THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: MadassAlex on 06 May 2009, 10:08
-
Today I was thinking about The Lord Of The Rings and it struck me that, no matter how good the movies were, they simply sucked a lot of the badass out of the books. Let me cite one example from The Fellowship Of The Ring:
Movie
After Frodo is stabbed by the Morgul blade, Aragorn desperately tries to get him to Rivendell before the blade shard can do its work. The day is saved by Arwen, Aragorn's warrior-girlfriend with really sensitive tear glands and a disco party shining out of her ass. She mounts Frodo upon her horse and rushes him to the Ford of Bruinen, where the Ringwraiths hesitate to enter elven territory. She essentially flushes them away with some kind of water spell after uttering the relatively badass "If you want him, come and claim him".
Book
Frodo gets stabbed by the Morgul blade as above, but instead of being rescued by Arwen, an male elf named Glorfindel shows up. Glorfindel has history, culminating in him essentially slaying a Balrog single-handedly. He's a massive badass.
He takes Frodo to the Ford of Bruinen, and this is where shit really changes up. At first the Ringwraiths don't want to cross because they know that Glorfindel is such a massive badass. He dares them to cross.
Then, Frodo dares them to cross. This is a massive difference. Let's get this straight - Frodo, a hobbit from one of the most rural areas of Middle Earth, invites the nine greatest emissaries of the Dark Lord Sauron, Lord Of The Rings, to come and take him. He's essentially saying, "One foot over that line, motherfuckers. One foot".
To top it off, we find out that it's Gandalf who summoned that waters of the ford, which makes a massive difference since it reveals that Gandalf was taking measures to keep Frodo safe as best he could with the time and resources he had after he inexplicably left the book when the hobbits most needed him.
Other moments of unnecessary change and badass-decay include but are not limited to:
- The elves appearing at Helm's Deep. This sucked the meaning right out, as it was supposed to be the reforging of the Last Alliance. It meant so much more at Minas Tirith in the books, when the entire force of the enemy was arrayed against Gondor, and you essentially had all the dark beasts of Mordor against the defenders of Gondor, the Rohirrim, the elves, and Aragorn's fucking army of the undead.
- Aragorn's warrior-relationship with Eomer. This shit was awesome in the books. They fought side-by-side on multiple occasions, culminating in them cutting a swathe through Orcs and meeting during the Battle Of Pelennor Field.
- Elrond is an asshole. It took his daughter giving up her, what, Elfdom? to reforge Narsil and give it to Aragorn - despite the fact that it's rightfully his in the first place, costs Elrond nothing and could be used both as proof of heritage and to strike fear into the enemy.
So, forum, what are moments in movie adaptions of books that make you simply ask "why? Why would do you that? It was perfect. Perfect. Weep"?
-
To be entirely fair to the movie, most of those have a very good reason:
Explaining them as they turned out in the book would make a three fucking hour movie even longer. Arwen saved Frodo because it was quicker than introducing a character who never shows up again and explaining just how much of a badass he is.
None of them made the movie any worse, they just made it more compact, which is pretty necessary when your trilogy racks up a combined 12 1/2 hours of running time without even delving into the extended editions.
-
The only one I am really sad about was what they did to Galactus in the second Fantastic Four movie, but even this falls into, "Would have to be explained"
-
Memoirs of a Geisha is one of the worst offenders for book-to-movie inconsistancies...it's been a while since I read or watched it, but I remember being highly annoyed with how much they changed the actions of the lead character in the movie, for what seemed to be no other purpose than to make it a Happy American Romance.
I still like the movie for the breathtaking visuals and cinemetography, but that really bothered me a lot.
-
I, FUCKING ROBOT
-
yeah, V for Vendetta actually had a shitload of minor differences but none of them really bother me much because they did such a (surprisingly) great job with that movie, and most of the changes were sort of necessary. i only wish they would have put more emphasis on the religious aspect of the governement in the movie though, because in the comic it's obvious that it is a Christian dictatorship and they sort of downplay religion's involvment for the movie.
-
The Golden Compass.
Seriously, what?
Like, I can understand moving the big battle. Movie wise, you want that near the climax, but they pretty much demolished the ending by not really even having one.
-
That pointless stupid romance subplot in Prince Caspian. I mean seriously, what the fuck?
-
Prince Caspian was just a pile of shit and I'm not sure what they were thinking. Rachel insists they changed a shit ton of stuff, but I wouldn't know as someone who never read the books. What I do know is that it didn't make it any easier or more appealing to the movie going audience, because I didn't understand fuck all what was going on for most of that pile of shit they called a movie.
-
I, FUCKING ROBOT
QFT
-
Harry Potter 3. Right in the beginning. He's doing magic under the covers in bed.
UNDERAGE WIZARDS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO MAGIC OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL. This very issue is the reason he runs away from Privet Drive after accidentally blowing up his Aunt - he knows the Ministry of Magic already knows and should be on their way to expel him from Hogwarts rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble
-
Dudes.
I, Robot isn't even a cohesive book. It's a collection of stories.
The movie is an amalgamation of several Asimov Robot stories and I think it turned out very well for what it was.
-
I, Robot:
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/i_robot.jpg)
-
Harry Potter 3. Right in the beginning. He's doing magic under the covers in bed.
