Most faithful adaptations

[Zontar]

Since there's been recent talks about the likely abomination that will be Sony's Robotech [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/140647-Fast-Furious-7-Director-in-Talks-to-Direct-Robotech], I've been thinking, what are some GOOD, honest adaptations of works between mediums?

For me a great one is the TinTin animated series from the early 90s. The series featured 21 of the graphic novels adapted into half hour cartoon episodes, with all but 3 of them being two parters. The series was an almost brutally honest adaptation of the work that had the art style of the comics matched perfect, to the point where one could make the mistake that the comics where an adaptation of the series instead of the inverse being the case.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I think films like 300 and Sin City were faithful to the graphic novel? I know there were some cuts in Sin City but they appear in the dvd/ blu ray.

Also Batman Year One (the animated film) was 100% accurate (read the graphic novel) while The Dark Knight Return part 1 and 2 and Allstar Superman were mosly faithful (they cut out the internal narrative and those doll talking in Dark Knight return while they didn't animated all of the trials in Superman).

 

[JoJo]

I think the first Hunger Games movie is a very close adaptation, minus the lack of Katniss' internal voice obviously, I watched it just after reading the book and even a lot of the dialogue is exactly the same as the book, word for word.

 

[R.K. Meades]

There's a faitful adaptation, and then there's Dune [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087182/].

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange is (for the most part) pretty faithful to the source material, bar the ending. The novel goes on for a bit longer than the movie does and changes the overall message of the story to a somewhat more upbeat one.

I hear No Country For Old Men is an excellent adaptation of the source novel, but I have yet to read it.

 

[ClockworkAngel]

I felt that Gankutsuou was a pretty faithful adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo (or, my favorite book, ever). The show took a great many liberties with the setting and the characters, but it was enjoyable to watch and each episode was sprinkled with a lot of little details from the book. It felt like the people that made it were fond of the source material, even though they did change quite a lot. It's the only adaptation of the book that I've enjoyed. All of the movies based off The Count of Monte Cristo have been .. just terrible. Awful.

 

[Fox12]

Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange is (for the most part) pretty faithful to the source material, bar the ending. The novel goes on for a bit longer than the movie does and changes the overall message of the story to a somewhat more upbeat one.

Really? The author hated the film so much he renounced his own book after seeing it.

In any case, the ending is quite important. Alex is a disgusting creature in both, but I do feel he goes through an arc in the book. In the film he's pretty one note, which I found rather disappointing.

Also, I'm sorry, but what on earth was the point of the nurse having sex in the hospital at the end?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange is (for the most part) pretty faithful to the source material, bar the ending. The novel goes on for a bit longer than the movie does and changes the overall message of the story to a somewhat more upbeat one.

Really? The author hated the film so much he renounced his own book after seeing it.

Kubrick had that effect on authors. King did the same thing. Hasford did the same thing. Screw 'em.

 

[Fox12]

Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange is (for the most part) pretty faithful to the source material, bar the ending. The novel goes on for a bit longer than the movie does and changes the overall message of the story to a somewhat more upbeat one.

Really? The author hated the film so much he renounced his own book after seeing it.

Kubrick had that effect on authors. King did the same thing. Hasford did the same thing. Screw 'em.

Why? What's wrong with criticizing a director, if you feel they failed to stay true to the themes of your work? Especially if they simplified your comparatively complex characters and themes? I liked some of Kubrick's more original work, like Space Odyssey, but I think the authors in question had legitimate criticism.

Edit: Well, for King and Burgess, anyway. I haven't read anything by Hasford.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I think the The Fellowship of the Ring movie is extremely faithful to the book. The extended edition even more so. Is it perfect? No, but parts of The Fellowship are a slog to read, and filming them would have been a slog to watch. However, I think it does a great job of capturing the magic of the book, the feel of the characters, and really making the audience believe that they are in Middle-earth.
The other two movies kind of stray from the path and thus aren't as good, but still a nice adaptation.

 

[Zontar]

I liked some of Kubrick's more original work, like Space Odyssey, but I think the authors in question had legitimate criticism.

Uh, you do realize that Space Odyssey was an adaptation of a novel, right?

 

[Fox12]

I liked some of Kubrick's more original work, like Space Odyssey, but I think the authors in question had legitimate criticism.

Uh, you do realize that Space Odyssey was an adaptation of a novel, right?

No, they were written in tandem, and if memory serves there was information that Kubrick had that Clarke was not privy to (though I can't verify this). Though the film was partially influenced by Clarke's other work, the sentinel, the novelization was released after the film. They worked together on the screen play.

Edit: I haven't read the book, but I've been told the film was better. It sounds like it was Kubrick's baby, though, so that makes sense.

 

[JemothSkarii]

Spice and Wolf was actually a pretty solid adaptation of the 5 books that they did. They even mentioned some other books for a split second in a couple of episodes. the OVA of one of the shorter pieces was spot on as well.

