Tyson Adams

Putting the 'ill' back in thriller

Archive for the category “Video”

Book vs Movie: The Sex of Game of Thrones – What’s the Difference

hqdefault

This month CineFix do the episode of What’s the Difference? you’ve been waiting for. No, not The Game of Thrones differences. The sex scene differences of The Game of Thrones.

People are often surprised when I tell them I’m not a fan of The Game of Thrones. But after abandoning both the first book and first season, there isn’t much that could get me interested in coming back.

Some people have tried to convince me that there is plenty of nudity and sex in the books and show. I like to point out that 4% of the internet is porn. When I’ve tried pointing out that most of the characters either die or aren’t protagonists you want to follow, the response is always Tyrion Lannister is awesome…. So that’s one character. I can see why many people love both the books and TV show, but just not for me. Unless it is in a highlights reel format.

Thug Notes summary and analysis of A Song of Fire and Ice.

Wisecracks comparison to The Sopranos and Interregnum

Why The Hobbit Sucks

maxresdefault

Before anyone starts, I’ve always thought The Hobbit sucked. I was never a fan of the book, so even a semi-faithful movie adaptation was going to underwhelm me. But there are lessons to be learned by writers (and readers) from The Hobbit movies.

Recently I had a series of posts (1, 2, 3) about The Lord of the Rings movie adaptations, in which I discussed how much I enjoyed them. The movies managed to be awesome and cut out the long waffly bits. The movies were better than the book. But what about the 3 movie adaptation of the 1 book story? Well, here’s a 6 video discussion of the 3 movie adaptation of the 1 book story!

Just Write/Sage Rants dissects the flaws in The Hobbit movies. The videos highlight some of the more important aspects of storytelling and payoffs for the reader, and how they weren’t well handled.

The Characters – The Dwarves

Tensionless Action

Unresolved Plot Lines

Bad Romance

Philo$ophy of Adaptation

Comments and the Extended Editions

Taking Criticism

One of the most important aspects of writing is taking criticism. It is an important skill that you need to develop in order to:

  • Tell the critic how wrong they are;
  • Explain to the critic in excruciating detail how they just don’t understand your art;
  • Make an extensive list of places the critic can go to think about their mistakes.

See more from JP:

maxresdefault1

Book to Movie: All You Need Is Kill – What’s the Difference?

maxresdefault

This month Cinefix’s What’s the Difference? tackles the underappreciated Edge of Tomorrow, and it’s source material, All You Need Is Kill. I’d so watch a film called All You Need Is Kill, even if it did have Tom Cruise in it.

Unfortunately I haven’t read the Manga, which appears to have some differences between it and the novel. I read the light novel of All You Need Is Kill before watching the movie. Whilst there are major similarities between the two, they are quite different. Edge of Tomorrow flirts with comedy, while anything with the title All You Need Is Kill is clearly going to have a darker tone. A film starring Tom Cruise is always going to have a Hollywood glamour to it that a novel can dispense with.

The biggest difference between the two is the ending. I said in my review of the film that they should have stuck with the book’s ending. The way the movie ended was the equivalent of “it was all a dream”, whilst the book ending had consequence and substance. Admittedly, watching Tom Cruise kill Emily Blunt would have had audiences outraged (#TeamBlunt) but I’m sure they could have deus ex machina-d something better than what was served up.

Interestingly, Hiroshi is writing a Manga sequel and they’ve announced a movie sequel. I wonder how similar those two will be?

Book to Movie: Lord of the Rings The Return of the King – What’s the Difference?

Previously in What’s the Difference? the Cinefix team have covered The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. So it is time to wrap up their coverage of Lord of the Rings with The Return of the King… and enough partings to make you think you are a hairdresser.

A lot of epic stuff happens in the last third of the Lord of the Rings. A lot of tearful goodbyes happen as well. Honestly, when you are reading the paper version you reach the first ending and can’t figure out why there are so many pages left. By the third ending you start wondering if it will ever end.

As I’ve previously discussed for the other instalments, I think the movie is a fantastic adaptation. The minor changes, like Sam not putting on the ring, don’t make much difference – but that one didn’t make much sense either. The major differences are actually quite welcome. Except one.

First I’d like to comment on Sam not wearing the ring. I actually thought that whilst being a minor point, it was also very important to his character and the later act of carrying Frodo. Sam experienced just for a short moment the burden Frodo bore. It helped him redouble his efforts. And also made for a more believable way for Sam to infiltrate the Orc camp.

The major difference that I thought should have been in the film was the reclaiming of The Shire from Saruman. Obviously we’d already had too many endings and needed another one like an extra hole in our heads. But the heroes returned from war to a village ignorant/indifferent to the war and the sacrifice – can anyone say Vietnam vets? That isn’t really a happy ending. By having the heroes come home and expel the evil from their village as well, it would have shown their growth as warriors, but also tied their sacrifice to the people they had defended…. Plus, it would have been another action scene in a boring section of the film.

Now that Cinefix have finished with Lord of the Rings it is hard to know what they will cover next. Fingers crossed that is a 6 video coverage of the 3 movie adaptation of the 1 book story The Hobbit.

Edit: Since posting this article I’ve come across a video that explains why the ending of The Return of the King feels so long. The video below argues that it isn’t too long, but rather there is a gap between when the plot finishes and where the story does.

Of course, there is a 30 minute gap between the plot finishing and the story ending. The tension has been resolved so the film feels to drag on, entering Ending Fatigue. 30 minutes out of 558 is 10.7% of your run time devoted to that gap. That’s a lot of time. If they had managed to use less screen time for the story ending/s then we wouldn’t have noticed. Or if people were first watching the films in a marathon, such that 30 minutes out of +9 hours feels shorter, then they’d notice less.

Terrible Writing Advice – Evil Empires

This Youtube channel has lots of great material for budding writers. World building is often done without much thought. J.P. Beaubien runs through how to create the antagonist Evil Empire.

Read more here.

Writer’s Block

3prtom

Writers are very special people. We are so special that we have to have our own special terms instead of using the ones everyone else uses. For example, what everyone else calls procrastination is what a writer would term Writer’s Block. And because writers are so special, their procrastination isn’t just a time suck, it is THE WORST THING EVA!!!

Terrible Writing Advice has a terrific video to help understand this affliction.

Suffer no more.

Book to Movie: Lord of the Rings Two Towers – What’s the Difference?

Last month Cinefix covered The Fellowship of the Ring. This month they cover The Two Towers with What’s the Difference?

For me the middle third of the Lord of the Rings was both the most enjoyable and most annoying. As mentioned in the video, there are three tales running separately and rather than moving between these tales as they unfold in the narrative, we jump back to start again for each perspective. The book has some of the most memorable moments in this section – I may or may not have named one of my computers Entwash – but the order of events feels confused. Sorry, not confused, more drawn out, which for a novel that includes a hell of a lot of walking is something unneeded.

As with The Fellowship of the Ring, I think the movie is a fantastic adaptation. Seeing the battles brought to life was certainly a highlight. Nothing quite like watching Ents smash up Isengard rather than just reading about it.

Next month we’ll see the last instalment from Cinefix. Well, until the 6 video coverage of the 3 movie adaptation of the 1 book story The Hobbit.

Book to Movie: Lord of the Rings – What’s the Difference?

This month’s What’s the Difference? from CineFix covers the Fellowship of the Ring section of Lord of the Rings.

Let’s be honest here, the movies were better.

Whilst I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings in both movie and book form, to call the books waffly and slow-moving is an understatement. As pointed out in the CineFix video, huge passages of time elapse before anything actually happens in the book. The adventure Frodo sets out upon literally takes decades to start, such that you forget what the inciting call to adventure is.

