LittleHayseed [2015-03-22 02:56:27 +0000 UTC]

Aherm... The Hobbit... Ahehehem.
The movies weren't bad in and of themselves, but many of the liberties taken in them were just too much.
I know that I'm not the only one who has this opinion, and anything I can say about the matter has been said before, so I shall now shut my mouth.
(I must admit I did like them though.)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

xelianthought [2015-03-15 16:39:40 +0000 UTC]

Some fascinating ideas here along with some brilliant imagery. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LeFabulousNeko [2014-12-13 03:59:57 +0000 UTC]

Holy -- yas.Reading the book first is like a hero's code of honor to me. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

CristinaCS [2014-12-02 00:03:13 +0000 UTC]

1- Yeah! Hunger games. Although the movies are good so far, the books are ten times better!
2- Yeah... I thought that Kick Ass was so much better in the movie version. (I didn't read the second one, and I didnt like the second movie, though)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Katy-L-Wood [2014-12-01 19:44:24 +0000 UTC]

1. Nope. As far as I'm concerned movies/TV are just expensive fan-fiction. Some is good, some is bad, but it will never change the original for me because it is not the original and it is not meant to be the original.

2. Hmmm... not really. I just find them exciting in different ways.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

lagartoloco94 [2014-12-01 19:30:48 +0000 UTC]

1.PERCY. JACKSON.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Andromada-Sama [2014-12-01 13:57:13 +0000 UTC]

1. don't even get me started, two words; percy jackson

2.  Surprisingly yes, Wicked.  Not that the book was any less amazing then the musical, its just different.  The books are much more political based and not exactly kid friendly while the musical everyone is able to enjoy.  Both are amazing, it just depends on how much time you have and if your willing to look into the finer details of it all to fully enjoy the series 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

friv4school [2014-12-01 07:20:08 +0000 UTC]

I never watched a movie before reading the book, since I really love reading and every book in my bookshelf has been read two or more times. And there are a lot of books (like 400 or so... I don't really know the exact number)

--
friv4schoolonline.net/kids-gam…

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KCKinny [2014-12-01 05:17:24 +0000 UTC]

1.  Of course.  I don't even wanna mention the names.

2. The Wizard of Oz.  The only movie I liked more than the book.  The book was a standard fairy tale, which I quite liked, but the narrative style in the movie was better.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

rockymarkie [2014-12-01 03:12:04 +0000 UTC]

rockymarkie.deviantart.com/?gi…

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bman19 [2014-12-01 03:10:36 +0000 UTC]

This is a highly intriguing discussion, especially for me because I am a storyteller of a sort... and I believe that there will be a vast majority of people involved in storytelling in the future, including but not limited to literature.

The reasons why I say this is because storytelling comes from many different mediums, from literature to music, from games to television and many other forms including Art. All these industries are expanding extremely fast and are being added to the world's already large collection of experiences which in turn influences the future of storytelling.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ChompsJ [2014-12-01 01:51:45 +0000 UTC]

Yes. The trilogy "His dark materials". Otherwise known as The Golden Compass. A story I loved to read as a child.
It's an adventure I'd love to see as either a movie trilogy or a television series.
Unfortunately the movie ended up without a lot of important scenes from the book,
in addition to changing character relations and the whole pacing of the story.
A proof of why good animation and actors doesn't substitute the need for a good storytelling.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Sassatelli17 [2014-12-01 01:08:31 +0000 UTC]

For me this theme it's really important because my biggest hope is to became a storyteller myself. I love reading and writing and drawing/painting charaters for my stories.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

CatrionaMalfoy [2014-11-30 18:43:08 +0000 UTC]

1. A Wrinkle In Time, The Golden Compass, Eragon, and omg, the Cat in the Hat. What evil that they wrought?
2. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. And I like the Hobbit films. They're different, but I think they're still good, although they do rely on CGI too much. And the comedy is ridiculous at times. (Bombur in the barrels). But I thought a lot of the changes were good, and I like their pulling from the appendices and the other writings.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DarkColumbine [2014-11-30 17:44:48 +0000 UTC]

1) Yes. More than once ><
2) No.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

iriscuritiba [2014-11-30 17:12:28 +0000 UTC]

For sure new narratives will give the women the place they deserve: as complete human beeings. So I guess there will be more woman telling histories. Also, I think the place for the dual thinking good/bad is over and there will be more grey areas and caracters. 

