Join 3,552 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


SIX SEASONS!
September 23, 2012 9:33 PM   Subscribe

And A Movie?: 'Why is it so important to the fans that there be a film adaptation of the franchise they love?'
posted by the man of twists and turns (135 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite

 
So people shut up about that fucking Stallone movie.
posted by Artw at 9:36 PM on September 23, 2012 [4 favorites]


Why do we say, “I love this book, I hope someone turns it into a movie,” and not, “I love this movie. I hope someone turns it into a book”?

Speak for yourself, dude. Plenty of us don't say either of those things.

Also? They do make novelizations of movies. Somebody's gotta be buying those things.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:43 PM on September 23, 2012 [1 favorite]


Because nerds never want anything to end ever.
posted by The Whelk at 9:52 PM on September 23, 2012 [34 favorites]


and not, “I love this movie. I hope someone turns it into a book”?

Alan Dean Foster would like a word with you.
posted by cortex at 9:55 PM on September 23, 2012 [22 favorites]


I think someone should take a CD and turn it into a movie, like Bruce Springsteen's Born to Run.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:57 PM on September 23, 2012 [4 favorites]


Janelle Monae would like a word with you KokoRyu
posted by The Whelk at 9:58 PM on September 23, 2012 [6 favorites]


In the spirit of Close to the Edge's 40th anniversary I say we should turn it into a movie. Nobody would understand it so it couldn't possibly ruin the reputation.
posted by solarion at 10:03 PM on September 23, 2012 [2 favorites]


Here are some properties I absolutely love that should never be movies:

Munchkin the card game
Cheap Novelties by Ben Katchor
Galactic Pot Healer by Phillip K. Dick
The Art of Electronics
The Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Edward Tufte
How to Cook Everything by Mark Bittman
Be Here Now by Ram Dass

Though each of these works has had a profound impact on my life, none of them would be better in moviehood, and I suspect the world would be worse for such a thing existing.

Thank you for respecting my wishes,

Poe
posted by poe at 10:05 PM on September 23, 2012 [8 favorites]


"Why do we say, “I love this book, I hope someone turns it into a movie,”"

I never, ever say that. I usually say, "Oh, Jesus, they're making a movie out of $AWESOMEBOOK? They are going to RUIN it!"

Occasionally I am pleasantly surprised -- LotR, Little Women (1994) -- but mostly I'm left wondering why filmmakers hate books.

No, seriously, I am often interested in a particular movie adaptation of a book, especially of a classic where a particular (and coherent) interpretation is brought to the fore. But there's no rage like the rage of having your favorite book ruined by a movie and then having that sub-par visual and bad acting stuck in your brain whenever you read it forever after -- Jim Carrey is not the Grinch! STAB STAB STAB STAB.

I'm usually of the "read the book before the movie" school, and I can think of a couple of times I read the book so I could go see the movie ... and then couldn't. Notably "Hunchback of Notre Dame," the Disney version of which came out when I was in high school (I think) and everyone was going to see them. I finished the book awash in its beauty and felt this TERRIBLE RAGE that it was going to be an animated, singing Disney musical ... even though I love Disney musicals. Still haven't ever seen it. Won't even watch the trailer for it on other Disney DVDs.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:05 PM on September 23, 2012 [7 favorites]


Six seasons and a movie.
posted by docgonzo at 10:06 PM on September 23, 2012 [2 favorites]


You have issues if a movie "ruins" your favorite book. My take is that when we find something we really like, we get excited for more of it. With so much crap out there, it's hard not to squeeze everything we can out of quality. Sometimes we fail.
posted by Brocktoon at 10:17 PM on September 23, 2012 [2 favorites]


You have issues if a movie "ruins" your favorite book.

If you're human, you have issues. At least that's what Q keeps telling me.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:24 PM on September 23, 2012 [4 favorites]


Be Here Now by Ram Dass

It's not exactly that, but... Here We All Are ~ (Be Here Now)
posted by hippybear at 10:24 PM on September 23, 2012 [2 favorites]


I'm usually of the "read the book before the movie" school, and I can think of a couple of times I read the book so I could go see the movie ... and then couldn't.

A friend once read the book and it ruined the movie for him....for different reasons. When The DaVinci Code was out, a friend tried to round up a bunch of us to go see it (largely so we could all mock it afterward). One of our number who said he was going then said he'd read the book first, "because you should always read the book first because the movie is always worse than the book". But then he hated the book so much he refused to see the movie after all.

