What's The Last Movie You’ve Seen?
- Thread starter prodigy
- Start date
NAOS
Well-Known Member
the medium of film presents different aesthetic opportunities than the medium of paper+text. It's only a stifling, conservative opinion that believes film should adopt the constraints of paper+text. It can't possibly do that anyway, so why would anyone try?
For me, it isn't an issue of fidelity. Film can approach the characters and events of a story in markedly different ways than paper+text and still be true to the characters and events, which have conceptual, affective and perceptive lives beyond that which is captured in the "original" paper+text.
For me, it isn't an issue of fidelity. Film can approach the characters and events of a story in markedly different ways than paper+text and still be true to the characters and events, which have conceptual, affective and perceptive lives beyond that which is captured in the "original" paper+text.
There is a difference when it's obvious that is the direction of the movie. If you are doing a series like LOTR/Hobbit/Harry Potter/Whatever it's probably a good idea to stick somewhat to the source material since you are serving an established fan-base and have already made previous movies that have followed that guideline. What I'm talking about is in the Hobbit, they stuck to the book for the most part, then completely made **** up in the 3rd movie and it didn't work and felt like a cash grab to make an extra film. I'm not talking about artistic liberties.
It's also commercial adaptation vs. artistic adaptation.
When the change is made to simply extend the life of a series, that is where I have a problem when they change direction from the book because it usually doesn't work and feels forced. Obviously changes must be made because somethings can't be done in a movie like they can in a book and because of time constraint.
When the change is made to simply extend the life of a series, that is where I have a problem when they change direction from the book because it usually doesn't work and feels forced. Obviously changes must be made because somethings can't be done in a movie like they can in a book and because of time constraint.
This is exactly why I wanted Gone Girl (the movie) to have a different ending than the book.
I'm probably one of Gone Girl's biggest fan (the book) after a good friend introduced it to me. It had such a cool story line and a great twist half way through but I just didn't care for the ending at all. It just seemed a bit of a let down from such a great promise.
Prior to the release of the movie I'd heard that the writer is working closer with the screenwriter and there MAY be a different ending (and they may even have shot 2 endings). Unfortunately at the last minute it seemed they canned the different ending approach which disappointed me somewhat.
Miggs
Well-Known Member
Yeah, the author did work closely with the screenwriter...considering they were both Gillian Flynn.
Seriously, I can't make this stuff up with you.
Miggs
Well-Known Member
No Country for Old Men, the film, always bothered me because I felt it did a poor job of focusing on the Tommy Lee Jones character, who was truly the soul of the book. Part of that was the way the book was written, with his short chapters of consciousness sandwiched between the actual events, like those we see in the movie. Weaving that into film is tough. But the Coen brothers also left out what I believed (and still believe) to be the heart of who Jones was as a man. It was crucial dialogue during his conversation with his older uncle. That scene exists in the movie but the most poignant lines by Jones, about something he did during World War II, were completely and totally cut. It was baffling to me and an error imo. Even if it won Best Picture.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
The books followed a very cohesive story arc, and the ending (which I won't give away here) was a brilliant surprise, but once it happens the reader/viewer realizes it was exactly what should have happened.
What you're asking for is to turn a story about oppressed people overthrowing their master into an drawn out series. Think about it. This situation supposedly went on in this nation of Panem for 75 years, and then a young girl essentially became the catalyst for the citizens to rise up and overthrowing their bad government, and it happens for logical reasons. Conceptually it seems so unlikely, but the execution is so good that it ultimately makes sense. From a storytelling perspective I think it was great. Despite all they went through there was always reason for hope, if only a tiny glimmer. Every step in the story was moving the narrative forward. Your idea is to reach a period of story stagnation so that you can enjoy more rounds of the very exploitation that the story is literally about overthrowing.
It would not surprise me if they started making prequels (showing previous rounds of the Hunger Games that occurred before the inciting event) or sequels (showing where this world goes next). They have a successful franchise and it is very likely they will continue using it to make money.
Great post Joe. I would love to see prequels for the Hunger Games. I'd be the first in line to see it actually.