|
Books are some 19th century hogwash Movies are the artform of the 20th century. The artform of the 21st century is youtube poops
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Books are some 19th century hogwash what the gently caress is this youtube garbage it's all tiktoks now, old man
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 01:43
|
|
|
I really enjoy most of Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series...at least up until Bear and the Dragon. Jack Jr. is a pretty boring protagonist. The Hunt for Red October is a better movie...Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger and Sum of All Fears are better books. As far as Crichton, I can't think of a book of his that I prefer over the movie, except maybe The Andromeda Strain? 13th Warrior/Eaters of the Dead and Sphere(film)/Sphere(book) are pretty close for me, but still prefer the movies in both cases. While I greatly enjoyed reading Jurassic Park as a kid, the movie fixes some weird decisions and skips a bunch of jargon that you don't need to understand that Jeff Goldblum is a national treasure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 06:28
|
|
|
If we're talking comics, History of Violence improved a lot on the comic's premisse and characters. Reading it after watching the adaption and it's a wonder why anyone would adapt it past its premisse. Which, I guess is what happened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 10:26
|
|
|
The Cat in the Hat book was better than the movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 12:57
|
|
|
So I've been on a Stephen King kick lately with both IT and Pet Sematary and hey, this topic exists. So I'll get out of the way that my verdict is that both books are better than the movies, as for why? I'll start with IT. One of the biggest disservice the two recent IT films do to the novel is turn it into a more adventure-action horror with an almost light hearted tone between the jump scares. It's a shame because there are a few moments, themes and ideas that the movies touch on briefly that it shows sparks of being able to do well, but it never leans into it, in favor of just having Pennywise show up again and stretch his fang-filled jaw spookily again. A lot of discussion of IT bring up how the book flips between adult and child scenes (In fact, like the first quarter of the book or so, possibly more, is spent getting everyone together and having a single meal at a Chinese place while they all reminisce and catch up on the past) but it's certainly possible to split the child and adult halves as the films did, even if it doesn't work as well. But the second film felt the need to splice in additional childhood content, while leaving out several more interesting stories, in the first place. What I find more detracting from the film's case is that they really just drop the history of Derry, which was a big thing in the books. For anyone who might not have read it; chapters in IT tend to be bookended between a history book that the narrative character, Mike Hanlon, is writing about Derry with no real intent to publish, one about the creature, about Derry and about the cycle that keeps happening and all the horrific violence that just kind of pervades the town. From horrifying domestic violence and mysterious mass disappearances, to entire town shootouts and the strange complicit behavior of the law enforcement. It really builds up that it isn't just a single spooky monster that eats kids - but that the town its self is wrong and it culminates, in the end, in the revelation; "IT is Derry!" which the second film touches on in an almost subtle, non-verbal way I really liked; but without any real implication or indication that there was anything larger going on, outside of the sudden plot beat that kind of happens in the last like half of the second movie, it loses its impact and kind of confused people I saw it with. It also doesn't help that the second film dropped almost all of the town stuff in general, you don't get any unsettling town-based incidents that you do in the book which really built up things as more than just "Spooky killer clown." Which, really, is another huge issue. IT isn't about a spooky killer clown. Its themes of bigotry, abuse and trauma are far more prevalent than its slasher-horror tropes and most of the time the book leans into its shock-horror are during the child flashback segments, mostly the earlier child segments, where the kids are afraid of almost simplistic things like werewolves and mummies they saw in the movies, or of a disease they heard about from their friends. But as the book goes on IT starts weaponizing deeper fears against them; such as their abusers or family. One major complaint about the second film is that "the clown doesn't try to kill them!" but - that's a relic from the book, where when they get together as adults IT can't really attack them directly for a combination of reasons. One being that as adults, they have different fears and they still don't remember the past well enough to be afraid of IT like they were as children, making them harder to attack; and a second being that IT is afraid of them, since they hurt it. That is, explicitly, why it employs their childhood bully in the book. Because IT can't hurt them, but he can - and more over; he can remind them of their childhood fears. So until things come to a head, there are a lot of scenes where IT tries to scare them, tries to threaten, taunt and drive them away, rather than outright try to kill