Random Thoughts of Members (anything goes...well with in forum rules)

[bigBear]

I expect the movies to not follow what is known. if they did, I think most of the marvel films would never come to be in the 1st place.

[Darth Tepes]

I expect the movies to not follow what is known. if they did, I think most of the marvel films would never come to be in the 1st place.

For me, Comics are a different beast than Novels.  Comic characters (especially pertaining to the Big 2..Marvel and DC) are what I like to call "Living Characters".  What I mean by that is that their adventures are ongoing, some for as long as 80 years.  They have gone through multiple writers, artists, versions, alternate dimensions etc.  As long as a few core Elements (which also vary by fan) are present its good.  Why I believe the MCU was so cross generational and successful...they took a little Silver Age, a little modern and a sprinkle of their own ideas and came up with a product that multiple levels of fans were ok with.  Its only some of their recent films that inspired more dissent...but I digress. 
         Books and Novels on the other hand are "Capped Characters"  Meaning that they had (generally) One writer and he/she mapped the story to progress a certain way to make let the story flow they way they wanted it to.  Everyone Knows changes have to be made to adapt one Medium to another.... no one disagrees with this.  But when the changes begin altering the narrative and characters...that's when people take issue.  Now many will say "Why should they do it the same as the books, it should be different."  This sentiment makes no sense for many of us.  Yes we can imagine what the scenes look like in out heads but we also want to see it brought to life., why wouldn't we?  As stated before Lord of the Rings is one of the biggest when it comes to this.  It also comes down to how people feel about a property.  For some LOTR is just  old books that were made into popular films....for others they are masterpieces of not only modern fantasy...but literature in general.  To take away unnecessarily and especially to add things changes the meaning Tolkien intended...and if you read up on Tolkien he had a reason for every word he wrote.  IMO when people make changes to alter someone elses vision to meet their own...it lacks creativity and respect and will put me right off of a film or a director. 

[Darth Knox]

For me, Comics are a different beast than Novels.  Comic characters (especially pertaining to the Big 2..Marvel and DC) are what I like to call "Living Characters".  What I mean by that is that their adventures are ongoing, some for as long as 80 years.  They have gone through multiple writers, artists, versions, alternate dimensions etc.  As long as a few core Elements (which also vary by fan) are present its good.  Why I believe the MCU was so cross generational and successful...they took a little Silver Age, a little modern and a sprinkle of their own ideas and came up with a product that multiple levels of fans were ok with.  Its only some of their recent films that inspired more dissent...but I digress. 
         Books and Novels on the other hand are "Capped Characters"  Meaning that they had (generally) One writer and he/she mapped the story to progress a certain way to make let the story flow they way they wanted it to.  Everyone Knows changes have to be made to adapt one Medium to another.... no one disagrees with this.  But when the changes begin altering the narrative and characters...that's when people take issue.  Now many will say "Why should they do it the same as the books, it should be different."  This sentiment makes no sense for many of us.  Yes we can imagine what the scenes look like in out heads but we also want to see it brought to life., why wouldn't we?  As stated before Lord of the Rings is one of the biggest when it comes to this.  It also comes down to how people feel about a property.  For some LOTR is just  old books that were made into popular films....for others they are masterpieces of not only modern fantasy...but literature in general.  To take away unnecessarily and especially to add things changes the meaning Tolkien intended...and if you read up on Tolkien he had a reason for every word he wrote.  IMO when people make changes to alter someone elses vision to meet their own...it lacks creativity and respect and will put me right off of a film or a director. 

I don't disagree with anything you wrote here, with one tiny exception. Books are written. Reading those words conjures images in the reader who uses their imagination to form individual opinion of what a certain character or location looks like.

Nicholas Meyer director of Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country said this:
“I always think that it’s more interesting asking questions than it is answering them.
Art is not in the business of answering questions. It is in the business of raising questions, issue and so forth.

