Post by extremewreck2000 on Oct 8, 2021 7:02:46 GMT
He considers good adaptations to be stuff that's faithful to the source material to quite some degree, like say Charlie And the Chocolate Factory(No, not the 1971 movie which I myself don't really like at all, & just found to be a forgettable movie, especially considering that it'll later be remade with Tom & Jerry characters thrown in). However though, when it comes to bad adaptations, it's a little... weird. He considers the Disney movies to be good on their own, but terrible movies. Same with the Wayside cartoon, though he has more mixed opinions on that one. That's got me thinking though...
what if an adaptation is bad because it's based on an already bad source material, & either doesn't improve any of the many, many, MANY mistakes the original source did, or in egregious cases, makes the problems even worse? Would that be considered a good adaptation, or a bad adaptation because I'm confused here.
Not that there aren't such things out there: 50 Shades of Gray is a garbage adaptation of the already garbage Twilight, The Mandoria Saga sucked as both a book, & a movie, & the less said about Magical Girl Site, the better.
what if an adaptation is bad because it's based on an already bad source material, & either doesn't improve any of the many, many, MANY mistakes the original source did, or in egregious cases, makes the problems even worse? Would that be considered a good adaptation, or a bad adaptation because I'm confused here.
Not that there aren't such things out there: 50 Shades of Gray is a garbage adaptation of the already garbage Twilight, The Mandoria Saga sucked as both a book, & a movie, & the less said about Magical Girl Site, the better.