UNDERAGE WIZARDS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO MAGIC OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL. This very issue is the reason he runs away from Privet Drive after accidentally blowing up his Aunt - he knows the Ministry of Magic already knows and should be on their way to expel him from Hogwarts rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble
That wasn't really all that inconsistent and the precedent was set by the second movie.
In the books, it's established that the ministry can detect when magic is used in a household, but not who does it. This is why the Weasleys consistently get away with all the shit the twins pull. This was, however, never established in the movie's as it's really not a particularly simple and clear thing to explain without having multiple examples for precedence (Such as having Harry get in trouble in book two because Dobby used magic in his house when Harry's the only registered magic user there).
Harry's stressing over his Aunt is fine and not at all inconsistent with what is established in the movies. Practicing spells while studying is a far different thing than maliciously engorging one's relative and then leaving her to float her way over an English suburb. The latter is sensibly and easily noticeable, the former is not without taking time to explain it to the audience.
Your motion is denied. I declare fan nerd outrage.
If you want to be outraged over a Harry Potter movie fuckup, bitch about the fact there was no clear resolution to what happened with Barty Crouch Jr. in the fourth movie. The lack of a resolution results in very little of the overall plot of Order of the Phoenix making sense, as Barty being alive makes it VERY hard for the Ministry to deny the plot to bring Voldemort back.
-
It doesn't matter if it's a different thing, it's still illegal. The simple face is that no one under the age of 17 is allowed to use magic when they're not in school. Otherwise, we'd see the Weasley children using spells to wash dishes, etc. in the Burrow. They never did, 'cause they weren't allowed to by law, despite the fact that it would be proactive and there weren't any Muggles around for miles and miles.
Holy shit, I'm debating Harry Potter legislature over the internet.
-
So you never smoked, drank or looked at porn before you were eighteen, then?
-
Maybe not YOUR government. I live in America, Jens.
-
Prince Caspian was a pile of shit.. but I think it is because it is the most difficult to adapt of the Narnia books. I mean, hardly anything happens in Prince Caspian. I also hated the romantic subplot.
Can I complain about musical adaptations here? Because if so.. Rent. Oh god why?
-
Yes, yes. My point, though, as illustrated in my initial response, is that it was never established in the movies that the Ministry of Magic has any manner of really knowing that Harry was doing it. It's only a problem because nerd outrage is making it a problem. The only two times Harry's gotten in trouble for misuse of magic are situations where witnesses can potentially be accounted for, specifically the flying car in the second, blowing up his aunt in the third and the use of a patronus in the fifth, ALL of which were done in front of a 'muggle.' The practicing of spells under his sheet in the third was not, nor was the routine use of magic by all involved at the Quidditch Cup.
The opening to Prisoner of Azkaban is entirely consistent with the world set forth by the movies. The biggest problem with translated material is fan outrage caused by fans with an inability to acknowledge a separation between book/comic and movie. The same thing is consistently a problem with comic book adaptations.
To be perfectly honest, when it comes down to it, the entire plotline of misuse of magic in the books is markedly inconsistent and probably a good reason as to why they didn't delve into it when not necessary in the movies. If the ministry could tell when an underage wizard uses magic, there'd be little call for Crouch accusing Harry of conjuring a dark mark in the woods in Goblet of Fire.
-
You do know that he didn't do it in the book, right?
EDIT: Anyway, I'm able to separate the books from the movies, but if they went ahead with the Dobby-pudding fiasco in movie 2, there's no reason for Harry to be doing magic at the Dursleys' place in movie 3 - especially when it's clearly visible from the window.
-
This is the most retarded argument I've ever seen and there is a gun control argument going on in Meebo right now.
-
zing!
-
especially when it's clearly visible from the window.
Light coming from a window isn't odd. Having a pudding floating out of a window would be.
-
Artificial light? The devil's work, I say!
-
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist.
-
Actually the change that really bugged me the most about in the Lord of the Rings movies was what they did to Saruman's character. In the book he's basically a good guy who's completely corrupted by the lure of the ring. In the movie he's just Sauron's lackey. The movie version really diluted the point of how and why the ring was so dangerous - it just made it into a boring black and white "us vs. them" scenario. It irritated me, I like my narratives to be a bit more subtle than that.
-
Explaining them as they turned out in the book would make a three fucking hour movie even longer. Arwen saved Frodo because it was quicker than introducing a character who never shows up again and explaining just how much of a badass he is.
Glorfindel's background isn't explained in the book, either, you need to read The Silmarillion for that. So, essentially, in the book, he was introduced and never shows up again (but it's clear that he's badass anyway).
None of them made the movie any worse, they just made it more compact, which is pretty necessary when your trilogy racks up a combined 12 1/2 hours of running time without even delving into the extended editions.
They are all at least instances of badass decay and at most ridiculously unnecessary and stupid. Why move the reforging of Narsil to the third movie and have Elrond personally deliver it? That's retarded, because the plot made it convenient and more meaningful to do it during Fellowship. Why have the elves show up at Helm's Deep instead of the infinitely more crucial Minas Tirith? No matter what, this kind of thing would've taken the same amount of time to go through.
