fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3200 ]

[ SECRET POST #3200 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3200 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 009 secrets from Secret Submission Post #457.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So what book-to-movie adaptions do you think were poor as adaptions, but was still made for an entertaining movie?

Alternately, which do you think made a poor movie, despite being very close the source material.

I guess most people think The Watchmen is a poor adaptation, but I preferred the movie. Especially the changes they made to the end.

I'm not familiar with the book, but I did really like the movie.

I was actually okay with almost everything about The Watchmen except the end. If they would've left that one part alone I think it would've been an almost perfect adaption.

As is I still thought it was really good. (Is this an unpopular opinion? IDK.)

The first thing that comes to mind is "Under the Skin." It's almost nothing like the novel, except in its basic premise, but it's a really good (and really unusual) movie.

How to Train Your Dragon was basically In Name Only, but it elevated the material.

Trite answer, but "How to Train Your Dragon" is nothing like the books, but a lot of people (myself included) think the movies are vastly superior to the books. I think most fans of the book concede to the point that the movies are highly entertaining.

"The Golden Compass" on the other hand was an awful movie, even though it had some great actors that did far more with that lackluster script than could be imagined. The thing is that it was very close in many respects to the source material, but the few things they changed took the meaning out of it. Some changes were necessary/understandable because of time/expositional constraints, but cutting all religious overtones from the Magisterium was just bizarre and made it seem like a bunch of old dudes had nothing better to do than chase after a little girl. And they cut off the ending, which made sense in the fact that you didn't want the book ending to be the last thing onscreen, but it took the entire climax of the film away with it! I was not disappointed that they decided not to continue those films.

The Golden Compass is such a sore point with me, because I really wanted to love that movie, and it just came up short in so many ways. :( It's especially heartbreaking because Nicole Kidman was the perfect Mrs. Coulter for me, and the girl playing Lyra was surprisingly great at what she was doing (I don't normally care for child actors much). But the pacing, the cuts, the changes in general...ugh. Not to mention the genuinely terrible score, which surprised me.

I loved the Snowpiercer graphic novels but I loved the movie because it told a different story.

I've never liked any movie version of Wuthering Heights even though most of them are very close to the book. I think the book is less concerned with romance than the movies that get made. I really hated the version with Vivien Leigh.

Shrek. Absolutely Shrek. The movie shares nothing with the book besides the name and species of the main character.

That said, I utterly adore both of them. I highly recommend either to anyone who hasn't experienced them.

Also The Little Mermaid. Finding out that the book ending SPOILER ALERT has her committing suicide after her sisters encouraged her to kill the prince was a little traumatizing, especially at eight.

Shrek was a book first? I had no idea.

It's a picture book from 1990. The first movie it actually says 'based on the book by William Steig' in the opening credits. I was dissapointed in Fiona, that's for sure. She was supposed to be more like this:http://www.boolino.es/newmedia/ilustraciones/2014/01/27/shrek5.jpg

World War Z is basically a completely different movie than the book, but I still found it highly entertaining.

Constantine was a perfectly serviceable supernatural thriller. It was a godawful Hellblazer adaptaiton.

I thought that The Seeker was a perfectly fine kid's movie. I can completely understand why book fans despise it, though I personally didn't find The Dark Is Rising to be better just... different.

The sequel with Bran's introduction is still amazing though.

They made a SEQUEL to that travesty of a movie???
//bitter book fan

The City of Ember. I thought the direction, costume designs, set designs, and most of the castings were all great-- it was just a really bad interpretation of the book.

However, as much as it pains me to say this, Bill Murray was wildly out of place in this movie, and honestly was one of the more cringe-worthy issues with it. It felt like he was cast just to have a recognizable name on the cast list, to try to draw in more of an audience.

Starship Troopers. Terrible adaptation, but wonderful movie. Actually vastly preferred the movie to the book.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3200 ]

Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie

Re: Poor Adaption but a Good Movie