DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Prog Snob on April 09, 2017, 08:50:05 PM
-
You can use whatever basis for comparison that you want. You can just dislike the conversion or be thoroughly unhappy with the attention to detail that is missing...or whatever else tickles your taint.
Personally, I'm choosing The Hobbit. Not because the movie was terrible. On it's own it's entertaining and the extra scenes in Battle of the Five Armies are awesome. However, as far as honoring the book, it misses the mark in so many ways. Never mind the fact that a three hundred page book was stretched into three movies. Characters like Legolas and Radagast the Brown showing up just don't fit. I know some people can use the excuse, "But maybe they were there at that time and Tolkien just didn't write about it." That's fine. I like creative license but why did he make Radagast a bumbling fool? To make someone play the token comedic dolt? Tauriel? Don't get me wrong - I love me some Evangeline Lilly, but adding her in just to bring in a love story reeks of Hollywood subtext. I won't even get into the misrepresentation of traits that movie gives to some of the characters.
Like I said, as an independent work of art, it's entertaining, but I will never say it's does a good job of paying tribute to Tolkien's book.
-
You can use whatever basis for comparison that you want. You can just dislike the conversion or be thoroughly unhappy with the attention to detail that is missing...or whatever else tickles your taint.
Personally, I'm choosing The Hobbit. Not because the movie was terrible. On it's own it's entertaining and the extra scenes in Battle of the Five Armies are awesome. However, as far as honoring the book, it misses the mark in so many ways. Never mind the fact that a three hundred page book was stretched into three movies. Characters like Legolas and Radagast the Brown showing up just don't fit. I know some people can use the excuse, "But maybe they were there at that time and Tolkien just didn't write about it." That's fine. I like creative license but why did he make Radagast a bumbling fool? To make someone play the token comedic dolt? Tauriel? Don't get me wrong - I love me some Evangeline Lilly, but adding her in just to bring in a love story reeks of Hollywood subtext. I won't even get into the misrepresentation of traits that movie gives to some of the characters.
Like I said, as an independent work of art, it's entertaining, but I will never say it's does a good job of paying tribute to Tolkien's book.
The Hobbit movies were the first thing that came to mind when I read the thread title. You pretty much nailed all of my thoughts about it.
-
Totally agree on The Hobbit.
Honestly, I'd say the Harry Potter movies. I enjoy them well enough (some parts are even pretty great), but as a whole, when compared to the books, the gap in quality is enormous. And I think the only reason I enjoy the movies to the extent that I do is because I already have the books to fill out all the missing stuff.
'Worst' is probably a bit too strong I suppose, but it's definitely one I think could have been done a lot better.
-
Totally agree on The Hobbit.
Honestly, I'd say the Harry Potter movies. I enjoy them well enough (some parts are even pretty great), but as a whole, when compared to the books, the gap in quality is enormous. And I think the only reason I enjoy the movies to the extent that I do is because I already have the books to fill out all the missing stuff.
'Worst' is probably a bit too strong I suppose, but it's definitely one I think could have been done a lot better.
I read the first HP book and enjoyed it enough to finish in a day, but never went further. I'd like to eventually. Then maybe I'll better understand why so many people criticize the movies.
-
Me personally as long as the end result is a good movie I dont mind if they take a little or even a lot of liberties with the source material. The Shining for example, Its a horrible adaptation but a great movie. Its also why Im still looking forward to the dark tower movie even though there are a LOT of changes from the series. Mainly I just want a good movie, the books are always there if I ever want to go back for the full story.
One of my least favorite adaptations was Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate factory, not because I think it's really that bad of a film but because it was ALMOST good which to me is more annoying than missing the mark completely. For most of the movie I was able to look past the usual Burton/Depp quirkiness because it was actually following the book pretty closely. Then the movie goes off the rails for the last 20 minutes and just ruined everything for me.
-
Its also why Im still looking forward to the dark tower movie even though there are a LOT of changes from the series. Mainly I just want a good movie, the books are always there if I ever want to go back for the full story.
I'm a huge fan of the DT series. I've reconciled the differences that I know that they're going to make by looking at it as a different level of the tower. Of course, we all might be pleasantly surprised by the end result. August can't get here soon enough.
-
This may not be the worst by any stretch, but I'm going to suggest Jack Reacher.
I have soft spot for those books, say what you like about them, but the movie (first one, haven't yet seen the second one) just didn't feel like Reacher. The movie was fine on its own, and Tom Cruise was fine, but as a whole it just failed for me as a big screen representation of Reacher.
-
Does 'Under The Dome' count? If so then that!
If it has to be a film then 'Watchmen' was so poor.
-
It doesn't have to be film.
-
Easily The Shining.
-
Battlefield Earth by miles and miles.
It went from an exciting, page turning 1000 page Sci fi epic (yes I know it was L Ron Hubbard, read it before you judge) into arguably the worst movie ever made. The movie finishes about halfway through the book for chrissakes.
-
The Shining is definitely a unique adaptation. The story of Kubrick choosing it is interesting enough, and he and King differed on their interpretations of the story (ie.. were the ghosts in the Overlook real?) I'd hate to say it is a bad adaptation though, as it is an entertaining movie.
-
I'd hate to say it is a bad adaptation though, as it is an entertaining movie.
It's two separate things.
It is an entertaining and effective film, AND it's a shitty adaptation of the novel on which it is based.
-
Fair enough, I will second that. It almost seems like Kubrick got the core of the idea from the first part of the book then just skimmed through the rest.
I think the miniseries is very good and well-crafted. The best things it did compared to the film was focus more on Jack's alcoholism (something close to King's heart at the time he wrote the book), the hotel's past, Jack's deep-down love for his family, and Wendy not being a total whiney pantywaist. The movie was just: Dude gets writer's block, has a whiskey, sees a couple ghosts, and goes crazy.
-
I think that's a pretty unfair assessment of the movie, but sure.
I think Kubrick saw a source of material and took it where he wanted to, rather than not getting it or not reading it.
-
That's my take as well. That was Kubrick's thing.
David Lynch's Dune. The book is amazing and the movie looks pretty cool, but seriously, what the fuck, David?
Something that always bugs me with adaptations: I know they have to cut stuff out, otherwise the movie will be 12 hours long. Then why add shit that wasn't even in the book, especially if it truly adds nothing and sometimes doesn't even make sense?
-
Honestly, it's been so long and I remember so little about either the book or the film that I can't even comment. I do vaguely remember the movie being really strange though, even considering the source material.
-
I think that's a pretty unfair assessment of the movie, but sure.
I think Kubrick saw a source of material and took it where he wanted to, rather than not getting it or not reading it.
I think he DID read it, and DIDN'T get it. He had a thorough misunderstanding of the novel, and IMHO it was cast incorrectly.
I found this quote from Stephen King, and I agree with it 100%.
Parts of the film are chilling, charged with a relentlessly claustrophobic terror, but others fall flat. Not that religion has to be involved in horror, but a visceral skeptic such as Kubrick just couldn't grasp the sheer inhuman evil of The Overlook Hotel. So he looked, instead, for evil in the characters and made the film into a domestic tragedy with only vaguely supernatural overtones. That was the basic flaw: because he couldn't believe, he couldn't make the film believable to others. What's basically wrong with Kubrick's version of The Shining is that it's a film by a man who thinks too much and feels too little; and that's why, for all its virtuoso effects, it never gets you by the throat and hangs on the way real horror should.
-
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005). It's hard enough to cram a novel into a 2 hour movie, but they went and added entire new plots for the sake of butts in seats, while ignoring much of the original story. And they didn't even get that ass. :lol
Martin Freeman was a very good Arthur Dent. Likeable and competent, yet perfectly bewildered. I thought Mos Def was alright as Ford. Alan Rickman was an inspired choice for Marvin. The rest of them just didn't work for me, though. I didn't like the treatment of the guide itself, either. I was hoping they were going to be able to make a sustainable franchise, as I'd love to see the lesser known books done right. No dice.
