Source material vs. Movie/TV interpretations

[grilldanmo]

This has been going on since film and later television became popular and affordable mediums. Literature become plays, films, or series keeps evolving, but the biggest bump has been comics and graphic novels into films and TV series. And with this we get the debates over which is better and/or just how badly or mildly the “sacred” source material has been butchered.

I’m finding, that I’m enjoying more and more the differences between the two. The How to Train Your Dragon movies are wildly different than the books, and I love them both...appreciating the source material being reinterpreted. The Walking Dead books vs. the series where the storylines and characters are being added, rewritten, omitted, etc. while also following the basic path of the original narrative has been great...mostly.

The latest material that inspired this thread is the Umbrella Academy. I just finished the series last night after re-reading the original books. They changed some significant things, but brought it all back together nicely. I think the series might be better, maybe substantially so. I know Kirkman talked about using the Walking Dead show to correct some problems he had with the books. I’m not sure how often the creators get a say in the writing and production of the adaptations as he does.

So, what do you folks all think about this...if you think about it all?

What adaptations do you love or loathe? Who got it right and who got it wrong? Who improv already great material?

Which works need a reboot to fix the eff-ups of the first or continuing adaptations?

[coldengrey12]

I think expecting purity to the source material is a bit of an eyeroll because different formats come with different limitations.

[grilldanmo]

Originally Posted by coldengrey12

I think expecting purity to the source material is a bit of an eyeroll because different formats come with different limitations.

It depends, as sometimes shit is hollywooded up just because it's, well...you know, Hollywood.

I find it amazing that they screwed up the Watchmen because they tweaked the end. Most of the rest of the film is laid out like the books. And that's another area that's funny, films and shows, hell even commercials are story-boarded out. Comics and graphic novels as source material have already done this. They've also chunked it out in episodes and arcs, all ready to go. It seems they just need movie/TV tech to catch up with the emulating the action and imagery. We're obviously well into the midst of that and it keeps improving.

That said, some choices have been shit and some have been near genius in adaptations. I'm hoping that folks might get more into that.

The thing is, I have a super power...I start threads that EXPLODE!!!

























...like the Hindenburg and sink like the Titanic...

So, there's a really good chance that you'll be the only person to respond to this thread. I haven't decided if I should use this power for good or evil. As such, you're either a part of great things that will help mankind OR you're part of what will destroy us all. Too soon to tell...

[twosteppinpun]

I've read a few books that have been turned into movies, but I just haven't had the time to watch yet.
Annihilation - book was ok, didn't love it, but I have not read the other 2 yet.
The Sister Brothers - I really enjoyed this book but have not got around to the movie yet.

[ExistenceNow]

Read most of Stephen King’s books. Most of the film adaptations are garbage. The ones made by Darabont are the exceptions.

Godfather book was amazing, as are the first two movies. Great adaptations.

Hunger Games were okay adaptations. Divergent, not so much.

Annihilation worked better as a movie; a very sinister atmosphere that the books didn’t capture quite as well.

[coldengrey12]

Originally Posted by grilldanmo

I haven't decided if I should use this power for good or evil. As such, you're either a part of great things that will help mankind OR you're part of what will destroy us all. Too soon to tell...

Settle down, Ozy.

[Beefsteak1138]

Originally Posted by grilldanmo

I haven't decided if I should use this power for good or evil. As such, you're either a part of great things that will help mankind OR you're part of what will destroy us all. Too soon to tell...

Thank you for this free art.

[OK_Ant]

The thread title made me think of some of the Cormac McCarthy film adaptations.

For me, and I don't really think too deeply about these kinds of things. Just go by my gut.

No Country for Old Men was a better movie than book.
The Road was a better book than movie.
Child of God movie was on par with the book.

Haven't seen All the Pretty Horses or read The Border Trilogy, so I can't comment.

[grilldanmo]

Originally Posted by OK_Ant

The thread title made me think of some of the Cormac McCarthy film adaptations.

For me, and I don't really think too deeply about these kinds of things. Just go by my gut.

No Country for Old Men was a better movie than book.
The Road was a better book than movie.
Child of God movie was on par with the book.

Haven't seen All the Pretty Horses or read The Border Trilogy, so I can't comment.

The book was devastating. I thought the movie was slightly shy of it due to holding back on some of the more graphic horrors of the book. Turns out they filmed most of those scenes, they didn't make the final cut.

Sorry, I'll let this thread go back to its slow miserable demise...

[Moose Thompson]

Originally Posted by ExistenceNow

Hunger Games were okay adaptations. Divergent, not so much.

Divergent had potential to be the better movie series, but they absolutely blew it. I think the extremely childish almost video game spin they put on the first movie doomed the series from the jump. Still annoyed they split the final book into two parts but cancelled part two.

