Stories can be tweaked into a hundred different versions, and screenplays are no different. Whether you’re a traditionalist who insists that the original is always better, or of the school of thought that special effects make any story superior, it usually is a case-by-case deliberation. To be fair to both printed and visual attempts, here’s a list of who’s done it best from comic books to TV series and book series to movies.

"Scott Pilgrim"
“Scott Pilgrim,” the six-part graphic novel by Bryan Lee O’Malley, quickly became a huge hit when it started in 2004, and for good reason. The story follows 23-year-old slacker Scott Pilgrim as he falls in love with Ramona Flowers, a girl who has seven evil ex-boyfriends that must be defeated in battle if they are to be together.

The world O’Malley creates is a bit crazy. Vegans have superpowers and bands can beat up people with the power of music. Everything that O’Malley loved as a kid and an adult spills out onto the page, with constant pop culture, video game and music references, and it all proves to be infectious.

“Scott Pilgrim” made the jump to theaters last year with Edgar Wright’s “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” and it lost very little in translation. Wright, of “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” fame, directed the movie and his enthusiasm for his source material can be seen in every shot of the film.

Wright successfully captured the hyperactive pace and visual style of O’Malley’s graphic novels while creating something unique. Wright’s movie strays away from the source material in a couple big ways that pay off, but it never betrays the overall feel of the franchise.

“Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” is one of the best adaptations I’ve seen, and actually surpasses its source material in more ways than one.
— Conor O’Brien, University College freshman

"The Walking Dead"
When stories are adapted from one medium to another, comic books most often find themselves the adaptee, not the adapted. This is probably because production planning for long-term TV shows and films depends heavily on storyboarding, which is the practice of arranging graphic organizers in a sequence to tell a story. There, I’ve just described a comic book to you — go figure.

Hence, we have “The Walking Dead,” a surprisingly successful AMC post-apocalyptic zombie series that aired six episodes last fall (it’s since been picked up for a 13-episode second season), developed from a comic book series of the same name by Frank Darabont, who directed a pair of excellent films, “The Green Mile” and “The Shawshank Redemption.” Predictably, Darabont lent his rich cinematography and keen eye for human detail to a cultural sub-genre previously lacking such focuses.

Here, Darabont improves upon “The Walking Dead” comic-writer Robert Kirkman’s intention to depict a stark, realistic human reaction to a world overrun by mindless, hungry semi-humans. The former artist intensifies the fearful protagonists’ aversion to the undead by occasionally offering a gruesome, visceral display of what is essentially cannibalism. Darabont combines this with relational conflict — one of the characters confines himself and his son to a house near where his undead wife wanders about, and the audience sees from his point of view as she scratches against the peephole on his front door, clawing for what she once knew. Sorry Kirkman, but that’s drama you just can’t get from a picture-book.
— Matt Carney, professional writing senior

"Harry Potter"
On one hand, there are the avid “Harry Potter” book supporters who think the only commendable aspect of the movies is Emma Watson’s evolving “hotness.” And then there are the fans who haven’t read a chapter of the books.

Delving deeper into the series, both the books and the movies get admittedly better. The books’ plots get more intriguing and less akin to the sci-fi children’s novels they started out being. The visual intensity of the movies increases tenfold as the directing torch gets passed from Chris Columbus (1 and 2) to Mike Newell (3) to Alfonso Cuaron (4) and finally to David Yates (5, 6 and 7). And as tragic as Richard Harris’s death was, of course, his replacement of Michael Gambon as Dumbledore in “Prisoner of Azkaban” brought some sorely-lacking humor and spunkiness to the character that seemed to liven up the whole movie.

There seems to be a consensus that the seventh installment, both in book and two-part movie form, is the best, and I absolutely agree.

The movie, like the book, had amazing action sequences and nail-biting dilemmas throughout. Both offered comic relief (though the movie could’ve used a bit more), as well as the oh-so-cute chemistry between Ron and Hermione and oh-so-awkward scenes with Harry and Ginny. All major characters and plot twists were evident, and Dobby once again showed up to save the day – and steal the show.

It’s really impossible to choose which is better, the books or the movies. I love the crazy visuals in the movies, but sometimes it’s also nice to read the words and create the image myself.
— Emily Hopkins, University College freshman

"True Grit"
Everyone’s heard the buzz around “True Grit” (2010), starring Jeff Bridges. What students probably aren’t familiar with is the book by Charles Portis upon which both versions, the original with John Wayne and the Bridges remake, are based.

The Coen Brothers’ adaptation of “True Grit” claims to be more faithful to the book than the first movie (1969), but in reality both movies deviate from the original story. The 1969 version completely changes the ending, and the 2010 production creates additional conflicts between the main characters to emphasize the differences between them.

What the recent movie has over the old movie, however, is quality acting. Kim Darby plays a great Mattie Ross in the original, but the acting of John Wayne as Rooster Cogburn and Glen Campbell as LaBoeuf cannot compare to the acting of Bridges and Matt Damon. The portrayal of Mattie Ross by Hailee Steinfeld earned her an Academy Award nomination for best supporting actress.

The book is superior to both movie versions because of its dialogue. All three of the main characters are so diverse and complex, and as they travel together they attack each other with an endless supply of insults and quips. Although both movies use lines straight from the book, the dialogue in the book is more prominent because there is no image to distract from it.

Though the movies have merit, the book is better than either version. Regardless of the quality, eventually each story comes full circle, discovering that “true grit” can be found in the most unlikely places.
— Janna Gentry, English junior