Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Mar 18, 2013 22:17:51 GMT -5
I'm okay with changes that don't effect the tone, integral plot points, and characterization of the source material. That's my major problem with the Nolan Batman movies. He changed SO MUCH of the Batman characters and universe that he completely missed the point of Batman.
The point of Batman is that Bruce Wayne was so psychologically scarred and disturbed by his parents' murder that his TRUE IDENTITY is the person he is inside the Batman costume, and "Bruce Wayne" is a complete facade. In Nolan's films, he's presented as being psychologically healthy and his acting as Batman is him putting on a character to do a public service that he feels obligated to do. That's not Batman. Batman does what he does because it's the only way he can keep himself "sane". That's why I much prefer Tim Burton's take on Batman. He changed plenty from the source material, but Batman was definitely properly characterized.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,410
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Mar 18, 2013 22:27:13 GMT -5
The Lord of the Rings trilogy was only about 70% accurate to the books but were fantastic films. I love the books, but if they were adapted faithfully they would make tedious viewing. This is why I am worried about the third Hobbit film. The Battle of the Five Armies should take part in that and that is the part that the classic Rankin/Bass animated film just fell off of the tracks for me. Granted, Peter Jackson has earned some optimistic faith from me, so maybe it will be as awesome as it should be.
|
|
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Mar 18, 2013 22:32:30 GMT -5
Depends on the source material. Comic book movies (at least Marvel ones) tend to be faithful to a t to the source, even bettering it at times with logical reinterpretations. Making Obadiah Stane Tony Stark's mentor in Iron Man works far better than having him as a guy buying him out after Tony went on a bender, introducing him for the first time in that storyline, for instance. Having Ozymandias frame Doctor Manhattan instead of creating an elaborate film hoax makes worlds more sense in Watchmen. Having Marvel actually being the studio behind their films (the ones in the Cinematic Universe) helps a lot with keeping said films faithful to the letter.
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Mar 18, 2013 22:39:49 GMT -5
The Lord of the Rings trilogy was only about 70% accurate to the books but were fantastic films. I love the books, but if they were adapted faithfully they would make tedious viewing. I've only read The Hobbit and Fellowship of the Ring. Glad they cut the fat out of the Fellowship movie, felt the book was poorly paced. Unfortunately they added fat to make The Hobbit a trilogy.
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Mar 18, 2013 23:02:53 GMT -5
I'm okay with changes that don't effect the tone, integral plot points, and characterization of the source material. That's my major problem with the Nolan Batman movies. He changed SO MUCH of the Batman characters and universe that he completely missed the point of Batman. The point of Batman is that Bruce Wayne was so psychologically scarred and disturbed by his parents' murder that his TRUE IDENTITY is the person he is inside the Batman costume, and "Bruce Wayne" is a complete facade. In Nolan's films, he's presented as being psychologically healthy and his acting as Batman is him putting on a character to do a public service that he feels obligated to do. That's not Batman. Batman does what he does because it's the only way he can keep himself "sane". That's why I much prefer Tim Burton's take on Batman. He changed plenty from the source material, but Batman was definitely properly characterized. I disagree. You are giving Burton too much credit. Didn't delve that far into the character's psyche to say being Batman was the only way to keep himself sane. Plus Nolan's Batman was the one closer to the source material. Keaton didn't remotely fit the part physically. Burton said it himself, didn't see why a true badass would have to resort to being Batman to fight crime. Burton's Bats was a rich guy with some training and plenty of money for toys. Nolan's Batman actually fit the part and he dropped out of society to travel the globe to prepare himself mentally and physically to return to Gotham and achieve justice. Nolan's Batman doesn't have totally the same psyche as the comic Batman but overall the character is definitely closer than Burton's.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Mar 18, 2013 23:08:37 GMT -5
The Lord of the Rings trilogy was only about 70% accurate to the books but were fantastic films. I love the books, but if they were adapted faithfully they would make tedious viewing. Is this with or without all the deleted scenes? Even with the deleted scenes there's huge chunks of the books missing, characters with different motivations, and changes to the narratives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 23:11:01 GMT -5