Sometimes the book can be a warning.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:25 PM on September 23, 2012 [11 favorites]


Poe: I agree that none of those would be better in moviehood, but I think that in the right hands, there could be:
1. a hilarious Munchkin movie.
2. a punchy and informative Visual Display of Quantitative Information movie or short film.
3. a very amusing movie titled How to Cook Everything that is completely or almost completely unrelated to the book.

Remember that the Pirates of the Caribbean movie was based on a ride in a theme park, and it was pretty good. I think the source material matters less than the skill of the creative team.
posted by valrus at 10:25 PM on September 23, 2012 [3 favorites]


“I love this movie. I hope someone turns it into a book”

The novelization of The Terminator was brilliant, and possibly better than the movie.
posted by hippybear at 10:26 PM on September 23, 2012 [1 favorite]


"I love this game, I hope someone turns it into a... sonobuoys? Really?"
posted by pompomtom at 10:30 PM on September 23, 2012 [2 favorites]


Not language or tool use, neither upright gait nor a faintly humming black monolith: I love this [x]; I wish someone would turn in into a [y] is the yearning that was genesis of the sapient human species.

To ask why is to question our very humanity.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:36 PM on September 23, 2012 [3 favorites]


Then Brian Azzarello took the mic. “This is why I hate you fuckers,” he said. “All you do is beg that we make a movie, then you complain about everything that’s made.”

I really, really want to see footage of that, and the response that resulted (both at the convention and in the online media that covered it).

An HBO series, and only an HBO series, can validate a fandom the way a movie can.

Please turn Firefly into an HBO series.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:44 PM on September 23, 2012 [7 favorites]


It is funny, I've always done my best work with material I hate-- never with what I love. We should only do adaptations of the books none of us like. The worst thing that could then happen is that movie is great and totally innocent people are tricked into reading the source material.
posted by TwelveTwo at 10:45 PM on September 23, 2012 [1 favorite]


I think someone should take a CD and turn it into a movie

Someone is.

(Tommy and The Wall come to mind, but those were on vinyl when they got adapted.)
posted by reprise the theme song and roll the credits at 10:52 PM on September 23, 2012


Please turn Firefly into an HBO series.

"Huh, since when did Kaylee insist on being nude in the engine room? And why is River trying to steal her from Simon now?"
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:04 PM on September 23, 2012 [12 favorites]


I think someone should take a CD and turn it into a movie

Ahem. (sorry if this is piling on)
posted by teraflop at 11:06 PM on September 23, 2012 [1 favorite]


Totally up for that The Art of Electronics movie. Hope they don't go the Battleship route and put aliens in it.
posted by Artw at 11:07 PM on September 23, 2012 [1 favorite]


We should only do adaptations of the books none of us like.

The book Who Framed Roger Rabbit is like, borderline unreadable. I don't even know how it got published but it lead to one of my favorite movies so....maybe you're on to something?
posted by The Whelk at 11:15 PM on September 23, 2012


Metafilter: The Movie
posted by ShutterBun at 11:16 PM on September 23, 2012 [2 favorites]


I'm not sure why the "ambassador for the genre" thing comes up. There are plenty of non-genre properties for which people clamor for film adaptions.

Anyway, there's also Category:Films based on songs and the somewhat less populated Category:Films based on albums.

There are so many compromises necessary with movies based on anything substantial, such as a novel, that it's reasonable to ask why the movie is "necessary" if it can't communicate the spirit of the story. But there are also times when the movie improves on the base material -- L.A. Confidential comes to mind. Although the main plot thread of the novel actually serves as a broad, complex satire of Walt Disney and his empire as a metaphor for the city, there's almost no way that could work as a film -- but what a terrific film the "B" plot made, and interestingly communicated those themes in a succinct and effective way.

If a book is made into a bad, forgettable movie, I usually don't mind, but I think I can be justifiably frustrated when a great book would make a great movie, but the only times it was tried it got botched -- effectively preventing a good adaptation from being made. Among the most celebrated examples, probably, is Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest^. You could say that elements of the story have made their way into substantially thematically similar movies, such as Miller's Crossing, but a true adaptation awaits.
posted by dhartung at 11:16 PM on September 23, 2012


Hope they don't go the Battleship route and put aliens in it.

