HOT RIGHT NOW!

International Babes
Bullet Points
Real Men Love
Hi-5 Women
Raising The Bar
Celebrity Bikini Watch

 

We Recommend

Supehero Movies!
Coolest Shirt Ever!
Crappier Than DV
Funny Vids & Crazy Pics
Hilarious T-Shirts!
Gossip
Girls, Girls, Girls
Hot Models & Celebs
The Bachelor Guy
On 205th
Movie trailers and news
Tucker Max
Uncoached
Afro Jacks
Buge Hoobs
Blog of Hilarity
Mick Landers
Tasty Booze

02.16.07 From the Viking


The Ten Least Faithful Screen Adaptations That Came Out...Good

Just got back from seeing Ghost Rider. Dug it, thought it was fun, funny and entertaining. But guess what? The character Ghost Rider is only on screen for about 20-30 minutes during the film, the rest of the time being dominated by Nicolas Cage as the human, Johnny Blaze. It was cool and all…and again, very fun…but I have to admit, not that faithful to the original source material. Usually when a movie doesn't remain faithful to its source material, people throw up their hands in disgust, but there's a select few films that strayed pretty far from what they are based on and came out on top. So here are the TEN LEAST FAITHFUL SCREEN ADAPTATIONS THAT CAME OUT…GOOD

 


Dune: David Lynch got some studio money and...made a David Lynch film...meaning it's weird, it's long and it doesn't make much sense (and it stars Kyle MacLachlan). Not really like the novels at all, but pretty cool nonetheless.

 


Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban: People complained about the lack of some key Quidditch scene, blah blah. It was the best Harry Potter movie so far because it was ACTUALLY A MOVIE, what with a beginning, middle and end! I'm sorry your beloved novels don't follow traditional story structure, I don't care. I want to be able to follow ONE story when I go see a movie...and this film did that just fine.

 


Casino Royale (The Original): Talk about straying from the source material...with David Niven as a goofy, old James Bond, Woody Allen guest starring as Jimmy Bond and a Burt Bacharach soundtrack, this one certainly pisses off Bond "purists." But it's hilarious, so fuck off.

 


The Hobbit (the cartoon): I know I just raised the blood pressure of a lot of LOTR fanatics, but hear me out. As someone who hates Lord Of The Rings and Tolkien in general, the Hobbit cartoon is right up my alley. It's trippy and weird and actually FUN, something the original material (and all of Tolkien) lacks entirely. You may fling rocks at your computer screen now.

 


Blade: I'm sorry...no one read the comic book. If you claim you did, you're either a liar...or you need to reevaluate how you spend your free time. Either way, they took something crappy and turned it into Hollywood Gold.

 


Dr. Strangelove: The original book, Red Alert, by Peter George, isn't in the slight bit funny. It's just a cold war thriller. Leave it to Kubrick and comedic genius Terry Southern to turn the stiff thriller into a classic black comedy that is widely considered the best comedy of all time.

 


The Shining: Speaking of Kubrick, leave it to one of the best directors of all time to make Stephen King high brow. It's amazing, harrowing and haunting, despite straying from the novel. We saw what King would've done different, in the mid-90s made for TV version...and it was much, much worse.

 


The Godfather (and the Godfather II): The books are good, the films are essential. That's all there is to it.

 


Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas: Have you ever tried reading this "classic" book? It's the definition of illegible drivel. I don't mind reading about people on drugs...as long as the narrative isn't written by someone on drugs. Leave it to Terry Gilliam to actually make the book understandable.

 


The Life Of Brian: Isn't this a whole lot funnier than the Bible? Just checking.

LINK TO THIS ARTICLE

Share this on Digg, Facebook, Stumbleupon, etc.

There are 10 comments so far:
Matt
02/16/2007 20:57
bravo for crediting Lynch and Kubrick, but then you slam Tolkein as boring while citing Blade as "Hollywood Gold", finishing up by slamming one of the finest writers of the 20th century, calling his defining work "the definition of illegible drivel". Maybe if you took the time to actually experiment with drugs a bit, you'd have a remote inkling of Hunter Thompson's genius. It's a crying shame to see the ignorance being trotted about and then moderated up on a otherwise-half-decent news filter (Digg). You should try reading the Rum Diary. A Viking like you might find it more digestible.
Jamie
02/16/2007 21:14
@ Matt
I would say that if you have to take drugs for something to be genius, then it isn't genius.
DiggRep
02/16/2007 21:30
Jamie you ignorant slut!
Shawn
02/16/2007 21:50
With not one ounce of hyperbole, it saddens me that you can so easily dismiss one of America's greatest writers. Yes I have read the book, I have read them all. Yes I have seen the movie. Was it a faith full interpretation of the source? Yes, ESPECIALLY when compared to “Where the buffalo roam”. Not only is it an insult to the great Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, but the work of Johnny Depp, who lived and breathed the madness of the Owl ranch to research his character. And yes, the movie was a word for word presentation of Hunter S. Thompson's assignment to Las Vegas for Rolling Stones, except for one chapter that was omitted and two chapters that were combined.
If you can say, “I don't mind reading about people on drugs...as long as the narrative isn't written by someone on drugs.” with a straight face then you are someone who clearly is unable to “see the forest for the trees” and thus, would recommend only reading the books suggested to you by the English teacher from your highschool.
John
02/16/2007 22:53
Fear and Loathing does not belong on a list of the "Least faithful" adaptations. Had you actually read the book you would know its nearly a scene for scene reproduction. It might well fit on a list of "most faithful" adaptations.

And its a work of genius, pure and simple. RIP Hunter
doctechnical
02/17/2007 03:34
Tolkien isn't "fun" enough, Hunter S. Thompson writes "illegible drivel", but a comic book gets high praise?

I'm can only assume you're about twelve. Perhaps you should stick with the books that have pictures on every page. In a few years they'll let you into the adult section of the library all by yourself.
M
02/17/2007 10:59
According to the creator of James Bond, Casino Royale btw was his favorite movie of the bunch
M
02/17/2007 11:00
Also, I just read the Bourne Supremacy and then saw the movie. They could not be more different.
Jesus
02/17/2007 21:44
Moron,

Fear and Loathing was so close to the book that it pulled entire dialog scenes straight off the pages.

Don't quit your day job.
Lukas
02/21/2007 14:01
It wasn't close to the book. I've read the book. I've seen the film. The film plays out as a narrative acted by characters, whereas the book is verbal diarrhea that people convince themselves is good writing. But there's a reason it's not taught in any cannon, be it journalism or American writing...because it's dreadful. Whereas the movie, while not that hot, was entertaining.

Want to write a comment?

Login or signup