UN-faithful movie adaptations that are actually good?

blatantrereg wrote: »

The movie of Filth is good and is very different to the book, which was called unfilmable. Irvine Welsh is very positive about the movie.

Kick Ass is a good film and has some significant differences from the comic. For example

he doesn't get the girl in the comic. When she finds out he's not gay she hates him, and sends him a video of her going down on another guy - which he shamefully masturbates over

Wanted is completely different from the comic - barely recognisable really - but is a good film.

I have the impression that Mark Millar is quite happy about those films.

Wanted was a terrible adaptation for me. They were never going to get away with the stuff in the comic but......

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Now my take on this may be blurry with time but I seem to remember reading Jaws after seeing the movie and the shark almost being subtext. It was used almost as a metaphor for small town American life.
Am i raving?

its a book ? :eek:

In the Mouth of Madness

Ring4Fea wrote: »

I contest Angels and Demons. The best part of that novel was the "science" which the film cut down to nearly nothing.

Probably cos a lot of the science was completely ridiculous. A priest and a nun using IVF to have a child? No sin committed? The sperm had to come from somewhere, so that is the vow of celibacy gone, then there is masturbation, another sin. IVF is playing God, so considered a huge no no by the church. The film just cut out the most laughable crap to the fair...

Stepping Stone wrote: »

Probably cos a lot of the science was completely ridiculous. A priest and a nun using IVF to have a child? No sin committed? The sperm had to come from somewhere, so that is the vow of celibacy gone, then there is masturbation, another sin. IVF is playing God, so considered a huge no no by the church. The film just cut out the most laughable crap to the fair...

Oh THAT stuff. No I'd blocked that out. I meant the CERN stuff. The only reason I'd picked up the book.

Blured wrote: »

On Watchmen - the Directors Cut was actually a much better movie than the theatrical release but still not a patch on the source material.

Relating to WWZ,



this is completely wrong - its a great read. Movie could never come close, scope of the book is too much for a single film but they just completely ignored the book and just made a zombie movie.

On topic - Jurassic Park would be one for me. The movie is an all time classic, but differs quite a bit from the book (character deaths, 2 t rexs, etc)

here we have the problem with "V". The original installment by installment version was designed for a cosmopolitan readership that understood the satanic ballet between Thatcher and Reagan loving neo hawks. Snyder had to APPEASE people who approved of Thwtcher and Reagan. A decent adaptation of Watchmen is possible but not yet possible and V and Watchmen are brilliant when viewed from the lens of their target demographics... OUR PARENTS. Like the Karloff Frankenstein monster IS SCARY... to women who grew up with photos of gangster slayings in the 20s who looked like that.

LordChessington wrote: »

I thought the Harry Potter films 4-8 were decent. Took out some of the unnecessary crap from the books and were an enjoyable watch. 1 and 2 were just sub-par kids movies that tried to stick too closely to the book. While 3 was decent, it seemed like the children didn't get any acting lessons until after this was finished.

I though 1 and 2 were good but not great, 3 was excellent. 4, 5 and 6 were rubbish and theirs loads of great stuff in each book that was left out and then the final 2 films were the best of the 8 films. Particular mention to the superb ending of the 4th book, the great twist and the impact what happens in it has on the world was amazing, in the film it just left me feeling cold

Quazzie wrote: »

Surprised no one has mentioned the Shawshank Redemption yet. So many things wrong with the film and the novel is so much better.

I thought the book was rubbish, pretty much everything that makes the film so good does not exist in the book. There is zero emotional impact in the book whereas the film has a huge emotional impact particularly due to Morgan Freeman’s narration

Shindlers list was far better then the book as reading abount horrible things that happened to people is nothing compared to seeing it on screen, those powerful film scenes stay with you forever and I'm glad of the differences between the book and film

Jaws dropped the awful affair sub plot between Mrs Brody and Hooper and was all the better for it.

The Godfather book is awful, the movie is a classic.

The first two Harry potter films were really by the numbers and safe, Steven Spielberg turned down the first movie as it wouldnt have been a challenge, Prisoner of Azkaban however is fantastic and easily the best of the movies. The change in tone from warm and fuzzy and kiddie friendly to much darker was a nice change for the series.