And the books are always better than the movies... Just because you imagine the way you want! The person that reads uses its mind to complete the history, while the TV passes on a completed picture, not allowing people to dream differently (and normally, full of prejudices created by movie director, like - I think a man with broad nose is more handsome than a man with thin nose, but who would put, for example, a latin american or a Asian in a hero´s place in Hoolywood?).

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

C-Cumbercookie [2014-11-30 12:38:26 +0000 UTC]

1) Oh god...two words: Percy Jackson. That was terrible. Terrible.
2) Not really. Oh WAIT LES MISERABLES

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Tom-Cii [2014-11-30 12:32:39 +0000 UTC]

I believe I'm more the visual type in general. Movies are much more appealing to me than books. It sure is a great experience to read and to have all these visions in your head of how everything looks, but movies are for a few reasons my personal preference.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheArbiterOfDarkness [2014-11-30 01:58:27 +0000 UTC]

Wait till they get a load of me...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

frogeyedape [2014-11-29 23:32:28 +0000 UTC]

1. I wouldn't say that a bad film adaptation ever could ruin the original novel/short story/comic/series.  It disappoints and frustrates me when directors/producers fail to provide new insights while being faithful to the original spirit, but the original still exists.  It has its own separate identity, and cannot be tainted by the failure of related works.

2. Actually, yes.  I saw I, Robot, which was inspired by the eponymous collection of short stories by Isaac Asimov.  The two were so fundamentally different, yet shared many of the same themes and problems (what is it to be human? who can decide who lives, who dies? etc).  However, this is a rare phenomenon for me for a couple of reasons. a) I read a lot, and usually I read the original story before seeing the film adaptation, so I don't normally get to judge the movie/TV show/etc on its own merits without the pre-prejudicing influence of the original text.  b) Too many film adaptations of written materials try too hard to copy the original, so experiencing both cheapens the experience of the second, whichever it is.  I end up just comparing a laundry list of details that the second "got wrong," as if its only purpose were to translate my experience of the first perfectly.  That's not what an adaptation should be--it should adapt, and change, and grow.  It should be different.  I, Robot did that for me.  I hope that more adaptations in the future will do the same.

General comment:  I don't think that the basis of storytelling will change that much just because the media is changing.  This article talks about immersive storytelling, and while I get that it's referring to something like a hologram that you could step into and see/smell/hear/taste/feel everything, I find that old fashioned verbal or literary stories are at least as immersive as the imagined new storytelling.  For me, words allow me to create an immersive experience.  I enjoy being immersed in another storyteller's vision of a story, but it has the disadvantage of providing most of the details of the immersion.  The best thing is really when a work of words (a "traditional" story) complements and is complemented by a similar story in another medium (such as a good film adaptation).  The words provide an insight that mere seeing could not provide, while the seeing (or use of other senses) backs up and fills in spaces that might be missing or unimagined while reading or listening to the traditional story.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

growlum-the-awesome [2014-11-29 23:19:43 +0000 UTC]

1. Ooh yes. As a Percy Jackson fan, I feel like I can say that the movie adaptation was one of the worst adaptations of anything ever, and I'd put it right at the top of that list along with the DBZ movie and the Last Airbender. So many characters ruined...so many concepts unexplained...just makes me cringe even thinking about it.

2. Not really, but my experience with the HTTYD movie and books was pretty close. I did read the books beforehand when I was quite a bit younger, and I really liked them, but nothing in the first book got anywhere close to the magic movie. I'm pretty glad they made the decision to change the plot so much; seriously, even though I still get filled with nostalgic love at the thought of the books, I can honestly say that the first book was pretty boring compared to the movie!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

joegrimer [2014-11-29 22:59:09 +0000 UTC]

1. Stormbreaker - This is the one I read growing up, and the film wasn't that good. It turned a sharp complex plot into a shallow action film. Alex Rider ftw!
2. Jurassic Park... maybe... this is a hard one!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Metr0n0me [2014-11-29 22:20:23 +0000 UTC]

