|
Post by jlavaia on Apr 22, 2008 9:32:47 GMT -5
let's not forget, The Godfather, arguably the greatest film of all time, was a book first. most great movies are adaptations and we don't even know it. and it's not simply staying true to the source material, a filmmaker also must translate the tone correctly, and that's where a lot of films fail. The Godfather book is much better than the movie. granted, the movie is good, but it is very different from the book. it's like the Bourne Trilogy. there are main characters from the book, The Godfather, that were never in the movie. i'd say that's a poor adaption. and key stuff is missing about Luca Brasi and Michael Corleone. also in they changed the gender of one of the characters from the book from male to female. so The Godfather was not a good adaption of it's source material.
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Apr 23, 2008 18:53:19 GMT -5
ok, i don't agree with you, but how about High Fidelity, or A Clockwork Orange? changes are made to movies due to time constraints or to give the audience a better understanding or more focus on one character.
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Apr 23, 2008 21:58:47 GMT -5
ok, i don't agree with you, but how about High Fidelity, or A Clockwork Orange? changes are made to movies due to time constraints or to give the audience a better understanding or more focus on one character. i hope you're not serious. Clockwork Orange is one of the greatest books ever written. the movie doesnt come close to doing it justice. the movie seems to have forgotten the end of the book as the movie ends much differently from the book. also key stuff regarding the main character is missing. granted Alex is one of the sickest characters in fiction, but the movie seems to have forgotten that he's a rapist and pedophile and left that stuff out. it's kind of key to the story. the movie also decided that he needed a last name and changed him and made up a last name for him that he was never given in the book. the actor playing him didnt look right either and seemed to me to be a bit too old for the role. as for High Fidelity, when the movie gives the main character a completely different name, i'd say that already makes it a poor adaption. they also had it take place somewhere in the U.S., whereas the book takes place in England. changing who the main character is and drastically changing the setting makes for a poor translation into film. feel free to throw me some more, i'm enjoying this discussion very much.
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Apr 24, 2008 3:20:42 GMT -5
i think you're missing my point. changes were made - yes, some drastic, some not so much so, but they made a better movie that way. the last name in clockwork was a joke by malcolm mcdowell, and they forgot the rape scene? are YOU serious? and high fidelity, sure they changed the name and setting -but the story and tone were the same. movies are a different medium than books, direct adaptations aren't possible. and usually when a book is taken directly, the tone and feeling the audience is supposed to walk away with is different or lacking. yes, facts and details change, but the end result is what's important. if audiences walk away with a feeling that the main character has gone through the proper transformation, then i don't care about those tiny, insignificant, fan-boy details. (i can understand your point about the last chapter of clockwork orange however)
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Apr 24, 2008 9:04:28 GMT -5
i think you're missing my point. changes were made - yes, some drastic, some not so much so, but they made a better movie that way. the last name in clockwork was a joke by malcolm mcdowell, and they forgot the rape scene? are YOU serious? and high fidelity, sure they changed the name and setting -but the story and tone were the same. movies are a different medium than books, direct adaptations aren't possible. and usually when a book is taken directly, the tone and feeling the audience is supposed to walk away with is different or lacking. yes, facts and details change, but the end result is what's important. if audiences walk away with a feeling that the main character has gone through the proper transformation, then i don't care about those tiny, insignificant, fan-boy details. (i can understand your point about the last chapter of clockwork orange however) with High Fidelity, the story of both the book and movie is basically the same, which is why i cant understand why'd they would need to make up their own character for the movie instead of using the character from the book. when the movie adaption is completely missing the main character from the book it's adapting, that's not a tiny, insignificant, fan-boy detail, that's a major change. had they used the character from the book and made it take place in England, it would've been the only faithful adaption of fictional literature into film. but alas, we could not have that. i really think it's done on purpose. producers and directors think to themselves, okay we can make this into a movie, but let's make sure we screw it up completely by not including characters that are supposed to be in the story. it's comical when these adaptions get made. and it's not just literature, these video game based movies are by far the worst adaptions of their source material. book and comic book based movies are bad, but the video game based movies are just plain horrendous. i feel that if something is great as it is, leave it alone. there is no need to completely trash a great book by making it bad on film. it's also the fault of the authors though as they end up selling the rights of the book to these movie companies, knowing that the film company is going to ruin the story that the author created. it's all about money. like i said in an earlier post, most of the people making the movie have never read a page of the material that they are adapting and could care less about. they want to do the story their own way, but arent creative enough to come up with their own idea, so they take someone else's great book and ruin it as a movie.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Apr 24, 2008 11:55:47 GMT -5
The thing about books is that they are not advertised, nor are comic books. To get the mainstream audience, movie adaptations are incredibly helpful. And because most people will see the movie before reading the book, there experience is only heightened after reading the source material. So the writer benefits by getting a wider audience, the public benefits from being exposed to the story, and the people making it benefit from the revenue it creates. Plus, it is much easier to adapt a story than to write a new one. Because it is easier, writers tend to not put as much effort into the adaptation and as a result, the writing suffers.
