Okay, here's how it's played:

1) Name 1 film adaptation which is worse than the source material (novel, play, graphic novel, video game, tv series - remakes of other movies don't count).

2) Name 1 film adaptation that is as good as the source material - i.e., both the source and film are great in their own right.

3) Name 1 film adaptation that is actually superior to the source material.

You can't name a film that has already been named. Discussion is encouraged.

I'll start off:

1) The Keep (naturally).
2) A Clockwork Orange
3) The Parallax View - boring mish-mash of a novel, pretty interesting paranoid conspiracy film.

Pick up your #2 pencils and begin.

1) Daredevil: A decent, occasionally great comic featuring a blind superhero. The movie with Ben Affleck made me want to cut my own eyes out.

2) The Godfather: Mario Puzo laid out an intricate, epic story featuring wonderful, if dangerous characters. And the Godfather movie (I count Godfather and Godfather II as essentially being part of the same movie in this case). If you don't understand why the Godfather movie is great, you have forfeited your right to call yourself an American male.

3) The Lord of the Rings: The books are classics and the grandfather of modern fantasy. That said, they're soul-crushingly dull in many parts, reading more like a travelogue than a story of fantasy adventure. Peter Jackson acted as a sculpter, chisling away the extraneous stone (Tom Bombadil, anyone?) to reveal the beautiful, exciting epic beneath.

Okay, here's how it's played:

1) Name 1 film adaptation which is worse than the source material (novel, play, graphic novel, video game, tv series - remakes of other movies don't count).

Anything even loosely based on a Heinlein work. Starship Troopers, The Puppet Masters, and the ST:TOS episodes The Trouble with Tribbles and Operation Annhilate.

2) Name 1 film adaptation that is as good as the source material - i.e., both the source and film are great in their own right.

Moby Dick, the 1956 version scripted by Ray Bradbury.

3) Name 1 film adaptation that is actually superior to the source material.

The first version of "The Day the Earth Stood Still". While Harry Bates' "Farewell to the Master" has its points, he was a much better editor than writer.

You can't name a film that has already been named. Discussion is encouraged.

I'll start off:

1) The Keep (naturally).

Kind of a given.

2) A Clockwork Orange

I might kindly disagree, here, but you're right. Both works are great in different ways. But I really hated the ending of the movie, the book is much better there especially if you read the final chapter that was left out of the US version. It used to be on-line, now I can't find it, I'll check the stack of old hard disks, I hope I saved it.

3) The Parallax View - boring mish-mash of a novel, pretty interesting paranoid conspiracy film.

neither read nor viewed either -- not my genre, and I have only so much lifespan

Pick up your #2 pencils and begin.

I do crossword puzzles with a pen.

Okay, here's how it's played:

1) Name 1 film adaptation which is worse than the source material (novel, play, graphic novel, video game, tv series - remakes of other movies don't count).

2) Name 1 film adaptation that is as good as the source material - i.e., both the source and film are great in their own right.

3) Name 1 film adaptation that is actually superior to the source material.

You can't name a film that has already been named. Discussion is encouraged. .

Well, Mick, since you didn't limit it to SF/fantasy/horror...

1) Worse than the source material:
"Willy Wonka And the Chocolate Factory"...the Roald Dahl novel was a LOT more interesting. I do admit a sneaking regard for the Johnny Depp version (non-musical) version.

2) As good as the source material:
"The Maltese Falcon"...John Huston managed to catch the ambiance of Dashiell Hammett's Sam Space perfectly in this movie...and kept it as tight and edgy as the novel.

3) Better than the source material:
Don't laugh..."Forrest Gump". Eric Roth's screenplay takes Winston Groom's Forrest Gump and him into Everyman and makes for a great parable. The shooting of the movie was also much more dynamic than the original novel. The Gump in the novels is a redneck racist, critically flawed, and left little to like (at least for me).

JohnTFS...I agree with you up to a point about Daredevil...but I thought it was worth the watch just to see Jennifer Garner in the leather bustier.

Well, Mick, since you didn't limit it to SF/fantasy/horror...

1) Worse than the source material:
"Willy Wonka And the Chocolate Factory"...the Roald Dahl novel was a LOT more interesting. I do admit a sneaking regard for the Johnny Depp version (non-musical) version.

I can dig with you there, Tunes. The book was good, the first movie sucked, the new version was almost OK (but not quite -- Depp still needs to learn how to act).

2) As good as the source material:
"The Maltese Falcon"...John Huston managed to catch the ambiance of Dashiell Hammett's Sam Space perfectly in this movie...and kept it as tight and edgy as the novel.

Fritz Leiber repeatedly told me to read the original material. I still haven't.

3) Better than the source material:
Don't laugh..."Forrest Gump". Eric Roth's screenplay takes Winston Groom's Forrest Gump and him into Everyman and makes for a great parable. The shooting of the movie was also much more dynamic than the original novel. The Gump in the novels is a redneck racist, critically flawed, and left little to like (at least for me).

Opposite for me. (I really can't stand Tom Hanks in anything). The only saving grace of the movie was Robin Wright (formerly the Princess Bride). Groom's sequel was a fun dig at the movie, you'll probably find it on the remainder tables if they haven't sent it to landfill yet.

JohnTFS...I agree with you up to a point about Daredevil...but I thought it was worth the watch just to see Jennifer Garner in the leather bustier.

I guess someday I'll have to watch Daredevil (I've seen bits while La Esposa was flipping channels, wasn't impressed, Affleck's best work happens when Kevin Smith directs [Dogma, Jersey Girl -- and I hate New Jersey, I've been stuck here too damned long]) and I haven't watched more than the trailers for Electra. I think a combo pack with both is ten bucks at Walmart, and there lies the rub -- beer or bad movies?