-
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005). It's hard enough to cram a novel into a 2 hour movie, but they went and added entire new plots for the sake of butts in seats, while ignoring much of the original story. And they didn't even get that ass. :lol
Martin Freeman was a very good Arthur Dent. Likeable and competent, yet perfectly bewildered. I thought Mos Def was alright as Ford. Alan Rickman was an inspired choice for Marvin. The rest of them just didn't work for me, though. I didn't like the treatment of the guide itself, either. I was hoping they were going to be able to make a sustainable franchise, as I'd love to see the lesser known books done right. No dice.
I agree with all of this.
-
Pride and Prejudice.
I mean....what the hell? THEY CUT OUT ALL THE ZOMBIES!
-
The Revenant. Although it was only partially based on the book.
-
Totally agree with Hitchhikers! I'm going to throw Ender's Game out there - there is a reason it has been called "unfilmable"
-
I don't understand how the Hobbit could even be considered for this. It had pretty much everything from the book plus other Tolkien lore. It was not a straight adaptation. If you really think The Hobbit is the worst Page to Screen Adaptation you clearly haven't seen very many movies.
-
I'm going to throw Ender's Game out there - there is a reason it has been called "unfilmable"
Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. I disagree with it being "unfilmable" though. I just think they made bad choices in filming it--or rather, bad choices in writing it for the screen. The stuff they majorly botched was mainly (1) Ender and the other kids being too old, and (2) the timeline being too compressed. Had those two aspects of the screenplay been written correctly, a lot of the other issues would have taken care of themselves.
I don't understand how the Hobbit could even be considered for this. It had pretty much everything from the book plus other Tolkien lore. It was not a straight adaptation.
??? What? Just...no. I'm a fairly casual Tolkien fan, and even I could point out many of the areas where the storytelling went completely off the rails and deviated from anything Tolkien ever came up with. It wasn't book + other Tolkien lore. If it was, that would probably have been fine. It was book + other Tolkien lore + a bunch of other stuff Tolkien never came up with that detracted from the story rather than enhancing it, or that created gaping, unexplainable plot holes. I agree with you that it probably isn't even in the running for "worst." But it was pretty bad, and for all the wrong reasons.
-
I Am Legend, without a single doubt, though The Hobbit popped up in my head first, I then remembered this atrocity; much to my dismay, as I've tried to forget entirely.
It's an abomination of everything the book stood for, literally did the exact opposite in some regards simply to either appease social standards or expectations of the time and/or simply because "we're fucking Hollywood, BB". The book defined and molded my love for horror and was the base for my start in actually reading books for fun and not just because I was in grade school at the time. It taught me certain things about humanity and the way that we view other species and how we eradicate parts of the world we live in...it was so much more than just a horror novel. The characters, while few and far between, were expanded to such an extent that even the ones that were fleeting made an impact.
The movie was a shit stain on the underpants of the novel. It could've been so absolutely epic and groundbreaking for both the horror genre in general and if done right could've won awards left and right. Instead we got Will Smith acting like highschooler trying out his first time on stage to play a schizo and REAAAALLY bad CGI, even for back then.
-
Haven't seen or read it, but I've heard World War Z qualifies.
-
The Count of Monte Cristo comes to mind. What an amazing piece of literature. Deep, complex storyline. Absolutely butchered on screen.
-
World War Z absolutely qualifies. It turns a book with a somewhat unique approach into just yet another shitty zombie movie. Awful movie and an awful adaptation.
Lucifer, the TV show. The comic it is based on is epic, weird, and cerebral that features time travel, dimension hopping, multiple different gods and goddesses from different pantheons, eldritch horrors, amongst other things. The TV show is an urban fantasy police procedural. It jettisons anything and everything that's unique about the comic in favor of cases of the week. Fuck you Fox.
The Hobbit retains enough of its core story that I don't think it qualifies as 'the worst.' It's merely a very bad adaptation and a series of movies of... questionable quality.
The Shining is a great movie (I kinda like it better than the book actually), but it's not a very good adaptation.
