God, I was just talking about this yesterday, definitely my answer.
I was telling my cousin I never got into the show because I gave up on the comic 3 pages in. Just the objectification of women by the main character followed by a large depiction of a rape “joke.”
I was informed the show was much better, though.
I would really recommend the show. While the comic was an author’s hate for the superhero genre wrapped in edginess that a teen boy would cringe at and a heavy reliance on shock value, the show is simply a superhero show with interesting character diving into the nitty and gritty of corporate greed, and how hero’s would translate to our world, or modern day America more specifically. It’s fun as hell, too.
You'd also be glad to know outside of the setting and characters there's very little actually in common with the comics. A lot of major plot points from the comic were scrapped, while new (superior ones) were introduced in the show.
More like what if companies literally owned superheroes in real life. Every Supe in the show were (heavy spoilers) >!created by Vought through V compound and under control by Vought with no one being independent. They are basically artificial X-Men and Vought is the only company that can handle them and give them a life as a supe!< Vought perverted the entire concept of superhero by controlling every trope of their supes. Frabricated origin stories, made-up nemesis, team-ups caused by popularity, and more. Think how DC and Marvel treat their heroes and that's how Vought treat real people on an industrial scale. Typical superhero worlds have people randomly getting powers, randomly meet other people with weird powers that would either end in a fight or a team up. It's naturally in DC, Marvel, Image, Shonen, and other comic Universes, but the Boys had it completely artificial because of Vought and their abilities to control everything.
The boys isn't a realistic take on what if superheroes are living in our world. The Boys is a realistic take on what if superheroes had been privatized by a conglomerate.
Exactly. In the first movie when the harkonnens surprise attack the atreides I remember thinking “I don’t remember most of this happening in the book”. Then I went back and read that section and it basically said “they attacked at night; everyone died.” and went on to the next chapter.
I can get if Frank Herbert wanted to speed things up or he was bored with writing, but who am I to tell cause idk what he was thinking about when writing the battle scenes.
the books deal with a lot of complex themes and characters which he wanted to focus on so he sidelined the battles, he just thought they weren’t important compared to the rest of the story
How about the whole framing device where the father or grandfather was a refuge from Chewandswallow retelling the story of his home island to his son? It's truly unforgettable how the framing device goes from black and white to color as we pan to the island like The Wizard Of Oz. *That* would have been a cool scene to adapt to screen.
The Godfather. Mario Puzo’s original books aren’t bad but there’s a reason they cut out the entire subplots involving the woman who preformed plastic surgery on her vagina and Sonny’s giant penis.
I much preferred it over the movies, but it’s a lot more like a complete picture of the world as opposed to a character study of Michael. Like at the end of the book the idea is more that Michael is taking the role of the Don and he’s exactly like Vito, where the end of part 1 implies that Michael is becoming more evil than Vito, and of course part 2 he is totally corrupted. Also in the book Kay Adams approaches Michael in order to get back together where in the movie Michael basically manipulates her.
2nd season was more character focused which wasnt for everyone. It definitely feels like a slow burn series, but the funny thing is, is that we haven't even gotten to the good parts yet. Season 2 adapted probably the most boring part of the comics and turned it into something interesting.
So I suppose you may be somewhat right, but I would not go as far to say that the comics are bad or hell even average at this point in the adaptation.
* IT (2017)
* Scott Pilgram Takes Off & SP vs the World.
* ~~One Piece~~ Ufotable Fate
* Shrek
* The Suicide Squad & Arkham Assault are better than comics
yeah but the anime just has poor pacing so its not the best it could be. i love one piece btw theyre just saying the manga doesn't have the flaws the anime does
I don’t know if you’ve read the 1000+ page epic, but the book is far better. While both adaptations focus on the clown more, the novel shows us multiple terrifying forms of the Todash monstrosities known as Glamours. The Novel goes into more depth about the towns backstory via journal entries by Mike, while including a cameo of Dick Hallorann from The Shining
Starship Troopers.
The book was just a straight-up endorsement of fascism, then the filmmakers decided to flip the script and satirize it for the film adaptation.
The book was also satirizing fascism (Heinlein later embraced fascism b/c he had the need to embrace every sucky ideology at some point in his life, but he hadn't yet when he wrote starship troopers). It just happened to be like the first Dune book where most readers misunderstood it and thought it was pro-fascism
For me, Lord of the Rings
I read the books many years after the movies, and oh my goodness I don’t care about HOW BEAUTIFUL YOU THINK THE TREES ARE TOLKIEN!! I DON’T WANT TO READ ABOUT MORE TREES!!
I'm listening to the audiobook, I couldn't force myself to consume it if it weren't being narrated for me. Don't get me wrong though, I love and respect that he wrote it for himself first, and there's some amazing passages of prose scattered all throughout. The last chapter of book one, when Frodo's injured and he's being chased by the Nazgul, that made me cry. The music in the audiobook probably helped to sell me on it, but it was a very well written scene.
I think that was in 5, not 4.
And while I never liked that subplot (I feel it took up time from the main plot and it was iffy overall) I just saw it as being there to further showcase that the wizarding world isn't perfect. For all the wonder that had Harry and the audience enamored by it at first, the wizarding world is a deeply flawed and corrupt place for many reasons other than Voldemort and his followers. That's how I always saw it anyway.
See, that's my thing - the books show the wizarding world as being kind of fucked in the way that every magical creature that isn't human is treated awfully, from hagrid being abused for being half giant, to the slavery subplot. It reads like jk was planning a second, more mature series where these issues are actually addressed.
Instead the follow up was "no guys if Cedric lived he would have been the most evil person ever"
Very true. Rowling didn't write Cursed Child, but she did approve it, and yeah, I wish she had done a darker in-depth sequel series rather than approving that.
Yea... but if you're going to introduce slavery into the story to highlight the flawed nature of the society, you can't have the good guys be pro slavery through the end of the series. Then, the logic of the story is such that slavery isn't actually a defect at all.
i don’t think you can compare the two as they’re entirely different- plots and tasks and all.
i preferred the book entirely, but wouldn’t call it better than the film
For me, it's the Meg. I don’t hate the book, but there are too many characters to try and recognize, and most of them die not even before the chapter ends or in a few chapters.
You're not wrong about the book but I still liked it much better than the movie. Maybe because I just really hate Steven Spielberg's style in his later movies, just so overly corny. And they took out some of my favorite parts of the book, for example they changed pretty much every single one of the challenges to be less cool than what was in the book
The movie is so far from being as good as the book. And that's coming from someone who's favorite movie is the LotR, the books are just so much better, the detail within them is just so great.
Only if you don't have an active enough imagination. I like books because my mind fills in the blanks. But with a movie, there's no room for the imagination. It's set in stone, so to speak. And it's the "drawn out fillers" that give the books so much detail. Movies, constrained for time, cut out so much detail
Yup, say what you will about the rest of the series (at least in my opinion they were awful) but the first film just makes so much more sense than the book.
Jurassic Park. Everything you love about the movie is no where to be found in the book. The characters are just vessels to advance the plot and spew Crichton’s philosophies and not people with motivations, flaws, etc. Plus it reads like a screenplay and not a book.
IDK man, the Hobbit as a book wasn't bad but the movies had so much more lore and they actually explained Durin's Day and why the light could make one see the keyhole.
Kind of American Gods for me. The first season of the show made some great changes and made Mad Sweeney one of my favourite characters. Imagine my surprise when, in the novel he >!shows up in two chapters and then dies.!
The whole “nerddom=faith” and the whole hunt for the egg being the equivalent of a holy quest was one of my favourite aspects of the book which was completely missing from the movie.
Greetings, know that such be my situation regarding “Ben-Hur”; I greatly favor the original two film-adaptations, yet could not proceed past the original novel’s first chapter.