All the traditional artistic venues, literature, music, painting, they exercise much of their impact by virtue of what they leave out. A painting does not move. Music has no image. In each case, it is the willing and unskilled participation of the imagination of the viewer, reader or listener that completes the work of art. The painting moves when it meets your eye. And so forth. Only movies, the 20th-century art medium, has the hideous capacity to do it all for you. In doing so it tends to render the audience passive.”

As Tepes said, novels are the creative work of one person, the author. Movie adaptations are someone else’s visual interpretation of that work, represented with movement, sound, colour. The director has uses his own imagination, which obviously will be unique to him/her. The director’s image of what a character will look like will differ from every other reader of a novel, and even from the author as well.

Movies as translating written words into a completely different medium. Not everything that works on the printed page will work on the big screen, which is why changes are occasionally necessary. Obviously, sometimes changes are made for a plethora of other reasons (studio politics, business decisions etc etc).

That is just my take on it though.

[Darth Tepes]

I don't disagree with anything you wrote here, with one tiny exception. Books are written. Reading those words conjures images in the reader who uses their imagination to form individual opinion of what a certain character or location looks like.

Nicholas Meyer director of Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country said this:
“I always think that it’s more interesting asking questions than it is answering them.
Art is not in the business of answering questions. It is in the business of raising questions, issue and so forth.

All the traditional artistic venues, literature, music, painting, they exercise much of their impact by virtue of what they leave out. A painting does not move. Music has no image. In each case, it is the willing and unskilled participation of the imagination of the viewer, reader or listener that completes the work of art. The painting moves when it meets your eye. And so forth. Only movies, the 20th-century art medium, has the hideous capacity to do it all for you. In doing so it tends to render the audience passive.”

As Tepes said, novels are the creative work of one person, the author. Movie adaptations are someone else’s visual interpretation of that work, represented with movement, sound, colour. The director has uses his own imagination, which obviously will be unique to him/her. The director’s image of what a character will look like will differ from every other reader of a novel, and even from the author as well.

Movies as translating written words into a completely different medium. Not everything that works on the printed page will work on the big screen, which is why changes are occasionally necessary. Obviously, sometimes changes are made for a plethora of other reasons (studio politics, business decisions etc etc).

That is just my take on it though.

When it comes to the visualizations, I only take issue when they purposefully change something the Author of said novel described in detail...with few exceptions.  Intentionally disregarding a authors description for no other reason than preference, as I said, smacks of arrogance and disrespect...IMO of course.  For me, adapting someone else work into your medium of expertise should be taken on as a high honor.   I will repeat that changes necessary for adapting a book to a film do not bother me.  I had no problem with leaving Tom Bombadil out of LOTR...but did have issue with them creating Taurial and shoe horning in an unnecessary star crossed love plot.


EDIT:  I realized there was a bit that apparently I accidently deleted before posting.  My work computer is stupid...or I am.    Anyway, to the part that got cut.

  Of course this is all my opinion.... With comics writers and artists rarely spend more than a few years with the character...with notable exceptions.  But Authors of novels spend more than a few year sometimes decades crafting these stories and characters to get them just how they want them...and to see someone come in and start changing things always irks me.  Now that doesn't mean their aren't the exceptions of authors who are still alive authorizing changes or the very few times the Movie is better than the book.  Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a good example.  The author of the original book preferred the movie over his own work and when he wrote a sequel (yes there is a sequel) he opened with Jessica having dreamed the entire first book and followed the movie instead.

[Infinit01]

I like grey

[Darth Knox]

You put the lime in the coconut, you drank em bot up

[Darth Logos]

Why? I know the movies leave lots of things from the books, so surely it's better to watch the movies to get the basic story and then explore the full story and enjoy the world building Rowling does with side-plots. Just my opinion. Books are always better than the movies. Whenever I've read a book first and then watched the movie I always end disappointed at stuff they left out. Do it the other way around and that disappointment just isn't there (for me at least).

