CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

We've all been there: You read the book. You heard there was going to be a movie, so you got really excited. Then you saw the movie and... it was terrible! It wasn't anything like you imagined, and they left so much out and added so many unnecessary weird things and so on and so forth.

What are some film adaptations that you feel actually did justice to the source material, even if maybe they changed a few things here and there? Have you ever seen a movie that you thought was actually better than the book?

I was really satisfied with The Fellowship of the Ring, and I was for the most part okay with The Two Towers and The Return of the King, but I was really upset with how they changed Faramir's character. Still, I felt like the Lord of the Rings films stood on their own as some really great work.

I also liked the A & E version of Pride and Prejudice, with Colin Firth as Darcy. It was REALLY loyal to the book, and to this day I still find it far more enjoyable than the Keira Knightley version.

One movie that I thought managed to be better than the book was The Painted Veil, with Edward Norton and Naomi Watts. They changed some major plot points toward the end, which turned the story from this dull, depressing morality tale into a slightly less depressing, far more beautiful redemption story. It's not for kids due to sexual content (I believe it's PG-13 for that reason), but I definitely recommend the movie.

The Lord of the Ring films are great.

I also enjoy the Inkheart film highly. Sure, they kinda messed up some things, but I found it really enjoyable.

STARDUST was a great book but I think I preferred the movie more. The movie changed a lot but it worked. It was a great adaption... not a faithful one.. Recommend it to anyone. Fun and entertaining. Romance, action, comedy, beautiful to look at... one of my favorites

And yeah, the LOTR is awesome. The books are better but as movies, they're fantastic as well.

Memoirs of a Geisha - I thought the book and the movie were equally wonderful. The book was the first glimpse I had into another country (for realz, I had never read a book about people in another country before unless fantasy worlds counter), and it was dark and beautiful. I thought that the movie conveyed all that very well, though it skimmed some points between the girls that I thought were important.

Atria35 (post: 1494006) wrote:Memoirs of a Geisha - I thought the book and the movie were equally wonderful. The book was the first glimpse I had into another country (for realz, I had never read a book about people in another country before unless fantasy worlds counter), and it was dark and beautiful. I thought that the movie conveyed all that very well, though it skimmed some points between the girls that I thought were important.

^ I fully agree with this.

Here's some of mine:
first four Harry Potter movies (the others seem like Cliff Notes with visual aids)
Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe (the woman who played the White Witch was excellent!)
The Green Mile
And Then There Were None (technically, it has more in common with the stage version. But then, the stage version is from a book too, so yeah)

rocklobster (post: 1494070) wrote:Here's some of mine:
first four Harry Potter movies (the others seem like Cliff Notes with visual aids)
Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe (the woman who played the White Witch was excellent!)

I'll agree with the first three movies, but the fourth movie cut out SPEW and Winky and Dobby for the most part, and those were major factors in Dobby's character development- those things really made me feel for Dobby, and are part of why I cried when he.... yeah.

Also, seconding Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe. Great movie.

I liked the Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe adaptation for the most part, but one thing that REALLY ruined it for me was the costuming for the White Witch. It was RIDICULOUS, and kind of ruined the character for me. I know that's kind of a minor thing, but it was distractingly bad, and to this day it's the most prominent thing I remember about the film.

I've so far enjoyed all the Harry Potter movies nearly as much as the books and feel the things they left out, such as SPEW, were good decisions that allowed the movies to keep flowing. Those things may have worked for a book but I think in film they would have just slowed the movie down. I do think they needed to include Dobby a bit more since he was so important in some of the middle books, but I don't think it hurt the movies too bad either.

Other than that... I have nothing. Not many of the books I have read have become movies. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was an okay movie but I don't think it did the book justice.

One thing I never understood about the LWW movie was why they changed the wolf's name from Fenris Ulf to Maugrim. That made absolutely no sense at all. I know that I'm being nitpicky, but seriously, of all the things to change pointlessly... why that?

Yuki-Anne (post: 1495273) wrote:One thing I never understood about the LWW movie was why they changed the wolf's name from Fenris Ulf to Maugrim. That made absolutely no sense at all. I know that I'm being nitpicky, but seriously, of all the things to change pointlessly... why that?

That was a problem with the books, too. To quote wikipedia:

Maugrim is a fictional wolf, a servant of White Witch in the book The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis. He is captain of the witch's Secret Police (though only one of his lieutenants is ever seen). In early American editions of the book, Lewis changed the name to Fenris Ulf (a wolf from Norse mythology), but when HarperCollins took over the books they backed out Lewis's revisions,[1] and the name Maugrim has been used in all editions since 1994.

I'm not sure what made Lewis change the name originally, though.

As many movies that do justice to a book, most case scenario is that the literary work is torn apart. The book always wins; you just lose so much due to editting and seeing someelse's adaptation of the characters, story, and setting.

Maugrim was his original name in the British editions. Fenris Ulf was a change made later for American audiences. I prefer the name Maugrim, it sounds more sinister but Fenris Ulf has more mythological significance. Hmm...

Haven't we already had several similar threads to this one?
My choices:
Psycho (better than the book)
Picnic at Hanging Rock (better than the book)
The Lord of the Rings (for the most part I enjoyed it more than the book)
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (the battle was better than in the book, also the subtle evil of the White Witch was more interesting)
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (for the most part enjoyed it more than the book - cut most of the angst and all of the pointless padding towards the beginning)
A Series of Unfortunate Events (I enjoyed it more than the first three books upon which it was based)

Thanks, Cog. I actually did not know that at all, so that helps me understand why they changed it. I thought they just pulled a more sinister name out of their hats.

