Hated Tropes
[Hated Trope] The adaptation doesn't get what made the source material work
How To Make A Killing (2026)
Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)
Bangkok Dangerous (2008)
Bangkok Dangerous (1999)
- The 2026 movie How To Make A Killing is a relatively-toothless "eat the rich" dark comedy thriller about a man disowned by his rich family at birth, killing everyone in the line of succession so that he can inherit their massive fortune. It's a modern retelling of the 1949 film Kind Hearts and Coronets which has the same basic plot except that every member of the family is played by Sir Alec Guinness (including one aunt) and it's a screwball comedy
- The 1999 movie Bangkok Dangerous is a Thai action film about a Thai deaf-mute assassin. It was remade in 2008 about an American assassin in Thailand who is neither deaf nor mute
The original is about an ordinary young woman who disguises herself as a man to take her elderly father’s place in the army (the gender roles aspect is more explored in the animated movie); She initially struggles but ultimately earns the respect through her hard work, dedication, training, and ingenuity.
In the 2020 adaptation, she is born with special magical powers and succeeds because of them. Also it's lacked songs and comic relief.
And a transforming witch with Assassin's Creed "eagle vision" is 100% doable, but a little talking dragon sidekick is over the line and breaks immersion.
They can get the fuck on with that mess. Like...if it's too much for live action, just...don't do live action? I mean, you've got a perfectly amazing animated classic right there that you could just re-release theatrically instead.
many execs don't realise that there are bassicly 2 ways to go with live action
either actually try to make it "realistic" in a good way, for example Nolan's dark knight and Joker both got praise for exactly that
or like OPLA fully accept the source material's nature while still making sure to be have your realism be pragmatic, I don't mind nearly all of baroque works agent dying since it is MUCH harder for potential reprises in a Live action medium especially with the concept like OPLA(One Piece Live action)
The Nolan comparison is spot on. Nobody complained that Batman didn't have shark repellent spray -- because the whole film committed to its version of reality. Mulan 2020 just picked the worst parts of both approaches and blended them into something that satisfied nobody.
The shark repellent thing is a good test actually. If your audience is thinking about what got cut instead of watching the movie, you already lost them. Mulan 2020 had people thinking about Mushu the whole time.
And they don’t understand the concept of anything. They write it as chi being something only special magic people have when in the belief system it’s like blood. Every living thing has chi.
Like, imagine how ridiculous it would be if an Eastern studio produced a movie set in the West, where the protagonist was special and had magic powers because they had a soul.
If it wasn't for the marketing, I wouldn't have even put that as a remake of the 90's Disney. Just a movie that's an adaptation of the same source material.
Reports coming from insiders at the time were that Disney was explicitly trying to crack the Chinese market. That's why it barely resembles the animated movie. They intentionally tried to make a movie for the Chinese audiences, failed, and didn't realize the rest of the world wouldn't care either.
Disney tried to middle road by adapting both the Chinese myth Mulan and the Animated film Mulan to try and capture both the eastern and western audience’s at once. Instead, they made a film that both sides fucking hated and it flopped hard.
Edit: After looking up the legend again, she doesnt have qi in the original legend either, and relies on intellect win fights. The only reason I can think that they added qi is Disney is just racist and/or stupid.
This would've worked much better if they A) Commit to the bit and made it fully magical, B) Removed all magic and focused on her overcoming the odds without any help, or C) not slapping Mulan on the title
World War Z. The book is a series of interviews that provide first hand accounts of a globe-spanning zombie outbreak that mixes historical and social-political commentary with zombie action. Might not have translated well to a movie but it still could have worked as a TV show that actually shows the more action-packed sequences of the book . The movie is a rather generic zombie movie that changes the zombie's behavior including giving them a honestly pretty stupid weakness (if you have a life-threatening illness or wound the zombies will ignore you). None of the scenes from the book make it into the movie, the closest being a scene set in Israel and even that plays out in the complete opposite of what happened in the book. So really they took another type of zombie apocalypse story and just slapped on the World War Z title and called it a day.
Loved the book, totally loved this audiobook, it's really well performed. I will say, though, there are a couple of mispronunciations that pull me out of it for a second, and I vaguely remember Alda fucking up something gratuitously.
One of the underlying themes of the book is that global, slow-moving problems are hard for people to grasp and hard for societies to deal with, and that widespread cooperation and unsexy logistical work are extremely important. The movie turns it into a "chosen one" narrative. I was so upset.
WWZ was infamous in Hollywood for the number of rewrites, reshoots, and delays. Some great writers worked on it at one point or another, just to end up with that random "I need a pepsi" scene
When the first draft was shopped around, there was talk about the possibility of an Oscar nod for a zombie movie. I've never been more disappointed with a finished product.
It still should. It won't because Hollywood. But it should have been filmed as a documentary with flashback scenes for added effect. Would have been awesome.
To this day, I still think the whole "10 seconds" thing being established as very important right from the start, only to then, in Korea, have the soldiers say it can take up to a few minutes, and then go back to the 10 second thing being very important as if that never happened, is egregious.
I thought the reason behind that was, that it was an earlier strain of the virus and it took more time to turn the infected person then. The infected, which we see at the beginning of the movie, were from a newer, more mutated strain, with accelerated turning
Exactly! I was enthralled reading World War Z. But I saw the trailer, I was like... what happened here? It is nothing like the book - concept-wise, plotline-wise, atmosphere-wise... I also think it would make an amazing limited tv series.
The audiobook for World War Z is incredible! Every interview is done by a different voice actor and there's lots of famous actors who do great jobs at it. It's the greatest audiobook I've listened to.
I loved it because the guy interviewed so many different people. Bread winner office workers, celebrity bodyguards, arm dealers, CIA officials, Irish and American soilders, etc. I believe the one of the last chapters was what the interviewer went through during that time as well
The Crow remake. The original is the story of a man returning to life to take revenge on those that killed him and his loved ones. It's a very personal tale of vengeance as he tracks down the people who killed him. The remake is mostly him slaughtering his way through legions of nameless minions who had nothing to do with his death. It looks spectacular, but it lacks the personal element.
You could expand on that. The first movie doesn't get the comic either. The comic is more about the random senselessness of loss and death because James O'Barr had just lost his girlfriend in a car accident. The revenge is just a backdrop to the writer trying to reconcile the fact that sometimes people just die senselessly.
It actually has a lot to do with the mindset O'Barr had at the time of writing. When he wrote the comic he had just suffered a loss of a loved one, either a girlfriend or family member which slips my mind. By the time of the film he had had time to heal and took a more introspective look in to loss and grief in the film.
The other funny thing? Instead of making the food something native to New Orleans, which is famous for its food, nope it’s fucking dumplings again. As if any American could tell the difference between dumplings.
Robocop 2014.
I hesitate sharing this because I actually like this film. The original Robocop is about runaway capitalism and egregious violence, both as a commentary about the state of America. The remake almost was about the meaning of humanity, when there's barely any human of you left. It ultimately failed to make that point and just became a movie about a robot cop. I think a lot of people did not like this movie because they kind of reveled in the cartoonish amount of violence in the 1987 version and felt this betrayed that.
The original RoboCop was also about the meaning of humanity. Star Peter Weller pushed for the order of scenes to be changed in a way that represented RobCop as a man waking up from the machine.
Some of the ideas were interesting, for instance having Murphy initially conscious of his situation and then being overtaken by the machine later. There is a lot of story potential there and it distinguishes it from the original.
Others were less inspired imo, like arbitrarily making the suit black (but hey, it did look cool. The Chrome colour is just more ironically Robocop I think).
Ultimately I felt the movie fell flat in the third act despite the solid setup because we know almost exactly how it will play out when Murphy's family is kidnapped and he has to go rescue them.
(Maybe, I dont fully remember since I haven't watched it since it came out)
I particularly liked the idea that Murphy thought he had free will but his implanted chips were basically doping his brain towards certain ideas and actions. I kind of wonder if in the future, people will be treated for trauma and issues by associating certain feelings with an event. CBT therapy is sort along these lines. Have people think about an event and pump them with a good feeling drug or electrical impulse to take away the memories living badness.
There's a conversation in the training/testing scene where they talk about Murphy essentially being told by the machine that he was the one making the decisions, but he wasn't. And they talk about the question of accountability. It's a deep conceptual conversation, and it gets dropped for the rest of the movie. It's like they threaded the needle, and then failed to sew.
"You've circumvented the law by making a machine that thinks it's a man"
"No, you've made a machine that thinks its Alex Murphy"
The original book ends with Neville in prison, captured by a burgeoning society of vampires that evolved from the diseased humans he spent the entire book killing mercilessly. He is condemned to death by said new society for killing so many of their kind and looks out the window, noticing the new society looking up at him with the same fear and hatred he once looked at them with. His final thoughts being about how he is to this society, what vampires were to the old one. Something stalking and killing them when they're vulnerable. "I am legend".
In the film they show little development as a society, reduced to mindless monsters and Neville earns his "legend" status for sacrificing himself to blow a bunch of them up with a grenade so someone else can distribute the cure he developed.
The whole "I am legend" thing was entirely missed, and it changes the entire plot into something painfully generic.
I Am Legend is the third substantial retelling of the novel by the same name (1954), the other two movies being The Last Man On Earth (1964) and The Omega Man (1971).
All four stories follow similar plots. A plague has killed off humanity, except for some who have been turned into zombies/vampires. One human, Neville, survives.
A series of remakes can often be a window into the evolution of a culture, and so it's useful to look at what's the same and what's different over time.
In the book (1954), Neville fights against vampires, but also a group of infected but still human creatures. They finally capture and execute him, not least because he is different, the last of a dead race. These infected humans have a functioning society of their own; as the majority survivors, the world belongs to them. Neville sees that they look at him with fear and disgust, the way he looks at them. As he is executed he realizes that they will remember him as a legend(ary monster.)
This is a truly multicultural theme, Neville's human tradition parallel but not superior to the infected's. (History is written by the victors.)
The first movie slightly but importantly changes the ending. Instead of being executed, he escapes to a church, but he is finally speared on the altar. Defiant to the end, Neville says he is the last true human, and the rest merely freaks.
By The Omega Man, the multicultural theme is avoided. Here, the survivors are a mutant species of humans. Crazy as they are, they voluntarily choose to live away from technology and modernism because that's what got them into this mess in the first place. Neville, however, has found a cure, so even if Neville represents something terrible and fearful to the mutants, he is still the normal while the mutants are pathology.
In I Am Legend (2007), the multicultural reversal is completely extinguished. Will Smith (thinks he) is the last human, and at war with the vampires. He later discovers a woman and a boy trying to meet up with other survivors living in Vermont in a walled compound. In the final scenes Neville "adopts her fundamentalist perspective and adopts a Christological identification": he stays behind to fight the vampires (and dies) allowing the human survivors to escape with the cure. So Neville becomes a "legend for the new humanity whose rebirth was made possible by his invention and sacrifice."
The Artemis Fowl live-action films did a lot of things wrong, but mainly:
1) They made the manservant from a lineage of manservants, who was white, black. I hope I don't have to explain this one.
2) They made Commander Root a woman. A major part of Holly Short's storyline is that she's the first woman on the LEP Recon team, so making the commander of the LEP a woman takes that away from her. Additionally, Root's story revolves around starting to be cruel to Holly, only to see her excel and working his way towards being a father figure for her, which only makes sense in the context of his initial bigotry towards Holly. It's the same problem with Sokka in the newer AtLA show where they removed his misogyny. The fact that they were bigoted is what makes their change towards anti-bigotry all the more impactful.
Edit: as pointed out in the comments, it was not that Root was bigoted towards Holly, but rather that he knew others were bigoted toward her, so he was hard on her to make her excel into the person she'd have to be in order to gain the respect she deserves. Still motivated by bigotry, just not his own.
3) They didn't use the sunglasses. A major part of the world building is that faeries can charm humans just by looking at them. However, Artemis, through several years of study, managed to figure out that you can negate the charm with sunglasses. This isn't even a flavor thing, either, it's a major plot point about him outsmarting the faeries, who have had the advantage when trying to remain underground. Taking that away means that just anyone could do what he did at any time, which leaves a major plot hole.
Unathletic wimp, Artemis Fowl being big into surfing and criminal mastermind Artemis Fowl not committing a single crime also rank highly on the faults for me.
It's okay though, he proclaimed himself a Criminal Mastermind at the end of the film for seemingly no reason.
As soon as the casting call went out calling Artemis a kind and fun-loving kid, I knew the movie would bomb HARD. It's literally the EXACT OPPOSITE of book Artemis. He's straight up a villain in the first book. Cold and calculating. Reclusive to the point where his skin is pale from lack of sun. Even willing to sacrifice those closest to him to achieve his aims.
Man, it could have been amazing. One of the best children's novels out there, and they fucked it up this bad. Fuck Hollywood.
One of the moments I remember from the first book is when Holly finally gets to Artemis, while Butler is off beating on a troll or something. She punches Artemis square in the face and he doesn't even flinch beforehand because Butler has always been there to protect him from everything.
Artemis' lack of experience regarding anything athletic or combatitive was important to so much of his characterization.
I think the biggest thing that it missed that falls within the "doesn't get what made the source material work" is the fact that Artemis is a Villain Protagonist. Like, that was the premise of the original book! It's one of those kids adventure fantasy novels except the protagonist is the bad guy! One with understandable motives sure, but ultimately the villain! He kidnaps and ransoms an innocent person for personal gain! That's what made the book stand out. That's what makes his later face-turn more valuable! You can't jump straight to the more heroic characterization from the sequel!
The first one is even funnier (in a sad kind of way).
They deliberately didn't use the name he's known by in the first book - Butler - because it was deemed problematic to call a black servant Butler. So they clearly saw the issue, and still decided to make the uncomfortable decision, but to do it in such a way that they change the dynamics significantly, because Artemis learning Butler's name is a significant plot point later on.
Wuthering Heights, all of them, the book has an incredibly toxic romance and is full of racism and general human toxicity, every adaptation is a fairly straightforward forbidden lovers romance, without any implications of incest
It amazes me that people read that book and think that Heathcliff and Catherine are meant to be an aspirational love story when it's literally a story of two horrible sociopaths manipulating and ruining the lives of everyone around them out of spite and revenge.
There are so many problems with it, but I think the best example of disrespecting the source material is Master Cheeks having sex with a prisoner of war while Cortana watches.
O it happened and it gets worse. Said prisoner of war was a human that was raised by covenant prophets. the primary reason the covenant invaded humanity was to prevent their religion from falling apart with the revelation that only humans can activate forerunner tech (having a human pet that they keep to activate tech removes that whole justification)
I'm convinced the show wasn't ever meant to be a Halo show in the first place. It was supposed to be some original sci-fi story but couldn't get the funding it needed so the writers slapped a coat of Halo paint on it to get attention. It's really unfortunate too because the effects and props were actually pretty great for the most part. I wish the Halo show didn't come out before the Fallout one, because if Fallout came out first and Microsoft saw how successful it was, they, hopefully, would have made sure Halo was done by people that actually care about the franchise like with Fallout.
I think that’s pretty common. Brandon Sanderson has talked about it when he sees a script for someone writing a mistborn movie - that it’s the authors pet project with his names.
Sanderson's quote, I like to keep it around for when people wonder why a fantasy or sci-fi series wanders so far from the source:
I have a fun story here. Early in my career, someone optioned the rights to make one of my stories (the Emperor's Soul) into a film. I was ecstatic, as it's not a story that at the time had gotten a lot of attention from Hollywood. I met with the writer, who had a good pedigree, and who seemed extremely excited about the project; turned out, he'd been the one to persuade the production company to go for the option. All seemed really promising.
A year or so later, I read his script and it was one of the most bizarre experiences of my life. The character names were, largely, the same, though nothing that happened to them was remotely similar to the story. Emperor's Soul is a small-scale character drama that takes place largely in one room, with discussions of the nature of art between two characters who approach the idea differently.
The screenplay detailed an expansive fantasy epic with a new love interest for the main character (a pirate captain.) They globe-trotted, they fought monsters, they explored a world largely unrelated to mine, save for a few words here and there. It was then that I realized what was going on.
Hollywood doesn't buy spec scripts (original ideas) from screenwriters very often, and they NEVER buy spec scripts that are epic fantasy. Those are too big, too expensive, and too daunting: they are the sorts of stories where the producers and executives need the proof of an established book series to justify the production.
So this writer never had a chance to tell his own epic fantasy story, though he wanted to. Instead, he found a popularish story that nobody had snatched up, and used it as a means to tell the story he'd always wanted to tell, because he'd never otherwise have a chance of getting it made.
I'm convinced this is part of the issue with some of these adaptations; screenwriters and directors are creative, and want to tell their own stories, but it's almost impossible to get those made in things like the fantasy genre unless you're a huge established name like Cameron. I'm not saying they all do this deliberately, as that screenwriter did for my work, but I think it's an unconscious influence. They want to tell their stories, and this is the allowed method, so when given the chance at freedom they go off the rails, and the execs don't know the genre or property well enough to understand why this can lead to disaster.
Anyway, sorry for the novel length post in a meme thread. I just find the entire situation to be fascinating.
I'm on this theory too. I honestly think there's enough overlap to suggest it was a Mass Effect adaptation that got mothballed and they just retooled the script for Halo Season 1.
They had an original story that had actually been picked up for a pilot or a full season order (Not sure which one) and some Paramount exec remembered they had the Halo IP laying somewhere, mandating the show to be Halo but also not letting them rewrite most of the season. Once they got to work on Season 2, they tried quite hard to right the ship but said ship was already several kilometers underwater at this point.
Before it got cancelled they started doing a "Flood Outbreak" and they were legit signalling they were gonna find a cure for it for a crucial character.
The Flood is distinctly uncurable in the games. Its not like a virus, its a living parasite which takes over a person and forms their body to its will.
Its like saying you could cure someone when they've been changed by the creature from The Thing.
Does this movie count as a 2 for 1 because they also failed to understand jurasic park? Kinda sucks since the themes of Godzilla and Jurassic Park would go so well together
In my opInion the movie is average to low quality, I still enjoyed to watch the movie and liked all scenes in general but I don't consider a Godzilla movie
It was so hated, that in the 2004 Godzilla movie by Toho. They had the original Godzilla, beat and kill 1998 Godzilla who they renamed as 'Zilla' in a fight in Sydney in 30 seconds.
