Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => The Dressing Room => Topic started by: Nadz1lla on June 11, 2013, 07:10:24 PM
-
Why, make a Grumpy Cat meme, of course!
http://qkme.me/3ut8ja (http://qkme.me/3ut8ja)
It's things like this that stop me from watching Game of Thrones season three. I know I should just chill out and watch it for what it is and not get huffy about the things they change, but unfortunately I'm one of those annoying purists who have a hissy fit when things get changed unnecessarily.
Like when Faramir took the Hobbits to Osgiliath in the LOTR movie.... or when Arwen turned up instead of Glorfindel.
I'm old and grumpy before my time. :lol:
Please tell me I'm not alone. PDT_038
-
I have decided not to care.
quite frankly GRRM waffles on to much and his books often feel like they lack direction, it may turn out that he is some genius spider playing with a million strands of cobweb and manages to pull it all together when its done... but that will likely be long after the TV series is finished.
They needed to make the TV series a little more focused, and not having more than a rough guide for the last 3rd of the story it makes sense to do some trimming now. To be fair the first series was about as accurate as an adaptation can realistically be.. it is diverting more and more but i really don't see how they could do it any other way and keep it interesting on the screen... clearly they couldn't leave half the characters out of the story for a series the way the books do
I was a bit disappointed by the lack of a major event in last nights episode... it was more of a trailer for the next
anyway, LOTR raised the bar for the quality of screen adaptations GOT has continued that. we get better, more faithful adaptations now than we ever have before and I am grateful for that
When you go watch Shakespeare you expect to see a directors stamp all over it and the interpretations can vary massively.... why don't we allow directors of modern works of fiction the same freedoms???
-
also, talking about GOT character changes. Asha becomes Yara for the tv series... but i can forgive them when you also have a character called Osha and everyone is speaking in northern(ish) accents
-
I have only one thing to say about this.
Hodor.
-
Not gonna read any of these posts until I've actually watched the offending episode, but has anyone seen the adaption they did of Terry Goodkind's "The Sword of Truth" ...There's not a cat grumpy enough to Memeify my distaste for that series.
-
Not read the books on that one but i have seen Legend of the Seeker. It is complete pap, but i found it enjoyable pap, with kinda like a xena/hercules feel
-
I admit, I haven't read the books, I've only recently started the first one, but I've been thoroughly enjoying the series. Doesn't hurt my enthusiasm that much of it is filmed within a few miles of my house. In fact, they're renting some land from us in August for the next series :)
Others have told me that there are changes from the books, but I don't find that massively offensive, if it's done well. If anything, it adds interest.
LOTR may have (arguably) raised the bar for adaptations, but The Hobbit has brought it crashing down! There is a perfect example of unnecessary changes to the original text ruining the whole thing
-
Oh dear. :?
I was going to buy the DVD too, thanks for saving me the money. :lol:
-
LOTR may have (arguably) raised the bar for adaptations, but The Hobbit has brought it crashing down! There is a perfect example of unnecessary changes to the original text ruining the whole thing
I was a big Peter Jackson fan from the very start of his career, loved all his films up to and including LOTR - which wasn't a 100% accurate adaptation of the book but was, I think, as good an effort as anyone could have made.
Unfortunately, in making those LOTR films he lost (a) the ability to edit and (b) the ability to use CGI tastefully. King Kong was a bloated mess, The Lovely Bones was...... words fail me :( . I can't even bring myself to watch The Hobbit, I'll probably just get the box set when it comes out in a couple of years (and leave it unopened on the shelf).
But anyway, I think on the whole adaptations of books tend to be much more faithful nowadays than they were many years ago. Partly because today's viewers aren't put off by films more than 90 minutes long, partly because CGI makes it possible to realise "big" stories on lower budgets.
When you go way back to old Hollywood adaptations of classics like Treasure Island, Moonfleet, any Dickens novel etc they bear almost no relationship whatsoever to the books. Even when I was a little kid that used to drive me crazy!
-
Let's face it he peaked at Braindead* ;)
*Not entirely true as Beautiful Creatures was excellent and I really enjoyed The Frighteners. But it was pretty much downhill from there.
-
In a way that's almost true! I love Braindead, it's massively frustrating that there's no really good home video version available.
But The Frighteners is a really wonderful and underrated film. Great cast (Jeffrey Combs!), perfect balance of comedy, horror and thriller elements, a strong storyline, terrific pacing.... So many directors go to Hollywood and lose what made them special in the first place (John Woo springs immediately to mind). Jackson did as well, but at least it took a while.
-
yes, seeing the man that made Braindead end up making an embarrassing mess like the Hobbit is like if the maker of the Evil Dead ended up doing, say, a bad version of The Wizard of OZ! oh, hold on...
-
:lol: I haven't seen the Oz film, I'll take your word for it.
To be fair to Sam Raimi though, his career has been a lot more diverse - different types of films, variable budgets, variable commercial success.
Whereas Peter Jackson's films have gone in one direction - they've just got more and more bloated (ironically as he personally has got less bloated). At some point it's going to go "POP"....
-
It seems that unlike most people I actually enjoy changes and adaptions. For me, a movie is always the director's interpretation, and new twists can make a known story fresh and exciting once again. After all, if you've already read it, why would you need to watch a 1:1 version of it?
Dreamcatcher followed that lead (a Stephen King novel), but the movie turned out horrible. THe Shining is much better.
With LOTR I think the movie is better than the book because it cuts out some annoying (and boring) parts of the book, and the actors imbue their own personality on the characters.
The Hobbit - haven't read the book. I thought the movie was fun and quite fast-paced/action-orientated, which I liked.
GOT - George Martin has many flaws in his writing, I think most changes were for the better (Rob's sexy girlfriend, for example). I did miss Vargo Hoat with his speech problem. Cersei is much better as a character on TV than in the books, thanks to the actress's convincing job. I actually hope they cut out as much of Brienne as possible in the future movies, as I think her character could have been edited out of the books anyway.
Romeo & Juliet - I like the DiCaprio version a lot.
Fight Club - awesome "Jekyll & Hyde" adaption
-
ignore
-
in many ways i agree with you Alex. I have no problem with some changes being made, some are necessary for a film/tv version to work at all. sometimes the changes are good, and work beautifully, other times they are done because of stupid "hollywood" logic and are a total disaster. Personally, I feel that the changes to The Hobbit were largely disastrous.
Another example is the film adaptations of Alan Moore's From Hell and The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen. The only thing they really had in common with the source material was their names!
Philly, I must admit I haven't seen Oz: The Great And Powerful either :oops: I just thought it was funny :)
-
Another example is the film adaptations of Alan Moore's From Hell and The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen. The only thing they really had in common with the source material was their names!
yeah, these are probably the worst type of adaptation you can get and the logic of them escapes me. They obviously chose to make adaptations of them because somebody in the company likes the original thing, then ignore everything that makes them great.
although watchmen went the other way. Ok, they significantly changed the ending, one costume and suped up the supposedly human characters... but you can still see the love the of the source material in every single frame .... none of this makes the film any better, its incredibly stale in places.
My favourite of the alan moore adaptations is V for Vendetta. I actually saw the film before the book, I loved the film, and I love it more because it introduced me to the book which is even better. And now my daughter is called V(iolet) ;)
-
Of those four films, I liked Watchmen the best (by far) and V for Vendetta the least.
But I haven't read any of the graphic novels.
I think in general it's better to read the book after seeing the film, because there's nearly always "added value" in the parts they had to leave out of the film. Although sometimes a really badly written book - with a decent basic storyline - can actually be much better as a film.
-
I have to agree with you about the book version of LOTR the film has some errors in it, I still prefer the book version of the story, I've not read any of the harry potter books yet are they better than the films?
-
Actually I found the HP films to be extremely close to the source material, can't believe I forgot about those!
Mind you, they did have JKR on set to tell them if they were doing anything wrong. I think the HP series are the truest-to-source movies I've ever seen.
If there were any changes, they weren't glaringly obvious as far as I remember, but then I only read the books twice. The films really are rather good, as far as kids films go, and true to the books, they get darker as they go on. I think my only gripe was that the ending of the last film should have been more epic, to really hammer home that "This IS the defining moment of the entire series." I think the big duel between the two main characters could have been strung out, emphasised and gritted-up as for me it didn't really have as much of a kick as I would have liked.
But seriously, if that's my only major issue over a course of eight movies, they did pretty well! :lol:
-
They cut massive amounts out from all the books, but that has to be the case when you are making a film which is supposed to cover a whole school year and make it suitable for younger children
-
I guess I don't remember much of the books, then, heh.
However I do remember being disappointed by the very end of the last one. I remember feeling like it left one of the major points unresolved and a little bit too rushed. Almost as if JK was saying "aaaand they all lived happily ever after, the end."
*SPOILER ALERT BELOW for anyone who hasn't read the books / seen the films...*
My major point being, we don't get to find out whether Harry went on to become an Auror. That really bugged the hell out of me!