io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 7:41 PM
Mon Nov 30
26 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07:19 PM
Take my advice though, don't watch it all in one day. Pick a three day weekend (new years is traditional in the Lizardo household since the sun goes down early and you don't have to deal with glare on the TV) and watch one a day.
07:02 PM
06:51 PM
06:24 PM
05:30 PM
1. Bram Stoker's Dracula--Any adaptation which requires Keanu Reeves to play a Victorian Englishman is, de facto, a bad, bad adaptation.
2. Handmaid's Tale. Completely missed the point of the book. Screwed up the ending.
3. Children of Men
An excellent movie, but a terrible adaptation of the book. Completely changed the main character, his relationship with Jasper, his relationship with his cousin, completely changed the nature of the 3 Fishes. Changed the ending. Bad adaptation.
If you completely change the FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE of the book, the main character, the secondary characters, and the relationship between the main and secondary characters, well, you might have a good movie, but you won't have a good adaptation. If you took "Citizen Kane" and made Rosebud his second wife instead of !SPOILER! that other thing, and made Kane an affable hobo instead of The World's Richest Man, you could maybe craft a pretty good movie--hobo-dom is full of dramatic potential, after all--but it would be wrong to call "Charlie Kane: Hobo at Large" a good adaptation of the original "Citizen Kane."
05:46 PM
In other words, after seeing he fantastic movie I had to wonder if the maudlin, poorly paced, atrociously written book I'd taken out of the library with its nonsensical and completely unbelievable ending was another book with the Children of Men cover put on it by accident. It really was a let down after such an engaging movie.
A book has to be bad if the movie adaptation is not only superior, but bears almost no resemblance to it.
05:57 PM
05:59 PM
05:15 PM
06:27 PM
04:11 PM
04:10 PM
04:09 PM
Let the Right One In?
05:12 PM
04:04 PM
04:01 PM
Moreso than the 2002 movie, at least, which, while I liked, was not very similar to the book at all.
03:47 PM
The only one I'd disagree with is the Coppola Dracula. I saw a preview in Hollywood when it came out. People were laughing. It wasn't pretty.
Fahrenheit 451 was life-changing, I think, I also saw it young. I had nightmares for about six months, and I never ever forgot the message.
03:55 PM
04:03 PM
04:38 PM
05:13 PM
05:25 PM
06:39 PM
06:57 PM
07:11 PM
03:41 PM
Just kidding.
04:01 PM
04:07 PM
04:12 PM
Although, I do trust Ridley Scott to do The Forever War up to standard.
05:36 PM
07:39 PM
11/19/09
11/20/09
11/19/09