Actually the change that really bugged me the most about in the Lord of the Rings movies was what they did to Saruman's character. In the book he's basically a good guy who's completely corrupted by the lure of the ring. In the movie he's just Sauron's lackey. The movie version really diluted the point of how and why the ring was so dangerous - it just made it into a boring black and white "us vs. them" scenario. It irritated me, I like my narratives to be a bit more subtle than that.
Mmm, agreeing with this. In the book, it's clear that Sarumen, for a while, had the same idea as Boromir or Denethor - to use the power of the Ring against Sauron for the good of all.
-
X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Pretty much the entire film but I think it mostly qualifies as nerd rage.
Second opinions anyone?
-
Interthreaduality!
-
My favourite part of the book, was easily where the Rohirrim arrived at the start of the seige, right after Gandalf denies the Witch King, and then cut their way through the ranges of orks. The way Tolkien described this moment of despair for Gondor, and how the men of the West thought they were completely alone, and then the Rohirrim arrived, and Eowyn kills the Witch King was amazing. And then the arrival of the Aragorn on the boats.
The movie in no way did it justice.
EDIT: and of course the taking out of Tom Bombadil, although I understand why.
-
What? I was practically dancing in the streets when I heard they'd axed that prattling fool of a character!
-
Wait, Witch King? And who was Eowyn again? Man there was so much more crap in these books than any story really needed.
-
Agreed on Tom Bombadil, but disagreeing with the post right above mine. If you don't know who the Witch King or Eowyn are, then you pretty much missed a fair bit of the plot anyway and have no place in such a discussion.
-
Just re-watched Order of The Phoenix and there is only one real problem I have with that film. At the beginning when Harry and his escorts arrive at 12 Grimmauld place, Moody taps his stick/cane/staff on the ground and the house appears. How much harder would it have been to have the letter from Dumbledore knocked up by the prop department and just have Moody give Harry the parchment? Maybe a quick close up of the letter over Harry's shoulder and there, done. That kind of irritated me.
-
Speaking of Order of the Phoenix, did anyone else catch what Sirius says to Harry right before he dies?
"Nice one, James!"
I thought it was a really nice and subtle, nuanced way of summing up Sirius' mental confusion / wishful thinking without wasting a ton of screen time on it.
-
Agreed on Tom Bombadil, but disagreeing with the post right above mine. If you don't know who the Witch King or Eowyn are, then you pretty much missed a fair bit of the plot anyway and have no place in such a discussion.
Hey it ain't my fault that samey fantasy* and characters with similar names all sort of blur together.
*I am not saying that the lord of the rings was a ripoff of whatever.
-
I am totally sympathetic to that.
But "Witch King" is such a massive title.
-
I can't remember the Witch King. There were so many damn kings in that trilogy.
-
Big daddy Ringwraith.
-
Really? He had a title??
-
Yes.
He has history.
-
The Witch King of Angmar, was it?
Eowyn was the female Rohirim who killed him, with Merry or Pippin's help (I forget which one, it's been a while) because "no man" could kill him.
He was essentially the leader of the nine riders. I don't think the title was given in the movies, not that I think it's particularly necessary.
-
Yeah, it was Angmar. Gandalf spoke the title when he said that Sauron had yet to reveal his deadliest servant, but that was the only time it was ever mentioned.
-
Speaking of which, the structure of power, even in the books, is very convoluted and weird. The way Tolkien describes the power of some elves, you'd think they may as well ally with the Men Of The West just for a short stint before they head off West, just so the loose ends are tied up.
-
The Lord Of The Rings trilogy, like any film adaption of a major work like that, has it's faults but I think I can safely say that at least PJ did a damned good job of adapting such a literary epic. With him, at least it was in the hands of someone who truly wanted to get it as close to the book as possible.
Some books get butchered when the assholes in Hollywierd get their hands on them, Paul Verhoven's adaption of Heinlein's Starship Troopers comes immediately to mind as well as the hack job De Laurentis did of Dune.
-
If you guys haven't heard, Dune is being remade yet again (http://www.scificool.com/category/dune-remake-2010-movie/), this time by Peter Berg.
-
If you guys haven't heard, Dune is being remade yet again (http://www.scificool.com/category/dune-remake-2010-movie/), this time by Peter Berg.
But the SciFi miniseries was so good? Whyyyyy
-
Starship Troopers was a perfect movie. Sorry, you're wrong.
Objectively.
Starship Troopers was a complete butchery of a classic Sci-fi Novel. As far as I'm concerned Verhoven should be flogged in Public Square for what he did to it.
Hmmm
Another remake of Dune - I enjoyed the Mini-series that was produced a couple of years ago, felt it was a lot better than the De Laurentis film. Hope that this remake will be as good or even better.
-
Erm...David Lynch directed Dune, De Laurentis was the producer. If you already knew that, my bad.
As far as Starship Troopers goes, I never read it. I've read a lot of other Heinlein, though, and I think Starship Troopers was pretty spot on.
-
I read the book. The movie butchered the book. Butchered horribly and without mercy.
Director Paul Verhoeven admits to never finishing the novel, claiming he read through the first few chapters and became both bored and depressed.
I think if you're directing a movie supposedly based on source material you should probably read the source material.
