Random Thoughts of Members (anything goes...well with in forum rules)

[Darth Knox]

Yes. And I'm peeved that the new book is a play.

i believe the play came first and then was turned into a book (but don't quote me on that)

[Iram]

Now that the summer sales are over, we all know what time it is!!




*cough* release some new sabers US *cough* *cough*

[ThreadJack]

Raise your hand if you don't care about Harry Potter!

[Majobu5]

Raise your hand if you don't care about Harry Potter!

Well, it's not that I don't care, but
A) I don't enjoy reading
B) I not into wizards
C) i........
Oh hell, hand raised!!

[Duff Man]

Yes. And I'm peeved that the new book is a play.

I am ok that it is a play.......just I would rather have it rewritten for a novel before I decide to check it out/ unless they make a movie first. I am not a fan of the whole Screen play/ script format unless it is classic literature. (Shakespeare, Sophocles)  Mostly because this is how they were intended to be enjoyed(because most of the audience was illiterate). Movies are the plays of today.

[Darth Knox]

I am ok that it is a play.......just I would rather have it rewritten for a novel before I decide to check it out/ unless they make a movie first. I am not a fan of the whole Screen play/ script format unless it is classic literature. (Shakespeare, Sophocles)  Mostly because this is how they were intended to be enjoyed(because most of the audience was illiterate). Movies are the plays of today.

i thnk that that is what JK has done (rewritten the play into a novel). But again, as i said before,  don't quote me on that

[Darth Tepes]

i thnk that that is what JK has done (rewritten the play into a novel). But again, as i said before,  don't quote me on that

No, it is in script format.  Here is a screen cap (no spoilers)





I can handle format..it was some of the plot that fell short.

[Darth Knox]

Ah. Ok. Didn't realise. As stated, I'm not a fan of the books, but love the movies. Might go see the play though

[Darth Tepes]

I really liked Goblet of Fire and the second part of the Deathly Hollows although the "19 years later thing" was annoying? does the book do that too? great they have kids going there now. But who became the head master after?

We used to own the set, but they were donated mistakenly to Goodwill before I got to read them.

Yes, the 19 years later is directly from the book and Mcgonagall is Headmistress.  Neville is Herbology professor, Hermione is Minster for Magic, Harry is head of Magical Law Enforcement, Ron runs Weasley Wizard Wheezes with George.

that's always going to be the issue with a movie adapted from a book. for me, I always go with the understanding that they are two very different mediums and that things will be changed/created/introduced for the movie to make the overall narrative structure work.

it's funny that as much as i love magic, dragons. fantasy etc I have never had any desire to read the harry potter books. i remember when they first came out and it was a cultural phenomenon. everywhere you went you would see multiple people reading one of the books. it was the same with The Beach and The Da Vinci Code (both of which i did read).

some things grab your desire, some things don't.

No one believes that bringing a story from one medium to another can happen without changes..but WAY more often than not the changes made add nothing but many times take away from the story.  

[Darth Knox]

No one believes that bringing a story from one medium to another can happen without changes..but WAY more often than not the changes made add nothing but many times take away from the story. 

the thing is the written word and the medium of film are so totally different that what works on a page in a book may not always work in a film, hence the changes. Telling a compelling story in film comes with limitations, whereas those same limitations don't apply to writing a book.

Plus, if the author does a good job, when you read a book you can picture the characters and the scenes in your head when you read. Film presents everything there for you. I'm not saying one is bette right than the other, but they are just so creatively different.

Personally, if I watch a film that has been adapted from a book I like seeing the changes that were made and judge the film on whether it works as a film and captures the essence of the book. I don't want a straight adaptation, because the way I imagine the book to be will differ from the way everyone else will want it to be.

You see this with comic book movies, with some comic fans complaining that the movies didn't accurately adapt their favourite storyline. Why would you want the exact same thing you've read (awesome as it may be) just regurgitated up on screen? That is where Marvel has been so successful; they have taken elements of certain storylines and told new versions of that story. Of course it helps that they have been spot on with their casting choices. Nolan did the same thing with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

Synder's Watchmen is pretty much 99% accurate adaptation of that great graphic novel and yet the movie was criticslly received (personally I love it).

[Darth Tepes]

the thing is the written word and the medium of film are so totally different that what works on a page in a book may not always work in a film, hence the changes. Telling a compelling story in film comes with limitations, whereas those same limitations don't apply to writing a book.

Plus, if the author does a good job, when you read a book you can picture the characters and the scenes in your head when you read. Film presents everything there for you. I'm not saying one is bette right than the other, but they are just so creatively different.