More recently the Unlimited Blade Works anime has been relatively close, even adding in some parts to tie it in to Fate/Zero. Some use of the OST of the VN would've been nice though.

 

[FPLOON]

Uh... Does Clanned and/or School Days count?

Other than that, does A Series of Unfortunate Events count?

 

[Casual Shinji]

Why? What's wrong with criticizing a director, if you feel they failed to stay true to the themes of your work? Especially if they simplified your comparatively complex characters and themes? I liked some of Kubrick's more original work, like Space Odyssey, but I think the authors in question had legitimate criticism.

To be honest though, what authors (novelists) don't criticize movies adapted from their work? It goes with the territory.

 

[CrystalShadow]

The first harry potter film is one of the most faithful adaptations I've seen in a long time...
Aside from being edited for length relative to the book, what it does depict is almost word for word, and scene for scene what's in the book.

The later ones get far messier though.

 

[Evonisia]

Baz Luhrmann's Romeo And Juliet is the most accurate adaptation of Shakespeare's work. Ever.

No, seriously. It really, truly, honestly is. It has the themes, the ideas, the comedy, the presentation, the lines, all down-pat. It is quite possibly the most faithful version of Shakespeare's original play ever, which is impressive. Considering Shakespeare made 'Yo Mamma' jokes, it's pretty understandable.

It really is. I find it to be the most tolerable film adaptation of that awful, awful story.

The first harry potter film is one of the most faithful adaptations I've seen in a long time...
Aside from being edited for length relative to the book, what it does depict is almost word for word, and scene for scene what's in the book.

The later ones get far messier though.

Chamber of Secrets, IIRC, is also quite faithful on a comparable level. It's only with Prisoner of Azkaban that they began moving away from the books, sometimes for the better (Prisoner of Azkaban), sometimes for the worse (Deathly Hallows).

 

[Evonisia]

Snip/

This theory serves well to explain why Paris gets so thoroughly dicked over in (the equivalent of) Act Five compared to his original incarnation.

 

[Kyrian007]

Baz Luhrmann's Romeo And Juliet is the most accurate adaptation of Shakespeare's work. Ever.

No, seriously. It really, truly, honestly is. It has the themes, the ideas, the comedy, the presentation, the lines, all down-pat. It is quite possibly the most faithful version of Shakespeare's original play ever, which is impressive. Considering Shakespeare made 'Yo Mamma' jokes, it's pretty understandable.

It really is. I find it to be the most tolerable film adaptation of that awful, awful story.

I think it's cause it's one of the few adaptations that don't romanticize it - like, the original Shakespeare play was highly critical and parodying the 'true love regardless', and worked to instill an idea that 'no, this is kinda fucked up' within the audience (while also poking fun at the nobility, as Shakespeare often did). Luhrmann's version, thanks to sticking so closely to the original, carries that same 'Whoa, no, not right' feeling with the conclusion - you're not left with a sense of 'Awww, how romantic, they truly loved each other', you're left with 'Wow, 6 people died in 3 days, fucking teenagers'.

Yeah, I always heard I lot of "Pffshhh, Guns called by swords names... that's stupid." But one of the great things about MANY of Shakespeare's works is exactly how timeless the stories can be. I've seen a stage play version of 12th Night with a sci/fi backdrop... and that worked well. But I always thought Luhrmann got a lot of things very right. "Twoo Luv" as a mental disorder as opposed to sane, rational behavior. Exactly.

I was also super impressed with the casting of and acting by Harold Perrineau as Mercutio. As far as I'm concerned he's one of the best, and that's a part that Laurence Olivier played on stage.

That's the ONLY way I like a "faithful adaption." Taken in some new direction. Making a point by telling the same story against a different backdrop. The cookie-cutter, samey-samey, adaption that the average fanboy seems to want... I just find boring. I've watched a couple of episodes of A Game of Thrones. Bored, Bored, Bored, Bored, Nope, can't take it anymore. I've heard that this season they are going off the rails finally. It may start to be worth watching. If I finally hear the scream and cry from the fanboy "that wasn't the way it happens in the books, whhhhaaaaggghhhhh" then maybe I'll tune in. Otherwise I'll just have to wait until it passes the books in the story. Give me where "Legend of the Seeker" or Sci-Fi channel's "The Dresden Files" were going instead. They were far more interesting adaptations than AGoT. But they weren't as interesting to the non-reader (as they shouldn't be, ASoIaF is a fantastic series) and because the fanboy screams and cries if a cast member has different colored HAIR than their character should... they were canceled. Fucking crybaby fanboys...

 

[madwarper]

I think the The Fellowship of the Ring movie is extremely faithful to the book.

Yeah... I have the feeling that we have vastly different definitions on what "extremely faithful" means.

Just going off memory... When, why and how Frodo left the Bag End. Their trip through the Great Forest and the Barrow Downs. Glorfindel. Narsil being reforged into Anduril. The gifts given by Celeborn and Galadriel.