them. I guess what I'm saying is that the films really drop the ball by excising basically any and all intrigue the book actually had in favor of being extremely overt and filled with jump scares. I wouldn't say they're bad movies, I like them as adaptations, but they just feel really limp compared to the book because they drop some of the biggest building concepts and moments, so it all feels rushed and somewhat hurried. A few things I did like about the movies more than the book though; Excising the weird child sewer orgy and the unexpected adultery is fine by me, definitely the low points of the book. Also; personally, I'm a fan of the "Richie was gay" take on the character, and it's one I tended to read into the character a bit, so it was neat to see it in the second film. Now for Pet Sematary, which I only just now got around to watching because I heard it was bad. It kind of is. I will say I liked most of the changes though, Ellie being the one get smashed by the truck was slightly more interesting to me at least, but that's mostly because I don't think I could take the whole "monster baby" thing from the book seriously in a visual medium. What drags it down is that the tone is kind of unexpected, a lot of scenes and plot points ultimately feel unnecessary, and the pace is really slow. Like we have the wife's thing with her dead sister that kind of really pans out to nothing outside of giving us a few spooky hallucinations and giving her a reason to be afraid of death and the dead - but I kind of felt like the first one was enough? It just kind of kept coming back again and again to no real payoff or end. There was also Jud's wife, who is dead in this version, and it's vaguely implied what happens early on, then confirmed mere moments before he dies. But - again - I just kind of ask why? We didn't know her as a character, and we already had his dead dog as a story about how he knew where and what the graveyard really was. But at no point, until those last few seconds, does this have anything to do with anything so it just kind of seems weird. But the tone is what stood out to me. Things are edited with such abruptness it's almost comical at times and it almost verges on being like dark slapstick towards the end. So it starts off really slow and plodding, gets a bit spooky and serious. Then just becomes a gory comedy? It's weird, inconsistent and the ending had me laughing. Speaking of; the ending is the best part of the film and I kind of loved it. It had a few moments but overall was just dull, with no real scares - not even jumpscares. Personally; one of my favorite ways to enjoy Pet Sematary is the BBC audio drama, check it out if you can, it's rad.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
Slaapaav posted:i like the watchmen movie but the comic is an undisputed superhero comic masterpiece. the movie is nowhere close to being a masterpiece I liked the comic but the movie intro has been one of the best intros I have ever seen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h24D87SqaLQ
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 11:49
|
|
|
IT is pretty notable for how it bungles the theme of the book by breaking it up the way they did. By constantly alternating time lines, King is better able to show childhood trauma impacting them as adults but the movies can't really get there, particularly with Bill. He faces up to his trauma in the first movie because they need to give his character that arc, but then the second movie also needs him to do that again because its trying to force that theme in there. I suspect the running time with the second part is them scrambling for something to make up for the way they've decided to structure it. Though I do wonder if it'll play better with a re-edit, as such I'm expecting a fan edit before the year is through. Honestly though, I came out of that movie wondering why there's a second part at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:Personally; one of my favorite ways to enjoy Pet Sematary is the BBC audio drama, check it out if you can, it's rad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
I never liked the new design for Pennywise because the insidious nature was that he was an invisible evil if you didn't know he existed. The Tim Curry version, outside his teeth, looked like a normal birthday clown, like an unwitting parent could think it would be safe to leave their kids with them, while the new guy is too evil looking to blend into the background. Also on the book vs movie topic, I prefer reading the Ring books (Ring, Spiral and Loop by Koji Suzuki) to the movies, although there was an exception that I like Ring 0 Birthday for it's fresh perspective on Sadako's character. In the movies, Sadako directly murders people, but that's not how she rolls in the books - she doesn't want anyone to die, she has instructions in the video on how to survive, every death is a failure on her part. It's just a bunch of dumb kids taped over the end of her video as a joke not thinking it was real, so everyone who watches the tape without knowing what's up are screwed. In the books, even those that fail aren't killed by her - watching the tape plants a physical virus in the bloodstream that after 7 days, triggers a cardiac arrest that's prompted by a severe sense of dread that didn't necessarily exist before. A biker suddenly becomes severely claustrophobic, trying and failing to rip his helmet off before having a fatal heart attack in traffic. A girl who's at home doing her homework while her parents are at a baseball game becomes paranoid about being home alone, worrying about how long her parents have been gone, and being gaslit by insects somehow getting in despite her being very sure she closed all the windows. A couple who were going to a quiet spot to be intimate are found clawing at opposing car doors as if they had becomes deathly afraid of each other. That's all more interesting than "Girl crawls out of TV"
