Submitted 1 day ago by Skavau@lemm.ee to Television@lemm.ee
I’m not sure about “better” but I would point to the IT and the Stand miniseries from the 90s that were excellent. Both books had parts that were problematic to put on screen, and a lot of fans felt the omissions were improvements. Also, the author was heavily involved in the productions, writing the scripts and consulting with the directors.
I don’t think they make tv shows out of bad books, though, so I’m having a hard time thinking of other examples.
Similar with The Expanse. There isn’t a huge difference, but changes were largely for the better. The authors of the books also wrote the show, so they could polish things while adapting it and know where things were going in the future.
I really hope that the adaptation comes back for the rest of the books at some point. In the final season, they included a short story in the show that occurs at the same time, but is only there to set up the last arc of the series. I didn’t get why it was there in the show until I read the later books.
I cannot remember the details that led to this opinion, but I remember preferring the first season of Dexter to the novel that it was based on. I think that was the only season that was even close to a direct adaptation of the novels, but I liked the changes that were made.
The show was consistently better except what they did with Doakes. Doakes innthe books still chases after Dexter after having been mutilated to a killer. He was in a chair without a tongue still trying to get Dexter Morgan.
I could not disagree more. The show’s decision to ground everything in the “real world” changed Dexter from an avenging angel to a person with emotional/psychological problems that are actually pretty far removed from reality.
The conceit of a “dark passenger” that identified evil, rather than just Dexter’s subjective judgemental or evidence-based judgements took Dexter into a certainty that is missing in the show, and ultimately planted the seeds of doom for the series. Once Dexter is ambivalent it’s over.
IMO
Oh damn
Oh, he didn’t die at the end of the first book? Or did we just think he died, but he came back later or something?
Do comics count? The Walking Dead because it was way different and more creative. But I still like the comics.
Most Porn
The book’s all sticky and it smells funny.
IIRC lemonade joe the movie was better than the book
The Fall of the House of Usher not only improves the original story, but beings many of Poe’s works to life in a cohesive, beautiful way.
I’m also much more a fan of Flanagan’s Haunting of Hill House than Shirley Jackson’s, but I understand that’s a controversial opinion about a widely loved book.
Altered Carbon.
The first season was phenomenal
Yeah, but I didn’t like the character change they did in the series, simply because it wasn’t necessary. Nothing would’ve changed if they just followed the book, because it’s pretty straightforward and should work as a straight-up adaptation.
Station 11. Its art. The book wants.
X-Men
Old_Jimmy_Twodicks@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I’m bending the premise a little bit: The Boys is based on a graphic novel and bears almost no resemblance to the source material. I think the show is way more compelling and engaging than the graphic novel, probably because the show is written to be aggressively topical, while the graphic novel concluded over a decade ago.
Zahille7@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Also I’ve heard that the comic is gruesome, gratuitous, and horrifying just for the sake of it.
Zero22xx@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Yeah, the author, Garth Ennis, seems to be pretty polarizing in comic book fandom based on what I read on Reddit over the years. I haven’t actually read any of his work but from what I gather, being edgy the sake of being edgy is his thing.
Another series based on one of his books that people say is better than the source material is Preacher.