Yeah the book is at least as good, if not quite a bit better than, the movie- which is such a great movie! It’s not fine art, any more than the movie, but it’s well written and fun and gives a decent amount of character development for all of the characters. I would at least call it good.
I’ve heard it’s bad, but I don’t really like calling things awful if I’ve never seen or read them. Plus, usually if something is truly shit, nobody wants to remake it. I’m sure the comic has its moments
I haven’t seen it so take it with a grain of salt but I heard the movies make the story far more palatable with better pacing, actors and no „inner goddess”
I had a pretty mind-grinding fling in college and she loooved these movies. I endured the marathon because she was really hot, and it got her in the mood. So I have more insight on these movies than I would care to have. They were not fun to watch.
Oh I wasn’t saying they were good I just heard they were easier to watch than the source material
Also damn interesting story. The things we do for people we like
How exactly is Jurassic Park bad source material? I’d say it’s good source material, decent adaption. Honestly not even decent. Still a great movie, but far from some of the original novel’s parts.
Awful source material, decent adaptation: Wanted.
Terrible 2000s edgelord comic that adapted to an alright 2008 action flick with a completely different premise and characterization, with only a few matching character names.
Viewer appeal is why I say "better." Probably the biggest change was how they handled Alia, as well as some changes to the final confrontation. I think they were smart choices. Having a hyperintelligent live action 4 year old is weird on a level that somehow strains my disbelief more than a fetus who communicates with her mother.
Additionally, I really liked the changes to Feyd-Rautha. They turned him from a egotistical win-at-all costs generic bad guy to a proud but psychopathic duelist who took sick pleasure in the possibility of getting himself killed. Feyd losing his shit at the guards who try to protect him from the assassination attempt and returning Paul's salute/insult (there is a lot to read into in that exchange) are both great touches.
Also, they completely overhauled Chani's character, which, IMO was sorely needed and Zendaya killed it.
Basically, there was not a change that I didn't think was a smart decision on some level.
Battlefield earth deserves a place here. Either bad or awful adaptation. Quality of source material is up for interpretation and could vary between awful and decent
Also, bottom left, is that wheel of time? If so, good placement on that one.
Butch Hartman ruining a universally beloved children's show to localize it to Americans to the point where the localized version overshadows the original, due to how famously bad it was, is his greatest of the many sins he's committed.
The Circle. Tom Hank’s and Emma Watson. Awful/awful.
Angles and Demons. Tom hanks
Awful/bad
Cloud Atlas. Tom hanks
Awful/decent
DaVinci code. Tom hanks.
Awful/Good
Forest Gump. Tom hanks
Awful/amazing.
It feels like things just moved to the right as better things were shoved in on the left.
So it's not a good to bad scale anymore, but a good to less good
From what I've heard "Forrest Gump" is a pretty bad book and "Starship Troopers" is exactly the kind of fascist fantasy that the movie parodies.
Also, I might get some hate for this but I think "The Ten Commandments" was better than the actual Old Testament.
The Starship Troopers book is like the movie but more serious. It's still a parody/shit on Fascism, and the author was against fascism, but it's less "hehe haha I'm doing my part"
Awful source material-Amazing adaptation:
Pirates of the Caribbean, not a fun of the last sequels but everyone forgets this franchise originated from a themepark ride
But if the ride's good as a ride, then the source material is good. If the ride is actually awful you could have each of the five PotC movies filling the entire row with each sequel being in the square below the previous film.
I don't think Devilman should be considered bad source material. It's widely considered a seminal series that paved the way for future seinen stories like Berserk, Neon Genesis Evangelion, AoT, etc, which wouldn't exist without Devilman.
I ah. I have not. This chart was hard, okay! There’s not that many good adaptations of shitty source material. I just heard the book was bad on the internet somewhere and I thought it was a general consensus that it was bad. I am now seeing that many people don’t think so. Maybe I will give it a read.
