They got the character wrong....*whine*

[Shoggoth2588]

After having read a few Batman comics (and Justice League and, other random DC mash-ups) I'm not as annoyed by Batman and Robin changing up their outfits. This mostly applies to the four movies from 89 - 97...I think 97...The Nolan Batman costume(s?) armor look pretty consistent to me.

Speaking of Batman though and, instead complaining about book-to-book personalities; I'm going to have to agree with Linkara about All-Star Batman not actually being the real Batman. In All-Star Batman #1 and 2, Batman...

*smacks Dick Grayson
*says 'Cool'

ah screw it; All Star Batman has this for those of you who don't know:

 

[OtherSideofSky]

I'm going to have to go with a comic book which has never been released in English, adapting the stories of an author whose work is also mostly only available in Japanese. Sorry about that.

I was browsing through a local bookstore recently and found a comic book called purporting to be an anthology adapting the various stories of Edogawa Rampo, the father of Japanese mystery fiction. Now, I'm a big Edogawa Rampo fan. I own his complete works (30 volumes and more than 20,000 pages) and I'm even writing my thesis on his work. So, naturally, I decided to pick this comic book up and take a look (Japanese comics are always shrink-wrapped in stores, so I had to by the thing before I knew what it was like).

Now, Edogawa Rampo's most famous character is his "great detective" Kogorou Akechi (think of him as Japan's Sherlock Holmes). The comic adaptation is actually fairly faithful to the plots of Rampo's stories (although it adds a lot of sex), but the character of Kogorou Akechi couldn't be more wrong if they tried. The books describe him as a thin man with tousled hair, not conventionally handsome, but with an intelligent face and a certain charm about him. In this comic he is drawn with incredibly pale skin, sharp, effeminate features and what appears to be a significant quantity of black lipstick and mascara. His hair is disheveled, but its the kind of disheveled you pay three hundred bucks for at a fancy salon.

The Akechi in the books always speaks politely and humbly, although often with some bite to his remarks. The comic changes the sentence endings and personal pronouns he uses to sound more conventionally rough and masculine and has him constantly declaring himself "the greatest detective of the age".

They comic book version is also into BDSM. Akechi was never as asexual as Holmes (he even got married and adopted a child sidekick later on. His boy assistant was a precocious orphan with acrobatic abilities, so he beat Batman to the punch on that one), but when Rampo described him as "a man of strange passions", he was referring to Akechi's interest in Mathematics.

The differences between the original and the adaptation are so many and glaring that it almost comes off as a joke.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

No mention of the Constantine/Hellblazer fiasco yet? For shame Escapists.

Turning a dark comic about a blonde, English antihero who dicks about with demons just for the Hell of it (pun intended) and survives by manipulating everyone around him, usually getting them killed in the process.

In the movie he was played by Keanu bloody Reeves, as a sarcastic, gun toting, American Catholic exorcist with dark hair, who is on a religious quest for repentance and with 100% extra Shia LaBeouf.

Spoiler: The comic

Spoiler: The movie

 

[The Funslinger]

The Seeker, at least that's what I think it was called.

My parents told me how good the series was, and they hadn't watched the books.

I watched, I think, about 10 minutes of the pilot episode and after getting every single character interaction wrong, to the point of negating a crucial part of Richard's character in the first 10 minutes.

/sigh

The Sword of Truth books adapted into the Legend of the Seeker?

I thought Zedd's actor was good, but that was it. Did you watch to the end of the first series? It was covering the plot of the FIRST book, but they introduced Jensen in that series, and there was crazy TIME TRAVEL with the boxes of Ordon reduced to a Deus Ex Machina with a "One Ring" style evil complex.

Fuck that shit.

Legend of the Seeker. I started by watching the first episode of the TV series. Was alright, nothing really jumped out as weird, and nothing special either. Then I learnt it was based on a series of books called the Sword of Truth. Since I love to read, I started doing just that. They could not have gotten the series more wrong if they tried. The TV series was a mockery of the books.

RAGGLE FRAGGLE! D:<

 

[KefkaCultist]

I think I can speak for any of the fans of the book when I say everyone in Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief.

Oh god yes. I really like that book series, but it seems the movie director read a couple lines from the book and then threw it in a garbage bin.

 

[Nikolaz72]

I think the problem is that it's inherently harder to give the breadth of characterization and introspection in a tv series. But that doesn't mean that it's bad. I have read both the Song of Ice and Fire books and watched the show. I feel a lot of their changes have been pragmatic and necessary (some admittedly quite weird).

Take Tywin Lannister I feel he's more empathetic in the TV show and more impressive because they changed his physical appearance. The shaved everywhere but gold sideburns was ridiculous, the over the top ornate armour, I couldn't take him seriously even though hes meant to be a very severe character. But Tywin Lannister in the show is menacing but at the same time shows a kindly side to say Arya.

Stannis's upgrade to a BAMF in "Blackwater" was pretty cool too.

