Unpopular opinions go here

[Gradine]

The most important thing a role-playing game can be is fun.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The Boys and Preacher are two compic book adapations that resemble their source material but don't adhere too closely for a variety of reasons. The Boys in particular is better off ignoring a lot of the comic book. With Preacher, they set the first season in the same town no doubt to save on production costs but it's markedly different from the comic where our titular hero is roaming the Earth like Caine from Kung-Fu. In both cases, the series' don't have as much over-the-top gross out content that Garth Ennis is so fond of.

The most recent episode of Generation V begs to differ.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I would pick anything by Kubrick over anything by King personally but tastes vary (nothing against King, I know a lot of people love him, but I have had this lifelong difficulty getting into his books). I agree though, the Shining as a film is excellent and works. It is notable that there was a similar reaction to A Clockwork Orange (which I think is even better than the Shining). The book is actually quite similar but there are notable changes and some disagreement about the final chapter from the author. Both are worth experiencing though. And Kubrick couldn't have done what he did without the foundation of the book to work on.

I was going to use Clockwork Orange as an example, but was afraid that the dispute was going to be even more obscure. Some time ago, in a galaxy far far away, I wrote a very lengthy piece on this.

To boil this down, the analogy is actually close to the Starship Troopers one. The original Clockwork Orange novel had 21 chapters (this was important, as it was a 7, 7, 7, --- which had meaning). However, the US publisher omitted the last chapter, which means that the entirety of the book's message and themes will have a very different impact and result.

Kubrick, despite being completely aware of this, chose to use the version without the 21st chapter, and, in fact, deliberately accentuated the themes and motifs in the movie to ensure that the "new" ending was played up. Arguably, the Kubrick version of Clockwork Orange has the exact opposite message than does the Burgess version.

In the same sense, the problem that many people have with Starship Troopers is not a lack of faithfulness to the original material; it is easily as faithful as any given 90s adaptation. Instead, it's because Verhoeven's specific choices held up what he saw as objectionable about the original material within the context of our times.

That is what made it so brilliant on that level; this is what Heinlein's fantasy is about. On the other hand, this is also what led to it being so discomfiting to many of the fans of the original work.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

No. I have a English lit degree and have read a lot of old books, and Frankenstein is one of the worst. Also, it is a Romantic novel, not a Victorian one. Queen Victoria won't be born EDIT: crowned for 20 years.

I think people want Frankenstein, the novel, to be a lot better than it is.

They should be spending that time reading Dracula, which is probably better than any of the works derived from it. (And there have been a lot of them.)

 

[Emberashh]

Speaking of Frankenstein and Dracula, I actually liked that movie universe they tried to do a few years back. If theres something where you could have made a cinematic universe work outside of comic adaptations, it was the old monster movies.

Heck, as much as Im sure Alan Moore would have despised his work being used for it, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen could have been a great framing device to do it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Truly unpopular opinion:

Critics, as a group, across the overall body of their work, are typically correct. They consume a lot more of any given media than the general public does, by virtue of the fact that they're consuming it during those eight hours a day that everyone else is doing something else for work. As a result, they are tuned into a lot of the detail than the general public won't spot and know context that many people won't, like when a work is responding to a sometimes obscure other work.

A lot of critics in the internet era are pretty terrible and think that just recapping every moment of a work is somehow criticism. (It's not.)

But even so, most of them get it right most of the time. Most Rotten Tomatoes top critic Tomatometers are pretty good guides to what's going to be a good work. My wife and I, for instance, went in blind to watch Ex Machina and What We Do in the Shadows, both of which had about a 99% rating at the time we rented them, and were completely blown away.

Having said all that, the aggregate of critics' opinions doesn't necessarily mean you will or won't like a work. And you can like "bad" works -- which we all do -- without shame. (I just rewatched Bakshi's "Wizards" while making dinner the other night and it doesn't hold up. I love it anyway.) It's not a negative reflection on you if you like something the critics don't, and you absolutely don't need to get angry and defensive when that happens. Just enjoy your thing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I was going to use Clockwork Orange as an example, but was afraid that the dispute was going to be even more obscure. Some time ago, in a galaxy far far away, I wrote a very lengthy piece on this.

To boil this down, the analogy is actually close to the Starship Troopers one. The original Clockwork Orange novel had 21 chapters (this was important, as it was a 7, 7, 7, --- which had meaning). However, the US publisher omitted the last chapter, which means that the entirety of the book's message and themes will have a very different impact and result.

Kubrick, despite being completely aware of this, chose to use the version without the 21st chapter, and, in fact, deliberately accentuated the themes and motifs in the movie to ensure that the "new" ending was played up. Arguably, the Kubrick version of Clockwork Orange has the exact opposite message than does the Burgess version.

And my view is Kubrick made the right choice. I have read the book with the last chapter and it feels less effective in my opinion to have have Alex mature in the final section of the book. I like both though, but Kubrick's vision of the book, and his use of music and visuals, resonate more I think (at least for me). One thing I loved about the book, which the movie tries to capture, is how it is written. The language is big part of what makes that novel work

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think people want Frankenstein, the novel, to be a lot better than it is.

They should be spending that time reading Dracula, which is probably better than any of the works derived from it. (And there have been a lot of them.)

Different strokes. I like both books a lot. But Frankenstein was a novel that captivated me and is more emotionally moving than Dracula (which isn't a knock on Dracula, it is a great novel too, but for other reason)

 

[DammitVictor]

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

It is my favorite book ever. I've reread it on an almost yearly basis since I was eight years old.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And my view is Kubrick made the right choice. I have read the book with the last chapter and it feels less effective in my opinion to have have Alex mature in the final section of the book. I like both though, but Kubrick's vision of the book, and his use of music and visuals, resonate more I think (at least for me). One thing I loved about the book, which the movie tries to capture, is how it is written. The language is big part of what makes that novel work

Oh, I agree. It's hard to disagree with Kubrick.

That said, the whole point ... the whole philosophical import of Burgess's book has to include Alex maturing. That's absolutely central to the message of the book. By omitting it, Kubrick is making a completely different point that is arguably diametrically opposed to the one made in the book.