Most faithful adaptations

[Kyrian007]

Baz Luhrmann's Romeo And Juliet is the most accurate adaptation of Shakespeare's work. Ever.

No, seriously. It really, truly, honestly is. It has the themes, the ideas, the comedy, the presentation, the lines, all down-pat. It is quite possibly the most faithful version of Shakespeare's original play ever, which is impressive. Considering Shakespeare made 'Yo Mamma' jokes, it's pretty understandable.

It really is. I find it to be the most tolerable film adaptation of that awful, awful story.

I think it's cause it's one of the few adaptations that don't romanticize it - like, the original Shakespeare play was highly critical and parodying the 'true love regardless', and worked to instill an idea that 'no, this is kinda fucked up' within the audience (while also poking fun at the nobility, as Shakespeare often did). Luhrmann's version, thanks to sticking so closely to the original, carries that same 'Whoa, no, not right' feeling with the conclusion - you're not left with a sense of 'Awww, how romantic, they truly loved each other', you're left with 'Wow, 6 people died in 3 days, fucking teenagers'.

Yeah, I always heard I lot of "Pffshhh, Guns called by swords names... that's stupid." But one of the great things about MANY of Shakespeare's works is exactly how timeless the stories can be. I've seen a stage play version of 12th Night with a sci/fi backdrop... and that worked well. But I always thought Luhrmann got a lot of things very right. "Twoo Luv" as a mental disorder as opposed to sane, rational behavior. Exactly.

I was also super impressed with the casting of and acting by Harold Perrineau as Mercutio. As far as I'm concerned he's one of the best, and that's a part that Laurence Olivier played on stage.

That's the ONLY way I like a "faithful adaption." Taken in some new direction. Making a point by telling the same story against a different backdrop. The cookie-cutter, samey-samey, adaption that the average fanboy seems to want... I just find boring. I've watched a couple of episodes of A Game of Thrones. Bored, Bored, Bored, Bored, Nope, can't take it anymore. I've heard that this season they are going off the rails finally. It may start to be worth watching. If I finally hear the scream and cry from the fanboy "that wasn't the way it happens in the books, whhhhaaaaggghhhhh" then maybe I'll tune in. Otherwise I'll just have to wait until it passes the books in the story. Give me where "Legend of the Seeker" or Sci-Fi channel's "The Dresden Files" were going instead. They were far more interesting adaptations than AGoT. But they weren't as interesting to the non-reader (as they shouldn't be, ASoIaF is a fantastic series) and because the fanboy screams and cries if a cast member has different colored HAIR than their character should... they were canceled. Fucking crybaby fanboys...

 

[madwarper]

I think the The Fellowship of the Ring movie is extremely faithful to the book.

Yeah... I have the feeling that we have vastly different definitions on what "extremely faithful" means.

Just going off memory... When, why and how Frodo left the Bag End. Their trip through the Great Forest and the Barrow Downs. Glorfindel. Narsil being reforged into Anduril. The gifts given by Celeborn and Galadriel.

 

[Korenith]

I liked some of Kubrick's more original work, like Space Odyssey, but I think the authors in question had legitimate criticism.

Uh, you do realize that Space Odyssey was an adaptation of a novel, right?

No, they were written in tandem, and if memory serves there was information that Kubrick had that Clarke was not privy to (though I can't verify this). Though the film was partially influenced by Clarke's other work, the sentinel, the novelization was released after the film. They worked together on the screen play.

Edit: I haven't read the book, but I've been told the film was better. It sounds like it was Kubrick's baby, though, so that makes sense.

I think that's true. The film has a sense of mystery and awe in it which Clarke's novel removes by explaining too much. For me the alien and unfathomable nature of the obelisk (along with the visual and audio style) is what makes the film worth watching but the novel has none of it. I like some of Clarke's other work but I think 2001 was a miss personally.

 

[Seishisha]

The V for Vendetta graphic novel translated pretty accuratly into film as i recall it, there was a few scenes omited from the film mostly focused on the back story of V himself but otherwise i'd say it was pretty close.

Has been a while since i last read the book or watched the film though so perhaps i am mistaken.

 

[Old Father Eternity]

There's a faitful adaptation, and then there's Dune [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087182/].

Children of Dune was done better at least.

 

[Zontar]

The V for Vendetta graphic novel translated pretty accuratly into film as i recall it, there was a few scenes omited from the film mostly focused on the back story of V himself but otherwise i'd say it was pretty close.

Has been a while since i last read the book or watched the film though so perhaps i am mistaken.

I think you may be mistaken on that one. The graphic novel focused on the officer investigating the case (who's name escapes me right now) and the story painted neither the state nor V and the hero or villain, both as sides f a grim coin where neither one represents an ideal system and there's ambiguity as to weather V's mission is really a good one.

In the movie, V is the hero, and his work is unquestioningly in the right.

 

[necromanzer52]

Fear and loathing in las vegas is nearly a word for word adaptation of the book. A few small parts were cut out, and the ending was changed slightly, but that's it. Plus, it adds in all this amazing music and visuals. Best adaptation ever.

 

[The Wykydtron]

I'm pretty sure the anime adaptation of Higurashi No Naku Koro Ni was at least in step with the VN. All of the story elements were in there and there was nothing blatantly removed for the sake of limited screen time. Honestly I started the VN for the first time a few weeks ago and the anime is just better. I mean the VN apparently doesn't even have voice acting? When Umineko was 100% voice acted? (and voiced fucking superbly by the way) Did the success of Higurashi send 07th Expansion's budget for Umineko No Naku Koro Ni through the roof or something?

I cannot believe how bad the Umineko No Naku Koro Ni anime fucked up when Higurashi's adaptation was just better than the source material. I mean when you get to Umineko No Naku Koro Ni Chiru, Umineko goes pretty crazy so it's not as straightforward to adapt for as Kai was for Higurashi. Higurashi No Naku Koro Ni Kai was basically the explanation of the mystery and the lead in to Umineko at the very end. Whereas I can't even begin to explain what Chiru is without breaking down what happened in the first game. Still, the Umineko anime is fuckin' bad with that stupid cliffhanger when they had no promises of getting the second season, that in itself is just terrible.

I dunno if I really like overly faithful adaptations if i've already read the source material. If it's word for word then why wouldn't you just go back and read the book again? Adaptations can be a really cool way to put a spin on a story instead of just going word for word for the sake of I dunno, preserving the author's work but adding pictures to it? That said, it's better to go word for word if you have no idea what the fuck you're doing. I still have nightmares of the Eragon adaptation...