Having Spider-Man’s web shooting ability stem from something inside of his body, rather than a silly contraption on his wrist is a much better idea. I mean, how much webbing can that thing hold? I was always amazed that tiny gizmo could produce enough goo to allow Spidey to swing across the Manhattan skyline for hours on end.
Crap, guess I should read all posts before posting, Middleman beat me by 14 minutes
Disney’s version of The Little Mermaid was much better than Hans Christian Anderson’s sick, twisted original.
I thought you were just agreeing with me and expanding on my post!
Hans Christian Andersen had a weird love of sad endfings, even if they had to be manipulated into being sad. I don’t like happy endings for the sake of happy endings, but andersen seemed to be the opposite - he wanted sad endings even when they were a stretch. I’ve never been at all happy with his “The Little Mermaid” (which, IIRC, is, like most of his, an original story and not a traditional one with a long history), but even more than this I applaud Disney for changing the pointlessly sad ending to “The Steadfast Tin Soldier” in Fantasia 2000. Andersen’s original snatches Defeat from the very Jaws of Victory, to no ethical or satisfying storytelling purpose.
oh. um… whoops. My comments about Serenity would seem to be an answer to another question entirely…
Mas*h
The deletion of the romantic dalliance between Hooper and Chief Brody’s wife from the movie version of Benchley’s “Jaws” was definitely an improvement.
I’ll second that… the book was good, the movie was better. And since Goldman wrote the screenplay as well, and is more well known for converting other people’s novels into movies than for writing his own books, that shouldn’t be too surprising. 
My favorite example of this was Inigo and the Man in Black at the top of the Cliffs of insanity. In the book, Inigo has a big long, witty but ultimately a bit boring, flashback of his childhood, the six-fingered man killing his father, training as a swordsman, getting recruited by Vizzinni, etcetera. It takes you out of the mood of the scene there on the clifftop. Once he pulls the man in black up, Inigo checks to see if he has six fingers, but doesn’t tell him about any of that stuff.
In the movie, Goldman could have done the flashback again, but it would have been a terrible choice. Instead, he has Inigo reveal the critical facts about his background to the viewer while questioning the man in black about his fingers, and confessing his quest to a kindred spirit. This lays the groundwork for an understanding between Westley and Inigo that pays off later, when Inigo lays all of his hopes on rescuing and reviving ‘the man in black’, and the two of them work together to break into the castle.
Of course, the extended version of Inigo’s backstory is interesting once you’re really a big princess bride fan, but I think the book would have done better to handle the scene a little more like the film, and then pushing the flashback a little later - like until the sequel.
Hey, it lowercased my post. Not my fault! It’s MAS*H.
Sometimes allcaps is supposed to be allcaps.
An excellent analysis, and another excellent example. I wholeheartedly concur.
I gotta agree with this one. I actually liked the TV show better than the movie, but the book was really disappointing.
Yes, but then why spend effort changing characters, adding scenes, etc.? After seeing King Kong, I think Jackson is a hack with a great eye for scenery.
I agree with RikWriter about Jaws. Hooper living at the end was an improvement, too, IMO. The book was just grim, grim, grim and depressing.
Having Arnie still inside her when Christine was destroyed was a massive improvement over the stupid ending of Stephen King’s book. It was much more powerful for his friends to actually have to kill him in the process of destroying Christine than for him to die offstage in a ghost-caused car accident. In fact, cutting the ghost out entirely really made the story stronger.
Speaking of Stephen King, the switch from a Dracula-esque vampire to a Nosferatu-esque one in the 1979 version of Salem’s Lot made it a much more effective horror story for me. The book was kind of dull, but the movie, even though it’s pretty dated now, scared the bejeezus out of me at the time. The more recent version switched back, and I found it comical and stupid.
I personally thought the ending of V for Vendetta was an improvement over the graphic novel. In fact, I thought just about everything in the movie was an improvement. Screw Alan Moore.
Just about everything in Miller’s Crossing is an improvement over it’s combined sources (Red Harvest and The Glass Key). Same goes for John Carpenter’s The Thing and it’s inspiration (“Who Goes There?” by John Campbell, Jr.)
RealityChuck - Luhrman certainly didn’t invent that bit about Romeo seeing Juliet wake even as he expires. It’s a pretty well worn “alternative interpretation.” I think Luhrman did far more harm than good to the story simply by having the actors shout out the lines without having a clue as to what they were supposed to mean. If the actors don’t know, the audience won’t.
I hadn’t heard of other versions, but that ending, even if it preceded the movie, is not a “alternative interpretation.” It’s a rewriting of Shakespeare (As originally written, Romeo is stone cold when Juliet wakes up – there are 32 lines of dialog between the two events).
I never got that feeling. Luhrman was (as usual) going for a larger-than-life operatic effect, and (as usual) achieved it, making the play much more dramatic.
I disagree. Those movies were chopped up into near-incoherence.
I’ll go 50/50 on this one. From someone who’s never read any of the books but seen all the movies. POA was the best film in the series. Complex well told story. I had to see it twice but it was all there.
GOF I could tell I was missing something from the book. It jumped around a lot. If asked what it was about all I could say is Harry was in a muti-school tournament and then somehow faced off with Voldemort at the end for no apparent reason. There had to be more to it.
I stand corrected on this point.
More dramatic than Romeo and Juliet? I disagree. I think it’s a lot louder and a lot more histrionic, but that doesn’t qualify as more dramatic to me. In the first five minutes of the movie it was pretty clear that everyone was just going to turn their voice up to eleven and talk fast whenever tensions mounted.
Everyone describes the movie as “High Octane” which is probably appropriate, but to me it just came off mainly as a lot of idiotic shouting with some clever “modernizing” gags, like the anchorwoman as narrator.
Regarding Brokeback Mountain, I think Ossana and McMurty were right not to incorporate two scenes from the short story into the movie: the memory Jack relates of his father mistreating him when he was three; and Ennis’s explanation of how he learned to stand up to his brother. They were interesting but ultimately not needed for the film, and they would have added on five to ten more minutes. Even more if the screenwriters had included all of Jack’s pissing and moaning about his injuries during the Siesta Motel scene. (Funny stuff, but it takes a while and is part of a static scene.)
The ending of the movie version of About a Boy is superior to that of the book in every possible way. Man, that’s a great movie. I never thought I’d think that Hugh Grant could be Oscar-worthy…