mlai
@ Amelius:

Are you kidding me or are you actually serious??!!?

I saw The Shining movie (with Jack Nicholson) first. Then I watched Stephen King's TV miniseries. The movie was genuinely scary and disturbing. The miniseries was absolutely horrible!

I'm not talking about the special fx. The miniseries' plot was hackneyed, predictable, and just plain rubbish. We all know Stephen King always makes the most terrible movies or series whenever he is directly involved. His stuff only becomes awesome when some awesome director "adapts" his book, with some awesome actors acting in it, and then ppl who never read his books mistakenly think he must be some sort of awesome writer.

Well personal taste can never be called into question, but I have to agree with Amelius, the Kubrick version of the shining while full of awesome cinematography is a piece of- well it's a piece of something alright. And it's not something nice like cake or pie. People die who aren't supposed to die and whole plot elements get rearranged for someone’s "vision" I do believe you were complaining about that happening to LoTR a few posts up and I want you to think on the irony of loving one authors work being changed into a horrible (un-frightening) movie, and another movie being changed (to keep up the pace) as being horrible and a betrayal to the author. I honestly think the 1997 miniseries is the better of the two simply because it makes the viewer become more involved with the plot than the 1980's version. It's bad when I have to explain to modern audiences why the bear guy going down on the tux guy is scary. "Gays were scary back then so this is thusly a terrifying scene for heteros"

mlai
I liked the movie all the way up until when the video game elements started appearing. In the very beginning, when it's just a life-drama story about 2 Brooklyn brothers, I was absolutely immersed.

Seriously? I mean seriously? It was goofy from the get go. And why would you go see a Videogame movie and not go to see videogame elements

Dead serious indeedy! lol!
Oh, I said the miniseries had its flaws, but like I said it was made for people who were fans of the book, which it follows slavishly. And I'm a fan of the book of course :) I showed both to Nick and he agrees, the movie is just...eh. But people are emotionally attached to it, I cant argue with that.

I take it you're not a fan of the author at all, eh? :)

I am actually rather curious about what you thought was rubbish about the plot, since it made more sense than Kubrick's. Well, for comparison, and I'll just call it Kubrick's Shining and The Shining, being that the novel and miniseries are nearly the same:

"Kubrick Shining": Alcoholic father Jack Torrance goes insane from the moment he steps into the Overlook Hotel. As his sanity crumbles more, he is approached by ghosts that want him to kill his family and himself for ambiguous reasons, most apparently because he is the reincarnation of the of the previous caretaker. He goes off to do so with an axe and succeeds only in killing the cook. [tvtropes.org] Oh, and his wife is Olive Oyl and his son may or may not be mentally retarded. It's hard to tell. But he has "the shining" but that's not important at all, as it only succeeds in getting his mind pal killed. Jack dies frozen to death in a hedge maze.
Oh, and the hotel is built on an Indian burial ground!

"The Shining" Alcoholic father Jack Torrance, through a series of subtle influences, slowly loses his mind. First he becomes entranced by the romantic and storied history of the hotel, then he starts to hear voices. One of those voices seems to be his domineering father's. Later, he is offered alcohol by the ghosts who have stocked the cabinet to make him more pliable. In the end it turns out they were using him as a tool to kill Danny, who has a powerful ability called "The Shining", which can amplify their malevolent powers and allow it to extend them beyond the confines of the hotel grounds when his ghost joins them. Danny, meanwhile, had been told by the cook, Hallorann, that the ghosts were nothing to be afraid of so Danny keeps his trap shut through the whole ordeal, even as the ghost become corporeal, lest he risk his father's job, which he's obviously become obsessed with. In the end it's this obsession that ultimately kills him, as Danny reminds him that in all his effort to kill his family today he forgot his most important job was to dump the boiler, and it explodes, incinerating him. The cook survives Jack's attack and drives Wendy and Danny to safety. The endings to the novel/miniseries differ after that.


I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here, since I thought the miniseries was a high-end mediocre and the movie was pretentious and campy. lol!
I also failed to find the movie scary...more funny than scary :) What the movie has going for it is that it's condensed. The miniseries is 6 hours, and admittedly, some of that time is spent on not-so-interesting character development. I'm willing to admit it's not perfect, but I still liked it!