Cannot agree more. I started reading the books after GoF, and quickly caught up. I was severely disappointed by how much they had to take out of the movie to get it to fit. I considered trying to read OoP before the movie released. I got through the first chapter and closed it. I already knew that the movie wasn't going to match it.

I liked watching the movies first because it then gave me a decent visual reference for the books....with a few exceptions. The biggest of which (IMO) was the discrepancy in Umbridge's appearance. Imelda Staunton is by no means an ugly woman, but the character of Delores Umbridge was supposed to be as ugly physically as she was in personality. That said, she utterly nailed the falsely sweet uber-bitch villainess.

For me, Comics are a different beast than Novels.  Comic characters (especially pertaining to the Big 2..Marvel and DC) are what I like to call "Living Characters".  What I mean by that is that their adventures are ongoing, some for as long as 80 years.  They have gone through multiple writers, artists, versions, alternate dimensions etc.  As long as a few core Elements (which also vary by fan) are present its good.  Why I believe the MCU was so cross generational and successful...they took a little Silver Age, a little modern and a sprinkle of their own ideas and came up with a product that multiple levels of fans were ok with.  Its only some of their recent films that inspired more dissent...but I digress. 
         Books and Novels on the other hand are "Capped Characters"  Meaning that they had (generally) One writer and he/she mapped the story to progress a certain way to make let the story flow they way they wanted it to.  Everyone Knows changes have to be made to adapt one Medium to another.... no one disagrees with this.  But when the changes begin altering the narrative and characters...that's when people take issue.  Now many will say "Why should they do it the same as the books, it should be different."  This sentiment makes no sense for many of us.  Yes we can imagine what the scenes look like in out heads but we also want to see it brought to life., why wouldn't we?  As stated before Lord of the Rings is one of the biggest when it comes to this.  It also comes down to how people feel about a property.  For some LOTR is just  old books that were made into popular films....for others they are masterpieces of not only modern fantasy...but literature in general.  To take away unnecessarily and especially to add things changes the meaning Tolkien intended...and if you read up on Tolkien he had a reason for every word he wrote.  IMO when people make changes to alter someone elses vision to meet their own...it lacks creativity and respect and will put me right off of a film or a director. 

Right. I found out that the whole Orc fiasco, as well as the Battle of the 5 Armies in the Hobbit was complete Hollywood BS. I always wondered why it left a foul taste.


Just a bit of fair warning, and preemptive apology:

I noticed my S.A.D. kicking up over the weekend, and fear that this will be a bad year for it. So...if I get overly moody, I will apologize now while it is on my mind.

[Darth Knox]

Cannot agree more. I started reading the books after GoF, and quickly caught up. I was severely disappointed by how much they had to take out of the movie to get it to fit. I considered trying to read OoP before the movie released. I got through the first chapter and closed it. I already knew that the movie wasn't going to match it.

Umm, what's "GoF" and "OoP"?

[Darth Logos]

Umm, what's "GoF" and "OoP"?

Goblet of Fire

Order of the Phoenix

[Darth Knox]

Goblet of Fire

Order of the Phoenix

Gotcha. Thanks.

[Cyclops942]

