Thoughts on movies based on life or books
-
In the USA movies are made that change facts (life) or story (books) to fit the directors vision. Then the masses believe the movie. This ticks me off. I realize when making a movie from a book things need to change but take 'Starship Troopers', besides the names and general situations the movie and the book are nothing alike. For a real life change, look at Al Gore and his Global Warming scam, they have had to change the name of phenomenon to climate change. By the way temperatures in this area have been running several degrees below normal for about a year.
-
In the USA movies are made that change facts (life) or story (books) to fit the directors vision. Then the masses believe the movie. This ticks me off. I realize when making a movie from a book things need to change but take 'Starship Troopers', besides the names and general situations the movie and the book are nothing alike. For a real life change, look at Al Gore and his Global Warming scam, they have had to change the name of phenomenon to climate change. By the way temperatures in this area have been running several degrees below normal for about a year.
djj55 wrote:
For a real life change, look at Al Gore and his Global Warming scam, they have had to change the name of phenomenon to climate change. By the way temperatures in this area have been running several degrees below normal for about a year.
And of course, one area of the world being colder over course of a year invalidates anything which may hint we're impacting the earth's climate over decades. Al Gore is a twat who's run with some science that could get him attention, but at the very least attack the sensationalism of his approach, or the science backing the basis of his hype with something substantial. Otherwise you're doing the same kind of thing he's guilty of.
-
djj55 wrote:
For a real life change, look at Al Gore and his Global Warming scam, they have had to change the name of phenomenon to climate change. By the way temperatures in this area have been running several degrees below normal for about a year.
And of course, one area of the world being colder over course of a year invalidates anything which may hint we're impacting the earth's climate over decades. Al Gore is a twat who's run with some science that could get him attention, but at the very least attack the sensationalism of his approach, or the science backing the basis of his hype with something substantial. Otherwise you're doing the same kind of thing he's guilty of.
Distind wrote:
Otherwise you're doing the same kind of thing he's guilty of.
True but my post here will be looked at only by a few. I at least do not lie and say every scientist says there is global warming. I do say there is math to prove any agenda. Having a limited statistics back ground I have enough to know you can prove anything with numbers - true or false! My original post is about the way things are manipulated. I just used the Global Warming scam as an example. Do not get me started on movies by Moore. I could use a "historical" movie as they (not all) tend to leave information out that would not fit with the vision.
-
In the USA movies are made that change facts (life) or story (books) to fit the directors vision. Then the masses believe the movie. This ticks me off. I realize when making a movie from a book things need to change but take 'Starship Troopers', besides the names and general situations the movie and the book are nothing alike. For a real life change, look at Al Gore and his Global Warming scam, they have had to change the name of phenomenon to climate change. By the way temperatures in this area have been running several degrees below normal for about a year.
djj55 wrote:
I realize when making a movie from a book things need to change but take 'Starship Troopers', besides the names and general situations the movie and the book are nothing alike.
Agreed... I've read the book and seen the movie, and you know what? I think this is one of MAYBE a half-dozen films out there, adapted from a book, that are actually BETTER than the source material. The movie was cheesy and unrealistic, sure, but it was a fun popcorn flick. The book felt more like a software manual than a story... It was dull and disappointing. I must say, I'm not a fan of Heinlein, but it's mainly BECAUSE of that book. In more general terms... I'm finishing up my second novel, and I've dabbled in screenwriting in the past, and they're entirely different media. It's not as simple as translating the descriptive prose to prop design, and copying the quotes to script dialog. Books generally go into much, much more detail than could fit in a two hour film, so a direct translation is impossible, so you have to start cutting pieces out (If it's even possible, without spoiling the rest). Then there are the long conversations that, while captivating in a story, may bore the average viewer in the film rendition. As for plots and scene structure... There are certain expectations in movies. People don't want to watch the same person, non-stop, for the entire film. They want to see multiple perspectives. They often want to see the "bad guys", not just hear about them. They want to get up close and personal with the most interesting parts, not see them from the protagonist's distant perspective. As soon as you try to zoom in on something not detailed in the book, you have to add new material, or even new minor characters. I could go on, but you get the idea... Personally, when I'm writing, I "see" the story in my head as if it was a movie, so the transition might be easier for my works... But I doubt all writers work the same way.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
djj55 wrote:
I realize when making a movie from a book things need to change but take 'Starship Troopers', besides the names and general situations the movie and the book are nothing alike.
Agreed... I've read the book and seen the movie, and you know what? I think this is one of MAYBE a half-dozen films out there, adapted from a book, that are actually BETTER than the source material. The movie was cheesy and unrealistic, sure, but it was a fun popcorn flick. The book felt more like a software manual than a story... It was dull and disappointing. I must say, I'm not a fan of Heinlein, but it's mainly BECAUSE of that book. In more general terms... I'm finishing up my second novel, and I've dabbled in screenwriting in the past, and they're entirely different media. It's not as simple as translating the descriptive prose to prop design, and copying the quotes to script dialog. Books generally go into much, much more detail than could fit in a two hour film, so a direct translation is impossible, so you have to start cutting pieces out (If it's even possible, without spoiling the rest). Then there are the long conversations that, while captivating in a story, may bore the average viewer in the film rendition. As for plots and scene structure... There are certain expectations in movies. People don't want to watch the same person, non-stop, for the entire film. They want to see multiple perspectives. They often want to see the "bad guys", not just hear about them. They want to get up close and personal with the most interesting parts, not see them from the protagonist's distant perspective. As soon as you try to zoom in on something not detailed in the book, you have to add new material, or even new minor characters. I could go on, but you get the idea... Personally, when I'm writing, I "see" the story in my head as if it was a movie, so the transition might be easier for my works... But I doubt all writers work the same way.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
If I had not read and liked the book I would have liked the film better. I agree with what you have said, but I still think some movies go too far away from the book. :)
-
In the USA movies are made that change facts (life) or story (books) to fit the directors vision. Then the masses believe the movie. This ticks me off. I realize when making a movie from a book things need to change but take 'Starship Troopers', besides the names and general situations the movie and the book are nothing alike. For a real life change, look at Al Gore and his Global Warming scam, they have had to change the name of phenomenon to climate change. By the way temperatures in this area have been running several degrees below normal for about a year.
-
djj55 wrote:
I realize when making a movie from a book things need to change but take 'Starship Troopers', besides the names and general situations the movie and the book are nothing alike.
Agreed... I've read the book and seen the movie, and you know what? I think this is one of MAYBE a half-dozen films out there, adapted from a book, that are actually BETTER than the source material. The movie was cheesy and unrealistic, sure, but it was a fun popcorn flick. The book felt more like a software manual than a story... It was dull and disappointing. I must say, I'm not a fan of Heinlein, but it's mainly BECAUSE of that book. In more general terms... I'm finishing up my second novel, and I've dabbled in screenwriting in the past, and they're entirely different media. It's not as simple as translating the descriptive prose to prop design, and copying the quotes to script dialog. Books generally go into much, much more detail than could fit in a two hour film, so a direct translation is impossible, so you have to start cutting pieces out (If it's even possible, without spoiling the rest). Then there are the long conversations that, while captivating in a story, may bore the average viewer in the film rendition. As for plots and scene structure... There are certain expectations in movies. People don't want to watch the same person, non-stop, for the entire film. They want to see multiple perspectives. They often want to see the "bad guys", not just hear about them. They want to get up close and personal with the most interesting parts, not see them from the protagonist's distant perspective. As soon as you try to zoom in on something not detailed in the book, you have to add new material, or even new minor characters. I could go on, but you get the idea... Personally, when I'm writing, I "see" the story in my head as if it was a movie, so the transition might be easier for my works... But I doubt all writers work the same way.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
I liked the book. Well, I liked the concept of powered armor and that a single mobile infantry trooper was supposed to be a powerhouse packing insane weapons and even tac nukes. The movie was good in its own way, but the director is a little insane and it was starting to show up in this film. His facist commercial segments were comical but almost got in the way after a while. "I get it, given a chance we all become Nazis, get over it and let's get back to killing bugs. Oh and making Doogie Hauser a member of the SS is funny, yea, for like 5 minutes dude, can we move on now?" Heinlein was always too concerned with how progress would change humanity and not enough with the rest of the books. Telling a story about humanity in a war with aliens is fine and dandy as long as you make sure that you aren't just talking about how it changed the life of a guy and his dad, and also talk about the freaking battles. Most of the fight scenes in the book were ambiguous enough that I had to re-read them several times to figure out exactly what happened. He focused on exposition and feelings and almost glanced over scenarios and actions.
-
djj55 wrote:
I realize when making a movie from a book things need to change but take 'Starship Troopers', besides the names and general situations the movie and the book are nothing alike.
Agreed... I've read the book and seen the movie, and you know what? I think this is one of MAYBE a half-dozen films out there, adapted from a book, that are actually BETTER than the source material. The movie was cheesy and unrealistic, sure, but it was a fun popcorn flick. The book felt more like a software manual than a story... It was dull and disappointing. I must say, I'm not a fan of Heinlein, but it's mainly BECAUSE of that book. In more general terms... I'm finishing up my second novel, and I've dabbled in screenwriting in the past, and they're entirely different media. It's not as simple as translating the descriptive prose to prop design, and copying the quotes to script dialog. Books generally go into much, much more detail than could fit in a two hour film, so a direct translation is impossible, so you have to start cutting pieces out (If it's even possible, without spoiling the rest). Then there are the long conversations that, while captivating in a story, may bore the average viewer in the film rendition. As for plots and scene structure... There are certain expectations in movies. People don't want to watch the same person, non-stop, for the entire film. They want to see multiple perspectives. They often want to see the "bad guys", not just hear about them. They want to get up close and personal with the most interesting parts, not see them from the protagonist's distant perspective. As soon as you try to zoom in on something not detailed in the book, you have to add new material, or even new minor characters. I could go on, but you get the idea... Personally, when I'm writing, I "see" the story in my head as if it was a movie, so the transition might be easier for my works... But I doubt all writers work the same way.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
I like both, the movie and the book, but I also think that in this case the movie is better. The flick is stylized, a little sarcastic and somehow…real/not the Nazi part though/.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.