Movie News, Reviews, & Reactions 2011

[Nepenthe]

Novels are notorious for making lousy movies; there is too much in a novel for a movie.  Perhaps a small exception can be carved for novels with blatant word count fluffing, but only perhaps.

Do you know which novel series was faithfully turned into movies with very little cut out?

Twilight.

I have the singular advantage of not having read the books nor having seen any of the movies. I am unspoiled!

[mathey]

No Country For Old Men was pretty faithful. But that novel was sort of written like a screenplay, anyway.

[lastknight1973]

Novels are notorious for making lousy movies; there is too much in a novel for a movie.  Perhaps a small exception can be carved for novels with blatant word count fluffing, but only perhaps.

Do you know which novel series was faithfully turned into movies with very little cut out?

Twilight.

American elementary schools have several systems in place to monitor reading level and achievement, one of these the AR program organizes books by comprehension level (not content) related to grade level.  That leads to a child being graded per there grade equavilancy (i.e. an AR level of 3.6 means the child comprehends what they read equal to the average 3rd grader six months into the school year)

 So that leads to a tidbit that should send those of us who have some semblence of sanity left screaming down the hall...the whole Twilight series falls in the 4.0 to 4.9 range.  Yep, that means it was written at a 4th grade reading level...I still think that might be generous bt heh

[lastknight1973]

Honestly though, I generally just look at movie versions of books as the "Ultimate universe " translation of the book.  Otherwise with how unoriginal hollywood has become I would never get to watch any movies lol

[paddyfool]

Honestly though, I generally just look at movie versions of books as the "Ultimate universe " translation of the book.  Otherwise with how unoriginal hollywood has become I would never get to watch any movies lol

Unoriginal sells, unfortunately.  The top ten grossing films of 2010:

Toy Story 3 (sequel)
Alice in Wonderland (a sequel to a plot originally in a book that's been done as a movie a few times before)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 (both a book adaptation and a sequel)
Inception (original film)
Shrek forever after (sequel to a very loose book adaptation)
The twilight saga: Eclipse (sequel & a book adaptation)
Iron Man 2 (sequel & a comic book adaptation)
Tangled (loosely based on Rapunzel)
Despicable me (original film)
How to train your dragon (book adaptation)

So, insofar as genuinely original scripts, that's 2/10.  And, of course, some hefty caveats apply to this very loose analysis: "original" in terms of being the first production of a work only loosely correlates with the overall originality of ideas used, and certainly does not mean the same thing as "good". 

[ThunderMonkey]

Honestly though, I generally just look at movie versions of books as the "Ultimate universe " translation of the book. 

That's the approach I took to some films (namely "The Watchmen"). The best turn I saw was when Lukyanenko wrote about the differences in the the Night Watch films in one of the later books: "as if it were a dream."

[mathey]

Well, consider also that -

Casablanca was based on a play. Amadeus was based on a play. Apocalypse Now is a revision of The Heart of Darkness. Dangerous Liasons is based on a book/serial. The James Bond franchise had its origins in a book series. Ben Hur is based on a book. The Ten Commandments is based on elements of the Old Testament. Yojimbo is based on a Hammett story. Citizen Kane was based (perhaps loosely) on the life of William Randolph Hearst. Fight Club was based on a book. Black Hawk Down is based on a book about a real incident. Magnificent Seven is based on Seven Samurai. Star Wars owes a lot to Hidden Fortress and just about everything Tarantino has done has heavy homages and lifts from other films.

While there are good, wholly unique and original films out there, there's no need for one to be so for them to be a classic or stand on their own merits separate from their source material. In many cases, they can transcend their source, like Casablanca transcended and eventually totally eclipsed the little known play it started as.

[Crafty_Pat]

Novels are notorious for making lousy movies;

Correction: novels are notorious for making movies that are strictly faithful to the source material.

The second you uncouple the play-by-play and let movie adaptations stand on their own merits, embracing the strength of their medium, many of them become not only enjoyable but actually pretty faithful where it counts: in conveying the spirit of the source, which in this case is what really matters. Indeed, it's the only thing that can matter.

[Crafty_Pat]

Well, consider also that -

Casablanca was based on a play. Amadeus was based on a play. Apocalypse Now is a revision of The Heart of Darkness. Dangerous Liasons is based on a book/serial. The James Bond franchise had its origins in a book series. Ben Hur is based on a book. The Ten Commandments is based on elements of the Old Testament. Yojimbo is based on a Hammett story. Citizen Kane was based (perhaps loosely) on the life of William Randolph Hearst. Fight Club was based on a book. Black Hawk Down is based on a book about a real incident. Magnificent Seven is based on Seven Samurai. Star Wars owes a lot to Hidden Fortress and just about everything Tarantino has done has heavy homages and lifts from other films.

While there are good, wholly unique and original films out there, there's no need for one to be so for them to be a classic or stand on their own merits separate from their source material. In many cases, they can transcend their source, like Casablanca transcended and eventually totally eclipsed the little known play it started as.

Or IMHO Watchmen, the ending of which made soooooo much more sense on the screen than in the graphic (and the narrative of which, I think, is also improved by divorcing it from the Black Freighter plot).

[Crafty_Pat]

Caught Sucker Punch yesterday, despite terrible critical reviews that left me a bit cold (including several from close friends who are also movie critics). Turns out it was a good call, as I really enjoyed it. There actually is a story buried in there and though it's a wee bit shallow (on the order of Tron: Legacy), it's pretty powerful stuff if you let yourself slide into the narrative and root for the heroes. I don't see the gender hate that some folks are screaming about (well, I see it, but I have to squint, which tells me it's probably just a byproduct of a visceral plot), and the various layers of reality on offer are well-balanced and engaging on their own. It's a bit by-the-numbers once you get past the first "fantasy" sequence and the third act reveal is projected pretty heavily from the first, but it's still an entertaining ride. I recommend it, especially for anyone who enjoys experimental spectacle flicks.

Oh, and if you're a GM, expect your brain to explode with fresh opportunity. 

[foproy]

i tend to group zack snyder films in with kevin smith, you either love them or you hate them, no in between really exist.

[Crafty_Pat]

Almost forgot to post these. They're Ben Hibbon animated shorts linked to the Sucker Punch narrative. I posted the first one last week...

The Trenches

Dragon

Distant Planet

[Crafty_Pat]

Speaking of Zack Snyder...

Amy Adams cast as Lois Lane in the Superman reboot

There's also this unfortunate and highly depressing update with regard to the character's copyright.

 

[Desertpuma]

Always liked Amy Adams, even when she did that dark comedy mockumentary about a beauty pageant in Minnesota with Kirsten Dunst, Kirstie Alley, Allison Janney and Denise Richards. It was her big break and she did a solid job.

[Mister Andersen]

Almost forgot to post these. They're Ben Hibbon animated shorts linked to the Sucker Punch narrative. I posted the first one last week...

The Trenches

Dragon

Distant Planet

Feudal Warriors