+- thePlenty.net Forums (https://theplenty.net/forums)
+-- Forum: Off-topic (https://theplenty.net/forums/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Other universes (https://theplenty.net/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Sequels, adaptations, remakes, revivals, etc (/thread-499.html)
RE: Sequels, adaptations, remakes, revivals, etc - Albertosaurus Rex - Nov-01-2012
I have never read any of The Wheel of Time either, but I feel that it's a slightly different situation. WoT has as I understand it, a continuous storyline that was building toward an ending. That someone should finish the story after Jordan's death is something I can understand, especially given the fact that he left detailed notes. Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, however, is just a series of mostly unrelated adventures. That there is a sequel to that series feel bit off to me. (I'll probably read it anyway, just to see if it's any good.)
RE: Sequels, adaptations, remakes, revivals, etc - Tebasile - Nov-02-2012
On Star Wars I'm with Valarya on George Lucas already having done to it what many people are afraid Disney doing to it:
Making movies just for kids and to make merchandise and games from.
For me that would have been forgivabe if he had not negated all the hints about the prequels story we had had from the OT.
Like Owen being Obi-Wan's brother for example and Anakin and him meeting during the Clone Wars...
And don't get me started on Midichlorians and virgin birth....
Yes, I was a big SW-Fan before the prequels came out.
For me they already have done what others are afraid further movies by Disney will do.
Pre-prequels (what a word) I would have been ectatic to here of Episodes 7-9 being made, now I don't really care and my big expectation is that they might be entertaining.
As for Wheel of Time I loved the 1-6 I read in nearly one go in 1995 and then the story started to slow until you waited years for a book where virtually nothing happened.
The last one by Jordan did pick up again but Sanderson is wrapping up the story (I think he was even chosen by Jordan himself that he should finish in case he couldn't) and does so very good but he has his own style and interpretations and I think that they show.
But there are worse things than having a fan who grew up with the books and was inspired by them in his own (very good) writing finishing that vast saga.
RE: Sequels, adaptations, remakes, revivals, etc - Valarya - Nov-02-2012
(Nov-02-2012, 01:01 PM (UTC))Tebasile Wrote: And don't get me started on Midichlorians and virgin birth....
Yes, I was a big SW-Fan before the prequels came out.
First of all, Welcome to thePlenty, tebasile! I'd been away for a few months and didn't get to properly say hello.
Secondly.. I love Star Wars, too! At this point I don't care what they do with the movies, though.. hahah. There's just so many good stories and such good lore surrounding the entire universe there that mere movies won't hurt my love of it. I've played the video games and get much more enjoyment there than ever from movies 1-3, lol.
RE: Sequels, adaptations, remakes, revivals, etc - o0Ampy0o - Mar-09-2013
Rant Alert! Currently an adaptation of a good book I had in mind to read and an adaptation of a good book I have read are reasons to avoid film adaptations. I have never enjoyed a film version of a book I enjoyed and reading the book after seeing a good film version casts a shadow over the experience. It robs me of a creative dimension that I would experience otherwise. Something is handed to me on a plate that I may not want to take along but it is like not thinking of a carrot.
When you have a great film and a great book to choose between it is a bigger decision. I love a good film and I love a good book but I must sacrifice one for the other. There are a limited number of great works in either medium so I hate having to kill one off. For instance Hunger Games is a highly regarded series and the film adaptation is also well-received. I am leaning toward the books because there is more material in a series and a book is a deeper longer lasting experience. I would like to see a good movie though and I thought Jennifer Lawrence was great in Winter's Bone.
As for the Star Wars franchise, I thought the whole series from the first episode was Saturday morning kiddie entertainment. I did like the 2nd movie because it was very exciting with the battle scenes and chases. The 3rd had a stronger spiritual element and I appreciated it at that time as well. But none of the other films have been good. They came off as effect demos of what Lucasfilm can do. George Lucas phoned in the directing. He clearly did not have his priorities. It seems like all of the prequel/sequels were done to generate guaranteed money to fund his monumental Lucas empire which he has now sold.