The movie also establishes the stakes and opposing forces better. This not only sets the clock ticking but raises tension and consequence. Meanwhile the book has plenty of pipe smoking and walking. In fairness, Tom Bombadil is a highlight that is sorely missing from the movie – although I doubt that the lyricism of his presence would translate to the screen from the page.

In all, this is one of the few examples where the movie was superior. And shorter. Much shorter.

Book vs Movie: Shawshank Redemption – What’s the Difference?

Nothing quite like comparing one of the best movies of all time with its source material. This month CineFix do with What’s the Difference? on The Shawshank Redemption.

It’s odd that I have read Stephen King’s The Body but haven’t read Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, given that they shared space in the same collection. But then I don’t often read novellas and short stories, as I prefer novels. I often think that shorter stories make for easier movie adaptations as the filmmakers don’t have to trim material the same way. Of course there are two problems with that thinking:

  1. It assumes that filmmakers actually read the source material (see here, here, herehere….)
  2. It assumes that filmmakers aren’t quite content to stretch source material out to fill as much cinema time as possible, no matter how bad an idea that is. *cough* The Hobbit *cough*

I recently saw a listicle that suggested Shawshank was one of the movies you should have in your collection. That is clearly wrong. If you can’t turn on the TV and catch it on rerun then your TV is broken or you have found Die Hard on instead. Why own it? Which brings me to possibly the only real gripe there is to be had with Shawshank, and that is its over-popularity. Exactly how many times can it play on TV before people start becoming annoyed? At what point does the audience start to groan at what was once a great movie? Can great art remain timeless if you beat everyone over the head with it? I fear the answers.

Book vs Movie: A Clockwork Orange – What’s the Difference?

Time for some ultra-violence with this month’s instalment of CineFix’s What’s the Difference?

I can’t remember if I read the book or watched the movie first. A Clockwork Orange was a novel in my parents’ collection of novels, which is why I turned out so well. I do remember the novel wasn’t as easy to consume as the movie, mainly because you can interpret spoken language more easily than understanding the lexicon employed in Burgess’ written words.

This may be a somewhat shocking statement, but I’m not much of a fan of Stanley Kubrick’s films. I always found them somewhat bland, as though there were a lot of empty space on the screen. As such, there are parts of the film I find to be bordering on dull, and others that strike me as weird and hammy (such as the scene with Alex’s parol officer). Meanwhile, the book managed to be entertaining and yet critical of youth culture whilst discussing free will.

It is ironic that I would enjoy a book that is critical of “kids these days”. But the fact that it was written in 1962 only further proves my point that complaining about the younger generation has been a popular pastime for old people since the invention of young people. Oh, and free will probably doesn’t exist.

I Before E “Rule”

i-before-e

That’s right. Never trust anything the grammarians say, with their “rules” and mnemonics.

Apparently the 923 words figure comes from a QI fan who crunched the numbers from Scrabble. Most of the words are more obscure, so the rule is probably okay for the average person, and invaluable to football commentators.

Merry Season’s Holidays!

north_pole_cartoon

From me to you, have an enjoyable festive season.

See you in 2017!

Book vs Movie: Die Hard – What’s the Difference?

die-hard-is-the-best-christmas-movie-of-all-time

What better time of year for CineFix to do a What’s the Difference? episode on the best Xmas movie of all time!

While I have gotten my grubby hands on the Roderick Thorp novel (Nothing Last Forever), I must confess to not having read it as yet. It is probably a good thing I don’t mind spoilers. Hope you don’t mind either, because, you know, spoiler alert.

The differences between the two endings is interesting. Having the watch moment with McClane’s wife/daughter play out differently, and Dwayne Robinson’s sacrifice, would not have made this a classic Xmas movie. So it makes sense that the movie’s creative team changed those things to make this a more upbeat ending.

