LogFAQs > #945748764

Zeus_LLC posted...

He was likely under contract to say that. The ending of the movie was fucking awful, replacing a wonderful open-ending with a shitty bit of survirony that had already been done in a few movies within the past decade.

Nah. The thing you have to keep in mind with King is that he's kind of a sadist.

The movie ending was crueler and more sadistic than the one he came up with. Of COURSE he loved it.



Zeus_LLC posted...

The Running Man film is certainly a lot more fun than the book, despite changing pretty everything.

I agree completely - the original story was kind of bleh, but the movie was awesome fun.

That being said, judged by the criteria of being loyal to the source material, the movie is kind of an abject failure.

Which is why it kind of helps to define what we mean by "good adaptation". What makes a good adaptation to one person might be absolute dogshit for someone else.

Is Starship Troopers a good film if you like cheese and the message it's trying to convey, or terrible because it's deliberately shitting on every theme the original story was trying to express? Is I, Robot a horrible movie for completely misunderstanding Asimov's entire narrative philosophy and hijacking the name of his book and some of the characters in it to tell an almost unrelated story Asimov would have hated, or is it cool because the Fresh Prince starring in a 2 hour product placement commercial is kind of ironically amusing?

Fortunately, movies like The Seeker exist, which resolve the problem by being absolute shit in every possible axis on the spectrum, failing both as anything resembling a faithful adaptation of a prior work OR as a worthwhile entity in and of itself. Like a black hole, it sucks joy out of the universe simply by existing, accelerating the entropic decay of our universe. So we can hate it on every level simultaneously.
---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family