1) LOTR (and now, the Hobbit). They were good films, but poor adaptations, hence not good at what they were supposed to be (like a fuel-efficient minivan that was advertised to be a rugged truck - good, but not the thing it was supposed to be). I put the blame on PJ either ignoring or being ignorant of the philosophical and artistic basis of storytelling which Tolkien held (and Tolkien should be credited for the idea of "secondary belief" rather than "suspension of disbelief" being part of the art. Read his essay on fairy-stories.)
2) The Princess Bride. The book was wittier, but it was cynical; and the honesty of the heroism and love in the film was superior as a genre-piece, rather than a modern novel with some ambivalent digs at the matter. But, like LOTR, what was being adapted was of a different spirit than the original, so I can't entirely say it was a good adaptation either. It was just a better story. It was "superversive" rather than "subversive."

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Sabbelbina [2014-11-29 22:05:41 +0000 UTC]

I never really had an adaption spoiling my favourite novel, but there has been a movie which I thought shouldn't exist, because it changes to much of the original story. In my case this movie was Eragon. The book is really great and the story has influenced a big deal of my life, but when I saw the movie, all I could think of was: This is not right!

I never watched a movie before reading the book, since I really love reading and every book in my bookshelf has been read two or more times. And there are a lot of books (like 400 or so... I don't really know the exact number)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MrBukkit123 [2014-11-29 18:49:54 +0000 UTC]

It has it's flaws.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

FreeStyle-90 [2014-11-29 11:28:54 +0000 UTC]

1. I believe not. An adaptation couldn't spoil it as long as the images in my head have already been formed in the first place through the book/comic series. But not even then it is able to spoil it as long as i know that in the book the story is better written and with more hidden treasures. For example, i remember seeing Eragon the movie. It sucked big time. And after 2 years, i decided to read the books! And man, even though they weren't the best representants of the SF with dragons genre, the storytelling caught my attention immediately and i loved them. I loved the way the elves, dragons, dwars and humans were portrayed (ok, maybe less the human world and more the elf part) but in any case, that empathic/telepathic linkage between the chosen ones and their dragons got to my heart immediately (and other similar ideas). It's bad that few directors are able to actually portray such aspects and develop a good story at the same time. I mean, the only ones that proved to be able to do it big time would be Cameron and... Christopher Nolan? (i mean, spielberg and george lucas are more on the E.T. part)

Then again I'm not exactly a movie "addict" so i haven't seen enough examples yet, but I believe that the ones able to spoil something would be the movies made after more realistic books, those that don't give you too many possibilities of forming your own image about the characters/story telling in the first place and thus you'll be forever stuck with wathever happens in the visual adaptation xD

Also, if i sensed that the adaptation would ruin my own ideas, then i'd simply not watch it : p


2. I've got to say yes ; )) LOTR cames to my mind everytime. I simply loved it, and i saw the first movie when i was 12 or something. I was at a marriage after party of some friends of my parents and even though everybody was dancing around and it was noise and etc, i was just staying there on a chair and with my eyes locked on the TV, completely silent in my mind or recreating the possible sounds made by Legolas freakin' counting his kills while sliding down the oliphant's trump in a competition with Gimli... and i fell in love with the actor as an elf i believe.  BUT i was so dissapointed when i read the lotr books and found very little character developpment as far as Legolas was involved. Oh well...
Something similar happened when i was little and when the ATLA series was finished i went to read the comics and i thought they were way too childish (i was probably expecting of a manga-like quality in terms of art and rich story telling but... nope)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

VisionCat12345 [2014-11-29 10:12:57 +0000 UTC]

! YESSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2. No way in hell.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Games-and-Smokes [2014-11-29 06:09:17 +0000 UTC]

[1.) Well, I can't say these ruined them for me, I still enjoy reading the books

But Ella Enchanted and Eragon, definitely

As for 2, I don't really know. there aren't any examples I can think of at the moment.]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

seleshen [2014-11-29 03:50:50 +0000 UTC]

1. Every video media adaptation is worse than the original to me.

2. The books are ALWAYS better than the movies, always.

PERFECT EXAMPLE: Percy Jackson, great books, disappointing movies

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Lady-Devinity [2014-11-29 01:55:58 +0000 UTC]

1. No, I find that I enjoy the book version no matter how the movie version played out. Although I was embarrassed for liking the City of Bones novel after seeing the movie for a little while. It didn't translate well.

