The book is better then the movie

[Bradpinder]

How come when fans read a novel and then see the movie they can say the book was better? but when its a comic book they have to bitch about the movie rather then saying 'ah the book was better'

Now people have a right to rant and hate and what not, its what makes the internet fun...

Just an observation by little old me as I bought some comics and overheard to some guys cry that the Jokers face wasnt acid bleached in the up comming Batman movie.

[Jared]

Very few comic book movies are true adaptations of a specific story, like what you get with novels-to-movies. Spider-Man takes the characters and concept from 30 years of comics and makes a movie about them, but it's not any particular Spidey story-arc being adapted for the screen. So saying "the comic was better" is silly. Which comic? There's 30+ years worth of issues, multiple titles, hundreds of creators.

[Bradpinder]

Fair enough

[Jamal]

Because everybody's a critic, especially when the movies not even finished yet. I got a feeling there is a very good reason that it just paint right now and I wouldn't be surprised that they get what they wish for when they finally watch the movie...hint hint.

[Bradpinder]

haha, nice hint!!

[Thorlief]

people don't bitch about the comic being better, they bitch about the movie not being as faithful as they wished it to be

[StoneGold]

I don't think it is so much whether or not the comic itself is better than the movie, than whether or not taking something directly from the comic would have made for a better movie. So stuff like Gwen Stacy, for the story the Spider-Man movie was trying to tell, wouldn't have worked at all. That doesn't mean that the movie was better than the original books, but that the movie was better than a direct translation of the original books would have been.

[Demon wizard]

Too many people expect a simple rehashing of the original story rather than a new story featuring characters from the comics, and thus go on a rampage when ever something happens that wasn't in the comics or they don't include something from the comics.

[Bradpinder]

ever think there will ever be a totally faithful translation from comic to movie?

[kalorama]

people don't bitch about the comic being better, they bitch about the movie not being as faithful as they wished it to be

The problem is that too many people are unable to discern the fairly obvious distinction between the two (faithful vs. better, that is).

[kalorama]

ever think there will ever be a totally faithful translation from comic to movie?

Sin City came pretty damn close. Whether that was a good thing or not is a mater of opinion.

[saintsaucey]

300 as well im told. still haven't read either of them though

[Ryan Day]

ever think there will ever be a totally faithful translation from comic to movie?

Totally faithful? No.

But there have been plenty of good adaptations: Sin City was faithful, if not terribly good; 300 was a good adaptation; Ghost World was excellent.

I imagine Persepolis will be quite faithful to the book, since Marjane Satrapi co-directed it.

[saintsaucey]

Totally faithful? No.

But there have been plenty of good adaptations: Sin City was faithful, if not terribly good; 300 was a good adaptation; Ghost World was excellent.

I imagine Persepolis will be quite faithful to the book, since Marjane Satrapi co-directed it.

i don't get it why is it that people didn't dig sin city

[StoneGold]

i don't get it why is it that people didn't dig sin city

While I loved it, I can see any number of reasons why. Wonky story structure, emergent SFX technology, being a little too lavish in recreating Frank's art with the makeup, cartoonish uber-violence... not to mention cheesy acting that, while I found fit the project, was rather cheesy at times.

[kalorama]

What StoneGold said. (Except for the part about loving it, because I didn't.)

[Ryan Day]

i don't get it why is it that people didn't dig sin city

A lot of the stuff that works in a Frank Miller comic doesn't work in real life. Lots of the narration was horrible - it's not as necessary in a film as it is in sequential art. Some of the acting was pretty bad, and the pacing was terrible - while Miller lets stories unfold slowly sometimes (there's like 10 pages of Marv walking around in the rain), the film was too busy to get everything done; I think three stories was too much.

It's like if you did a straight adaptation of a Stan Lee Spider-Man comic - the dialogue has a certain grace on the page, but would sound horrendous coming from an actual human being.

[Deep_Sleeper]

i don't get it why is it that people didn't dig sin city

I think the dialogue sounds a certain way when you read it in your head, as opposed to when you hear it being said out loud.

Having said that, I didn't really like Sin City when I watched it in the theaters, but when I watched it again on DVD a few months ago, it was decidedly better.

Direct translations are tough because no matter what, there's a perception of something when someone has had time to make up their mind about something. So when someone reads a novel and eventually a movie comes out, the movie is never how the individual reader perceived the book. Even if it is exactly like how it's in the book, it will not be "just like the book" in the viewer's mind.

[BoosterBronze]

How come when fans read a novel and then see the movie they can say the book was better? but when its a comic book they have to bitch about the movie rather then saying 'ah the book was better'
Now people have a right to rant and hate and what not, its what makes the internet fun...




You rarely hear people say that, because judging from the internet, none of us actually like any comics. Or movies for that matter.