-
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/starshiptroopers/images/thumb/2/22/Vlcsnap-278681.png/400px-Vlcsnap-278681.png)
IT'S AFRAAAAIIIID!!!!!
edit:
(http://api.ning.com/files/-k6FyxHUOLbEXqTpMENi5Yqd9Qeqda07GsmkI7hCRLy5lTUk5ZnLCUvzGx3s0kuhd3hpV8U1BagTxE0HY0s5RFfaGb3uZSrO/997STS_Neil_Patrick_Harris_009.jpg)
AAFFRAAAAIIIIID!!!!
-
Also, the movie was pretty terrible because the acting was shit and the romantic elements were shit.
The shitty acting was one of the things I enjoyed about the film. Nothing in there is subtle and it seemed a pleasantly blunt attack on the simplistic approach of the average war film. The bad acting made the characters (even more) flat and uninteresting, and that heightened their position as archetypes placed into a narrative in order to make the viewer identify with the plight of 'our brave boys' (or in this case, take the piss out of it).
Plus, it was a hell of a lot of fun.
-
If anything I enjoyed the cartoon that was based off of the movie.
Also:
(http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/7449/starshipkittens.jpg)
-
Starship Troopers was great. Everything that you think was just shit was completely intentional. Watch the the movie with the commentaries on, and pull those sticks out your butt. The movie gets a lot more enjoyable that way.
Seriously ahead of its time. It's like Paul Verhoven predicted the entire Iraq war and the media reaction to it.
-
If anything I enjoyed the cartoon that was based off of the movie.
You mean the CG one? That one at least had powered armor, even if they removed the flamethrowers, shoulder-mounted nukes, mile-long jumps, and mini-grenades that they would throw handfuls of. I still need to see the CG cartoon, as well as the Anime, which was based completely off of the book, from what I can tell.
-
The things that irritate me in book to movie transitions are the little things, I can understand why plot elements need to be changed so as to save on time or to make it more cinematic, but when something visual is changed for no apparent reason it pisses me off. The example that comes to mind is Harry Potter POA
1) the Patronus: the book clearly stated it was a white glowing stag that charges down dementors causing them to flee, but the movie had just a sort of glowing sheild where with a stag in the middle of it that dementors bounced off.
2) Werewolf: Book - "The werewolf differs from the true wolf in several small ways" Movie - fuck it we'll just make a giant bipedal wolf
-
2) Werewolf: Book - "The werewolf differs from the true wolf in several small ways" Movie - fuck it we'll just make a giant bipedal wolf
lololol
Tr0of.
-
If you guys haven't heard, Dune is being remade yet again (http://www.scificool.com/category/dune-remake-2010-movie/), this time by Peter Berg.
Holy shit, at the time i saw the Lynch movie I was a massive Dune fan and i could still not understand what the hell was going on in the movie.
-
And yes, I know that David Lynch was the Director of the Dune film, (and at one stage he asked for his name to be removed from it), but the fact remains that it was a De Laurentis Production and as anyone who knows can tell you, when Dino produces a Pic, the man's in the driving seat.
-
The things that irritate me in book to movie transitions are the little things, I can understand why plot elements need to be changed so as to save on time or to make it more cinematic, but when something visual is changed for no apparent reason it pisses me off. The example that comes to mind is Harry Potter POA
1) the Patronus: the book clearly stated it was a white glowing stag that charges down dementors causing them to flee, but the movie had just a sort of glowing sheild where with a stag in the middle of it that dementors bounced off.
2) Werewolf: Book - "The werewolf differs from the true wolf in several small ways" Movie - fuck it we'll just make a giant bipedal wolf
Those aren't frankly very big changes.
-
Reading the book of Starship Troopers, it was pretty much just a long serious, journal of sorts centering around a civilian's rise to citizenship with socio-political commentary sprinkled on top blah blah.
You could say that the film was pretty much the opposite. It was a friggin cheesy satire. It did what it did with absolute hilarity. Yeah, it did completely butcher the book by taking the source material and arguing that Heinlein's ideas are a total shit.
But in terms of entertainment and being funny, it could have been a lot, lot worse.
-
Yeah, it did completely butcher the book by taking the source material and arguing that Heinlein's ideas are a total shit.
To be fair, this is completely true.
-
I think the main problem with the movie Starship Troopers was the complete lack of...well...Starship Troopers.
Where was the power armor? "On the bounce!"
What about the missile launchers firing tactical nukes? C'mon!
No flamers, no talking bombs. Feh!
An old movie Von Ryan's Express.
In the book Von Ryan makes it onto the train and escapes the Germans.
In the movie Von Ryan gets gunned down just before jumping on the train.
According to wiki the idea for changing the ending came from Frank Sinatra who was playing Colonel Ryan. I guess you don't argue with Frank.
-
The things that irritate me in book to movie transitions are the little things, I can understand why plot elements need to be changed so as to save on time or to make it more cinematic, but when something visual is changed for no apparent reason it pisses me off. The example that comes to mind is Harry Potter POA
1) the Patronus: the book clearly stated it was a white glowing stag that charges down dementors causing them to flee, but the movie had just a sort of glowing sheild where with a stag in the middle of it that dementors bounced off.
