|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jan 4, 2016 11:15:50 GMT -5
And in contrast, another Moore adaption, Watchmen, was book accurate right down to practically the panels. It arguably suffers as a film because of it IMO, and I think it would have ideally worked better as a Netflix series as opposed to cramming a 12-issue epic into three hours. Ozymandias's plan in the film was better though. If you want an unbearably long, poorly paced movie, try watching the version of Watchmen with The Black Freighter sequences added back in. I have that... I have yet to watch it but I have heard nothing but bad things...
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Jan 4, 2016 11:47:46 GMT -5
Forrest Gump. In the book the character is still mentally challenged, but he's much more racist and sexist and had no calms about it. Reading it I was like "Oh right. He is a white guy in early 1960's Alabama" Plus there's a bit where he become a pro wrestler called The Dunce.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jan 4, 2016 13:01:02 GMT -5
And in contrast, another Moore adaption, Watchmen, was book accurate right down to practically the panels. It arguably suffers as a film because of it IMO, and I think it would have ideally worked better as a Netflix series as opposed to cramming a 12-issue epic into three hours. Ozymandias's plan in the film was better though. The alien is something completely unknown was it a scout, an explorer, are there more, are they coming... etc. there are more unknowns so there is more for the world to fear. It gives the enemy a specific face. Doctor Manhattan is super powerful but they know where he is and in general the extent of his power (what little extent there is). Furthermore, Doctor Manhattan is seen specifically as an American attack dog, the Russians and the rest of the world would not be so keen to join hands with America as brother in arms when he turns and bites them. Also it leaves a few holes like Bubastis who only existed as step one of his plan to build the squid (and whose existence goes completly unexplained in the film) and I believe the missing scientists are mentioned as well which again goes nowhere since they aren't working on a giant squid. I think I like it more than the squid because while the movie did show Manhattan to be an American WMD, it was also acknowledged that his power could potentially threaten the entire mood depending on whatever he was feeling at that moment, so I can still see the nations uniting if they believed he was out of control. And Ozy wiping out New York specifically and blaming Doc would instantly kill the idea of him being the US's best weapon with most of the public afterward. I think both plans work within the structure of the story.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,050
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Jan 4, 2016 14:06:43 GMT -5
Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Extreme differences between it and the book it was based on. Which is good, because the mystery in the book was absolutely awful. It was one of those times when taking the basic premise and just running with it was a good idea. I'll nominate O' Brother, Where Art Thou, which is fantastic and a very loose adaptatin of the Odyssey. I'll also say The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, which I know isn't a very popular movie, but I absolutely loved it (I think enjoyment is based entirely on how much you identify with Walter ni the movie). Yes, the product placement was over the top, but it also gave Patton Oswalt a roll, so kudos for that. I thought it gave him a Cinnabon.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jan 4, 2016 14:29:27 GMT -5
The alien is something completely unknown was it a scout, an explorer, are there more, are they coming... etc. there are more unknowns so there is more for the world to fear. It gives the enemy a specific face. Doctor Manhattan is super powerful but they know where he is and in general the extent of his power (what little extent there is). Furthermore, Doctor Manhattan is seen specifically as an American attack dog, the Russians and the rest of the world would not be so keen to join hands with America as brother in arms when he turns and bites them. Also it leaves a few holes like Bubastis who only existed as step one of his plan to build the squid (and whose existence goes completly unexplained in the film) and I believe the missing scientists are mentioned as well which again goes nowhere since they aren't working on a giant squid. I think I like it more than the squid because while the movie did show Manhattan to be an American WMD, it was also acknowledged that his power could potentially threaten the entire mood depending on whatever he was feeling at that moment, so I can still see the nations uniting if they believed he was out of control. And Ozy wiping out New York specifically and blaming Doc would instantly kill the idea of him being the US's best weapon with most of the public afterward. I think both plans work within the structure of the story. What I'm saying though is yes he attacked New York but the attacks wouldn't be seen as big a uniting thing because he is still viewed as the US's superweapon. They knew what he was capable of and were fine with him doing this to their enemies but now that he's broken his leash and is doing whatever the hell he pleases to the world the US is still responsible for unleashing him in the first place. I do think the squid wouldn't work for the movie either but replacing his plan with Doctor Manhattan raises far more problems in the narrative.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Jan 4, 2016 14:59:06 GMT -5
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. See, when I remember Wanted, I hate that they got rid of the universe because it was a world where the "DC" villains had won and ruled the world. Instead we got a magic loom that told people to kill through binary, which is among the dumbest ideas in film. But still felt they kept the asshole philosophy (though toned down), which sucked.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,294
|
Post by The Ichi on Jan 4, 2016 15:34:45 GMT -5
The Tim Burton Charlie and The Chocolate Factory is a lot closer to the book than the Gene Wilder version, despite the latter being miles better.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,070
|
Post by Mozenrath on Jan 4, 2016 16:49:47 GMT -5
Black Cauldron, full stop.
