Media Megaforum

Worst movie adaptions- movies based on book or comics.
ozoneocean at 4:59AM, March 2, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
It's fun to complain about things sometimes, especially movies.
There's a good thread about how Percy the lightning thief was crap because it … just was… but I'm sure here are kazillions of others :)

———————-
OK, I'll try and start…

Tank Girl- It was absolutely NOTHING like the comic… But, I actually loved it anyway. It's a bad adaption of a comic, but a good film never-the-less. Nothing really bad to say here, just that the story and premise was weak, hackneyed and cliche, even though it was a really cool film :)

Lord Of The Rings- The first film was great, really close to the books, it was really well done. Second film went it's own way, which wasn't too bad until Legolas surfed down the stairs during the big battle scene while firing arrows at everyone with perfect marksmanship. After that I decided not to see the last film.

Hicthhicker's Guide to the Galaxy- It didn't matter that it wasn't a straight adaption, none of the versions are the same. It was just an unfunny film with a bad script and only about 2 or 3 good actors. …even though the costumes and puppets were cool.

Wuthering Heights- The onld back and white version… They made it out like a boring, dry romance saga. It had non of the dark, gothic creepy undertones of the book and it didn't really show you why Hethcliffe and Cathy were like how they were and how the whole situation built up tp the end. …Which was soppy and romantic in the film with Heathcliff and Cathy walking off army in arm as ghosts T___T

Around the World in 80 days- with jackie Chan and Steve Coogan. It was just a bit lame. They had a good try at it though. It was two films together, badly attached (a kung-fu Jackie Chan film and a Steve Coogan comedy of a classic novel). It would have worked way better if they made two films instead. Jackie doesn't need to be anyone's sidekick, or share the limelight with another lead, and Steve works better as a solo star too.

Gyuver- The live action film. It was just awful. I think there were a couple? Mark Hamil was in it too- hard to believe he was in Star Wars, especially after his performance in Guyver. Sad. It might have worked better as a Japanese movie?

I can't think of anymore… :(
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
Dark Pascual at 7:28AM, March 2, 2010
(online)
posts: 498
joined: 1-5-2009
Dragon Ball Evolution: Just… Dragon Ball Evolution… I mean, what was they thinking? “Hey, we're gonna take a well known franchise, strip it from everything that it's cool about it and piss off the fanbase and fail to attract new fans at the same time!”… AAAAGHH!!!

Superman III-Superman IV-Superman Returns: Every one of those movies has their own problems. From the silliness of III, the awful FX and political bantering on IV and the miscast on Returns… Even more painful after the awesomeness that are Superman and Superman II…

Batman & Robin: Batman on Ice… just… ugh…
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:07PM
DAJB at 8:17AM, March 2, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Unlike many Moore fans, I actually don't mind the film. It's a piece of absolute nonsense that doesn't pretend to be anything other than a simple-minded romp and, judged on that basis, it's fine. Well, no worse than, say, Van Helsing anyway. But, as an adaptation of the graphic novel, it stinks! It jettisoned Alan Moore's plot completely and, with it, every last scrap of intelligence and wit.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:04PM
Inkmonkey at 8:20AM, March 2, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
Both of the live-action Street Fighter films were pretty bad, but at least the first one was kind of “so bad it's good”. The one with Chun Li was just bland and stupid, with a plot even more needlessly complex and pointless than the videogame's.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:00PM
isukun at 10:17AM, March 2, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Second film went it's own way, which wasn't too bad until Legolas surfed down the stairs during the big battle scene while firing arrows at everyone with perfect marksmanship.

So it's the shield surfing that got you and not Peter Jackson's insistance on making Arwen a main character and downplaying the importance of SAVING THE HUMAN RACE. I mean, jeez, I guess that's just not incentive enough, he just HAS to do it for a girl. Plus that plot point was totally out of left field and made no sense. Someone totally unrelated to the ring will just randomly die if it isn't destroyed? Nice plot hole there.

I could tolerate her being shoehorned into the first movie, but she really was not that important and it kind of took away from the plot that PJ obsessed over Liv Tyler.

That and going through five endings with no action to break them up. THAT'S why the scouring of the Shire should have been in there.

