You know what I really loved? The first two Terminator films. Then they yiffed it up with 3, and soon to be 4. They made that character totally so awful. Sooooooo awful.

Did I mention 'soooooooo awful'?

honestly I had mixed feelings for a while regarding three but I don't feel it was *that* awful although yea they should have just left it at 2 - 2 was a beautiful ending really.. it was unnecessary to carry it on

Yeah, but those weren't adaptations...if you wanna talk bad sequels of beloved movies...all I can say is: Star Wars. I LOVED SW. Empire was also great...but then it happened--the audience for Return went from young adult to grade school...and the prequels were never able to decide WHO they were meant for. *sigh* And, of course, as if the prequels weren't bad enough, I NEVER quite forgave George for REEDITING the original! Sacrelidge!

Hmm...well I try to take the old and push it aside as I watch new films. I mean, take the X-Men trilogy for example. Spectacular casting, great plots and good inter-character relations. They were awesome movies and I love them for what they are, great movies based loosely on a very popular comic series.

Now, if I were to critique them as you are, based on the actual comics and the true to comics cartoon of the early nineties, then they're crap. The ages of the characters are all wrong and they merged two villains to get the main enemy of the second film. Don't even get me started on character relationships either, it's not Iceman and Rogue, it's Gambit and Rogue. Cyclops, although I was always a Wolverine fan and as such hated him by default, was never that much of a pansy or such an ineffective leader. I was glad when they killed him off because they couldn't screw him up anymore. Arguably the worst part, is that the character that escorts you through this world, Wolverine, has absolutely no relationships other than his lust for Jean-Grey and his father like roll of Rogue(Which should have actually been Jubilee or Kitty Pride), never once do they make any more allusion to his relationship with fellow Weapon X member Sabertooth other than Sabertooth taking his dogtags. He doesn't even know who his own wife is for God's sake! (He married Lady Deathstrike, the female he dueled in the second film, in the comics, and she had cybernetic arms, not adamantium nails because she didn't possess the healing factor Sabertooth and Wolverine had to get it grafted to her skeleton.)

Ok...at this point I've got myself flustered and believe me this could go one for pages with discontinuities, but what I try to do is not get myself caught up in the, "That's not how it was in the..." mentality, trust me you'll appreciate things a lot better that way.

I can't really speak to the X-Men movie difficulties. I never followed the X-Men comics that closely, so I wasn't bothered by the discrepencies. I WAS bothered by the somewhat dismal plot of the first one. I liked the second one--the opening sequence with Nightcrawler was worth the price of admission by itself!

Thing is tho--you can't expect them to get EVERYTHING right...or even INTO the films. There's like, 40 odd years of stories and retellings and revisions and such...and let's face it, not all the characters are movie calibur.

But I can understand your frustration with the shear number of liberties they took with everything.

I second this entire journal!
We have incredible animation technology now but I still have yet to see all the best media come together for a single animation, also, this hasn't been completely mauled yet but The Secret of NIMH I am sure will someday be another victim of this horrid live-action talking animal junk that seems to entertain the masses :/ I would love to see some fully animated movies like NIMH, Rescuers down under, and even An American Tail revisited someday.

Maybe someday the movie industry will stop butchering good animations...

Trejaan told me that Disney was going to stop making bad sequels to their animated classics. This is good and bad. The good news is, no more time-travelling for CINDERELLA! The bad news is, that was all the animation they were even bothering TO DO anymore... So now I guess they'll only make crappy live-action adaptations of things!

