first time i feel you missed a point. Talking so much trash about The Boys comics was really meh. The comic IS good. Now i understand why some people say stuff like ¨maybe the comic was not for you¨. Everything else on point, but your opinion about TB comics was a huge L.
What about the first 4 seasons of Game of Thrones or Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban ? Im pretty sure they both surpassed the source material as well
Oh yeah dude 11,000% agree The Boys the Show is a million times better than the comic. I'm embarassed at 17 year old me who thought they were good. We all have that edgy Ennis fanboy phase we're ashamed of. Which props to Seth Rogen for making a career out of un edgelording Ennis's comics into TV shows.
The game of thrones novels (A Song of Ice and Fire) are far better than the first 4 seasons of the show. There are a few things the show does better though like Ser Jorah.
okay hear me out. the biggest point i rely on when discussing why the hunger games books are so good is the introduction of katniss and her motivations. within the first chapter we are told, through her own dialogue, that SHE ALMOST MURDERED A CAT. all because it was another mouth to feed and the only reason she didn’t go through with it was because of her sister. then after prim dies we are left with a heartbreaking mental breakdown after she finds the cat still alive back home. her sister, who was suppose to be everything good and innocent and worth protecting in this world, is dead and now she’s left with this cat that she wouldn’t have even hesitated to kill. that is beautiful story telling and that’s just something that the movie’s were never able to fully captured.
It’s been years but the way my heart hurts at remembering that part!! I genuinely had to pause while reading because I was sobbing too hard to read through my tears 😬
Damn it's a shame the first book turned me away from the series with how slow and boring it was. I'd have liked to experience that kind of emotional journey. But I'll just stick with the watered down movie experience at this point. I ain't picked up a book in almost 10 years now. 😢
@@jememesus8588try the audiobook if you can! Tatiana Maslany is an excellent narrator, and there are certain parts in the story that's elevated with her narration
Yeah, I don't get why he says the movies are better. He says some minor characters don't show up in the movies to tighten up the plot, which I am okay with, but then he doesn't give us much else except saying the books aren't that great and that the last book should not have been split into two movies. I feel like he went off topic and didn't fully justify why the movies should be better.
One of my personal favorite adaptations is The Devil Wears Prada. Meryl Streep took a one dimensional cartoon villain and turned her into an iconic, complex character who has a significant role on the protagonist's growth as a person and a professional. I'm still not done reading the book, but so far it's nowhere near as good as the movie in my opinion, and most of it has to do with the changes done to Miranda.
I agree 100% and I always bring up that one when this subject comes up. I found Andy in the book to be so whiny and unlikeable I couldn't even imagine what Anne Hathaway based her performance on. Every single character in the book is more of a trope than a person. My favorite change, aside from Miranda's entire personality, is Stanley Tucci's character and Andy's breaking point in Paris. 10/10.
This is what immediately came to my mind. The book was written by a disgruntled employee from their own perspective of their awful boss, so it makes sense that she is more one dimensional and 'evil' in the book. The film turned Miranda into a real person, still not a nice person, but a complex one.
Forget Miranda Priestly. Andy Sachs doesnt have much of a character arc in the book either. Its just a ling book of her life sucking followed by the BEST most cathartic ending ever.
I genuinely do love when adaptations surpass the original. Shows that there are ppl actually working on it who really care about the source they're making it from. Also I definitely think Invincible can come on this list one day.
Invincible is great.. but Robert Kirkman isn’t always the best writer - I think when adapting his work there’s needs to be someone to make adjustments. Cos even in The Walking Dead - he makes some decisions that are kind of.. dumb.
@@firstlast9846 the problem with Kirkman is that he tends to think that he can write whatever the hell he wants despite the fact that it blatantly betrays the overall tone and established point of his entire story.
@michaelkean5969 - Exactly, couldn’t have said it better.. he’s moving in one direction and is like “But I’m gonna switch it up here” and it throws the entire thing off. TWD’s last arc is set up for a sort of commentary on the class system and the old world and a war between the old government and post apocalyptic communities - then it just ends and Rick gets shot.
I agree with every take, except the Hunger Games take. Susanne did an incredible job with how she characterized Katniss, the universe, and her overall storytelling is beautiful.
I disagree, Harry Potter started as a children book. Hunger games was never for children. It was for adolescents and the character have much more death than the character in Harry Potter where most of the character are just black and white
I read that book too. I mean, technically the BIG story is the same, but it’s a children’s picture book by William Steg so there wasn’t but so much to go on anyways
I realized Queen’s Gambit was fiction but I honestly had to look up Lydia Tár while watching the movie, Tár, because I figured she was real. 😂 So I’d never fault anyone for this.
I _knew_ it was written by the guy who had also written The Man Who Fell To Earth-Walter Tevis-and it still took my by surprise. I guess my brain had him pigeonholed as a science fiction writer and only that.
The Hunger Games (specially Catching Fire) are some exceptional movies but man, they leave so much nuisance behind. It's in things just as simple as casting 20 something old actors as Katniss and Peeta, instead of teenagers. I mean, both Josh and JLaw were amazing on those roles, but the story would have been way more brutal if they would have looked like the actual children that they were suposed to be. Also ereasing the dissability aspect, the brutality of Peeta loosing a leg on the first Hunger Games, Katniss loosing her hearing and also the Capitol giving her a boobjob after the games when she was still unconcious because she looked too malnourished?? The mutos looking like the dead tributes? It was just brutal.
I agree but need to clear up that they didn't actually give her the boob job in the books. The capital wanted to give her a boob job but Haymitch and Cinna pushed back. So Cinna designed her victory dress to have extra padding in the bra and she noticed so Cinna let her in on what had happened seeing her confusion.
I like #all hunger-games movie except the new one....my girlfriend dragged me to the cinema to watch this brain-diarrhea! Well, even she was pissed afterwards...... i´m angry that i wasted 60$ (tickets, snacks & drinks) for this poopy experience! Folks, do not make the same mistake as we did!
Oh my God YESSSS! I really like the movies, but the worst decision was to remove the part in which Peeta loses his leg, this is so important, especially in book 2, when he can't run away from the poisonous cloud because of his leg
My big one is The Perks of Being a Wallflower. It’s been a while since I’ve read or seen it but I remember not really being satisfied by the book but loving the movie. I think the ability to actually have music be integrated into the media itself added so much
Making Harry a friend of Eggsy's dad rather than Eggsy's uncle without saying a word adds a huge amount of additional meaning, making their father-son duo more compelling. When I think of an uncle recruiting a son and becoming his father figure, it seems done more out of obligation and legacy than actually caring about Eggsy or his dad. But Harry recruiting Eggsy and basically adopting him means so much because for him to do any of that, it shows what an incredible man Eggsy's dad must have been and how guilty Harry feels about his death. Rather than a societal expectation, Harry's guilt combined with his love and respect for Eggsy's dad drives him and Eggsy together, but then Eggsy is ultimately the one who actually wins Harry over, since their relationship was tested multiple times throughout the movie.
OH this... SO MUCH THIS. Contructing a bond out of obligation can feel "earned" but... not fulfilling, but making it out of scratch, because not a premade societal expectations but deep personal feelings that are reflected and then completely transferred... that is storytelling. Harry and Eggsy relationship, although "speedrun" at certain points (because of the limitations of the medium), feels natural. Harry helps out of duty and takes interest more for the young man he had expectations before, and Eggsy's brash attitude but clear unique untapped potential at the end made a journey that made the action in the movie feel awesome. I do like Golden Circle and The King's Men, but i wont lie and say they are perfect movie or that the first simply doesnt have a much better construction, the other two failed specially because in the end, they tried a few too many things, I like the Wiskey fight, but him doing felt too much after Merlin's death and the kinda underwhelming primary villain.