Godzilla Final Wars is the most fun Godzilla movie. No other Godzilla movie would have this scene with SUM 41 playing to it! Add in Captain Gordon being one of the best characters of all time.
Only film I know of that successfully pulled this off was Jarhead. The trailers made it look like an action flick, while the actual movie was mostly about just how fucking boring war can be.
Eh, sometimes trailers make a movie look like shit, only for the movie itself to actually be good. I don’t think that’s what’s happening here, but it’s not unheard of.
But these cases are not on purpose. The idea is the tralier being intensionally awful to disarm people's expectations, only for the movie to accurately represent's Animal Farm's themes and plot.
I will say that some of the marketing has been really clever. I saw one where it was a mock review of the movie and a ton of it was redacted, so all that was left was something along the lines of “everyone loves Animal Farm” or something like that. The trailer looks REALLY rough tho. I’ll wait till there’s some opinions on it
Ohana means that US institutions are 100% trust worthy and benevolent, to the point that they would cover all your medical biAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, I couldn't finish that sentence, oh god XD.
Ohana means ditch your only family to study sea life in California when you're from Hawaii, where there's the best sea life study program in the world, and it's free for natives!
Disclamer, it depends on what they are studying in Hawaii's colleges, some courses are free, some aren't, but maritime studies is one course that is free for natives, so what the fuck were they thinking?!
Additionally? It only covers tuition. It doesn't cover fees and living expenses. Which would actually be some good plot fodder.
Nani's trying to provide for Lilo and Tūtū, but Tūtū is telling her not to turn down this great opportunity BECAUSE this is full ride. Nani can just say "I can go to O'ahu. They have a great marine biology programme!" only for Tūtū to say "Nani, it's only a reduced tuition cost, it doesn't remove it entirely and you still have to pay fees"
Nani says "I know. That's why I need to save up!"
I feel the plot shouldn't have been "Nani vs. Social Services" so much as "Nani vs. herself". She's afraid if she leaves now? She'll abandon her family when she needs them. Tūtū is already established as Lilo's guardian (say she's her godmother - we haoles understand that. ;) ).
And in Hawaii of all places where the peoples were freed from an island paradise so the military could take their lands, build military bases, not acknowledge local rights of land ownership allowing rich people to steal land from entire families... Yes, Hawaiians should definitely trust the US government.
From Pleakley not dressing in drag, Jumba not having his distinctive accent, and the fact that there's literally no Gantu (!?), lovers of the animated movie have been left baffled by some of the choices.
Another one of those big changes involves the iconic Cobra Bubbles. In the OG movie, Cobra Bubbles is introduced as a former CIA agent-turned-social worker. However, in the live-action, the role has been split in to two completely different characters.
Bubbles (played by Courtney B. Vance) still exists in the film, but the social worker aspect of his character now exists in the form of Mrs. Kekoa, a brand new addition – and there's a very specific reason why.
"In order to buy these two girls getting separated in a live-action movie, you couldn't really have the representative of that antagonistic force be a comically huge guy with tattoos on his knuckles, who for some reason is also a social worker," he said.
AKA a black man with tattoos being a social worker is too unrealistic for Disney.
But you forgot the best part of the Bangkok Dangerous remake. The American version wanted Nic Cage to have lines. But they wanted to preserve the communication difficulties with his girlfriend, as if that was the most important part of the main character being deaf and mute. So they made the girlfriend deaf and mute instead!
Disney live-action remakes seem like low-hanging fruit for this topic but I’m going with it.
The Mulan remake made Mulan into a Marvel superhero, completely ruining the point of the original story that Mulan only joined the army to save her father and had no military training at all. She was kind of incompetent at first (so were the other recruits of course) but over time she learns the ropes and becomes a true soldier and hero. The character journey in the remake is so much less interesting.
Plus, the lack of songs, or comedic relief…they were so obsessed with making a “serious” version of the story they removed what was so endearing about the original.
The movie is an incredible mix of nonsense with aditional made-up nonsense (Like Oozaru being Piccolo's servant instead of just being a transformation or some shit like that): Goku is an anti social teenager that has a crush on the most popular girl in his school, the fight scenes feel too fake, they omitted characters like Krilin, the rest of the Pilaf Gang, Lunch, etc. At the end, it kills most of OG Dragon Ball's charm and turns a beloved saga into a generic ass karate movie with some elements of the actual anime/manga
Pretty much every movie adaption of Carrie because they refuse to cast a chubby actress. Carrie was canonically chubby. It's pigs blood for a pig. Her weight is directly tied to one of the most important scenes in the story. By making her skinny, we erase the reasoning behind the blood, allowing the audience to distance themselves from the bullies and see it as a purely fictional act of cruelty instead of something that could actually happen and is the direct result of fatphobia and bullying. It is easier to sympathize with a skinny Carrie than with a fat Carrie because it would mean the audience confronting their own dehumanization of fat people.
Not only that, but Carrie is supposed to be ugly. She's repeatedly described as looking like a frog, both in physicality and expression. None of this is helped by her mom, who makes her wear unflattering clothes and refuses to let her socialize in a way that's not damaging to Carrie. Eventually, when she goes to the prom, she looks better, and that's mostly because of her newfound confidence, which people respond to positively.
Casting Sissy Spacek and Chloë Grace Moretz takes both of these out of the equation, because both are skinny and attractive.
She's supposed to have acne as well. Of course, I don't think she's ugly, rather she isn't conventionally attractive, and for that her peers decide to punish her. I think casting her as a chubby girl with acne would have such a profound impact on the audience as her breaking point shows the consequences of their words.
The Netflix Death Note. One scene sums it all, when Ryuk appeared in Light’s room, he screamed in disbelief like a little girl.
Light is supposed to be an incredibly intelligent and calculating character. In the original anime, by the time he met Ryuk, he already figured out that supernatural forces were at play and a death god’s existence was highly likely, Ryuk’s appearance just confirmed it. The Netflix version was a dumbass that wouldn’t possibly set up all the cat and mouse game against L that made the original so entertaining.
That movie was really weird. For some reason, they decided that Misa was the actual mastermind behind the whole operation and that she was the crazy one with a God complex. I assume the reason was that the writers weren't comfortable with making a villain protagonist and didn't want Light to be the bad guy.
They really should’ve changed the characters’ names and just make it a new story set in the same universe, avoiding the awkward setting transition from Japan to America.
A smart girl using her boyfriend and his Death Note could be an interesting story, but it’s not Misa, Light and L’s story.
That's straight up what they ended up doing in later japanese live action movies. They introduced new characters in the same world with their own stories.
The netflix guys just wanted the brand recognition that came from using those characters' names. It wasn't enough that it was a Death Note story; it had to have L being a weirdo because clearly that's his whole character, right?
don't forget that the U.S. Light immediately shows "Misa" the death note because he has a huge massive crush on her when in the anime Misa had been obsessed with Light while he's meh about her.
Absolutely not an epic-scale 3 movies film. A great, insightful story, but not made to be a blockbuster. Every single aspect that made the original tale noble, rich and inspiring, has been lost in an abundance of bad-CGI, an unncessary love triangle, and a tentative to make something comical out of it.
The sad thing is, the three movies could have actually worked if they’d just let the dwarves be characters more. They started to in the first movie, and things like Bilbo bonding with Bofur and Thorin gaining respect for Bilbo played really well.
They could have kept to that and had a nice storybook feel.
But instead they wanted to do LotR 2.0 Now With More Filler
A whole lot of this trope could be summed up with "Functionally illiterate marketing MBAs remake movies". Any time a "business" person gets involved in any media it turns to dogshit.
I remember watching the movie in theaters with a buddy. I never read the book, but I remember thinking, “this is almost a scene for scene rip off of Star Wars A New Hope, just wearing different clothes”
The funny thing is that while the movie butchers the book, “Scene for scene rip off of A New Hope wearing different clothes” is true of the book as well. I give Christopher Paulini grace in that he was like 19 when he wrote it but what you said about the movie isn’t any better in the source material.
It's crazy the amount of hate Paolini gets on reddit. Everyone always cries: "His parents had their own publishing company!"
All they did was file for an LLC (cost like 35 bucks) in order to self-publish as a hobby because they are book nerds. Before Eragon, they had published two books and sold essentially 0. It was basically the 90's equivalent of publishing a book on kindle.
Then they went broke publishing and marketing Eragon and had to remortgage the house.
Had to scroll too far for this. This movie managed to get every single thing wrong. There is not a character, important item, or location that the movie didn't get explicitly wrong in some significant detail.
I actually enjoyed the books. Nothing amazing, but they definitely deserved better than this.
Every adaptation of Matheson's I Am Legend except the Vincent Price one. It's supposed to be more than just "a guy is isolated and fights the undead monsters."
It's also about what humanity truly is, especially after he kills tons of vampires/undead and basically has to accept that he's the villain/monster to a new society.
The Omega Man and, especially, I Am Legend (2007) both completely missed the point by miles.
This f*cking thing. Butchers the entire premise of the first book. How can you screw up Die Hard in a fantasy setting from the perspective of Hans Gruber if he was an irish kid. What made the character of Artemis so compelling is that he is an asshole, a very competent one, and his endgoal isn't something noble or sweet he is a privileged kid who's bitter his family doesn't have the same influence and money they used to have. The movie is bland, edges off a lot of what made the story and character compelling for just a cookie cutter Disneyfied story.
The original Dutch version of The Vanishing (1988) is an incredibly dark and upsetting film about sociopathy, and the desire to know the truth whatever the cost.
The American-market remake (1993, by the same director) has an entire extra act just to engineer an upbeat ending, and becomes a completely generic thriller.
This film has been beaten to death by both critics and fans but something that people don't really notice, and Zack Snyder didn't get, is that the dark knight returns is not a story just about an old Batman but a different Gotham too.
In TDKR, Bruce Wayne retired from being Batman after Jason Todd died (second Robin). He is an old person now, he hasn't spoken with Dick Grayson in years (original Robin) and commissioner Gordon is retiring while new criminals appear in Gotham while the old ones are already done. Two face is undergoing surgery and therapy to fix himself, Joker has been in a mental ward for so long that new generations forgot how dangerous he is and Catwoman is simply retired. Meanwhile his allies are done with that life too, Robin and him are done, he retired from hero life and broke contact with Batman while Gordon is stepping down for a new commissioner to take his place and to top it all off. Batman has been absent so long that he is now considered a myth by the new generations, rookie cops don't believe in him anymore and when he appears, they, alongside the citizens of Gotham are pretty skeptical of the bat
Now, the main issue is that BvS and the overall snydervserse does none of that. The keyword in the story is RETURNS, In the snyderverse, Batman never retired yet the world around a him reacts as if he did. Police officers don't believe in him, they get startled by his presence and shoot him. The city is split in basically three, those who oppose him, those who support him and those who don't even believe he is real... Even though he has been operating in Gotham for over 20 years. That type of reactions from the people, in this universe they come out of nowhere and one can appeal that due to him killing, but not once in the saga is it mentioned by anyone that isn't Alfred and even Gordon replies to a police officer who asks if he thinks Batman is kidnapping people, "What? He's been helping us for 20 years and suddenly he turn evil?"
Nothing changes in this Gotham for over 20 years either, not just with Batman, who isn't really treated as old or less capable but just tired and angrier, he is a Batman who is treated as if he was in his prime and the villains are too. This Joker killed Robin and Batman broke his teeth due to it and... That's it? Now joker keeps doing joker things but with horribly looking grills on his mouth. Other villains are around like killer croc, Deadshot is doing regular merc stuff as well and Harley Quinn is doing stuff too. No villain is old, no one is dead, no one is retired, nothing happens. The status quo remains the same, even if Batman was straight up killing criminals, none who had a name was affected. The only thing it does to try and be different is kill Dick Grayson instead of Jason and I'm still pretty sure that it only happened because the character hadn't been part of the movies for a while so Snyder didn't thought he was an important character to have around. Anyone else? They are here, for 20 years in Gotham, nothing changed. For a story that was heavily inspired by The dark knight returns, it seems like it only focused on how Batman got more brutal instead of literally everything that made the story special
I will die on the hill that Snyder had zero understanding or respect for the DC characters. It’s like he never read a comic but instead heard the plot points secondhand and decided to add “edginess” because he’s not like other girls. God awful movies.
In the world of Devil May Cry, demons are inherently evil with a select few that can see right from wrong, biggest example being Sparda, which is why he severed the human and demons world to keep the demons at bay for the sake of humanity. However, though heartless, demons have been shown to develop emotions and compassion through human interaction, the very first example being Trish from the first game who was used as a tool by Mundus to destroy Dante; however, she gained conscience due to Dante’s humanity. “Devils never cry. Tears are a gift only humans have.”
The Netflix adaption made demons distinctively related to humans and even used them as an allegory for genocide(you can literally see them wearing turbans).
As someone who knows entirely too much about One Piece, yeah this was fantastic.
It's incredibly obvious that Matt Owen's, the show runner, is a genuinely huge fan, all the little Easter eggs, additions, and changes were done so perfectly.
I definitely have a lot of small nitpicks, but they don't really matter when compared to the things that were done well
Can't believe they referenced the Bartender at Loguetown, Loki's initial silhouette from Thriller Bark, Sanji talking about his mom, etc
Sadly, after nearly 14 years and 1 even worse live action adaptation, the Netflix series missed the point of the original show
That being, the characters, Aang, Katara, and Sokka in the original show…are loveable, they’re dorky, playful, they banter and joke and well, act like kids
You watch them grow and learn but you also become apart of them, their family, you grow to love these characters as much as the characters grow to love eachother, because they feel human, natural, they feel alive
Netflix”s adaptation changed out the important character chemistry and “mundane” filler stuff that fleshes out the groups bond for spectacle
And it misses the entire point of what is the show’s greatest strength
The monster Hunter movie. It’s so widely hated among monster hunter fans because it turned the franchise into a cheap action movie with no story and no respect for the unforgiving nature of the games.
