Novels that have been adapted to movies more than once where the less faithful version is better

Tommy_Carcetti

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-16-10 02:42 PM
Original message

Novels that have been adapted to movies more than once where the less faithful version is better

Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 02:43 PM by Tommy_Carcetti

I can think of two obvious ones:

The Shining

and

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

The later adapatations of these movies were both more faithful to the original novel but both inferior movies. Although Stephen King won't admit it as it relates to The Shining.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-16-10 02:43 PM
Response to Original message

1. I disagree with choice two

I thought the more faithful Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with Johnny Depp was better. It was SUPPOSED to be a dark story. I really can't watch Gene Wilder in that role, personally.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Orrex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-16-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #1

5. It's like I don't even know you anymore

I can't stand the Burton version, but that's true of pretty much everything Burton does.

However, even if someone else had directed the second adaptation, I still would have hated it. As much as I like Depp as an actor, I feel that he was pushing it too hard this time around. And don't get me started on Burton's Oompa Loompahs.

Incidentally, the Gene Wilder version is in fact remarkably dark, moreso than it's commonly given credit for being.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cemaphonic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-16-10 03:01 PM
Response to Original message

2. Both versions of Nosferatu and Browning's Dracula are better than Coppola's

Although Coppola takes enough licenses with the plot that I'm not sure it's really that much more faithful, despite the title.

OTOH, Tom Waits as Renfield was great.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ScreamingMeemie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-16-10 03:06 PM
Response to Original message

3. Sorry. I disagree on both.

I am not a fan of Kubrick raping novels and making movies.

and
"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" was far more what I imagined reading the book by the same name.

Although "Willy Wonka..." was entertaining it just does not rank up there for me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Orrex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-16-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #3

6. Simply for eliminating the climactic topiary scene, Kubrick's version is better

Additionally, I prefer the film's ending, in which Jack Torrance does achieve redemption (of a sort).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BethCA66

(188 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-16-10 03:16 PM
Response to Original message

4. Battlefield Earth n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bucky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-16-10 03:51 PM
Response to Original message

7. Gone with the Wind was basically a treatment of a movie to begin with.

Mitchell really needed someone to edit that damn thing down for her. And that's exactly what David O. Selznick did.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue May 07th 2024, 02:33 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.