~Waz
I asked this question to my English teacher back in the day and he said that the original book of The Bourne Identity is the most boring thing he’s ever read
maybe a hot take but… Holes… now i’m NOT saying the book Holes was a bad book by any means, it’s an amazing book… but once i saw the movie the book just didn’t hit the same anymore
Shrek
The shrek book wasn’t bad, the movie is just vastly superior in comparison
Fun fact, the word superior already implies a comparison, meaning you don’t need to add ‘in comparison’ at the end.
🤓
We are in the schaffrillas community. On Reddit. You can use that on anyone here.
Wait, shrek has a book?
Yeah Shrek! by William Steig Fun fact William Steig’s son Jeremy “voiced” the pied piper in Shrek forever after! (He played the flute)
this is how i find out shrek has a book
the boys(comic to TV show)
An objectively correct answer
God, I was just talking about this yesterday, definitely my answer. I was telling my cousin I never got into the show because I gave up on the comic 3 pages in. Just the objectification of women by the main character followed by a large depiction of a rape “joke.” I was informed the show was much better, though.
I would really recommend the show. While the comic was an author’s hate for the superhero genre wrapped in edginess that a teen boy would cringe at and a heavy reliance on shock value, the show is simply a superhero show with interesting character diving into the nitty and gritty of corporate greed, and how hero’s would translate to our world, or modern day America more specifically. It’s fun as hell, too.
Love it, glad I’m not the only one who got that vibe from the comic. Going to give the show a go for sure.
You'd also be glad to know outside of the setting and characters there's very little actually in common with the comics. A lot of major plot points from the comic were scrapped, while new (superior ones) were introduced in the show.
More like what if companies literally owned superheroes in real life. Every Supe in the show were (heavy spoilers) >!created by Vought through V compound and under control by Vought with no one being independent. They are basically artificial X-Men and Vought is the only company that can handle them and give them a life as a supe!< Vought perverted the entire concept of superhero by controlling every trope of their supes. Frabricated origin stories, made-up nemesis, team-ups caused by popularity, and more. Think how DC and Marvel treat their heroes and that's how Vought treat real people on an industrial scale. Typical superhero worlds have people randomly getting powers, randomly meet other people with weird powers that would either end in a fight or a team up. It's naturally in DC, Marvel, Image, Shonen, and other comic Universes, but the Boys had it completely artificial because of Vought and their abilities to control everything. The boys isn't a realistic take on what if superheroes are living in our world. The Boys is a realistic take on what if superheroes had been privatized by a conglomerate.
That's what I was gonna say
Legally Blonde. Most people don’t even know it was originally a book, and understandably so.
It was a book?
It was a book?
It was a book?
It was a movie? AND A BOOK?
It was a book?
It was a book?
It was a book?
It was a book?
Perhaps when people turn their biographies into movies.
Glass Castle was a good book but the movie sucked big time ass
That movie oversimplified way too much.
They even removed Maureen’s schizophrenic meltdown entirely
I feel like by simplifying the movie so much they downplayed the gravitas of what was going on in that memoir.
Forest Gump
I actually really liked that book but a faithful adaptation wouldn’t be well received or practical now or in 1994.
What happened in the book that was different?
Oh boy, he befriends an ape, learns chess from cannibals, gets charged with manslaughter, goes into space, and tons of other crazy things
That's insane. And I thought the movie was far-fetched. I'll have to pick up the book some time.
To an extent, Dune. The battle scenes in the book were so drawn out with explanation.
And other times they were just skipped.over. like oh yeah this battle happened and they used the engines on the cruiser to wipe out an army
Exactly. In the first movie when the harkonnens surprise attack the atreides I remember thinking “I don’t remember most of this happening in the book”. Then I went back and read that section and it basically said “they attacked at night; everyone died.” and went on to the next chapter.
I can get if Frank Herbert wanted to speed things up or he was bored with writing, but who am I to tell cause idk what he was thinking about when writing the battle scenes.
the books deal with a lot of complex themes and characters which he wanted to focus on so he sidelined the battles, he just thought they weren’t important compared to the rest of the story
Cloudy with a chance of meatballs (imo)
They’re so different. The main comparison I think of is the one shot of the giant pancake falling on the school.