Enjoy the season rewatching all the the Die Hard movies… except A Good Day to Die Hard: that is an abomination and an offence against not only cinema, but the good name of Die Hard.

uqhwzod

Book vs Movie: Harry Potter part 3 – What’s the Difference?

This month CineFix finishes their series covering the Harry Potter movie adaptations. This instalment discusses the differences between the Half-Blood Prince and The Deadly Hallows books, and their associated movies in What’s the Difference?

It has to be said that the movie adaptations made some odd choices of material to drop, and this created problems as the series went on. If the movies were meant to be independent of the books then you would have a hard time following some of the minor plot points or McGuffins. The mirror shard and Snape as the Half-Blood Prince reveal are just two examples. I actually thought the wand lore and Deathly Hallows were poorly handled in the movies, but it has been some time since I saw the movies, so I could be misremembering.

One thing that really annoyed me about the adaptation of the Half-Blood Prince was the Burrows attack. Not only did that make the Burrows a non-safe house ahead of schedule for the series, as discussed in the video, but it served no purpose to the plot of the movie. It was obvious why the movie makers did this: they needed some action for pacing. Because tension and suspense are so 1950’s. Considering the attack wasn’t in the book and there were action set-pieces they were ignoring or about to get to, it stuck out like a sore thumb in a proctologist’s office.

The other thing worth mentioning is the omission or marginalising of the minor characters from the books. Tonks is an obvious one, especially given the tragedy that befalls she and Lupin, and thus her son. But ensemble casts are hard to manage in a movie, so trimming is always going to happen. But one of the unforgivable marginalisations is discussed in the video: Neville Longbottom. Since he was the second possible “chosen one”, he really deserved better in the movies, especially later in the series. The other character that gets a short shrift is Luna Lovegood. I liked the implication in the books that Harry and friends felt guilty for not realising that Luna regarded them as close friends. And don’t get me started on SPEW and Dobby.

With this series on the Harry Potter adaptations done, I think it is time to raise a chief criticism of the Harry Potter movies. I actually think the books would have been better suited by a TV series adaptation. Of course, they started doing the adaptations before that was the cool thing to do with potentially big franchises. So while it is easy to forget that once upon a time not every fantasy author was clamouring for an HBO series based on their books, that time did exist. Of course, several billion dollars in movie earnings probably disagrees with me.

Are Bob Dylan Lyrics Literature?

43168-1

PBS Ideas Channel had an interesting take on this contentious topic. And as is always the case, it isn’t really that simple.

I’m near the front of the queue to criticise literature for being a dry and dreary form of art that sucks the life out of its audience. But of course, as Mike discusses in the video, literature isn’t as easily defined as my dismissive rhetoric would imply. What defines literature isn’t arbitrary, but it is often about who is defining or classifying a work as such. My criticisms of literature stem from who perform this classifying, as they will often be people like Jonathan Jones – who said Terry Pratchett sucked – who will criticise the literary merits of works they haven’t read. These arbiters of artistic merit (i.e. snobs) like certain things, thus those certain things are worthy. They create lists of these worthy things and tell us we need to read them at school, study them at university, and expound on how much better these works are… until they actually read one of the unworthy ones and have to eat humble pie.

So the literary and artistic merit we often operate under in society is more about what a certain group of people like. But as Mike points out, that isn’t a good definition, and literature, and “good” art in general, are harder to define. Essentially anything can be literature. And even then the status of a work being literary may be revoked, or instated, as tastes change. Thus referring to Dylan’s lyrics as literature is probably about making us all think about lyrics as an art-form, something that has social defamiliarization. Lyrics are, after all, a form of poetry that are no less artful. Maybe this award will help us acknowledge that art/literature is all around us.

Don’t worry Nickelback, your literary award is surely just lost in the mail.

Book vs Movie: The Crow – What’s the Difference?

Is The Crow one of your favourite cult movies? Well, it should be. CineFix discuss the movie and the comic it was based upon in this month’s What’s the Difference?

The Crow remains one of my favourite films, which probably says a lot about my teenage years. The comic it is based upon, however, was not a book I enjoyed reading.

As the video mentions, author James O’Barr wrote the comic as a way of coping with the death of his girlfriend at the hands of a drunk driver. The book is bleak, and when not being directly about revenge, it is darkly introspective and depressing. The main character is clearly a form of Super Id – drawn as lean, muscular, 6’5″, invulnerable, unstoppable – and acts as a form of cathartic revenge against a cruel world. That might be fine for a Steven Seagal movie, but there’s a reason why you had to look up who Seagal was just now.

The movie is an example of a great adaptation, especially considering the film couldn’t be completed as intended after the unfortunate death of Brandon Lee. They managed to capture so much of the tone and character of the book whilst not making a movie that would have you slitting your wrists halfway through. The video refers to this as Hollywoodising, but I think they are being too harsh. The story was a revenge tale, but the movie manages to create an actual character arc and have more compelling bad guys. Case in point: Michael Wincott’s Top Dollar. The movie also trims off the bleak stuff in favour of a more cohesive narrative. This is why I had a poster from the movie on my wall and gave the comic away.

Do we consume media?

encoding_decoding_of_broadcast_structures

It is common for us to refer to books we read, movies and TV shows we watch, and whatever it is we do with news, in terms of consumption. But is that accurate? PBS Ideas Channel has an interesting video on this topic.

I like the idea of decoding as an explanation for how we interact with media. It certainly offers a better explanation for how some people will interpret something completely differently than if they were to merely consume it. Decoding also makes me feel much better about writing violent stories, and that is the important thing here: justifying stuff I already like.

Book to Movie: Harry Potter part 2 – What’s the Difference?

Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix are covered in this month’s instalment of What’s The Difference? from CineFix. Previously they covered earlier books and movies, this is part 2 of 3. Grab a butterbeer and enjoy.

For me Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire were when the series really took off. The earlier two books were clearly aimed at a younger audience than my snobbish adult reading ways would allow me to fully to enjoy. And when you look on your bookshelf, you’ll notice how much thinner those first two books are – yes, I am assuming you have them in paper on a bookshelf in your house. You aren’t weird, are you? The extra length of the later books in the Harry Potter series also signals a narrative that has matured with its audience – those pre-teens were going to become teens at some stage, just like their favourite book characters.

This extra length also makes the novels harder to adapt faithfully. As the video covers, there are some interesting ways they achieve this, but it also means they have to make other changes that are troublesome for the later movies in the series. For me the Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare being skipped over in the movies is an obvious choice, but also one that removes an important layer to the narrative. It is, after all, the Elfish uprising that helps turn the tide in the fight/war against Voldermort. This element can help you see the conflict as more worldly, rather than focussed on one school in the UK. Unless the Wizarding World is only confined to Europe and the UK is the centre of the EU….

There is probably an argument to be made for Harry Potter to be turned into a TV series that faithfully adapts the books to the small screen. HBO would be interested for sure, as long as they could cast +18 year olds with no nudity clauses in their contracts.

Book to movie: The Warriors – What’s The Difference?

The-warriors-poster-artwork-michael-beck-james-remar-david-patrick-kelly

Did you know that the cult classic, The Warriors, was based on a novel? How about that the novel was based on the ancient Greek tale Anabasis? Cinefix explain in this month’s What’s the Difference.

I can’t really comment much on this instalment as I’ve not seen the entire movie, nor read either the novel by Sol Yurick nor Xenophon’s tale. But it is interesting that even a cult action film about street gangs has pedigree origins. This reinforces a point I’ve often made here; that we shouldn’t be snobby about the things other people like. We might like to think that our subjective taste is better but often we don’t even appreciate how biased we are in that taste. A book/movie about a gang on the run could be one person’s retelling of a Greek tale, or it could be another person’s mindless genre piece. Or it could be both.

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: