Adaptations arguably better than the source material
- Thread starter Deleted member 1067
- Start date
Eh? Adaptation is the correct term! Or have I missed something?
Took a mediocre novel & turned it into an all-time classic film.
Apparently Spielberg has a knack for this sort of thing.
I wouldn't call Crichton's novel mediocre, but it absolutely wouldn't have worked as a movie (too much meandering) and I think making Hammond a sympathetic character rather than an asshole villain makes the movie much more moving. The fact that they kept on adapting scenes from the film in the sequels shows how much great material there was in there to mine.
I finished rewatching Brotherhood recently, and I'm inclined to agree, although I'm not sure if it's one of those whichever-you-watched-first-is-better type deals (I saw the 2003 anime first.)
Vastly disagree with this. The only part better in the movies is skipping Tom Bombadil and watching Sean Bean die.
Especially dislike how Frodo and Sam are portrayed in the movies.
Said it before I could. Especially after reading the original Civil War event comic, oh god is the movie so much better. The comic is borderline offensive.
From a storytelling standpoint dividing the adventures of Sam/Frodo up from everyone else rather than crosscutting would have been terrible for a cinematic adaptation, and I'm not sure it was a great choice in the books either.
The Magicians. They turned a book that I absolutely hated with terrible irredeemable characters into a TV show that I only dislike.
I don't hate watch it just to complain. Someone I live with puts it on and I definitely think it's better than the original material.
I don't hate watch it just to complain. Someone I live with puts it on and I definitely think it's better than the original material.
The problem I have with FMA 2003 is that while it's more atmospheric, has better pacing, and focuses more on the brothers compared to the source material, the homonculi (except Lust) are worse off, the majority of the fantastic side characters are put to the side or ignored and it ends with a really shitty movie involving alternate realities.
The "Monster" tv series, based off the manga by Naoki Urasawa. Incredible adaptation job from an already fantastic comic.
I'd be curious to hear why you think so, the changes to the ending didn't feel earned to me.
So god damn wrong. The first movie was the best of them for sure, but the 2nd and 3rd were outright butcherings.
Cloud Atlas. That movie takes the source material and translates it into movie and makes something truly special.
Not that either was very good, but I enjoyed 300 the movie much more than the graphic novel it was based on.
I read the book before watching the movie, and while both are amazing I've got to say the book is better in the way it handles the twist, which makes it overall better imo.
Definitely disagree here! Compared the book I feel the movie is complete crap, it's fine on its own but compared to the source material it just doesn't seem good.Also:
Apparently Spielberg has a knack for this sort of thing.
I want to say Big Fish, the movie was amazing and then I read the book and it was so boring, I don't know how how they got so much out of it for the movie.
The book it's based on is basically one big weird stylistic exercise, while the movie itself is a great little horror film.
MY MAN! Great flick.
As for adaptations, Sailor Moon by no stretch of the imagination.
FMA 2003 doesn't have anywhere near as much characterization as the manga. It adds a bunch of filler. And I'd argue that some of the best characters in the series were introduced after the divergence in Volume 7. Remember, there's 20 volumes of excellent content that weren't in FMA 2003.
Forrest Gump
I read the book a long time ago, years after the movie, the main thing I remember is that Forrest was a cynical asshole.
I read the book a long time ago, years after the movie, the main thing I remember is that Forrest was a cynical asshole.
Annihilation...
The book was great, and there's some things not touched upon in the film, the the visuals and extra layers (main character's guilt and grisly scenes) made the film really shine!
The book was great, and there's some things not touched upon in the film, the the visuals and extra layers (main character's guilt and grisly scenes) made the film really shine!
Nope. With the exception of the stupid "Aragorn is dead lol no he isn't" thing in Two Towers, the film version of LotR is head and shoulders above the book in terms of telling an engaging story with interesting characters who change over time and accomplish an epic task at great cost to themselves. Tolkien was an amazing linguist and worldbuilder, but he was not a very good writer and had no interest in making his characters into...well, actual characters. This is particularly true for the non-hobbit characters. In the book they're either mythic heroes, with all the invincibility, perfect choices, and superhuman feats that accompany that, or they're total non-entities without personalities. Sometimes both, in the cases of Legolas and Gimli. I'm pretty sure there are more sentences about edible mushrooms in the LotR than there are lines of dialogue for Legolas.