[StoneGold]

Something to add on the Sin City thing, it was basically an experiment in film. Nothing like that had been done before, on any level. It was almost more of a tech demo lashed to an art film, but with A-level actors attached. So it's not surprising that a lot of people don't like it, just because it is so different.

[kalorama]

Something to add on the Sin City thing, it was basically an experiment in film. Nothing like that had been done before, on any level.

Not quite true. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (which beat Sin City to the screen by about a year) was the first "all virtual" live action movie.

[StoneGold]

Not quite true. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (which beat Sin City to the screen by about a year) was the first "all virtual" live action movie.

That's not all Sin City was trying to do, though. Sky Captain was more about creating a virtual world humans could interact with. Sin City was more about creating humans who could interact with a virtual world. It's the ultimate case of art dictating design.


It was also shot on the cheap in a couple of weeks, whereas Sky Captain took forever to come out.

[kalorama]

Sky Captain was more about creating a virtual world humans could interact with. Sin City was more about creating humans who could interact with a virtual world.

Both movies did the same thing, which is eschew actual, physical sets and backgrounds for environments created entirely on computer. But Sky Captain did it first. And, aside from the visuals, neither movie was particularly engaging or captivating.

[StoneGold]

Both movies did the same thing, which is eschew actual, physical sets and backgrounds for environments created entirely on computer. But Sky Captain did it first. And, aside from the visuals, neither movie was particularly engaging or captivating.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that Sin City went even further with the experimentation. You're comparing a hand grenade with a MOAB, and stopping at the point where they are both explosive devices. Which they are, but the MOAB does so much more.

[Captain_Video]

Often any changes made to the comics are arbitary or for marketing purposes, hence a lot of the frustration, I am sure if there was always a logical story reason instead of "oh it just wouldnt work" given by the Screenwriters their would be a lot less "crying" ( because reducing comic book fans to an infantile mental image makes it easier to disregard their often reasonable criticisms ).

You must also remember a novel is not a visual medium, there is no set expectation than the users imagination, the characters and scenes, are to different degrees, open for interpretation.

In a comic book we know what a character looks like, we know what the tone and visual style looks like and while I do not agree that comic books are anything like storyboards, they have more in common with story boards than a novel does.

If you are dealing with a character who has been presented one way in a visual medium for quite some time, with hundreds of writers all of which have worked with this concept and made it work, you have to understand the hardcore audience may be pissed off if you change something because "it is stupid" or "it wont work in a movie" it comes off as insulting to the intelligence of the readers.

Consider comics are at best a ghetto medium, often considered a couple of steps above colouring books, yet contain at their best, some of the most beautiful writing of the last century, a medium that never gets its due.

When we consider this we can understand why some Producer, who is not a fan, who has looked at them for five minutes, done no research as to why the concepts are this way, what the storytelling reason is and is looking to make a buck off the properties, it is easy to understand why ( some but not all ) fans get irritated.

If Alan Moore can work with a concept, if Rob Leifeld even, can make you believe in it month after month, a well paid talented screenwriter should be able to do the same, obviously the story can be original like any monthly comic we buy is, but the core details should remain the same as we expect every month.

I am of the opinion though that comic books don't actually make very good source material for movies at all, it is something you have to be so careful with to get right, but when it does work, it is like fanboy magic lightning in a bottle, our dreams on the screen at 24 frames per second.

[kalorama]

Yes, but what I'm saying is that Sin City went even further with the experimentation. You're comparing a hand grenade with a MOAB, and stopping at the point where they are both explosive devices. Which they are, but the MOAB does so much more.


Nope I'm comparing a movie to a movie, both of which used the same technical filmmaking approach.

[StoneGold]

Nope I'm comparing a movie to a movie, both of which used the same technical filmmaking approach.

Here's the problem. I'm the one who originally brought the thing up. I'm taking a much larger scope view of it. I've explained this several times. To which you keep going no, I'm wrong, because you're only looking at it through a narrow prism.


Yes, Sky Captain did the whole digital thing first. However, it did not do the whole digital in a guy's living room, modifying the actors to look just as unreal as the sets when the actors could arrive weeks apart in the space of a couple of months thing first. Which is why I say it is a tech demo lashed to a student art film. So yes, Sky Captain did digital sets first, but that is not what I am talking about. Sky Captain was also trying to create sets that meshed more or less with reality, while all of Sin City's were directly out of Miller's distorted pencils. So I am really talking about two different things here.

[GRANT!]

Ghost World was excellent..

Ghost World changed a lot. The Buscemi character wasn't even in the graphic novel (the prank call setup scene though was), pretty sure the whole bit with Enid in art class wasn't in the book and the Brad Renfro character had a larger role in the comic. So it's not all that faithful.

[Reptisaurus!]

Ghost World was excellent.


But not a very good adaptation, plot and even themewise. It LOOKED like a Dan Clowes drawing, sort of. So points for that.

Also the book was better than the movie.