2. I adored Warm Bodies the movie but then I read Warm Bodies the book and it wasn't great. The two are completely different except for certain elements and I think that if the movie had been made to be just like the book then I would not have seen it. The plot works well as a comedy but the book is serious and zombie love cure is not something that should ever be taken seriously.

I had moments in the reverse too. I had read all the Hunger Games books first. The first Hunger Games book was way better than the movie but the second movie, Catching Fire, was a way better version than the Catching Fire book. The second book is weak and a tad dull. The movie gives the plot life.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Realmwright [2014-11-28 23:37:36 +0000 UTC]

For me, LOTR was a prime example.
I read the Hobbit for the first time when I around 14. It was eighth grade and about the only reading I did was because it was school assignments. I didn't read very much on my own, and certainly not fantasy. I'd seen those guys at school - the ones in Akira tee shirts - lugging around thick tomes of tales and jabbering about Dune and Death Dealers. I didn't want to be seen as "one of them." I was as insecure as any scrawny, bespectacled middle school student. I knew I was a dork, that I'd never be at the cool kids' table, and I figured identifying with the "fantasy nerds" would only make things worse. I really wish I hadn't waited so long to embrace the cold, hard truth. I am a geek, through and through!

I read the Hobbit again at around 16 and picked up the Fellowship after that. I thought it was dreadfully dull and put it down. I just couldn't picture the world. The only dwarves and elves I had ever seen were from Disney and Christmas.
I watched the animated films thinking maybe they would give me some kind of visual reference. And they killed it dead. The Hobbits had worse hair cuts than Luke Skywalker. The goblins, balrog, and Smaug were atrocious. Aragorn looked like the reject child of He-Man and Cochise.
It wasn't until Peter Jackson's movies came out when I was 20 that I had any interest in how the quest of the One Ring played out.
And even then I think I nodded off in the theater watching the Fellowship.

About a year after that my best friend loaned me the extended DVDs because they had some pretty cool concept art and special features. That's what finally hooked me!
Now I don't think I'll ever tire of watching them over and over, back to back, with and without commentary.
I've dressed as a ranger for Halloween.
I've read volumes of other fantasy - including the Children of Hurin and the Silmarillion.
I was stoked that they were going to make a Hobbit movie. Then it took forever with a lot of back and forth and the project getting handed off to Jackson by Del Toro. Enough already! Just make me more movies!

Then I saw the teaser for the Hobbit. "How come Thorin and Kili look more like Dunedain than dwarves? WTF?!"
But again, I was absolutely wowed by the Middle Earth that Wingut Films put up on the silver screen.
The only disappointment that I have experienced with the LOTR movies versus the books is that Return of the King the movie didn't live up to what I saw in my head as I read the pages.
It was the only one of the trilogy that I read before seeing the film. My wife (then girlfriend) read them all, back to back, cover to cover after the first film. I didn't want to read the last one for fear that it might change my perception of the movie. But I was talked into it so we could talk about it.
When I saw the movie, the Halls of the Dead, the Witch King, Pelennor Fields...they were all so much cooler inside my own head. I hated that I left the theater thinking, "Well sure it was good, but it wasn't as good as the book."
Now I try like hell not to say those words anymore.
Of course the book is better because it's the story the writer gave to us. With their words we build our own visions. Even when a fantastic director like Peter Jackson takes a favorite and sweeps the Oscars, it's still HIS version our eyes see.
I much prefer to let my imagination do the talking.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

WingedSonar [2014-11-28 22:43:16 +0000 UTC]

1. Favorite novel 'spoiled' by a bad film. No. I find that the adaptations to film need to be seen as their own versions. You can't spoil a great novel with a bad film, because the novel will always be amazing. Now, having someone watch a terrible adaptation and then convincing them to try the novel as a superior version? Nearly impossible for the casual new viewer. The first impression should always be the novel if someone has a tendency toward either reading or seeing films.

2. See above's last statement. Not really. For a positive example of that, I watched Jurassic Park, LOVED it, read the book and absolutely loved that as well, then proceeded to purchase and absorb everything Michael Crichton wrote that I could get my hands on at the time. His thrill-style coverage of scientific subject matter hooked me more than any effects team, director or writer of a script at the time.  Next was watching Watership Down, then finding it in my high school library and just being intensely immersed in what was essentially the extended version of what I'd seen, and I had to purchase the Tales From sequel novel once it was released. Mose recently, I went to see The Giver BUT had read the book years back and decided to read it again just before the movie (because I'm a glutton for punishment), yet I was still entertained by most of the change. That's when you know they tried their hardest and did a decent job of adaptation.

Movie/Novel rant time. The ONLY movie to date that was better than the book was IT. It was funny, weird, stupid, and it even had genuine moments of enjoyment before the ridiculous Stephen King ending of "it was aliens the whole time, kids". People blame it for a bad ending, but no, blame King for that one. Shill probably insisted they not change the ending too. Stephen King is a creepy hack from everything I've read of his, and his choices of subject matter here involved child porn, skanky behavior, lack of faith in humanity yet again, and just a general lack of writer's tact. He wasted my time with nearly 1000 pages of nonsense just to get to a stupid ending, and that's something the tv film didn't do to me or others. Why his garbage was in that high school library, I'll never know. It was worse than Catcher in the Rye. Oh, and Tim Curry made it for me before I even knew who Tim Curry was. That clown was wild, funny, scary, just everything rolled into what King couldn't pull off in his waste of paper aliens-under-the-town repeat subject matter. He hasn't been good for my taste since Misery, and most of the adaptations of his work were sheer trash. Rant Over! XD

As an aside, I also enjoy visualizing and voice acting the books in my mind when I'm in the mood to read more slowly, and sometimes having the film's/concept art's visuals can be an aid, even when the scenes aren't quite the same. The watery Tyrannosaurus encounter scene from the book in JP, for example, probably wouldn't have been such a strong scene in my mind if not for Crash's concept art of the giant or the team in general's dedication to showing us very realistic creatures moving like we'd never seen before. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Kaonashi-Nanashi [2014-11-28 21:42:18 +0000 UTC]

Too bad DA doesn't support or promote literature more. They talk about storytelling, when the biggest and most common medium for story telling is via the written word!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Calilasseia [2014-11-28 21:34:02 +0000 UTC]

Your article inspired this .

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ErebusRed [2014-11-28 20:49:45 +0000 UTC]

1. The new Constantive TV series is a horrible adaption of the original comic-book source material.

2. Personally I though the film Kick-Ass had a stronger third act than the original material.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TayzeJacksonBell [2014-11-28 20:26:49 +0000 UTC]

The thought of pure storytelling taking a back seat to everything else is something I've about quite a bit.  For instance the Transformers films are than anything visual spectacle in which the story is pretty much formality, and yet if the boney made at the box office is any indication every one and their dog went to see these films.  As a storyteller myself I find this worrying.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Crushmount [2014-11-28 20:21:56 +0000 UTC]

1. Yup, unfortunately. I mean, I still like the book, but the film was so... featureless and shallow. I was really disappointed. (speaking of Christopher Paolini's Eragon btw)

2. Umm... like... no? Seriously, it has never happened to me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Ezoah92 [2014-11-28 20:09:03 +0000 UTC]

1) Ender'Games and InkHeart.
2)... Still waiting. I can't think of any movie better than the original novel.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Rick-TinyWorlds [2014-11-28 20:03:35 +0000 UTC]

That's not the future, that's the present.
As game developer who already had the opportunity to try out the Occulus Rift, I can wholeheartedly say that we are already at a point where technology allows a sort of lucid dreaming.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

marquism [2014-11-28 19:38:53 +0000 UTC]

2. The Hobbit. My childhood liked how the book was written. Each character was given depth, but the movies allowed my mind to think deeper into the lore thanks to the Lord of the Rings movie. I pictured how things truly were coming to an close and picture how things could have alternatively started. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DaMushroom [2014-11-28 19:29:12 +0000 UTC]

Question #2

All the time. I see a movie based on a book, I like the movie, I check out the book-HOLY COW! THIS WASN'T IN THE MOVIE! WHY WASN'T THIS IN THE MOVIE!? AND THAT! Books are a larger playground than movies, grabbing you more as it's up to your mind to give you the imagery-leaving you more connected to the story than the movie

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mwr928 [2014-11-28 19:11:48 +0000 UTC]

Beware: Wall of Text

A good story will stand on its own, regardless of the set dressing around it, so long as the dressing does not overpower the story. Oral Tradition, and the Minstrels and Bards on the folding stage, could tell powerful stories with a minimum of props. Today this can be expressed by the comic character presented before a blank background.

But the craft of writing is no longer practiced by many, in favor of industry. Thus we see so many stories of whatever medium drowning out the fundamental story flaws with superficial eye candy.

Question 1:

Favorite story spoiled by bad adaptation:

In My Opinion, Robert Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers as juvenile fiction disguising several essays on issues surrounding the question of ‘why the individual would choose to go to war.’

Paul Verhoeven took about a third to half of the disguise setting, briefly glanced at the back cover of the book, and made an anti-war parody that did not seriously address any of the same issues.

Conclusion: Verhoeven has plenty of eye candy, but in this case he drowns out the original intent of the story. Giving that Verhoeven was trying to make an anti-war parody, he could have at least tried to address some of the points Heinlein introduced and argued them. But he chose the easy path of ridicule instead of intellectual engagement.

Story not spoiled:

Monty Python’s Life of Brian could have been a blasphemous screed against the central character and story of Christianity. Instead in the few moments it addressed that character and story (less than 5 minuets of film), they are very respectful of them. The Pythons do satirize and attack the thoughtless adherents, and their behavior, as characterized in the treatment of Brian through out the story.

Question 2:

This question is a little bit of a Chicken and Egg question. I suggest three known modern sets. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Star Wars.

I first tried to read the Lord of the Rings while perhaps too immature to appreciate them. As a result, I did not try to read them again until the time between the release of Fellowship, and Two Towers in the theater. This time I plowed through them. The imagery of the first film helped to fill in the periphery of the story as I read Tolkien’s prose dense books. As I finished them I found, to no surprise, that there was so much more story in the books that was not told in the movie. As a result, for me the movie was a gateway into the prose dense world of the books. But this also has limited me some as I still struggle to read Tolkien’s surrounding material.

Tolkien wrote as a scholar for scholars. Compare and contrast his friend C.S. Lewis’ writings.

Harry Potter

Before the first movie came out, I noticed the Potter Phenomenon building. Then the first movie came out, and I was swept into the theater and then book store with everyone else.

Unlike my experience with LoR, I found myself dissatisfied with the movies after reading the books, and refused to attend any of the movies beyond the second, as I preferred the imagery in my mind from my own reading of the books.

Rowling does a very good job of stirring the imagination. The movies fixed the imagery too solidly in my mind, and left me dissatisfied.

Star Wars

I am old enough I saw Star Wars in its original theater run. I subsequently read the novelization of the movie (based on a scrip version with some scenes an iteration or two earlier from what made it to the film. EG including the Biggs sub-plot). Initially the book was satisfying, but it has not aged well.

As compared to LoR and HP where the movies were the gateway to the preexisting books, Star Wars’ movie-novel was a bit more than milking the cash cow and rehashing the story.

The Star Wars Extended Universe in its various mediums has done a better job of filling out the worlds than the original movie-novel.

Lucas has repeatedly shown that he can do a great job creating worlds, but needs help in scripting dialog. (Compare and contrast Empire to Clones.)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

wcqaguxa [2014-11-28 19:00:49 +0000 UTC]

1. Yeah, Narnia, Narnia, Narnia... Oh not Ender's Game. It never had it's movie adaptation, did it? did it?
2. Deffinetely Hunger Games. I find the narration horrible, but the movie corrected everything and it was actually enjoyable.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Loulin [2014-11-28 18:32:26 +0000 UTC]

No comments on the questions, just a big "thak you" for including me into the journal. It was a really nice surprise.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1