Everything I hear about that movie is more hilarious than the one before.
posted by reprise the theme song and roll the credits at 11:18 PM on September 23, 2012 [2 favorites]


Maybe a CD isn't the best example. How about a dry cleaning receipt?
posted by Brocktoon at 11:18 PM on September 23, 2012


Don't give the ghost of Andy Warhol any ideas.
posted by ShutterBun at 11:20 PM on September 23, 2012 [2 favorites]


I think a line was crossed here.
posted by Artw at 11:22 PM on September 23, 2012


Among the most celebrated examples, probably, is Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest.

Of course, back in the day, a botched film adaptation could be re-attempted fairly quickly without anyone really noticing. (unless you really liked the 1931 version of The Maltese Falcon)
posted by ShutterBun at 11:24 PM on September 23, 2012


So people shut up about that fucking Stallone movie.

I dunno, man, I recently, uh, acquired some Judge Dredd and what I've read of it is just dumb as a box that has had numerous rocks added to it. It's not very clever or witty, just "Dredd is unemotional as he brutally does something that requires him to be very hard, but in a surprise twist, he is harder than anybody else and wins." I don't get the appeal.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:33 PM on September 23, 2012


Here are some properties I absolutely love that should never be movies:
Munchkin the card game


1. Like Clue, it would be distributed to theaters with a different ending whether any of the six characters would win out in the end. Which ending you would get, also like Clue, would be determined entirely by random chance.

2. Also determined randomly, the movie will be either five minutes of four hours long.
posted by JHarris at 11:34 PM on September 23, 2012 [10 favorites]


Also Preacher actually was in development as an HBO series, so that's not fans being dumb, that's a real thing that was going to happen until a change in management.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:40 PM on September 23, 2012


"Dredd is unemotional as he brutally does something that requires him to be very hard, but in a surprise twist, he is harder than anybody else and wins."

I'm going to pretend you're saying that about a Morrison or a Millar or maybe even and Ennis Dredd and agree that they are crappy, 'cos if you're saying that about a Wagner Dredd you are dead to me now.
posted by Artw at 11:42 PM on September 23, 2012 [2 favorites]


but in a surprise twist, he is harder than anybody else and wins.

Once you've decided that "hard" is a euphemism for being erect, it becomes difficult to keep a straight face.
posted by JHarris at 11:47 PM on September 23, 2012 [1 favorite]


I dunno, man, I recently, uh, acquired some Judge Dredd and what I've read of it is just dumb as a box that has had numerous rocks added to it. It's not very clever or witty, just "Dredd is unemotional as he brutally does something that requires him to be very hard, but in a surprise twist, he is harder than anybody else and wins." I don't get the appeal.

Like V for Vendetta and Pink Floyd, it's a sardonic satire of fascism from a British perspective, so probably a lot of angst about Thatcher as well.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:47 PM on September 23, 2012


I'm going to pretend you're saying that about a Morrison or a Millar or maybe even and Ennis Dredd and agree that they are crappy, 'cos if you're saying that about a Wagner Dredd you are dead to me now.

I *think* I'm reading the very earliest stuff from 2000AD. It's collected in The Complete Case Files- I'm reading volume 1.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:48 PM on September 23, 2012


Brandon Blatcher writes "'Huh, since when did Kaylee insist on being nude in the engine room?"

Wasn't that in the Fox version?

TwelveTwo writes "We should only do adaptations of the books none of us like."

Fight Club the movie was much better than the book.
posted by Mitheral at 12:04 AM on September 24, 2012


Top 11 Essential Judge Dredd Stories

As I mentioned before you probably want to give anything by Millar, Morrison or Ennis a miss.

Case Files Volume 1 is pretty uneven. There's some stuff in there I like but it's mostly aged pretty badly, and though they establish the formula for the character they don't really do anything interesting with that formula. It's historically interesting, and I think probably the movie takes a lot of cues from it, but I don't know how much it translates for a modern audience.

Here's Pat Mills on how Dredd came about, which I think sets some important context.

But if you're not a comics historian I'd skip it and check out 2, with The Cursed Earth and The Day the Law Died. Or skip both and go to 5 - if you don't like the Dark Judges, Blockmania AND The Apocalypse War then you really are dead inside.
posted by Artw at 12:06 AM on September 24, 2012 [8 favorites]


"(Even in the case of 2001: A Space Odyssey, where I think the novelization is much better.) "

And then I stopped reading the article.
posted by incessant at 12:25 AM on September 24, 2012 [6 favorites]


But the Batman concept has just as easily been adapted into a great television show, cartoon, video game, coloring book, action figure, roller coaster, and, yes really, a stage show. Why do we value the movie over the other versions?

