I actually agree with this dude. People need to appreciate a movie on it's own merits and not how faithful it is to the comics or the book.
Actually, it remains a pet peeve of mine. My problem is not with the movie in itself, a few adaptations have actually made me discover great books, so I'm grateful that they exist. It's the idea that those movies are supposed to be an adaptation at all, where they usually aren't little more than inspired by some ideas from the book.Usually they don't keep the storyline, don't keep the ambiance, don't keep the characters' psychology. Where's the adaptation there?They actually need to draw the line when they start from true stories. It's never an adaptation, it's always "inspired by a true story". I wish they'd have the same intellectual honesty about books.
I don't understand why people want the movie to be the exact same as the book. Just read the book if that's what you want. What's the point of retelling the story in a different medium if you're going to leave everything the exact same? The history of storytelling has been the history of adapting stories to changing audiences and storytellers. That's why there are so many different versions of classic myths and fairy tales. The world would be a much poorer place if things were otherwise.
Excellent point. Terry GIlliam adapted FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS from the book word-for-word, scene-for-scene. Watching it was like having someone read the book out loud. All the reviewers agreed, "Why bother?"
Ditto for Sin City. Loved the movie, but when I went to pick up the comic for the Hard Goodbye, I couldn't make it through them, because it was exactly the same as the movie I already watched, so I didn't gain anything from reading the original.
"I don't understand why people want the movie to be the exact same as the book."Go see and read Slumdog Millionaire, I like them for the same reason you will. :D
It is one thing to be an adaptation that is different from the book.It is another to be an adaptation that just sucks because it is a bad movie in general. There is a lot of examples of those unfortunately.
The most heinous example that comes quickly to mind is Battlefield Earth.
Then there are cases like World War Z where the only similarity is that there are zombies. The story is completely "original" with completely "original" characters not present in the book and zombies that don't follow the rules from The Zombie Survival Guide. There's really nothing let from the original, so its unfair to call that an adaptation. Compare that to something like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings where the story and characters are more or less the same, sans a few plot points being modified or removed for time.
I suppose an Argument could be made for something like Frankenstein where the movie and book told completely unique stories from one another. They both take the basic premise of "Man builds monster" in a different direction. Its been years since I had to read it in high school, so forgive me if I flub a detail or two, but I recall the creature in the book being highly intelligent and well spoken. Karloff's portrayal is opposite. However, they're both held in equally high renown and nobody complains that they changed stuff. They start their respective plots in the same way and justify having the same title in the process. Thy share at least something. A lot of adaptations can't even claim that. This is why fans of the source material often get "butthurt" over this kind of thing. They aren't looking for the same thing they've already experienced, they're looking to explore that universe in another way, same story or not.
The Frankenstein book and movie still had way more in common with each other than the World War Z book and movie.The World War Z movie is the best example of the phrase "In Name Only" you could ever find in the history of adaptations.
For the record, the 2004 FRANKENSTEIN miniseries starring Luke Goss was an exact-perfect-dead-on adaptation of the novel and did a spectacular job capturing every nuance and adding a ton more details.
If it added more details, then it's not an exact-perfect-dead-on adaptation, is it?
"It's a Wonderful Life" was based on a Christmas card.Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
It also bombed horribly when it was first released. The only reason it's regarded as a "classic" today is because some clerk forgot to renew the copyright, so TV channels looking for cheap programming to fill up their time slots jumped on it and started airing it as much as possible. Eventually people had seen the movie on TV so many times it just kinda became a classic.The point? I don't even know. Maybe in the future other shitty movies will be held in high regard simply because people have been exposed to them so many times, but that won't change the fact that originally people thought they were shit.
Also I believe the short story on that card was entitled "God's Greatest Gift", which is a line mentioned in the movie, but was not taken as the title. It actually is a bit less annoying when loose adaptations change the title instead of trying to use the title of very famous work even though it's really only in "name only." Personally, slight changes don't bother me, it's only when the changes are many and/or severe. Though, a good movie is in the eye of the viewer. LOL