For me, Comics are a different beast than Novels.  Comic characters (especially pertaining to the Big 2..Marvel and DC) are what I like to call "Living Characters".  What I mean by that is that their adventures are ongoing, some for as long as 80 years.  They have gone through multiple writers, artists, versions, alternate dimensions etc.  As long as a few core Elements (which also vary by fan) are present its good.  Why I believe the MCU was so cross generational and successful...they took a little Silver Age, a little modern and a sprinkle of their own ideas and came up with a product that multiple levels of fans were ok with.  Its only some of their recent films that inspired more dissent...but I digress. 
         Books and Novels on the other hand are "Capped Characters"  Meaning that they had (generally) One writer and he/she mapped the story to progress a certain way to make let the story flow they way they wanted it to.  Everyone Knows changes have to be made to adapt one Medium to another.... no one disagrees with this.  But when the changes begin altering the narrative and characters...that's when people take issue.  Now many will say "Why should they do it the same as the books, it should be different."  This sentiment makes no sense for many of us.  Yes we can imagine what the scenes look like in out heads but we also want to see it brought to life., why wouldn't we?  As stated before Lord of the Rings is one of the biggest when it comes to this.  It also comes down to how people feel about a property.  For some LOTR is just  old books that were made into popular films....for others they are masterpieces of not only modern fantasy...but literature in general.  To take away unnecessarily and especially to add things changes the meaning Tolkien intended...and if you read up on Tolkien he had a reason for every word he wrote.  IMO when people make changes to alter someone elses vision to meet their own...it lacks creativity and respect and will put me right off of a film or a director. 

Ooooh, I knew I liked you for a reason!  THANK YOU!  Tolkien, Lewis, Rowling, Asimov, Clarke... NONE of them chose their words carelessly!  I'm sure you can name others, but those are the ones with works most familiar to me, and it pains me to watch some of the film adaptations (at least at certain points).

[Darth Tepes]

Ooooh, I knew I liked you for a reason!  THANK YOU!  Tolkien, Lewis, Rowling, Asimov, Clarke... NONE of them chose their words carelessly!  I'm sure you can name others, but those are the ones with works most familiar to me, and it pains me to watch some of the film adaptations (at least at certain points).

Now those like Rowling who are still alive and allowed input are different.  I may not like the changes but if they ok it.....  But then you have the case of World War Z.  The author, Max Brooks (Son of Mel Brooks) had no say so in the film.  It was NOTHING like the book...like no resemblance at all.

[Taegin Roan]

Right. I found out that the whole Orc fiasco, as well as the Battle of the 5 Armies in the Hobbit was complete Hollywood BS. I always wondered why it left a foul taste.

Pretty much. The sad thing is that Manu Bennett is an amazing actor, and he did amazing as Azog. Except that Azog is not part of the story. He should have been Bolg. I don't really mind that they included Legolas, because we don't know where he was at the time, and it is likely that he was in Mirkwood at the time, but he definitely shouldn't have had as big a role as he did. I'm fine that they included a female elf named Tauriel, but she definitely shouldn't have had as big of a role, and should not have had a relationship with Kili. When I compare the movies to the books I could talk about the failings of the movies for days, but for the most part, those are some of my biggest issues. I liked Dain and Thranduil, but they could have done better on pretty much everything else. Okay, I'll be done now.

[Darth Tepes]

Pretty much. The sad thing is that Manu Bennett is an amazing actor, and he did amazing as Azog. Except that Azog is not part of the story. He should have been Bolg. I don't really mind that they included Legolas, because we don't know where he was at the time, and it is likely that he was in Mirkwood at the time, but he definitely shouldn't have had as big a role as he did. I'm fine that they included a female elf named Tauriel, but she definitely shouldn't have had as big of a role, and should not have had a relationship with Kili. When I compare the movies to the books I could talk about the failings of the movies for days, but for the most part, those are some of my biggest issues. I liked Dain and Thranduil, but they could have done better on pretty much everything else. Okay, I'll be done now.

Pretty much my sentiment.  Also Sauron Capturing Gandalf...he was in no way strong enough to hold Gandalf prisoner at that point.

[Darth Knox]

Now those like Rowling who are still alive and allowed input are different.  I may not like the changes but if they ok it.....  But then you have the case of World War Z.  The author, Max Brooks (Son of Mel Brooks) had no say so in the film.  It was NOTHING like the book...like no resemblance at all.

When an author sells the movie rights to their books, unless they are someone like JK Rowling, the studios are free to make any changes they want. Obviously JK Rowling has massive amounts of input and say in the Harry Potter movies, but not all authors negotiate such good deals.