Still, I wouldn't consider it the worst adaptation of a book or comic. Even movies like Jurassic Park strayed pretty far from the source material. Pretty high up my list would be Starship Troopers. Mos of what was cool about the books was removed for the movie. Some of it made it's way back in the naimated series, but it's sad when the anime follows the book more closely than the Hollywood feature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
skoolmunkee at 10:34AM, March 2, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,058
joined: 1-2-2006
I actually didn't mind Arwen having more of a role in the series, considering that whole story is a huge sausagefest I can understand how they wanted to get at least one woman in there for the movie. At least for the first one. In the second they had the much more awesome blonde lady and Arwen took the backseat. She was useless as a character, she's the prototypical elf maiden, of course she's going to be a stupid boring elf. I'm with Oz- I was a lot more annoyed at the things they did to be cool like the shield surfing and Gimli being comic relief and kill-counting. I still greatly enjoy the movies though, I often put them on for background when I'm drawing or something. There are a lot of great moments I stop to watch like the part with the ghost army.


I try not to get too nerd-rage about adaptations because I understand they're different mediums for different audiences. However I usually deliberately avoid movie adaptations of books/comics (whether I've read them or not), unless I know they have gotten great reviews. Mostly because I want to avoid seeing a rubbish movie. The problem with book-movies is that I feel like they're produced because someone has gone ‘oh, they already wrote the story for us, let’s just do it' and no matter what they do it feels incomplete even to a non-reader. The movie wants to include all the good bits and doesn't have time for the depth of the book.

That said, I absolutely hated Hellboy II. I actually liked Hellboy I, even though it disagreed with my beloved comic in a number of ways and was kind of a lame story. But Hellboy II was just straight-up awful. Guillermo del Toro, WHY?!?!?!

Sin City still holds the prize for best adaptation though.
  IT'S OLD BATMAN
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:43PM
Inkmonkey at 11:36AM, March 2, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
skoolmunkee
That said, I absolutely hated Hellboy II. I actually liked Hellboy I, even though it disagreed with my beloved comic in a number of ways and was kind of a lame story. But Hellboy II was just straight-up awful. Guillermo del Toro, WHY?!?!?!


Actually, I really liked that movie for just one scene: The “Can't Smile Without You” sequence. Yeah, Abe's relationship with the girl was a bit shallow and out of nowhere, but that sequence was just so… human. Who hasn't gotten drunk and pined over a lost love to a sappy romance song? Or had to suddenly switch from an embarassingly corny song to something more socially acceptable when your friend bursts in unannounced.

Actually, it reminds me of something I noticed while someone was watching Twilight, and the girl starts looking through the vampire's collection of music and noticed some Beethoven or something to show that he's sophisticated and blah blah blah. It was just so… stiff, and overly formal. It made him look even less human than if he had something goofy like Boston or the B-52's.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:00PM
Freegurt at 11:54AM, March 2, 2010
(online)
posts: 331
joined: 11-24-2007
Hmmmm lets see. There are a few, but I don't nerd rage because I perceive it (the movie/tv series) to be its own entity that just happens to share the same title of the book counterpart.

Series of Unfortunate Events- It was entertaining in its own way, but it was thrown completely off course. And the last scene confused me as it never happened in the books.

I'm going to go with some TV adaptions, too because they have 20+ episodes (and seasons if it lasts long enough) they can use to properly go in depth with the story as well as keep the memorable parts in.

With that being said:

The Legend of Seeker- I never really cared for it, to be honest. It's okay, but it's nothing like the book in any way. Richard doesn't have magic, Zed is….well Zed is a terrifying looking boogey man that will haunt the dreams of everyone whenever he comes onto the screen. And Khalan is boob fodder. The one thing that made me stop watching completely was the ending of the first season. The writers decided to toss the great ending for the first book and make up their own thing. Because foiling the bad guy with your wits just isn't entertaining enough than blowing him up with your super strength. That truly frusttrated me.

Dresden Files- No. Just no. Harry is a snarky, weird guy who manages to get out of trouble by the skin of his teeth. He's not Rambo. And Bob…..just Bob. That isn't Bob. Bob died when the writers decided to make him British and a ghost. And the Blue Beetle isn't a hulking black jeep. It's a blue beetle.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:31PM
patrickdevine at 1:05PM, March 2, 2010
(online)
posts: 759
joined: 4-26-2007
Ghost World. The fact that Rebbecca lost nearly all of her characterization and Enid has her romance with a character that never had his name revealed in the comic just ruined it for me. It's made all the more weird by the fact that nearly everyone else I've met says that the Ghost World movie was better than the comic.

