Okay, I saw Die Hard 4, and usually I write some sort of review on movies I see. Not this time. Plan and simple, I like it. I went in wanting to see a movie, and I did just that. No preconceived notions, no questionable reviews, not that I tried to tune out all that. I just wanted to see Bruce on screen, being a the kid he is, and he was. It was funny, and impressive. I'm not going to compare it to the previous films because it can no longer be considered one of them. It stands on its own as a good, funny film.
Harry Potter. Well, only 12 days away for the film which I will probably go to a midnight showing of. As people may know, I have been trying to schedule a game night with people. I emailed about the 21st-ish. Well, since I am fan of the films and not the harry potter books, I didn't take into account the book release on the 21st. So I will move it for harry potter fans to the 28th. I'll also email again. That taken care of, let me re-iterate how great it is to see a film first, then read the book. You are NEVER disappointed in the story....EVER. You see the film and you think "wow, that was cool" then you read the book and say "this is even better, wow, I didn't know that". Instead of "wow, I love this book, it is freakin' awesome. They should make a movie about this." And then, "I can't believe they left that part of out, it is so important to the story. Why did they do that? That's not how it happened. Okay, that is right but all the other stuff leading up to that was wrong and now everyone in this theater (who hasn't read the book) is gonna think that that is how it happened. I'm gonna have to tell everyone I meet that it was way better in the book and that the book makes more sense. This movie is crap, they didn't tell it like it was in the book. If they are going to change so much why even make a movie? They just did this to make money and I can't believe I help them do that." Now I'm gonna let people in on a secret of the film industry. You ready? Here it is.
Movies are not books.
I know, it was hard for me to realize at first to but then I started to think about it. Its right movies are not books. Books have pages, lots and lots of pages. Books don't have time requirements (except deadlines for release). Books don't have a limit to the number of pages they can have in order to tell a diverse and enthralling story (well they do but it is reverse, like it has to be at least 300 pages long, no shorter but no limit to the maximum). Where movies have a budget, a time frame or no longer than 2 hours (example), a release date, a rating they must adhere to, producers to please, sponsors to please, fans to please (fans of the books or the director or the actors or the writer (screen or author) or the studio or all of it). They have to make everyone happy because a lot more money goes into films than books and they would some of that money back. They have to compromise. Change it enough so that the layman will be able to understand and interested and put a slight spin on the story so that 'die hard' fans will be curious and interested. If they made a film just for the fans, they would lose money since the fans don't make up a large portion of the populace. Books don't cost much so they can write a story they want and watch the money rake in.
Remember when you go see a movie based on a book/novel/comic/graphic novel/bible/whatever. It will be different 90% of the time. Lord of the Rings even made compromises and they 3 films to tell one story.
Movies are not books.
| You Are 78% Evil |
 |
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think I wrote a post about this very subject a while back. It sounds familiar. And it's no less true now than it was way back whenever I mentioned it (I'd search for my post, but, you know, effort).
Each and every medium must be viewed and judged on its own merits rather than be compared to some other, dissimilar format.
I'll agree with that - to an extent. I agree that if Dave wrote a book and TJ wrote a movie that it would be silly to compare the two.
However if TJ made a movie based on Dave's book than I think a certain amount of comparison is expected and nessesary.
I'm realizing that I would take way alot of characters to express why I think this way so I will just leave it at that.
I understand where you are coming from but due to my many (sigh) years in psych, they have trained me (against my will) to be a stickler with word usage. And the word that I focus on is 'based'.
This word implies (to me) that basic relavent info was use, which can range from merely plot and name usage to an in-depth point of view meant to honor the orignal piece the idea was taken from to a down right copy of the orignal.
So, when a studio releases a film and say it is 'based' on such and such novel/book/news article/event/idea I had when I was stoned, then I look at it as an entirly new re-write and do my best to enjoy another artist's POV.
I guess the real issue is not be burned by hollywood's warped ability to damage a cherished story. And I use the word 'hollywood' as a general term to encompass the entire film industry.
Post a Comment