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 08:08
|
|
|
BioEnchanted posted:I never liked the new design for Pennywise because the insidious nature was that he was an invisible evil if you didn't know he existed. The Tim Curry version, outside his teeth, looked like a normal birthday clown, like an unwitting parent could think it would be safe to leave their kids with them, while the new guy is too evil looking to blend into the background. That's one of the things about the book; adults see Pennywise too. There are sightings of it throughout the town's history. It's just innocuous enough that they just think "Huh, clown, weird" and go about their business. There's nothing innocuous about the movie's version. It's designed to scream "EVIL" as soon as you look at it, which ruins its effectiveness. The TV mini did it right be letting Curry bring the creepiness to it, instead of the costume design. His near orgasmic delivery of the line "Oh, they float." is more chilling then any of the CGI head shakes the movie did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
Tim Curry's Pennywise had to have been influenced by old Ronald McDonald commercials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tGbvfVpPGg
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Tim Curry's Pennywise had to have been influenced by old Ronald McDonald commercials: poo poo, that's pretty much the opening of King's book, just replace balloons for hamburgers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:poo poo, that's pretty much the opening of King's book, just replace balloons for hamburgers. And people wonder were Stephen King gets it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
BioEnchanted posted:being gaslit by insects Im not sure what you mean?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:And people wonder were Stephen King gets it. Annie Wilkes in Misery was based on Mayor McCheese
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Im not sure what you mean? She has closed her windows, she keeps checking them, but supernatural bugs keep getting in and making her think otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
BioEnchanted posted:Also on the book vs movie topic, I prefer reading the Ring books (Ring, Spiral and Loop by Koji Suzuki) to the movies One of these days I'm just going to have to sit down and read these things just so I can peg what in the world they even are. The threat being this bio/techno/viral -thing seems so very out of left field from anything I associate with all things "The Ring" and I never know what to make of it. So is she even still a ghost? Up until this post I wasn't even sure if they were still horror. I could still see it being spooky fun - I'm thinking like the first act of The Matrix before the main plot reveal. But it all sounds so bonkers and  like finding out the orcs in the Lord of the Rings books were actually the Borg or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:One of these days I'm just going to have to sit down and read these things just so I can peg what in the world they even are. The threat being this bio/techno/viral -thing seems so very out of left field from anything I associate with all things "The Ring" and I never know what to make of it. So is she even still a ghost? Up until this post I wasn't even sure if they were still horror. She's simultaneously the anger of Sadako Yamamura at being raped and murdered by a smallpox victim, on top of the trauma of her mother being driven to suicide, and also the anger of the Smallpox virus at being wiped out by vaccinations. She's two yokai in one, and she is more virus than person as she cares more about reproducing than getting any kind of revenge. Every time someone dies rather than copying her psychic imprint (whether the videotape or an adaption of it) it's a failure for her. The main character of the first book's mistake is thinking that she is driven by Sadako's experiences and trying to lay her body to rest, at which point he finds out "Bitch please, I don't care that I'm rotting in a well, I just want to infect more people with me!" It's totally bonkers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 03:15
|
|
Davros1 posted:That's one of the things about the book; adults see Pennywise too. There are sightings of it throughout the town's history. It's just innocuous enough that they just think "Huh, clown, weird" and go about their business. There's nothing innocuous about the movie's version. It's designed to scream "EVIL" as soon as you look at it, which ruins its effectiveness. Pennywise is kind of dumb in the newer movies, when in the book it's almost maliciously clever with how it appears to other people, showing up in places where you'd normally expect a clown (at parades or such) or in situations where you could almost understand someone dressing up as a clown. Like when reflecting on the town shootout, the guy telling the story is like "Yeah it was weird to see a guy in clown makeup - but we all just figured he was some big-wig who didn't want anyone to recognize him."