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Apr 24, 2008 13:05:27 GMT -5
with High Fidelity, the story of both the book and movie is basically the same, which is why i cant understand why'd they would need to make up their own character for the movie instead of using the character from the book. when the movie adaption is completely missing the main character from the book it's adapting, that's not a tiny, insignificant, fan-boy detail, that's a major change. had they used the character from the book and made it take place in England, it would've been the only faithful adaption of fictional literature into film. but alas, we could not have that. i really think it's done on purpose. producers and directors think to themselves, okay we can make this into a movie, but let's make sure we screw it up completely by not including characters that are supposed to be in the story. .[/quote]
dude, have you read high fidelity? it's the same character, they just gave him an american last name. so the story is set in chicago rather than london. is that really significant to the story and feelings expressed through the film? not at all. it wasn't a new character, nor was it an abandonment of the book's character. it's the same guy, but instead of rob flemming, he's rob gordon. same character man
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Apr 24, 2008 16:01:14 GMT -5
dude, have you read high fidelity? it's the same character, they just gave him an american last name. so the story is set in chicago rather than london. is that really significant to the story and feelings expressed through the film? not at all. it wasn't a new character, nor was it an abandonment of the book's character. it's the same guy, but instead of rob flemming, he's rob gordon. same character man a different name, is a different character. in Batman and Robin, Batgirl is Barbara Wilson. she was a character made for the movie based on Barbara Gordon. they are not the same character. same thing with High Fidelity. Rob Gordon was a character created for the movie based on the character Rob Flemming. 2 different characters. 1 is based off of the other, but that doesnt make them the same. it's a big change, and with High Fidelity, an unnecessary change. it comes down to the director being too lazy to go out and find and cast a british actor for the role, so he went to the producer and screenwriter and begged them to change the setting and character. there is a difference between a british character and an english character. it's a huge change made to the movie and it's another example of why fictional literature shouldn't be made into another form of entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Apr 24, 2008 17:13:49 GMT -5
it's not that huge, it is the same character, but i'm done arguing with you because you're not gonna get it.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Apr 25, 2008 10:38:14 GMT -5
So jlavia, is your argument that people do not make good movies based of off books and comics because they are too lazy to follow them? Or is it that it is not possible to make a "good" film adaptation?
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Apr 25, 2008 11:34:13 GMT -5
So jlavia, is your argument that people do not make good movies based of off books and comics because they are too lazy to follow them? Or is it that it is not possible to make a "good" film adaptation? i think it is possible to adapt something correctly, it just hasnt been yet. so yes, i'd say laziness definitely plays a big part in the reason why. and the fact that movie companies hire producers and directors and screenwriters who are not fans of, or havent read, the original material. i also do like your idea from an earlier post about how alot of literature should be adapted into television episodes. that makes it alot easier to adapt as you have much more time to tell the story.
|
|
|
Post by J-Man on Apr 25, 2008 22:13:12 GMT -5
ok, i don't agree with you, but how about High Fidelity, or A Clockwork Orange? changes are made to movies due to time constraints or to give the audience a better understanding or more focus on one character. i hope you're not serious. Clockwork Orange is one of the greatest books ever written. the movie doesnt come close to doing it justice. the movie seems to have forgotten the end of the book as the movie ends much differently from the book. also key stuff regarding the main character is missing. granted Alex is one of the sickest characters in fiction, but the movie seems to have forgotten that he's a rapist and pedophile and left that stuff out. it's kind of key to the story. the movie also decided that he needed a last name and changed him and made up a last name for him that he was never given in the book. the actor playing him didnt look right either and seemed to me to be a bit too old for the role. as for High Fidelity, when the movie gives the main character a completely different name, i'd say that already makes it a poor adaption. they also had it take place somewhere in the U.S., whereas the book takes place in England. changing who the main character is and drastically changing the setting makes for a poor translation into film. feel free to throw me some more, i'm enjoying this discussion very much. Because a movie based on a book can't be good in its own right? Every detail has to be done correctly or it's horse crap?