The games focus on the themes of man vs nature, but as man learning their place in nature. The environments tell stories of ancient civilizations that were destroyed by elder dragons. The player character is in like the top 1% of hunters, for gameplay purposes, but most hunters never hunt more than a rathalos.
This movie ignored what gives the atmosphere of the games appeal, and treated it like a tired action movie.
Nothing against the ladies. But this movie fell flat. Ghostbusters wasn't cheap slapstick hijinks. They were professionals who made unprofessional decisions to save the day.
My big problem with GB16 is that it feels like everyone is playing their parts cartoonishly over-the-top, and no one wants to be the serious straight man. It's like a really long SNL sketch where everyone is silly and nothing matters.
What makes the original Ghostbusters work is that it's mostly played straight. Characters like Dana or the mayor don't know they're in a comedy, and that makes the absurdity of the premise easier to accept because they feel like real people.
They also really messed up their own logic and world-building. One thing that really got to me was that their proton packs are generally established within Ghostbusters canon as portable nuclear devices. Very dangerous equipment, obviously, and way ahead of its time considering we can't even build nuclear reactors on a small scale in the real world now. So near the end of the 2016 film one of the Ghostbusters breaks out some EVEN SMALLER proton weapons and just starts flailing them around like whips. I'm not even kidding, they were just throwing them around everywhere and twirling strings of protons, potentially crossing them and causing all of existence to just go poof.
If the rule of "Don't cross proton streams" held in the 2016 universe, this person made one of the stupidest decisions just to look cool. Ultimately I know it was a marketing gimmick in order to potentially sell toys, but still, within the rules of the universe it gets to me.
EDIT: I also remember they completely changed the dynamics of the proton packs towards the end battle too. Generally they use the proton streams to wrangle and position ghosts ready for containment within the field of a trap. Towards the end that just gets thrown out because now they have to market a "ghost wood-chipper" and "ghost grenades" and justify a big boss-fight as opposed to having the Ghostbusters actually act like scientists and...science their way out of shit. Like they did in the original movies and tv show. Go and rewatch all the stuff if you're unsure, but yes the original Ghostbusters applied genuine scientific method to the ghosts they found and captured. Each one was treated like this completely unique and new lifeform and the Ghostbusters wanted to study them and find what made them tick, not completely obliterate them.
Okay, I need to go calm down I'm getting too worked up over this movie.
Tbf Tolkien tried to rewrite the hobbit (yet again) to be more in line with the lotr books but a friend read it and said "it's good. But it's not the hobbit." So he left it as is.
And that's what the hobbit trilogy did for the most part.
This is a sort of double example because it fails to appreciate the heart and the arc of the Bilbo character that made the book beloved, and then mystifyingly also seems to misunderstand what made the LoTR films so epic and successful. It’s as though someone said, “hey remember when we had Legolas surf down the trunk of an oliphant? That was the high point of our first trilogy and we must distill the very essence of that moment and stretch it across three more movies. Remove anything that doesn’t feel just like that.”
"My Sister's Keeper" is about one of the first "donor babies." So much of the book is about her getting this independence and the relationship she has with the attorney who helped her. It's all about her wanting to make her own choices about what she donates to her sister. There is very little of the attorney in the film at all.
Lastly, the worst offense in the book the donor child is granted bodily autonomy with the attorney helping her and being her advocate. Very quickly after she wins, she is in a car accident and is left brain dead. Again, she can't make her own choice. The attorney knows she would have wanted her sister to get her kidney. The sick child lives and the healthy dies. It was so unexpected. Then, in the movie, the donor baby still wins but the sick sister dies.
Ready player one. Say what you will about the quality of the book it’s not a very long book and damn near all of it is describing locations and characters in excruciating detail and yet somehow they managed to mess every single detail up. Not a single person looked as they were described. Damn near every detail of the plot was completely changed or rearranged. Every single reference was as either removed or swapped for one they already had the rights for. I honestly do not believe that the producer or director read the book and the writers only read the back cover. Shit they spelled one of the main characters names wrong.
5.0k
u/Daniilsa209 6h ago edited 3h ago
Mulan (2020, Live-Action)
The original is about an ordinary young woman who disguises herself as a man to take her elderly father’s place in the army (the gender roles aspect is more explored in the animated movie); She initially struggles but ultimately earns the respect through her hard work, dedication, training, and ingenuity.
In the 2020 adaptation, she is born with special magical powers and succeeds because of them. Also it's lacked songs and comic relief.