In my opinion, The Hunger Games books are much better than the movies but their goal is to deliver a message about hopelessness, powerlessness, and the meaninglessness of war through the eyes of a young woman whose sole purpose has always been survival. If you have ever known refugees from war-torn countries, she got it quite right: of course, Katniss is disconnected from her emotions and she is not an engaging person. As a reader, you see all the hints she is missing and it is heartbreaking. Although I love Jennifer Lawrence, I also thought it was a pity Katniss and Gale were whitewashed: they were written as olive-skinned which suggested that many ethnic groups had mixed, made the characters more relatable to a wider readership (Caucasian or otherwise), and added an interesting social commentary on the distribution of power in the district.
Oh yeah I agree! I’ll say that movies did better on expanding the world beyond Katniss’ mind and showing what was going on outside of her life, so I feel like if that’s the type of story you enjoy, you’d enjoy the movies better. But when it comes to the themes and messages Collins was trying to send, she did it excellently with the books.
Also, I don't like the fact that the movies focus that much on the love triangle and make it seem it is so important to Katniss when all she's thinking about the entire time is survival; hers and of the people she loves
Uhh.... plenty of olive-skinned people are considered white? """White"""" does not mean automatically evil and rich, lmfao, get rid of your American-ized mindset pls.
It's take on language and mind, the way they weave that into the story was top notch. I watched it about 6-7 times because it was actually an assignment of mine to write an analysis essay on it, as my department in college is relevant to language. I had so many things to write about in that essay.
The short story is incredible (everyone should go read it!), and the movie expanded brilliantly on an already great thing, which is the ideal of adaptation. I especially thought the political stuff with the Chinese general was a great way to expand the story's scope to make it fit for movie length, while remaining in line with the story's original idea and metaphor. It all fits so well. Truly an excellent adaptation
I haven’t read the Hunger Games in a long time, but I have to admit I feel defensive about your take. There’s just so much dimension to Katniss that is lost in the movie. I have to re-read it to truly compare, though. Don’t get me wrong, the movies are truly amazing adaptations, but I don’t know. Everything else is spot on to me, no doubt!
Same. I don't think the movie captures all the nuisance. It doesn't even tell you what the mocking jay is and why it's important. I think Finnick story is ruined and the wedding in general. I even will go an say Peeta isn't up to his potential. A lot of the war is glossed over and Peeta losing limbs as a child is crazy to me to skip over.
Thank you!! THG is definitely my favourite YA series. Not just how Katniss and the other characters were written as characters (because that was bloody amazing) but the overall storytelling, and the things they had to go through make the decisions the characters make sm more interesting. I could talk about if for a long time.
I did prefer the ending of the final movie vs the book. I was never a fan of Katniss basically just becoming a vegetable who doesn't care about anything at the end
I think the motivation and reasons behind story changes are really important - it’s most annoying when they just wanted it to be DIFFERENT and lost the heart of the story
*Cough* Invincible show *cough* For real, I have more issues than infamous Amber moment, the whole Nolan and Mark arc is just mess with no regard to material they gonna adapt in the future.
@@Ashbrash1998 Coincidentally, I'm following this rule right now, writing the screenplay for a movie adaptation of a book I love and I'll direct the adaptation: in half of the story, I just made four changes and I created two new scenes for the future movie, that both make sense for this one and for the sequels 🤔😁🤗.
Maybe it doesn't have a place in this conversation, but I think The Martian is an example of a movie adaptation that's exactly as good as the original book, but for a completely different reason. On the one hand, the book is hilarious and explains the science in such a way that you feel smarter after reading it. On the other hand, the movie is incredibly tense and nerve-wracking, and Mark's struggle to survive hits a lot harder when you can see what he goes through. But they're both super enjoyable, and the movie is pretty faithful to its source material.
The movie felt weird to me because the real Rich Pournelle (not Purnell as in the movie) is a friend of mine and if given a photo of him for casting, Donald Glover is not an actor who would make the list. If that name seems familiar, yes, Rich is his youngest son.
I first watched The Martian movie and I LOVED IT, and that was the reason I bought the book. After reading it, I actually liked the movie less in comparison. The book was so filled with experiments and most of them don't work that when I watched the movie again after reading it just all felt so easy. It felt rushed even though it's a long movie
Spoilers: One of my favorite aspects of the adaptation, if I'm remembering correctly, is that at the end of the book when Mark is brought back onboard the Hermes, he makes a comment on how everyone in the crew would've greeted him in the airlock if it were a movie, but since it wasn't, he was put in isolation for a while. Then, in the movie, the whole crew greeted him in the airlock!
Can’t believe you didn’t even mention “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”! It’s such a good movie, that is also so radically different from its source material, and came out so good that the original author of the book made a sequel book that basically made the first book a dream sequence and then it becomes a sequel to the movie!
Oh man as soon as you mentioned the Eragon movie I audibly groaned, I was such a fan of the books like a new one would come out and I would read it in a single day. I remember being so excited about the movie and I went with some (non fan) friends and I remember feeling kind of embarrassed that I took them to the movie with me like even at 13 I knew it was very very bad
@@emb3863 yeah I am looking forward to the adaption too. And reading the new books. I wasnt really a fan from to sleep in a sea of stars because I despise this doomer "we need a new planet, earth is doomed" attitude towards global issues and he vehemently defended that belief on twitter afterwards too so thats kinda icky Hoping this wont get into the eragon books tho.
Every time I hear about Eragon, I remember when the MSN Messenger had a whole theme about the movie, from profile picture to wallpaper for the conversations' boxes 😵🤗...! Did you see that, back then 🤔?
I have an anecdote that will hurt you. When I first saw it I really really liked it. I thought it was cool and the guy was cute. Ans it was when I didn't understand how adaptations just wouldn't follow the books. So I assumed I could just skip reading the books and read 2 3 and 4 before I finally read the 1st one for the first time when I was old enough to realize I missed alot haha
One of my fave adaptations is How to Train Your Dragon It's nothing like the books, and that's such a good thing. The books are aimed at a younger audience, which is fine, but the way they made the movies fun and mature was so special. Hiccup and Toothless and their friendship bring much needed heart to the story.
I do love the films, but I cannot call them adaptations - the overaching emotional lines have some echoes, but aside from the names of some characters, and the general appearance of Stoick, there is... very little shared. And I will die on the hill that by the twelfth, those books have dealt with some pretty heavy themes in a way that is far more mature than I would have guessed was possible from just the first one.
@@Soilfood365 Was just about to type that lol!! I absolutely adore both. The HTTYD movies/series and books are one of my go-to-examples for proving that adaptations don't have to be 1:1 to be amazing. And I would argue that the viking world and the conflict between humans and dragons are actually much darker in the books. Sure they start off more childish and lighthearted in the earlier books but it just gets darker and more complex the further you progress in the series. Which is kind of unfortunately the reason why The Hidden World never really felt like it justified ending on the book's conclusion.
I actually think the Hunger Games Prequel: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes is a surprisingly good book. I think it’s not the book people wanted, but Collins didn’t want to simply repeat the Katniss story with yet another Hunger Games participant and wanted to give a broader view of the capital. A load of people hated on the book without actually reading it because they didn’t want a book about Snow.
The thing is, I didn't mind that it wasn't about the Games in particular or that it centered around Snow. I just found it way too predictable. There was no suspence and none of the characters really stood out to me.
@@ParadiseCloudsI mean what suspense were you looking For? I was more intrested in the character study not the suspense. I don’t know that I saw everything that happened in the book, but it’s a prequel there were also certain forgone conclusions. I didn’t delve into it for suspense. I was also glad Snow wasn’t made into some angel child or some cackling demonic villian child. Both would have been bad takes and I found (much to my shock as I expected not to) I enjoyed the book. Haven’t seen the film yet. Heard some things might have been a bit rushed and (again, shocker to me, in the end I enjoyed the slow pace of the book). A little meh on the ending, but the overall book I liked.
@@TheDawnofVanlife The general plot didn't need to be suspenseful but I was hoping to come across a few albeit tiny surprising twists and turns. They never really came. I didn't feel like the amount of extra info we got about Snow corresponded with the actual length of the book. It was all quite superficial and drawn-out (except for the Sejanus plot line maybe) and would've worked better in a short story imo.
When I was a kid, I had a super ocd thing about NEVER not finishing a book I started reading. Even i hated it. Gossip Girl made me break that first serious rule I had in my young life. It was just too inane to continue reading.
I didn't start putting down books until I was an adult. It was then that I realized my time was worth too much to waste it reading something I couldn't stand.
I also think one of the main reasons why I absolutely will stand with the point of The Hunger Games books being better than the movies is the way the characters are handled. A lot of human and good quality as well as human connections were lost in the movies, especially with Peeta. When I was watching The Maze Runner series, I remember Wes Ball (The director) saying that he cut scenes of Thomas doubting himself or having Newt comforting him was because he wanted Thomas to be the leader, the "strong" one, hence he couldn't have any moments of weakness, so he cut the scenes (which imo was a TERRIBLE idea btw). But, I think it applied to The Hunger Games as well. In order to make the main character strong and independent, they had to double down on some characters. Peeta definitely wasn't a weak-ass dude waiting around for Katniss to make the call like in the movie. He has way more personalities, qualities, and impacts on others and Katniss. The books just hit different when it comes to character work, like you can tell Suzanne Collins spent her time with these characters.
I agree that the movies did Peeta dirty. They made him into such a “simp” whereas, in the books, he was so charming and charismatic and stronger than given credit for. He forces Katniss at several points to face the big picture instead of just her own survival. For example, he’s much more brutal (iirc) with Katniss in Catching Fire. He has just as much PTSD, but he’s not, for lack of a better word, wallowing in it. He realizes a lot faster in the books that this is his life now (a puppet for the capital) and that’s put on Haymitch in the movie.
I love that you're talking about Queen's Gambit. It was definitely my favourite show of 2020, and made Anya Taylor Joy a rising star, though she'd had other noteworthy roles prior. The acting, directing, writing, editing and pacing were brilliant, and I'm glad that they made it a limited series, since Beth's story had mostly wrapped up by the end.
And it has TRUE feminism in it.. not the one annoying type that's getting shoved in your face while trying to be righteous. Its the true form of a woman becoming liberated in a man dominated world overcoming all odds while still facing several challenges (drugs, relationship, family, etc.)
i distinctly remember walking out of Catching Fire and going “it looked EXACTLY how I saw it in my head”, that’s an amazing feeling as a reader that just boosts an adaptation to an extra level
I have to disagree with the Hunger games take. As many people have already said, Katniss is such a well fleshed-out character in the books, and the movies erase so much of that and also the revolution.
The books have more content but are poorly written. They are actually difficult to read, without exasperation and frustration, the movies however are very easy to watch.
@@vexienroe Really? I thought the opposite, but I'd have to re-read them to say why. Interesting how it can be such a different experience for two people
@@AW-xc1xc They are not well written. You can read them, sure, but its not a fun experience. If you are into the world than your own imagination does a lot of heavy lifting.
The Princess Bride could definitely be an addition to this list. The book is interesting but the movie makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE!!! The movie took out all of the confusing points and ramped up the action.
Was the Princess Bride book even written BEFORE they made the Movie? The movie is genius in that it takes a pretty convoluted "look what we discovered in an old library" style text that is full of quirky detours presupposedly teaching you about the background setting and replaces it with the abridged version a grandfather would "read" or rather tell his grandson when he's sick. Not only is the framing device legendary on its own ("Is this a kissing book?" will be one of the lines everybody who's seen the movie will always remember) but it also removes the cultural clutter that a) is meaningless as it's a made up country anyway and b) would never work in a movie. There's a reason nobody has made the Appendices to Lord of the Ring into a movie with its Elvish language and history lessons ... ;) well mostly nobody, although the Rings of Power stuff was based on the Silmarillion IIRC...
Okay but! i love the queen's gambit book because you can actually hear beth's thoughts. All the time she's angry or amused or spiteful (towards the prodigy kid lol). She felt more like a real person in the book? Like that time when she's in paris and she's like "omg i'm paris" (or smth like that, i remember her being very amused). Also i feel that the scene with her and benny at the casino should have been added, and her being like "he just left me in here i wanna hit him with a plank of wood".
I felt the same way about A Simple Plan. I don't read many books, but that one intrigued me, and I thought it was fantastic. I was excited for the movie, and it was good, too. But I missed out on Bill Paxton's inner thoughts, which I thought was crucial to that character. You hear every little thought and debate over each decision he makes, which makes it so much more relatable since you can see how they make sense. You can picture yourself making those same decisions.
The Prestige is my personal favorite improved adaptation. The book is not good at all while the movie is in my top 10. I also may be in the minority here but I think The Road adaptation is an improvement over the book, but the book was good as well.
@@friendlyspaceninjaIt really is a great surprise. Great video as usual, I hope one day you make videos about: Arcane, Agents of Shield, Harry Potter, Planet of Apes reboot, True Blood, Dexter, Lost, The Shield, Arrow, Legends of Tomorrow, Black Lightning, Bleach, Samurai Jack, Hannibal, Once Upon a Time, Succession, Avatar: The Last Airbender, Legend of Korra, One Piece, The Dark Knight Trilogy, The Avengers Quadrilogy, James Bond, 24, Justified. Keep up the good work.
The reason why it always seems like "the director needs to love the source material" in terms of "this adaption is good" is because an adaption requires you to know several things: the theory behind the medium you adapt from and the medium you adapt into, aswell as understanding what exactly the goal was in the source material and what you want to have with your adaption. If any part of this lacks your adaption will be kinda bad. Its super fascinating because it requires so so much knowledge and so much interpretative skill.
It entirely depends on what the director aims to achieve. If the source material found a big audience and the director wants to cater to the wishes of that audience to ensure a commercial success, then he better sticks as much as possible to the source material. But if the source material is just a starting point and the director wants to create his own master piece, then the director should just do that.
See also: Books adapted not by a screen writer, but by the original book author. You'd think that's an automatic win, but so many great writers are atrocious screenwriters, lacking any comprehension of the strengths and limitations of the medium they're moving to. Another writer that is a fan, however, has the relationship and knowledge needed, yet also the bit of distance needed to remove/replace stuff that won't work.
Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, widely considered to be the best single piece of Star Trek ever made, was directed by a man who knew nothing about Trek. He based many of ideas on the Horatio Hornblower series of all things. He didn't need to know anything about the universe, rules, lore, etc. All he needed to know was how to capture the characters.
Starship troopers: the director hated the original and still delivered a masterpiece. You need to love your job, and try to give people quality, not studio bullet-pointed cashgrabbing trend seeking garbage.
I only disagree with the Hunger Games but I thinks it’s due in large part to if you read the books first. Imagining actual 16 year olds suffer such physical and emotional trauma is SO impactful, vs looking at the much more adult cast (plus all the erased disabilities) of the movie
I actually watched the movies first and they were cool, but then I read the books and I was absolutely blown away with how unlike any other YA books were because there was so much nuance and accuracy in the trauma, and I didn't expect that. It helped that I came to it as an adult too and could see that much clearer than I would have as a teen. There's so much depth that the movies just completely skimmed.
@@ritasprinkle5098this is literally my exact experience with the books. I feel exactly the same about them. I was ready to be disappointed about it being tropey but it completely subverted those expectations in the best way
I was shocked when you said the Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? book took place in 1992, since I was certain it was set in 2021. The year the book took place was a detail I remembered clearly because I read it for a class on almost the exact date mentioned at the beginning of the book. When I looked it up, apparently subsequent editions changed the year it took place in to line up with the film adaptation more closely. Interesting stuff
I love all of your videos! I wanted to add a comment about Gossip Girl as I read all the novels including the prequel when I was younger. The reason Serena left New York is a bit more complex then just sleeping with Nate and running away. In the books, Blair's life is falling apart around her due to her parent's divorce. Blair starts to realize that she has real feeling for Nate while Serena starts to realize the same. Serena and Nate have genuine feelings for each other and end up sleeping together for the first time but Serena feels a lot of love and sympathy for Blair. She decides to leave New York in a selfless act to not take Nate away from Blair while her life is falling a part. This is why Nate was initially so stunned to see Serena again when she returns to New York even though he was with Blair at the time, because they "loved" each other right before she left. Blair also felt betrayed by Serena for leaving her during a vulnerable time in her life not knowing Serena did it for her.
Agree with everything except The Hunger Games. The books added SO much depth to the characters, the sociopolitical issues of Panem, the Revolution etc.
I thought his unpoular opinion was gong to be "I didn't mind Mockingjay being split into two" but I never expected "The books weren't that great". I do understand why someone would like a movie best. It's the visuals, the sound design and the performances... So I don't blame him for prefering the movie. But... But as much as there are things one can only do in a movie, there are things that one can only do in a book. And the books are better.
I would have to disagree with your take on the Hunger Games series. In my opinion, the book is way better at portraying Katniss' trauma, she had more depth and feels like a real person. I feel like the movies erased a lot of her characteristics and weren't able to convey her thought process and emotions.
Yesss I loved Jennifer Lawrence in the movies but there’s a difference between book Katniss stoicism in the books and movie Katniss’ one note depiction at times. I loved the books because they made Katniss realistic depiction of a kid who has had to be the appearance of strength for a lot of her life.
I agree. The movies didn't properly capture the horror of the hunger games in my opinion. One aspect of that is the fact that the main leads obviously didn't look like children and a lot of graphic violence and psychological torture was censored. And of course Katniss' PTSD was seriously toned down.
I do feel like some of Ninja's love of the movie adaptation is how aesthetically pleasing it is- which is super ironic since it completely misses the point of the book's use of the capitol's aesthics to make a point.
I would like to say HG books are still better than the actual movies. I think the movies visually are stunning, and honestly entertaining but I dont think it actually does a better job at conveying how terrible the circumstances are and HG society is at large. Hunger Games books touches on so many interesting aspects of war and its so ugly at times it's hard to read. The movies never have that level of dispair to them. Peeta never knowing what is real and not, losing limbs. Katniss hiding and finding places because she's utterly traumatized. Finnick story and Annie. How hideous the captial really is, and how there's more good people in it than just Effie. The movies are a great adaptation but they still had to remove a lot of what made this book so impactful. HG to me really hits home just how despite "winning" a revolution it can still feel so melancholy. This really hits because this is how it honestly feels more often than not. Being woman, being black like you can make all this progress but with so much sacrifice attached to. The films don't really portray how much everyone gives up.
I also loved how the author portrayed addiction and its relationship to trauma with Haymitch, the Morphlings, etc. just a very compassionate and understanding handling of not easy topics.
Another one I would add to the list is Heartstopper. However, by nature of the medium we are limited to how much of a story can be told. Only so much can be said in a webcomic updated 3 pages a month. In the comics, we’re limited by predominantly Charlie & Nicks perspective, and mostly Charlie’s at that. So with that we get incredibly important characters like Elle only introduced the first time she hangs out with the group at Charlie’s birthday, and only like 2 sentences explaining that she’s trans and how she knows everyone. In the show we get to see it from her perspective, her experience at school first hand and what it’s like for her coming into an all-girls school as a trans woman. We also get a lot of development of characters that don’t get much screen time in the comics, we get a deeper understanding of Tara & Darcy’s relationship, and the up and downs that come with it. In the comic we also don’t get a lot of tension in the relationships between characters. Like a character can have a fight and it be largely resolved over the next couple pages, especially with issues that don’t involve Charlie or Nick. For example, Imogen is a completely new character for the TV show and I think she’s a brilliant addition. Firstly, we get more tension surrounding keeping Charlie and Nick’s relationship a secret, and how Nick is such a chronic people pleaser to his own detriment. It also gives Tao just cause for disliking Nick at the start, rather than the “but he just seems straight, so he probably is”. I also like how the TV show changes the timeline of Tao & Elle’s relationship. From the comics we don’t even know about their feelings for each other until right before the Paris trip, and then they get together on the Paris trip (and if I remember correctly we don’t actually learn that Elle is into Tao prior to them dating). In the TV show we get to see them go on a date before Paris and Tao completely fucks it up, leading to a back-and-forth around “we like each other but can this actually work??” which I think is a lot more compelling. While there are some changes made for the TV show that I don’t necessarily agree with, and I’m really nervous how they’re going to tackle certain things that will come up in season 3 (no spoilers), the show is a brilliant adaptation that provides so much more depth to the characters. This can obviously be attributed to the fact that Alice Oseman is a writer & executive producer on the show, and that the cast are incredibly talented. As you can see I could easily write a whole novel about this. But yeh Heartstopper is easily one of my favourite TV shows.
Have to disagree, I'm not a huge fan of either. I'm just a bit too above the age demographic. But the comics used the medium expertly whilst the TV show was just passable with cringe dialogue, mediocre acting and a simplified plot structure. It did very little interesting in terms of visual effects and camera work which lost a lot compared to the comic where the page layout, paneling and art worked really well to convey meaning. The comic is a better example of a good comic, than the show is an example of a good show.
Have to disagree, too. I am also past the demographic for the story, but I quite like coming-of-age sorta stories so I enjoyed both, although the comics more. Alice, in my opinion, really knows how to take advantage of the comic medium, and she uses both image and dialogue to present the story in a very emotional and subtle way. The short episodes make it so that she can focus on shorter and longer storylines, different from the series, that had to create a lot of extra drama just to make more overarching storylines. I like the show, and I liked some of things that were added, like how it gave more depth to certain characters, like tao or Isaac, but I also thought some of the drama was kinda forced. It's also not very interesting or creative visually, unlike the comics.
I agree about your feeling on Homelander. I remember the scene when he suddenly clap the blind young hero and make him deaf. For a moment there, I thought my heart stop.
The Boys is genuinely one of the few Series out there where the vast majority of people who’ve read the comic books say that the show is way better. Like I don’t think I’ve heard a single person say the opposite
I think the show is a neutered shadow of the books greatness. It hamstrung itself for budget reasons and taste, and can never match the emotional impact the book develops over time. You have to look beyond the shock gore and humor and watch the characters and relationships from. Butcher is a deeply hurt and broken man determined to genocide the supers, and he only recruits Hughie so that someone has a chance to stop him. He knows he can't stop himself from seeking ultimate revenge but there's enough of a good man in him to know that it's wrong. Hughie and Annie's love is the core of the book, the government and history are dark and complex, the real villain in the end is capitalism, you could say. The show doesn't present a fully realized world of heroes that need a force like the boys, it presents a feud between two teams of bad people in a vacuum, and so also can never have the scale of the book's story. It's a decent action and satire show, but the book is a genuine masterpiece, and all too often dismissed because of the edgy stuff, it's deeper meanings ignored.
@@phenomenonnarutokun I know, it's a shame. I also wish more people were as smart as me about it. But often it's the dumber, simpler, flashier thing that's more popular with the masses. If you think that makes it better, I don't want to know you.
Brokeback mountain will always impress me. It was adapted from a 60 page story. Even the author herself thought it was impossible. The writers were fantastic. This was so easy to fuck up. The writers had to add alot of material, to make it into a film. This could've been sappy like the notebook (considering Heath's character, that would've ruined the whole movie) Or this could've gotten heavy-handed when it came to portraying homophobia. Or make it seem like the main guys were this pure, Innocent victims. But it took a quiet, subtle approach. The characters were complex. The men did some messed up things like when Heaths character threatened to beat his wife. No scenes felt drawn out to force emotions out of the audience. The emotions felt so real. The minimal acting in this was 🔥🔥 especially from Heath. The short story author said how he understood the character better than she did. However, this was hell to even get made. No one wanted touch the script for so many years. A lot of ppl found the idea of two men in love laughable. Or others really wanted to make it way more sexual. And when one person reluctantly took the script, he didn't touch it for THREE MONTHS (his gf read it, then pressured him to) and that was when he realized this HAD to be made. Also, a lot of actors kept turning this down. Pitt, Wahlberg, Damon, DiCaprio etc. However, this cast was not only incredible, but it introduced Heath+Michelle to each other. They fell in love, had a kid and made Jake the godfather.
@K.C-2049 Yes, he did make odd film choices at times (but it makes sense, he really didn’t like being seen as a hearthrob. He got severe anxiety from all the fame) And i also grew a big appreciation for Heath when he did this film. Not only did he treat this film seriously, but he added so much as well. Like when he punched the alley wall, that wasn’t scripted. He literally mangled his hand because he got into character and felt like it suited the scene better. And THE SHIRTS. it was his idea to switch the shirt layers at the end in the trailer. One of the writers, Diana, said how he acted like an excited kid who wanted to surprise her. And along with other things, he was so sweet. And agreed, the way Heath treated homosexuality surprised me. Hell, i didn’t even know until recently that he played the first gay teenager on Australian tv until recently. Not only did he refuse to tolerate gay jokes, but he also called out ppl’s covert homophobia. He was really irritated when ppl kept assuming that him+Jake kissing would be the most difficult part of filming. And while he knew this film was important, he thought it was nonsense how him+Jake were constantly being called ‘brave’ for simply kissing each other for this role. One fave responses ever from him was when he was (once again) asked how did he ‘prepare’ to be intimate with Jake. And Heath’s like ‘i know what love feels like. I know how to kiss+make love. So i did it, it’s just with another guy now. If you know how to do something, you do it.’’ I really love all his interviews when it came to this movie, And what weird hot takes did he have? I don’t think i’ve heard about them.
I personally think the Chicago film adaptation is much better than the Broadway show. It's usually the opposite, but they really elevated the material in my opinion.
AGREED!! For being such show know for dancing, there’s surprisingly little of it in the Broadway way show (at least when i saw it most recently). The movie really captures the movement and the energy better
Chicago the movie is so much better! It provides a framing device not to apologise for the musical sections but give them context. As the characters are better grounded in their circumstances. Also, I'm not a Fosse stan so...
I would argue that Hamilton (the musical) should be in the number one spot. Despite all the people clowning on Lin Manuel-Miranda, he took a stale biography that only law students and American founding father historians were aware of and transformed it into a global phenomenon. The few people I know who tried to read the biography said it was way too dense and unappealing to make it beyond the first few chapters, yet Miranda somehow transformed it into a musical that had a chokehold on our collective consciousness for a solid five years. Unprecedented.
Honestly no matter how you feel about Lin Manuel Miranda or the musical itself you have to commend what it achieved culturally. Before the musical no one but hardcore historians knew who Alexander Hamilton or Aaron Burr even were. I was in high school taking AP US history when the musical came out and the most we had learned about them in school was Hamilton was important to establishing the early economy and Burr killed him in a duel. The fact that everyone and their dog know who Alexander Hamilton is nowadays shows what a big impact that musical had
@@siennahartle9069 my introduction to Hamilton and Burr was the viral Got Milk commercial (before labeled things viral😊). Outside of that commercial I knew nothing about him, and after the musical I had discussions with friends who actually did know about Hamilton and his impact on American legislation.
Seems to be the musical is not based on a book (the biography) but on the life of a real historical figure. edit: according to Wikipedia it is "based" on the 2004 biography by Ron Chernow, which spent 3 months on the NYT bestseller list after its release. Not exactly stale. Still, it does not seem right to say the play is based on a book when obviously it is based on Hamilton's life. The biography is merely used as a source of information on Hamilton's life. It is not a work of fiction.
Ironically the Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes should have been split into 2 films but they didn't because of how people reacted to Mockingjay being 2 parts
But there's ANY part of the book that says "we can stop Part One right here", it's very straight to the point in a nonstop pacing. Mockingjay, in the other hand, has the great "big setup first, huge payoff later" structure that helped the division. It just didn't take advantage of that by reducing the final war to a "focus in her reactions, forget the battle".
I don't know if it's in the book but in film there's a big moment where the main part of the story is over, Peter Dinklage gives a major monologue, and the screen cuts to black, and I really thought for a moment it would say to be continued...
absolutely disagree about the hunger games. yes catching fire movie is really great (the only one that great out of all of them tbh) and motivated me to read the books. but the books are much better, they have more depth, they're extremely depressing and tragic i love them.
i agree with every take besides the one about hunger games. yes, the first movie was a game changer and catching fire is a masterpiece of an adaptation BUT the movies lose sooo much of the heart and anti-capitalist / anti-fascist messages from the books. it's a shame because we got an amazing cast (although, i have to add that the movies are incredibly white-washed)
Yeah there's a little bit of that Fight Club / American Psycho thing going on with the Hunger Games movies, where audiences forget this is all supposed to be a parody and get caught up in the spectacle and thrill of the villains. Like people enjoy the hunger games themselves way too much, and half the reason they hate Mockingjay is because there's no games in it
@@phoebexxlouise I honestly feel it's a bit ironic how much people appreciate the games, it's like they lose the entire point of the original material
I was SHOCKED by how good AMC's adaptation of Interview with a Vampire was. Every change they made to the source material actually served a purpose and elevated the existing story beats. And they made some big changes, so as a fan of the books I was surprised by how well executed it was. I went in expecting to hate it & ended up loving it. Tht Boys was also well done imo. HotD too. I can't wait to see what AppleTV does with Martha Wells' Murderbot book series. AppleTV did a nice job on adapting The Silo so I'm hopeful they'll do Murderbot well.
love all of this! one of my favorite adaptations is the fear street trilogy-- the ending & plot as a whole completely turns the plot of the books on its head, all while adding social commentary, making it make a lot more sense, and a healthy dose of badass lesbians also noticing a pattern of gay coded characters in books/source material being openly gay in adaptations...
It doesn't help that American Psycho by Bret Eston Ellis is one of the most difficult books to read. It's not even the heinous amounts of violence; it's a matter of the medium. In the film, Patrick Bateman is passably likeable because you never really have to sit with his worldview outside of a few pieces of internal monologue. The book feels inaccessible on purpose. The movie has an all star cast :')
Idk, I read the book and loved and despite seeing so many scenes from the movie I haven't watched it yet. I feel like the book is just as good as the movie, it's just like an extended version of it
@@cooliostarstache5474 please don't get me wrong! i genuinely think the book is BETTER than the film; BECAUSE it is so *unpleasant*. Ellis masterfully puts you in the claustrophobic and obsessive headspace of a truly terrible man, and that discomfort is essential to the complete feeling of the story. meanwhile, the movie exists outside of this character's head. you don't just see how he views himself; you break the (to me!) essential illusion/delusion of American Psycho and actually *perceive* him from outside. furthermore, the movie does the unspeakable: by casting famously handsome Christian Bale, it makes Patrick Bateman (at least somewhat) *likeable*, even *aspirational* to some. there's a lot of other things that i feel are lost in this particular transition from Book to Film, but those aspects are most prescient to me.
I don't agree about Hunger Games. The first movie added and changed a lot of stupid shit. And splitting the final book into 2 movies was not a good idea.
Completely agree, I watched the first movie without reading the books and was super confused a lot, because in the books you get Katniss internal dialog and you understand why she's doing some of the things (like kissing Peeta), when watching the movie... I was totally confused, until I read the books
Why did people want them to cram so much shit into one movie? Do you know how much would’ve had to be cut out if they condensed everything from Mockingjay parts 1 and 2 into one movie?
How to Train Your Dragon fits this perfectly! The books were… something else entirely and I think the movie pulled all the lore together really nicely! I haven’t read the books in a long time but I remember them being messy and odd.
I read the books after watching the movie as a kid and they're pretty fun! Hiccup speaking dragon and the whole kamikaze stuff was cool, they don't have the wondrous quality of the movies but still hold up on their own imo
The books are something else. I wouldn't even say the movies are an adaptation. It's a different story with different characters in a different world. The movies are great - the score is amazing and a book obviously doesn't have a score - but they are missing all the best parts -literally all of them - of the books. If I had to pick one, I'd go with the books.
33:50 the movie is excellent in my opinion, it really captured the whole new feeling to the hunger games that the character's would've had since it was only the 10th one and we got to see how all the ideas for different unique arenas were implimented as well as the whole betting system started up - a very good origin story for Snow
I'm genuinely surprised that Buffy didn't make it on the list. I was also genuinely surprised that Buffy was originally a movie from 1992. In that same vein, Stargate took the movie and just sprinted for the bleachers with it.
I’m sorry, but saying that the Hunger Games movies are better than the books is just wild 😭💀 Like yes, they are GREAT adaptations, but the books are still so much better, because a lot of the characters lose their depth and complexity in the movies and some of the brutality and bleakness of the daily life in Panem is just glossed over in the movies
I feel you! I disagree completely with his opinion on that, but the video is perfect ❤ quite a good reunion of adaptations that surpassed their source materials. To me, he of course can have his own opinion and taste, but on THG he lost me completely. Sadly it is one opinion that resonates with people that they want to see the games yadda yadda, and completely misses the point Suzanne makes with her entire series on the consequences of war, killings, empathy, what is to be human and that war have terrible consequences - but to never bow down to dictators and repression. A lot of people I know personally told me they hate mockingjay 1 and 2 because it lacks the games, some important characters die... and also people misses completely the point on why it was build that way. People also made fun of the epilogue, and it always showed me how most people didnt liked THG for the message, they Just wanted the bloodshed and romance they regard as empty. It is a complete butchering of Suzanne's books on my opinion, and it saddens me Mockingjay never had love it deserved. They're my faves. But that's also my opinion, and I really realty respects others to have theirs, just pointing out some things I thought :)
I'm not sure i agree with it. It's a great adaptation of a good Book It's so close to the books. I don't think you can say it's better if you like Reading as much as watching movies
The Hunger Games is a great movie adaptation but without Katniss’s internal dialogue, i don’t see how it could possibly be better than the source material. Katniss’s character is great in the movies but her motivations go completely unnoticed by the audience. i love FSN but i honestly think he just misunderstood the point of the books.
YAYYYYY SOMEONE WHO AGREES WITH ME ABOUT HUNGER GAMES PARTIALLY I loved the first two books and HATED Mockingjay, so my feelings were consistent with the movie adaptations: loved the first two, hated Mockingjay 1 so much that I never watched Mockingjay 2. But Catching Fire was the best book imo so I agree that the movie was PEAK 👌
I agree, I found myself wishing the books were in 3rd person as well, because sometimes Katniss is just depressed for chapters so it drags, and the movies being in 3rd person makes us almost like the Capitol watching the games. I think even the author knew that and that’s why the prequels were in a different perspective.
@@rubydoo3307Yeah, overall I liked the first person perspective, but there were areas where I was really wishing for someone else's perspective *(cough cough* Peeta *cough)*
i read somewhere that the Autor was pressured about the release date of the third book. because i think the fist two are good ya books but the third reads like the first draft with good ideas but were you would change half of it again. also same opinion as you about the movies
Suggestion for an honorable mention: The Crow. The comic is very much a power fantasy with which the author processed a horrible event in his life by lashing out against the perpetrators in his mind. There's no self-reflection, no processing, it's just the anger phase. The movie makes it so much more noble and interesting.
So I think you’re right about the hunger games, and here’s why: I’m a big thg fan of thg (as in, I have a dandelion tattoo and that’s never even mentioned in the movies, so you could say I like the books A LOT), that being said, I do think that the movies are much more entertaining pieces of media: the story is perfect for a movie/tv adaptation because there’s a lot of action and iconic characters and an overall epic feel to it (after all it’s a dystopian story, and one about teenagers, and those tend to do well on screen), while the books are much more psychological and realistic with how long things actually take and only offer Katniss’ perspective. what makes the movies so engaging are the games themselves, and this is ironic because it’s the very thing the story is about: how much people want to watch them, how that’s the reason they make them. I’ve seen some people say they’d watch a movie about every game if they made one, and I find that insane because you’re missing the whole point. Yes, it’s fun, yes you get attached to the players and the victors, that’s what the games are about. This doesn’t happen with the books because they don’t focus solely on the games (or at least not as much as the movies do) but rather on Katniss as a character and how she struggles in this world, which yes, might make the books a little more boring (for lack of a better term) but idk, that’s how it’s meant to be. The fact that the movies are more successful than the books proves the point of the story itself. All this to say, I agree, and this is why. Love you videos btw💚
I’d say Mob Psycho 100 is an improvement on the manga. The story is pretty close to being the same, but the improvement in visuals is a huge difference. There’s a beauty to the shoddy manga art, but the animation in the anime is just out of this world and significantly adds to both the action and emotion of the series
@@taylorgayhart9497 the books are much better than the movies (I read & watched them for the first time only a couple years ago and, really, this is actually strange for me to hear) Fight me
@@notllikethatI think the movies did a REALLY good job at presenting the story when u dont have the internal dialogue of katniss. I think the books lets u understand the characters much better than the movie but overall the movie does the books justice and someone who only watches them doesnt miss out on much from not reading it
The Infinity Grauntlett is part of a bigger story you have to read first (Thanos Quest, where he collects the infinity gems). So it's a bit weird to say the story starts with the snap, it doesn't.
I’ve been rewatching Gossip Girl season 1 and I forgot how much it slaps. Bare none. The books were so bad, but we tried to read them specifically because they were banned at our school for the explicit material. I remember having to borrow from friends and we could only pass the books if you went to someone’s house and could exchange it in secret and they had to be read in secret which added to the allure.
I was hoping you’d talk about the Umbrella Academy. I haven’t read the original comics tbh but I was OBSESSED with the show during covid. Season 1 & 2 was just chefs kiss
I absolutely loved The Hunger Games the book series. I think I read the entire series in 3 days. For a YA book, I thought it was excellent. The movies were very loyal to the books, which I appreciated but the books had a lot more nuance that was missed in the movies (obviously due to time limitations). I have a theory that when a person watches a movie (or a show first) and then reads the book, there is a greater tendency to perceive the movie to be as good as, if not better, than the original source material. That was my experience with Fight Club and Girl, Interrupted. I felt that the movies were just as good as the books but I might have felt differently if I experienced them in reverse. When I read the book first, the book almost always wins. This is obviously just a theory but I am wondering what the order was of experiencing the material for all of the TV shows/movies discussed here. I'm curious if other people had the same experience.
Right?! The book is like if Harry Potter was just Philosopher's Stone that stops when Hagrid says "unless you wanna stay, of course" and skips to the 19 years later epilogue... Meanwhile, the series is basically a theocratic Andor, which is badass.
I think another fantastic adaptation that really surpasses the source material are the Spiderverse films. It really hones in on the stories of Miles and Gwen, especially Miles, who finally feels like more of his own character.
I'm surprised no one mentioned Jumanji with Robin Williams in the comments. This film is iconic. But try to find the source material, there are literally several pages there
i adored the lockwood and co netflix adaptation that came out earlier this year! the books were great and i really through it was an amazing teen show (for once) and i was so disappointed when it was cancelled shortly after season 1💔
completely agree! entirely underrated adaptation and i wish netflix hadn’t been going on their cancelling rampage for YA (or around that audience). similarly, the shadow and bone show was alright, but i was still very disappointed to see it cancelled because it was just getting good
Istg, I did not expect the show to be this good. It honestly was the only show in the past year that i binged and didn't skip a second of. If Netflix genuinely gave it a fair chance, I'm sure it would've gained a way bigger Audience.
@@Dandy5585 i think it’s the way Netflix is as a streaming app. When we were younger and streaming wasn’t rlly a thing you used to be able to watch a new episode ATLEAST once a week and not all at once so you could build popularity by having the audience just talk about it while waiting. Now that’s different and if it’s not popular enough in a month’s time of being up they remove it. It’s terrible. ☹️
I believe there is an argument to be made that the Jurassic Park movie is a milestone in film spectacle and technology, but not that it surpasses the book. In this case, I believe there are two different factors at play here. The book is outstanding and always had been. The film did things hat had never been done before, but that's beside he point of the quality of the source material.
It was also (at the time it came out) a remarkable adaptation of what was known in paleontology at the time. It's a shame that later adaptations threw that out of the window, because there's been some incredible discoveries since 1993 that would've been so cool to see on film!
I actually enjoyed both. I will say that I found the girl character in the book really irritating. I actually checked to see if the author had children because of how the book depicts them. He didn't have children. Another criticism I had of the book is that the Jeff Goldblum character in the book does these dull monologues.
@@joandolliedoyle775Ian Malcolm in the book is 100% Michael Crichton's self-insert character and is there to lecture everyone. Jeff Goldblum took that and made him sexy and sassy, and all our lives are improved because of it.
Hammond was also night and day, and I prefer the movie version. Instead of a greedy jerk getting comeuppance, you can sympathize with his misguided vision, making him more complex
I definitely need a hunger games video now!! Cause I'm a massive fan of the books I actually just listened to them for the 3rd time recently and also love the movies but don't think the movies are SIGNIFICANTLY better than the books. I actually think I like the books more because I feel they better represent trauma and depict a far darker and gritty version of the games and capital.
Working at a bookstore has made me hate those books so much. Its not even a problem with the books or the people reading them. Its like if you worked at See's and people ONLY ever wanted Scotchmellows. Scotchmelllow's great and all BUT READ SOMETHING NEW FOR ONCE, THE BOOK HAS BEEN OUT FOR OVER TEN YEARS! and now we got Ballad trying to make Hitler sexy, FRUCK!
For me, the only time i've liked an adaptation more than the original source is The Umbrella Academy. Because, even though I did like the comics and I think they're rather original, and they have great artstyle; the show gives the characters so much more depth, like, almost every single one of the characters is improved in the show with a personality that's more fleshed out, they have better motivations and the relationships they have with each other are so much more interesting to watch than in the comics; Klaus and Viktor particularly are made much more interesting. And also, the thing I liked less in the comics is the pacing, which I understand because they are short, but they feel a little rushed and this is not an issue with the show at all
I think the main reason - or at least one of them - that an adaptation can vary from the source material is because the people adapting it are genuine fans and understand when changes are necessary but keep true to the spirit of the material. Then there are cases like Good Omens, Sandman or One Piece for example where the creator was heavily consulted in the process and understood when changes needed to be made or used the chance to change things they wanted to.
Yess! I agree so much about Stardust!! The only aspect I wish they had kept was the fleshing out of the girl who asked the main character to get the star. I feel like she was more of a real person in the book. But everything else about the movie was better IMO. Also controversial but another Neil Gaiman movie I thought surpassed the book was Coraline, but I like the book as well.
To me, the ultimate adaptation surpassing the original source material is Netflix's Dirk Gently hollistic detective agency. The books are amazing but the show is just awesome, over the top, beautiful, and the characters are just soooo lovable in it !
Aren't there like two Dirk gently shows. I think I watched the newer one with the guy from lotr i liked the first season but honestly the second was atrocious.
@@GothPaoki There is two shows indeed and I was talking of the newest one. On a personnal level I prefer the second season but I can understand why you would prefer the first one, they are quite different ahah
The series of unfortunate events Netflix series was even better than the (admittedly fantastic) books. It was a very faithful adaptation in a lot of ways but it thoroughly understood what makes the source material work and makes the changes needed to take full advantage of the new medium
@@sophieamandaleitontoomey9343 fair enough. I still liked her but she’s also the character who gets the most POV in the books and she definitely wasn’t as strong as Klause
I was pretty disappointed with the Netflix show, and I was a big fan of the books. It just felt very watered down, like it was scared to get too grim or serious and intentionally got campy whenever that might happen. Still though, if you enjoyed it then that's a good thing it accomplished, even if it didn't for me.
Drive is a perfect movie for me, also my top 5 best movies of all time. I had no problem with Irene, she captures the fragile flower character perfectly who is caring and ready to take anyone in. The cast for her is perfect, Carey has a innocent baby face. Also one of the best movie soundtracks of all time.
My personal favourite examples of an adaptation improving the source material are the How to Train Your Dragon movies, as well as the Princess Diaries movies.
I never liked playing League of Legends, but Arcane is the closest thing to a perfect tv show I’ve ever seen in a first season. I struggle to find any fault in the first season. It’s just that well made and written. If you haven’t seen Arcane, fix that IMMEDIATELY.
Agreed. I was really hesitant to watch it at first, until a friend pretty much forced me to. I am so glad I finally caved and watched it! I'm pretty much obsessed with it now
The difference here is that the League of Legends game is not a "tell a story" medium. It's first and foremost a battle arena game. It doesn't really have a plot afaik, especially after the retcons. "Based on the game League of Legends" is an inaccuracy. It does take place in it's universe but it has nothing to do with that game specifically. The lore was always handed out in supplemental material: character synopses, articles, short stories, quotes and descriptions.
The thing is even league fans will often tell you the worst part of riot is the game's, it's why the show exists to begin with I think cuz fans kept begging for a show because they knew it'd be good, cuz their nongame content always has been, their music videos, character introductions, all of that, it was always phenomenal from the beginning and kept getting better in its own unique ways and styles, largely I think due to the animation company they work with fortiche which made and evolved the art style and techniques that works so well in arcane. And I assume because the creators genuinely love their art. Imo arcane was perfect from every aspect and the closest you could ever get to a masterpiece TV show, I've not only watched but enjoyed watching multiple channels of multiple media's diving into what makes the show so great, especially storytelling channels which I've watched the majority of, as well as art, photography and music analysis. And watching it again after learning all the different ways it was amazing and further appreciating that?👌 Will always go down as an eternal favourite piece of media for me because of that. I tried the games, had a little fun, gave up mostly, sometimes still dabble in tft but I've never cared about the game. The MVs tho? Phenomenal and I've followed from that side of the media for a while now. They somehow always manage to be major hits? Which I do not know how they do it. If you love the artstyle of the show I do recommend going through their RU-vid, it's cool seeing all the different styles they've tried and the evolutions of the style we see in arcane to begin with
Die Hard is the adaptation that really comes to mind. The book it was based on wasn't anything earth shattering. The movie was the dopest Christmas Movie ever created. The changes introduced in the movie script were all killer and Bruce Willis and the main villain were absolutely fantastic. Lightning in a bottle. Chapter II and III were really good in their own terms.
I wouldn't include Die Harder as it wasn't based on a sequel to the original Tower heist novel whose name i always forget (I think they had a very loose inspiration, but didn't really do anything to "adapt" the material, just used a setting or so)... but yes, part one did elevate a mediocre pulp novel about an out of his luck detective into something special and celebrated.
I don't know if someone commented on this before (tried finding comments on it but couldn't) but the Infinity Gauntlet is not really the start of the story - it is preceded by a couple of issues of Silver Surfer that Starlin wrote (in which Thanos is resurrected so unimportant) and The Thanos Quest - a two-issue miniseries in which Starlin masterfully shows Thanos' journey in collecting all the Gems. I HIGHLY recommend it (I might even prefer it over the Infinity Gauntlet itself). The whole Infinity War (not character-wise but tension-wise) is adapting The Thanos Quest, while Endgame adapts Infinity Gauntlet more closely. This is why the climax is misplaced.