I prefer the film version to the book in pretty much every respect. As an adaptation it improves on the source material 95% of the time, and while it wouldn't be my first answer to this thread (The Godfather or Jaws were what first came to mind), it's a completely valid one. People need to let go of their Tolkien hero worship. He created a great and important thing, but he really wasn't much of a storyteller when it comes down to it.
Because halfway down the series they had to change directions and just made things up. Animation wise it's pretty good. The parts with Hughes and Nina got a proper place in my heart. Something Brotherhood just casually glosses over.
Brotherhood assumes that the watcher has already seen the 2003 series and glosses over stuff that's being redone like Nina in order to get to the new stuff faster. This isn't to dismiss Brotherhood's flaws; it's just an observation.
I disagree with literally everything in the OP but this is the most offensive.
I mentioned it earlier, but the only bit I really missed from the book is the introduction on the beach. I thought the film was very clever in how it handled the twist; the dawning realisation we have along with the narrator is really effective. I especially enjoyed the subtle (on first viewing) foreshadowing when watching it again.
The whole ending of the book, from blowing up his old office so it lands on a museum to the final delirious phone call, pales in comparison to the film, imo.
You mean Starship Troopers, right? Dr Strangelove absolutely shits on Red Alert. That's brain space I'll never get back.
The BBC production of The City & the City impressed me by the clever tweaks it made to the character and situation of Borlú. But of course that adaptation earns huge bragging rights simply because it was made at all.
Much of China Miéville's novel takes place in Tyador Borlú's internal monologue, but you can't really have a voice-over throughout a drama nowadays because modern audiences find it intrusive. This production instead relies on clever narrative and cinematographic techniques. It's quite extraordinary in itself to see it done. To watch the television adaptation you have to become a detective like Tyador himself.
How can I say this is better than the novel? I don't think I would go that far. It does add a new dimension to the story, which is just as good. So much of the novel relies on the reader to conceptualize a way of thinking in the most cinematic terms, to see what may be seen and to unsee what must never be seen. By introducing Mrs Borlú as a character the camera can clearly see, this production tells the story in its own way.
Much of China Miéville's novel takes place in Tyador Borlú's internal monologue, but you can't really have a voice-over throughout a drama nowadays because modern audiences find it intrusive. This production instead relies on clever narrative and cinematographic techniques. It's quite extraordinary in itself to see it done. To watch the television adaptation you have to become a detective like Tyador himself.
How can I say this is better than the novel? I don't think I would go that far. It does add a new dimension to the story, which is just as good. So much of the novel relies on the reader to conceptualize a way of thinking in the most cinematic terms, to see what may be seen and to unsee what must never be seen. By introducing Mrs Borlú as a character the camera can clearly see, this production tells the story in its own way.
The Shinning springs to mind straight away. Didn't get on with the book, but the movie is one of the best horror movies ever made.
Blasphemy!
Blasphemy!
Same thing with Hunter Hunter (2011), the new parts are great. But the old parts don't get the same love as the '99 anime and its OVA's.
There's a clear difference for adapting something for the first time and second time. Luckily both are pretty good, albeit for different reasons.
Sweet jebus, a better story, now.
Anyone that made this statement did not read the book. It's sad but predictable that we didn't go a first page without it.
The movie is a masterpiece of atmosphere and cinematography, however. Shit story and even shittier characters, but great visuals.
I might prefer a few adaptations to their sources but I don't think any of them are outright better. They just offer a different take on the material in a very different medium. I have no real interest in comparing them to figure out which is better. Seems kind of anti-creative.
But some of my favorite adaptations are Fight Club, A Clockwork Orange (Kubrick is a master at adaptation), The Rules of Attraction, and Blade Runner. I love all of the books they are based on, with many being quite different.
But some of my favorite adaptations are Fight Club, A Clockwork Orange (Kubrick is a master at adaptation), The Rules of Attraction, and Blade Runner. I love all of the books they are based on, with many being quite different.
The OG sailor moon anime. So much better than the manga.
I'd actually agree with the people saying LotR. They deepened some of the characters and expanded some of the women like Eowyn and Arwen. Also they concentrated hard on the friendships between characters, which to me was the heart and soul of the books. And I say this being a Tolkien nerd who's read The Silmarillion four times and owns a Quenya and Sindarian dictionary
I'd actually agree with the people saying LotR. They deepened some of the characters and expanded some of the women like Eowyn and Arwen. Also they concentrated hard on the friendships between characters, which to me was the heart and soul of the books. And I say this being a Tolkien nerd who's read The Silmarillion four times and owns a Quenya and Sindarian dictionary