2) Werewolf: Book - "The werewolf differs from the true wolf in several small ways" Movie - fuck it we'll just make a giant bipedal wolf
Those aren't frankly very big changes.
The things that irritate me in book to movie transitions are the little things
Thank you for telling me exactly what I had already said myself. Just to reiterate: What pisses me off is when changes like these are made for no reason, when it would be so easy to get it right.
-
Oh well. Sorry.
-
THE FIRM.
Awesome book by John Grisham - wretched movie. The last 1/3 of the movie is completely different than the book, completely ruins the point of the story, not to mention the story itself. Garbage.
Just re-watched Order of The Phoenix and there is only one real problem I have with that film. At the beginning when Harry and his escorts arrive at 12 Grimmauld place, Moody taps his stick/cane/staff on the ground and the house appears. How much harder would it have been to have the letter from Dumbledore knocked up by the prop department and just have Moody give Harry the parchment? Maybe a quick close up of the letter over Harry's shoulder and there, done. That kind of irritated me.
You only have ONE real problem with film? Damn, I hate this movie more than Dick Cheney hates justice - my lists of problems with this film(when comparing it to the book) is a mile long.
The shitty acting was one of the things I enjoyed about [Starship Troopers]. Nothing in there is subtle and it seemed a pleasantly blunt attack on the simplistic approach of the average war film. The bad acting made the characters (even more) flat and uninteresting, and that heightened their position as archetypes placed into a narrative in order to make the viewer identify with the plight of 'our brave boys' (or in this case, take the piss out of it).
Plus, it was a hell of a lot of fun.
I agree 100%.
-
The DaVinci Code.
Thread over.
-
The DaVinci Code.
OMG yes.
First of all, Tom Hanks? Totally wrong for the part. (Anthony Michael Hall would have fit so much better IMO)
Then there's the way they pretty much butchered the grace with which the book made its points about religion. And the way they completely changed the ending so its meaningless. And the way the substituted THIS-IS-IMPORTANT music for good acting.
:x
-
grace
this is not a word anyone is allowed use with regard to dan brown's writing
-
The fact that Angels and Demons is being pitched as a sequel irritates me.
-
Dune. There are so many things in the first film that are just wrong. Frank Herbert spent pages and pages explaining how a planet without water might work ... and at the end of the film it starts to rain.
Yeah. Riight.
-
Dune. There are so many things in the first film that are just wrong. Frank Herbert spent pages and pages explaining how a planet without water might work ... and at the end of the film it starts to rain.
Yeah. Riight.
Moa'dib MADE it rain. He has SUPER POWERS.... :roll:
That first movie was still WAY better than the crappy scifi miniseries at least.
-
The DaVinci Code.
Thread over.
If the book hadn't been absolute ungodly tripe, inconsistencies between the book and movie might be a bit more egregious.
-
What was that thing they did in the Lynch version of Dune, with the device that amplified your voice and could bust down walls and shit? What was that all about?
-
That was Lynch's translation of 'the weirding way' mentioned in the book. It is supposed to be a self defence system deviced by the Bene Gesserit. But somehow it ended up being a weird box wich could amplify sound until ... strong ... and concentrated enough to .. shatter stone ... and stuff.
I don't know. It was a weird thing seeing that.
-
That was Lynch's translation of 'the weirding way' mentioned in the book. It is supposed to be a self defence system deviced by the Bene Gesserit. But somehow it ended up being a weird box wich could amplify sound until ... strong ... and concentrated enough to .. shatter stone ... and stuff.
I don't know. It was a weird thing seeing that.
Wait, so, in Lynch-land, spice-boosted precognizance + Whatever powers a male Bene Geseerit has = Siryn's powers? Weak.
-
Dune. There are so many things in the first film that are just wrong. Frank Herbert spent pages and pages explaining how a planet without water might work ... and at the end of the film it starts to rain.
Yeah. Riight.
Moa'dib MADE it rain. He has SUPER POWERS.... :roll:
That first movie was still WAY better than the crappy scifi miniseries at least.
Other way round I'm afraid.
The film made me gag
-
Have we mentioned Eragon? I don't have many specifics because I was so disgusted by the movie that I didn't retain much. I'll admit the book was entirely LotR-lite, but at least it stayed relatively true to it's source material. I... I honestly don't know what the people who made the movies read.
-
Wait, so, in Lynch-land, spice-boosted precognizance + Whatever powers a male Bene Geseerit has = Siryn's powers? Weak.
Yes. That was, I guess, what he could come up with. He didn't think of actually talking to some martial artists and training and doing stuff but he went another way. And, I feel, he was wrong. The movie has some redeeming qualities. But this stuff just annoys me to bits.
-
Have we mentioned Eragon? I don't have many specifics because I was so disgusted by the movie that I didn't retain much. I'll admit the book was entirely LotR-lite, but at least it stayed relatively true to it's source material. I... I honestly don't know what the people who made the movies read.
How does one ruin Eragon? So utterly derivative and self-important, while wearing the guise of originality. If you have orcs in your book, call them "orcs". At least the Forgotten Realms/Dragonlance/whatever novels don't beat around the bush in that regard. They knew they were ridiculously derivative of LotR, Warhammer and, of course, D&D, and used such things to their advantage. They even managed humour, tension, unpredictability and likable characters in some cases.
