• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

When is the adaptation better than the source material?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The latest news for Kick-Ass 2 inspired me to the ask the question (though I'm sure it's been asked before...), but when are adaptations of a previous work better than the original?

For example, Kick-Ass. The comic, in my opinion, is pretty crappy and depressing. Mark Millar's writing sorta sucks. And it's sequel is even worse. But the movie's fantastic, really fun, has great performances, and twists the tone and feel of the comic events to make it much more triumphant and enjoyable. It's a million times better than the comic.

So when has the adaptation outstripped the original for you? Is it BBC's Sherlock? Nolan TDK trilogy? The Bond films compared to Fleming's original works?
 
All the time?

avatarthelastairbende87izj.jpg
 
Let Me In

All the good parts of Let the Right One In, but without the unnessecary fluff that only makes sense if you read the book, or bad CG cats.
 
it's never better. it's always beholden to it.

that said, it's certainly possible for the derivative work to surpass the original in terms of quality of execution and impact on culture. perfect examples would be the godfather, jurassic park, and the shining. mediocre books, drop-dead amazing films that changed the medium.
 
I never read the Bourne Novels, but I've heard that the movies were a lot better? (not taking the latest movie into account.)
 
The Crow, definitely. I read the graphic novel version (which I guess was a compilation of the comics?) and it didn't do that much for me.

I would also say Logan's Run.

Total Recall (the original movie). The short story was very short, pretty much just the visit to Recall.

Soylent Green and Planet of the Apes were also much better than their sources.

And going the other way around, when the novelization of the movie was better than the movie, I would say Dragonslayer which was novelized by Wayland Drew. The movie was so so, but the novelization was so popular that there was a printing of it a few years later without any mention of the movie.

Also the Riddick novelization by Alan Dean Foster. It was huge, like 400 pages and had a giant appendix. Made so much more sense than the movie since it wasn't cut.
 
2001 doesn't count since the movie and book were being made at the same time. The movie is not an adaptation of the book.
You are correct.
I can weasel out and say I was talking about the short story both are inspired by, but I'm better than this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom