good movie, bad adaptation

[ERON]

The Man of Steel vs. Batman Returns thread got me thinking about movies that may be quite good on its own merits, but are poor adaptations of their source material. Like how Batman Returns is a great Tim Burton movie, but not a very good Batman movie, if you know what I mean.

I've never seen Man of Steel myself, but I've noticed a lot of the criticism I see revolves not around the movie itself, but rather its portrayal of Superman. People who are fans of Superman tend to hate the movie because it doesn't conform to their idea of what Superman should be, while people who aren't fans of Superman to begin with tend to enjoy it. Ditto for Spider-Man 3 and Venom fans.

Another example that comes to mind is The Shining. It's a great movie because of Stanley freaking Kubrick, but it isn't a very good adaptation of the Stephen King novel, so much so that Stephen King himself is rumored to hate the movie.

On a personal level, I thought the first Transformers movie was decent for what it was - a mindless action movie (the sequels, not so much), but my inner Transformers fan hated it with a passion because it wasn't anything like the Transformers I know and love.

Anyone have some more examples?

[Deleted]

Constantine. Very unfaithful adaptation, but a rockin good time of a movie.

[Jiren]

Kick Ass

As an adaption of the book it's way off because it's actually good

EVERY Mark Millar adaption should be way off the source (Red Son aside)

[agent817]

Jan 3, 2016 16:13:16 GMT -5 Jiren said:

Kick Ass

As an adaption of the book it's way off because it's actually good

EVERY Mark Millar adaption should be way off the source (Red Son aside)

I know a lot of people hate on Wanted (The movie), but I liked it better than the comic book version. Now I enjoyed the comic at first, but then when I read it the second or third time, I started to see how mean-spirited it was and the book died down towards the end, and then of course, you also had that ending.

[Cyno]

The Secret of NIMH. Great animated movie but it made a lot of bizarre changes from the original children's book it was based off of. Especially when it came to the Rats.

[Jiren]

Jan 3, 2016 16:18:25 GMT -5 agent817 said:

Jan 3, 2016 16:13:16 GMT -5 Jiren said:

Kick Ass

As an adaption of the book it's way off because it's actually good

EVERY Mark Millar adaption should be way off the source (Red Son aside)

I know a lot of people hate on Wanted (The movie), but I liked it better than the comic book version. Now I enjoyed the comic at first, but then when I read it the second or third time, I started to see how mean-spirited it was and the book died down towards the end, and then of course, you also had that ending.

yeah

speaking of THAT ending someone took "Wanted" ending and merged it with "Civil War's" ending and fit like a glove

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

It's not really an adaptation (unless you count "americanization" as an adaptation, which is fair), but the Emmerich Godzilla is a pretty fun monster movie if you forget it's supposed to be Godzilla.



"The Shining" is also that in my opinion. It's a very good movie and while I think some of the changes where for the best best, I also think it removed elements from the book that make the story lose a lot of its appeal in my opinion. Jack especially is much more layered in the book and has many humanizing moments that make his turn to darkness all the more tragic because you really get the feeling that he was trying with all his might to fight his vices and be a good father and husband and it's really shown that him hurting Danny, even though it was an accident, is something that stills haunts him and he wants to atone for.

In the movie though he's rather unlikeable, snaps pretty much immediately and you almost get the impression that he's becoming like that because he's an abusive person and not because he was driven to madness by the ghosts.

I was also very disappointed with the portrayal of Dick Hallorann. In the book, he's a very important character, not only mentoring Danny with his power but also protecting the family. In the movie, he's completely inconsequential. You could write him out entirely and the story would not be affected. Even him telling Danny about the shining is pointless. He basically just states the obvious fact that Danny has supernatural powers and so does he and that does not factor into the plot in any way.

[Crappler El 0 M]

Unfaithful might be a better word to use, rather than bad. If it turned out to be a GOOD movie, then I would not say it was a bad adaptation.

[Deleted]

Blade Runner is a paradigm altering film, but it's fascinating to look at what it highlights and omits from the book. You see interesting nods to concepts from the book, like society's need for animals and Mercerism, but Blade Runner almost feels more inspired by Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep than an outright adaptation.

[Bub (BLM)]

Bryan Singer's X-Men films, plus First Class, are absolutely TERRIBLE adaptations of the X-Men. However, if you ignore that and just watch them as sci-fi/action films, they kick ass.

Likewise for Christopher Nolan's Batman series. Holy crap did that guy completely not understand the character, but he still made highly entertaining movies.

[ERON]

Jan 3, 2016 16:40:18 GMT -5 SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman said:

It's not really an adaptation (unless you count "americanization" as an adaptation, which is fair), but the Emmerich Godzilla is a pretty fun monster movie if you forget it's supposed to be Godzilla.

I can get behind that. I remember thinking when I first saw i that it was more of a remake of The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms than Godzilla. They should have just called it that instead.

