Unpopular opinions go here

[Dannyalcatraz]

The movie is not the book. Any movie will not be the book. It is always the wrong question to ask, "Did the movie succeed as a successful representation of the book?"

I think that’s not wrong, but rather a completely valid consideration for any adaptation from one media form to another.

The question should always be, "Did the movie succeed as a movie?"

And this is ALSO a valid kind of question for adaptations.

The answers you get to each help determine the quality of the media you’re consuming and the skills and mindset of the people involved in the adaptation.

 

[Emberashh]

I was actually bored by the last two movies the most. Now any time I try to watch the trilogy with my wife (she loves it and agrees with you), I fall asleep in the first thirty minutes of each film.



And that is fair. That is why I acknowledged some would find the book boring too. But for me, I just enjoy reading it, and didn't enjoy watching the Jackson movies. I feel kind of the same way about Dune. I enjoyed the Lynch version because it was odd, but the more faithful adaptations have bored me to tears (there was a miniseries that came out a while back and I remember struggling to watch episodes).

Not that I mean to aim this at you but I will note that I find people who fall asleep during movies (especially in actual theaters) enraging.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Not that I mean to aim this at you but I will note that I find people who fall asleep during movies (especially in actual theaters) enraging.

With the exception of people who loudly snore, I prefer those who fall asleep to those who are loudly talking.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Expanding on adaptations:

I will admit to being miffed at certain adaptations being poor mirrors of the source material. Usually, that occurs when certain key concepts of the original material are ignored or mutated in ways that make me wonder why the adaptation uses the name of the original in the first place.

But I recognize it’s not truly objective or internally consistent. It’s entirely about my understanding of the original being at war with that o the adapters’.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think that’s not wrong, but rather a completely valid consideration for any adaptation from one media form to another.

Think it is a fair question (lots of questions are fair) but not a fair demand. I think to me what matters is why the director is striving for fidelity and why they are breaking from the book. Bride of Frankenstein isn't particularly faithful to the original novel (more faithful than 1931 Frankenstein in many ways but very different from the book). It is one of the best horror movies ever made (and one of the best movies I would say). Some of that is because even though it is different from the book it captures things like the pathos of the creature. But a lot of it is in the elements it adds, like Doctor Pretorius. One of the joys of Frankenstein movies of all stripes is where they will go with that core idea (and many get quite far from the source material). The original novel is still a masterwork. In a lot of ways, like with Starship Troopers, I think there is a pleasant surprise when people read it for the first time if their expectations have been shaped by film. I know my early impressions of the story were from the Universal movies and even more derivative entertainment like the Munsters. When I read the novel for the first time, I was surprised by the Monster's eloquence and also by the overall shape of the story itself (it just wasn't what I was expecting).

I also loved Dracula growing up, and there are many classic film versions. For me, the 1992 version remains my favorite. And that one is an odd blend of being more faithful to the story in some ways than other movies, but being less faithful than others (and it has a love story that arguably, even by Coppola's own words, undermines the horror, yet the movie works visually and emotionally for me). But the book remains. And Dracula is one of those novels that never gets old for me, no matter how many times I go back to it

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not that I mean to aim this at you but I will note that I find people who fall asleep during movies (especially in actual theaters) enraging.

With Lord of the Rings, that was all at home where I fell asleep. However I have definitely fallen asleep when movies bore me sufficiently. Usually I just walk out though before that happens.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The idea that something in a different media must be a faithful reproduction of the original is an idea that I hope dies a quick and painful death. There is nothing so smothering as a mother's fan's love.

Bluntly, if you read that into my statement you're not only not paying attention, you're projecting.

There's a big difference between adaptation drift and what can only be read as deliberate misrepresentation. If you don't agree, you don't, but neither am I required to agree with your position.

 

[Bedrockgames]

With the exception of people who loudly snore, I prefer those who fall asleep to those who are loudly talking.

My pet peeves are: people who talk loudly (which I think we can all agree is the far more common problem), people who kick the back of my seat or become antagonistic to others during movies, and foul odored people (please bathe before seeing a movie)

 

[Bedrockgames]

There's a big difference between adaptation drift and what can only be read as deliberate misrepresentation. If you don't agree, you don't, but neither am I required to agree with your position.

I can understand if the movie purports to be faithful and isn't, how you might criticize that. I don't really get the idea that the movie is supposed to be an accurate representation of the book. Books have long served primarily as starting points for what is ultimately a new story (part of that is the needs of the medium, but the other part is people like making something new).

 

[Reynard]

Frankenstein is a hugely important novel, but it is also one of the most boring and self indulgent novels every written.