend to die by the truckload.

3) The tone is considerably darker. The movies don't shy away from the fact that Hellboy is destined to end the world, but there are so many other entities capable of launching the apocalypse in the comics that the end o the world seems inevitable. In fact, several countries and cities have already been destroyed by various supernatural forces.

4) There's no romantic subplot with Liz and Hellboy, though there are hints of this with Liz and Abe. Most fans hate this subplot, however.

5) Hellboy has official "human" status and no one bats an eye when he shows up.

On the subject of adapations I prefer the original, I would put forward Batman: Under the Red Hood, which I finally watched for the first time last night.

[Fri]

The Men in Black animated series based off the film based off the comics was brilliant. Not sure how it stands up against the comics but I'd say it edges out the film(s) it was directly based off.

Also surprised how many people are saying Blade Runner. Do Androids Dream was excellent and the film (whilst also very good) I didn't think really captured the book at all. It was just a completely different beast.

Depends how you define the 'goodness' of an adaptation I suppose.

Oh yeah man, Men in Black animated series is another one of my favourite cartoon of that time. The monsters kinda remind me on extreme ghostbuster, I wonder if they're designed by some same people. I also never read the comic it's based on though.

And on hellboy, I've only read one or two book of hellboy, and I prefer the comic, but that's just because most of the time, I do prefer to read rather than watch something, and I just really like the drawing style.

[BiblioRook]

also, the princess bride.
I can only assume you are referring to the original S. Morgenstern version, but I've never been able to find a copy to compare ether Goldman's book or movie adaptations...
Not Serious

[Velaryon]

I'm probably the only person in the world who feels this way, but I thought the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie was better than the original comic. Not that either was particularly good, and the movie was certainly a totally faithless adaptation, but I thought in some ways it was an improvement.

For starters, it makes the characters feel much more like superheroes instead of just random collections of characters from various 19th century literary works, some of whom have something to offer to the team and some of whom (Ms. Murray for example) really don't. By making her a vampiress in the movie she becomes able to contribute in more ways than being the token women, which is how she often came off to me in the comics.

Second, I really liked Dorian Gray as a character in the film even though he completely didn't exist in the comics as far as I can remember.

As a faithful adaptation of the comics it was a horrible film. Heck, on its own merits as a film it was forgettable at best. But as much as I think Alan Moore is usually pretty good, I thought LXG wasn't very good and the movie actually entertained me quite a bit more.

[dehro]

I can only assume you are referring to the original S. Morgenstern version, but I've never been able to find a copy to compare ether Goldman's book or movie adaptations...
Not Serious

you had me confused there, for a second.
well played

[WalkingTarget]

(Ms. Murray for example) really don't. By making her a vampiress in the movie she becomes able to contribute in more ways than being the token women, which is how she often came off to me in the comics.


I like the comics quite a bit, but am by no means trying to say that you're "wrong" here, but here is my opinion on her role in the comics.

She was ravished by the prince of darkness and had her mind compromised, her reputation was ruined and she was physically/mentally scarred.

And she got through it.

There is almost nothing you can throw at her that will make her lose her cool. She's the unshakable foundation of a team of misfits and lunatics. Without her, there is no team.

In my opinion, making her something as bland as a vampire was a demotion, but then, we couldn't have Sean Connery not be in charge of things, could we.

[Scowling Dragon]

I agree with the walking target.

[Saph]

Another vote for Stardust. I watched the movie and loved it, then read the book and it was really unsatisfying by comparison.

In the film, the witch pursues the star, and it builds up to an epic confrontation and final battle. In the book, the witch pursues the star, and eventually she finds her, and then . . . she gives up and goes away. And the book ends. And that's it.

It didn't help that Captain Shakespeare from the movie made me laugh more in his handful of scenes than all of the book characters put together. :smallbiggrin:

[turkishproverb]

I think I had the opposite experience with Stardust. Read the book first, loved it, watched the film...meh. It wasn't bad, but lost so much of the magic of the book. Then again, that's just me.