[ERON]

Jan 3, 2016 16:42:36 GMT -5 Crappler El 0 M said:

Unfaithful might be a better word to use, rather than bad. If it turned out to be a GOOD movie, then I would not say it was a bad adaptation.

Well, I would argue that if you are judging a film strictly on the basis of whether or not it faithfully adapts its source material, then an unfaithful adaptation is a bad adaptation, regardless of whether or not it succeeds as a film in any or all other aspects. But we're just splitting hairs, really.

[Futureraven: Beelzebruv]

Jan 3, 2016 16:13:16 GMT -5 Jiren said:

Kick Ass

As an adaption of the book it's way off because it's actually good

EVERY Mark Millar adaption should be way off the source (Red Son aside)

Was Kingsman Mark Millar too?

[bibboid]

The Running Man - the Stephen King book was a bit slow and had a downer of an ending. The movie let Schwartzenegger, Richard Dawson and Jesse Ventura loose in a action adventure funhouse.

[Deleted]

Street Fighter.

It should be among the worst movies ever made. But damn is it fun despite crapping on source material and almost no characters behaving like the actually would.

Ryu is no hero. Guile and Chun-Li yes, but Ryu and Ken, no.

[James Fabiano]

ANY FANTASTIC FOUR MOVIE. EVER.

The aborted series from 2005 at least got Thing and Johnny right, though. Still...

How about...and I expected this from this thread for some reason...BAD COMIC/BOOK ADAPTIONS OF GOOD MOVIES???

I recall the comic of the first Singer X-Men movie being pretty corny, for instance.

[James Fabiano]

Jan 3, 2016 19:36:23 GMT -5 @torgaddon said:

Street Fighter.

It should be among the worst movies ever made. But damn is it fun despite crapping on source material and almost no characters behaving like the actually would.

Ryu is no hero. Guile and Chun-Li yes, but Ryu and Ken, no.

Nor are Ryu and Ken the jerkasses seen in the movie (and by proxy, the USA Network animated series).

Just like Masters of the Universe (sayyyyyy....) was a better New Gods movie, SF was a better G.I. Joe live action movie.


/Plus, what was Legend of Chun-Li's excuse?

[ERON]

Jan 3, 2016 19:41:45 GMT -5 James Fabiano said:

How about...and I expected this from this thread for some reason...BAD COMIC/BOOK ADAPTIONS OF GOOD MOVIES???

I recall the comic of the first Singer X-Men movie being pretty corny, for instance.

Are there any that are actually good? Most of the ones I've read have been half-assed rush jobs. I remember the Daredevil movie adaptation being particularly weak. The ending was pretty different from the actual movie, I guess because they were working from an earlier draft of the script. And what's the point of making a comic adaptation of a movie, anyway? Why would someone want to read an inferior comic based on a movie when they can just watch the movie instead?

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

Jan 3, 2016 19:36:23 GMT -5 @torgaddon said:

Street Fighter.

It should be among the worst movies ever made. But damn is it fun despite crapping on source material and almost no characters behaving like the actually would.

Ryu is no hero. Guile and Chun-Li yes, but Ryu and Ken, no.

In the actual Street Fighter canon, Guile and Chunners are more or less the "heroes" of the main stories since they're usually chasing whoever the villain is. Ryu will fight them also, but he's mostly interested in getting stronger and stopping evil is a bonus.

He's basically Kim Kaphwan in reverse.

I'll also second Secret of NIMH and add Kingsman. Couldn't get into the Millar comic, LOVED the film.

[BlackoutCreature]

Jan 3, 2016 16:40:18 GMT -5 SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman said:

"The Shining" is also that in my opinion. It's a very good movie and while I think some of the changes where for the best best, I also think it removed elements from the book that make the story lose a lot of its appeal in my opinion. Jack especially is much more layered in the book and has many humanizing moments that make his turn to darkness all the more tragic because you really get the feeling that he was trying with all his might to fight his vices and be a good father and husband and it's really shown that him hurting Danny, even though it was an accident, is something that stills haunts him and he wants to atone for.

In the movie though he's rather unlikeable, snaps pretty much immediately and you almost get the impression that he's becoming like that because he's an abusive person and not because he was driven to madness by the ghosts.

I was also very disappointed with the portrayal of Dick Hallorann. In the book, he's a very important character, not only mentoring Danny with his power but also protecting the family. In the movie, he's completely inconsequential. You could write him out entirely and the story would not be affected. Even him telling Danny about the shining is pointless. He basically just states the obvious fact that Danny has supernatural powers and so does he and that does not factor into the plot in any way.

A couple of years ago I stumbled onto a webpage of a guy who wrote a very detailed explanation on why he believed that The Shining was being told completely from Danny's point of view, and was basically Danny's way of explaining and justifying how Jack physically and sexually abused him and how either Danny or his Mom eventually had to kill Jack in self-defense because of this abuse. I'm not saying I fully agree with his conclusions, but it makes the movie a lot more interesting to watch with these ideas in mind.