|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 20, 2018 12:42:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by vitugglan on Jul 21, 2018 5:41:44 GMT -6
This brings up a load of baggage related to movie adaptations. I love that Tony Stark outed himself. It made for some good plot points in the following movies, glad the MCU had the guts to follow through with consequences. That doesn't hold true with every adaptation. The new A Wrinkle in Time looks so garbage I won't see it, even when it comes out for free. Slavish clone adaptations aren't all that wonderful, either. So, what does make a good adaptation of a property into a film?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 23, 2018 3:53:48 GMT -6
Granted, neither of these movies are Marvel/Disney MCU: I thought the first Singer X-Men movie was well done even if they had to have a tall Wolverine  Tyler Mane was a decent Victor (Sabretooth) Creed. And they didn't try to pack absolutely everything into the movie to catch up with 40ish years of X-Men backstory. Kinda like Rogue, we were dropped into the middle of the raging river. But, Fantastic Four did that whole "we're not using a secret identity/alias" first. And I think they did it first in the Marvel Comics title since comic core-verse Tony Stark was always claiming that Ironman was his bodyguard. I thought they did a good job with the 2005 Fantastic Four and its sequel Rise of the Silver Surfer in 2007. On a non-Marvel note, though I loved the movies, I do some times think that the Harry Potter books would have been better served if the Brits had done it as a television series. They did chop so much out when making the transition from book to film. |
|
|
|
Post by vitugglan on Jul 23, 2018 6:02:19 GMT -6
Yeah, some adaptations work better as a miniseries. Most people like the original Shining, but I like the miniseries just as well. I think they were able to put more into it, stretch things out the way they should have been stretched for the type of property it is. I like the movie, Jack Nicholson was very good as Jack Torrance but so was Steven Webber. They each brought their own brand of insanity to the role, and those different brands of insanity worked well with the length of the project. Maybe cast is a part of a good movie or miniseries, match the actor to the length of the role. IMO, the movie left out the things that were okay to leave out, giving us a complete though truncated story.
I'm so sick and tired of reboots of origin stories. If they do yet another Fantastic Four, I hope they start with them returning from their journey, or even where they're becoming comfortable with their powers. For a movie, they need to get to the action in the first act. I'd even suggest that they don't need to showcase the origins at all, just get to the story. IMO, Black Panther did a good job of giving us backstory during the opening credits so we could get on with the action right away. I know a lot of people don't like narration (see just about every CinemaSins video) but if you don't want a three-hour movie, sometimes it's necessary.
Or - was it in this article? - the opening of Up. They spend four minutes on the backstory and practically tear your heart out. No narration, just photographs, and you get something like forty years of story in four minutes. The audience needs to know certain things, but we don't need to be overwhelmed with minutiae. Choose what to show, then lovingly craft it to its highest potential. And I do think it's best to throw us into the plot head first. Audiences know how to adapt, plus you can lose an audience by too slow of a start.
A movie series that didn't do well, IMO, was the Hobbit trilogy. It didn't need to be a trilogy. A two-parter at most; the whole Legolas backstory wasn't necessary, they didn't really need another Helm's Deep, they sure didn't need the town and all. Gollum, the ring, the journey, getting the kingdom back, yes. Smaug destroying the town, Legolas's love interest, the elves at all, no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 24, 2018 6:07:54 GMT -6
A lot of Hobbit readers pretty much ripped their foot hair out over the inclusion of Legolas (he wasn't in the book at all). Didn't get a chance to see the Hobbit movies in theaters (and considering the visuals, theatrical screen is best for that first impression). We may have the first movie (I'd have to check), the others will join our collection once they hit the $5 bin at Wal-Mart.
|
|
|
|
Post by vitugglan on Jul 25, 2018 7:24:48 GMT -6
Some of the scenes in the trilogy were very good. Thorin Oakenshield's death was a great scene from all perspectives - his return from Gold Fever, his fight with the orc, his lingering death and Bilbo's cradling him - all were emotional and emotionally satisfying. The Hobbit, though - I read the book. Jackson & Co. added too much. I think it ruined the impact of the original story.
|
|
Tyler Mane was a decent Victor (Sabretooth) Creed. And they didn't try to pack absolutely everything into the movie to catch up with 40ish years of X-Men backstory. Kinda like Rogue, we were dropped into the middle of the raging river.