What does one do when frustrated by altered adaptations?

[blue]

in many ways i agree with you Alex.  I have no problem with some changes being made, some are necessary for a film/tv version to work at all.  sometimes the changes are good, and work beautifully, other times they are done because of stupid "hollywood" logic and are a total disaster.  Personally, I feel that the changes to The Hobbit were largely disastrous. 

Another example is the film adaptations of Alan Moore's From Hell and The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen.  The only thing they really had in common with the source material was their names!

Philly, I must admit I haven't seen Oz: The Great And Powerful either :oops: I just thought it was funny :)

[WezV]

Another example is the film adaptations of Alan Moore's From Hell and The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen.  The only thing they really had in common with the source material was their names!

yeah, these are probably the worst type of adaptation you can get and the logic of them escapes me.  They obviously chose to make adaptations of them because somebody in the company likes the original thing, then ignore everything that makes them great.

although watchmen went the other way.  Ok, they significantly changed the ending, one costume and suped up the supposedly human characters... but you can still see the love the of the source material in every  single frame .... none of this makes the film any better, its incredibly stale in places.

My favourite of the alan moore adaptations is V for Vendetta.   I actually saw the film before the book, I loved the film, and I love it more because it introduced me to the book which is even better.   And now my daughter is called V(iolet)  ;)

[Philly Q]

Of those four films, I liked Watchmen the best (by far) and V for Vendetta the least.

But I haven't read any of the graphic novels.

I think in general it's better to read the book after seeing the film, because there's nearly always "added value" in the parts they had to leave out of the film.  Although sometimes a really badly written book - with a decent basic storyline - can actually be much better as a film.

[JJretroTONEGOD]

I have to agree with you about the book version of LOTR the film has some errors in it, I still prefer the book version of the story, I've not read any of the harry potter books yet are they better than the films?

[Nadz1lla]

Actually I found the HP films to be extremely close to the source material, can't believe I forgot about those!

Mind you, they did have JKR on set to tell them if they were doing anything wrong. I think the HP series are the truest-to-source movies I've ever seen.

If there were any changes, they weren't glaringly obvious as far as I remember, but then I only read the books twice. The films really are rather good, as far as kids films go, and true to the books, they get darker as they go on. I think my only gripe was that the ending of the last film should have been more epic, to really hammer home that "This IS the defining moment of the entire series." I think the big duel between the two main characters could have been strung out, emphasised and gritted-up as for me it didn't really have as much of a kick as I would have liked.

But seriously, if that's my only major issue over a course of eight movies, they did pretty well!  :lol:

[WezV]

They cut massive amounts out from all the books, but that has to be the case when you are making a film which is supposed to cover a whole school year and make it suitable for younger children

[Nadz1lla]

I guess I don't remember much of the books, then, heh.

However I do remember being disappointed by the very end of the last one. I remember feeling like it left one of the major points unresolved and a little bit too rushed. Almost as if JK was saying "aaaand they all lived happily ever after, the end."

*SPOILER ALERT BELOW for anyone who hasn't read the books / seen the films...*

My major point being, we don't get to find out whether Harry went on to become an Auror. That really bugged the hell out of me!