[grilldanmo]

Originally Posted by Moose Thompson

Divergent had potential to be the better movie series, but they absolutely blew it. I think the extremely childish almost video game spin they put on the first movie doomed the series from the jump. Still annoyed they split the final book into two parts but cancelled part two.

Woodley was better casting than Lawrence. Same with Hutcherson...they didn't match the detailed descriptions of the physical characteristics and she was too old. Woody was great in the Hunger Games though, as he is in everything.

[snake911]

I've been so consistently disappointed by books the I really like being turned into crap movies or plays so many times that I finally stopped watching/attending them. There are always going to be exceptions (Fight Club is possible a better movie than book, and the book is excellent) but most of the time someone convinces me that "no they really did a good job this time", they didn't. My most recent one was Watchmen, damn that was a shit movie for a superb comic. One of my other exceptions is Lord of the Rings, the books and movies are both great in their own right. Hobbitt movies? not so much.

[JRS1386]

I am a huge Book > Movie person.

Hunger Games first movie was solid, the second got a little worse and I don't even remember if I saw either of the 3rd ones
Harry Potter movies are probably enjoyable if you that was your only source for the Potterverse, but the movies changed way too much in the books for me to enjoy them enough.
Ender's Game is probably the worst Book to Movie adaptation I have ever seen
Ready Player One was different from the book for obvious reasons, and I didn't hate the movie, I just thought it could have been done better.
Dragon Ball Evolution was pure trash, as was Avatar: The Last Air Bender
The Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter movies were terrible but I still enjoyed them for what they were

[grilldanmo]

Originally Posted by snake911

I've been so consistently disappointed by books the I really like being turned into crap movies or plays so many times that I finally stopped watching/attending them. There are always going to be exceptions (Fight Club is possible a better movie than book, and the book is excellent) but most of the time someone convinces me that "no they really did a good job this time", they didn't. My most recent one was Watchmen, damn that was a shit movie for a superb comic. One of my other exceptions is Lord of the Rings, the books and movies are both great in their own right. Hobbitt movies? not so much.

Yeah, Watchmen was weird. So close to the book, but almost completely devoid of the impact of the book. We're talking perfect costumes, sets, visuals, etc., but it just fell flat.

One of the many that just about sent me into a rage was The Golden Compass. Once they cast Nicole Kidman as Coulter I was like WTF!??! But I kept my hopes up only to have them dashed. Sadly, the Golden Compass was actually quite good compared to what they did with Paolini's Eragon...holy shit did they tear that to shreds. Not that Eragon and the Inheritance Cycle were groundbreaking...despite being very derivative I enjoyed reading the books and thought they'd make for decent movies. Wrong again.

While Eragon is likely beyond saving (and not really worth the effort), HBO and the BBC are doing Pullman's His Dark Material series that I'm looking forward to.

As I mentioned in the OP though, I'm not wed to adaptations having to be exact versions and actually have enjoyed how some have gone in a new direction. I can generally separate the source work from the adaptation and find something to enjoy. The Dune movie is was got me into the book. Yes, the books are better than the Lynch Dune, but I still enjoy the movie.

Generally, it's hit or miss, in favor of the miss. A lot of great films and series have come from books and graphics novels/comics. Some are even better than the source material...Game of Thrones comes to mind. There are elements from the books that I like that haven't carried over to the series, but the show is great, while the books are good.

[grilldanmo]

Originally Posted by JRS1386

I am a huge Book > Movie person.

Hunger Games first movie was solid, the second got a little worse and I don't even remember if I saw either of the 3rd ones
Harry Potter movies are probably enjoyable if you that was your only source for the Potterverse, but the movies changed way too much in the books for me to enjoy them enough.
Ender's Game is probably the worst Book to Movie adaptation I have ever seen
Ready Player One was different from the book for obvious reasons, and I didn't hate the movie, I just thought it could have been done better.
Dragon Ball Evolution was pure trash, as was Avatar: The Last Air Bender
The Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter movies were terrible but I still enjoyed them for what they were

Yeah, I found the Potter movies rough. Enjoyable...solid to great "entertainment", but all of the nuance of the books was destroyed. Once you take out some of those little things from the first couple of movies, you couldn't have them just show up to fill their more significant roles in the later movies. I'm actually looking forward to the BBC, Netflix, Amazon, HBO, or whoever doing Harry Potter as a series. One season per book, longer seasons for the longer books...properly laying the groundwork and keeping all of the details. It would still less than half of what they spend/t on GoT.

[snake911]

Originally Posted by grilldanmo

Yeah, Watchmen was weird. So close to the book, but almost completely devoid of the impact of the book. We're talking perfect costumes, sets, visuals, etc., but it just fell flat.
.

Watchmen looked almost perfect (except Ozymandias, Ozy needed a more macho square jawed dude) but they lost the entire soul of the book. I think some of it was, in picking good lookalikes they went with poor actors. and, instead of the "these are regular people putting on the mask to fight crime" everyone was a bulked up superpowerful behemoth, getting thrown across rooms and blasted through concrete. Not at all what Watchmen was about, the only one with actual superpowers was Dr Manhattan. I dont even mind the change for the ending, teleported giant squid thing wasnt going to work in a film. But, that film was dead way before they got there.