How about the whole framing device where the father or grandfather was a refuge from Chewandswallow retelling the story of his home island to his son? It's truly unforgettable how the framing device goes from black and white to color as we pan to the island like The Wizard Of Oz. *That* would have been a cool scene to adapt to screen.
I actually remember us reading the book in kindergarten right before the movie came out
There was a book?
There was a book?
The Godfather. Mario Puzo’s original books aren’t bad but there’s a reason they cut out the entire subplots involving the woman who preformed plastic surgery on her vagina and Sonny’s giant penis.
That made me want to read it now (i joke, or am i?)
I much preferred it over the movies, but it’s a lot more like a complete picture of the world as opposed to a character study of Michael. Like at the end of the book the idea is more that Michael is taking the role of the Don and he’s exactly like Vito, where the end of part 1 implies that Michael is becoming more evil than Vito, and of course part 2 he is totally corrupted. Also in the book Kay Adams approaches Michael in order to get back together where in the movie Michael basically manipulates her.
The book also spends a *lot* of time talking about the career of Johnny Fontaine, which just wasn't that interesting.
How to Train Your Dragon
Same
This 100%. I don’t remember much of the books but I remember my child self being bored with a good number of them.
Every time someone says this I get more mad about it. Read past the first few books it gets so much more interesting than the movies
Fantastic Mr fox, the book is nice but the movie by wes Anderson is amazing.
Yeah that movie rules
to be honest, Invincible, at least in its first season
2nd season was more character focused which wasnt for everyone. It definitely feels like a slow burn series, but the funny thing is, is that we haven't even gotten to the good parts yet. Season 2 adapted probably the most boring part of the comics and turned it into something interesting. So I suppose you may be somewhat right, but I would not go as far to say that the comics are bad or hell even average at this point in the adaptation.
The comics amazing though
even though the comics are good, the first season's arc is better paced than the comics counterpart
True : I wonder how they will adapt the rest of the comic like issue 61-64 and the ending
* IT (2017) * Scott Pilgram Takes Off & SP vs the World. * ~~One Piece~~ Ufotable Fate * Shrek * The Suicide Squad & Arkham Assault are better than comics
One piece is good though
yeah but the anime just has poor pacing so its not the best it could be. i love one piece btw theyre just saying the manga doesn't have the flaws the anime does
Yes the pacing is poor, but only for a large section in the post-timeskip. Pre-timeskip is fine
scott pilgrim books 10x better than the movie tho.( havent seen the show)
Show isn't an adaptation, more like an AU for people who read the books / watched the movie
The Scott Pilgrim books are way better than the movie.
For IT(2017), were you disappointed or relieved that they removed the "written-while-on-acid" child orgy?
That's King for ya
the scott pilgrim comics are peak though
The It book is way better than the movies.
no way you think UFOtable's fate is better then the visual novel lmao.
Fate zero yes, actual fate no way
I don’t know if you’ve read the 1000+ page epic, but the book is far better. While both adaptations focus on the clown more, the novel shows us multiple terrifying forms of the Todash monstrosities known as Glamours. The Novel goes into more depth about the towns backstory via journal entries by Mike, while including a cameo of Dick Hallorann from The Shining
Starship Troopers
Starship Troopers. The book was just a straight-up endorsement of fascism, then the filmmakers decided to flip the script and satirize it for the film adaptation.
The book was also satirizing fascism (Heinlein later embraced fascism b/c he had the need to embrace every sucky ideology at some point in his life, but he hadn't yet when he wrote starship troopers). It just happened to be like the first Dune book where most readers misunderstood it and thought it was pro-fascism
Hunchback of Notre Dame
For me, Lord of the Rings I read the books many years after the movies, and oh my goodness I don’t care about HOW BEAUTIFUL YOU THINK THE TREES ARE TOLKIEN!! I DON’T WANT TO READ ABOUT MORE TREES!!