-
The Count of Monte Cristo comes to mind. What an amazing piece of literature. Deep, complex storyline. Absolutely butchered on screen.
I've seen some pretty good adaptations of The Count of Monte Cristo, and also some pretty bad ones.
-
I think the reason everyone shits on The Hobbit movies (myself included) is that the LotR movies were done so well, and everyone had huge expectations going in. The warning signs that it was going to be lacking were there before hand, though. The delays and the fact that PJ didn't want to direct them in the first place ect. ect...
-
I've only seen the Jim Caveizel Count of Monte Cristo. Thought it was an entertaining film. But man is that a massive, complex book to adapt.
-
I've only seen the Jim Caveizel Count of Monte Cristo. Thought it was an entertaining film. But man is that a massive, complex book to adapt.
That's the one I was mainly referring to. If I was going in not having read the book, it would probably be a solid enough film. I just don't think it came close to doing the book justice, which would admittedly be incredibly difficult.
-
I don't understand how the Hobbit could even be considered for this. It had pretty much everything from the book plus other Tolkien lore. It was not a straight adaptation. If you really think The Hobbit is the worst Page to Screen Adaptation you clearly haven't seen very many movies.
The Hobbit retains enough of its core story
Yes, they made it to Erebor and reclaimed their home. There is far more to Tolkien's work than the core story. It's the spirit of his characters that Peter Jackson constantly misses. If you think Tolkien's work is just about plot, you should reread everything - or just read his notes to understand the author better. It's for reasons like this that he never ever wanted the movie rights to be sold to Disney.
A storyteller pains attention to every last detail - a good one at least. Every detail of the story serves a purpose and nothing is just frivolity. PJ, and Hollywood, gave the characters different personalities in many aspects. They made the movie more...bankable.
Gandalf not knowing that the Necromancer was around until Radagast clued him in to it. This totally diminishes Gandalf as his one of his purposes of being in Middle Earth is for finding and destroying Sauron. He had already been in the Necromancer's dungeons which is when he received Thain's key and map to give to Thorin. Making one of the most important characters inept at his job is a terrible portrayal of character.
That's just one of many unnecessary departures from the essence of the story and its characters.
-
I don't understand how the Hobbit could even be considered for this. It had pretty much everything from the book plus other Tolkien lore. It was not a straight adaptation. If you really think The Hobbit is the worst Page to Screen Adaptation you clearly haven't seen very many movies.
The Hobbit retains enough of its core story
Yes, they made it to Erebor and reclaimed their home. There is far more to Tolkien's work than the core story. It's the spirit of his characters that Peter Jackson constantly misses. If you think Tolkien's work is just about plot, you should reread everything - or just read his notes to understand the author better. It's for reasons like this that he never ever wanted the movie rights to be sold to Disney.
A storyteller pains attention to every last detail - a good one at least. Every detail of the story serves a purpose and nothing is just frivolity. PJ, and Hollywood, gave the characters different personalities in many aspects. They made the movie more...bankable.
Gandalf not knowing that the Necromancer was around until Radagast clued him in to it. This totally diminishes Gandalf as his one of his purposes of being in Middle Earth is for finding and destroying Sauron. He had already been in the Necromancer's dungeons which is when he received Thain's key and map to give to Thorin. Making one of the most important characters inept at his job is a terrible portrayal of character.
That's just one of many unnecessary departures from the essence of the story and its characters.
You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.
Yes, I understand that The Hobbit changes many things from the source material, mostly to its detriment but I didn't say it was perfect or even good, and I'm far from an apologist for the shitshow that are The Hobbit movies, but compared to truly bad adaptations (ie the worst), where entire stories are jettisoned or completely changed, I just don't think that The Hobbit compares. It's bad, but not the worst.
Movies like World War Z, I Am Legend, and Starship Troopers (haven't read the book, but popular opinion is that it is very, very different from the movie, which the movie being almost a satire of the book) are awful, awful adaptations with World War Z having so little in common with the book that it's clear they just took the name and threw it on a completely different story.
The Shining and Reanimator, even though the movies themselves are very good, are still very, very bad adaptations.