Probably because a movie is the closest approximation (other than maybe theater) we have to experiencing reality, and this is particularly true for the heavily make-believe genres full of time travelers and dragons and supermen (which can't be done well in theater). People still read books, go to theater, listen to radio shows, and play games, but movies (including television) are the story experience most people enjoy most because movies feel closest to reality. A movie about Batman is the closest you are going to get to making Batman feel real.
posted by pracowity at 12:25 AM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


The Naked Gun films were astonishingly inferior to their Police Squad! origins. But as long as they leave this pure and unsullied, they can do what they like.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:27 AM on September 24, 2012 [2 favorites]


These days wouldn't quite a few people want a good TV series of books they like?

The best screen adaptation of a novel I know of is Brideshead Revisited. It's a superb adaptation.

TV gives you time to develop characters and have a plot. When I saw the first Harry Potter I couldn't stop thinking how much better it would have been as a season of a TV series. Even now it would be awesome if they redid it for TV.

Even the old, quirky Hitchhiker's Guide was better as a TV series than as a movie.

The economics seem to have started to work for doing thing.

HBO's Game of Thrones is fun and is according to quite a few people a decent adaptation.

I'd love to see the Neuromancer trilogy done for TV. That'd be grouse. The upcoming Midnight's Children film would surely be better as a TV series.
posted by sien at 12:40 AM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


The Naked Gun films were astonishingly inferior to their Police Squad! origins.

"Who are you, and how did you get in here?"
"I'm a locksmith, and I'm a locksmith."


These days wouldn't quite a few people want a good TV series of books they like?

Jesus, yes. There's a reason the article mentions HBO.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:00 AM on September 24, 2012


You have issues if a movie "ruins" your favorite book.

Wrong.

Books exist in a larger cultural context and it's quite possible for a bad movie adaptation to ruin that context for the original novel or story. If only because people will confuse the book with the movie, assume you're reading the book because of the movie, think it is as dumb or bad as the movie was. That can go the other way as well of course. The Dan Brown books were already popular when the first movie came out, but the mere fact that a large budget Hollywood movie starring Tom Hanks was made of it gave a new respectability to The Da Vinci Code; there must be something in it or they wouldn't make a movie of it, would they?

Worse, movie adaptations can also influence the source material. This is not so much a problem with novels, but is with comics. So you now got a Hawkeye series at Marvel which clearly takes its lead from the Avengers movie, while elements of the Tony Star/Iron Man of the movies have also been cropping up in the Avengers and Iron Man comics. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but is of course annoying if you don't like the movie versions.

The worst example of this is Batman of course, which has been driven by th tv and movie adaptations for decades; frigging Alfred the butler would still be death if not for the original tv series.

As to why movies or tv adaptations are important to fans, two reasons: 1) validation that yes, the stuff you've been reading is important enough for somebody to spend upwards of 100 million dollars on it to bring to life in the cinema (should be less of a concern these days as Hollywood is so desperate for ideas they made Battleship: the Movie) and 2) it's one of the few chances to share your fandom with "mundanes", like your family and friends not into comics. Your mother won't read that ommnibus edition of Steve Ditko's Spider-Man, but she might be willing to spent two hours watching the latest movie based on his work...
posted by MartinWisse at 2:59 AM on September 24, 2012 [7 favorites]


12 seasons and a porno.
posted by signal at 4:06 AM on September 24, 2012 [3 favorites]


I can't remember ever wanting a film to be made out of any other medium that I loved (except maybe a 3D Simpsons when I was watching the show at the height of it's powers), but I certainly get a nervous, excited shiver when I hear something I love is being turned into a film.

I know it's going to suck, but "what if...?", just maybe someone will be able to marry the very best of what I loved about a book, with the very best of what I've experienced watching an awesome film.

Iron Man 1 might be the closest to that utopian dream I've ever got... having collected the comics as a kid (armor wars era), and having my childhood adoration matched with a pretty fantastic adult experience with the first big budget, and faithful screen adapatation (that I know of).