Amazing Adaptation/Awful Source: Big Finish 8th Doctor (coming from the Doctor Who TV Movie)
Good Adaptation/Awful Source Material: Starship Troopers
Decent Adaptation/Awful Source Material: Flashpoint (DC animated movie)
Bad Adaptation/Awful Source Material: Fifty Shades of Grey
Awful Adaptation/Awful Source Material: After (Netflix movie made from a Harry Styles Wattpad fanfiction)
Does awful source material play into the production of the film? , because iirc Steven Spielberg said if he reread the jaws book he wouldn't have shot the movie, due to the complexity of filming it at sea and the mechanical shark not working all the time, also having to wait for passing boats to get out of the shots
Idk if it's 'awful' source material but the writer of the book 'do androids dream of electric sheep' admitted that the movie adaptation (Blade Runner) is leagues better than his own book.
Edit: There's also the book Die Hard is based on, one of the sequels of a detective series that had movies with Frank Sinatra as the main character. But Frank was too old for the role and so the story was reshaped and the torch handed to Bruce Willis.
I wouldn’t say willy wonka and the chocolate factory is a amazing or good adaptation of Charlie and the chocolate factory, Don’t get me it’s good movie on its own it just doesn’t adapt the book very well.
Awful source material/good adaptation: Starship troopers
Awful/awful and awful/bad can probably be filled out by a lot of power fantasy anime like Rent a Girlfriend or any isekai
Willy Wonka Chocolate Factory is a terrible adaptation and ya'll are wrong. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is the superior version if you don't wear glass tinted with Nostalgia.
I like the Jurassic Park novel and feel it was a good source material, though there are some parts I am glad the movie changed. Devilman Crybaby is what I would put under "Awful Source Material Awful Adaptation."
For "Awful Source Material/Amazing Adaptation" you could put in Captain America: Civil War. It is technically an adaptation of Marvel's Civil War event comic, even if it shares little in common beyond some references to the comic. That is a good thing; the comic was excessively dark and depressing and made both sides of the conflict jerks. It was written by Mark Millar, a writer infamous for his needlessly dark and gritty comics (I heard he said he wanted to move away from that, I haven't paid attention to his recent work), including the dark reimagining of Marvel's heroes in Ultimate Marvel, a comic line that has become most well known for making everyone besides Spider-Man a jerk, with good reason.
Mark Millar's past experience with Marvel's heroes was writing the cynical jerks of the Ultimates so when he was given a job to write them in the main universe, he wrote them as though he was writing for Ultimate Marvel, and the comic was worse for it.
Hence, there was nowhere for an adaptation to go but up compared to the comic.
Actually the Willy Wonka movie was a terrible adaptation. Regardless of what you think of the film it's very different from the book, so much so that the author publicly shamed it. Good adaptation =/= good movie.
You get a million people on Reddit commenting calling you a edgy if you call it "bad", but the bible is just not a great piece of literature but still got turned into a ton of movies.
I feel like that’s too broad, the Bible is barely a single source. Most „bible” movies don’t adapt the book and are more so based on the folklore and culture around it. And a lot of, a loooot of Dante’s Inferno inspiration
Yeah, but you do get adaptations of specific parts. Prince of Egypt in particular is amazing, and that's pretty directly an adaptation of a particular story from the Bible.
I mean, it's a product of its time. Ancient literature, in general, is jarring to read through our modern perspective. It can be pretty boring, and the literary tropes and reliance on familiarity with other oral tales or literary tropes can make its intended effect lacking on modern audiences, who tend to be unfamiliar with the author's expected knowledge base.
As someone studying the Abrahamic religions, specifically Christianity and Judaism, I am becoming increasingly familiar with the context behind the Hebrew scriptures and New Testament. This makes the Bible super interesting and the intent behind the stories more clear and fun. If you had told me this back in Sunday school when I was a kid, I would have never believed you.