Another one I like the adaptation better?

Kikaider, at least in the case of classic Live action series vs. newer Animated series. It was shorter, more direct and to the point, and "shot" better in a number of ways. Not to say I don't like Kikaider (or Kikaida if you prefer) classic.

[dehro]

It didn't help that Captain Shakespeare from the movie made me laugh more in his handful of scenes than all of the book characters put together. :smallbiggrin:

this... I have yet to decide if the authors were mocking the character or the actor, but either way, it worked for me

[paddyfool]

Still no comments on who likes the Lion King or the Shakespearean tragedy its plot was largely based on more? ;)

[turkishproverb]

I prefer Kimba :smalltongue:

[Thufir]

Still no comments on who likes the Lion King or the Shakespearean tragedy its plot was largely based on more? ;)

The Lion King. is. NOT. HAMLET!

[Fri]

I think I had the opposite experience with Stardust. Read the book first, loved it, watched the film...meh. It wasn't bad, but lost so much of the magic of the book. Then again, that's just me.


Mine as well. The book is pretty much written like a classic fairy tale, and that captured my heart when I read it. The movie is... not bad, but just another adventure story. Though there are parts that are better in the movie, sure.

[Scowling Dragon]

I prefer Kimba :smalltongue:

Ironically If you watch Kimba its nothing like Lion king. Just a couple of images.

[dehro]

come to think of it...
each and every movie adaptation (yes, even the cheesy ones) of each and every superhero comic ever made.
I'm just not a big fan of american comics
I'll take european or south-american comics every day..even manga, if not really all that many of those...but american comics, no thanks..the format just doesn't sit well with me... which by default means that if the characters are halfway decent and are filmified, I'll automatically like the movies better than the comics themselves no matter how dreadful they may be.

[turkishproverb]

Ironically If you watch Kimba its nothing like Lion king. Just a couple of images.

Actually, there's more similarity than you think. Significantly. The lions eating bugs bits, down to the face, the similarity of, and for that matter presence of, the male-cubs odd earmarkings that seem to disappear in adulthood. The overall plot structure, yes. But so much else. Heck, "Timone and Pumba" the TV show even added in many of the elements the long version of the cartoon/anime had the initial Disney film didn't, not the least of which was more slapstick time and the incursion of humans into the narrative.

It's like a full series (or two series depending upon how you look at it) as well as a couple/few movie condensations (which were made before lion king and do much of the same cutting King would later do) that were condensed into lion king. And yes, I have no doubt Disney knew they were doing it, what with white lion test shots and initial "King of the jungle (read: Alt translation for Jungle Emperor) white lion cub promotional piece.

Don't have energy or time to go through the full spiel right now, but ask me when I'm not tired. :)

[Thufir]

Oh, I thought of some adaptations I definitely do prefer to the original works - the Narnia films.
Also, I prefer a lot of Disney films to the original (or as close as we can get) fairy tales.

[Lord Seth]

I think I had the opposite experience with Stardust. Read the book first, loved it, watched the film...meh. It wasn't bad, but lost so much of the magic of the book. Then again, that's just me.I never read the book so I can't compare them, but I didn't think the movie was that great either. I thought it was just...okay. My opinion of it dropped a little more after I read an essay by someone who hated it explaining all the problems they found in the movie, and I gotta admit I had to agree with a fair amount of it.
Still no comments on who likes the Lion King or the Shakespearean tragedy its plot was largely based on more? ;)"Largely based on"? Outside of some very general similarities in the premise, the things are completely different. "Brother of king kills king and takes kingship, the prince guy leaves, then comes back and kills his uncle in retribution" is all they have in common (I suppose there's also the father guy popping up as a ghost for a bit also--which make a heck of a lot more sense in Hamlet--but that's really it). Other than that, they're incredibly different in pretty much every way, from plot structure to characters to everything else. You could maybe call it an inspiration, but hardly an adaptation.