Eragon is essentially a Mary-Sue-athon where the author looked at all the above sources and missed the point, themes and cool factor entirely. LotR is great because it's all about defying fate, not altering reality so that you become genetically superior (in which Eragon carries more racist undertones than LotR ever could).
I guess I am being very very harsh and it's not like I'm making judgements about those who read the book, but there aren't many ways you can essentially ruin Eragon, since it's already a mockery of the already rather poor swords and sorcery fantasy genre.
-
All I have to say about Eragon is thusly:
When you name a species "Urgle," you don't deserve to live.
-
The DaVinci Code.
If the book hadn't been absolute ungodly tripe, inconsistencies between the book and movie might be a bit more egregious.
Man, it was essentially just an easy reading Foucault's Pendulum by Eco. I'm glad other people had problems with it.
-
Eragon isn't LotR-lite. Its more like bad star wars with dragons instead of spaceships. The books were mildly entertaining, I mean, I've read worse.
The movie, however, was ENTIRELY a shitstain on the world of cinema. I don't think there has ever been a worse adaptation. I have never walked out of a theater before Eragon and have never since, but it was just SO bad.
-
Paolini (sp?) read Anne McCaffrey's Pern series and said to himself 'I can do something like that.'
The results speak for themselves.
-
If anything... well the things that Eragon was ripped from were numerous. I think the best it can be summed up as is that it is visibly and unapologetically a product of Paolini's interests. It can't be denied that his influences are very visible, diverse though they may be. I personally enjoyed the books, but they are for the most part intended for a more mid-range audience. The film, as we have already established, was garbage. I would have walked out too if I hadn't been taking my mom and sister to see it at the time.
-
The DaVinci Code.
If the book hadn't been absolute ungodly tripe, inconsistencies between the book and movie might be a bit more egregious.
Man, it was essentially just an easy reading Foucault's Pendulum by Eco. I'm glad other people had problems with it.
I'm pretty sure the general consensus amongst people who have read anything not found on the Top Sellers list at the airport book store is that the book is simply awful. I read a recent review of the Angels and Demons movie and the reviewer said that he hadn't read the book upon which that movie is based b/c it would be a "sin against his faith...in the English language...against which Mr. Brown practices vile and unspeakable blasphemy." I though that was pretty clever and right on.
-
Wait, did anyone mention War of The Worlds?
(http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/59/11cebyr.gif) (http://img200.imageshack.us/my.php?image=11cebyr.gif)
-
Ahhh yes.
I suppose the one good thing one could say about that film is that they got the Martian War Machines right.
-
I felt it was about as necessary as all the Scary Movie spin offs, which as I recall had a whole part dedicated to the movie anyway.
-
Anything with Tom Cruise in it is a parodic comedy.
-
When my housemates and I were watching War of the Worlds we realised that overblown Hollywood blockbusters can be rendered much more enjoyable if you furnish them with imaginary climaxes that are even more ludicrous than those they have already.
In the case of War of the Worlds, my housemates and I had endless fun with the notion that the only reason Dakota Fanning was in the film was because, it would turn out, the one thing on earth that could stop the aliens were the tears of a child. "Tears of a child!" became a running refrain whenever her character was in distress (which was often).
-
I was irritated by the "War" film because of the fact that they showed the invaders as 1. Unstoppable and 2. Had no mention of the ship "thunderchild" I mean they might have included a refference to it during the big fight in the middle. Something like "operation thunderchild is going badly sir" when the army guy is on the phone I mean come on filmmakers read the book that you are making a film of.
Can we have real life to film annoyances? Because Braveheart should be included... in a huge way.
-
Whenever I watch the battle scenes in Braveheart I think "man, if they really wanted to be authentic all those Scots would be naked right now" and then I thank god that they didn't concern themselves with being that accurate.
-
Yeah, and Sterling Bridge would have actually been fought on a Bridge.
-
Yeah, and Sterling Bridge would have actually been fought on a Bridge.
And the Battle of Hastings would have been fought at fucking Hastings. Goddamn medieval monks.
-
I Am Legend? The theatrical cut omits the entire theme to which the title refers.
Book: Neville is a "legend" because the vampires have a functioning society and, to them, Neville is some monster who kills them in their sleep.
Film: Neville is a "legend" because he figured out how to cure vampirism and save humanity.
The alternate ending to the film retained some of the Neville = monster theme, but it's still nowhere near the book, where humans are completely wiped out and vampires basically took their role.
-
Man, all of the I Am Legend adaptations change things.
-
To be fair, I actually like both the novel and the latest movie adaptation equally.
-
Whenever I watch the battle scenes in Braveheart I think "man, if they really wanted to be authentic all those Scots would be naked right now" and then I thank god that they didn't concern themselves with being that accurate.
Wallace and the Anglo-Scottish Wars took place in the late 13th century - the Scots stopped fighting "skyclad" about the time of Boudicca (approx 70 AD, or 1200 years earlier).
If they'd wanted the scenes to look authentic - William Wallace would have been attired as the knight he was (he was the son of a minor knight), the Scots wouldn't have looked too different from the English (kilts were not that common outside of the Highlands, and most of Wallace's followers came from the Border Regions), and NO ONE would have worn facepaint.
Stirling would have had the battlefield cut in half by a stream with steep sides crossed by a single bridge.
The moive was fun - not as fun as Starship Troopers (which I define as a "turn off the brain and watch Michael Ironside chew scenery" flick) - in a "I'm Mel Gibson, and I really don't like the English, so please ignore the historical inconsistencies" sort of way.
-
Why does he hate the english so much? I mean we have done a lot of bad stuff but the scottish have been fighting each other far more effectively than they had been fighting us since the end of the dark ages.
Its the same with "kingdom of heaven" the actual history of that time period was interesting enough, hollywood only embellished it so they could have some clearer characters. Oh well.
-
If you're going to pick on a people because of something that was done in the distant past, I defy you to pick any nationality/ethnic group/religious affliliation that has not done something nasty to someone else.
-
If you're going to pick on a people because of something that was done in the distant past, I defy you to pick any nationality/ethnic group/religious affliliation that has not done something nasty to someone else.
Buddhists.
-
If you're going to pick on a people because of something that was done in the distant past, I defy you to pick any nationality/ethnic group/religious affliliation that has not done something nasty to someone else.
Buddhists.
I really hope you're joking.
-
If you're going to pick on a people because of something that was done in the distant past, I defy you to pick any nationality/ethnic group/religious affliliation that has not done something nasty to someone else.
Buddhists.
Buddhists have, in fact, engaged in wars. Also in religious persecution.
And Shaolin don't just practice kung fu for their health, spiritual or otherwise.
-
Fair enough.
Santeria, then.
-
White people.
-
If you're going to pick on a people because of something that was done in the distant past, I defy you to pick any nationality/ethnic group/religious affliliation that has not done something nasty to someone else.
The Irish. Sure we're only deadly.
-
So, Irish on Irish violence doesn't count?
I seem to remember reading about a number of wars between Munster, Ulster, and the rest of the provinces. Granted that is far in the past - since then they've the value of going after "other" who happens to be occupying their land cause they couldn't unite to stop them.
-
That's all in the family, and it don't concern ye, ye PROTTY BASTERT.
-
Just because I wear orange on St.Patty's Day doesn't make me a Protty bastard.
My parents were married when I was born, so one of those labels is inaccurate.
-
Jains? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism)
-
Inuits.
Sorry, they were known in historic times to have fought with the Cree and other related First Nations. they were just less successful as evidenced by them being in the less desirable real estate.
-
Jains? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism)
Alright, we may have a winner here.
-
So, Irish on Irish violence doesn't count?
Even if it doesn't, the Irish were one of the biggest contributors to racism in the US way back when. It was a matter of the Irish were an oppressed minority for a long time in the US, and as soon as a new minority showed up, they were all up in arms oppressing them to draw the heat off their own backs. It's why Boston is still considered one of the more racist Northern metro areas because there are some Irish families (Italian too) that haven't moved past it. It was really huge back in the twenties where a lot of Massachusetts Irish would lynch you just as soon as look at you if you were anything even remotely resembling dark skinned.
-
Even so, there is the little matter of piracy and kidnapping that the Irish used to practice - which is how St Patty got to Ireland in the first place.
Let's face it, humans generally just don't play nicely amongst themselves. We dress it up in a variety of colours - but it still looks like we're beating each other.
-
Jains? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism)
Not quite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_Maurya) <--- a Jain.
-
But... not till after all the pillage and conquest, right?
-
He followed a very stereotypical Indian religious career. Live as you want to, then get old, then become an ascetic. Ever since India developed cities (which I believe to be the basis of modern civilization), they've wrestled with the ascetic impulse. Jainism follows the Brahmin interpretation of the ascetic impulse.
1) be a kid
2) get married, have lots of kids
3) be wealthy
4) give your wealth to your children and go live naked in the woods
That allows people to do what they want and feel good at the same time. Since Jainism also explicitly allows violence in self-defense or defense of the state... It would have been easy for CG to say "I defend the people by expanding my empire... and by expanding Jian."
It doesn't really matter what religion you follow, spreading it by the sword is pretty much always going to be an option, even when the originator said, "Wait, don't do that". Those who come after will say, "Unless..."
-
In the book Frankenstein we had a monster. A monster of incredible speed, strength, and agility. He was 8 feet tall, had lustrous black hair, and could speak proper english.
No matter how hard I try I can't find a movie with such a monster in it. He's usually slow and strong, which is not how the book describes him at all. So I ask, why? Why did they feel the need to slow him down?
-
I've seen a movie that had him agile and intelligent, though without the lustrous ebon tresses.
-
More adaptations have been made than I am able to locate using the internet. There's countless interpretations of the creature. The closests that I can recall to the depiction in the book are Robert Deniro, though that creature had a shaved head, and Luke Goss, minus the 8 foot tall thing.
Both are frequently called the most faithful adaptations, though I think the Marcus Nispel version is far closer. Aside from Frankenstein's relationships with his professors, it seemed almost like a page by page adaptation of the book, to the best of my recollection.
