ITT: Worst Veeky Forums film/tv adaptations

So is it actually any good? From what I've heard it's just artsy bullshit.

It's pretty good

Not sure if it's good or bad, definitely better than the Hollywood adaptation: youtu.be/Sl7w2Z0vGpA

Sorry, didn't realize it has some very unfunny subtitles.

This was my favorite book back in middle school, so I was pretty disappointed by this adaption.

...

I was blown away by how good the book was after seeing the shitty movie that completely missed the point.

I read the first book recently just because a girl I liked had linked it to her Facebook account. I enjoyed a little, but mostly because it was comfy as hell. Anyway, are the sequels worth it? The first book didn't seem to need one; it was auto-conclusive.

wow Okay guys
if you know so much about tv put some Patrician adaptations -_-'

No Country for Old Men
There Will be Blood
Last of the Mohicans
The Shining
Jaws
Starship Troopers
Blade Runner

...

Petals in the Wind is a good read, but not as good as the first. The others are readable, but, yeah, the series didn't really need any sequels.

They're comfy enough, but the drama is a little less believable as time goes on and Kathy's decisions as a character get progressively stupider so I found myself getting frustrated.

I'd say give the second a shot, and that will tell you if you should read all the sequels or not.

The Last of the Mohicans improves upon the source material in almost every way. It is the ideal dramatic adaptation, especially in the way it uses music.

This also uses music and art to enhance the story.

Jackie Brown
The Godfather
No Country for Old Men
Fight Club
Adaptation

Raging Bull, never read the book, but it is an amazing movie, same thing with Goodfellas

Tarkovsky might be be astry, but he dis make some pretty amazing movies. Mostly it depends on what type of movies you like, if you want them to be straight forward and easy to understand than you should maybe stay away from it, but if you keep an open mind you might enjoy it.

Conan the Barbarian.
makes changes to plot and characters, but it captures the tone perfectly and the plot feels like a real conan story.

American Psycho

why do you think it was bad? I've been meaning to watch the film for quite a while

Oh come on! Nothing tops this.

>artsy bullshit

I was just being stupid, as anyone who's seen the film knows. It's considered a masterpiece by most people who see it, even those who hate every single other film by Kubrick.

youtube.com/watch?v=yApCf7ln4WE

saw this movie the other week, so garbage
i approve

Me on the left

...

The book was completely awful and this adaptation made it amazing. It was perfect.

That movie is great

I fantasize about having that pale chick's lips around my cock frequently, with the lipstick of course.
Only redeeming quality of that movie.

Artsy bullshit is the only type of film worth watching for anything more than entertainment. The rest have as much artistic value as a college football game.

this 100%
fuck the movie was such shit

There Will Be Blood is so tenuously related to Oil! that I hardly even consider it an adaptation.

>everything is glowing
>elements of the movie randomly thrown together

HP promotional material is the worst

Pretty much any Hemingway adaptation was shit.
Except when Faulkner wrote the screenplay.

...

There was no need to go reminding me of this

Can't believe no one mentioned this yet

>Water ride/battle in the movie
(strongly suspect for an amusement park ride)
>elf/dwarf love story, because God forbid there's an action or adventure film w/o romance
>removed almost all the humor
>"gold sickness"
>ice battles
>recurring orc nemesis, based on one line in the book
>made Ian McKellen cry because so much greenscreen

Based Viggo Morgenstein for turning down a Strider/Aragorn role

This

Hobbit is my favorite book, but the movies were a big disappointment. The only thing I really enjoyed from it was the character designs and costumes, which were fun, if not a little too dark and dreary for the tone of the book.

Why is he so hard to adapt?

...

It's not that he's too difficult, it's that shitty producers try to adapt his movies.

>writes cerebral comics (or at least his well known stuff)
>we live in a world where Twilight, Hunger Games and John Green are wildly successful film franchises, despite being awful writing
>Hollywood exists to sell tickets, not tell good stories
>try to appeal to greatest number of people
>Hollywood doesn't understand comics beyond IP=Mon-ey (intellectual property)
>loose all nuance, subtlety and original meaning
>now just action flicks
>still make money, so Hollywood won't change

The Killing Joke made the least amount of money out of the adaptions, and was probably the best, in my opinion.

I'll repeat :
he's not hard to adapt, it's that no one wants to adapt anything more than the name and character images.

>HARRY DID YA PUT YER NAME IN THE GARBLARAFAR

He asked calmly.

>from what Ive heard

why dont you watch it you utter fag

it's one of the greatest movies ever made

none of big T's works are "artsy bullshit", they're all great

I don't understand it
The first books were full of such whimsy; it really felt like there was a functioning world everywhere you looked, and neither you nor Harry understood it yet.

Then as the films went on, everything was a plot device, or explained the moment it was brought out. For lack of a better term, the magic left Harry Potter, and it lost it's sense of Fantasticism.

I think after Book 3 it went downhill, although #1 will always be #1 imo.

Harris best Dumbledore.