One thing I guess I was sort of annoyed by was the decision to make everyone 3-5 years older. It changes the story at certain points a -lot-. An example without giving any spoilers. I guess some might be able to guess it.

Teenager fights skilled veteran.

Adult fights skilled veteran.

Those five-six extra years they added made it a bit less dramatic imo.

I guess there are lots of reasons for making the characters this much older, the most obvious being (So we can show it to an American audience)/(So we can find better actors)

I mean pretty much all the younger characters were 'teenagers' in the book. And in the readers eyes thats pretty much still children. So if we have to go to the extremes they made children into adults between book and series, and thats just a pretty big change. They still managed to keep the characters just about the exact same I mean, they might have been 13-15 but they 'did' act a lot older. So both as a transition and standing alone the series is nothing short of brilliant, as you said some changes are even for the better.

I consider the first book a lot like a comming-of-age story for a lot of the characters, the series. If anything, not so much.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

Dragon Ball Evolution.

R-really... fans of DB know what I'm on about.

 

[SuperSamio64]

Does this work the other way as well? Because judging from 'The Coming of the Terraphiles', Michael Moorcock does not understand the character of The Doctor.

 

[pilouuuu]

I'm talking on a movie trilogy here based in another movie trilogy. Star Wars! Anakin Skywalker. He was never supposed to be a whiny emo *****. He should have been a really good guy, but ambitious so he could be corrupted, but a good, nice, brave jedi. In the prequels you just hate him right away for all the wrong reasons.

And I simply don't get the point of showing him as a stupid kid in the first movie. I should simply pretend this movie doesn't exist.

One of the best characters ever simply ruined for me.

Captcha: sour grapes

 

[The Funslinger]

Well, it's not a book, but I'm gonna nominate Aang of "The Last Airbender" fame anyway. In the TV show, he's a happy little kid, and his name rhymes with "bang". In the movie, he's a completely emotionless stick of wood, and his name rhymes with "gong".

And don't think it's just bad acting. They wrote him as some kind of warrior monk, when he's nothing like that in the show. And in case you missed it, THEY GOT HIS NAME WRONG. I'm sorry, I meant they got his name "wrang".

And Fire Benders can't create their own fire unless they're a fucking master or something. I love how M. Knight Shamylamylamylamylamylan has to shoehorn a "twist" into these things like he does with movies he's actually written from scratch. *Gasp*, Sozin's comet will give the fire benders power, guys!

No shit. And he had to go and change it instead of it making them more powerful, it just lets them create their own fire. And why was the Fire Nation Indian when characters like Zuko were the palest people in the actual damn show?

Probably so he could give himself a cameo like he always bloody does... Michael Bay and Shamylando Calrissian should form a crime fighting duo that goes around kicking the shit out of people's favorite cartoon franchises.

 

[Jimmy T. Malice]

Katniss in The Hunger Games movie comes across as very unsympathetic. She's meant to be 'sullen and hostile' in the books, but not seeing everything from her viewpoint makes her unlikable.

 

[shrekfan246]

I think the changes that messed with my head the most where some of the more extreme rewrites. The films aren't any worse for it, but it does get a little confusing when you put them both side by side.

For instance, the elf that takes frodo to rivendell when he was poisoned was a completely different character, who they replaced with Arwen, although all the lines she says are identical to the one spoken by the male elf in the book.

(My memory isn't doing me any favours right now, so excuse the way I describe some of this.)

Also... The battle of helms deep from the films bears little resemblance to what was written in the books...

(There's a few other things but they are mostly omissions, like the scouring of the shire, and Tom Bombadil)

Still, it's not bad, just, confusing. XD

Yeah, giving Arwen a much larger part in the movies was something that really bugged my brother and father. I need to actually go back and read the books again 'cause it's been a few years, but on a similar note to the omission of Tom Bombadil, one thing that always bugged me about the Harry Potter films is that they completely erased Peeves the Poltergeist from existence. Saddening, because he was such an amusing extra.

 

[Something Amyss]

...and then Michael Gambon took to the role. Whilst occasionally possessing some of the traits of the Dumbeldore I had grown to love in the books, he would at times crush my fanboy dreams. Random outburts: "Did you put your name in the goblet of fire!?!?" "Don't you all have homework to do!?!"

To be fair, I would pin it down to direction. Goblet of Fire was so amazingly melodramatic and ham-handed it was like their only stage direction was "find some scenery and CHEW!" It wasn't just dumbledore, but 80% of the characters.

On the other hand, I didn't get the "Dumbledore" vibe from either actor.

 

[TheMann]

Jurassic Park the Movie: John Hammond is a nice, old Santa Claus-esque man.

Jurassic Park the Book: John Hammond is an absolute money grubbing bastard. Gets eaten by dinosaurs.

Not to mention the fact that in the book, Muldoon, the badass Australian hunter guy, survives. If there was one guy who you'd think would have the skill set to survive in that situation it would be him. In the movie he gets taken out like a punk.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Sorry to be really really girly for a second, but this one bugs me more than any other character in history: Mr. Darcy.

In the films he's this brooding, sulky but ultimately ridiculously romantic character. Hence, especially since Colin Firth's portrayal, he's seen as the 'perfect man'.

But in the book he's just nothing. Absolutely nothing. All his dialogue is given to us second hand. All his descriptions are received from a character, not the narrator, and he never has this amazing moment of clarity at the end where he professes his undying love. That's the whole point of the book - that our idea of this man is formed solely through other people's prejudices. In an adaptation which was trying to stay faithful to the book you just wouldn't cast him, except for a figure in the distance scowling every now and again.

On this note, most characters in Wuthering Heights depictions. It's not supposed to be a big, fairy-tale romance. It's an incredibly dark story, one in which Catherine's an uber-narcissist and Heathcliff is incredibly possessive and destructive.

It's not supposed to be a whimsical, lovey-dovey story.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I personally felt Richard Gambon played Dumbledore perfectly fine. But, admittedly, I haven?t read and seen the books and films respectively in the while, to the point that I?d forgotten Gambon wasn?t always Dumbledore. Anyway?

Everyone in Dragon Ball Evolution, especially Son Gokuu, whose character had been absolutely mangled by Justin Chatwin and his god-awful acting. They turned him from a loveable and childlike hick into a well-spoken and socially awkward high schooler who wanted to get his own back on the bullies. Then they half-assedly shoved in a random scene of him eating a chicken drumstick to appease the easily appeased fans who were watching a film that was Dragon Ball in name only.

And Michael Keaten as Batman. ?Nuff said. In contrast, Jack Nicholson was great as the Joker, albeit helped by the fact that the film laboured much more over him than the titular character. They should?ve just named it ?The Joker - featuring Batman?.

Matthew Goode as Adrian Veidt in Watchmen. He just didn?t give off the same effortlessly faux-polite and condescending vibe of self-importance portrayed in the graphic novel.

Snape wasn't portrayed as quite the same character as he was in the books, but by the time Order of the Phoenix (The Book) was released, Snape was Alan Rickman and everybody including me loved it.

Mad-Eye Moody also had a really shitty portrayal, he was supposed to be the darkest and most gritty member of the good side, not some googly eyed clown.

Also Hermione was not a sex symbol, she shouldn't have been portrayed as such.

Are you crazy? Alan Rickman was perfect as Snape; he was pretty much exactly how I?d imagined him when I read the books. But I guess everyone has different interpretations of fictional characters. Mad-Eye Moody...I'm not as familar with his character, but I don't think he was portrayed as a "googly-eyed clown". Just a bit more?wild, for lack of a better word.

And yeah, I don't recall Hermione being described as that attractive in the books. I'd always found Watson's acting bad as well, like she kept on forgetting how to breathe or something. But she only really got portrayed as a sex symbol around the fourth book (the Yule Ball).

 

[Coldster]

Inkheart. Oh god, one of my childhood favourites ruined. I remember reading on the back of the book that they were planning to make a movie, and I was ecstatic. Then, several years later, I fianlly saw that a movie was out. Not just some indie movie either, it had pretty good funding behind it too. After watching it, man, its like they got nothing right. It was almost the exact opposite to how I imagined it.

I also want to say that I read the LOTR books (well, the first two) before seeing the Peter Jackson films, and I HATED them. I mean it, I absolutely couldn't stand the first two books. They bored me to sleep. However, I find the movies to be among my all time favourites. Funny how that worked out. I'm glad it did though.

 

[Greni]

Not my cup of tea, but I can't resist.

V in V for Vendetta.

James McTeigue (director) was going through the material he had to work with, pondering how he could portray this graphic novel by staying true to the original without alienating casual movie goers. He went to the oldest trick in the book: In this world of anti-villains and anti-heroes he created a hero to fight a villain. A man with good intentions but desperate enough to go to extremes to achieve his goals. Ultimately good, yes?

Wrong. In the graphic novel V was downright cruel, manipulative and at times incredibly hypocritical (taking over the surveillance network and using it to his own end). He is deliberately morally ambiguous for the exact same reason that any other political ideology cannot be inherently either good or bad, but what you do with it.

Also the entire political debate of the graphic novel is 'out of date' so to say, and the attempt to 'refresh it' was poorly executed. Or as Alan Moore put it:

I've read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they're doing with it, and I'm not going to be going to see it. When I wrote "V," politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We'd had Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years, we'd had anti-Thatcher riots, we'd got the National Front and the right wing making serious advances. "V for Vendetta" was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy.

Those words, "fascism" and "anarchy," occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you?ve got a sinister group of right-wing figures ? not fascists, but you know that they?re bad guys?and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives ? which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?

Read more: http://www.mtv.com/shared/movies/interviews/m/moore_alan_060315/

Captcha: 'true life' - fitting.

 

[Agent Larkin]

The Dresden Files.

They got Harry dead on but just about everyone else was really really really bad.