Edit: Haha, I got ninja'd! Mitaukano, I'm glad I'm not the only one!

If you consider it separately from the book, Kubrick's movie is pretty good. I personally haven't read the book, but it's Stephen King, so it can't possibly suck.

ministrybase
The worst film adaptation of a comic book – Watchmen. Hands down, Watchmen. Most of the themes and political statements from the original comic were flattened out into just another superhero movie. It left a lot of fans unfulfilled and a lot of people new to it, confused. I’m not a critic of the director but I feel he was just too much of a novice to handle such an undertaking. He’d only made what? Two films before?

.........really? What themes and political statements were flattened out? If anything, the movie went to great pains to highlight the political aspects, with the extra Nixon scenes and the McLaughlin Group-stlye opening. Considering how dense the graphic novel is, I thought it condensed things rather nicely, and the Ultimate Cut is about everything you could ask for in a Watchmen adaptation.

And those other two movie were 300 and the Dawn of the Dead remake, which both rocked out with it's cock out and jammed out with it's clam out, respectively.

hm, I'm gonna say a movie adaption not too many people would know about (I don't read many movie-books, I've never read Harry Potter) but At The Earth's Core was a good adaption of Edgar Rice Burroughs's book. It was a B-Movie, no doubt, but the book was kind of a B-Book.

And speaking of Edgar Rice Burroughs, I've only seen the second half of the movie, Tarzan: Legend of Greystoke, but it had too much stuff on Tarzan trying to be an English gentlemen.

Mondo_Funky
In my opinion, Snyder is a sensualist in his approach to movies. In Watchmen, he creates a lush world dense with great graphics and fight scenes, something we’ve come to expect from comic book adaptations. He faithfully reproduces Moore’s dialogue and Gibbon’s imagery but in my view, the social and political themes are reproduced without understanding and never seem to be a true context for the story. I stress that this is my opinion and that this is a forum we can all agree to disagree. If you enjoyed the movie, good for you. I’m a huge fan of Kung Fu Hustle although my sister dismisses it :)

I apologize for the weird attempt at adding a quote. I’m still getting the hang of it :)

ministrybase
I apologize for the weird attempt at adding a quote. I’m still getting the hang of it :)

Study how I did it and you'll do fine.

Someone
I do believe you were complaining about that happening to LoTR a few posts up and I want you to think on the irony of loving one authors work being changed into a horrible (un-frightening) movie, and another movie being changed (to keep up the pace) as being horrible and a betrayal to the author.

You got it wrong. I never advocate slavish devotion of the original work. I was the one who applauded the editing out of the Shire Scouring.

Someone
And why would you go see a Videogame movie and not go to see videogame elements

Because seeing Mario and Luigi in "real life," as opposed to mascots/cartoons, was refreshing. The rest of the movie cannot compare.

Someone
I am actually rather curious about what you thought was rubbish about the plot, since it made more sense than Kubrick's.

The TV miniseries was cheesy from start to finish. Pure grade B cheese. I saw the miniseries as a young teen, so it wasn't due to jaded-ness. It wasn't scary, it wasn't atmospheric, it wasn't innovative. It wasn't anything.
If we want to talk about Stephen King miniserieses... "IT Part 1" was great in a Goonies way. "The Stand" was great in the beginning in an I Legend way. The Shining was complete mediocrity.

The movie may have butchered the book, but it added horror, dread, and atmosphere. And the actors were great. Olive Oyl look-alike yes, and her pale haunted looks contributed to the movie. And since the original plot sucked anyways, it's ok that the plot be damned.

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.

Really? Because the first two thirds of that film were super boring

OO
Like Blade Runner, The Wizard of Oz, or Total Recall- All interesting films, quite changed from the source material.

The Wizard of Oz is a terrible adaptation. It throws out all the complex theme's and lessons of the book, and replaces it with a musical road movie.

It's a fine movie in it's own right, but as an adapatation it's really weak.

While I'm on children's literature/movies, every Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass is miles off the mark.

I am with Amelius that the tv series "Shining" was better and more creepy than the Kubrick Shining. I watched the movie when i was about 11 years.
I only thought it was weird. "Why does the blood come out from the elevator? Haha! the dogman is weird. Oh the dead woman is kissing him. heh."

Come on! Only Jack was scary. the rest of movie didn't scare me. when i was 11 years old. If you can't make a 11 years old scared. then you pretty much failed.
So i think the tv series is much better. of course it did have some flaws. but it did do well after all.


Hulk tv series and Movies(back in 1980s). these weren't bad. but fun that they didn't let Hulk be involved so much. Even so. it was entertaining. :)

Hawk
Yeah seriously, with movies like Daredevil, The Punisher, and Fantastic Four, I can't imagine The Watchmen being the worst comic book adaptation. There are plenty of things they did wrong, but I also think there were a lot of things they did amazingly right.

I don't consider any of those movies bad.

Amazed no one has mention Ang Lee's HULK. terrible.
The messed with the origin too much and making absorbing man his father and the end battle... what the fuck????

I got to go with Hawk on this one, especially with The Punisher. I don't know how that movie has escaped the criticism it deserves. For me, it's up there as one of the worst five movies of all time.

kingofsnake
The Wizard of Oz is a terrible adaptation. It throws out all the complex theme's and lessons of the book, and replaces it with a musical road movie.

It's a fine movie in it's own right, but as an adapatation it's really weak.

I recently heard about this theory that L. Frank Baum, the author of The wonderful wizard of oz filled the book with metaphors that criticized the financial system of the time.

Apparently the political powers had just canceled using silver backed money, opting to use only gold. When Lincoln was around, he wanted to abandon all precious metal backed money and produce only legal tenders like US does today. Baum wanted the Lincoln money which were called Greenbacks and was against the move of demonetizing silver.

Anyways in the book, we had Dorothy on Silver slippers (to represent the silver foot money) walking on the golden road (the gold foot money) in order to reach the Emerald city (Greenbacks). The fact that the slippers were turned into ruby and the road was now just a yellow brick road, meant that the metaphor is now completely gone.

There were lots of other things that were pointed out. The cowardly lion represented some politician who fought against demonetizing silver but backed down, thus getting the nickname the "cowardly lion" in real life William Jennings Bryan was his name. I think the scarecrow was supposed to be the general voter who's always said to be unable to think for themselves and the tin man represented the steelwork industry. The wicked witches of the east and the west represented the big banks of the south and east coast who fought to have the silver standard removed and so on.

Then there's the fact that the movie seems to hammer in the point that the moral of the story was "There's no place like home" which is not what Baum was trying to say. Dorothy woke up, realizing that the silver slippers were gone and that her adventure had only been a dream. When the book came out, the move of demonetizing silver had already been passed and so the idea of silver backed money and greenbacks were becoming a distant dream as well.

I understand that the MGMs decision of having ruby slippers was to take advantage of the new color film technology. No sense letting her wear gray shoes, if you're trying to move away from gray film, right?

Anyways, like I said, I just read through this interesting theory and when I saw that you mentioned that movie, I felt like sharing this.

Fascinating, Product Placement! I wonder how much truth there is to that. I know a lot of the old classics have political/social undertones, so I wouldn't think it unlikely for Wizard of Oz to do the same.

But I think Wizard of Oz is one of those examples of a movie straying from the source but still becoming something good in its own right. Maybe I'd think differently if I had read the book first (or, at all).

I feel like it's unfair for anyone to expect a movie to perfectly portray its source material, whatever form that may have been in. There are too many things standing in the way... Time constraints, budget, a slew of actors and crew members varying in skill and quality, and more. Plus, since being a director is its own very specific kind of skill, the original book authors typically can't take over that job to make the movie just how they want it. They just don't have the technical know-how. Most of all, no movie can account for the imaginations going on inside your head while you read a book. Based on all this, you really do have to view the book and movie versions of your favorite story as separate things, incapable of being the same thing. You really have to look at the movie on its own and think, "Is this a good movie?"

However, even after all that, I do realize there is an obligation in movie-makers to give fans an experience as close to the books as they can. And some of them have done a truly terrible job.

