Published a book you want to tell us about? Uploaded a YouTube video you want to share?
Normally you'll need 100 posts to self-promote, but with an upgraded membership you can do so with your first post.
Find out more here: Become a Supporting Member
Best adaptation of a comic book is Dredd. They absolutely nailed it. Karl Urban was perfect as Dredd. Although the 1978 Superman is pretty darn great too.
Worst adaptations is a list as long as my arm, but off the top of my head, I, Robot, Bicentennial Man, Ender's Game, Solaris, Damnation Alley...
The 1984 film visually looked good. The problem is that Dune is such a complex novel, that you can't do justice to in a feature film format. It would work as a tv series , because then you could cover much of the story.The original Dune movie. Gawd, how horrible!! We heard more of what's going on in the character's heads than verbal dialogue!
Agreed. Myself and many of my friends agreed at the time we'd have been willing to py the big bucks for a full-day feature!The 1984 film visually looked good. The problem is that Dune is such a complex novel, that you can't do justice to in a feature film format. It would work as a tv series , because then you could cover much of the story.
Agreed! I loved the movie; at least the second time I saw it and got over my expectations.I Robot was mostly a collection od stories, so Im not sure any close adaptation was possible. The film we got was a decent science fiction action conspiracy thriller. I think though , that I would have liked to seen them do it off the Script that Harlan Ellison wrote many years back
Accuracy on shirts! King also quotes Invasion of the body snatchers author Jack Finney in private correspondence on the authenticity of the Don Siegel directed film to his book, particularly regarding the anti-communist or anti-anti-communist allegory some perceived.Ira Levin said:I've always felt that the film of Rosemary's Baby is the single most faithful adaptation of a novel ever to come out of Hollywood. Not only does it incorporate whole chunks of the book's dialogue, it even follows the colours of clothing (where I mentioned them) and the layout of the apartment. And perhaps more importantly, Polanski's directorial style of not aiming the camera squarely at the horror but rather letting the audience spot it for themselves off at the side of the screen coincides happily, I think, with my own writing style.
There was a reason for his fidelity to the book, incidentally ... His screenplay was the first adaptation he had written of someone else's material; his earlier films had all been originals, I think he didn't know it was permitted - nay, almost mandatory! - to make changes. I remember him calling me from Hollywood to ask in which issue of the New Yorker Guy had seen the shirt advertised. To my chagrin I had to admit I'd faked it; I had assumed any issue of the New Yorker would have a handsome shirt advertised in it. But the correct issue of the time of the scene didn't.
Jack Finney said:I have read explanations of the 'meaning' of the story, which amuse me, because there is no meaning at all; it was just a story to entertain, and with no more meaning than that. The first movie version of the book followed the book with great faithfulness, except for the foolish ending; and I've always been amused by the contentions of people connected with the picture that they had a message of some sort in mind. If so, it's a lot more than I ever did, and since they followed my story very closely, it's hard to see how this message crept in.