Great video, as always. I disagree about the Hunger Games part. The books are honestly very good. Not the best YA books but still very good. The first movie is amazing and I love watching it but I don't think it surpasses the book. They're both very good and I don't love them in the same way, but the books were much better at showing the horrific side of the Hunger Games. I was much more scared reading the books and felt the tension better. But the film is still extraordinary and I wouldn't change it. I think I'm with you on Catching Fire tho . I don't remember much about the book and I didn't like it as much as the first one. I still liked it, but it wasn't as memorable as the first. The film, on the other hand, was remarkable. There were a few elements from the books that I felt were missing (mainly about the different tributes), but overall it was amazing. Obviously, the third book was much better than the films. I really liked this book and the way Katniss' character was developed. The depth of her character was really lacking in the films, but especially in mocking jay. And that's also the problem with the latest Hunger Games movie. I watched it not thinking it would be that good because I'd only seen the first trailer and it didn't look good, but I was pleasantly surprised. It was a very good film (much better than Mockingjay) and a very good adaptation. But it's really not as good as the book at showing the complexity of Snow's character and his descent into madness. The third part is rather rushed and doesn't do the best job of portraying Snow during this period of his life (compared to the book, it's still really good). The main difference is that in the books, we know his thoughts and how manipulative he is from the start, whereas in the film, he's rather charming and sympathetic at first. I think the main problem with the films is that they've never managed to show the depth of their main characters, whereas the books do a fantastic job. I'm also not sure why you said that most people didn't like the book when it came out because, from what I remember, people loved it, including everyone I knew, and it was pretty rare to find someone who didn't like it on social media. For me, anyway. Overall, I think I can understand why some people would prefer the movies but I don't necessarily think they surpass the books. Voilà, c'est la première fois ou l'une des premières fois que j'écris un commentaire sous l'une de tes vidéos, mais c'est aussi l'une des premières fois où je suis pas d'accord du tout. Même si en général j'adore ce que tu fais et je suis d'accord avec toi sur le fait que la série The Queen's Gambit est mieux que le bouquin. Oui j'avais la flemme de terminer mon message en anglais, d'ailleurs j'espère que j'ai pas fait trop de fautes mais voilà. Bref continue tes vidéos elles sont géniales ! Et aussi je pense que tu devrais voir le film sur Snow parce que le thème de l'histoire est l'Etat de nature et ils ont super bien respecté le thème et le développement fait par Suzanne Collins. Concernant ce film là je pense que ça dépends plus des préférences des gens pour savoir si le film est meilleur que le livre. Moi j'ai préféré le livre mais c'est parce que j'adore quand c'est très développé avec pleins de détails ce qui n'est pas autant possible avec le format d'un film.
Stardust is my go-to example. I like the Neil Gaiman book. I LOVE the movie. It really expands and deepens Gaiman's work and ties everything together in such a clever way. I also think the LOTR movies are better than the books, but I recognize that stance is more down to preference than anything qualitative. I find Tolkien to imagine good stories, but tell them in meandering fashion, and even a 12 hour movie saga has to streamline to the essential narratives points. So since the movie is giving me the narrative I like minus the extra fluff that I don't enjoy, I prefer the films.
Gaiman's works when he's allowed to write the scripts turn out amazing. My favorite tiny detail he put into the Stardust film was that Primas bleeds "blue" blood. Good Omens is also great. He included every album in Crowley's car turning into a Queen Greatest Hits album as a nod to those who read the book because he never explained it in the show, it just happened. I do like the ending of the Stardust book a little better but only because I tend to find that kind of dark ending a bit more satisfying and realistic instead of the happily ever after.
I thought gossip girl was mainly inspired by “the age of innocence” which is a book about upper class scheming women… I randomly read this book when I was in middle school so when I started watching gossip girl I immediately loved it. They actually make a reference to it on gossip girl with a school play…
The Devil Wears Prada is another one, I "read" a few parts of the book and i with a few more details for context from the author... it feels like a personal fantasy the author wrote to get back at the "devil" in the story. But the movie... BOI, the movie is a masterpiece, it shows the quagmire the world of high fashion, the spats of vanity and pride, and the other ruthlessness the powerful in that world have to stay in power. It helps that Meryl Stripp does a INCREDIBLE job of selling Miranda's competence and borderline sociopathym and at the same time she gives the little shades of humanity and feelings behind all that.
Published author and film director here. This only happens when the director is a fan of the source material and actually knows what should stay identical and what could be changed, and, the most important aspects of changes: the exact way on how and a strong reason why to do it. Simple as that. For example, my first short movie is an adaptation of two chapters of one of my books and everyone that watched the first version (it'll still be completed and released, on january) praise how I enhanced the way I tell backstories via flashbacks in very short length. So there's that 😁🤗!
Congratulations on getting your work published. Yes, it helps if you're a fan of the original work first, which can greatly shape how you approach the adaptation.
@@trinityolusola394 On literature, I write two book series: Asas de Sangue (Wings of Blood) and Uma História Asas de Sangue (A Wings of Blood Story) 😁. One is about a world where angels, witches and vampires get along and one vampire finds the literal reincarnation of Jesus while and werewolves, demons and fallen angels are willing to train the Antichrist for the Apocalypse... Other is an anthology series about specific events from the main book series' past, like when a nine year-old demon possessing her mom's body teams up with two vampires in a heist for an ancient magical artifact to give it back to the creator's direct descendant. Now, on cinema, I'm still starting, planning to specialize in book adaptations, and I'm already writing the screenplay for a good one 😄🤗.
@@isadorav3949 How dare you...? I have a contract of exclusivity with a publishing company and I'm gonna direct a movie series on the next years. Stop projecting your misconceptions on others, mate 😒.
Eragon was a devastating experience in theaters for myself and everyone around me. I could not shut up throughout it, I felt bad for my mom and stepdad but I was just baffled at how awfully they handled it. The feathery wings. Why?
Hearing you praise Catching Fire the movie so highly was so validating. That movie is a classic and I am proud to admit that I saw the movie in theaters seven times when I was in middle school. Retrospectively, that was crazy and a lot of money spent but that movie sure scratched that itch.
Omggg i think one of the best exemple of that is "les malheurs de sophie" with small differences between the books and the Cartoon they fixed the overly moralizing tone to make a beautifully brought story
I would definitely love to see a Hunger Games video from you. I've just watched the new film and am feeling so nostalgic for the series so hearing you discuss them in your wonderful way would be the perfect icing on the cake.
Bro I'm so glad I finally found someone who finally found someone who agrees with my my Hunger Games opinions, like the books ain't bad but I just think the movies are infinitely better.
I'd add two Gaiman adaptations to your list. Good Omens and The Sandman. Good Omens actually expanded on the story in a surprising yet not surprising way and has made me very excited to see another season of it. The Sandman is utterly faithful to the point where visually in some places it's uncanny but there are improvements that are excellent, thinking of the whole diner episode with John Dee.
the gossip girl one has always cracked me up because i read the novels but never watched the show. So when i found out chuck bass was a love interest for blaire I was so shocked because in the books he’s a gay alcoholic with a pet monkey
I'd also say The Expanse. Books were amazing, but because the authors were involved with the show, not only was the adaptation fantastic but they also were able to make some adjustments that imo really elevated a few of the characters. Well worth a watch for any sci-fi fan!
Easily the best show the Sci-Fi (or SyFy or whatever it's called these days) network produced and that includes BSG. If I were running a major studio, I would be securing Nareen Shankar, the showrunner, to spearhead my next major project.
@@valetboy21 I still hold out a little hope that it may be be continued someday.. if you’ve read the last 3 books then you know a few gap years are not a problem :)
I absolutely love the book series but I do love seeing how the authors tweaked some of the story and characters for the show, characters like Ashford and Drummer are FAR better in the show than in the book series and the authors have even admitted that
@@tannerhulse8064 Yes, show Drummer and Ashford are so damn good that I find it hard to re-read their passages in the books.. And another massive improvement was Errinwright, who had minimal appearance in the books, but was such a fantastic portrayal by Shawn Doyle!
My list of "the movie was better" books: - Legally Blonde - How To Train Your Dragon (just the first one - the movies got weaker, the books got better as the series went on) - Rise of the Guardians/Guardians of Childhood - Meet the Robinson - The Devil Wears Prada
A really good example of a book to film adaption surpassing its source material is Austenland. The book was cute but the characters felt very one-dimensional and were difficult to root for. You kinda didn’t care what happened. But the in the film they injected so much charm and humour and changed a few traits of the main characters that made them so loveable and enjoyable to watch
God I miss Austenland. It was on netflix, and then it went to Amazon Prime and now it's nowhere accessible my country. The movie is very charming and fun to watch, I love it to bits.