I haven't seen or heard anything about this movie yet, but this struck me:
(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z1/Darryl_LP/this.png)
-
IIRC the one with DeNiro is the Kenneth Branagh adaptation, and is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Dude should not be allowed to direct anything, ever.
-
I Am Legend? The theatrical cut omits the entire theme to which the title refers.
I was going to post this because its infuriating that they've obviously considered bringing in this theme when you look at the alternate ending but instead decided to have Will Smith blow some shit up because they can't be bothered. I didn't even care at first because I figured it would just be Will Smith wasting vampires for 90 minutes and it was a little better than that so I was pretty happy. Then I saw the alternate ending and I just raged out something fierce.
Man, all of the I Am Legend adaptations change things.
I know this is semantic wanking, but I don't think the "I Am Legend" movie really falls into the same category as the other movies loosely based off the book. I don't really believe book to movie adaptations should be as pure as possible, but it's not really valid to respond to the claim that the movie changed plot elements by referring to say the Omega Man and saying ALL the adaptations change things quite substantially, because the differences were enough to warrant a change of the movies name. Don't forget that Dawn of the Dead is as much of an adaptation of I Am Legend in the same sense that the Omega Man is, but is absolutely nothing like the book whatsoever and in fact is rarely considered an adaptation despite the fact that the inspiration came directly from it.
With I Am Legend, they took a not particularly popular book, kept the name and turned it into a movie. There are higher standards of adherence to the original plot in this case, I feel.
Although to be fair honestly the I Am Legend movie did a pretty good job for the most part I just wish they'd never bothered to release the alternate ending because it wasn't even that great an ending but just reminded me of how much better the movie could have been.
-
IIRC the one with DeNiro is the Kenneth Branagh adaptation, and is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Dude should not be allowed to direct anything, ever.
Hey ... his Hamlet adaptation was brilliant.
But then, he had a pretty brilliant writer deliver the script.
-
So I ask, why? Why did they feel the need to slow him down?
It's less confronting that way really.
-
In the book Frankenstein we had a monster. A monster of incredible speed, strength, and agility. He was 8 feet tall, had lustrous black hair, and could speak proper english.
No matter how hard I try I can't find a movie with such a monster in it. He's usually slow and strong, which is not how the book describes him at all. So I ask, why? Why did they feel the need to slow him down?
This is the version you want (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0070074/)
Michael Sarrazin was not eight feet tall, but he was dark-haired and dashing. As a bonus, young Jane Seymour plays Prima, and James Mason is Polidori. This was a television production and I have no idea whether it's available on video, but it's a great version.
-
My favourite part of the book, was easily where the Rohirrim arrived at the start of the seige, right after Gandalf denies the Witch King, and then cut their way through the ranges of orks. The way Tolkien described this moment of despair for Gondor, and how the men of the West thought they were completely alone, and then the Rohirrim arrived, and Eowyn kills the Witch King was amazing. And then the arrival of the Aragorn on the boats.
The movie in no way did it justice.
EDIT: and of course the taking out of Tom Bombadil, although I understand why.
Try the extended edition. Witch King goes all FLAMING SWORD!! on Gandalf when the Rohirrim arrive. If that happened original version I'd have been scared they went mad and were gonna kill off Gandalf or something.
Extended edition also puts back the AMAZINGLY CREEPY mouth of Sauron.
-
Extended edition also puts back the AMAZINGLY CREEPY mouth of Sauron.
Although his scene is diminished in the movie due to timeline consistency. That's to say, the timeline is correct, but the books are expressed differently. The Two Towers and The Return Of The King explain the Aragorn/Gandalf/Gimli/Legolas/Merry/Pippin parts in full, and then switch over completely to the Frodo/Sam parts in the second half. So when you read about the Mouth Of Sauron in the books, and he presents the tokens, you think shit has hit the fan and everything is fucked. You think that Sauron has the Ring and Frodo's dead and Aragorn will never found the House Of Telcontar or anything because Sauron just achieved a level of power that Morgoth would be proud of.
-
Completely off topic, and i registered just to tell you this,
wanna get even more pissed about the Dune movie that Lynch directed?
just check what we missed:
http://derelictplanet.blogspot.com/2009/04/about-dune.html
Alejandro Jodorowsky
Moebius
H.R. Giger
Chris Foss
Pink floyd
Salvator fucking Dali
This really makes me wanna cry
-
Dali wanted $100,000 for one hour on set? What a douche.
-
Dali wanted $100,000 for one hour on set? What a douche.
He probably thought he'd melt :D
-
Extended edition also puts back the AMAZINGLY CREEPY mouth of Sauron.
Although his scene is diminished in the movie due to timeline consistency. That's to say, the timeline is correct, but the books are expressed differently. The Two Towers and The Return Of The King explain the Aragorn/Gandalf/Gimli/Legolas/Merry/Pippin parts in full, and then switch over completely to the Frodo/Sam parts in the second half. So when you read about the Mouth Of Sauron in the books, and he presents the tokens, you think shit has hit the fan and everything is fucked. You think that Sauron has the Ring and Frodo's dead and Aragorn will never found the House Of Telcontar or anything because Sauron just achieved a level of power that Morgoth would be proud of.
Yeah that too. They should've fucked with the moviewatchers in the same waaaay.