It is a TERRIBLE adaptation in a lot of ways, and the Prydain series deserves another try, but I can definitely understand if someone likes it. It bears little resemblance to its source material in that it shoves together The Book of Three and Black Cauldron, two of the books, and f***s up main characters, like turning the bard into an old man for, well, literally no reason, and Gurgi becomes a dog-looking thing. Granted, Gurgi's form is rather vague in the books, but he kind of seems like more of an ape man or something, and roughly humanshaped and sized.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jan 4, 2016 18:38:21 GMT -5
The Tim Burton Charlie and The Chocolate Factory is a lot closer to the book than the Gene Wilder version, despite the latter being miles better. To a point.... For instance Burton did add in the whole Wonka refuses Charlie's family from joining him and shoe horn in the dentist father plot... because Burton. also Wonka's weird in a completely different way in the book than in the movie (Also oddly Wonka has a goatee in the book and Depp decided to shave to play him )
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 4, 2016 20:18:57 GMT -5
The alien is something completely unknown was it a scout, an explorer, are there more, are they coming... etc. there are more unknowns so there is more for the world to fear. It gives the enemy a specific face. Doctor Manhattan is super powerful but they know where he is and in general the extent of his power (what little extent there is). Furthermore, Doctor Manhattan is seen specifically as an American attack dog, the Russians and the rest of the world would not be so keen to join hands with America as brother in arms when he turns and bites them. Also it leaves a few holes like Bubastis who only existed as step one of his plan to build the squid (and whose existence goes completly unexplained in the film) and I believe the missing scientists are mentioned as well which again goes nowhere since they aren't working on a giant squid. I think I like it more than the squid because while the movie did show Manhattan to be an American WMD, it was also acknowledged that his power could potentially threaten the entire mood depending on whatever he was feeling at that moment, so I can still see the nations uniting if they believed he was out of control. And Ozy wiping out New York specifically and blaming Doc would instantly kill the idea of him being the US's best weapon with most of the public afterward. I think both plans work within the structure of the story. In the soviet mind, that's just what the Americans would want them to think. The capitalist devils would have no qualms about killing their own if it mean striking a critical blow to mother Russia, because propaganda is funny that way. Or, at best, everyone blames the Americans for creating this weapon and not controlling it, just furthering global tensions because if it wasn't for America, all those people would still be alive. The genius of the alien to the plot was that it was literally nothing that could be tied to anyone, so it's impossible to blame on anyone (or it would be until Rorschach sent the journal." It's hard to jump from "God is real, and he is American." to "Everyone unites because Dr. Manhattan blew some cities up." Now, don't get me wrong, in a logical world people could absolutely see that Doctor Manhattan going rogue isn't really America's fault It doesn't matter if they used him in Vietnam to kill enemies, they've been hit as hard, or harder, than anyone else. But Watchme is meant to be set in a world closer to ours, so people aren't going to act completely logically.
|
|
Vern
Hank Scorpio
Almighty Malachi.
Posts: 5,215
|
Post by Vern on Jan 4, 2016 20:26:53 GMT -5
Constantine. Very unfaithful adaptation, but a rockin good time of a movie. I saw the thread title and clicked to post this.
|
|
the2ndevil
Grimlock
Super Seducer Survivor
Where Is Your Santa, Now?
Posts: 13,629
|
Post by the2ndevil on Jan 4, 2016 20:36:07 GMT -5
Forrest Gump. In the book the character is still mentally challenged, but he's much more racist and sexist and had no calms about it. Reading it I was like "Oh right. He is a white guy in early 1960's Alabama" Plus there's a bit where he become a pro wrestler called The Dunce. ... Forrest Gump was a book?
|
|
Vern
Hank Scorpio
Almighty Malachi.