Personally, if I watch a film that has been adapted from a book I like seeing the changes that were made and judge the film on whether it works as a film and captures the essence of the book. I don't want a straight adaptation, because the way I imagine the book to be will differ from the way everyone else will want it to be.

You see this with comic book movies, with some comic fans complaining that the movies didn't accurately adapt their favourite storyline. Why would you want the exact same thing you've read (awesome as it may be) just regurgitated up on screen? That is where Marvel has been so successful; they have taken elements of certain storylines and told new versions of that story. Of course it helps that they have been spot on with their casting choices. Nolan did the same thing with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

Synder's Watchmen is pretty much 99% accurate adaptation of that great graphic novel and yet the movie was criticslly received (personally I love it).

Again, I understand that changes must be made ( I was at one time an aspiring filmmaker) but it goes too far sometimes.  Comic adaptions are a different matter since their story-lines are constantly changing, retconned, rebooted etc etc all depending on the writer.  In terms of Books though it is a different matter.  I am one of those who DOES want to see the story "regurgitated".  I want to see Tolkien's words come to life not Peter Jackson's limited "interpretation" (a word that has come to irk me).  I will use LOTR as an example.  First off as films I love them.  The acting, casting, cinematography, costuming, music etc etc..were all magnificent...but as adaptions they failed, and as usual its not so much what they left out but what the added.  An army of Elves coming to Helms Deep went against one of the themes Tolkien had..which was the time of Elves was over and Men were now on their own (there were only 3 elves at Helms Deep in the book).  One biggie is Jackson filmed The Scourging of the Shire for the ending but did not include it because he felt it was not important to the story..which is contradictory to Tolkien who felt it was THE most important part of his story.  Don't get me started on Tauriel in The Hobbit.  I digress, I could go on and on but I think I've made my point.  I loved Watchmen as well BECAUSE it was so like the comic. 

[Darth Knox]

Again, I understand that changes must be made ( I was at one time an aspiring filmmaker) but it goes too far sometimes.  Comic adaptions are a different matter since their story-lines are constantly changing, retconned, rebooted etc etc all depending on the writer.  In terms of Books though it is a different matter.  I am one of those who DOES want to see the story "regurgitated".  I want to see Tolkien's words come to life not Peter Jackson's limited "interpretation" (a word that has come to irk me).  I will use LOTR as an example.  First off as films I love them.  The acting, casting, cinematography, costuming, music etc etc..were all magnificent...but as adaptions they failed, and as usual its not so much what they left out but what the added.  An army of Elves coming to Helms Deep went against one of the themes Tolkien had..which was the time of Elves was over and Men were now on their own (there were only 3 elves at Helms Deep in the book).  One biggie is Jackson filmed The Scourging of the Shire for the ending but did not include it because he felt it was not important to the story..which is contradictory to Tolkien who felt it was THE most important part of his story.  Don't get me started on Tauriel in The Hobbit.  I digress, I could go on and on but I think I've made my point.  I loved Watchmen as well BECAUSE it was so like the comic. 

and that is why movies are subjective. While YOU may want to see a 100% totally faithful adaptation, other people want to see changes. You can't please all the people all the time. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And as for comic books, i know that the universe is constantly changing and being retconned, but i was talking more about specific storylines. Look at the recent adpatation of The Killing Joke. One of the most famous Batman storylines ever and that has parts that were changed for the animated movie. While i may not like the chnages, i understand why they did them. Unfortunately, it was executed poorly.

As a one time aspiring film maker (i'm currently working on a fan film short myself) you can appreciate how hard it is to make movies. Adapting a story from a book to film is probably one of the hardest things to do. But when i think about movies like The Shining, Misery, The Bourne Trilogy, Jackie Brown, The Shawshank Redemption i like them as movies and don't compare them to the books because that would be like comparing a pair of trainers to a suit; both considered clothes, but unfair to compare one to the other. But that's just me. As i said before, all movies are subjective and the likes/dislikes is what can engender interesting and thought provoking debate. There is no right or wrong (there is only Zuul)

[Darth Logos]

I am ok that it is a play.......just I would rather have it rewritten for a novel before I decide to check it out/ unless they make a movie first. I am not a fan of the whole Screen play/ script format unless it is classic literature. (Shakespeare, Sophocles)  Mostly because this is how they were intended to be enjoyed(because most of the audience was illiterate). Movies are the plays of today.

The only play I'm concerned with reading is Shakespeare's Star Wars part the 7th.

[Kham-Ryn Kurios]

They got sand in the potato salad.

[Darth Knox]

They got sand in the potato salad.

i think they didn't understand that you're supposed to put the lime in the coconut