I mentally flew about for a few days after watching that film with my palms facing down.
posted by panaceanot at 4:18 AM on September 24, 2012


It seems to me that this guy is missing something really, really obvious, which is that it's all Gene Roddenberry's fault.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:58 AM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


I know that a lot of times, the call for adaptation is based on the opinion that the original property was mishandled, quashing a lot of its promise. Firefly is one of the clearest examples: aired out of order (including the pilot!), relegated to Friday nights, and preempted multiple times. Fans tried to get it picked up on another network, but when that failed they channeled their efforts towards a movie adaptation.

Fox was accused of the same problem with their handling of Arrested Development, though I think that criticism is less fair; they kept it on the air for three seasons despite terrible ratings. However, it had the fear of imminent cancellation throughout its run, which can be demoralizing to fans (cf. Community).

When shows are mishandled or cancelled, it reinforces a belief that advertising-based television has an inherent bias towards lazy, broad, pandering content (which reaches the most viewers). So I think the hope is that they can hand the franchise to "serious" people who will commit to its vision, or to the visionary behind the work.

Film is historically considered a more Serious medium than television, and one that is more focused on whether viewers like the product rather than advertisers. However, thus also the hopes that a beloved show will be picked up by one of the premium cable channels. Premium channels can make longer-term investments and dip their toes into niche genres because the goal is sustainable subscriptions rather than immediate ratings.

Interestingly, we have entered a period in which some advertising-based channels (particularly AMC and FX) will roll the dice. This can be for a number of reasons, but I think one of the understated advantages is that critical acclaim can bolster the awareness of the network as a whole, giving them a better viewer base for all their shows. Devoted fans may not be the best targets for advertisers, but oftentimes their advocacy makes them effective meta-advertisers.
posted by Riki tiki at 5:01 AM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


Fans tried to get [Firefly] picked up on another network, but when that failed they channeled their efforts towards a movie adaptation.

And they got it, and it wasn't a very good movie. And I say this as someone who like Firefly.


I'm with The Whelk. Nerds never want anything to end.
posted by Legomancer at 5:20 AM on September 24, 2012


Now. We need some time out.
People criticising Judge Dredd and Serenity in the same thread?

This cannot stand.
I'm sending PJ Maybe to your houses.
posted by Mezentian at 5:26 AM on September 24, 2012


KokoRyu, Pink Floyd would also like a word with you.
posted by deezil at 5:34 AM on September 24, 2012


They want a movie because all that time, effort and money validates the time, effort and money THEY put in to love thing X. We all want everyone to love what we love. We also want everyone not to think we're losers for loving the things we love. So a movie about that thing is the ultimate "Hey- you're cool and so is your thing!" The great nerd mandala spins on.

What about the Lord of the Rings series? I know things were left out etc. but didn't Jackson at least do them justice? Luckily he had free rein to make umpteen movies vs cramming it all into one or even two. But those movies are to me the best book-to-film adaptation.
posted by I_Love_Bananas at 5:38 AM on September 24, 2012


I'll say one thing in favor of the film adaptation of Da Vinci Code and whatever-that-other-one-was - they got rid of the "Rob Langdon hooks up with the female sidekick" subplot in both book, which was stupid. (Also Da Vinci Code had Audrey Tatou in it, and she gets an adorable exit line.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:39 AM on September 24, 2012


Everything I hear about [Battleship] is more hilarious than the one before.

It started out really stupid and then got even stupider but then the heroes found help IN THE UNLIKELIEST OF PLACES and then it was so wondrously stupid that it would have been curmudgeonly to resist.

Bonus points for the screenwriters figuring out a way for them to kinda-sorta play Battleship and for never requiring Rihanna to say "ass". Points deducted for the screenwriters not figuring out a way to have anyone say "You sank my battleship!"
posted by Egg Shen at 5:41 AM on September 24, 2012 [2 favorites]


Points deducted for the screenwriters not figuring out a way to have anyone say "You sank my battleship!"

That alone is such a major failure that it's actually a colonel.
posted by adamdschneider at 5:58 AM on September 24, 2012 [13 favorites]


Then Brian Azzarello took the mic. “This is why I hate you fuckers,” he said. “All you do is beg that we make a movie, then you complain about everything that’s made.”

I missed this quote in the article, so when I read it here I immediately leaped onto the Google and started searching furiously for 'HBO "100 Bullets"', 'Agent Graves Terrence Stamp', and '100 Bullets jazz trumpet Jaleel Ahmad White'.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:09 AM on September 24, 2012


I have no desire to see Y: the last man made into a movie, even though it's a brilliant comic and a movie might expand its audience.