DAJB
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Unlike many Moore fans, I actually don't mind the film. It's a piece of absolute nonsense that doesn't pretend to be anything other than a simple-minded romp and, judged on that basis, it's fine. Well, no worse than, say, Van Helsing anyway. But, as an adaptation of the graphic novel, it stinks! It jettisoned Alan Moore's plot completely and, with it, every last scrap of intelligence and wit.

The highlight of that movie had to have been Mr. Hyde fighting the random mook who during the fight finds the Hyde-potion and drinks it.
“Not the whole thing!” Mr. Hyde screams
Hilarious!
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:41PM
Product Placement at 2:14PM, March 2, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Most of the movies I would have mentioned has already been mentioned. But regarding the comments about the lord of the rings, I'd like to say that it most certainly does not belong in a list called “Worst movie adoptions”. I've read the books and yes, there were lots of elements that the movie failed to do justice but the movies were none the less good. Yeah, so they did that stupid shield surfing. Yeah they moved some characters around and fiddled with some things. Yeah the ending of the last one was awfully stretched. I myself found annoying how the ghost army became a magic fix at the end of the great battle in the last movie. Sure, they were a great help but the war wasn't automatically over just because they arrived. Regardless of that it is hard to make a good movie follow a book to the letter. There are several reasons. Everyone who reads the books will have their own image and interpretation about how certain scenes and events from the books looked like. It will be impossible to please all of them. A story flow that works well in a book might not work well in a movie format without some changes. If the book is long (and these were long books) you're faced with the prospect of having to make a +6 hour long movie or cut some material out of it.

So yeah. LOTR had some shortcomings but they were relatively few. Even if some of you may have been disappointed about it, you have to admit this. IT COULD HAVE BEEN ALLOT WORSE! All in all I was happy about it.

Now, if you want to rant about a fantasy film, that's based on a book, let me suggest this one.
Eragon. I saw the film when it came out on DVD and while I didn't hate it, I wasn't particularly impressed with it. I found it funny though when I realized that the magic language was essentially old Norse and I understood most of what they were saying when casting their spells. I was surprised how many hated the film until I decided to read the book.
Yeah, I can see now why that movie was horrible.

While I haven't seen this one and thus can't comment on it, isn't Legion based on a book? Don't most people who seen that flick find it mindnumbingly dumb?
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:52PM
Kroatz at 3:53PM, March 2, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,333
joined: 8-18-2008
I can't believe this wasn't shouted first:
SPIDER-MAN

It hurt my eyes…
Remember the emo dance in spiderman 3?
That was the best part.
Comidion.deviantart.com
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:23PM
Product Placement at 5:54PM, March 2, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
I'm sorry Kroatz. I have no idea what you're talking about. They only made 2 Spiderman movies.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:52PM
The Gravekeeper at 6:25PM, March 2, 2010
(offline)
posts: 232
joined: 3-13-2009
Since most of the big ones have already been mentioned, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
“Gee, we're running out of books to turn into sappy Oscar Bait movies.”
“Well, there's this one short story that no one's ever heard of…”
“Awesome! Now let's slap a long-ass love story on it and set it during one of the world wars.”
“That's not what it's about…”
“Oh, right…so what is it about?”
“Aging in reverse.”
“We'll just throw that in as a little detail. I mean, no one's going to want to see a movie that explores the implications of something that damn weird, right?”
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:14PM
Mitaukano at 8:27PM, March 2, 2010
(online)
posts: 178
joined: 3-26-2008
Here is a rather ancient one,
The Indian in the Cupboard- By the time Hollywood was done with it very little remained of the original book. It no longer took place in England, one of the main characters had an ethnicity change, and bunches of major plot elements like Little Bear’s wife were eliminated. In addition, the odd scene where Omri puts of his toys in they come to life and start fight (Darth Vader for reals?) voids the larger plot of said series.


Prince Caspian- Granted overall I loved the movie, but they added too much modern crap for me to enjoy the fairy tale qualities. The whole ‘cockfight’ between Caspian and Peter was ridonculous and Susan's crush on him was rather random.


