|
|
Post by deadpool on Mar 3, 2011 12:19:46 GMT -5
This idea came up after seeing all of the buzz for drakes fortune and how Mark Wallberg was cast instead of Nathon Fillion. Now clearly the role of Nathon Drake was made for Nathon Fillion and fans are trying to convience the director to change his choice on casting. Now here is the overall topic should a director of something that has a large fandom give in to the demands of the fans?
On one hand I think that it could be really good if they did because then you will please the fans who are going to be the main crowd to see the movie. However it could ruin the artistic merit of the director. What if the director has a new vision for the series. Ie what if Chris Nolan was asked to make batman begins more like the other batman films or comics? Also making the director make a change at the last minute can have drastic consequences. The best example of this is spider-man 3 where Sam Raimi was forced to throw in Venom due to extreme fan demands. Rami didn't care much for the character espically it didn't fit into the story he had already written and as such Venom was a sup par last minute addition. I think it would have been better to leave venom out of that film but set him up for number 4.
|
|
Dr Handsome
Full Member
...but you can call me Eric.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Dr Handsome on Mar 3, 2011 14:14:37 GMT -5
I mean, it's all relative to the situation--
If you've got a terrible director clearly butchering a beloved property than maybe angry "NO, ZACH EFRON WOULD NOT MAKE A GOOD BATMAN!" letters are merited but in many cases I think irrational fans think they know more than a director who is probably trying their hardest to make an great movie.
The story of Uncharted is definitely an interesting one though. Don't get me wrong, I'm a massive Firefly geek but the fans who can't see the movie without Fillion aren't thinking straight.
Still, the reason why so most video game adaptations don't work is because nobody seems to have actually played the game. The director is intrigued by something vague like loose character dynamics or disparate action sequences or this ambiguous idea of what the source actually is and the studio thinks it's got a lock on what will sell. In the end you get something that doesn't have any artistic stamp.
Quotes seems to indicate that David O. Russell gets why Uncharted begs for an adaptation (it's basically a new spin on the Indiana Jones story) but I guess we'll just have to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadpool on Mar 3, 2011 17:06:03 GMT -5
I will still see uncharted even though I havn't played any of the games. I think the fans are fighting because apperently Mark Walbeg is not confirmed yet and there is a chance for them to make a change. I think that one possible idea for future film makers to try is if they are doing an adaptation with a large fan base then start an online forum and get opinions of ideas from fans and let them be part of the process but still let the director have control. Personally I feel it is the job of the director to find ballance in being faithful with their own spin. I feel JJ Abrams and Chris Nolan do fine jobs of this and even Sam Rami did a good job.
|
|
|
|
Post by bouncingbrick on Mar 3, 2011 17:08:41 GMT -5
Ok, first of all, I want someone to explain to me what the obsession is with having Nathan Fillion play Nathan Drake. Is it because he played sort of a snarky smart-ass in Firefly? That seems a lame reason. After some research (wikipedia), I found out that Naughty Dog designers based him on Johnny Knoxville and Harrison Ford. Also, a lot of his personality comes from Nolan North, the man who voices him in the game, as North did a lot of improvisations during the voicing process. So, I'm starting the campaign to get Nolan North to play him in the film.  Besides, he's only one year older than Mark Wahlberg and I bet we can bulk him up. Hopefully he's as good an actor as he is a voice actor... As to original question: why don't we cite examples where it actually happened to use in our scientific process of answering the question? Evidence one: Star Wars Episode 2. After extremely harsh, and not unreasonable, response to the character Jar-Jar Binks in Episode One Lucas cut the character down to only one or two lines in Episode Two and no lines at all in Episode Three. Now, if my memory serves, he claims that this was not in response to people's response to the character, but that Jar-Jar had no role to play in the following films. I can't buy this because not only is there no Jar-Jar in Ep. Two and Threee, but there's no real stand-in, kiddie-friendly character to replace him. Lucas caved to overwhelming negative response and we're all slightly better off because of it. In sumation, given my rediculous arguments, I win the debate! Yes, the fans should be allowed to dictate the actions of creative and talented people. Even those that were nominated for Oscars!  EDIT: It's always been my understanding that the executive producers and higher-ups at Sony wanted Venom in Spider-Man 3, not input from the fans! I object to that evidence! |
|
|
|
Post by deadpool on Mar 3, 2011 19:15:09 GMT -5
Well I would say that the execs wanted it because of his status as a fan favorite. I think everything should be done in moderation. No matter what you do you will never please all the fans. Some people complained about watchmen because a lot of it was too close to the graphic novel and they wanted something new. I feel that the director should have some creative control however I feel that if a director does something that is fan based they should be a fan or become one. For example Steven Chow would have made a great director for Dragonball.
|
|
Dr Handsome
Full Member
...but you can call me Eric.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Dr Handsome on Mar 4, 2011 1:00:31 GMT -5
I meant to say that in my original post: ideally the writer/director is a fan of the source material and is smart enough to know how to translate what it is that attracts him to that novel, comic, video game, board game, theme park attraction, restaurant chain, iPhone app that makes gun noises, You Tube video, trading card series, television commercial, classic cubist painting painting, etc. Yes, the fans should be allowed to dictate the actions of creative and talented people. I can't tell whether you were being sarcastic when you said I win the debate! (I'm assuming you were?); let's just say I don't think it's as one sided as that. Many times the fans are too close to the material and too far from Hollywood to have any idea what would make their favorite thing into an equally great film. That's not to say that fans don't have some great ideas or that directors always know what's best-- I just don't think the solution is to bend over backwards and give the fans exactly what they want. |
|
|
|
Post by bouncingbrick on Mar 4, 2011 21:39:28 GMT -5
Sorry, good Doctor. Sarcasm is hard to express online!
I don't think it's the job of any fanboy to say how a film should be made. That said, I think it's the filmmakers job to respect the source material and treat it as serious as need. I think when adapting from a source material the most important thing the filmmaker can do is capture the spirit of the original material. For example, I think Bryan Singer did a fine job of capturing the spirit and feel of X-Men with his two X-films, despite making changes to character ages, uniforms, etc. And conversely I don't think he quite captured the feel of Superman.
And, for the record, I completely agree that the fans can often be far too close to the material they love to see it clearly and understand the changes that need to be made to adapt the material to the screen. The biggest problem is with most comic book, novel, TV show, etc. adaptations is changes have to be made to make it cinema friendly and understandable to a wider audience. Get over it, nerds! Changes have to be made and Marky Mark is gonna be Nathan Drake!
|
|
Dr Handsome
Full Member
...but you can call me Eric.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Dr Handsome on Mar 5, 2011 0:07:31 GMT -5
Mark Wahlberg isn't that bad a choice for the character despite what confrontational fans wearing newsies caps might argue in an usually serious tone. I'm not even sure Nathan Fillion "acts like that dude" either. They do have the same name though, which could hardly be a coincidence. Oh, and when it doubt use [sarcasm=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjMYQyhjiYA] why no, I'm not being sarcastic[/sarcasm] tags. Now... that idea of trying to stay true to the "spirit" of the source goes back to being a fan-- right? I think a director's (or writer's) only goal is to make a film worth watching (whether it stays 100% true to the source is irrelevant) and if you're adapting another story that inspiration should be the least that shows up on the screen. The biggest problem is with most comic book, novel, TV show, etc. adaptations is changes have to be made to make it cinema friendly and understandable to a wider audience. Get over it, nerds! I think using the words "cinema friendly" and "understandable" both imply that the source material is inherently more complex than the film adaption. Whether or not you meant that it's a pretty common notion, one that's always bothered me. |
|
|
|
Post by deadpool on Mar 5, 2011 0:33:29 GMT -5
I would agree that sometimes a new vision is good. I feel that a lot of adaptations that were destroyed by fans are actually good. Ie The last airbender lacked some humor and a few name changes but overall had the story down really well. The fans destroyed it and it was voted worst movie of the year. Now a bit of a tangent topic what is a good amount to change something. The example I will use is Mortal Kombat Rebirth. If you havn't seen this 8 minute short it takes the characters of mortal kombat and makes them darker and more realistic. Some people view it as a masterpeice others an abomination. Where do you stand?
|
|
Dr Handsome
Full Member
...but you can call me Eric.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Dr Handsome on Mar 5, 2011 13:19:27 GMT -5
I think certain really specific circles might argue that The Last Airbender's primary concern were the ways in which it deviated from the show but from what I understand it was just an all around poorly made film.
You may be in the minority but I guarantee that most of the critics who brought that movie down to a six-percent (!!!) Rotten Tomatoes score weren't judging its faithfulness to the TV show.
And I'm struggling to come up with a great movie whose quality has been widely ignored because film-goers were too attached to the source material.
|
|
|
|
Post by bouncingbrick on Mar 5, 2011 17:49:15 GMT -5
I think using the words "cinema friendly" and "understandable" both imply that the source material is inherently more complex than the film adaption. Whether or not you meant that it's a pretty common notion, one that's always bothered me. Actually, I meant that things in some mediums don't translate well to other mediums. It's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with complexity. For example, as David and Tyler have said (I think it was them,correct me if I'm wrong), the dialog in the film 300 sounds pretty awful, but it worked fine in the comic book. It was dialog that was meant to be read, not screamed aloud by Gerard Butler. |
|
Dr Handsome
Full Member
...but you can call me Eric.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Dr Handsome on Mar 6, 2011 0:04:26 GMT -5
I assumed that whats you meant but it's still a preconception widely held among geeks who refuse to see changes as anything but bad.
I know it's hard to imagine changes being other than bad with studios attempting to compress every blockbuster into some easily digestible log-line but, as you said, film is its own medium with its own set of rules-- changes are inevitable.
Watchmen-- to answer that earlier post-- does stick too close to the novel to the point that it never quite clicks as a film. Its an impressive feat, sure, but not an entirely successful movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadpool on Mar 8, 2011 14:20:17 GMT -5
A director's interest can greatly affect the overall quality and closeness to a film. For example Tim Burton has stated that he would never read a comic book and this is the guy they choose to make two batman films and almost a superman film. Now I'm sure that he would have read some of the comics when he got the job but still if you are going to make a film find someone who is already a fan.
|
|
