Back to usual! I'm here to complain to you about my problems. ;)
I have to start my first day of work tomorrow and I'm beyond nervous. I've been having mini panic attacks for three days now. All it takes is a word or thought that sends my heart pounding, luckily it doesn't last long, but when you get one every hour it kinda ruins your day.
This time I'm really not sure I can do this. For once I really, really don't want to fight with myself to go somewhere. I just want to give in and not be so worried. Just to feel all this stupid stress dissipate. Even if I make it through tomorrow, I'll have to fight again the next and the next. Why can't I find something that I actually want to do enough to fight? I just fight out of responsibility, not because I want to have this job or because I'd like to learn something.
I'm tired of guilt being my motivation. There has to be something other than obligation that compels me to do something.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Monday, March 3, 2014
The Problem With Book to Movie Adaptations
This is kind of an extension from the post I wrote yesterday, simply because I have opinions that need to be shared; for what reason, I don't know.
I wrote a bit about how switching mediums as a way to breathe new life into a previously done idea. Each medium has a different way of telling a story, so you can actually take a story and plop it into a different medium to show different aspects within the story. For example, books allow a reader to create their own setting using their imagination, so every reader will essentially make the story their own. How they envision a character's appearance can be party due to a writer's description, but the reader also fills in a lot of blanks themselves based on their own experiences.
A movie is a more visual format. Costumes, scenery and characters are viewed by the audience rather than created in their minds. Movies usually have to fall within a certain time range, roughly an hour-and-a-half to two hours, with a few variances. They're usually completed in one shot, whereas a book can be put down and read during the course of several days.
There are a few things that make book to movie adaptations difficult. Just like I wrote yesterday about originals or classics, they already have a fan base. When someone decides on a book to turn into a movie, it's usually a pretty popular one. Which means a bunch of people have read it and enjoyed it in the original book format.
When you switch mediums, you have to alter the story. You can't fit as many details in two hours on screen as you can in a couple hundred pages in a book. That's usually the number one complaint a reader will have when viewing the movie. The second would be any changes in the plot. They alter the plot, usually to create more excitement, romance, etc for viewers because that's what viewers want. For people who didn't read the book, it makes the movie more entertaining.
There's a couple of things you can do to really make a book-to-movie adaptation successful, and the most important rule (in my own personal opinion, since I am a bookworm) is to treat it like a classic. This means follow some of the guidelines I posted yesterday:
I wrote a bit about how switching mediums as a way to breathe new life into a previously done idea. Each medium has a different way of telling a story, so you can actually take a story and plop it into a different medium to show different aspects within the story. For example, books allow a reader to create their own setting using their imagination, so every reader will essentially make the story their own. How they envision a character's appearance can be party due to a writer's description, but the reader also fills in a lot of blanks themselves based on their own experiences.
A movie is a more visual format. Costumes, scenery and characters are viewed by the audience rather than created in their minds. Movies usually have to fall within a certain time range, roughly an hour-and-a-half to two hours, with a few variances. They're usually completed in one shot, whereas a book can be put down and read during the course of several days.
There are a few things that make book to movie adaptations difficult. Just like I wrote yesterday about originals or classics, they already have a fan base. When someone decides on a book to turn into a movie, it's usually a pretty popular one. Which means a bunch of people have read it and enjoyed it in the original book format.
When you switch mediums, you have to alter the story. You can't fit as many details in two hours on screen as you can in a couple hundred pages in a book. That's usually the number one complaint a reader will have when viewing the movie. The second would be any changes in the plot. They alter the plot, usually to create more excitement, romance, etc for viewers because that's what viewers want. For people who didn't read the book, it makes the movie more entertaining.
There's a couple of things you can do to really make a book-to-movie adaptation successful, and the most important rule (in my own personal opinion, since I am a bookworm) is to treat it like a classic. This means follow some of the guidelines I posted yesterday:
- Wait a Generation: Wait for the hype to die down a little before trying to adapt a book into a movie. An example might be Lord of the Rings. When the movies came out most of the viewers who would be interested probably didn't read it before watching the movies. This is obviously a generalization, but I think LotR inspired a lot of people to pick up the books after watching the movie.
- Add to it Don't Re-Do It: Rather than try to copy the original plot, do a prequel, sequel or have it focus on different events going on at the same time. Unfortunately, I can't really think of an example for it, although personally it's my favourite choice.
Both of these rarely happen because often studios like to borrow the popularity of the original book to draw attention to the movie. In my opinion, this means that the quality isn't there. The worst they can do is break up the plot by trying to stretch it over multiple movies. There is a way you can do this, but every movie must have its own separate plot with rising action, climax and falling action under the major plot line that will span over all the movies. If you don't, you risk a movie that does nothing but build up and then its over. It's a big disappointment to viewers who now have to wait another two years for its sequel. Think of it being as disappointing and hated as the "she woke up and realized it had all be a terrible dream" line.