[oudeis]

"The Crow" movie vs The Crow graphic novel

For me, it's no contest. The book was one of the bleakest, ugliest works I've ever read, right up there with Thomas Harris' Hannibal (which now that I've thought of it I will address shortly) and the work of GRRM. It revelled in grimness like a dog rolling in stink. There was no point to the savagery, no attempt to overcome or triumph or transcend the sickening violence. Terrible things happened and terrible things were done in reprisal and that was it. There was also no drama, because unlike the adaptation, Eric never loses his invulnerability, so killing the bad guys had no sense of accomplishment to it.

"Hannibal" movie vs Hannibal novel

Like above, the book was an unredeemed parade of the worst aspects of humanity. It was brilliantly, even beautifully written but it really came across as the most well-crated '**** you' to a fan base ever delivered by an author. Every admirable or positive character from Silence of the Lambs was either rendered feckless, got killed, or went darkside. While the movie wasn't good, it at least tried to supersede the nihilism of the novel.

[tensai_oni]

If Lion King was an adaptation, Timon and Pumbaa would have died. Died by death ordered by Simba himself, what with them being the Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern figures.

And it probably would have curbed the idea of putting wacky sidekicks with only loose connection to the plot into Disney movies. Now I wish it really happened.

[turkishproverb]

Well, like I stated, I think it was an adaptation, but not of Hamlet.

[Scowling Dragon]

Also, I prefer a lot of Disney films to the original (or as close as we can get) fairy tales.

Mostly because the classic are REALY ****ED UP.

[turkishproverb]

But that's what makes them AWESOME!

[Scowling Dragon]

But that's what makes them AWESOME!

Just because something is disgusting and nasty does not make it AWESOME.

Rape is not AWESOME!

The level of suffering the characters endeer is not AWESOME.

There is stuff like Heavy Metal that can pull off nasty awesome.

Old stories scare the **** out of me.

[Talya]

I'd like to point out that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (the TV show) was not an "adaptation" of the 1992 movie.

It was a sequel, a continuation of the storyline of the original movie screenplay (before Donald Sutherland convinced director Fran Kuzui to totally rewrite Whedon's script.) As such, you could argue that the movie is the adaptation of the original work.

If you want to find something as close as possible to the original work, find Dark Horse Comic's The Origin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_(Buffy_comic)) Whedon says it's not exact, but it's much closer to his original screenplay and should be considered canon.

[Thufir]

Mostly because the classics are REALlY ****ED UP.

Nah, I like that about them. More because they're not that fleshed out as stories. Also, good Disney movies are awesome.

[Avilan the Grey]

The Shining (the Jack Nicholson one) vs both the Stephen King novel AND the Stephen King TV version.

Treasure Planet vs Treasure Island

A Fistful of Dollars vs Yojimbo

[paddyfool]

"Largely based on"? Outside of some very general similarities in the premise, the things are completely different. "Brother of king kills king and takes kingship, the prince guy leaves, then comes back and kills his uncle in retribution" is all they have in common (I suppose there's also the father guy popping up as a ghost for a bit also--which make a heck of a lot more sense in Hamlet--but that's really it). Other than that, they're incredibly different in pretty much every way, from plot structure to characters to everything else. You could maybe call it an inspiration, but hardly an adaptation.

The essential plot, as you've outlined it, is the same, up to but not including everyone getting massacred, or the hero going insane (because this is, after all, Disney).

Our hero's father is murdered by his uncle, who marries his mother and assumes kingship. Our hero is visited by his father's ghost. Check. Our hero's character development centres around his struggles to do anything about it. Check. And Timon & Pumba do indeed correspond pretty well to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, up to but not including the whole "getting massacred" bit, again.