So just as I was finally warming up to Disney sequels "for the very reason that its the only animation they do" They decide to stop making them? They better bring features back or I will become grumpy :D

I refuse to call spiderman movies "successful adaptations"

1. Spidermans suit was NOT that damn detailed and complex, peter parker wore a simple one maybe 2 piece cloth suit with a mask there was no weird mesh-like texture, or the web design on the suit showing out, THOUGH this suit did look good, it was stupid to think a science geek had the TIME to make something that complex and continue to make alterations and repairs to it everytime it got damaged in battle. Keeping true to the cloth spidey suit with a deisgn printed on it would of been better

2. Spiderman DID NOT SHOOT HIS OWN WEBS he had to build a special web shooter and chemical cartridges that made the web, Hence why he had it to only fire when middle and ring fingers pressed to the palm to fire it cause it was the most logical way to do it without worry of accidental fire when making a fist cause not everyone just ends up making that handsign on a regular basis to fire the thing accidently. That was possibly my BIGGEST pet peeve with the whole movie I cant believe Stan Lee let them get away with it, he should of stepped in and been like WTF YOU IDIOTS DIDNT YOU READ MY DAMN COMIC?!

3. The venom suit in the 3rd one WTF IS THE SAME GODDAMN SUIT JUST BLACK INSTEAD OF RED? Lazy bastards.

overall they did tell the spiderman story pretty well, but im too crossed over those flaws in the character, I can forigve them for the first one even though it bothers me, but the web thing is totally unforgiveable.

I hate to say it, but I didn't actually mind some of the things that bother you...altho--I totally agree about the black costume. I LOVED the black costume from the comics.

As for the webshooters, I didn't have a problem with that--and here's why: in the comics, Peter Parker, a perhaps gifted, but still very young High School student somehow managed to invent an apperatus that is almost completely impossible, without a budget or any help. I always found that to be more unbelievable than anything else.

Of course, the reverse is true with the movie when it comes to the costume. Without any excess cash for materials, or experience sewing...he made a space age costume with all that texture and added elements.

Sorry--I didn't get to finish making my point.

I liked the first two movies, and I WAS a Spidey fan for a while... But I DO have a beef about the black costume, and I also have a problem with the way they keep cramming more and more villians into each successive sequel--it just makes the storylines more and more confusing and unfocused. That was the big problem I had with the Batman movies. Well, that and the incredibly bad casting and script writing...

holy rusted metal batman

what?

holy rusted metal batman, the floor, its rusted and full of holes!

I think Joel Schuemaker should have just made Batman & Robin a gay porn Batman movie...then at least there would have been an excuse for the Bat Nipples and the giant codpieces. Either that or he should have just gone one step further and hired Adam West and Burt Ward back, since he was going the campy cheese route...

did you ever wonder when Adam West was just gonna get fed up turn around and strangle robin shouting "HOLY SHUT THE FUCK UP ROBIN!"

I always wanted Robin, in the movie version...just once, to say: "Holy Shit, Batman!"

Just as one jab at the series, and then leave it.

or better yet

"HOLY FECES IN THE POPES TALL ASS HAT, BATMAN!"

Obviously YOU should write the next Batman & Robin movie!

credit for that classic robin catchphrase spoof actually goes to my drunken Irish friend Dan

harry potter and the goblet of fire.... was the worst of them... it was a book you had to think logicality through but no they took all the intelligence out of the movie and they just made it a really REALLY crappy movie... go read the book people its not worth the money to even buy the movies.

Actually, I think Azkaban was the worst one...and it didn't have to be. The new one looks a lot more on the money tho! Let's hope they're getting it right finally.

The first one is still my favorite in many ways--it has the wonder and fun the others are missing.

yes but the first one was the one they actually changed plot in with norburt and all that the other oned they just didn't bother telling you curtin things.

Azkaban was easily the worst. They cut way too much out. Granted not all of a 700 or so novel can fit into a 3 hour movie. But unlike the first two where they ran the movie longer the third was shorter 2-2.5 hours. They left out a lot of really important explanation, like the significance of Padfoot, Prongs, Mooney and Wormtail and lots of other things...The fourth was fine in my opinion and now that they've got a new director (again) hopefully 5 will be a good adaptation.

well sorry i just liked book 4 better. but thats me so obviously im biast. im not even going to bother with my time watching the movies. I'll get my S&G out of the book right from the source.

As I said before, you pretty much have to go into the movie realizing it isn't going to be just like the book, because it can't be. You just have to hope that it's a good condensation of the elements that you like. Obviously "Goblet" didn't do that for you.