I usually hate media translation. A novel isn't just its content, its also the form; same for a comic book or any other art. Changing the media forces you to change the story and its rare that what emerges is as good or better than the original. Not that it never happens, but its rare.

Sometimes you get something that is so good in the original - like E.M. Forster's Maurice - that the adaptation is pretty good, too. But not as good.
posted by jb at 6:12 AM on September 24, 2012


I find media translation on an academic level really interesting just cause it's so rarely done 'successfully', that is in a way that captures the spirit of the original and it all goes back to my ongoing obsession with tone and how to create/mangle it.
posted by The Whelk at 6:27 AM on September 24, 2012


Someone should make Watchmen into a movie.
posted by shakespeherian at 6:29 AM on September 24, 2012 [3 favorites]


you are a bad person on the inside.
posted by The Whelk at 6:31 AM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


changing the media forces you to change the story and its rare that what emerges is as good or better than the original.

That's only valid if you think the book and its movie adaptation should be compared. I don't. Once you translate it to another medium, it becomes a different thing and should be treated as such. There are plenty of movies adapted from books that were made into pretty good to fantastic films, but they're not perfect translations -- nor should they be. Take the endeavors for what they are, not what you think they should be.

The best example of a film that was made of other material and was translated almost 100% that I can recall is Sin City. And it was a beautiful but GOD-AWFUL BORING film.
posted by grubi at 6:55 AM on September 24, 2012


It may not be the case for much longer (and I'd be more excited to see a game made out of a lot of my favourite stories), but movies are the most insanely huge time and budget investment into a world that you enjoy. Even the off chance that it comes out well is just kind of cool.

It's sad when it's done painfully badly, but you can just pretend it's an alternate universe.
posted by lucidium at 7:09 AM on September 24, 2012


I think a line was crossed here.
posted by Artw at 1:22 AM on September 24 [+] [!]


I watched that with my wife a week or so ago, and honestly, I expected more blood.
posted by mysterpigg at 7:10 AM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


You say "wrong" like it's definitive, then go and talk about something completely different. Please don't do that.
posted by Brocktoon at 7:15 AM on September 24, 2012


'Why is it so important to the fans that there be a film adaptation of the franchise they love?'

Look up here everyone: this is the rare original form of begging the question, which is almost never seen in the wild these days.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:22 AM on September 24, 2012 [6 favorites]


You have issues if a movie "ruins" your favorite book.

I disagree. As a kid, I ate, slept, and breathed Lord of the Rings. I worked out the substitution ciphers on the maps of The Hobbit, and I tried to teach myself the various Elvishes. And in my mind, I had a particular and specific vision of how things looked and felt and sounded. I had that whole world in my head.

Now I don't.

Thanks to Peter Jackson's movies, Aragorn looks like Viggo Mortensen now. I don't necessarily disagree with the casting choice, but I didn't have Viggo Mortensen in my mind when I read the books as a child. I quite enjoyed the movies, (which were, I feel, a pretty reasonably faithful adaptation with some notable problems) but I have found that the act of watching them has over-written the vision of Middle-Earth which I had as a child.

And I miss it. That is a way in which movies -- even pretty good adaptations -- can diminish the connection that a fan has with a particular work. Come to think of it, I wonder whether this effect is worse when an adaptation really nails it than when it has obvious flaws.
posted by gauche at 7:34 AM on September 24, 2012 [9 favorites]


I didn't have Viggo Mortensen in my mind when I read the books as a child.

Because they made a particular casting decision, that ruined the book for you?

Come on.
posted by grubi at 7:36 AM on September 24, 2012


If I had said, "for example" at the beginning of that sentence, would you have a better idea what I'm getting at?
posted by gauche at 7:38 AM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


You mention "[t]hat is a way in which movies -- even pretty good adaptations -- can diminish the connection that a fan has with a particular work." And I'm sorry you've had this experience, but that change in perception is incumbent on the fan, not the adaptation.

You had an expectation. They never promised that expectation. They failed to meet that unpromised expectation. And that's their fault? I don't buy it. With that logic, you can be mad at every adaptation of every book simply because you have an expectation that is impossible. Failure to meet a fan's expectation is not as big a deal as you make it out to be.
posted by grubi at 7:44 AM on September 24, 2012


No. Let me be clear. I'm not saying that it didn't meet my expectations. I actually think that it was, as I said above, a pretty faithful adaptation and an enjoyable series of films.