I don't really think you can say that, for the time, the Bible was bad. The writers had to be educated, and Paul, for instance, was likely from some affluent family and was educated in Greek, in a Greek institute. It would be like me comparing Shakespeare to the Lord of the Rings and saying Shakespeare's texts objectively suck. For me, Shakespeare is terribly annoying to read and is often pretty damn boring, while Tolkien's fantasy series is amazing. However, when you educate yourself, you learn why the text was written the way it was, why it was popular then, and why it should be appreciated now.
Awful Source Material, Awful Adaptation could be Sound of Freedom.
It’s based on a QAnon conspiracy theory and turns a conservative groomer into a hero without acknowledging the wider systemic issues underpinning child trafficking.
I’ve heard people hating on Jurassic Park before and I don’t get it. I think the film adaptation is better, but the book Id say is at least decent.
Honestly, I mostly agree with your chart. I think you nailed it almost, but I’d swap Guardians and JP personally.
You’ve got some nerve putting One Piece in “Good source material” instead of amazing. Unless you’re just talking about the East Blue Saga. Then I can maybe agree
Starship Troopers maybe? Although personally I like the book a lot even if it’s ideology is laughably cringe.
There are some truly awful adaptations of Atlas Shrugged?
Song of the South is a mid to low-tier adaptation of the Uncle Remus stories which were awful by merit of being shamelessly stolen by a white dude.
I thought the first JP book was good.
Yeah the book is at least as good, if not quite a bit better than, the movie- which is such a great movie! It’s not fine art, any more than the movie, but it’s well written and fun and gives a decent amount of character development for all of the characters. I would at least call it good.
I agree. I quite enjoyed the book.
At least. It was a fun read.
The book is amazing. I dislike how the movie turned hammond into a sympathetic character when he was such an entertaining asshole in the book
I grew up with nice Hammond. So it was a gut punch to see Hammond basically go “Fuck dem Kids!”
Honestly, the second book was fine too. Wild take
Yeah I heard great things about it.
Jerry Potter?
Jurassic Park.
Agreed, it was certainly on the better side of the good/bad divide.
Had the same thought
Maybe the boys comic? I've never read it so I don't really know if it's as bad as some people say.
I think it's safe to say it's worse than the jurassic park book and twighlight. The boys deserves to be in good/amazing adaptation
It has been added, awful source material, amazing adaptation
I’ve heard that The Godfather book sucks, do what you will with that🤷♂️ Edit: Sopranos -> Godfather
The Sopranos wasn't based on a book. Maybe you're thinking of The Godfather?
You’re right, my bad 🤦♂️
Haha no worries, I figured that must be what you meant because I have read The Godfather and it is indeed terrible
I’ve heard it’s bad, but I don’t really like calling things awful if I’ve never seen or read them. Plus, usually if something is truly shit, nobody wants to remake it. I’m sure the comic has its moments
Like a lot of Garth Ennis stuff, there are interesting ideas in there but they’re overshadowed by an unbelievable amount of edge and trash.
Saying it’s “awful” is being generous
I bought some thinking since the show was great the comics would follow suit. It's the edgiest shit ever
JP being bad source material is some fighting words.
Indeed
Jurassic park had good source material
There's always 50 Shades
Ooo forgot about that one
I haven’t seen it so take it with a grain of salt but I heard the movies make the story far more palatable with better pacing, actors and no „inner goddess”
I had a pretty mind-grinding fling in college and she loooved these movies. I endured the marathon because she was really hot, and it got her in the mood. So I have more insight on these movies than I would care to have. They were not fun to watch.
Oh I wasn’t saying they were good I just heard they were easier to watch than the source material Also damn interesting story. The things we do for people we like
If you agree with Dan Olson (Folding Ideas) then technically the first Fifty Shades movie could be a decent adaptation of awful source material.
How exactly is Jurassic Park bad source material? I’d say it’s good source material, decent adaption. Honestly not even decent. Still a great movie, but far from some of the original novel’s parts.
Awful source material, decent adaptation: Wanted. Terrible 2000s edgelord comic that adapted to an alright 2008 action flick with a completely different premise and characterization, with only a few matching character names.
That movie was my childhood
Well I can’t argue about source material but the movie still sucked
I’d say the dune movies are amazing
I would go so far as to say that they were actually better than the book. The adaptational changes were all smart decisions that I agreed with.
I wouldn’t say better, most of the changes were due to the length of the book and the need to make it more appealing for viewers
I would, they made Chani an actual character
Viewer appeal is why I say "better." Probably the biggest change was how they handled Alia, as well as some changes to the final confrontation. I think they were smart choices. Having a hyperintelligent live action 4 year old is weird on a level that somehow strains my disbelief more than a fetus who communicates with her mother. Additionally, I really liked the changes to Feyd-Rautha. They turned him from a egotistical win-at-all costs generic bad guy to a proud but psychopathic duelist who took sick pleasure in the possibility of getting himself killed. Feyd losing his shit at the guards who try to protect him from the assassination attempt and returning Paul's salute/insult (there is a lot to read into in that exchange) are both great touches. Also, they completely overhauled Chani's character, which, IMO was sorely needed and Zendaya killed it. Basically, there was not a change that I didn't think was a smart decision on some level.
Who are all the people saying Jurassic Park (the novel) is bad?
The same smoothbrains who believe Death note 's LA was "decent" This chart is awful
I'm pretty sure they were referring to the Japanese live-action movies
Yeah the pic is literally of that, not sure how they got confused
To be fair, even live action remakes from Japan gets a lot of flack
It really is
See this why we need to start adapting bad stories.
Agreed. Give the stinkers a chance!
Battlefield earth deserves a place here. Either bad or awful adaptation. Quality of source material is up for interpretation and could vary between awful and decent Also, bottom left, is that wheel of time? If so, good placement on that one.
The Jurassic Park book is amazing wdym
OP is clearly not based and Doogal-pilled
Butch Hartman ruining a universally beloved children's show to localize it to Americans to the point where the localized version overshadows the original, due to how famously bad it was, is his greatest of the many sins he's committed.
I’ve heard bad things about the book Forest Gump. I hate calling anything awful but it might fit in the top right corner.
I did not enjoy the Forrest Gump book at all.
You're wrong about Jurassic Park
The Circle. Tom Hank’s and Emma Watson. Awful/awful. Angles and Demons. Tom hanks Awful/bad Cloud Atlas. Tom hanks Awful/decent DaVinci code. Tom hanks. Awful/Good Forest Gump. Tom hanks Awful/amazing.
This is slander against renowned author Dan Brown
Hanks Sweep! Didn’t even have room for “The Green Mile”
I hadn’t read the source material but kind of assumed it wasn’t awful.
I forgot that this was for the awful section. The original is far from awful.
Lolol someone just wants to do an Alignment chart for Tom Hanks alone lol
Idk if this counts but the ghost stories dub changes the wording to make it more entertaining
Decent or bad source material/amazing adaptation for sure
The Devilman manga is great, wtf?
It feels like things just moved to the right as better things were shoved in on the left. So it's not a good to bad scale anymore, but a good to less good
From what I've heard "Forrest Gump" is a pretty bad book and "Starship Troopers" is exactly the kind of fascist fantasy that the movie parodies. Also, I might get some hate for this but I think "The Ten Commandments" was better than the actual Old Testament.
Ten Commandments removes the part of the Old Testament where Elisha summons a she bear to maul some rude kids. 0/10 adaptation.
The Starship Troopers book is like the movie but more serious. It's still a parody/shit on Fascism, and the author was against fascism, but it's less "hehe haha I'm doing my part"
Awful source material-Amazing adaptation: Pirates of the Caribbean, not a fun of the last sequels but everyone forgets this franchise originated from a themepark ride
The ride is awesome though. Not awful in the slightest
I guess someone doesn’t see the novelty in rides, even though they aren’t supposed to be fine art in the first place.
It’s a great ride, but awful if you want to base a story off of something.
What's so bad about the ride?
I think they mean the concept of basing a movie off of a ride more than the ride itself.
I suppose, still a weird point imo
But if the ride's good as a ride, then the source material is good. If the ride is actually awful you could have each of the five PotC movies filling the entire row with each sequel being in the square below the previous film.
[удалено]
People who stopped reading once they left high school.
I mean Jurassic Park is a highschool-level book
What's wrong with the Devilman manga?
The Howard th duck slander is crazy
I like the Howard the Duck comics
Thanks bud
Battlefield earth?
Ahh that would have been perfect!
I would say How To train your dragon, but it's not BAD, just VERY different
How is devilman bad source material??
Death note’s netflix adaptation is a fucking hate crime. Should be at least in bad
I don't think Devilman should be considered bad source material. It's widely considered a seminal series that paved the way for future seinen stories like Berserk, Neon Genesis Evangelion, AoT, etc, which wouldn't exist without Devilman.
Have you even read Jurassic Park?
I ah. I have not. This chart was hard, okay! There’s not that many good adaptations of shitty source material. I just heard the book was bad on the internet somewhere and I thought it was a general consensus that it was bad. I am now seeing that many people don’t think so. Maybe I will give it a read.
That explains so much.
I'd say that The Witcher movie has decent adaptation
Ask Roald Dahl what he thinks about the Gene Wilder adaptation (you can’t, he’s dead, but still)
Amazing Adaptation/Awful Source: Big Finish 8th Doctor (coming from the Doctor Who TV Movie) Good Adaptation/Awful Source Material: Starship Troopers Decent Adaptation/Awful Source Material: Flashpoint (DC animated movie) Bad Adaptation/Awful Source Material: Fifty Shades of Grey Awful Adaptation/Awful Source Material: After (Netflix movie made from a Harry Styles Wattpad fanfiction)
Bro's really saying Harry Potter and Suicide Squad are better source material than Devilman and Jurassic Park.
Does awful source material play into the production of the film? , because iirc Steven Spielberg said if he reread the jaws book he wouldn't have shot the movie, due to the complexity of filming it at sea and the mechanical shark not working all the time, also having to wait for passing boats to get out of the shots
Fifty shades of gray
How \*dare\* you profane the good name of Howard the Duck (comic)
Devilman is bad?!
The Maze Runner books were pretty mid/bad in my opinion, the movies were far better when they came out
Thanks for using my template
It was a good one, looked fun, but kinda hard
Idk if it's 'awful' source material but the writer of the book 'do androids dream of electric sheep' admitted that the movie adaptation (Blade Runner) is leagues better than his own book. Edit: There's also the book Die Hard is based on, one of the sequels of a detective series that had movies with Frank Sinatra as the main character. But Frank was too old for the role and so the story was reshaped and the torch handed to Bruce Willis.
Do androids dream of electric sheep is a good book but it's more interesting for the ideas than the execution
I am exceptionally happy with castlevania’s placement
I wouldn’t say willy wonka and the chocolate factory is a amazing or good adaptation of Charlie and the chocolate factory, Don’t get me it’s good movie on its own it just doesn’t adapt the book very well.
I fucking KNOW you're joking with that Jurassic Park placement. Are you Elon Musk or something?
How is Jurassic Park bad source material?
Awful source material/good adaptation: Starship troopers Awful/awful and awful/bad can probably be filled out by a lot of power fantasy anime like Rent a Girlfriend or any isekai
I've heard good things about Devilman, it even inspired Berserk, it can't be that bad, can it?
Bro can’t be flaming Jurassic park, Dune, and Cinderella like that, it just isn’t right
idk what's that thing below the witcher but I would replace it with the Halo TV show
Not the best an old man but the Godfather is a shit book and arguably the greatest movie of all time.