How about the movie version of To Kill A Mockingbird? Gregory Peck is great as Atticus Finch. This is the movie all adaptations should aspire to!

The Lord of the Rings films were absolutely fantastic, especially when you consider how many things that could have gone wrong with the movies. LOTR was entering a vacuum where high fantasy movies were rarely made, and if they were they were usually terrible. The fact that Jackson was able to capture the mood of Middle Earth so well is truly amazing.

The changes made to the source material were largely okay in my book, except for the derailing of Faramir, because Jackson felt the need to make the Ring as all powerful as possible and add some more family drama.

For the record, Tolkien considered Faramir to be the most similar in personality to himself.

The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, and Voyage of the Dawn Treader were excellent adaptations.

Prince Caspian, not so much, for a lot of reasons one of them being they tried to be Lord of the Rings.

Great post but then you got to the bit where you said Narnia: VDT was an excellent adaptation. Oh vey! That movie was awful. Prince Caspian was closer to the book, even if it did stuff up Peter's personality.

I certainly agree that the LotR movies were very good adaptations, though I can't really say they're better than the books. They're just so different, with such different foci, that I can't even begin to compare them. All I know is that they're both good.

Movies I thought were better than their books:

The Shawshank Redemption (I thought the characterization was better)
Inkheart (didn't drag as much, and Dustfinger had a better ending)
Twilight

Movies I thought were just as good as their books:

Pride and Prejudice (Colin Firth version)
Sense and Sensibility (Emma Thompson version)
Howl's Moving Castle
Bridge to Terabithia
I Am Legend
I, Robot (though, in all fairness, this movie was based on/inspired by multiple books, and bears little resemblance to any one in the end)
A Series of Unfortunate Events

All the Harry Potter movies are inferior to their books, I think, but Deathly Hallows was by far the best adaptation, and I would say it's about as good as the book.

the_wolfs_howl (post: 1497468) wrote:Movies I thought were just as good as their books:

A Series of Unfortunate Events

While I enjoyed the Series of Unfortunate Events movie, I don't think it was better than the books, mainly for the changes the movie made.

Firstly, they brought in the VFD plotpoint too early. That word wasn't even mentioned until the 5th book. They brought it in just enough to tease the audience and never developed it. Also, the movie tried to imply that the children's parents were still alive.
[SPOILER]They aren't.[/SPOILER]
Also, I felt that the character of Count Olaf had been changed somewhat to accomodate for Jim Carrey goofiness(not that I didn't like his performance). I don't remember Count Olaf being that narmy or funny in the books. The books really played up how awful of a person he is.

And finally, the ending.
[SPOILER] They made a reference to the signing with the left hand instead of the right by making Count Olaf remind Violet to sign with her right hand. In the original first book, he never noticed this. Thus, the marriage was void because Violet signed it not in her own hand but in her weak hand, her left. In the movie, they instead go for this silly 'melt the paper with a mirror' trick. I just felt that was unneccesary and they could have gone with the less dramatic canon ending.[/SPOILER]

But, the actress who played Violet was hot.

Emily Browning (Violet) is an Australian actress. She's been in quite a number of movies now. Those that come to mind are Sucker Punch and The Uninvited (no, I haven't seen the remake of A Tale of Two Sisters - I don't see the point).

Yamamaya (post: 1497527) wrote:While I enjoyed the Series of Unfortunate Events movie, I don't think it was better than the books, mainly for the changes the movie made.

Certainly, I don't think the movie was better than the books. But I think those changes they made turned the story into a different enough tale that you could enjoy it on its own merits just as much as the books. Naturally, I miss stuff like the unfolding mystery (that never seems to unfold all the way) about VFD and awesome run-on sentences like the "in the dark in the dark in the park" one that wouldn't work half as well in movie format. Still, I think they captured the essence of A Series of Unfortunate Events, and that's what I think is most important in an adaptation.

Also, I thought they captured Count Olaf perfectly. So maybe he has more goofy moments simply because he can when he's Jim Carrey, but he's one of the silliest, funniest characters in the book. You especially notice that, I think, when you compare him to the man with a beard but no hair and the woman with hair but no beard. Olaf, and the books themselves, get a bit darker and sadder as they go along, but I think the essence of Count Olaf was still there in the goofy movie version.

Most of the time, I've realized that if I watch the movie first and then read the book, I have a much better appreciation of the book because it often goes into more detail....

Examples would be LOTR trilogy....

But then there are the movie adaptions that are so modern a remake that it looks nothing like the book....

Example would be Mr. Poppers Penguins and Cheaper by the Dozen...

The City of Ember- I would put the book and the movie equal with eachother. For a *very* light YA story, I thought the first book was a little dry. The mystery was engaging enough, the premise fascinating, but it was pretty bare-bones in descriptions of the city and what it was like. It mainly focused on them just getting out. The movie, though, made it rich and vibrant. Seeing that generator was just awe-inspiring! However, it kind of skimmed over the mystery and getting-out part. So overall, I'd recommend them both. Preferably seen and read within a short amount of time with eachother.

The Devil Wears Prada -Personally I think the movie is much better. I struggled to get into the book and couldn't finish it properly, just skimming to the end. The movie characters are much more likeable and sympathetic and overall much more bearable.

The only movie I've seen that completely, 100% surpassed the book is Holes. Man, that movie was just so perfect.