-
The problem is if you say The Hobbit is a terrible adaption due to all the extra characters and story then so is the Shawshank Redemption.
-
I've only seen the Jim Caveizel Count of Monte Cristo. Thought it was an entertaining film. But man is that a massive, complex book to adapt.
That's the one I was mainly referring to. If I was going in not having read the book, it would probably be a solid enough film. I just don't think it came close to doing the book justice, which would admittedly be incredibly difficult.
aside from the duel at the end, I am quite fond of that movie.
-
The problem is if you say The Hobbit is a terrible adaption due to all the extra characters and story then so is the Shawshank Redemption.
It could be a terrible adaptation but still a great movie.
-
You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.
No, I'm really not. The movie is 5-10% book and the rest is added, changed, or unnecessary tweaks in character development. So, while the "core story" is still in tact, that says nothing for the rest of Tolkien's vision. If you think he didn't care about the finesse he put into developing his characters, then you should go read some of his biographies.
Like I said, the movies are fine as a standalone attempt at making The Hobbit. Tribute to Tolkien - NO.
-
I was expecting some actual bad films in this thread. :lol Pretty much everything mentioned has ranged from decent to great.
Interesting question about what makes an adaptation good or bad, though. If something is intended as a straight adaptation but misses the mark, that's arguably not a good adaptation (even if it ends up being a good movie). But if something is intentionally adapted (the clue is in the word) to something a little different, I don't think that's in any way bad.
-
You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.
No, I'm really not. The movie is 5-10% book and the rest is added, changed, or unnecessary tweaks in character development. So, while the "core story" is still in tact, that says nothing for the rest of Tolkien's vision. If you think he didn't care about the finesse he put into developing his characters, then you should go read some of his biographies.
Yeah okay, I never said that but whatever. If you think they're the worst then okay, but I disagree. C'est la vie.
-
You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.
No, I'm really not. The movie is 5-10% book and the rest is added, changed, or unnecessary tweaks in character development. So, while the "core story" is still in tact, that says nothing for the rest of Tolkien's vision. If you think he didn't care about the finesse he put into developing his characters, then you should go read some of his biographies.
Yeah okay, I never said that but whatever. If you think they're the worst then okay, but I disagree. C'est la vie.
Well, see, that right there shows your ignorance as to Tolkien's vision. Tolkien would never, EVER use French in connection with fine literature. Ever.
-
You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.
No, I'm really not. The movie is 5-10% book and the rest is added, changed, or unnecessary tweaks in character development. So, while the "core story" is still in tact, that says nothing for the rest of Tolkien's vision. If you think he didn't care about the finesse he put into developing his characters, then you should go read some of his biographies.
Yeah okay, I never said that but whatever. If you think they're the worst then okay, but I disagree. C'est la vie.
Well, see, that right there shows your ignorance as to Tolkien's vision. Tolkien would never, EVER use French in connection with fine literature. Ever.
:lol
Sorry. I just don't know how to say that in Quenya or Sindarin.
Guess I'll have work on that.
-
:)
-
You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.
No, I'm really not. The movie is 5-10% book and the rest is added, changed, or unnecessary tweaks in character development. So, while the "core story" is still in tact, that says nothing for the rest of Tolkien's vision. If you think he didn't care about the finesse he put into developing his characters, then you should go read some of his biographies.
Yeah okay, I never said that but whatever. If you think they're the worst then okay, but I disagree. C'est la vie.
I actually didn't say you said anything, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you having a hard time adapting my words? ;)
-
You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.
No, I'm really not. The movie is 5-10% book and the rest is added, changed, or unnecessary tweaks in character development. So, while the "core story" is still in tact, that says nothing for the rest of Tolkien's vision. If you think he didn't care about the finesse he put into developing his characters, then you should go read some of his biographies.
Yeah okay, I never said that but whatever. If you think they're the worst then okay, but I disagree. C'est la vie.
I actually didn't say you said anything, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you having a hard time adapting my words? ;)
AHEM
-
You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.