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Apr 25, 2008 22:34:11 GMT -5
i hope you're not serious. Clockwork Orange is one of the greatest books ever written. the movie doesnt come close to doing it justice. the movie seems to have forgotten the end of the book as the movie ends much differently from the book. also key stuff regarding the main character is missing. granted Alex is one of the sickest characters in fiction, but the movie seems to have forgotten that he's a rapist and pedophile and left that stuff out. it's kind of key to the story. the movie also decided that he needed a last name and changed him and made up a last name for him that he was never given in the book. the actor playing him didnt look right either and seemed to me to be a bit too old for the role. as for High Fidelity, when the movie gives the main character a completely different name, i'd say that already makes it a poor adaption. they also had it take place somewhere in the U.S., whereas the book takes place in England. changing who the main character is and drastically changing the setting makes for a poor translation into film. feel free to throw me some more, i'm enjoying this discussion very much. Because a movie based on a book can't be good in its own right? Every detail has to be done correctly or it's horse crap? not every detail, but the major stuff has to be there, i.e. the main character and key plot elements regarding the character. i never said that a movie based on a book cant be good, i said that a true to the source material movie has yet to be made. who knows, maybe one will finally come out that sets the bar and everything else after it will be phenomenal. The Bourne movies arernt bad, but they are in no way related to the books. they changed so much that you have to think of the movies as something else. The Godfather was a very good movie, but it is no where near the book and they changed quite a bit as well, where it is not an accurate adaption. the Blade movies are good, but they changed alot of things with alot of the characters and it's not an accurate adaption. since it's not an accurate adaption it keeps these movies from achieving true greatness. they are held back and not as good as they can and should be.
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Apr 26, 2008 3:29:24 GMT -5
you do know mario puzo adapted the screenplay along with francis for coppola for the godfather don't you? what works in a book doesn't always translate to film, but you can make an INTERPRETATION as best you can that will get across the same story, message and tone/feeling. we must look at these as interpretations and nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by DrGreenEvil on Apr 26, 2008 14:29:35 GMT -5
How about this new Batman: The Brave and the Bold cartoon.
After seeing the price point for the TDK figures, I really hope the figure line for this cartoon will be more in scale with JLU or even DCIH just to keep the price down. $8.54 for a basic, what parents are going to buy their kids, figure is just ludicrous. Also hopefully since this is a teamup show, they will finally release a 2 seater batmobile for regular figures.
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Apr 26, 2008 16:59:24 GMT -5
you do know mario puzo adapted the screenplay along with francis for coppola for the godfather don't you? what works in a book doesn't always translate to film, but you can make an INTERPRETATION as best you can that will get across the same story, message and tone/feeling. we must look at these as interpretations and nothing else. then he forgot what he wrote as one of the main characters from the book from never in the movie and changing the gender of a character is due to sheer laziness on the part of those in charge of casting. and the missing stuff about Don Corleone was added to the second film, why not do the same for Michael Corleone and Luca Brasi. they made 3 films based on the one book. i think they could have fit everything in.
|
|
|
Post by J-Man on Apr 26, 2008 23:20:15 GMT -5
Because a movie based on a book can't be good in its own right? Every detail has to be done correctly or it's horse crap? not every detail, but the major stuff has to be there, i.e. the main character and key plot elements regarding the character. i never said that a movie based on a book cant be good, i said that a true to the source material movie has yet to be made. who knows, maybe one will finally come out that sets the bar and everything else after it will be phenomenal. The Bourne movies arernt bad, but they are in no way related to the books. they changed so much that you have to think of the movies as something else. The Godfather was a very good movie, but it is no where near the book and they changed quite a bit as well, where it is not an accurate adaption. the Blade movies are good, but they changed alot of things with alot of the characters and it's not an accurate adaption. since it's not an accurate adaption it keeps these movies from achieving true greatness. they are held back and not as good as they can and should be. See, I disagree with this. When the book "Wonder Boys" was adapted by Steven Kloves, he cut out a lot of things. One of the most memorable scenes from that book, in my opinion, was a scene where the main character took his troubled student to his in-laws house, where they celebrated an impromptu sedar. That was cut out of the movie. However, the movie did not suffer from the loss of that scene. It was very good in its own right, and I did not mind that Kloves decided to cut that scene from the final product. My point is, you have to look at movies as how they are, not as how they could have been. That's how you judge a movie. If you read a book and fear that they may ruin it by cutting out a lot of the details, then you shouldn't see that movie because just about every film based on a book ends up without an element from that book. It is impossible to translate every word in a book on to the silver screen. Screen adaptation is an artform on its own right, too. Even authors cut out scenes from their books when they write its screen adaptation. The author of "Wonder Boys" is adapting another one of his books, a Pulitzer-prize winner, and has told readers that he plans to cut many scenes from it. Will that make the movie terrible? Absolutely not. Will it anger the readers? Some of them. But if these readers are so concerned that their favorite book will be trimmed down, then they shouldn't see it.