Anything even loosely based on a Heinlein work. Starship Troopers, The Puppet Masters, and the ST:TOS episodes The Trouble with Tribbles and Operation Annhilate.

True, especially your first choice. "The Puppet Masters" is probably the best of a bad lot. "The Puppet Masters" is, I think, the most plagiarized SF novel in history - in addition to Operation Annihilate, see also the Outer Limits episode "The Invisibles", "Independence Day" (which stole the trope of the confined alien talking through the human's body), and "The Brain Eaters" - so close that Heinlein sued and won an out-of-court settlement. "Destination Moon" and "Project Spacebase: are kind of period pieces, and the first is not technically an adaptation, it was from an original work. I think the second was from a so-so short story.

Moby Dick, the 1956 version scripted by Ray Bradbury.

Good call. Bradbury himself has not fared well in adaptations.

The first version of "The Day the Earth Stood Still". While Harry Bates' "Farewell to the Master" has its points, he was a much better editor than writer.

Also agreed. You could maybe claim the same for "This Island Earth", although less of a classic than the original "Day the Earth Stood Still".

Kind of a given.I might kindly disagree, here, but you're right. Both works are great in different ways. But I really hated the ending of the movie, the book is much better there especially if you read the final chapter that was left out of the US version. It used to be on-line, now I can't find it, I'll check the stack of old hard disks, I hope I saved it.

I have that in a Penguin edition I picked up overseas back in the 1970s - I was really surprised the first time I reread it and thought "HEY! Where did THIS chapter come from?" Burgess said in interviews that was one of his main beefs with the film.

1) Worse than the source material:
"Willy Wonka And the Chocolate Factory"...the Roald Dahl novel was a LOT more interesting. I do admit a sneaking regard for the Johnny Depp version (non-musical) version..

Yeah, the Dahl novel was good. He had a pretty interesting life and background, from what I've heard. I'm not as crazy about the Depp version - he seemed creepily close to Michael Jackson. (And I normally like Depp.)

2) As good as the source material:
"The Maltese Falcon"...John Huston managed to catch the ambiance of Dashiell Hammett's Sam Space perfectly in this movie...and kept it as tight and edgy as the novel..

Good call - Hammett was also well served by "The Thin Man".

3) Better than the source material:
Don't laugh..."Forrest Gump". Eric Roth's screenplay takes Winston Groom's Forrest Gump and him into Everyman and makes for a great parable. The shooting of the movie was also much more dynamic than the original novel. The Gump in the novels is a redneck racist, critically flawed, and left little to like (at least for me)..

Definitely. I was disappointed by the novel and Gump's characterization, but loved the movie. Groom's first novel (can't remember the title) was a very good Vietnam novel, though.

JohnTFS...I agree with you up to a point about Daredevil...but I thought it was worth the watch just to see Jennifer Garner in the leather bustier.

God yes.

Fritz Leiber repeatedly told me to read the original material. I still haven't.

I can't remember the name of the (real life) San Francisco grill where Sam Spade has pork chops and apples in the novel, but the last time I was there I had the same meal. They had a reprint of Fritz's article retracing Spade's travels around San Franciso printed in the menu.

"Our Lady of Darkness" by Fritz Leiber is one of the best novels about San Francisco, if anyone is looking for a good book to read, BTW.

1. X-Men 3: The Last Stand. By far the worst butchering of a comic book storyline that the world has ever been subjected to. The Dark Phoenix Saga (which won awards in the 70s) was raped, flayed and disemboweled by Brett Ratner. He botched it even worse than Michael Mann did on The Keep. It makes me physically ill that he has worked with Beacon in the past and has even an inkling of a chance to become the Director for the Repairman Jack movie.

2. Daredevil: Director's Cut. The theatrical release was over 1/2 hour shorter than the director's cut due to blatant studio interference in the editing process that overruled the 1st-time director's decisions. The studio even had them shoot and add a meaningless love-scene between Garner and Affleck for the theatrical release. The Director's cut keeps their feelings unrequited and adds 1/2 hour of story (read as character development) which actually gives the movie some meaning (we even catch a glimpse of Matt Murdoch's mother).

3. There are so few...Lord of the Rings Special Extended Editions is the one that comes immediately to mind...there was minor tinkering with the story (eg: the Ents not agreeing to go to war at the Entmoot, no scouring of the Shire, Saruman dying in the wrong place, etc.) but overall it was a singularly amazing adaptation of a work that most thought to be unfilmable.

-Wapitikev

1. X-Men 3: The Last Stand. By far the worst butchering of a comic book storyline that the world has ever been subjected to. The Dark Phoenix Saga (which won awards in the 70s) was raped, flayed and disemboweled by Brett Ratner. He botched it even worse than Michael Mann did on The Keep. It makes me physically ill that he has worked with Beacon in the past and has even an inkling of a chance to become the Director for the Repairman Jack movie.

2. Daredevil: Director's Cut. The theatrical release was over 1/2 hour shorter than the director's cut due to blatant studio interference in the editing process that overruled the 1st-time director's decisions. The studio even had them shoot and add a meaningless love-scene between Garner and Affleck for the theatrical release. The Director's cut keeps their feelings unrequited and adds 1/2 hour of story (read as character development) which actually gives the movie some meaning (we even catch a glimpse of Matt Murdoch's mother).

3. There are so few...Lord of the Rings Special Extended Editions is the one that comes immediately to mind...there was minor tinkering with the story (eg: the Ents not agreeing to go to war at the Entmoot, no scouring of the Shire, Saruman dying in the wrong place, etc.) but overall it was a singularly amazing adaptation of a work that most thought to be unfilmable.

-Wapitikev

I think most people find choosing #1 easy, #2 a little harder, and #3 very hard. A friend suggested The Bible for #3 - I'll let that pass without comment.