Peter Pan (2003) - The beloved classic of J.M Barry has been used and abused over the years but never so much as in this particular version. This movie seems to suggest sexual themes for Peter and Wendy at every turn. I slapped my hands over my eyes in frustration many times during this odd piece of tripe. It shocks me so many like it. To them I say “read a book read a book read a mutha **king book.”

last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
Inkmonkey at 10:25PM, March 2, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
Kroatz
I can't believe this wasn't shouted first:
SPIDER-MAN

It hurt my eyes…
Remember the emo dance in spiderman 3?
That was the best part.

As much as most people disliked the third movie, I can tell you, without hesitation, there are a lot of plot elements from the original comics that are much, much worse.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:00PM
DAJB at 12:32AM, March 3, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
isukun
Second film went it's own way, which wasn't too bad until Legolas surfed down the stairs during the big battle scene while firing arrows at everyone with perfect marksmanship.
So it's the shield surfing that got you and not Peter Jackson's insistance on making Arwen a main character and downplaying the importance of SAVING THE HUMAN RACE. I mean, jeez, I guess that's just not incentive enough, he just HAS to do it for a girl. Plus that plot point was totally out of left field and made no sense. Someone totally unrelated to the ring will just randomly die if it isn't destroyed? Nice plot hole there.



That and going through five endings with no action to break them up. THAT'S why the scouring of the Shire should have been in there.

Still, I wouldn't consider it the worst adaptation of a book or comic.
I'm with you on this one, Isukun. I'd rate LotR as one of the best movie adaptations of a well-known book. Most of the changes that Jackson made were entirely reasonable and in keeping with the spirit of the plot and the characters.

The long, drawn out endings, of course, are a now legendary mistake (I guess Jackson was just so exhausted by that point that he lost all perspective!) but I don't agree the scouring of the Shire should have been in there. That was always an anticlimax even in the books and I think it was a sound call to relegate it to the “what if” scenario that Frodo sees in Galadriel's mirror. The film just needed someone to tell it where to end!

Oh, and you're absolutely right about Arwen. The idea of tying her fate into the success of the quest was just … insane! If you're going to make a plot change that significant, it needs to explained really well. In fact, it wasn't explained at all and, as you say, made no sense.

Still, at roughly eleven hours long, those are the only two major flaws and, on that basis, I'd say it's a great example of how an adaptation should be done.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:04PM
ozoneocean at 1:34AM, March 3, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
OMG, LOTR debates… we'll have to start plaiting each others neckbeards now. :(
DAJB
but I don't agree the scouring of the Shire should have been in there. That was always an anticlimax even in the books and I think it was a sound call to relegate it to the “what if” scenario that Frodo sees in Galadriel's mirror.
I have to disagree with the spirit of that, (not the specifics since I haven't seen the last film). Thematically that part of the story is pivotally important and I think a lot of people miss why:

The Lord Of The Rings isn't actually about magical giant battles and heroes and maidens and daring do etc. The story is actually simply about the idea of preserving the village green- the simple English rural way of life- the innocent childhood of a country… That's what the Hobbits and the Shire are, that's what they represent. This is why the most powerful characters in the story are interested in the little place's wealfare and work so hard to protect it.
What threatens that way of life and how the story evolves and resolves is in the form of the carefully constructed world and form of ancient Norse and old testament inspired biblical myth that Tolkien invented and loved. In the Novels Sauron is the fallen angel, the devil who has tried to create a new kingdom of his own outside of heaven. His power is invested in the massive armies with which he causes destruction and also inside the ancient talisman -the ring- which was not just magical but meta-political in that he, through his conniving could also control most of the other important powerful figures in that world.
-And of course Frodo's possession of that ring meant that he, such a simple innocent example of that village culture, was more pivotal to the destruction of that evil force than all the armies and all the heroes in that world.

The scenes in the Shire were essential to bring scale back to things- to show what they were fighting for, to show what was really important. All the massive battles and destruction blend into one and become part of the background, but when the danger and strife comes back to the level of the very human, very small and very ordinary shire it all suddenly looks a lot more tragic and awful again.

