Printable View
Finally saw Daredevil.
So much of it was done SO right...
So much of it was still SO wrong...
I'm torn...it wasn't Spider-Man...but it was still better than 3 of the 4 Batman movies and most of the rest...
As a whole, Comic book movies seem to be getting a LITTLE better...
don't tell me you were pissed they had Michael Clark Duncan as Kingpin, were you?
if so, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
I have to admit here that although I knew who Duncan was, I hadn't seen any of his movies and so didn't have any way to imagine him as Kingpin. But he looked huge as hell in the movie! So...two points for Hollywood on that casting. I actually came out of the theater wondering if they HAD used a white guy, who would have been as big in size to play it. I couldn't think of anyone.
somebody of his size and suaveness...
No one comes to mind. So i don't really think they did that just to piss the purists off
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Firebird98:
I just don't seem to understand why people are so anal about comparing a book to a movie.
So what if this isn't exactly like this, or this isn't in this, or blah blah blah. you go to movies to be entertained, not to sit there and analyze every little detail.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
On the one hand, we all know that they're making these movies to make money, and that Hollywood has run out of original ideas, so the combination of being able to steal an "original" idea that has a built in customer base has to be appealing to them. On the other hand, it's annoying when they shove our faces in the fact that this is what they're doing by writing scripts that have no relation whatsoever to the comic book in question. It hits a point when it goes beyond cutting and changing things from a 25 year old comic strip to make a coherent movie script... and goes right into insulting our intelligence.
i fully agree with eris. i don't think they should base something off a book and then completely FORGET the book's storyline (if that makes sense), and then think that we won't mind.
i know it's not a comic book, but look at the Bourne Identity. the only thing that had in common with the book was the title, the name of the company, and the main character's name. that's it. completely changed the plot - sorry, FORGOT THE DAMN PLOT. they changed the sidekick female from a 35 year old french canadian economist from ottawa to a 22 year old twit from germany. same first name, however. that movie pissed me off a lot. it pissed off everyone i knew who'd read the book, but those who hadn't read it loved it. i'm sorry, but do not market something as one thing and then put out the exact opposite. they forgot the villain, and involved people throughout the movie who were supposed to have been killed off halfway through. and it ended completely wrong. not to mention that the movie really doesn't tell you where "bourne identity" comes from. the title itself has several meanings and layers, none of which they bring up. viet-nam, for example, was important in the book. very very important. yet they never brought it up once.
so fine, i can handle this to a point. but then they're talking about making movies based on the whole Bourne trilogy. uh, would you like to tell me how you propose to do that when you haven't even brought the villain in yet?! he's supposed to be involved in all 3. he's the bloody PLOT.
gaaaaaah.
in my opinion, bourne identity never should have been made into a movie. it's too complex a plot to possibly put onto the big screen, because i don't feel there's that much that can afford to be cut out. a few things here and there, but it's supposed to confuse the hell out of you until near the end, and slide into place very gradually. the movie did none of that. not to the same extreme. i'll say it again - never should have been made. what threw me off even more was the robert ludlum was on the exec. i wonder how drunk he was when he agreed to do it. i'm still tempted to write a letter to him. if it had just been a regular action movie i probably would have enjoyed it. but by marketing it as something based on a book, i went looking to see the book in action. not a regular action movie with the title "bourne identity".
wow. that was long. sorry. but i think it's an insult to the audience to think we'll be satisfied with it. sure, a lot of us will pay to see it - but at the same time, we'll prevent other fans of the book from seeing it by spreading the word.
conclusion: if you're making a movie based on a book/comicbook/comicstrip/whatever, make the effort to make it as accurate as possible. harry potter is accurate as hell to the books - i've heard they bring children to the set to look at things and the kids tell them what's wrong and what's right. if you're making that much effort for a kids book, make that much effort for us adults too. just because we're older doesn't mean we don't give a damn about accuracy.
*rant off*
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 14, 2003 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Jelymo ]</font>
and this is why you don't make movies jely. I agree thought, movie should not be super different from the books on the bases. however movies are a mainstream deal. and you also have to take in the fact that not everyone has read the book or for that matter even wants to *shudders* but thats the deal. and there is little that can be said about it as long as they make money they really don't care
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 14, 2003 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Ski ]</font>
I think the issue is SELLING the movie as the original media. If you promise "The Fans" that they are going to see something that is the original you should deliver.
Part of the influx of comix based scripts is not just a lack of ideas but that they have a built in fan base. Who are told "yes, were going to do right by the comic" to attract that fan base.
Now the "fans" will go the opening weekend. Big numbers opening weekend mean media coverage, media coverage means cash. It doesnt matter that the "Fans" went once and decided it was utter crap. What matters is the film got the numbers.
It was suggested by Derico (Hi Derico!!! [img]biggrin.gif[/img] ) that some debate was raised as to whether Daredevil was a 'good' or 'really good' movie.
I have one question. How is the word 'good' in the least ways mentionable in connection with that film? That movie was crappy! It was a cheesy plot and a badly written script- and only marginal acting. The special effects weren't bad- but they weren't great. I mean, the rain was supposed to be romantic, right? Instead it called overt attention to the computer-animation.
The only thing good about it was maaaybee that Ben Affleck had a really cute haircut for the first time. Actually, he was way cute in that movie. Yep. Almost worth the eight bucks.
that's the point. they don't care -- and they should. people would be a lot happier and they might even make more money from doing so. accuracy is very very important. just like you can't have a character walk into a cafe in a blue shirt and walk out in a red shirt, or have it raining when they walk into the house but have the sun streaming in the windows - it's the same with plot details. you can't have doc octopus kill ben parker when he's supposed to be killed by a mugger. there are some things that you can't sacrifice. i hate that movie making is all about money. it should be about pleasing the fans. a lot of BS is put out these days and it irks me. i like a good plot and a good movie. i'm not going to pay $10 to see crap. and i'm especially not going to pay $10 with the hopes of seeing one thing and come out wondering what the hell just happened.
vox is right - it's all about the numbers. which is really quite sad. movie producers should be more concerned with their fans than with their revenue. they would definitely get more money that way. those die hard fans who got pissed off from a shitty movie on opening night aren't going to go see it again - which they would have done if the movie had been what it promised.
i know everyone's opinion varies on what's good and what's only so so, and you can't please everyone. but you can sure as hell TRY by putting some effort into making it accurate and for the fans.