Adaptations (Not featuring Nicholas Cage)

Two For Grace: Noop! For the sake of spiting all the annoying people who have to interject that "the book was better" every time you speak of a movie adaptation (I've been one of those annoying people, to be honest), tell me- what is an adaptation you enjoy more than the source material?

Noop Gingrich: Excluding tentpole comicbook films, there's still so many! To oppose those annoying people, I've been able to deem a bunch of films better than the source material. I try to stand on a massive horse if possible when making these proclamations. 

Noop: Stardust, Wanted, all the Harry Potters, Scott Pilgrim. Keeping in mind that the order someone takes the material in can change the way they perceive it, I'll look at Hitchhikers Guide with a bit of depth. I love the film version. It's basically the genesys of my sense of humor. That franchise started as a radio series, became a book, was then a TV show, then a movie (then a remade radio show). But the way I was introduced to it was with the film first. Because of that, I love the movie more than the other forms even though the movie may not have all the cogs turning in the same way as its predecessors. With that franchise it's like eating frosted Cheerios before honey nut and never even really bothering with regular Cheerios. I freakin love frosted Cheerios. Too much actually, I had to cut myself off.

Come on, Hollywood! How did this not make
it to the silver screen?

TFG: I think the only true disagreement I have with those choices (other than the use of the non-word "genesys") is Wanted, but I probably need to see Wanted again. The only thing I remember is that it lacks any super villain made entirely of poop.

Noopjection: [as in "Noop interjection," not to be confused with Nooprection which stands for Noop rejection and surprisingly not what you were thinking, I should probably change that one.] The medium of film is truly ripe for a poop super villain. I actually will do a flip on Wanted now that you mention that. Totally forgot how strange that comic was. Really that whole story is like Harry Potter with tons of violence and for that, the movie may have been more apt.

Noop: And let's not forget the big potato in the room. I enjoy the Lord of the Rings movies more than the books and a big part of that has to do with Fellowship being my gateway to every single other interest I've ever had since.

TFG: I would never fully agree that The Lord of the Rings films are better than the books, but definitely a different experience. I have read those books a few times now and each time enjoy the journey it takes me on, but sometimes it is nice to take an express pass into that world in the form of film, skipping excruciatingly detailed accounts of Longbottom leaf and Gamgee cooking habits that Tolkein loved to indulge in. Though the movies have a severe lack of addressing such charming characters as "Fatty Bolger" and fanciful beasts such as "Fatty Lumpkin." Honestly, fiction these days doesn't have enough characters named "Fatty."

Aragorn: "You have my sword"
Legolas: "And my bow"
Fatty (pictured above): "*huff* and my *wheeze* one month free trial of Weight Watchers if you want it"

Noopjection: The phrase "express pass" to describe adaptations is spot on. Sometimes you want to spend an hour and a half in a world rather than a week to a month. Now that I've taken the obvious answers, your move. 

TFG: My superior film adaptation pic goes to Big Fish. Not only was it one of Tim Burton's last great films, it is the only reason I finished what I felt was a painful book I would liken to playing with an unwelcome canker sore. It was as if John August and Tim Burton said "Hey, crazy idea, what if we turned the characters in this book into likable people." It also was my introduction to Billy Crudup before seeing his big blue wang in Watchmen. Oh and speaking of, while I will always hold the Watchmen comic book series in the highest regard, the movie did do a good job capturing the essence of Dr. Manhattan's big blue wang.

Noop: I've never read Big Fish but that is a great movie. And I doubt the book has Pearl Jam playing as you read the back cover. Glad you brought up Watchmen, I thought about peppering it in but, and I think you may agree, it wasn't exactly better as it was just as good for one key reason. The small story alterations the film brought about, along with the big blue wang, are all canceled out by just how perfect Rorschach was. Speaking of story changes, the film version of Stardust, which is a movie I can watch on repeat, made quite a few and they all cohesively felt like they made the story better than the one in the book. That may also be the case for Wanted. Can you think of any movies that made crazy changes from the story in the books and came across better to you? 

TFG: I know The Hobbit movies get a lot of grief from bookies (as in book lovers and not the people I owe $3000 to. I promise, Freddy, you'll get your money soon. You will. Please let me keep my fingers), but truthfully I am enjoying a lot of the big changes. Between giving screen time  to the book's only-mentioned-here-or-there Radagast, creating the cohesive pale orc (the driving force that Darth Maul should have been in Star Wars ep. 1 - 3), and a change I absolutely love: giving the dwarves a dramatic history and and noble drive more than just "we want gold." I'm not saying that I like these changes more than the book, but I am glad they were made. I mean The Hobbit is on my bookshelf and I can indulge in it's greatness anytime. I like having a different story in the film, or else, you know, what's the point?

Any film adaptations you like more than the source material? Any of our opinions too bold for your liking? Feel free to comment below. Be as cross as you like, we probably deserve it.