What has happened, for me, is that my own vision of the original works has been -- I fear indelibly -- overwritten by the much stronger, more immediately accessible vision of Peter Jackson & co. I feel that this is a loss to me because, even though I enjoyed Jackson's vision of that world, having had them both I would much rather have kept my own.

I don't think it's anybody's fault, but that's not what I was responding to. I'm not assigning blame, I'm just describing a way in which a successful movie adaptation can change -- and diminish -- a fan's connection to a much-loved book.
posted by gauche at 7:55 AM on September 24, 2012 [5 favorites]


The Iron Man film actually required someone to design armor that would move with a human wearer without being either made of a mystery metal so flexible as to fail at being, y'know, armor; or changing its shape and articulation from panel to panel. I have never liked Iron Man so much as when I saw the movie.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:57 AM on September 24, 2012 [2 favorites]


gauche, that ends up being an individual person's issue, not an inherent problem with adaptations.
posted by grubi at 8:00 AM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


I should add, nothing I'm saying here implies that I think the LotR movies should have been done one whit differently. It is an inherent risk of adaptations of much-loved works that they may change the way a fan sees the original, even if the adaptation is done well.

OnPreview: Well, sure, maybe it's on me not to see any more adaptations of well-loved works. I just think it's a point worth considering when talking about why fans cry out for adaptations. Even if you get what you want, you may find that things are different afterwards.
posted by gauche at 8:05 AM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


I'm usually of the "read the book before the movie" school

This feels precisely backwards, for the reasons mentioned above. The movie is necessarily going to have to compress and simplify whatever the original work was (the exception being board games, which is beyond my capacity to explain as anything other than: here, spend money on this), so at best the movie can only be an ad introducing the overall themes and major characters of the original work. It is almost guaranteed to be disappointing if you come in to the theater with the preconceptions and expectations of the novel or comic series or whatever, and a two-hour movie simply can't deliver that. Read the book or whatever after: yes, perhaps some plot points might be spoiled, but they could as easily have been altered in the transition anyhow. (I have not read Watchmen, but my understanding is that it doesn't end on Mars?)

That being said, those movies I've enjoyed as adaptations of books I've already read (and not long-running "properties," which I get is the focus of the article, but still) are those that didn't try to faithfully reproduce everything. For one favorite example, Wonder Boys is a very good novel, but it's looong and meandering; Wonder Boys is a very very good film, partly because the people in charge smartly selected about a quarter of the novel's plot to focus on and didn't give it the "here are a bunch of highlights from the story you already love that simply do not stand alone as their own work of art" treatment, cf. the Harry Potter movies from Goblet of Fire onward.
posted by psoas at 8:06 AM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


I don't think Wonder Boys is particularly long and meandering at all. It's a pretty slim book, actually.

I have to say that its weird watching this conversation after having sold a book to a big 6 publisher. Because from the moment I announced the news, people have been asking me about a movie. People who haven't read my book, who have no idea if it would translate well to film! They are particularly interested in my casting choices, as if I have any say in those, anyway.

(I don't think mine would translate particularly well to film, but someone at my agency mentioned TV once and that is something I got excited about. But I've always been a bigger TV fan.)

I don't think this is anything new for authors--it seemed like an issue that Salinger wrestled with too, way back in the 60s. I took a writing workshop with Steve Gould, of Jumper fame, and someone asked him what it's like to have a not-particularly great movie made of one's work, and he said it's great. That book continues to outsell his others several times over. He was able to build a writing shed. He's able to assure people that the book is better (and has a t-shirt to that effect), which is great marketing in and of itself.

The TV show thing really did seem to start with Roddenberry, though. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was originally going to be a TV series (Star Trek: Phase Two), but was turned into a film franchise after the success of Star Wars and Close Encounters. The films gave Trek several years of momentum when otherwise fandom had begun to stall and fade. Not unlike the JJ Abrams reboot right now, come to think of it.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:15 AM on September 24, 2012 [5 favorites]


You still haven't answered the question: is it going to be a movie?!
posted by grubi at 8:20 AM on September 24, 2012


let me just say that even having the faintest slightest murmuring wisp of your property being bought by a production studio is UNREASONABLY EXCITING.
posted by The Whelk at 8:30 AM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


Given the choice, I'd rather see the film of a book before reading it. That way, I can get the most enjoyment out of both forms of media. A film adaptation of a book I've read can be done really well, but I'll inevitably lament changes, or things that were left out, or things mightn't match with what I imagined. But if I see the film first, the book then becomes a longer, more in-depth exploration of the characters and world, and I can appreciate the movie and book more on their individual merits.