No, I'm really not. The movie is 5-10% book and the rest is added, changed, or unnecessary tweaks in character development. So, while the "core story" is still in tact, that says nothing for the rest of Tolkien's vision. If you think he didn't care about the finesse he put into developing his characters, then you should go read some of his biographies.
Yeah okay, I never said that but whatever. If you think they're the worst then okay, but I disagree. C'est la vie.
I actually didn't say you said anything, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you having a hard time adapting my words? ;)
AHEM
AHEM
-
You're focusing waaaay too much on the first part of my statement and completely ignoring the rest of it.
No, I'm really not. The movie is 5-10% book and the rest is added, changed, or unnecessary tweaks in character development. So, while the "core story" is still in tact, that says nothing for the rest of Tolkien's vision. If you think he didn't care about the finesse he put into developing his characters, then you should go read some of his biographies.
Yeah okay, I never said that but whatever. If you think they're the worst then okay, but I disagree. C'est la vie.
I actually didn't say you said anything, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you having a hard time adapting my words? ;)
AHEM
AHEM
Okay. Never said anything even close to the sort so not sure why you're focusing on it but whatever helps you sleep at night dude.
-
Bourbon and hobbit porn. As long as we're going to butcher Tolkien's vision, might as well make it worth it, right mate? ;)
For the record, you didn't have to say it. You made an excuse for the movie as if the differences were only minor - something to do with the "core story" being in tact. So, my insinuation that you clearly don't get the characters (from the books) is pretty much spot on. For the Tolkien family to be disgusted by the movies and how they interpreted the story, they must have really butchered it. They weren't this vocal about the Lord of the Rings movies.
-
I'm a huge fan of the DT series. I've reconciled the differences that I know that they're going to make by looking at it as a different level of the tower. Of course, we all might be pleasantly surprised by the end result. August can't get here soon enough.
Love this interpretation. I have a friend who's fuming about the changes (I'm not bothered, just looking forward to more DT in any form), but I'm going to suggest he looks at it this way.
The whole series is very close to my heart. DT7 reliably makes me bawl like a baby.
-
I feel like the only human being left on planet earth who has even *heard* of these incredibly non-PC books....but as a young teenager, I was totally engrossed by the Gor series written by John Norman. (a barbarian world on the other side of the sun where all men are like Conan, and all women are pleasure slaves......but there's more to it than that). The series actually started off as pretty decent "sword and sandal" adventure stories....but about 8 books in it started to degrade into WAAAAAYYYY too much "all women secretly yearn to be owned" philosophy and it just got to be boring.
There was an attempt at 2 films, one with Jack Pallance, and I believe the other had Oliver Reed??? But they were both absolutely AWFUL. One of them was even (deservedly) riffed on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Seriously some of the worst films ever made, and only vaguely touch on the source material. I honestly don't think you could do such a film that was faithful to the source material....the source itself was once viewed as harmless male fantasy fun, but in today's overly PC society, the books would most likely be effectively banned if more people even knew they existed.
-
Lucifer, the TV show. The comic it is based on is epic, weird, and cerebral that features time travel, dimension hopping, multiple different gods and goddesses from different pantheons, eldritch horrors, amongst other things. The TV show is an urban fantasy police procedural. It jettisons anything and everything that's unique about the comic in favor of cases of the week.
All this is true, yet I still think it's a great show.
-
Hmmm, based on what I read I would say Blade Runner qualifies for this. The movie leaves out tons of important things and has things that never happened in the book. That being said, it's still a fantastic movie, one of my all time favorites.
And on that matter, every adaptation from a Philip Dick book to a film is bad. Same thing with the movie adaptations for Lovecraft books, not that they miss the point a lot but those movies are so freaking bad
-
I just remembered, I robot is by far the worst adaptation of them all. It's a bad movies that really misses Asimov's point completely.
-
I just remembered, I robot is by far the worst adaptation of them all. It's a bad movies that really misses Asimov's point completely.
Oh, but the point of the author isn't what matters according to this thread. As long as we load it up with lots of special effects and it brings in millions of dollars, it's considered a great adaptation. ;)