I think LotR is a great example of making some edits and changes with the source material where you have an epic book series and an epic film series and they both stand on their own. But, its so rare to get that. The Christian Bale Batman trilogy would be similar (goofy rough Batman voice aside), they retread some material from several different story runs in the comics, and they told a really good story that holds up well as a trilogy. But... mostly films versions are doo-doo.

[coldengrey12]

I usually prefer the book. There are a few exceptions. Godfather comes to mind. Solid book. Good book. But a sensational movie. One of the best ever made.

[Climb2safety]

I’ll add my two cents.

Mountaineering books.

You just capture the experiences and hardships nearly was good in a movie as the book.

Probably true with most nonfiction that doesn’t rely on actual footage.

[grilldanmo]

Originally Posted by snake911

Watchmen looked almost perfect (except Ozymandias, Ozy needed a more macho square jawed dude) but they lost the entire soul of the book. I think some of it was, in picking good lookalikes they went with poor actors. and, instead of the "these are regular people putting on the mask to fight crime" everyone was a bulked up superpowerful behemoth, getting thrown across rooms and blasted through concrete. Not at all what Watchmen was about, the only one with actual superpowers was Dr Manhattan. I dont even mind the change for the ending, teleported giant squid thing wasnt going to work in a film. But, that film was dead way before they got there.

I think LotR is a great example of making some edits and changes with the source material where you have an epic book series and an epic film series and they both stand on their own. But, its so rare to get that. The Christian Bale Batman trilogy would be similar (goofy rough Batman voice aside), they retread some material from several different story runs in the comics, and they told a really good story that holds up well as a trilogy. But... mostly films versions are doo-doo.

Yes to the Watchmen observations.

I agree w/ LotR too. Tom Bombadil is an enjoyable little aside with his impervious-ness to the ring and some cool foreshadowing, but not really important to the main story. Still wish he was there though.

Always hated Bale's B-Man voice. I've had it emphatically justified by far bigger comic nerds than I (then know everything DC, whereas I pick and choose regardless of house, although I have a penchant for Image comics), but I still find it annoying.

[snake911]

Originally Posted by grilldanmo

Yes to the Watchmen observations.

I agree w/ LotR too. Tom Bombadil is an enjoyable little aside with his impervious-ness to the ring and some cool foreshadowing, but not really important to the main story. Still wish he was there though.

Always hated Bale's B-Man voice. I've had it emphatically justified by far bigger comic nerds than I (then know everything DC, whereas I pick and choose regardless of house, although I have a penchant for Image comics), but I still find it annoying.

Me as well, we need a comics thread on here! No idea your age, but if you read the old Maxx comic have you checked out Sam Kieth's new Maxx/Batman crossover?

[Lcsulla]

Originally Posted by ExistenceNow

Read most of Stephen King’s books. Most of the film adaptations are garbage.

Not really a King fan but I enjoyed the Langoliers, the adaptation was pretty solid. Other than that most movies pale to the book they are based on (the Bourne trilogy really comes to mind here) in fact off the top of my head the only movie I can think of that truly follows a book is "Gettysburg" - the film adaptation of Michael Shaara's famous book "The Killer Angels." I would count in Band of Brothers but that was a mini-series so it doesn't really count.

[Lcsulla]

Oh, I would be negligent in not noting that the movie "A Night to Remember" based on Walter Lord's novel was pretty much spot on as well.

[grilldanmo]

Speaking of King, Shawshank is a phenomenal movie with excellent source material. The cast and directing elevated it though.

[snake911]

Originally Posted by grilldanmo

Speaking of King, Shawshank is a phenomenal movie with excellent source material. The cast and directing elevated it though.

Good call! King non-horror (Stand by Me, Shawshank) seems to fare much better on film than his horror. Although Misery was a great book and an awesome movie. Bates/Caan were fantastic.

[dinkyvision]

I read The Beach after seeing the film back in the day. The book is a million times better. Richard (Leo) is British not American, he doesn’t have sex with anyone as opposed to the 2 weird relationships worked into the film to capitalize on Leo’s sex appeal at the time etc., the weird video game sequence actually works in the book, Richard spends a good bit of the time alone & is going pretty crazy. So much better character development. It was one of my favorite reads. Haven’t read it in years so not sure how I’d feel today, but when I was in my 20’s when the movie came out & really enjoyed it.

[grilldanmo]

Good Omens is coming soon...I’m very much looking forward to this adaptation. In addition to Gaiman’s direct/actual involvement and the love the cast and crew have been talking about...I think everyone has been putting their best into doing right by the late great Sir Pratchett.

Excellent book though. Hysterical, but with some nice depth.