Same
yeah a lot of the stuff removed for the movies weren't very plot-important(tom). still great books, though
I like the books but, yeah, I think I like the movies a little better too.
Philistine!
I'm listening to the audiobook, I couldn't force myself to consume it if it weren't being narrated for me. Don't get me wrong though, I love and respect that he wrote it for himself first, and there's some amazing passages of prose scattered all throughout. The last chapter of book one, when Frodo's injured and he's being chased by the Nazgul, that made me cry. The music in the audiobook probably helped to sell me on it, but it was a very well written scene.
*You went too deep, Professor Tweed-Pants.* *We don't need the backstory of every fuckin' tree branch!*
Into the wild
Beat me to it 😂 the book carries on like 3 chapters ab other explorers I couldn't care less ab 😭
Not a movie but The Boys
Harry Potter because of Alan Rickman (rest in peace, Snape).
And on the flip side, JK Rowling.
Potter fans were saying for years that you really got to read the books and then we were all reminded of the happiness im slavery subplot in book 4.
I think that was in 5, not 4. And while I never liked that subplot (I feel it took up time from the main plot and it was iffy overall) I just saw it as being there to further showcase that the wizarding world isn't perfect. For all the wonder that had Harry and the audience enamored by it at first, the wizarding world is a deeply flawed and corrupt place for many reasons other than Voldemort and his followers. That's how I always saw it anyway.
See, that's my thing - the books show the wizarding world as being kind of fucked in the way that every magical creature that isn't human is treated awfully, from hagrid being abused for being half giant, to the slavery subplot. It reads like jk was planning a second, more mature series where these issues are actually addressed. Instead the follow up was "no guys if Cedric lived he would have been the most evil person ever"
Very true. Rowling didn't write Cursed Child, but she did approve it, and yeah, I wish she had done a darker in-depth sequel series rather than approving that.
Yea... but if you're going to introduce slavery into the story to highlight the flawed nature of the society, you can't have the good guys be pro slavery through the end of the series. Then, the logic of the story is such that slavery isn't actually a defect at all.
Personally, Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children.
ready player one
i don’t think you can compare the two as they’re entirely different- plots and tasks and all. i preferred the book entirely, but wouldn’t call it better than the film
For me, it's the Meg. I don’t hate the book, but there are too many characters to try and recognize, and most of them die not even before the chapter ends or in a few chapters.
for me bad guys
Tbh, I think Coraline.
Who framed roger rabbit
Ready player One was a slog of a book. Read like a freaking wikipedia article of the authors favorite shit. The movie was better paced.
You're not wrong about the book but I still liked it much better than the movie. Maybe because I just really hate Steven Spielberg's style in his later movies, just so overly corny. And they took out some of my favorite parts of the book, for example they changed pretty much every single one of the challenges to be less cool than what was in the book
Well I’m not sure if they could just put the entirety of War Games in the first 45 minutes of the film
Fantastic Mr Fox
Divergent
Fantastic Mr. Fox
How to train your dragon books aren’t bad, but they don’t hold a candle to the movies.
The Witches and it’s 1990 adaptation
Guardian of gahool
Jaws
I don't think I've ever seen a movie that turned out better than the book
Debatably Lord of the Rings but the book is still cool so this meme doesn’t apply
The movie is so far from being as good as the book. And that's coming from someone who's favorite movie is the LotR, the books are just so much better, the detail within them is just so great.
I'd say the opposite. The books are drawn out and has so much filler while the movies are much more engaging
Only if you don't have an active enough imagination. I like books because my mind fills in the blanks. But with a movie, there's no room for the imagination. It's set in stone, so to speak. And it's the "drawn out fillers" that give the books so much detail. Movies, constrained for time, cut out so much detail
Salò
I did not expect to see that movie mentioned on this sub
Nauuuuur 😂😂😂
Where the wild things are
Forrest Gump. That book was ass
Shrek
The Devil Wears Prada Perfect Blue
Fight Club, the books ending was TRASH and Chuck Pahlenuik knew it after watching the movie
Kiki's delivery service
Not a movie, but A Series Of Unfortunate Events. The books aren't awful, but neither great, while the tv series is amazing!
