Hello my fellow readers, its been too long hut due to academic shenanigans ever since I resumed school, I have had little time to post up any thing. My movie news might not be as frequent but i would like to add a new segment on Tuesdays and Thursdays that would include a rant on a social topic.
Hello my fellow readers, I know its been a while since I uploaded a post, but when you are a chemical engineering student that is due to resume school in a week’s time, preparation has a way of keeping one busy. I would like to talk about a particular topic that has been bugging me for a while, it also causes a series of arguments among my friends. I would like to talk about Movie Adaptations, and just how true should they be to their source materials, I will list some examples of movie adaptations and how successful they have been. Let’s get it on.
- THE PLOT TWISTER
A lot of movies nowadays, that are based on pre-existing novels or comics tend to rewrite the whole story to the extent that the only similarity left is the title. An example of such issues is the zombie infestation movie, World War Z, I actually have not read the book, but a couple of my friends that have read have lamented at the absolute difference between the book and the movie. I was not a huge fan of the movie, but since I never read the book, I couldn’t decide its originality on my own. When it comes to comic books, it is usually easy for screenwriters to develop a script due to the vast world of comic books, but at times the studio does a huge twist that sends fan boys retching in despair, an example would be Iron Man 3, this was a movie that I personally loved, irrespective of its twist, whereas most fan boys were pissed off, this did not stop the movie for making over a billion dollars at the box office. This just goes to show how little the number of fan boys are to the vast majority of regular movie going audience. What are your thoughts?
- THE FAN PLEASER
This is the opposite of the previous point, this is when a movie studio adheres as much possible to the source material. A worthy example would be the 2012 remake of Dredd, this was a movie I personally liked, it was a better step up from the 1995 movie with Sylvester Stallone. Unfortunately I was part of the 5% of the fan boys that loved the perfect adaptation of the movie to its source material, as the movie performed poorly at the box office, despite its high ratings( with a 78% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes). So this just confirms my point that no matter how accurate a movie might be to the source material, and no matter how beloved the movie may be by fan boys, this does not guarantee a box office success, because fans only make up about 5% of the total movie going audience, and studios are after the box office numbers overall.
- THE DOWNRIGHT FAILURE
This is a movie that does nothing right, either to the fan boys or the average moviegoer. This is the example of movies that have not stuck to the source materials and do not even hold out to be called good as movies on their own. A bloodcurdling example would be The Last Airbender, I was a huge fan of the cartoons when I was growing up, so hearing about this movie kept me on my toes. Then the movie came out and it was horrendous, it didn’t stay true to its cartoon counterpart and it was horrible as a movie on its own, with a lackluster story, bland acting and poor direction. This was one of the greatest disappointments to me in film history, the movie is also responsible for effectively wrecking the career of M. Night Shyamalan. Although the movie made a substantial amount at the box office, the negative feedback seems to have halted the release of a sequel, though Shyamalan has been talking about doing a sequel. What are your thoughts?
- THE ULTIMATE WINNER
This is my final point and it refers to those movies which have both satisfied the fan boys and the movie going audience. A livid example would be Marvel’s The Avengers, which as being called the father of all comic book movies. This was a movie that served up what everyone had been waiting for. From the direction to the casting to the acting and to the action sequences. This is a movie worth watching for all ages, a movie adaptation that stayed true to the comics and still delivered to its average moviegoers. I can’t wait for the sequel. This is my view on movie adaptations, what are yours? Feel free to leave a comment below. Till next time. Szia.
Hello there my fellow readers, I have gotten some complaints that my previous posts on Weekend Matter can not be seen so I am going to be reposting them every weekend. Please bear with me. Welcome to yet another new segment in my blog sphere, I plan on talking about a specific topic every weekend. Today I would like to talk about a particular topic that sparks controversies among people today, that is movie inaccuracies, honestly i am not to bothered with the authenticity of the premise of a movie as long as the actions taking place are plausible. When it comes to historical inaccuracies in the case of movies based on true stories, the same notion holds for me. I would like to delve into three points as to why I think movie inaccuracies should not be taking too seriously. This is a subjective matter, so feel free to interject and leave your own comments. In light of the Superbowl commercials, which is what most people go to see. Let’s get it on.
- ENTERTAINMENT NOT EDUCATION
My first point is based on the sole reason that we all whisk ourselves into movie theaters in the first place, one does not go to see Fast Five because they want to learn about the different types of car suspensions, although I agree that a movie should have a base sense of realism in order to relate with the audience. If one wants to learn about cars they can simply go watch a documentary on cars. Directors like Quentin Tarantino go under fire for their takes on alternate realities, I had a friend who went to see the Inglorious Basterds and was angry because Hitler was shown to have been shot and killed by those Americans rather than commit suicide like he actually did, as it remixes the truth about what happened in real life, so I told him that Quentin’s take on the movie was simply set in an alternate WWII era. But of course there are some seriously themed movies that require one to relate with characters on screen, a definitive example is the award winning Argo, directed by Ben Affleck, it tells the tale of Tony Mendez, a CIA operative who is tasked with leading six U.S. diplomats out of Iran during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis. Although there were several controversies, from the larger role of the Canadians to the Iranian authorities roles, but one particular point I would like to bring out is the chase at the runway that occurs in the movie. In reality the actual people that were involved said that there was no imminent danger at the airport but when the scene was thrown in the movie, it created a perfect wave of adrenaline as the audience secretly wishes the safety of the diplomats. This is an example of what I mean by entertainment not education, if all movies based on true events were shot scene for scene, we might have ourselves a plethora of documentaries that people might not find very captivating. If any one wishes to know what actually took place in Iran, they could read the book written by Tony Mendez himself titled Master of Disguise, and stop complaining about how inaccurate the movie was.
- BENJAMIN’S BOYS
Another factor that is put into consideration is the monetary factor, a movie studio is all about making money from a movie or TV project, of course whenever they are dealing with biopics, they have to stay as true to the material as possible, although at times, when a studio is shooting a biopic on a certain person that is acknowledged by most as an epitome of bravery and leadership, the studio often tends to bend the story a bit in order to spice up the tale of the character in the movie. It goes as far as family members of the icon paying the studio to only showcase the memorable and charismatic side of the person in the biopic. Movie studios have been doing this for a very long time, and it seems to always fetch them the right amount of money. If one wants to know all about the story of Princess Diana for example, then they should read online or watch a documentary that showcases her life, rather than bank on the upcoming Diana movie starring Naomi Watts, which showcases her controversial love life.
- SCIENCE, BABY
This is one of the controversial issues in movies nowadays, especially when it comes to sci-fi or fantasy based movies, most times they are rapidly panned for scientific discrepancies. For example, the recent sci-fi disaster movie Gravity which scored big at the box office and with critics alike, was panned by astrophysicist guru, Neil deGrasse Tyson who pointed out some inaccuracies, from the different altitudes of the various space stations, the unnecessary and implausible sacrifice of Matt Kowalski played by George Clooney to the lack of hair suspension when Ryan Stone played by Sandra Bullock was in zero gravity. Although some of the accusations are grounded, this did not matter to most of the target audience who were too blown away by the visuals to notice. Another example is that of G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra, although this movie did not perform well enough, it was because of the movie’s story and not its scientific inaccuracies, most critics panned the sinking of the ice fortress, which would be impossible since ice is lighter than water, but that does not matter to the targeted demographic. This is all I have time for, please feel free to comment and air your thoughts. I still stand on my opinion that movies should be seen more as conduits of entertainment rather than strongholds of education. Till next time. Szia.