______________
-Dork mode off.
————————

What were we talking about?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
elektro at 7:07AM, March 3, 2010
(online)
posts: 807
joined: 6-18-2009
I wouldn't say this is a really bad adaptation (that's up for debate), but the last third of “A History of Violence” has absolutely nothing to do with the original graphic novel.

As for actually bad adaptations, has anyone ever seen the early 90s low-budget “Captain America” movie, or the even worse 70s version? I've seen just clips of these, and they look completely awful.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:21PM
Kroatz at 10:43AM, March 3, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,333
joined: 8-18-2008
Inkmonkey
As much as most people disliked the third movie, I can tell you, without hesitation, there are a lot of plot elements from the original comics that are much, much worse.

Yeah, but they could have taken A LOT of better plot elements from the comics…
And now Spider-man 4 is coming, which is actually spiderman 1 all over again.
Comidion.deviantart.com
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:23PM
Hawk at 10:58AM, March 3, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
You know, I'm going to be the uneducated douchebag right now and admit that I liked the movie renditions of LOTR because I can't hardly stand to read through the books. They're so flipping boring. While not entirely loyal to the books, the movies were at least an entertaining way to get through the books and understand vaguely what went on.

I'm pro LOTR movies.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
Kroatz at 11:11AM, March 3, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,333
joined: 8-18-2008
I've read LOTR several times, the dutch version, the 50 year anniversary version is on my bedstand and I've even read the version with elfs instead of elves. So I think I can say that I really like the book, The whole richness of middle earth, the history, the legends, the songs all that makes the book perfect for what it was intended for. To be a good read.
the movies focus more on epic battles, great warriors and action. Even though the adaptation isn't perfect it is still rather good. I've got the extended version where every movie is 4 hours something and when watching that you not only get the action but the backgrounds too! so everybody that thinks the lord of the rings trilogy movies are a bad adaptation should see the extended version.

And legolas is just BADASS!
Comidion.deviantart.com
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:23PM
lba at 1:46PM, March 3, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,684
joined: 5-29-2007
elektro
I wouldn't say this is a really bad adaptation (that's up for debate), but the last third of “A History of Violence” has absolutely nothing to do with the original graphic novel.

As for actually bad adaptations, has anyone ever seen the early 90s low-budget “Captain America” movie, or the even worse 70s version? I've seen just clips of these, and they look completely awful.

Last third? Dude that entire movie had nothing to do with the book. The only element that stayed the same was the hidden past. Most of the scenes didn't even make sense, ie:

“I hate you for your past!”
“But you're my wife and I want to work through it! I'm really a kind-hearted, caring guy!”
“fuck you!” *slap!*
“You bitch!” *tackles onto stairs starts trying to hit her*
*passionate humping*



As for my own opinions, I'll mention The Punisher. I haven't Warzone yet, but that's because I couldn't bear to watch after the shitfest that the Thomas Jane version was. About all they got right was the fact that he was out for revenge. They shoehorned in so many other characters to try and make him human and changed so much about the character that if it weren't for the fact that The Punisher is 90% killing people anyway, it wouldn't have even been under the same name.

And I'll probably take a lot of flack for this, but in my opinion Watchmen actually was improved by the adaptation a lot. The gratuitous sex scene and loss of a few details like the original night owl story and the whole silk spectre's father bit aside, they made the overall plot make more sense by changing the cause of the explosion from “giant, freak, mutated squid in Manhattan” to “John goes postal”. Sure you can argue that the point of the squid was to make everyone think it was something outside, but I mean look at John. He's already a technical walking nuclear bomb who makes people uncomfortable to be around to begin with, so it's not even like that's a good argument. The guy is already a technical outsider so it would still make sense to have the human race come to regard him as a common enemy, and the writers did a decent job of explaining it through Ozymandias' plan. They didn't even really have to change the plan a whole lot by removing the squid in the end.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:30PM
elektro at 3:52PM, March 3, 2010
(online)
posts: 807
joined: 6-18-2009
lba
Last third? Dude that entire movie had nothing to do with the book. The only element that stayed the same was the hidden past. Most of the scenes didn't even make sense, ie:

“I hate you for your past!”
“But you're my wife and I want to work through it! I'm really a kind-hearted, caring guy!”
“fuck you!” *slap!*
“You bitch!” *tackles onto stairs starts trying to hit her*
*passionate humping*

You are talking about a scene that happened near the end of the movie, where the plot deviates from the original book, and that scene is probably the worst in the whole film. I've seen both, and other than a few minor details and some changed storyline for Tom's son, almost everything was note for note from the book up until after the death of Fogarty/Turino. After that, the back story of the main character was completely changed. Instead of some kid who ran away to avoid retaliation from the mob, we get a complete psycho who pissed off his brother.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:21PM
skoolmunkee at 3:58PM, March 3, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,058
joined: 1-2-2006
Hawk
You know, I'm going to be the uneducated douchebag right now and admit that I liked the movie renditions of LOTR because I can't hardly stand to read through the books. They're so flipping boring. While not entirely loyal to the books, the movies were at least an entertaining way to get through the books and understand vaguely what went on.

I'm pro LOTR movies.

I'm with you here, I didn't like the books much but I think the movies are beautiful. I found the only way I could read the books was to skip large portions at a time, or read the first and last two sentences of the long paragraphs. Even then I only managed them because I'd just seen the movies and knew more or less what was going on.

I'm an avid reader as well, I don't shy away from difficult books, but I thought the LOTR books were just kind of boring.
  IT'S OLD BATMAN
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:43PM
ozoneocean at 5:04PM, March 3, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
skoolmunkee
Hawk
You know, I'm going to be the uneducated douchebag right now and admit that I liked the movie renditions of LOTR because I can't hardly stand to read through the books. They're so flipping boring. While not entirely loyal to the books, the movies were at least an entertaining way to get through the books and understand vaguely what went on.

I'm pro LOTR movies.
I'm with you here, I didn't like the books much but I think the movies are beautiful. I found the only way I could read the books was to skip large portions at a time, or read the first and last two sentences of the long paragraphs. Even then I only managed them because I'd just seen the movies and knew more or less what was going on.

I'm an avid reader as well, I don't shy away from difficult books, but I thought the LOTR books were just kind of boring.
From the examples in my initial posts you can see that when I say “bad adaptation” it doesn't mean I'm saying the movie is bad, just that it's quite different somehow. Movies can be better in the own ways and still be bad adaptions.

Like Blade Runner, The Wizard of Oz, or Total Recall- All interesting films, quite changed from the source material.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
isukun at 10:43PM, March 3, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I actually didn't mind Arwen having more of a role in the series, considering that whole story is a huge sausagefest I can understand how they wanted to get at least one woman in there for the movie.

Actually, there were other women in the books who either got cut or were downplayed in favor of Arwen. And I wouldn't really say she was downplayed in the second and thrid movies considering she didn't show up in those books at all. She was an afterthought in the books and a main character in the movies. It wouldn't have been so bad had her role not been artificially inflated with that nonsense about her fate being tied to the ring, which also changes Aragorn's role in the movies. Instead of fighting for humanity, he's fighting for a woman, which kind of makes the stuggle less meaningful.

…and kill-counting

That was in the books.

I also still think the scouring should have been in there. Not just to break up the monotony of the ending, but also because it was one of the major messages from the books that gets totally overlooked in the movies.

The books can be a hard read, especially the first one, but I found it much easier to just go the audiobook route and picked up an unabridged version. It just seems to work better recited than it does read. I still found the books better. They felt more epic and the sheer weight of the task came across better.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
ozoneocean at 1:30AM, March 4, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
LOL
Ok, we can off topic this thread, I don;t mind :)


I first read The Lord Of The Rings when I was 14. I'd read The Hobbit when I was about 11 and was happy to read on further about the characters and the same world. I've since read both books a couple more times… Hobbit 3 and The Lord Of The Rings twice… and the Silmarillion only once because that WAS very heavy going. I consider the first two both nice journeys. What's pleasant about them is the unassuming innocent naivete of the characters and the society they live in and the way the story happens at walking pace- Middle Earth is a place you can get around almost entirely on foot if you need too.

There aren't many women characters, mainly because it's not a story about men and women. Tolkien modelled it after his great interests in literature- The Old Testament, Beowulf, Norse Sagas, Germanic myth. Where there are women they have specific roles… Like Galadriel who's basically the Good Witch of the West, Athena, Titania, or some other proto goddess character.
Arwen is the romantic love interest, in the OLD meaning of “Romance”- she comes from that 19thC Romanticist German school of interpretation of Germanic/Norse myth, in the Wagnerian style. Her very existence in the story was so Tolkien could have his own little Tristan and Isolde without the tragedy. It's a theme he repeats in the Silmarillion.