Hawk
Fascinating, Product Placement! I wonder how much truth there is to that. I know a lot of the old classics have political/social undertones, so I wouldn't think it unlikely for Wizard of Oz to do the same.

It's not what was intended by the author, as far as I know, it's just a "reading" of it. ;)

It's a pretty good one though. People have done all sorts, I think there's also a good one that looks at the Wizard of Oz story (the movie version) in terms of the political situation, mainly focussing on the depression and relating various aspects to that- tornado -> dustbowl, forcing farmers off of their land, etc.

Some say that the books and movie are also veiled references to early drug culture, with the promises and deceptions that narcotics offer.

It's one of those texts that can be read a million ways, but I think Baum's intentions, and those of the movie makers were far more prosaic.

lol. I can't believe none of you guys have mentioned the new Jonah Hex movie. (Or maybe one of you guys did, idk.) I just saw it and it may be a bigger failure than Catwoman. Other than those two movies, I would have to say Spiderman 3, Bulletproof monk, Batman and Robin *shudders*, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (It should've been a Hard R like watchmen but it seemed like it was toned down).

The Unrated version of Daredevil made me kick the movie off my list, I thought it was cool.

It looked like Jonah Hex was being hidden from critics until its wide release, so I could tell it was a stinker. I haven't seen it.

I was horribly disappointed with "I Am Legend" when it came out a few years back. I read the book by Richard Matheson when I was a teenager, and enjoyed it because it added a real nice science-fiction aspect to the "vampire" genre of literature. So I was disgusted when I found that the movie had absolutely nothing (and I mean NOTHING WHATSOEVER) to do with the book, other than the name of the lead character.
In the film, the vampires are more like raging, mindless zombies than anything, while in the book, however, most of the vamps are not only intelligent, but loquacious. The movie never explains where the vampires come from, while the book does in very nice detail (it's an as-of-then unknown bacterium carried by dust storms that's vulnerable to direct sunlight, and thus alters the behavior and physiology of its host accordingly to protect itself, and it requires blood to survive, so the hosts feed on flesh as well as human blood).
I walked out when I realized that the ending was as different as can possibly in the movie than from the original book as well. In the book, Robert Neville (Will Smith's character) becomes a legend because he discovers a cure for vampirism. The book on the other hand...
Turns out that the entire regular human population has either died or become vampires, but being intelligent, they've rebuilt and reestablished society. The biggest irony is that while Robert Neville sees them as monstrous abominations, the vampires themselves see him as a horrible, unstoppable monster that kills them in their sleep. They're finally able to capture him, and as they're taking him to be executed, one of the vamps reveals this to him, and Robert Neville realizes that the vampires see him as the immortal monster in the same way he sees them as monsters compared to the now-extinct human race. He realizes that to them, he's considered some sort of horrible legendary creature. Hence the title: "I Am Legend."

I did read a bit of a graphic-novel based on the book that was apparently done within the last year or two that seemed pretty faithful to the original work. I didn't have a chance to read through the entire thing, though, so I don't know for sure.

Dave7
The movie never explains where the vampires come from

I thought it did a pretty good job doing that. The humans were experimenting with genetically engineered virus that was designed to kill cancer cells. Then (due to the fact that genetic engineering is a new form of science and the movie is banking on that there could be side effects), the virus mutates and kills off around 90% of the world. Only about 0.2% of humanity was naturally immune, while the rest mutated into these UV intolerant monsters (where Smith managed to get his hands on those statistics btw, I have no idea).

The movie was originally supposed to pay homage to the book ending, where the monsters and Smith came to a stalemate and hints were given that the monsters still retained a hint of their humanity. It turned out that they were attacking him because they knew that Smith's character was kidnapping them to experiment on and he had just captured the Alpha male's mate. When Smith agreed to return the female, they decided to let him go.

For some odd reason, it was decided to drop this ending and go for the one you hated so much, Dave. I believe this movie definitely qualifies as bad movie adaptation due to how few similarities the movie had with the book.

For things like comic book movies, like the ones that GameCargo mentions, it's possible to argue that the movies don't have to follow the story to the letter. Most of these stories have gone through a relaunch after a relaunch, followed by acted and/or animated series and even previous films of their adventures. There tends to be some difference between them as the story adapts, to fit the modern times. For example peter parker used to be bitten by a radioactive spider. Now it's a genetically engineered spider. Stories tend to take advantage on the form of science that carries allot of stigma and fear of its unknown aspects (that is why electricity was used to awaken the Frankenstein monster, since it was the mysterious power source of the time). The characters themselves tend to drastically change as well. We've seen Batman as a brawling hothead that rushes in headfirst into a legion of henchmen and punch them with the accompanying "POW!" and "WHAM!", then pull out a magic fix from his utility belt to get him out of the sticky situation that he tends to get himself in. Now he's this dark brooding mastermind that stays in the shadows and uses terror to mess the pants of his enemies.

Personally, I hated how Peter Parker turned out in the Spiderman movies but from what I heard, it couldn't be helped. In the comics he's this wise cracking jerk who throws witty insults at his opponents, in order to get them riled up and throw them off their game. Then between fights, he had to deal with allot of strenuous situations that would make allot of people clinically depressed and you could see that it was affecting him. The directors behind the Spiderman movies found it incredibly difficult to create a realistic, live version, fight scene with this form of banter could take place so it got dropped. Problem was that without the humor, Parker turned into this whining little emo-bitch-boy. But hey, I guess it's just another character evolution, amirite?

Product Placement
The movie was originally supposed to pay homage to the book ending It turned out that they were attacking him because they knew that Smith's character was kidnapping them to experiment on and he had just captured the Alpha male's mate. When Smith agreed to return the female, they decided to let him go.

For some odd reason, it was decided to drop this ending and go for the one you hated so much, Dave.

I believe they did film an ending which was true to the book but it didn't go down well with test audiences and so, in true Hollywood fashion, they changed it to the current one.

DAJB

Product Placement
The movie was originally supposed to pay homage to the book ending It turned out that they were attacking him because they knew that Smith's character was kidnapping them to experiment on and he had just captured the Alpha male's mate. When Smith agreed to return the female, they decided to let him go.

For some odd reason, it was decided to drop this ending and go for the one you hated so much, Dave.

I believe they did film an ending which was true to the book but it didn't go down well with test audiences and so, in true Hollywood fashion, they changed it to the current one.

Well, even the alternative ending PP describes isn't true to the book. Not at all. It's just closer than the one they went with in the end.

Has anyone mentioned Howard the Duck yet? I'm pretty sure that's the standard in which all other terrible comic book movies are compared.

I, for one, thought that the History of Violence movie was a vast improvement over the comic. When I read the comic I found that it lacked tension. I also thought that the wife and children were unfairly marginalized. A woman finds out that her husband was hiding a shady past as a mob murderer and she just kinda rolls with it?

The movie wife's reaction felt a bit more true to me.

And yes, I found that staircase pseudo-rape scene a bit disconcerting. However, I also thought that it served the narrative of the film well in its own way.

I don't think this is the worst book adaptation of all time, but I recently saw the Mel Gibson film Payback and I didn't care for it. All the noir elements of it seemed really stilted and forced. (Especially Gibson's first-person narration) I didn't feel that way at all when I read The Hunter.

Air Raid Robertson
Has anyone mentioned Howard the Duck yet? I'm pretty sure that's the standard in which all other terrible comic book movies are compared.

I saw that as a kid and loved it. So did all the other kids my age that saw it.
Still don't know anything about the comic though.

70's Spiderman movies are pretty shit. I'd use them as the Yard-stick

ozoneocean

Air Raid Robertson
Has anyone mentioned Howard the Duck yet? I'm pretty sure that's the standard in which all other terrible comic book movies are compared.

I saw that as a kid and loved it. So did all the other kids my age that saw it.
Still don't know anything about the comic though.

The character was original created by Steve Gerber and was intended as a one-off supporting character in a comic called Giant-Sized Man Thing. (Insert penis joke here) For some reason, however, Howard generated a fan following that eventually led to an ongoing series published by marvel in the mid to late 70's.

Howard the Duck is defined by balancing between surrealist plots and farcial social satires. Howard himself was a sardonic, ill tempered commentator who threw out barbed witticisms at the perceived injustices around him.