I think remakes/adaptations should generally be avoided, with some exceptions. Going from a play to the big screen works due to the similar format that is just elaborated on. Going from book to tv show allows for a lot of detail, think Game of Thrones. If you are going to switch mediums, please choose to simply add on. It's a lot more interesting and it allows for creation rather than to simply reuse other ideas to death, plus you still get to use a bit of the original premise or world.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Why Movie Remakes (Almost) Always Suck
Ok, guys. Check this out. I'm not going to rant about my life today. I know! First I start being positive and then won't rant about my life, what kind of trauma have I been through lately?
Anyway, because I have opinions and currently have no one to share them with (except my dog who just sticks his tongue out at me and mocks me with his clueless brown eyes), therefore I shall pretend that you care about my opinions.
So, anyway, movie remakes! Actually, let's scratch that and put remakes of any kind of popular media including books, music, etc. Remakes generally occur when technology advances, and someone looks back at their favourite old movie/tv show/book/song and thinks "imagine what this would look like with todays technology". It's a valid thought, one I have often pondered myself. Could you imagine something like Star Wars with the technology that Avatar used? I'd love to see that!
Here's the problem, though. The favourite movie usually tends to be many people's favourite or a "classic". That's great, but that means that the original movie has a huge fan-base that have every second of that movie memorized and consider it a part of their childhood or what have you. That's a big issue because generally these fans do not like having someone mess with a classic.
One of the things you could do to avoid this, is wait until a new generation grows up; one who doesn't really remember the original. A good example of this would be Evil Dead. Evil Dead came out in 1981and became a cult classic. In 2013, a remake was released. For those less mathematically inclined, that's a 28 year period from the original to the remake. Now, the age range targeted for horror movies is approximately 13-30 years. If you're paying any attention, those 28 years means that the people who are likely going to see this movie probably didn't watch the original or experience the hype that followed, which could be why the remake ended up being successful.
However, that doesn't always work. Sometimes a film is such a classic, that even being generations apart doesn't work. Take Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho". It's probably one of the most popular movies to date. Did you know that in 1998 there was a remake? It flopped, big time. Unlike some remakes change the plot a little, it was a scene-to-scene remake, but it used modern (at the time) equipment. The reason it flopped was because the hype never died. It's such a classic that it's nearly everyone understands what you're talking about if you reference the famous shower scene.
Now, let's look back at Star Wars, simply because it's one of my favourites and the first thing that comes to mind when I think of a classic. Also, because it has been messed with over the years. The original trilogy was a huge hit, that fans are still geeking out about decades after it first hit theatres. Then the second trilogy came out, which didn't hit nearly the popularity the first did. Although to be honest, I don't have a huge issue with it. Jar Jar Binks probably wasn't needed, but I kinda liked the movies and they did moderately well in the box office.
Then came the sacrilege that was the editing of the original trilogy years after it was released. Just check out some of the amazon pages for the movies and you'll really see the disappointment and anger people feel towards it. You just can't mess with a classic.
The other way you can avoid a lacklustre remake, is by doing what Stars Wars did with the second trilogy. Take inspiration from the original and take part of it, but change the perspective by either making it from the view of a secondary character, filing in background story by doing a prequel, fast-forward into the future to view the repercussions of the original story's events, or by setting the focus on an alternative event occurring at the same time or a different world/country/etc. You still get to play around with the wonder of the world created by the original, but you're not replacing the original in any way, just adding to the story.
That kind of adding rather than replacing is why the second trilogy didn't completely fail. Buffy the Vampire Slayer changed the focus of the main character in Angel; which wasn't as much of a classic, but did manage to last for 5 years.
Another thing you can do is switch mediums. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was originally a tv show, but is currently being continued in comic format. You see that a lot when a book becomes a movie. Harry Potter and Star Wars both have continued their stories through approved fan-fiction. If you like Star Wars, you need to check out their comic omnibuses; if you love learning about back stories as much as I do, they're enjoyable.
Something to remember about switching mediums is that you can't keep the exact same story when you switch over. It's one of the things readers hate about when their favourite book becomes a movie (you've heard it, "The book is always better!"). They liked the book because of all the little added details, but whereas a book doesn't really have a time or page limit, a movie does. Condensing what took you days to read into only a couple of hours requires taking some stuff out and editing to allow it to work in its new format.
I could go on, but I think this post is long enough already. Long story short, I'm smarter than most of the people in Hollywood and they should really pay me millions to tell them how to do things. Remakes aren't always crap, but they are trickier to pull off when you're toying with a successful original. The easiest way to pull one off is to pick a shitty movie that didn't make a ton of waves but has a decent plot and turn it into a classic.
Thanks for satisfying my need to converse (my favourite conversations have always been the ones where only I talk, blame my dad). I'm sure I'll wind up giving you another rant in the future. :)
Anyway, because I have opinions and currently have no one to share them with (except my dog who just sticks his tongue out at me and mocks me with his clueless brown eyes), therefore I shall pretend that you care about my opinions.
So, anyway, movie remakes! Actually, let's scratch that and put remakes of any kind of popular media including books, music, etc. Remakes generally occur when technology advances, and someone looks back at their favourite old movie/tv show/book/song and thinks "imagine what this would look like with todays technology". It's a valid thought, one I have often pondered myself. Could you imagine something like Star Wars with the technology that Avatar used? I'd love to see that!
Here's the problem, though. The favourite movie usually tends to be many people's favourite or a "classic". That's great, but that means that the original movie has a huge fan-base that have every second of that movie memorized and consider it a part of their childhood or what have you. That's a big issue because generally these fans do not like having someone mess with a classic.
One of the things you could do to avoid this, is wait until a new generation grows up; one who doesn't really remember the original. A good example of this would be Evil Dead. Evil Dead came out in 1981and became a cult classic. In 2013, a remake was released. For those less mathematically inclined, that's a 28 year period from the original to the remake. Now, the age range targeted for horror movies is approximately 13-30 years. If you're paying any attention, those 28 years means that the people who are likely going to see this movie probably didn't watch the original or experience the hype that followed, which could be why the remake ended up being successful.
However, that doesn't always work. Sometimes a film is such a classic, that even being generations apart doesn't work. Take Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho". It's probably one of the most popular movies to date. Did you know that in 1998 there was a remake? It flopped, big time. Unlike some remakes change the plot a little, it was a scene-to-scene remake, but it used modern (at the time) equipment. The reason it flopped was because the hype never died. It's such a classic that it's nearly everyone understands what you're talking about if you reference the famous shower scene.
Now, let's look back at Star Wars, simply because it's one of my favourites and the first thing that comes to mind when I think of a classic. Also, because it has been messed with over the years. The original trilogy was a huge hit, that fans are still geeking out about decades after it first hit theatres. Then the second trilogy came out, which didn't hit nearly the popularity the first did. Although to be honest, I don't have a huge issue with it. Jar Jar Binks probably wasn't needed, but I kinda liked the movies and they did moderately well in the box office.
Then came the sacrilege that was the editing of the original trilogy years after it was released. Just check out some of the amazon pages for the movies and you'll really see the disappointment and anger people feel towards it. You just can't mess with a classic.
The other way you can avoid a lacklustre remake, is by doing what Stars Wars did with the second trilogy. Take inspiration from the original and take part of it, but change the perspective by either making it from the view of a secondary character, filing in background story by doing a prequel, fast-forward into the future to view the repercussions of the original story's events, or by setting the focus on an alternative event occurring at the same time or a different world/country/etc. You still get to play around with the wonder of the world created by the original, but you're not replacing the original in any way, just adding to the story.
That kind of adding rather than replacing is why the second trilogy didn't completely fail. Buffy the Vampire Slayer changed the focus of the main character in Angel; which wasn't as much of a classic, but did manage to last for 5 years.
Another thing you can do is switch mediums. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was originally a tv show, but is currently being continued in comic format. You see that a lot when a book becomes a movie. Harry Potter and Star Wars both have continued their stories through approved fan-fiction. If you like Star Wars, you need to check out their comic omnibuses; if you love learning about back stories as much as I do, they're enjoyable.
Something to remember about switching mediums is that you can't keep the exact same story when you switch over. It's one of the things readers hate about when their favourite book becomes a movie (you've heard it, "The book is always better!"). They liked the book because of all the little added details, but whereas a book doesn't really have a time or page limit, a movie does. Condensing what took you days to read into only a couple of hours requires taking some stuff out and editing to allow it to work in its new format.
I could go on, but I think this post is long enough already. Long story short, I'm smarter than most of the people in Hollywood and they should really pay me millions to tell them how to do things. Remakes aren't always crap, but they are trickier to pull off when you're toying with a successful original. The easiest way to pull one off is to pick a shitty movie that didn't make a ton of waves but has a decent plot and turn it into a classic.
Thanks for satisfying my need to converse (my favourite conversations have always been the ones where only I talk, blame my dad). I'm sure I'll wind up giving you another rant in the future. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)