I don't think I could really read any of them again any longer and I don't find them ans inspiring, interesting and magical as I did when I was a kid… What I find more interesting now is recognising where the themes and ideas came from as I find out more about things like Norse myth etc. and what they really meant in his books. It was also very interesting to see all the art, music and literature that had been inspired by them during that period in the 60's and 70' when they had Rock Star popularity.

———————–
Back to the films!
- As I say, I only saw the first two. I liked the first one much better and forgave it any faults… Except for Legolas who looked like a dick. The second one was ok apart from the stair surfing. The Arwen thing was a bit silly, but then I think Liv Tyler is a crap actor anyway, so just having her in it was a bit flat. Viggo was perfect. Sean Bean was disconcertingly unlike his usual self so that was a big weird. Wormtongue was too supernatural I though. The one in the book seemed like an ordinary human guy, just weasel and sneaky, like a minor Shakespearian villain, where in the film he's the ork-faced super obvious evil idiot character.

Hahaha, one last thing that didn't bother me in the films, but it was quite different in them: Sam Gamgee, In the books he seems smaller than Frodo and perhaps a bit older, he's very much supposed to be a tanned, weather-beaten working class labourer who instinctively defers to Frdo who's naturally of an upper class in the style of al those olf British stories where the people fit into that knight/squire mould. Sam in the film was played like a big dopey farm-boy type lol!
But as I say, I didn't mind it, the films seemed pretty good anyway.

…………………..
Surely there are other adaptions that weren't true for there own reasons?
Let's see…

Conan the Barbarian-
This was quite unlike the Conan in Howard's books, in a lot of ways- None of Howard's character were ever that dim for a start… Never-the-Less, I still think it's a fantastic movie in its own right and enjoy it just as much every time I see it! :)

Oliver-
Based on Oliver Twist, it truns a very tragic and dark story into something lighter, with singing! I don't mind that at all. I think Oliver is a lovely film and if it wasn't for all that singing I probably wouldn't care that much about Charles Dickens.

More?

Ghost Rider? …I've never seen it, but surely that was a disappointment? lol!
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
Dark Pascual at 7:00AM, March 4, 2010
(online)
posts: 498
joined: 1-5-2009
elektro
As for actually bad adaptations, has anyone ever seen the early 90s low-budget “Captain America” movie, or the even worse 70s version? I've seen just clips of these, and they look completely awful.

The 90's version was doomed since the beginning, so that is not a big deal…

The 70's version is so much potential wasted that it's infuriating… You have Reb Brown AND Sir Christopher Lee, for fuck sake!!!

It should have been a movie of such EPIC AWESOMENESS!!!

Most important… REB BROWN SHOULD SCREAM!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:07PM
I Am The 1337 Master at 4:25PM, March 4, 2010
(offline)
posts: 3,785
joined: 1-16-2009
The 90's version of Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo DiCaprio. Enough said.
Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief (go see my other thread about this one).

About the LoTR's movies and more importantly Orlando Bloom:

Highlights:

BLONDE!!!(pun)
THE EYE!!!
TERRIBLY WRITTEN DRAMATIC SCENES!!!

I literally watched those to make fun of them.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:54PM
ozoneocean at 7:07PM, March 4, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
I Am The 1337 Master
The 90's version of Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo DiCaprio. Enough said.
I dunno… The costumes and props were different to what you'd expect as well as the soundtrack, but then Shakespeare didn't really bother specifying those so you could say that as an adaptation it was pretty spot on :)

I mean, the language was all the same as far as I recall. The setting was different of course…

In the end though, I really liked it. :)

—————-
The Troma version: Tromeo and Juliet was traumatic though.
It was a modern gross-out style spoof. The crowning moment was when the fat guy was running around naked and blind and finally got his head run over and squished. Then he just lay on the ground spasmodically jerkingly thrusting his groin up and down, making his tiny genitalia flop wildly.

…At least I think that was in Tromeo and Juliet? Yeah, I'm pretty sure.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved