Tyson Adams

Putting the 'ill' back in thriller

Archive for the category “Video”

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.

Dirk Gently on US TV

Dirk Gently

Yeah, Harry Enfield as Dirk!

Whenever I hear about one of my favourite novels being adapted for the big screen, or the moderate screen that fits in my house, I’m wary. Not wary in a “I hope they don’t mess this up” kind of way, but wary in a “They had better not mess this up” kind of way.

I was very wary of clicking play on the video below for the new BBC America Dirk Gently series. I removed all sharp objects from my immediate vicinity before watching. If you’re a fan of Douglas Adams’ novels, you may want to do the same. Out of wariness.

Well, at least they won’t be butchering Dirk Gently, because I’m not sure that this is Dirk Gently.

This wouldn’t be the first time we’ve seen a book adaptation with the lead character portrayed by someone who doesn’t physically match the role. I’m talking about Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher. Twice. Anyway, I’m not sure that Samuel Barnett really fits the Svlad Cjelli (aka Dirk Gently) middle-aged, overweight, poorly dressed, loser mould.

He is portrayed as a pudgy man who normally wears a heavy old light brown suit, red checked shirt with a green striped tie, long leather coat, red hat and thick metal-rimmed spectacles.#

Okay, so clearly Max Landis and team are going for more of a “youth” vibe. Maybe Barnett will gain weight and change to wearing drab clothes over the course of the series… But that doesn’t explain the car seen in the clip. Gently was famous for not having any money, since his clients never paid him, and subsequently owning a car that reflected that fact. Whilst I’m not really sure what brand/model of car that one was, it did look expensive. Does that mean Gently is now a successful conman? Did his psychic powers finally allow him to back a winning horse? Or are Americans more gullible of conmen if they have British accents?

Then we have not-MacDuff. Elijah Wood is portraying a character named Todd. He’s meant to be more of an everyman for us to relate to (see video below for discussion). So no symphony of nature, no Susan, and probably no hallway couch. I’ll let the hobbit pass. For now.

Even after watching this panel discussion I’m still wary. Landis professes to being a big fan of Douglas Adams’ writing, but this is also the same guy who talks up sequels to films nobody wanted to see. The panel discusses capturing the essence of Dirk Gently, but I’m not seeing the loser conman aspect from that trailer.

It often baffles me why screenwriters diverge so far from the source material – it feels as though I discussed this recently. Do they buy the rights but forget to buy a copy of the book for the screenwriters? In this instance that doesn’t appear to be the case. Is it just that they aren’t usually looking to do a direct adaptation but more of an “inspired by” screenplay? In which case, why buy the rights and use the character names? Landis did moan about the lack of original ideas in cinema. Are writers trying to avoid direct comparison between book and adaptation? Again, why buy the rights, since the screenwriters clearly have an idea for a movie/TV show and the source material is essentially made irrelevant?

In many instances a direct adaptation would make more sense. Beloved books would often be best served by being faithfully adapted to please fans and appeal to new fans. The source material has proved itself already: so use it! Some changes are necessary, either for run-time, or translation between mediums, but this can still be done faithfully. So why doesn’t it happen more often? I personally suspect that the screenwriters aren’t being asked to do faithful adaptations for a variety of reasons, including having bosses who don’t care about the source material.

I’m still very wary of this Dirk Gently adaptation. They had better not mess it up!

Book to Movie: The Bourne Identity – What’s The Difference?

This month the Cinefix team are covering the differences between The Bourne Identity movie and book. So this will either be a super short episode or a super long one.

I read The Bourne Identity not long after seeing the movie. Yeah, I’m that guy. I’m frequently that guy. Anyway, I have always referred to the movie as being nothing like the book at all. Aside from a few names and the amnesia thing, there is virtually nothing similar about the two works. I have often wondered if the screenwriters got handed the book and only got as far as the blurb on the back cover before producing their screenplay. Let’s just hope Ludlum was able to cash his cheque* before he typed his last ‘The End’.**

Apparently Robert Ludlum was inspired to write a spy novel involving an amnesic because he briefly suffered from the condition himself. There’s a joke here somewhere about the screenwriters forgetting to read the novel, but I wouldn’t stoop that low. I mean, who is to say they even realised they were being asked to do an adaptation, this is Hollywood after all.

Most action fans love the Bourne movies. At a time when there was a move away from gritty and realistic action, Bourne came along and gave us a tense, gritty, and “realistic” action movie. The book is not heavy on the action and gives us a more traditional spy story about flushing out an assassin with counterintelligence and operations. Comparing the two is really quite unfair. But one area I think the book is superior is in the answer to “Who is Jason Bourne?” In the movie we see Matt Damon struggle to come to terms with not knowing and wondering what sort of man would have his skills. But we know. And he knows. The answers he finds don’t really give him any new information: yeah, you were an assassin dude. In the book the answers are more complicated and more satisfying for the hero: yay, I was bait to capture an assassin.

Without this film we would have not had Matt Damon bringing Mark Watney to the screen. Let’s celebrate by rewatching one of the best car chase scenes of all time:

*now there’s a saying that is appropriate to the time being referenced but is now as apposite and relevant as a broken record.

** Robert Ludlum died in 2001.

Book to Movie: Harry Potter – What’s The Difference?

I guess it was only a matter of time. CineFix have finally gotten around to comparing the Harry Potter series of books to the movies. This is part 1 of 3. Grab a butterbeer and enjoy.

Truth be told, I had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the Harry Potter series. I disliked the first film – it was clearly made for children – and could not be convinced that this phenomenon was anything more than overhyped rubbish.

Yeah, I was wrong.

It was after the movie series took on the darker and more adult tone that I became interested. I decided to see what all the fuss was about and began reading; an easy thing to do since my wife had the books in our collection. I loved the books, reading the final two on our honeymoon.

With the fandom surrounding the books, this was always going to be a series that was as faithful to the source material as possible. Last thing you want to do is piss off a bunch of kids you’re planning to milk for the next decade with film, merchandise, and costume sales. Even though the CineFix guys talk about the first three films being largely faithful adaptations, I can think of a few minor points that were glossed over in the movies, such as the Phoenix tears healing all wounds. That moment in the film seemed to smack of deux ex machina, unless you had read the books. And that is a liberty you aren’t meant to be able to take with adaptations, as the reading audience is always smaller than the movie audience… usually.

I’m looking forward to the other instalments in this book versus movie comparison, as they may explain why the movies made some of the changes they did.

Book to Movie: Winter Solider – What’s the Difference?

This month’s CineFix edition of What’s the Difference cover the Ed Brubaker comic that inspired the Captain America: Winter Soldier movie.

Unlike Civil War, I managed to read the Ed Brubaker series of comics before watching the Winter Solider movie. Obviously there are a lot of differences, especially in terms of the expanded universe and “realism” of the movie world. The comics have decades of plots, sideplots, overlapping arcs from other parts of the Marvel Universe, characters, and general junk that is impossible to pack into a 2 hour movie. I actually find the way Marvel and DC have their stables of comics overlap and exist in the same universe to be annoying. The movies are starting to head that way as well, what with Age of Ultron essentially spending a third of its run time building the associated Thor, Ironman, Captain America, etc, movies.

One of the differences not really covered in the CineFix video is the other Captain Americas. That’s right, several other Caps wore the…. cap. Anyway, while Steve Rogers was chilling (Bucky too, but in a separate location) America didn’t want to lose its figurehead so they had some other people fill the role. From memory, at least one of them was integral to the plot, despite being no longer all there. This part of the plot also fed into the series that came immediately after Winter Soldier, with Bucky donning the costume and hefting the shield. For anyone about to complain about spoilers with that last sentence, try not to think about what could have happened to Steve Rogers to require Bucky to become Captain America.

In my original review for the Winter Soldier movie I commented that the writers had managed to capture Brubaker’s cold war spy story feel. They did this with very little similarities between the comic and movie. In some ways I think the movie is better, certainly I like the Steve Rogers of the film more, and they hadn’t quite gone overboard with the expanded universe stuff at that time, but in others the usual restrictions of the shorter format lessens the possible storytelling (Crossbones, the other Captain Americas, the relationships). Two very different stories were told but I still think this was a good adaptation.

Book to Movie: The Martian – What’s The Difference?

This instalment of CineFix’s What’s The Difference? covers one of my favourite books: The Martian by Andy Weir.

As you can see from the breakdown, the film was a very faithful adaptation of the book. I thought the casting was spot on – can you believe some people didn’t think Matt Damon could get Watney’s tone right? – and they didn’t dumb anything down. Probably why I enjoyed both the book and the movie so much.

For me the main difference I noticed was the curtailing of some struggles in order to serve the larger plot and not have a 3 hour run-time. The continuous stream of problems that Watney had to McGyver his way out of really brought the “science the shit out of this” aspect to the fore. Most notable was the rover crash after the sandstorm. But for the movie you can see why they would cut that scene: it would have taken a fair bit of screen time, it would have detracted/distracted from the build-up to the big finish, and they’d probably have been tempted to go all Michael Bay with the crash. Car crashes have to explode: movie rule.

So if you haven’t read the book or watched the movie, do both ASAP.

Science-the-shit-out-of-this

Book to Movie: Who Framed Roger Rabbit – What’s the Difference

Did you know Who Framed Roger Rabbit was based on a book? Me neither. But apparently in this instalment of What’s the Difference from Cinefix, the differences between book and movie are so vast that it is more a case of what is actually the same.

Do I really need an excuse to post this picture?

Fan fiction is awesome

I’ve never understood authors, directors, or other creatives who have a problem with fan fiction (and other derivatives). What is wrong with fans showing their love for something you’ve created by creating something of their own? Sure, it won’t be canon, and they might not get the feel of your work right, but does it really matter?

With that, I give you a fan fiction short from Rocket Jump.*

*Yes, this post is just an excuse to share the above video, even if it is only for the Firefly reference.

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: