Question of the week: what adaptations do you think are better than the originals?

Sex and the City

Many films – and TV series – are, as you’re probably aware, based on books and comics these days. As a rule of thumb, most of these adaptations aren’t as good as the originals, and there’s many a group of fans who will decry what their beloved book/comic becomes when it gets adapted (The Vampire Diaries especially comes to mind, here).

But sometimes, just sometimes, the adaptations are better than the originals. The TV version of Witchblade was leagues ahead of the comic; Colossus: The Forbin Project is a classic sci-fi movie of the 70s, whereas the book itself is fairly dreadful; I find The Walking Dead to be significantly better than the comic it was based on; and even Sex and the City is better than Candace Bushnell’s original book.

So today’s question is:

What TV and movie adaptations do you think are better than the original books or comics?

Answers below or on your own blog, please




  • Mark Carroll

    The Watchmen movie was better, I think: I’m happier without the pirate-ship bloated cadaver stuff, and with the adjusted ending, but I think the best of the comik books was admirably preserved.

  • Amanda Brown’s original novel of Legally Blonde was downright awful. However, the film dripped it down, rebuilt it and made it actually funny instead of just trying to be.
    And then the musical came along and, I might suggest, improved it again.
    I agree with Watchmen, too, to an extent: while most of the film plods and suffers from being too faithful to the source, the ending makes much more coherent sense.

  • “Dripped down”? Memo to self: always check to see if iOS autocorrect is making up its own phraseology… “stripped down” is what I meant

  • MediumRob

    @mark: like Scott, I preferred the books to the movie, although I think the movie’s ending was better.
    @scott: The musical is definitely better than the movie, despite the lack of Ali Larter, you’re right.