Comics is such a different beast as the origins of characters have been retold and rebooted so many times. So many fans have come into the comics at different eras, with different origin stories, so to do a definitive version that on a whole was true to the comics would be near impossible. If a film adaptation stays true the the character of the main protagonist and has an original story, then I am happy.
As for novels, I'll have to give that some thought.
Albeit for the exclusion of a few characters here and there, most 70s/80s Agatha Christie adaptations such as Death On The Nile are very faithful to the novel.
It always surprises me how uppity people get about adaptations missing characters and scenes. I mean, seriously, how do you fit everything from a book into 1 hour 45 minutes? You can't.
But books that are rewritten and altered beyond recognition - well that's entirely different.
Albeit for the exclusion of a few characters here and there, most 70s/80s Agatha Christie adaptations such as Death On The Nile are very faithful to the novel.
It always surprises me how uppity people get about adaptations missing characters and scenes. I mean, seriously, how do you fit everything from a book into 1 hour 45 minutes? You can't.
But books that are rewritten and altered beyond recognition - well that's entirely different.
I think most people do realise that, but if you're a big fan of a particular character or moment in a book and it's either cut or not played as you want it, it can be disappointing and it can leave you wishing they'd cut something else. Not that I'd ever lose sleep over it, however.
Admittedly I watched the film before I read the book, but when I read The Hunger Games I was surprised by how little they'd missed out. They had to play some things differently, i.e. by showing commentators talking about the arena, given that we lacked access to the protagonist's thoughts (the unfortunate shortcoming of most adaptations). I might think differently when I re-watch it, though.
I was thinking that after my previous post about comic book adaptations. It worked because watchmen hasn't been rebooted or expanded upon, well until now post movie.
I was going to say Watchmen. Although the ending is very different (and imo is actually better) loads of the script/lines was taken exactly from the graphic novel. It does stay true to the original, all of the characters are the same, etc. Zack Snyder did not mess with it.
Oh, there's also the BBC adaptation of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (admittedly a series, but I saw it on VHS where all the episodes were merged together as a film, so this is how I've always seen it). I remember having the book out in front of me when I was younger, and the cast were saying exactly the same lines as the characters, word for word.
Until the introduction of Mina reing the reincarnation of his dead wife, and falling in love with Dracula, the Francis Ford Coppola film version of Dracula was doing rather well. Most film versions can't find space to fit in Dr Seward, Lord Holmwood and Quincey Morris.
Until the introduction of Mina reing the reincarnation of his dead wife, and falling in love with Dracula, the Francis Ford Coppola film version of Dracula was doing rather well. Most film versions can't find space to fit in Dr Seward, Lord Holmwood and Quincey Morris.
It was hailed at the time as being the truest Dracula adaptation to the book. Never got why really. The Mina story is really a huge change from the book, not to mention the appearance of Dracula in his various forms.
Comments
I think the 1985 film of A Room with A View is very good because it sticks closely to the book.
As for novels, I'll have to give that some thought.
It always surprises me how uppity people get about adaptations missing characters and scenes. I mean, seriously, how do you fit everything from a book into 1 hour 45 minutes? You can't.
But books that are rewritten and altered beyond recognition - well that's entirely different.
I think most people do realise that, but if you're a big fan of a particular character or moment in a book and it's either cut or not played as you want it, it can be disappointing and it can leave you wishing they'd cut something else. Not that I'd ever lose sleep over it, however.
Admittedly I watched the film before I read the book, but when I read The Hunger Games I was surprised by how little they'd missed out. They had to play some things differently, i.e. by showing commentators talking about the arena, given that we lacked access to the protagonist's thoughts (the unfortunate shortcoming of most adaptations). I might think differently when I re-watch it, though.
I was thinking that after my previous post about comic book adaptations. It worked because watchmen hasn't been rebooted or expanded upon, well until now post movie.
Ahem.....
http://www.avclub.com/articles/book-vs-film-watchmen,24746/
And it was terrible. Stephen King should never be let anywhere near a movie camera or a script for that matter.
Firestarter.
Pet Semetary.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
It was hailed at the time as being the truest Dracula adaptation to the book. Never got why really. The Mina story is really a huge change from the book, not to mention the appearance of Dracula in his various forms.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Apart from missing out all of the roadside café stuff.
From Russia With Love. Slightly changed train fight sequence and SPECTRE is included in the film.
Dr. No. SPECTRE is included in the film and a different death for Dr. No.
The Exorcist.
Both adapted almost word for word.