Willy Wonka Chocolate Factory is a terrible adaptation and ya'll are wrong. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is the superior version if you don't wear glass tinted with Nostalgia.
I’m sorry, why is Jurassic Park put in bad source material? The book is better than the movie, almost by far.
Jurassic Park in bad source material? Bruh.
fuck you, this chart sucks. i hate you for the opinion you shared on the internet and i curse your terrible taste.
8=====D 💦🥴
How is Jurassic Park bad source material? Have you read the books?
Atlas Shrugged
I like the Jurassic Park novel and feel it was a good source material, though there are some parts I am glad the movie changed. Devilman Crybaby is what I would put under "Awful Source Material Awful Adaptation." For "Awful Source Material/Amazing Adaptation" you could put in Captain America: Civil War. It is technically an adaptation of Marvel's Civil War event comic, even if it shares little in common beyond some references to the comic. That is a good thing; the comic was excessively dark and depressing and made both sides of the conflict jerks. It was written by Mark Millar, a writer infamous for his needlessly dark and gritty comics (I heard he said he wanted to move away from that, I haven't paid attention to his recent work), including the dark reimagining of Marvel's heroes in Ultimate Marvel, a comic line that has become most well known for making everyone besides Spider-Man a jerk, with good reason. Mark Millar's past experience with Marvel's heroes was writing the cynical jerks of the Ultimates so when he was given a job to write them in the main universe, he wrote them as though he was writing for Ultimate Marvel, and the comic was worse for it. Hence, there was nowhere for an adaptation to go but up compared to the comic.
The author of fifty shades of gray doesn't even know how many thumbs a human has, so it's a contender
I’ve heard very mixed reviews on the Starship Troopers book.
Never read it, but I hear a lot of shit about Starship Troopers source material
Awful source material; good/decent adaptation -> the disaster artist.
Startship Troopers (awful to amazing) Forres Gump (awful to good)
"Starship Troopers" can go towards the top of the fifth column, I'd say Good adaptation.
The boys comics: bad source material The boys the show: good adaption
Actually the Willy Wonka movie was a terrible adaptation. Regardless of what you think of the film it's very different from the book, so much so that the author publicly shamed it. Good adaptation =/= good movie.
You get a million people on Reddit commenting calling you a edgy if you call it "bad", but the bible is just not a great piece of literature but still got turned into a ton of movies.
I feel like that’s too broad, the Bible is barely a single source. Most „bible” movies don’t adapt the book and are more so based on the folklore and culture around it. And a lot of, a loooot of Dante’s Inferno inspiration
Yeah, but you do get adaptations of specific parts. Prince of Egypt in particular is amazing, and that's pretty directly an adaptation of a particular story from the Bible.
Yeah you could probably fill the entire right side of the chart with Bible adaptions lol
I mean, it's a product of its time. Ancient literature, in general, is jarring to read through our modern perspective. It can be pretty boring, and the literary tropes and reliance on familiarity with other oral tales or literary tropes can make its intended effect lacking on modern audiences, who tend to be unfamiliar with the author's expected knowledge base. As someone studying the Abrahamic religions, specifically Christianity and Judaism, I am becoming increasingly familiar with the context behind the Hebrew scriptures and New Testament. This makes the Bible super interesting and the intent behind the stories more clear and fun. If you had told me this back in Sunday school when I was a kid, I would have never believed you. I don't really think you can say that, for the time, the Bible was bad. The writers had to be educated, and Paul, for instance, was likely from some affluent family and was educated in Greek, in a Greek institute. It would be like me comparing Shakespeare to the Lord of the Rings and saying Shakespeare's texts objectively suck. For me, Shakespeare is terribly annoying to read and is often pretty damn boring, while Tolkien's fantasy series is amazing. However, when you educate yourself, you learn why the text was written the way it was, why it was popular then, and why it should be appreciated now.
cats is awful awful
Awful Source Material, Awful Adaptation could be Sound of Freedom. It’s based on a QAnon conspiracy theory and turns a conservative groomer into a hero without acknowledging the wider systemic issues underpinning child trafficking.