I care zero percent. I mean, hopefully the general tone and themes in the book are translated to the film version, but outside of that...if I want the exact same story from the source material I'll just read the story in the source material. This
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Mar 18, 2013 23:28:57 GMT -5
I'm okay with changes that don't effect the tone, integral plot points, and characterization of the source material. That's my major problem with the Nolan Batman movies. He changed SO MUCH of the Batman characters and universe that he completely missed the point of Batman. The point of Batman is that Bruce Wayne was so psychologically scarred and disturbed by his parents' murder that his TRUE IDENTITY is the person he is inside the Batman costume, and "Bruce Wayne" is a complete facade. In Nolan's films, he's presented as being psychologically healthy and his acting as Batman is him putting on a character to do a public service that he feels obligated to do. That's not Batman. Batman does what he does because it's the only way he can keep himself "sane". That's why I much prefer Tim Burton's take on Batman. He changed plenty from the source material, but Batman was definitely properly characterized. I disagree. You are giving Burton too much credit. Didn't delve that far into the character's psyche to say being Batman was the only way to keep himself sane. Plus Nolan's Batman was the one closer to the source material. Keaton didn't remotely fit the part physically. Burton said it himself, didn't see why a true badass would have to resort to being Batman to fight crime. Burton's Bats was a rich guy with some training and plenty of money for toys. Nolan's Batman actually fit the part and he dropped out of society to travel the globe to prepare himself mentally and physically to return to Gotham and achieve justice. Nolan's Batman doesn't have totally the same psyche as the comic Batman but overall the character is definitely closer than Burton's. How is Bruce Wayne constantly whining about wanting a normal life and trying to quit being Batman anything like the character? It's the exact opposite of Batman. I was never saying Keaton was perfect, and I never said anything about his physique. That has nothing to do with how he was written. In Tim Burton's Batman, Batman was clearly the real persona and Bruce Wayne was the costume. Any time you saw Bruce alone with Alfred, the voice coming from him was the same as his Batman voice. Public Bruce Wayne at the party sounded like normal Michael Keaton. That movie's Batman is far truer to the character than Nolan's. Saying otherwise is just outright incorrect.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,410
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Mar 18, 2013 23:50:14 GMT -5
The Lord of the Rings trilogy was only about 70% accurate to the books but were fantastic films. I love the books, but if they were adapted faithfully they would make tedious viewing. I've only read The Hobbit and Fellowship of the Ring. Glad they cut the fat out of the Fellowship movie, felt the book was poorly paced. Unfortunately they added fat to make The Hobbit a trilogy. Actually, they fleshed out scenes that in the books flash by without much embellishment. The scene with the giants I think actually took more minutes to watch than the book had sentences that covered it. Same with the race to Rivendell and the scenes involving the goblins. The book just crammed stuff in and then fleshed some stuff out in the appendixes.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Mar 18, 2013 23:53:26 GMT -5
It's been too long since I read Willy Wonka but my impression was that Tim Burton deviated at least as much as the older film did. What with all that dentist, father crisis bulls***.
I think out of pity for Tim Burton people excuse his terrible movie by saying it's closer to the book, where there's just as much dramatic license being taken.
That said, I try to always evaluate films on their own merits, not in relation to any source material.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 23:57:50 GMT -5
I'm one of those that gets annoyed when films aren't faithful to the source material.
|
|
|
Post by britishbulldog on Mar 18, 2013 23:58:07 GMT -5
For the first 2 parts "Atlas Shrugged" has kept very close to the source material.
|
|
|
Post by BorneAgain on Mar 19, 2013 0:03:29 GMT -5
It's been too long since I read Willy Wonka but my impression was that Tim Burton deviated at least as much as the older film did. What with all that dentist, father crisis bulls***. I think out of pity for Tim Burton people excuse his terrible movie by saying it's closer to the book, where there's just as much dramatic license being taken. Up until the last 15 minutes the film follows it pretty close. Includes Charlie's father, lyrics from the songs in the book, a scene with Prince Pondicherry, and Veruca Salt's fate as a bad nut, and so forth. Its odd because Burton more or less made a faithful adaptation up until throwing in that dentist stuff. Curious what Dahl would have thought considering he hated the 1971 film.
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Mar 19, 2013 1:06:31 GMT -5
I disagree. You are giving Burton too much credit. Didn't delve that far into the character's psyche to say being Batman was the only way to keep himself sane. Plus Nolan's Batman was the one closer to the source material. Keaton didn't remotely fit the part physically. Burton said it himself, didn't see why a true badass would have to resort to being Batman to fight crime. Burton's Bats was a rich guy with some training and plenty of money for toys. Nolan's Batman actually fit the part and he dropped out of society to travel the globe to prepare himself mentally and physically to return to Gotham and achieve justice. Nolan's Batman doesn't have totally the same psyche as the comic Batman but overall the character is definitely closer than Burton's. How is Bruce Wayne constantly whining about wanting a normal life and trying to quit being Batman anything like the character? It's the exact opposite of Batman. I was never saying Keaton was perfect, and I never said anything about his physique. That has nothing to do with how he was written. In Tim Burton's Batman, Batman was clearly the real persona and Bruce Wayne was the costume. Any time you saw Bruce alone with Alfred, the voice coming from him was the same as his Batman voice. Public Bruce Wayne at the party sounded like normal Michael Keaton. That movie's Batman is far truer to the character than Nolan's. Saying otherwise is just outright incorrect. Batman was clearly the real personna in the Burton flicks? I just didn't see the same thing, if you did that is great, film is subjective and everyone has their own interpretation. IMO the Burton flick didn't delve enough into his character to make that statement. I don't think Nolan got Batman's psyche down by any means, yes he was ready to drop it all. But OVERALL I'll take the Batman in the Nolan flicks over the Batman in the Burton.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Mar 19, 2013 1:17:00 GMT -5
How is Bruce Wayne constantly whining about wanting a normal life and trying to quit being Batman anything like the character? It's the exact opposite of Batman. I was never saying Keaton was perfect, and I never said anything about his physique. That has nothing to do with how he was written. In Tim Burton's Batman, Batman was clearly the real persona and Bruce Wayne was the costume. Any time you saw Bruce alone with Alfred, the voice coming from him was the same as his Batman voice. Public Bruce Wayne at the party sounded like normal Michael Keaton. That movie's Batman is far truer to the character than Nolan's. Saying otherwise is just outright incorrect. Batman was clearly the real personna in the Burton flicks? I just didn't see the same thing, if you did that is great, film is subjective and everyone has their own interpretation. IMO the Burton flick didn't delve enough into his character to make that statement. I don't think Nolan got Batman's psyche down by any means, yes he was ready to drop it all. But OVERALL I'll take the Batman in the Nolan flicks over the Batman in the Burton. Honestly, I agree with Hit-Monkey, I think the Burton films are much closer to the source material. It reminds me a lot more of Batman comics, and I also don't see what makes Christian Bale such a badass. He doesn't look tough to me at all. In fact, in a fight between the two I'd probably bet on Keaton.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Mar 19, 2013 1:36:17 GMT -5
In fact, in a fight between the two I'd probably bet on Keaton. That's because Keaton doesn't have a problem killing anyone. Whereas Bale would make a convoluted scheme to prevent him killing, only to put other people's lives at risk. Honestly, I would have given the edge to Bale's Batman if it weren't for the third film. It made him look glaringly stupid.
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,016
|
Post by nate5054 on Mar 19, 2013 3:13:05 GMT -5
I care zero percent. I mean, hopefully the general tone and themes in the book are translated to the film version, but outside of that...if I want the exact same story from the source material I'll just read the story in the source material. I agree, I don't give a damn at all either. Though it's perfect fair to say the book is much better than the movie if the source material (ie the book) is better.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 19, 2013 3:43:44 GMT -5
I'd rather they do their damnedest to capture the spirit of the source material (IE Hunger Games, Game of Thrones series, the Marvel Movies) then try to hard to get the specifics of the story and miss the entire point (Watchmen, Cat in the Hat, The Scarlet Letter all certainly got the look generally right and that's about it.)
My favorite adaptation is the underrated Great Expectations which is miles apart from the novel but has the same spirit and tells a similar story using the differing format film allows to maximize its potential.
|
|
|
Post by austinariesfan88 on Mar 19, 2013 7:20:48 GMT -5
When it comes to comic book movies, Green Lantern was very faithful to its original source.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Mar 19, 2013 8:09:00 GMT -5
For me:
Nolan Batman movies were great because they were as realistic as they could be
LOTR, except skipping Bombadil I am fine with the cutting and realignment
My pick for best departure from source material is Fight Club. I just thought the movie was better. Certainly had a better ending
|
|