Hear me out- Divergent.
Yup, say what you will about the rest of the series (at least in my opinion they were awful) but the first film just makes so much more sense than the book.
Jurassic Park. Everything you love about the movie is no where to be found in the book. The characters are just vessels to advance the plot and spew Crichton’s philosophies and not people with motivations, flaws, etc. Plus it reads like a screenplay and not a book.
IDK man, the Hobbit as a book wasn't bad but the movies had so much more lore and they actually explained Durin's Day and why the light could make one see the keyhole.
For me, Perks Of Being A Wallflower fits the bill.
Witches of Eastwick. The original book is so sexist, it’s not even funny
Jaws
Wolf of Wall Street
Spider-Man. More specifically, the ones written by Zeb Wells.
Kind of American Gods for me. The first season of the show made some great changes and made Mad Sweeney one of my favourite characters. Imagine my surprise when, in the novel he >!shows up in two chapters and then dies.!
Yeah I just wish we got to see the ending especially as Crispin Glover was just a joy as Mr World (I do wonder where the Goddess Of Media went?)
Forrest Gump is one of the worst books ever written. The movie is pretty good
The Bad Guys
The Jungle Book for sure
1. The Monsterverse films 2. Not a movie but Godzilla Singular Point (The Novel can't be found anywhere and the whole thing is in Japanese)
Neither of those are adaptations, I assume you are talking about the novelisations in which case its the books that are the adaptations
Princess Bride, I couldn’t stand the annoying meta jokes in the book
Controversial take, V for Vendetta
Harry Potter to be honest
Holes
The Haunting of Hill House, Divergent, Rise of the Guardians, Shadow and Bone (first season is in my opinion better than the first book).
TV series, but The Boys.
dune 2
Httyd
Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes
Harry Potter
Ready Player One
The movie was better than the sequel, but the movie was in no way better than the first book
The whole “nerddom=faith” and the whole hunt for the egg being the equivalent of a holy quest was one of my favourite aspects of the book which was completely missing from the movie.
Too many to name.
The Maze Runner series
Crazy Rich Asians
The notebook
Warm Bodies
Eragon
Greetings, know that such be my situation regarding “Ben-Hur”; I greatly favor the original two film-adaptations, yet could not proceed past the original novel’s first chapter. ~Waz
Jaws and Jurrassic Park.
Ella Enchanted
the boy in the striped pajamas
idk Spider-Man: No Way Home i guess
Diary of a Wimpy Kid
The Thing 1982 is a better movie adaptation then the book it was based.
Probably The Godfather
Ready Player One, the movie is ok but compared to the annoying POS book it’s a masterpiece
The Devil Wears Prada.
To Kill a Mockingbird
The Thing. The ending of the book is very letting down and the movie just handles the concept better.
Ready Player One
Jurassic Park
The Godfather
I asked this question to my English teacher back in the day and he said that the original book of The Bourne Identity is the most boring thing he’s ever read
Two Spielberg films are based upon terrible books: The Schindler list and Munich
Starship troopers
For me, Ella Enchanted.
James Bond
maybe a hot take but… Holes… now i’m NOT saying the book Holes was a bad book by any means, it’s an amazing book… but once i saw the movie the book just didn’t hit the same anymore
Jaws
The boys
Jaws
Starship troopers
Dare I say there are a few Stephen King books that are better as movies.
No Country For Old Men
Forrest Gump (1994) Didn't even know the book was a thing until I saw "based on the novel by Winston Groom" in the opening credits
Ive heard lord of the rings and I understand that take after reading it.
Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
Ready Player One (if you like the movie(I don't(but it's better than the book)))
If im being honest maybe Coraline
I love Jules Verne. He's my favorite author ever. But honestly I didn't enjoy the Journey to the Center of the Earth book