Movies most faithful to their source material

[cajmoyper]

There's been a lot of praise for Wolverine even though they may have taken some liberties, they did alright by the comic books, so I hear. ST on the other hand has received much scrutiny, even though due to the storyline, there is no longer any obligation to stick to any formula or story elements. IMO, that's why the movie and story were so awesome. Which movies or television shows do you all think have been most faithful to what they are based upon? And for that matter, who screwed their respective franchises up with sacrilige?

[Beefbowl]

Originally Posted by cajmoyper

There's been a lot of praise for Wolverine even though they may have taken some liberties, they did alright by the comic books, so I hear. ST on the other hand has received much scrutiny, even though due to the storyline, there is no longer any obligation to stick to any formula or story elements. IMO, that's why the movie and story were so awesome. Which movies or television shows do you all think have been most faithful to what they are based upon? And for that matter, who screwed their respective franchises up with sacrilige?

300 and Sin City. I haven't seen Watchmen but I believe that one
s very close to the source material.

Wolverine sucked, nowhere close to the source material.

[Batman1980]

Lord of the Rings 1-3 and Star Wars 1-6.
*RUNS AWAY*

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Beefbowl

300 and Sin City. I haven't seen Watchmen but I believe that one
s very close to the source material.

Wolverine sucked, nowhere close to the source material.

Don't know enough about Sin City but yes 300 & Watchmen were very close to the source

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Lord of the Rings 1-3 and Star Wars 1-6.
*RUNS AWAY*

well Star Wars would not count since the books were only done to complement the movies.

LOTR is a interesting choice. Hardcore fans will tell anyone that too much was change or was left out of the movies. I personaly would not call myself a hardcore fan even if I do read the books once a year now for the past 30 years. I was ok with what they did in the movies. Too much in the books would not have made sense to add in the movies.

One example is having Arwen find Aragorn and the Hobbits instead of Glorfindel. In the movie it did not make much sense having him appeared there for the few minutes needed and never seeing him again in the movies. Sometimes changes are needed

[donaldheil]

How about Watchmen? Those graphic novels are like storyboards ready to be used.

As far as I can remember (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) "DUNE" (from 1984) was TOO faithful to its source, and tried to translate everything into the movie. Which shows that sometimes you are better off doing an adaptation of the book, not a literal translation.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by donaldheil

How about Watchmen? Those graphic novels are like storyboards ready to be used.

As far as I can remember (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) "DUNE" (from 1984) was TOO faithful to its source, and tried to translate everything into the movie. Which shows that sometimes you are better off doing an adaptation of the book, not a straight translation.

Depend I guess how you see it. Having read Dune countless time I never felt like the movie was close to what I imagine in the books IMO. I like the movie but never tought it was a very close adaptation of the book.

[Batman1980]

Actually the Dune mini-series is my favourite mini-series of all-time, even if it is 4.5 hours long.

[Blu-Benny]

300 for sure.

[donaldheil]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Depend I guess how you see it. Having read Dune countless time I never felt like the movie was close to what I imagine in the books IMO. I like the movie but never tought it was a very close adaptation of the book.

Ok, thanks. Maybe I was remembering wrong. I read the book long ago. I do remember though that the movie tried to present too much information, hence the confusion.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by donaldheil

Ok, thanks. Maybe I was remembering wrong. I read the book long ago. I do remember though that the movie tried to present too much information, hence the confusion.

Like someone mention above, the mini series from 6 or 7 years ago is actualy very good. It does a better job at showing the characters to the way I think they should be. But it's not a easy book to translate to a movie, frank Herbert was a very complicated writer.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Lord of the Rings 1-3

Well, I wouldn't say that. I think Jackson and company tried to stay "true" to the spirit of Tolkien and adapt the screenplay as best as the could to the books (which were exceptionally hard to make into a cohesive movie). However, Tolkien would probably be turning over in his grave if he could have seen how Faramir was depicted, the army of elves at Helm's Deep, Gandalf's refusal to go through Moria unless it was absolutely necessary, Frodo sending Sam home, the army of the dead fighting at Minas Tirith, Elrond showing up at Dunharrow, Arwen rescuing Frodo, Frodo and the other hobbits constantly falling down, etc.

[Porkchop Express]

Has anyone here read From Hell to compare to the movie? I've read League of Extra ordinary Gentlemen, and that was a horrible adaptation.

Watchmen was done very well, I preferred the movie ending to the novel.

[deckardp]

Originally Posted by Porkchop Express

Has anyone here read From Hell to compare to the movie?

I read it recently, but it has been years since having seen the movie. From what I remember though, it wasn't very close to the source at all.

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Lord of the Rings 1-3 and Star Wars 1-6.
*RUNS AWAY*

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

well Star Wars would not count since the books were only done to complement the movies.

LOTR is a interesting choice. Hardcore fans will tell anyone that too much was change or was left out of the movies. I personaly would not call myself a hardcore fan even if I do read the books once a year now for the past 30 years. I was ok with what they did in the movies. Too much in the books would not have made sense to add in the movies.

One example is having Arwen find Aragorn and the Hobbits instead of Glorfindel. In the movie it did not make much sense having him appeared there for the few minutes needed and never seeing him again in the movies. Sometimes changes are needed

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Well, I wouldn't say that. I think Jackson and company tried to stay "true" to the spirit of Tolkien and adapt the screenplay as best as the could to the books (which were exceptionally hard to make into a cohesive movie). However, Tolkien would probably be turning over in his grave if he could have seen how Faramir was depicted, the army of elves at Helm's Deep, Gandalf's refusal to go through Moria unless it was absolutely necessary, Frodo sending Sam home, the army of the dead fighting at Minas Tirith, Elrond showing up at Dunharrow, Arwen rescuing Frodo, Frodo and the other hobbits constantly falling down, etc.

I read "The Hobbit" and am nearly finished with "Fellowship of the Ring" book and am I wrong or didn't Frodo live in the Shire for 50 years AFTER Bilbo left? Making Frodo about 58 years old when he starts his quest to destroy the ring? Not right after Bilbo's party. I think I remember that correctly... havn't picked up the book in a few months now as I find it hard to read J. R. R. Tolkein's work...

[Rob71]

The Stand mini-series is very faithful to the book by Stephen King.

[kevinbr100]

hp series does a pretty good job, some scenes left out for time

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by kevinbr100

hp series does a pretty good job, some scenes left out for time

Eh, I wouldn't exactly agree with that... The books are MUCH better than the movies. For the first two or three movies it's fairly close but once you get to The Goblet of Fire and Order of the Pheonix you can really notice what they left out. I'm praying they do a better job with The Half-blood Prince and not too worried about the Deathly Hollows since it's being broken into two parts.

[mikejet]

I've heard 300 leaves some very important characters out.

Sin City would be my only example. The comic was used as storyboards.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Mouse

I read "The Hobbit" and am nearly finished with "Fellowship of the Ring" book and am I wrong or didn't Frodo live in the Shire for 50 years AFTER Bilbo left? Making Frodo about 58 years old when he starts his quest to destroy the ring? Not right after Bilbo's party. I think I remember that correctly... havn't picked up the book in a few months now as I find it hard to read J. R. R. Tolkein's work...

I think it was something like 17 years after Bilbo left that Frodo left the Shire with Sam.