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:And people wonder were Stephen King gets it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P61KghCuQcU Stephen King talks about meeting Ronald McDonald.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:The Cat in the Hat book was better than the movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
The more I think about IT the more I realise what a wasted endeavour it is. It feels weird to me to love a book, adapt it and then strip it of so much that made it memorable to begin with. And CGI is simply not scary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 11:37
|
|
|
i said this in the horror thread but it's weird they cut out all of pennywise's most memorable lines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
I felt the same about the IT movie as well. The studio took out all the coming-of-age Stand by Me stuff and made the movie just so bog standard. You could have easily replaced Pennywise with Freddy Krueger and it wouldn't have made much of a difference. Joe Chill fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Sep 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 13:22
|
|
|
Is there a chance they would ever do an adapted novelization of the film version of a Stephen King book? I’d imagine King has clauses in his contracts prohibiting such a move, but it’d be pretty funny to get a novelization of the movie versions of It or Dark Tower.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:Is there a chance they would ever do an adapted novelization of the film version of a Stephen King book? I’d imagine King has clauses in his contracts prohibiting such a move, but it’d be pretty funny to get a novelization of the movie versions of It or Dark Tower. I posted this earlier in the thread: Davros1 posted:Max Allan Collins wrote the novelization to the film "Road to Perdition" which itself was an adaptation of the graphic novel "Road to Perdition" written by ... Max Allan Collins. I always thought that was funny Davros1 fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Sep 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
frankee posted:I liked the comic but the movie intro has been one of the best intros I have ever seen you've gotta be kidding me lol. the most obvious music choice ever made layered over shallow "twists" on iconic american imagery and carbon copies of panels from the comic. it's the laziest poo poo imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 09:09
|
|
|
he cast ozymandius too young and giving him the accent was so dumb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:you've gotta be kidding me lol. the most obvious music choice ever made layered over shallow "twists" on iconic american imagery and carbon copies of panels from the comic. it's the laziest poo poo imaginable. Things don't have to be original to be effective. A lot of times the most obvious decision is the correct one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
The music choice is kinda on-the-nose, but the sequence itself is effective visual storytelling. By the end of it, you pretty much know the entire backstory without a word being said by anyone other than Bob Dylan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:The music choice is kinda on-the-nose, but the sequence itself is effective visual storytelling. By the end of it, you pretty much know the entire backstory without a word being said by anyone other than Bob Dylan. It's just like the beginning of the previous year's Incredible Hulk, which open with scenes from a movie that didn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:Things don't have to be original to be effective. A lot of times the most obvious decision is the correct one. if anything watchmen is the example par excellence of strict, exacting fidelity not being conducive to a good adaptation. the opening sequence is just one of many reasons why.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
tghat videos a perfect encapsulation of the watchmen adaptation. some nice visual choices but way too on the nose and way too long
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:Things don't have to be original to be effective. A lot of times the most obvious decision is the correct one. In isolation it's a great choice of song for that montage, the problem is the whole film was full of obvious choices. "The sound of silence" during the funeral scene annoyed me most.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
Farm Frenzy posted:tghat videos a perfect encapsulation of the watchmen adaptation. some nice visual choices but way too on the nose and way too long "I'm sick of adaptations changing so much, why doesn't someone just use the original work as a script and make as authentic and straightforward a screen adaptation as possible?" *Watchmen* "Not like that!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
what's really weird about the IT movies cutting out pennywise's best lines is they have pennywise say beep beep richie in 1 and bev say it to him in 2 but there's no context for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:if anything watchmen is the example par excellence of strict, exacting fidelity not being conducive to a good adaptation. the opening sequence is just one of many reasons why. My issue is that there's this slavish fidelity to a source which is from an extremely specific time and place, and it's reproduced without comment 25 years later. The context of IRL 1985 - the Cold War, the post-Vietnam period, etc. - inform just about everything in Watchmen. You actually take Ozymandias seriously at the end, because dread of a nuclear apocalypse was a real thing. Vietnam and Watergate happened a decade before, and the alternate history aspects of that were timely or relevant. The entire zeitgeist the comic was responding to just didn't exist in 2009. So instead, you're left with this aesthetic exercise that feels like any given superhero story as a period piece. The new show actually looks interesting in this regard, because it looks like it's trying to say something about 2019. Rorschach's journal has birthed some kind of alt-right QAnon truther movement. The cops adopt masks to systematize non-accountability. Ozymandias is still powerful and relevant because of how successfully he buried horrifying misdeeds. The show might still suck, but it feels like it's about now. (The Boys is also a good watch for these reasons. It's deconstructing superheroes as corporate products, and it's pretty rad.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:what's really weird about the IT movies cutting out pennywise's best lines is they have pennywise say beep beep richie in 1 and bev say it to him in 2 but there's no context for it. Life sucks bro
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
huh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 23:34
|
|