Lucasfilm had tons of money and with a backing major studio they could have budgeted all they wanted. His films were almost guaranteed to make it back for a studio but they insisted on showing how inexpensively something could be done using their digital alternatives. Yet it looks cheap. Compare the most recent Indiana Jones film to the first ones and the supposedly superior digital cinematography is a new level of cheesy. Maybe it is not obvious to young audiences. If you have paid a little more attention to this stuff as better and better film gear has become attainable to common people you would recognize the traits of a thinning illusion.
I found the Game of Thrones adaptation to be unwatchable. They just simplified the storytelling and put it in visual form. Having read the books which are written by one of the best character writers why would I want to see people pretending to be the characters? I realize it is to be expected of television however, visually, the scope appears small in scale. Some more than others but everyone from the main actors to the extras has the self-consciousness of a rehearsal.
RE: Sequels, adaptations, remakes, revivals, etc - Valarya - Mar-10-2013
(Mar-09-2013, 09:29 PM (UTC))o0Ampy0o Wrote: I love a good film and I love a good book but I must sacrifice one for the other. There are a limited number of great works in either medium so I hate having to kill one off. For instance Hunger Games is a highly regarded series and the film adaptation is also well-received.
It's very very hard for a film adaptation to please a reader... but I find it can be doubly exciting to just "let go" and enjoy the film for what it's worth. That is, of course, as long as it's somewhat on par and not a big steaming pile of dung. I enjoyed both the Hunger Games trilogy and the movie. Same with Lord of the Rings. While they changed some pretty important things, it's just wonderful to see one of my favorite worlds on-screen. It makes me feel like a kid, and I don't see anything wrong with kiddie entertainment.
Same with the Harry Potter series. Some scenes made me quite irate, but it only lasts for a moment, until I realize that I just have to enjoy the film for what it's worth, and revel in seeing another favorite world come to life.
(Mar-09-2013, 09:29 PM (UTC))o0Ampy0o Wrote: I found the Game of Thrones adaptation to be unwatchable. They just simplified the storytelling and put it in visual form. Having read the books which are written by one of the best character writers why would I want to see people pretending to be the characters? I realize it is to be expected of television however, visually, the scope appears small in scale. Some more than others but everyone from the main actors to the extras has the self-consciousness of a rehearsal.
I don't think anyone could have done it better than HBO. At least each book is given 10 hours on screen... I quite enjoy them, even if they -are- a watered-down version, much for the same reasons as stated above.
While I love film.. book adaptations will never 'replace' the experience of falling in love with the world and characters when you read something for the first time, it's just an extension of that.
RE: Sequels, adaptations, remakes, revivals, etc - 'thul - Mar-10-2013
adapting films to books can be even harder than books to films (which is already hard), simply because films and books thrive on different means of exciting the consumer. A huge battle isn't really that interesting in a book, yet it is extremely interesting if done right in a film.
RE: Sequels, adaptations, remakes, revivals, etc - o0Ampy0o - Mar-10-2013
(Mar-10-2013, 07:45 AM (UTC))thul Wrote: adapting films to books can be even harder than books to films (which is already hard), simply because films and books thrive on different means of exciting the consumer. A huge battle isn't really that interesting in a book, yet it is extremely interesting if done right in a film.
What a surprise adapting a theme park ride to film turned out to be in Pirates of the Caribbean. Only a studio with lots of movie making experience would tackle such a unique challenge. I loved the first two.
Your example of battles is interesting. The perspectives when writing vs. depicting one in film are very different. One does not usually take a similar approach as the other.
A case where taking a book approach to a film was sort of done is Terrence Mallick's The Thin Red Line. You hear the thoughts of each character on screen. Many people didn't understand it though. The approach worked for Hitchcock.
In non-fiction I read Mark Bowden's book Blackhawk Down years before the film was made. It is comprised of one long battle that took place in a single span of time. It was so intense I could not read it before bedtime at night because my stomach would be tied in knots. I would get so worked up I'd be perspiring when finished.
I didn't expect much from the film but it was one of the first to use a special camera perspective where the rockets came at the viewer so that much was interesting. The film was just another action/war picture and used the true event as an excuse to make the movie. IMO it did not succeed at depicting the unusual conditions the soldiers faced that day. Jerry Bruckheimer so one should not have been surprised yet he also did PotC so who knows?