Ask me if how I feel about one of my favorite comics' people going off to make movies that range from middlin' (Ghost World) too terrible. (That other one. The one that sucked.) Go on. Ask me.

[marshal99]

Well , for me , i would say Tom Clancey's Hunt for Red October. The movie itself wasn't that bad , pretty decent actually , i just liked the book better.

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

I saw Sin City and while it was a very faithful adaptation it just reminded me that I didn't like the comics that much and accordingly didn't enjoy the movie. I'm not knocking it for those who like it, I just didn't have much fun watching it and it reminded me why I didn't enjoy the comics.

Now as for movies that are invariably worse than the book, any Dostoevsky or Kafka novel comes to mind. Having a Brothers Karamazov "adaptation" without the diner discussion between Ivan and Alyosha that includes The Grand Inquisitor is unforgivable. It's not like the diner conversation in Heat ruined THAT movie.

Of course if even Kurosawa felt he screwed up Dostoevsky on film that should be a warning to anyone else.

This is just me asking but have there been any decent adaptations of Moby Dick?

Plus, ditto to all the folks who hate Bombadil. Tolkien was a decent storyteller but an insufferable poet. Full disclosure, I'm into John Donne, Wallace Stevens, Robert Frost, T. S. Eliot and some Denise Levertov so I know pitting Tolkien against them is totally unfair.

[mattx110]

i don't think any dracula movie has lived up to the book. usually because stupid stuff like trying to make van helsing cooler, or trying to do a "you read the book, this is what vampires are really like!" type thing that can't resist going for jokes over drama. plus, dracula isn't a "cover to cover" read. the journal format lets you skip around and take it in.
i need to set aside time to rewatch coppola's. it's got an insane cast.
there was a recent vampire movie on scifi that i really wanted to like cause i liked the lead actor, but... the rest of the acting and the plot:(
the blade tv show didn't do a bad job actually...
but i haven't seen anything vampire in a long time that's impressed me.

i dunno, dracula just isn't a "horror story" like they make 'em nowadays. it's about good and evil. not blood and on foot chase scenes.

in other news, i liked sin city a whole lot. the pacing made me realize how much i didn't want it to end somewhere around the end of the second story. some of the acting is amazing. still think michael madsen should of gone for a second take or two. and some of the "you damn fool" stuff doesn't translate that well in the years after 1950.

[berk]

...

Of course if even Kurosawa felt he screwed up Dostoevsky on film that should be a warning to anyone else.

...

Plus, ditto to all the folks who hate Bombadil. Tolkien was a decent storyteller but an insufferable poet. Full disclosure, I'm into John Donne, Wallace Stevens, Robert Frost, T. S. Eliot and some Denise Levertov so I know pitting Tolkien against them is totally unfair.Any Victorian poetry you like? That's where I imagine Tolkien's style came from when he wasn't trying to emulate Old English lays or whatever. And even then it was being channeled through that late Victorian filter, I think, in spite of his expertise and even though Tolkien was a generation or two younger. I still think his simpler ballads and songs in the Hobbit work quite well on a Kipling sort of level. The LoTR stuff is more ambitious and thus more prone to fall on its face, but still worked for me much of the time when I read it as a teenager.

But I wanna hear more about Kurosawa's Dostoevsky comments - which movie was he talking about? There's still a bunch of his famous ones I haven't seen.

[JDogindy]

ever think there will ever be a totally faithful translation from comic to movie?

No. It's all about the money. There are plenty of creators who haven't even read a few comic books on what they are making. Just some flashy gimmicks in it will apparantly rake in all the dumb fans instead of the diehards that say "We wuz robbed!".

There are some glaring exceptions, but, think about it: We live in the land of the moolah. Nothing is sacred.

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

I haven't had a chance to see it but a friend of mine who's a huge Kurosawa fan said the director wanted to film the Idiot and once he started on the project wish he hadn't.

Victorian poetry hmm. Does Robert Browning count? I like little bits of his stuff. :)

[Black Atom]

While I've liked some of them, I don't think there's been a Three Musketeers adaptation that's as good as the books

[mgs]

Interview with a Vampire, Battlefield Earth, Dune.......

[Rahul]

The Harry Potter movies(haven't seen the Order of the Phoenix), while good, can't match the brilliance of the books..(except for a couple of scenes)...

[mattx110]

While I've liked some of them, I don't think there's been a Three Musketeers adaptation that's as good as the books they usually say "screw history" and have something bad happen to the cardinal or his agent.

and there's usually more swordfighting and less politics.

[Black Atom]

they usually say "screw history" and have something bad happen to the cardinal or his agent.

and there's usually more swordfighting and less politics.

Yeah, the intrigue/politics is really the best bit of the books.

[The Mutt]

The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers, directed by Richard Lester sound just like what you want. A couple of my favorite movies ever. Awesome swordfights too.