"Azkaban" was actually my favorite book, but he's right--they made it too short and cropped things too much.

Conan the barbarian, better than the book.
the second Conan movie Blagh!
Zulu featuring Michael Caine, the movie Zulu Dawn with Burt Lancaster, Yeuck!
Lord of the Rings one two and three: movies superior to the entire book trilogy, far superior to the Ralph Bashi animated steamy pile created in the mid to late seventies.
Boris Karlof's Frankenstien, no other movie yet has been made to come close to the effect of the original.
The original Dracula sucks in comparison to the aga (Count Vlak) of Dracula made in the eighties. Hammersmith studios - pretty much everything has actors usually the same ones, still classics. The first Godzilla though in Black and White outshines the last Godzilla made by Paramount.

Werepuppy, for some reason seems to be a better artist than Deathpuppy, but that might only be my opinion. ;D

LotR is a good example of how a movie HAS to be an interpretation fo source material, it can't always follow the source exactly. Let's face it, Tom Bombadil would have come off as being totally ridiculous!

The first Conan was good, and the second, VERY bad. I had a friend who loved the Conan books and comics and he liked the first movie, but was always pissed that his hair wasn't black. You can't please them all...

Heh... When  ardy,  arcanine,  lando, and I saw "Ratatouille" and the preview of "Underdog" showed up, we couldn't help but laugh, because it was an extremely poor Disney adaptation. (AGAIN!)

But, it being Disney and the cute dog factor, it'll be #1 when it comes out. =B

Just because it does well at the box office, don't make it right! ;)

Don't know if Movies based on video games are too off topic here, but they're usually pretty horrible. With a couple exceptions.

I think the FIRST Mortal Kombat movie was alright. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I seem to remember that the franchising didn't really get in the way of actually telling a story involving interesting characters. The sequel was quite the opposite.

I never played Silent Hill, but, taken for what it was, that was one nice horror flick.

Back to the subject -

My friends are telling me that 1408 was both a good story, and the best horror film they've ever seen. I've yet to see it.

The big screen completely WRECKED Inspector Gadget for me.

I don't really plat video or computer games, so I can't really say whether a movie version is good or not...other than whether the movie itself just outright SUCKS--"Bloodreign" for example.

As for Stephen King based movies--my general rule of thumb with him is that if he doesn't actually try to create the movie HIMSELF, if it's being reinvented by good director and such, the movie is great! Misery, The Shining, Stand By Me, The Green Mile, etc. If, on the other hand, he IS deeply involved with the creation of the film--they SUCK! (Even if his book is great.)

I was really looking forward to seeing Bewitched and when I saw who the cast was (except for Will... I wanted Jim Carry to play the part of Darren), I thought this film will rock! When I heard the reviews I decided to wait and see on video. I almost returned the dvd shortly after the film started and ended up suffering through it because some of my friends still wanted to see it hoping it would get better. You Bastards!

Oh wow! I also always wanted Jim Carrey to play Darren. I wanted Nicole Kidman to be Sam, Shirley McClaine to be Endora (so they got those right), but I wanted Nathan Lane to play Uncle Arthur.

I like the movie OK-ish...for what it was...but it WASN'T "Bewitched".

this is why I am Not reading the Harry Potter books, until I have seen All the movies.

>^..^<

That may be a great paln!

Hmm. On a similar vein... the movie they made of the classic children's book Bridge to Terabithia was EXACTLY like the book, and a very worthy, well-done film adaptation... unfortunately, the commercials and previews tried to sell it as something completely other than what it was (trying to make it into a fantasy adventure instead of what it really is, which is a coming-of-age story... the fantasy aspect is only one part, and all pretend play that happens in the childrens' heads). I enjoyed the film because I went into it knowing the story. I think someone expecting a fantasy adventure would have been very disappointed (not to mention sad, with the turn the tale takes a bit more than halfway in).

I think that not only do movie people need to make movies with a better mind to what people want to see, I think the media needs to be able to sell what they made without building false premises.

I wasn't entirely keen on Narnia either... They were trying to make another LotR, only without as good source material. They got things right...but it maybe should have been half an hour shorter...

I'm not familiar with the original version of Terabithia...or even the movie--haven't seen it either.

Hmm, well, I would disagree, but only because I am the singular, lone and perhaps even eerie freak of the fantasy-fans world who does NOT think that Tolkein is the be-all and end-all of fantasy writing. In fact I distinctly prefer the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe to the Hobbit, which I read at the age of eight and turned my nose up at in disgust, because I thought Bilbo Baggins went from bad to worse and was a loathesome character, and I resolved never to pick up another book by that fool as long as I lived. I saw the LotR movies and enjoyed them, but I'm still dragging my heels about picking up the books. I still suspect that Tolkein wouldn't know a warm, loveable character if he/she/it thwacked him over the head with a wand. I think "vile" or "disturbed in some way" is all he knows how to do. "Waaaaah, my lover's immortal and I'm not!" "Mooooo, I have a riiiiiiiiing and I'm going CRAZEEEEE," "GIVE ME THE PRECIOUS," "NO, GIVE ME THE PRECIOUS!" "NO, ME, WHORE!" etc. etc.

Terabithia is sad. Don't read or see unless you don't mind when a story makes you cry. :( If you are the heartless/ I do not cry type (which I doubt), you will be bored. XD

I love me some Hobbit, but the Lord of the Rings trilogy...boring, I'm sorry but someone had to say it, I don't want to read a hundred pages of description of the bloody shire the balance of the Hobbit was much better. I love that Tolkein created this fantastic world with so much intricacy and detail and even speakable languages, but reading it is a little dull, reading about it in supplemental books would have been neat though. That aside, The Chronicles of Narnia were easily my second favorite books in my childhood, the first being Rudyard Kipling's the Jungle Book of which there have been some great adaptations. But Narnia was amazing and Disney did an amazing job with it. Everything was just as I had imagined it would be and they didn't try to make it all LoTR, they just took a few page story of a battle by Peter and made it a 10 minute sequence, elaboration never detracts from a piece, its the subtraction, like in the Harry Potter movies which kills things. Unless it's LoTR then subtraction saves what would have otherwise been a snorefest. I cannot wait until the next of the Narnia series is released, especially Voyage of the Dawntreader because that's my favorite. Oh, and go Disney putting it in the proper order, none of this crappy Magician's Nephew first, a poor change they made in the 90's because they wanted things chronological.

I never read the Narnia books as a kid. I knew a bit about the stories, but it wasn't a cornerstone in my youth... The battle sequence is pretty great though!

Oh, trust me--you are NOT the only person who dislikes LotR. But I have to respectfully disagree with you--especially about The Hobbit. In many ways, it's actually my favorite of the books. But I never read any of them--I have only ever listened to them--unabridged, mind you--on tape, and I have enjoyed them very much.

But I will agree that they have areas that really might have done with a bit of objective editing, sacriligeous as many people would find the concept!

A post about horrible movie adaptations, this many comments in, and no mention of the Super Mario Bros. movie? For shame. :O

Actually, that one could have been good. The cast was outstanding. All the main characters had not only good actors in and of themselves, but actors that probably could have been very appropriate and done their characters justice, had the screenplay not been written by someone who only heard the name "Mario" once or twice in passing and decided to write something completely unrelated to anything and WTF. And come on, you're making a Mario movie. MARIO. The only thing the dystopian atmosphere accomplishes is making it too dark and dreary for the children who actually like Mario and wanted to see it for that, while still being too lame for adults.

I don't know why people think the first Mortal Kombat movie was good. The costumes were laughable, no one looked like anyone, and did you people even -see- the Liu Kang bicycle kick scene? I actually liked the Street Fighter movie more than Mortal Kombat, which is saying something, because obviously the Street Fighter movie was terrible.

And as far as -awesome- adaptations--even ones that are only loosely based on the source material at best, but are still awesome--I have but four words:

Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Good example--although I'm spevifically talking about movie adaptations that spoil beloved orgininal source material...something we really liked growing up, and may have even been excited to see an adaptation coming out...until it did...

But yes, Roger Rabbit is a classic! Proof that it CAN be done right!

I have to admit, I like Transformers. i think it was done well and as true to the animated series you can get, considering hollywood. But I agree on the rest of the movies. Suck fest after suckfest. Underdog is a travisty, but wait! I saw a movie poster of.......are you ready?



ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS. Live action! I AM SOOOOOOO FREAKIN' PISSED ABOUT THIS!

Hollywood has no new ideas. They keep recycling the same old formulas and remaking old TV shows and movies into collosile piles of shit. It's very rear I'll go to a movie now-a-days. I rent. Use netflicks. Pay very little and I don't mind getting a dud, since I pay less than a buck to see it. I focus on independant films since they're the only stuff that's original and imaginative out there anymore.

*hugs the pup* >"^_^"<

Sometimes they really do it well, but most of the times, they are just raping our childhoods!

i'm wondering how speed racer will turn out (your movies and thoughts match mine exactly here with the exception of game based movies - those need a new and unique plot based on their respective worlds imho - mortal kombat anyone?)

If only they'd just make it a really well drawn animated feature...but no, they'll probably not only do it live-action with marginal CGI...but it'll probably have a stupid script as well...

*sigh*

BeastInShow and a friend and I wrote the stories for a couple of movies. One was a smash hit; we still receive regular residual royalty checks from showings of it all over the world, including Outer Mongolia and several central Asian -stans. The other story was a splendid (in my modest opinion) adaptation of a 19th century classic, but it was rewritten by a committee, then rewritten by another committee, then rewritten by yet another committee. Each committee contained no members from any previous committees. The final script was so bad that not only did we take our names off of it, the director did, too. It is rated as one of the worst Hollywood films ever. Cringe when you hear the words "rewrite committee"...

It's a delicate line...on the one hand, if you get movies written by committees, you don't have a consistant vision and a clear thematic voice...on the other hand, if there's only one overall dictatorial person with no checks and balances, you run the risk of ending up with...Revenge of the Sith.

If the writers are good, a committee can only screw it up. If the writers are bad, I know of no case where a committee improved it. Of course, there may be innumerable cases out there where rewrite committees turned a bad story or script into a good one - but has anyone ever heard of a single case?

Ok, let me step in here and defend the new Star Wars Trilogy. There really is nothing wrong with the films, they make sense, are based on books that were published under Lucas' watchful eye and really did do a good job of setting up the latter trilogy. No, nothing will ever be as good as the original, that's just how sequels are, and you definately run a risk when you make a prequel over a decade later because the technology is so good that it's hard if not impossible to make it look as though what you're seeing onscreen predates what you saw before. But all that aside, that is one trilogy I thought they did a great job on. What I didn't like is the special edition release of the first three with Young Anakin superimposed where Old Anakin used to be...that pissed me off.

The SW prequels have many great things going for them. The lightsabre battle with Darth Maul in the first one was excellent. Many of the chase and battle scenes in Attack of the Clones were exquisite. The final battle between Obi Wan and Anakin was great--for the most part--and when Obi Wan was standing there telling the fallen Ani that they were brothers and he loved him and he was crying...it broke my heart.

There were many "real Star Wars" moments in the films for me. Unfortunately, there were also WAY too many moments that totally sucked and ruined it for me. Midiclorians. Jar-Jar. The HIDEOUSLY BAD fireplace scene. The superhero Jedi...

Well, I could go on and on. I loved SW as a kid and I know it can never stay the way it was. But it was MY Star Wars, so I can't help it. I'm just thankful Lucas finally released the UNaltered version on DVD, so I can go back and enjoy it the way I best remember it.

Ugh the Underdog movie thats coming out is an insult to the original. I mean come on why use a real dog and make it look as bad as the movie Babe. I agree when you make real animals talk via CG, it really looks bad!

Dr. Uwe Boll