Movies discussion

[rachelgrr]

Right now I like "He's Just Not That Into You". Very good. True to life.

I'm looking forward to seeing "Whip It" because I'm a huge fan of Drew Barrymore as well as Ellen Page (loved her in Juno!).


Rachel

[The_great_new_thing]

I hate it when books I like are made into stupid and silly movies, like HP 6. Right now, I'm waiting for the Percy Jackson movie to come out, and from the casting itself I can make out that the book has been changed completely

[Araja]

You should see what they did to the Northern Lights...

[Gambit]

Eragon (I can't refer to that movie without spitting) and Golden Compass are the two worst examples I can think of. LOTR is the best movie-based-on-book. And really the only good one I can think of. Harry Potter 1-3 were alright-good. But they gradually strayed further and further with each movie after number 2.

There are some laws of media conversions:

Movies based on books are fail
Movies based on comics are good.
Movies based on video games have not been done yet.

Books based on comics are alright.
Books based on movies are excellent.
Books based on video games are fail.

Video games based on movies are alright.
Video games based on comics are good.
Video games based on books are fail.
Video games based on movies based on books are the biggest fail you can imagine.
Video games based on movies based on comics are alright.

[Velensk]

I'm just going to say that there are examples out there that defy those conventions and leave it at that.

Though the one most in my memory of bad book to movie conversions was a time I was staying with a relative and they got the movie based off the Dark is Rising out of the library because I told them I had liked to books. The movie was quite simply to painful for me to get even halfway through.

[Gambit]

There're always exceptions.

[Blarumyrran]

LOTR is the best movie-based-on-book. And really the only good one I can think of.

Everybody seems to think that, and i cant figure out why! I thought the book was quite good (certainly not one of my all-time favorites tho), but the movie was really terrible. The visual effects & audio were great (well no doubt smeagol was cool among others); but it was horridly melodramatic, and also made some horrible simplifications to the already simple world of lotr (like, that regent of minas tirith was made just a nuts old man, while he had all the potential to be the actually interesting character in the movie).

[thespaceinvader]

It's interesting: people consider the LotR movie to be awesome. it's pretty good, if massively too long. but it's the only remotely good epic fantasy blockbuster out there, so it's all we've really got to compare to. I'd love to see some truly great fantasy books made itno movies, but it;s really difficult to do fantasy movies well, particularly fantasies based on well-known books, which for a blockbuster movie is mroe or less a necessity.

[Gambit]

[lol+jk]
It's the best because everything else is so bad
[/lol+jk]
[imho]
It had the biggest story to condense out of any other book-turned-movie that I have seen and it did a good job of it. It kept all the best bits, rewrote only when necesary, and cut only the worst.
[imho]

I disagree with you TSI. I hope nobody ever attempts to make a well known book into a movie ever again. They ruin them! Of course they'll keep trying but they will never ever succede. You can't cram 300+ pages into 2 hours and make the majority of the readers happy (or even a minority ). You'll spawn a ton of "fans" who never read the books of course...

This is why I haven't even watched the narnia movies. They didn't even start with number 1 for Aslans sake!

[Blarumyrran]

It kept all the best bits, rewrote only when necesary, and cut only the worst.

Explain how was eg changing the regents character necessary.

[Velensk]

I think that was a case of simplifying it for the audience who hadn't read the book. Which is a pity but I think that taking the time to develop him out probably would not have been a wise use of time.

You may not have been satisfied with the Peter Jackson LotR, however considering how huge the task was they did a good job and I doubt many people would have done better.

[Gambit]

It kept all the best bits, rewrote only when necesary, and cut only the worst.

Explain how was eg changing the regents character necessary.

It was a necesity of time. He contributed little to the big picture.

[Blarumyrran]

I think that was a case of simplifying it for the audience who hadn't read the book. Which is a pity but I think that taking the time to develop him out probably would not have been a wise use of time.

It was a necesity of time. He contributed little to the big picture.

And what, all those minutes spent on people staring at each other with melodramatic music playing was a good use of time? A better use than developing the regent?

Even if there had actually been no time, i seriously dislike the cutting/lessening the side characters attitude that all the book-to-film makers seem to have - even if Sammie didnt contribute anything to the plot in Silence of the Lambs & Hannibal, he was an interesting character and interesting bits should always have a higher priority than plot-advancing bits; and Margot was crucial to the plot in Hannibal, and also an interesting character - and she was totally cut, instead of a hundred other sections - so that excuse doesnt even work always; its like the producers had some murderous hatred against side characters.

[thespaceinvader]

It's an old trope - to appeal to the masses, you have to treat them like idiots. And sadly, too many directors believe it...

[Charlotte]

LOTR is the best movie-based-on-book.

[fan-mode]
THe least-worst might be a better description.
They removed Tom Bombadil, (who was the main reasons why the rocs could nto attack the shire in the books, also, at the end of book three

Spoiler:

the orcs have finally managed to walk around the forest and attack the shire form the back, Tom Bombadil could not prevent this and thus the hobbits are finally introduced to the cruel reality

)
They completely altered Saruman's character(He never did work together with Sauron, at least in the books, eh was trying to create his own empire rivalling that of Sauron, it was his mistake to think there as no strenght left in the world of man and thus discard the possiblity of allying with them completely. Though certainly evil in the books too he is at least noble.)
It were ents who saved the day at Helmsdeep. There were several species of orcs in the boks, making the battles quite a bit more complicated etc. etc.
I think that the Lord of the Rings as film is decent as long as you do not compare them to the books.
[/fan-mode]

Ehem, my favourite movie would have to be Spirited away, always was and always will.