Posts: 5,215
|
Post by Vern on Jan 4, 2016 20:58:46 GMT -5
Forrest Gump. In the book the character is still mentally challenged, but he's much more racist and sexist and had no calms about it. Reading it I was like "Oh right. He is a white guy in early 1960's Alabama" Plus there's a bit where he become a pro wrestler called The Dunce. ... Forrest Gump was a book? I haven't read it since I was a kid but I vaguely remember another wrestler in it who wore brown spandex and called himself "The Turd". Also, Forrest Gump goes to outer space. Not even kidding.
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Jan 4, 2016 22:48:08 GMT -5
The Tim Burton Charlie and The Chocolate Factory is a lot closer to the book than the Gene Wilder version, despite the latter being miles better. To a point.... For instance Burton did add in the whole Wonka refuses Charlie's family from joining him and shoe horn in the dentist father plot... because Burton. also Wonka's weird in a completely different way in the book than in the movie (Also oddly Wonka has a goatee in the book and Depp decided to shave to play him ) To be fair to Burton, he's clean-shaven in the Gene Wilder film, too. A lot of adaptations tend to borrow more from other adaptations than the source. See also, almost every film-Bruce Banner looking more like Bill Bixby than the scrawny, bespectacled Bruce of the comics.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jan 4, 2016 22:51:22 GMT -5
To a point.... For instance Burton did add in the whole Wonka refuses Charlie's family from joining him and shoe horn in the dentist father plot... because Burton. also Wonka's weird in a completely different way in the book than in the movie (Also oddly Wonka has a goatee in the book and Depp decided to shave to play him ) To be fair to Burton, he's clean-shaven in the Gene Wilder film, too. A lot of adaptations tend to borrow more from other adaptations than the source. See also, almost every film-Bruce Banner looking more like Bill Bixby than the scrawny, bespectacled Bruce of the comics. Yeah, I just thought it was weird that it was the first time Depp's been clean shaven in a movie in forever and it's a character that had a Goatee in the original story
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Jan 5, 2016 10:18:03 GMT -5
I've read plenty of Superman comics and IMO Man of Steel is one of the best comic-based flicks ever.
While Forrest Gump is a classic flick they did homogenize the character some, in the book the character can be abrasive and is a savant.
Not a fan of Burton's creepy backstory for Wonka
Always found it funny that of the three adaptations of I am Legend the only one that took the book's name is the one that was farthest from the book.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Jan 5, 2016 15:43:49 GMT -5
Forrest Gump. In the book the character is still mentally challenged, but he's much more racist and sexist and had no calms about it. Reading it I was like "Oh right. He is a white guy in early 1960's Alabama" Plus there's a bit where he become a pro wrestler called The Dunce. ... Forrest Gump was a book? Yep, and the author was so upset about his financial treatment in regards to the film that he started the sequel novel (Gump & Co.) with the line "Never let anyone make a movie about your life."
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Jan 6, 2016 7:07:02 GMT -5
The Postman. I love this book and I may be the only person who liked the movie. They missed the boat on a ton of good stuff but they did effectively capture the spirit and intent of the book (minus the post script ending, they could have just left it open like the book)
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Jan 6, 2016 20:04:22 GMT -5
Jurassic Park
I love the book but had they adapted it the same way, it would have been more Andromeda Strain and less West World.
|
|
|
Post by The Tank on Jan 6, 2016 20:19:16 GMT -5
People are gonna disagree with me on this, but The Dark Knight Trilogy.
I'm sorry, I can't get behind a Batman that f***s off and leaves the mission behind to some untrained nobody just to get his dick wet. Even if it is Anne Hathaway.
Also the over-realism. Look, Liam Neeson was awesome, but no Lazarus Pit = no buys. Heath Ledger was fun, but I want goofy sadism interspersed with the realistic psychosis. Acid-spraying lapel flower or BANG! flag gun or something.
And lastly, whitewashing Bane and pretending to give him a faithful adaptation only to go "nope, dumb minion all along!" at the last minute.
|
|