Movie makers: you can do better.

[chewipaka]

Sometimes a good book makes a bad movie. However, when you go and completely change the plot of the movie to suit the script writer's style, you can wind up with a good movie. Look at lord of the rings, and how much it differs between the book and the movie. Yes, the movie is true to the essence of the plot of the book, but it's left out some

Comments

[smash_n_grab]

Also in Return of the King southern Gondor appearantly doesn't exist, nor do Sauron's armies that attack Loth Lorien and Dale.

Also V for Vendetta was changed substantially by the Wachowski brothers when they created a film adaptation, to the extint Alan Moore refused to recognise it as related to his work and stated

"[The movie] has been "turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country.... It's a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neoconservatives - which is not what the comic 'V for Vendetta' was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about England."

Despite all of that, it's still a really good movie.

The adaptation that's followed a work best is Sin City which works as more of a translation than an adaptation. The film is on the same level of quality as the graphic novels.

Being a good adaptation doesn't mean being a good movie, and being a good movie doesn't mean being a good adaptation. Point in case see The Goblet of Fire, it omits a lot, but it's good (and far superior to the other Potter book to movie adaptations).