[Blade_Rain]

Of a movie or video game, would you rather the adaptation follow the storyline and plot of the original, or alternate completely, as we see in most video game adaptations?

I'm asking because recently I finished [PROTOTYPE] (very aggravating but intensely fun game), and was thinking about how great a movie adaptation of the game would be. Of course, not with cheap special effects or anything (follow 300's example of fantastic effects). I was like, "Should the movie be exactly like the game, or should it maybe come up with something different?"

What are your thoughts? What movies or games would you like to see adapted in a not-cheap manner?

This post has been edited by Blade_Rain: 26 June 2009 - 06:40 PM

[BlindMessiah]

An adaption requires some changes as times change, but should stick to the basic underlying story and events, so I voted for a mix of both.

[ArgenVert]

In some cases, I prefer straight adaptations while in other cases I enjoy a bit of deviation.

For instance, I've love the last two Bond movies because they have the same tone and realism that the novels had. I also like Christopher Nolan's Batman movies because they deviate from the comics by being as realistic as possible and not featuring goofy bad guys and hokey super heroes.

[Dark entity]

I prefer adaptations generally to stick to the storyline, granted change can be a good thing but sometimes the makers can go a little bit overboard with it.
A good example of that would be the live action dragonball movie. They tweaked the storyline way too much that it just left me wanting to rub shards of glass in salt and force them into my eyeballs.

This post has been edited by Dark entity: 27 June 2009 - 08:41 PM

[Blade_Rain]

Good God Jesus, why did you have to bring up that abomination of a movie? Some of my friends were actually planning on dragging me to the movies to see it, and thought it could actually turn out good. Nooooooo. Certainly not.

The thing I like the least is when a movie is predictable... Or a game... Like Left 4 Dead...

[Moon Minion]

I say the movie should stick to the original storyline, however, sometimes the story has to be tweaked a little, bit's chopped out to fit a time.
Let's face it, if a movie kept every detail of the book in it, it would be hours and hours long, and quite boring in parts I imagine.
A lot of the movie book adaptions I've seen just don't seem to be able to find that balance, cutting scenes out while keeping the story intact and bringing the body of it to life!
Sometimes they get chopped up and mixed to much, the dish comes out bland. Oh and I really, really hate when they poorly adapt the main characters, give them a different appearance, personality etc...

[Funky Poacher]

STICK TO THE FRIGGIN' ORIGINAL MATERIAL!

It's why I loved Watchmen, and HATED LOTR. Gah, I'd spit in Peter Jackson's face if I ever met him...

[Marby]

I think that any deviation from the original should only exist to cut out bits that are not necessary to tell the story and save time. I don't like to read a book and then go see an entirely different movie. Alternate endings tick me off, as do additional scenes or dialogue that were never in the original book. So, I voted that it should stick to the original, because it should do so as much as is possible.

I agree with Moon Minion too, in that casting should be as true to the book as possible. When I read a book, I am immersed in it and have a vivid picture, based on what's in the book, of each character. So if character X is fat and blonde, I don't want to see a rail think redhead playing them.

This post has been edited by Marby: 02 July 2009 - 08:27 AM

[Juupy froot]

I think people should expect changes when watching an adaptation. You can't expect everything to be the same when it can't.
But adaptations should at least resemble the original material. I'm looking at you...uh, something.

[Drego]

I said a mix of both. I think whatever creative liberties a writer/director wants to take are fine, as long as they don't change the themes or message of the original work.

A perfect example of this is I Am Legend. I loved that movie, as a movie... but as an adaptation, it was not a success. It changed the ending of the book completely - which is actually not the problem - the problem is that, by doing so, they changed the meaning of the book entirely. Even the title had no meaning because of the message that was lost in the adaptation. Aside from that, everything was perfect, the story, the acting, etc.. It's a real shame, because I think the movie would have been much better off as an original story rather than a remake.

[village_idiot]

I would say keep some origional material but add some spice. Why? If you alreadt read the book, you know the beginning, middle, and end anyway. Why not add a little extra to keep you interested?

[Funky Poacher]

villageidiot3o on Jul 10 2009, 11:42 PM, said:

I would say keep some origional material but add some spice. Why? If you alreadt read the book, you know the beginning, middle, and end anyway. Why not add a little extra to keep you interested?

Really? "Keep you interested"? If you loved an original peice, why would you need something to keep you interested? And if you need something to keep you interested, clearly the original work was crap, so who would care about the movie?

[Splodgenessabounds]

Funky Poacher on Jul 11 2009, 03:06 AM, said:

Really? "Keep you interested"? If you loved an original peice, why would you need something to keep you interested? And if you need something to keep you interested, clearly the original work was crap, so who would care about the movie?

Exactly, I've read Douglas Adams' The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy so many times I could recite it from memory, but I still love reading it.

Worst book to film adaptation of all time.

This post has been edited by Splodgenessabounds: 11 July 2009 - 03:03 AM

[Bunny Munro]

I don't mind deviation as long it doesn't change the meaning or tone of the piece unless it's a holy grail type of movie that is perfect, in which case it should not be touched.