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Apr 27, 2008 1:27:29 GMT -5
/quote] See, I disagree with this. When the book "Wonder Boys" was adapted by Steven Kloves, he cut out a lot of things. One of the most memorable scenes from that book, in my opinion, was a scene where the main character took his troubled student to his in-laws house, where they celebrated an impromptu sedar. That was cut out of the movie. However, the movie did not suffer from the loss of that scene. It was very good in its own right, and I did not mind that Kloves decided to cut that scene from the final product. My point is, you have to look at movies as how they are, not as how they could have been. That's how you judge a movie. If you read a book and fear that they may ruin it by cutting out a lot of the details, then you shouldn't see that movie because just about every film based on a book ends up without an element from that book. It is impossible to translate every word in a book on to the silver screen. Screen adaptation is an artform on its own right, too. Even authors cut out scenes from their books when they write its screen adaptation. The author of "Wonder Boys" is adapting another one of his books, a Pulitzer-prize winner, and has told readers that he plans to cut many scenes from it. Will that make the movie terrible? Absolutely not. Will it anger the readers? Some of them. But if these readers are so concerned that their favorite book will be trimmed down, then they shouldn't see it. here here! again, these are INTERPRETATIONS of a book. NOT the book itself
|
|
|
Post by Batlaw on Apr 27, 2008 2:55:55 GMT -5
While an interesting debate, lets steer the discussion back on target... Member's thoughts and opinions regarding Batman: The Brave and the Bold.
|
|
wetstereorebel
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
"Oh, sweet Jesus. It's the goddamn Batman."
Posts: 206
|
Post by wetstereorebel on Apr 27, 2008 21:18:32 GMT -5
I want more info on this show. More pictures and more info.
|
|
|
Post by To The Batcave! on May 12, 2008 20:35:53 GMT -5
This looks horrible, what a disgrace to batman. Animation is constantly looking worse and worse and i absolutely hate it. and pairing him with green arrow and blue beetle. what kind of team is that? let me get this straight, the get rid of the batman and bring this? something doesn't seem right here.
|
|
|
Post by Jack the Skull on May 12, 2008 21:01:49 GMT -5
[shadow=red,left,300] FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! We have no idea what this series will be like! All we have is a Two pictures! Just Two! That is all the info we have! We can't just pass a judgment call on just Two pictures! This could be a fantastic series! This could be a very Terrible series! We don't know! But, only thing that does not seem right here is judging a series before it is released! [/shadow]
|
|
trashsmasher
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Death does not wait for you to be ready!
Posts: 194
|
Post by trashsmasher on May 18, 2008 8:39:54 GMT -5
I agree, let's wait to pass judgement on the show. (However, I also agree the initial art looks bad, but I said the same thing when I saw The Batman previews )
|
|
|
Post by have no fear on May 22, 2008 0:14:39 GMT -5
[glow=white,2,300]im actually pretty pumped for this, even just based on one picture. im down for something new.[/glow]
|
|
batman1961
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Batteries to power,turbines to speed!
Posts: 213
|
Post by batman1961 on May 31, 2008 16:29:35 GMT -5
Looks like return of the Friendlier Batman from the 60's - I want to see more before I make any decision. hope there is lots of action, and good figure line to collect.
|
|
Batcompu
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 232
|
Post by Batcompu on Jun 11, 2008 6:08:36 GMT -5
and good figure line to collect. that's offcourse one of the most importent things ;D
|
|
|
Post by DrGreenEvil on Jun 14, 2008 19:59:14 GMT -5
This show is looking more and more awesome as its coming. And the gripes of it being to light and kiddie are starting to seem premature and wrong to me. www.action-figure.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=23279Pics from the recently held licensing show. Judging by these pics, Batman may look like hes out of the Superfriends, but he's not acting like a Superfriend. Were getting a pretty good list of heroes to... Aquaman, Red Tornado, Plastic Man, Blue Beetle, The Atom, Green Arrow, and then Dr. Fate and the villain Cavalier are unconfirmed on imdb. Hopefully this show gets put back to being shown this year like originally planned. DrGreenEvil
|
|
|
Post by Batlaw on Jun 15, 2008 3:46:38 GMT -5
hhmmm... that Batmobile could have fun potential. That design Aquaman looks funky. Batman still looks "cute" if nothing else. The show will be "kiddyfied"... which isnt an automatic negative. Just make it a GOOD kid's show (Batman related or otherwise). The new Spiderman for example. IMO, That is what The Batman should have been. On a side note, no matter what this show turns out to be, how good it is, or how well it does, to me personally Mike Manley put a stink on it that wont go away.
|
|
|
Post by ayenlou on Jun 19, 2008 11:32:56 GMT -5
i wonder if they're gonna have a panel at the San Diego Comic-Con. Because I wanna check it out. I'm gonna be at San Diego Comic-Con on Saturday
|
|
|
Post by DrGreenEvil on Jun 19, 2008 21:08:30 GMT -5
Wizard Universe has reported the Green Lantern will also be in the show. Now which one, that is the question.
|
|