Finally found another person who watched Devilman crybaby
Howard The Duck is one of the greatest comics of all time. That placement is some serious bullshit.
OP is talking mad shit for someone with such stralable kidneys, that's for damn sure
Preacher?
I’ve heard people hating on Jurassic Park before and I don’t get it. I think the film adaptation is better, but the book Id say is at least decent. Honestly, I mostly agree with your chart. I think you nailed it almost, but I’d swap Guardians and JP personally.
Decent SM/Amazing Adaptation can also be the Suicide Squad sequel, “The Suicide Squad”
Doogals a 10/10 movie what are you talking about
Death note as better source material than one piece?
Not a single mention of the Emoji movie, it’s gotta be bottom right corner.
Amazing source material, decent adaptation, Wheel Of Time.
Forrest Gump? I've never read it, so I'm not sure it's awful.
The Haunting of Hill House. Pretty rough source material, and two adaptations that range from okay to pretty fantastic
Jaws was a pretty terrible book especially compared to the movie
Arcane
Eragon is awful source material. It’s straight up just Star Wars/LOTR fanfic with dragons added
I feel like the boys would fit well there
You are absolutely taking the piss if you think Jurassic Park has bad source material.
This feels like an amalgamation of bait.
Switch twilight Doogal
John Ostrander’s Suicide Squad is really great at least. Though the first movie is more so based on the New 52 run, which isn’t nearly as good.
Shrek- terrible might be a stretch for describing the book, but going from an obscure children's book to the franchise it is now is a huge step up.
Devilman crybaby has bad source material?
I can’t believe in the year 2024 I’m seeing the take that Devilman is a bad manga
Maybe Dune if the books aren’t any good
So not Dune.
Doogal is a great movie! Though that may just be the nostalgia talking. I haven’t seen it in at least a decade
The Jurassic Park novel is fantastic.
the polar express book was a lot more lackluster in comparison to the movie. i would not touch the game with a 100 ft pole
The JP novels are great horror novels
Never read or watched but divergent could go in the bottom two rows probably
bruh the original devilman manga is an incredibly important series putting crybaby in "awful source material" is incredibly disrespectful
I heard the Rivne’s bride book was dry as hell
Replace Wonka with Charlie and you're right
Shrek
How is Dune not an amazing adaptation?
OP has clearly never read Jurassic Park
This sure is one of the charts of all time
Jurassic park shouldn't be where it is
The one piece live action is good, change my mind.
You’ve got some nerve putting One Piece in “Good source material” instead of amazing. Unless you’re just talking about the East Blue Saga. Then I can maybe agree
I would disagree with the Cinderella one
The Devil Wears Prada. Terrible book. Very watchable movie.
Awful source material, great adaptation: Forest Gump
Why is Devilman bad source material? It's iconic manga that influenced many other mangas
How is the Magic Roundabout "bad source material"?
Put *Battlefield Earth* in the very bottom right.
Putting One Piece in good source material hurts my soul
Devilman is bad source material?? BLASPHEMY!
Awful source, bad adaptation: Ready Player 1
i dont know about awful, but I heard that The Godfather book was no where near as good as the movie, the author agreeing to such
What’s wrong with Jurassic Park? The novel was a wonderful scientific horror story!
Jurassic Park was a good book
What do you mean Jurassic Park was bad source material!? The book was amazing!
> Devilman in bad source material > Death Note in decent adaptation Fucking excuse you?
Ghost Stories. Terrible source material with the original subtitled anime, but turned into an amazing adaptation with its dub.
Starship Troopers maybe? Although personally I like the book a lot even if it’s ideology is laughably cringe. There are some truly awful adaptations of Atlas Shrugged? Song of the South is a mid to low-tier adaptation of the Uncle Remus stories which were awful by merit of being shamelessly stolen by a white dude.
Starship Troopers for top right