In short: Lion King is, indeed, a disneyfied Hamlet. And according to the Wiki, anyway (I don't have access to the DVD it references), the screenwriters do indeed cite Hamlet as something that inspired it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_king#Production) (alongside the Joseph and Moses stories from the Bible, which seem a bit more tenuous).

[dehro]

The Shining (the Jack Nicholson one) vs both the Stephen King novel AND the Stephen King TV version.

Treasure Planet vs Treasure Island

A Fistful of Dollars vs Yojimbo

1)I very much agree

2)mmmmhno.. I don't see it.

3)I have a hard time considering one the adaptation of the second... but you're probably right.. although I do consider both to be classics in their own right

[Avilan the Grey]

2)mmmmhno.. I don't see it.

It might have something to do with me having read the original story a gazillion times. Makes for a delightful change of pace. Also, it is one of the best disney movies of later years; it just had the bad luck to be released the same summer as Episode I and Harry Potter, so nobody went and saw it.

[dehro]

It might have something to do with me having read the original story a gazillion times. Makes for a delightful change of pace. Also, it is one of the best disney movies of later years; it just had the bad luck to be released the same summer as Episode I and Harry Potter, so nobody went and saw it.

my objection to it may stem from me having outgrown the "new disney movie is out. must. go. see. it. at. once." phase... I still like the classics, and I like this movie too.. but I'm a reader at heart.. and this one will always be a book more than a movie, for me.

[Talya]

Les Misérables, the musical.

Victor Hugo's novel either loses something in the translation, or is naturally dry as the Sahara. Unfortunately I don't read enough French to know the difference.

MacIntosh's musical, however, is spectacular. Which leads me to my new thread, to be posted shortly.

[Lord Seth]

The essential plot, as you've outlined it, is the same, up to but not including everyone getting massacred, or the hero going insane (because this is, after all, Disney). No, the plot structure is quite different.

Hamlet opens up with Claudius having already assumed kingship, whereas The Lion King doesn't have that happen until halfway through the movie. The overall structure is quite different; there is no counterpoint to things like Hamlet catching the conscience of the king, goofing up and killing Polonius, there is no Laertes...it's only similar in the most general of ways.


Our hero's father is murdered by his uncle, who marries his mother and assumes kingship.Scar doesn't marry Mufasa's wife.

Our hero is visited by his father's ghost. Check.That's about where the similarities end.


Our hero's character development centres around his struggles to do anything about it.If you want to make the similarities exceedingly vague to find parallels, sure...

And Timon & Pumba do indeed correspond pretty well to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern,How?
up to but not including the whole "getting massacred" bit, again.You mean except for the fact they share no real characteristics with the two outside of the fact they're two friends of the protagonist. By that logic Sebastian and Flounder correspond pretty well to Rosencratz and Guildenstern.


In short: Lion King is, indeed, a disneyfied Hamlet.No, not really. You can at most claim it's an inspiration, but it's certainly not an adaptation. Heck, you even say your source states it's an inspiration, not an adaptation.

[dehro]

Scar doesn't marry Mufasa's wife.


mmh..actually..he kinda does..what with becoming king of the pride, he
marries all the women!

[Mx.Silver]

Also, it is one of the best disney movies of later years;
The term 'damning with faint praise' springs to mind.

[CapnRedBeard]

I tried...I cannot think of a single movie that was better than any book.

I read the whole LOTR series before the movies...they are GREAT books...all time classics. They will be read in 50 years...will the movies be watched in that time? (more likely there will be 4 new versions or remakes of the series in movie form by then)

Shogun. OMG it's soooooooooooooo not close.

Count of Monte Cristo. See above.

I think the issue is that books are superior to movies. The connection between the author and yourself is direct. A great author taps a part of your brain that is sleeping during movies. YOUR imagination.

Name one Stephen King movie that is even remotely close to the book in quality/immersion.

[comicshorse]

I think the issue is that books are superior to movies. Name one Stephen King movie that is even remotely close to the book in quality/immersion.