One storytelling example is Dr. Bong, Howard's archnemesis. Bong was an expert on manipulating the mass media to his desires. When he was showing off his evil lair, he commented that the giant machines and flashing lights didn't actually do anything besides "impress superficial intellects". They were there just to look cool since perception is most important.

At the same time, Howard would have to contend with threats such as the Deadly Space Turnip and a Frankenstein-esque gingerbread man.

I really love Steve Gerber's run on Howard the Duck. It was a great influence on me as a comics writer. One of my favorite issues was "Zen and the Art of Comic Book Writing". It was a series of essays, journal entries, and short stories that Gerber wrote because he was moving to Las Vegas and was under deadline pressure. Regardless, it was smart, sharp, and insightful. It also had a dramatic fight scene between a Vegas showgirl, an ostrich, and a killer lampshade.

The showgirl eventually won. She and the ostrich eventually got their own mini-series.

Air Raid Robertson
Howard the Duck synopsis

Sounds interesting!
So it seems that it wasn't the movie itself that people really object to there, mainly just that it wasn't a faithful adaptation? Because people usually do go on about how horrible the movie was... and it really wasn't.
Seems a bit like Tank Girl, it being completely unlike the amazing source material, but still ok in its own right. -Although Tank Girl the movie has a horribly simple, cliched plot and cardboard antagonist, it's still a much loved cult film.

ozoneocean

Air Raid Robertson
Has anyone mentioned Howard the Duck yet? I'm pretty sure that's the standard in which all other terrible comic book movies are compared.

I saw that as a kid and loved it. So did all the other kids my age that saw it.

Same story for me. I liked the movie and hadn't seen the comics. I only recently found out that it was based on comics and haven't had the chance to look them up.

This brings up the need to mention Nostalgia critic. He apparently hated that movie and made a video where he harshly criticized it. The annoying part is that he has such a huge following of mindless sheep that accept everything he says as absolute truth and then go on spreading the message on how terrible it was. After all, if nostalgia critic didn't like it, how can it possibly be good?

The Narnia Chronicles movie adaptation felt like a punch in the face.
They began the chronicles with the SECOND SEQUEL.Why?
"Sorcere´s nephew" explains the entire Narnia origin.Without the proper introducition of Narnia,the wholl movie seemed like the setting is in just another another whimsical place like Oz or Neverland.
Ok,the books had bit over the top christian overtones,and most of the mythology creatures seemed to be just mixed together with no real purpose(author just had the need to include them becouse of his own fascination with them)...but still the movie compleatly missed the characters motives and personality and the overall dark surreal atmosphere that make the books stand as a classic
The wholl movie was just so silly and painfull to watch,I zoned out so much I hardly could keep the track.And Aslan´s design was laughably adorable.

Well,the 50+ year old child franchises always suffer the same fate(Alice in Wonderland,Peter Pan,Charlie and the chocolate factory,Winnie the Pooh).They make everything dumb,cute and cuddly,throw in uneccessary musicals and lots of CGI effects,and compleatly get rid of the wholl point the books were trying to make.

Ok,those were different times,the life was much harder,child mortality was high,and overall mentallity was different,but that still isn´t an exuce Hollywood from destroying our childhood memories

Plague Doctor
The Narnia Chronicles movie adaptation felt like a punch in the face.
They began the chronicles with the SECOND SEQUEL.Why?

Because it was the first story. ^_^
The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe was written first. And can be read as a self contained, stand alone novel- as it was intended.

The Magician's Nephew was a prequel written later on.

I suppose you can say in that way it's a little like Tolkien's Silmarillion- everything in there takes place before The Hobbit and The Lord Of the Rings, it explains the world completely, gives background etc...

Magician's Nephew isn't a fantasy bible like the Silmarillion, but it is a prequel that gives you a flashback to what happened to lead up to the story you've seen in the other books, giving you some extra background- not necessary to enjoy the world in the other books, but just to give you some interesting extra background info on aspects of it.

----------------------------------

Not defending the films at all! I haven't even seen them and would probably completely agree with your assessment of them anyway :)