Casino Royale. I like the book but the movie is leagues better. Not too surprising since it's Fleming's first in the series. I haven't read all the books but I much prefer the films.
I read the manga in between seeing Mugen Train and the second season starting, I came out of it like "wow, that was absolutely mediocre stuff"Kimetsu no Yaibe/Demon Slayer is the most obvious recent example. It completely transcends the manga.
Just finished reading it and it's not nearly as exciting or magical as the movie. I mean, the book is good cause Chrichton is good at making exciting/fun stories and set pieces but Spielberg made this a cultural icon.
i would argue even more to anything they touch is better than the source by studio aloneKyoani managed to turn the pretty dry K-On manga into one of the best SOL anime ever
Anything by Mark Millar, who gets decent ideas then immediately ruins it with edge lord bullshit.
Came here to post LOTR movies but thought it'd be too obvious. Is that really a hot take OP? I feel like it's pretty accepted that they're the best example of the adaptation being better than the source material.
Agreed it actually does a good job if showing the darker side of a military dictatorship only implied by the games
I've only read Wanted and partially read Kick-Ass, but if those are indicative of his wider work, absolutely.
Game of Thrones is better than A Song of Ice and Fire just by having an ending. It may be a bad ending, but at least it is an ending.
Any manga that's based on music is far better as an anime. Your Lie in AprilKyoani managed to turn the pretty dry K-On manga into one of the best SOL anime ever
And the American version is even betterRing (1998). The novel the movie is based on goes into some strange-ass territory.
Anything by Mark Millar, who gets decent ideas then immediately ruins it with edge lord bullshit.
I love Blade Runner but I don't think I could agree with this. Especially since the movie completely cuts out the entire Mercerism part of the book which I thought was interesting in itself as it was what Deckard's wife was involved with and gave his relationship with her more depth. Since her entire character is gone in the movie to serve the romance plot between him and Rachel.Blade Runner is ALOT better than "Do Androids dream of electric sheep?"
Read the Forrest Gump book sometime if you want a decent example of this.
Getting that movie from that book is something of a minor miracle. Even if you don't like the movie!
I'm in the camp of those who prefer this ending over the source one.
Blade Runner is ALOT better than "Do Androids dream of electric sheep?"
Except people only say that when the adaptation is changed for the worse so I don't think this logic makes any sense. No one's complaining about shitty stories being changed in adaptations...The amount of times I've heard people say, "X director/writer didn't get the source material." Maybe they did, but the source material isn't that great.
but everything the movie did was in the book in the exact same tone (except for how women are portrayed) lol. Didn't really change anything when it was adapted outside of abridging the story and making the women more fleshed out.American Psycho. The book is just a laundry list of brands & acts of violence. Being adapted and satirizing the 80s Wall Street bro culture was just brilliant? It's an excellent film and a horrendous movie.
I can see that. But honestly the only thing I'd have kept in the adaption is that Deckard had sheep. The rest matter in ways but felt weak.I love Blade Runner but I don't think I could agree with this. Especially since the movie completely cuts out the entire Mercerism part of the book which I thought was interesting in itself as it was what Deckard's wife was involved with and gave his relationship with her more depth. Since her entire character is gone in the movie to serve the romance plot between him and Rachel.
I love Blade Runner, and I from what I understand Phillip did as well, but Blade Runner cuts out so much of the philosophical meat of the original story, instead choosing to lean in on admittedly gorgeous but ultimately emotionally hollow visuals, that I personally have to give it to the original story.
The incredible thing about the leftovers is how that first season is such a straight adaptation, and then really it was just an excuse to make a tv show that was infinitely more interesting. So rare to see—to not just try and emulate what worked previous.The Leftovers. The book is good, but it is just good. It didn't really stay with me or provoke much deep thought. The show is one of the best meditations on grief, especially sudden loss for which you'll never really get a 'why', and recovery, and how recovery itself hurts, that I've ever experienced. The actors brought their A-game, and Carrie Coon in particular deserved every award. Even the soundtrack was haunting.
It's there in the Final Cut but is also not there if that makes any sense?
The Final cut of the movie wants you to think about what is human, but it cut out so many other things that you're not sure what it's trying to say.
However I think it says what it's about more than Phillip K Dick's story did.
Also why are Cybepunk stories hard to adapt?
And the Xenophobia... Don't forget the xenophobia!To be fair, I havent yet seen the final cut, so I'll definitely check that out. All I can say is that the earlier cut of Blade Runner which I saw didnt capture for me the real existential horror of the original story; that being having to deal with these beings who, on the one hand, totally understand the idea of human emotion, but on the other hand, by design simply dont experience it themselves.
And I'd argue that cyberpunk stories are hard to adapt by virtue of the fact that they originate from a relatively heady space. A combination of deeply philosophical sci-fi concepts combined with general paranoia over late-stage capitalism makes them tough to adapt to a generalized audience in a way that stays truthful to the original concepts
Again, I can't agree. While I love both, they are very different works and the book has more depth that the movie misses out on by cutting some of these things out I imagine due to runtime. Either way it's a great story, but the book hits different.I can see that. But honestly the only thing I'd have kept in the adaption is that Deckard had sheep. The rest matter in ways but felt weak.
I actually started reading Phillip K Dick novels because of Blade Runner and found it one of his weaker works. Which reminds me...
It's there in the Final Cut but is also not there if that makes any sense?
The Final cut of the movie wants you to think about what is human, but it cut out so many other things that you're not sure what it's trying to say.
However I think it says what it's about more than Phillip K Dick's story did.
Also why are Cybepunk stories hard to adapt?
Fair!Again, I can't agree. While I love both, they are very different works and the book has more depth that the movie misses out on by cutting some of these things out I imagine due to runtime. Either way it's a great story, but the book hits different.
They're not hard to adapt at all, it's all about the cool visuals. /s