The Shawshank Redemption

[CapnRedBeard]

The Shawshank Redemption

Well I did not read that book so it would be poor form for me to disagree.

[turkishproverb]

I tried...I cannot think of a single movie that was better than any book.

I read the whole LOTR series before the movies...they are GREAT books...all time classics. They will be read in 50 years...will the movies be watched in that time? (more likely there will be 4 new versions or remakes of the series in movie form by then)

Shogun. OMG it's soooooooooooooo not close.

Count of Monte Cristo. See above.

I think the issue is that books are superior to movies. The connection between the author and yourself is direct. A great author taps a part of your brain that is sleeping during movies. YOUR imagination.

Name one Stephen King movie that is even remotely close to the book in quality/immersion.

I'll name a couple films that will be (and have been) watched for decades adapted from books. Godfather, adapted from a relatively crappy little book. Rashamon, considered a classic, adapted from the same. Psycho, by Hitchcock, an adaptation of a moderately popular novel.

Just off the top of my shelf. And I own those books as well.

Remember, the first telling of a story isn't always the best. That's why the Arthurian stories have been told and retold so many times.

[Dienekes]

Name one Stephen King movie that is even remotely close to the book in quality/immersion.

Shawshank is already mentioned, Green Mile, the Mist, Misery, and the Shining. Well that was pretty easy.

Anyway, yeah all the good ones I could contribute have already been mentioned, Godfather, Les Mis, Forrest Gump and so on. But there are definitely some adaptations that surpass the original.

[Holocron Coder]

MIB TV Series > MIB
American Godzilla TV Series > all the godzilla
X-Men: Evolution > X-Men
MLP:FIM > MLP

But I admit to weird tastes :smallbiggrin:

[Gnoman]

Shawshank is already mentioned, Green Mile, the Mist, Misery, and the Shining. Well that was pretty easy.

Anyway, yeah all the good ones I could contribute have already been mentioned, Godfather, Les Mis, Forrest Gump and so on. But there are definitely some adaptations that surpass the original.

Likewise, there's Rambo, M*A*S*H, and a host of other works where most people don't even know there was a book.

[Avilan the Grey]

Likewise, there's Rambo, M*A*S*H, and a host of other works where most people don't even know there was a book.

Jaws, too, wasn't it?

[TheLaughingMan]

American Godzilla TV Series > all the godzilla

I'll contest this one. The original Japanese Gojira was actually pretty great for a giant monster movie. Touching even, at points. Me, my dad, and my brother were all going to MST it one night (thinking it to be the American version on Netflix), and all of us shut up after about twenty minutes. There's more than a few reasons why it spawned so many sequels, after all.

[Jothki]

The essential plot, as you've outlined it, is the same, up to but not including everyone getting massacred, or the hero going insane (because this is, after all, Disney).

Our hero's father is murdered by his uncle, who marries his mother and assumes kingship. Our hero is visited by his father's ghost. Check. Our hero's character development centres around his struggles to do anything about it. Check. And Timon & Pumba do indeed correspond pretty well to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, up to but not including the whole "getting massacred" bit, again.

In short: Lion King is, indeed, a disneyfied Hamlet. And according to the Wiki, anyway (I don't have access to the DVD it references), the screenwriters do indeed cite Hamlet as something that inspired it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_king#Production) (alongside the Joseph and Moses stories from the Bible, which seem a bit more tenuous).

Hamlet is a parody of Amleth, though. Take out the fact that Hamlet is a weak-willed loser, and you take out everything that makes the play unique.

[Avilan the Grey]

Hamlet is a parody of Amleth, though. Take out the fact that Hamlet is a weak-willed loser, and you take out everything that makes the play unique.

I thought the original legend was about Prince Amled, not Amleth.

[Thufir]

Hamlet is a parody of Amleth, though. Take out the fact that Hamlet is a weak-willed loser, and you take out everything that makes the play unique.

I don't think 'parody' is the right word really...

[JCarter426]

Where does Kimba fit in all this?

[Tebryn]

The Lion King. is. NOT. HAMLET!

Yes it is.

[Jothki]

I don't think 'parody' is the right word really...

Deconstruction? It takes the same basic story, but comments on what a person would have to be like to actually act like that.

[Ravens_cry]

You know, the themes are pretty universal.
Betrayal, jealousy, revenge.
I think it could be better said The Lion King shares many themes with Hamlet, quite possibly intentionally.

[Telonius]

Not sure it counts as an "adaptation," but: Darths and Droids vs. Star Wars Episodes 1-3.

Forrest Gump.

A Clockwork Orange.

Close to a toss-up, with adaptation very narrowly winning out: Blade Runner vs. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep

[Ravens_cry]

Not sure it counts as an "adaptation," but: Darths and Droids vs. Star Wars Episodes 1-3.


Oh gods, yes.
Four* words:
"Jar Jar, you're a genius!"
*Or is it five?

[paddyfool]

You know, the themes are pretty universal.
Betrayal, jealousy, revenge.
I think it could be better said The Lion King shares many themes with Hamlet, quite possibly intentionally.

And, as I said, the authors of the Lion King cited Hamlet as "inspiring" some of the plot, so we have Word of God (albeit via wikipedia, which isn't the most reliable of scriptures). Perhaps adaptation is too strong a word, though.

[Lord Seth]

Yes it is.No it isn't.

[Ravens_cry]

No it isn't.
Room 12 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y) is just down the hall.

[WalkingTarget]

A Clockwork Orange.


Out of curiosity, can you identify the reason(s) you liked the movie better than the book? I'd have trouble deciding which I liked better, but probably lean towards the book if only for the last chapter (left out of the original American edition of the book and, by extension, the film).

[Dienekes]

Out of curiosity, can you identify the reason(s) you liked the movie better than the book? I'd have trouble deciding which I liked better, but probably lean towards the book if only for the last chapter (left out of the original American edition of the book and, by extension, the film).

I actually like the movie because it doesn't have the last chapter. I felt it was sort of a cheap.

[Lord Seth]

Room 12 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y) is just down the hall.My post was intended to be a criticism of the post I was replying to by simply reversing the argument to show how poor and without substance it was.

[Fri]

Now for something completely different. I like the novelization of the first mission impossible movie much more than the movie itself. The novelization expanded and explained a lot of things, and gives us insights on the mind of lots of the characters.

[Ravens_cry]

My post was intended to be a criticism of the post I was replying to by simply reversing the argument to show how poor and without substance it was.
Yeah, I can believe that.
Still, all three of the posts reminded me of that sketch, I can't think why.:smalltongue:

[Velaryon]

Now for something completely different. I like the novelization of the first mission impossible movie much more than the movie itself. The novelization expanded and explained a lot of things, and gives us insights on the mind of lots of the characters.

If we're counting novelizations, then many people say the Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith novelization is far superior to the film. I haven't gotten around to reading it myself, but I've heard it from enough different sources that I think there might be something to it.

[Ravens_cry]

I liked the Star Wars original trilogy novel better than the original trilogy.
No worries about bad acting or special effects, just a fun sci-fi adventure.

[Avilan the Grey]

I liked the Star Wars original trilogy novel better than the original trilogy.
No worries about bad acting or special effects, just a fun sci-fi adventure.

I like the Star Wars original trilogy better than the Star Wars original trilogy.
(before the editing, that is) :smallbiggrin:

[Wookieetank]

If we're counting novelizations, then many people say the Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith novelization is far superior to the film. I haven't gotten around to reading it myself, but I've heard it from enough different sources that I think there might be something to it.

I'll second this sentiment. It gives a much better representation for why and how Darth Vader came to be, rather than the wah wah wah the movies show.