I also think the quality of the source material - or at least my esteem for it - matters greatly. In the cases where the movie is better than the book, in my experience, it's easier for that to happen when the book in question isn't particularly good, especially if it's all ideas or all plot but little of anything else. Potboilers can make good movies, and often have.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:33 AM on September 24, 2012


I don't think Wonder Boys is particularly long and meandering at all. It's a pretty slim book, actually.

Oh goodness, you're right: under 400 pages. Weird how memory is. Perhaps I'm thinking of the novel-within-a-novel.

And congrats on your book, PhoB! I can only imagine most people are curious about the movie adaptation possibilities because (whether appropriate to the work or not) it's a shorthand measure of salability, and the publisher's price in your work.
posted by psoas at 8:36 AM on September 24, 2012


You still haven't answered the question: is it going to be a movie?!

Well, that's one of the good things about holding on to your film options. Who knows. Even if it doesn't happen now, it could in twenty years or something. (Call me, Hollywood!)

Most authors of my acquaintance have found the whole process of having their work translated to film to be pretty painful, incidentally. Often the scripts are bad and transparently bad and you give up the right to say anything about it. It's just kind of how it works. Pretty double-edged sword (the other edge is MONEY and PUBLICITY).
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:36 AM on September 24, 2012


(goes to daydream land where people just give away unlimited budgets and contracts)
posted by The Whelk at 8:41 AM on September 24, 2012


I understand the reasons people object to movies being made out of their favorite book, board game, or breakfast cereal.

But they're a lot dumber than the reasons people want to see a movie made out of their favorite book, board game or breakfast cereal. I can't have a Lucky Charms movie because your fragile, precious imagination must remain unsullied? Screw that.
posted by straight at 9:09 AM on September 24, 2012


What, you never saw Lephrechaun: In the Hood?
posted by shakespeherian at 9:19 AM on September 24, 2012 [2 favorites]


He's up to no good!
posted by Artw at 9:22 AM on September 24, 2012


I can't have a Lucky Charms movie because your fragile, precious imagination must remain unsullied?

Yes. That's what I'm saying. I'm clearly saying there ought to be a law against adaptations.
posted by gauche at 9:22 AM on September 24, 2012 [4 favorites]


I'm with The Whelk. Nerds never want anything to end.

I'm sure that nerds have had enough of the Simpsons by now. Everyone except for FOX has had enough of the Simpsons by now.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:28 AM on September 24, 2012 [2 favorites]


Dracula 3000: There's No Sunshine In Space
posted by The Whelk at 9:32 AM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


I think the point of The Simpsons at this point is to give nerds what they wanted, good and hard, in the hopes of encouraging future restraint.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 9:33 AM on September 24, 2012 [2 favorites]


I can't have a Lucky Charms movie because your fragile, precious imagination must remain unsullied?

Yes. That's what I'm saying. I'm clearly saying there ought to be a law against adaptations.


No, gauche is personally stopping movies from being made.
posted by bongo_x at 9:34 AM on September 24, 2012 [2 favorites]


Everyone except for FOX has had enough of the Simpsons by now.

I haven't. And I doubt Fox, a network driven by ratings, would keep it going if it weren't being watched.
posted by grubi at 9:42 AM on September 24, 2012


I’d like to see more short stories getting film adaptations. There’s usually not enough time in a movie to fit in all the good bits of a novel (a TV series is probably a better choice for novel adaptations), but short stories can work beautifully without leaving anything out. For example, Bubba Ho-Tep, based on a Joe Lansdale story.
posted by asperity at 9:42 AM on September 24, 2012 [2 favorites]


It's an issue linked to the stupid remake issue - does a remake necessarily have to be bad? No, in fact several well loved classics could qualify as remakes. If you hear that some thing you love is going to be remade by Hollywood should you assume that the result will be an abomination? Yes, you absolutely should.
posted by Artw at 9:56 AM on September 24, 2012


I actually think Simpsons being on despite having way passed its expiration date is not a bad thing- at the very least, it's an interesting experiment to see how long they can keep going, and will set one hell of a Guinness Book Record for other shows (or cartoons- Family Guy? oh no) to beat. But referring to the original comment, I'm sure nerds, the hardcore fans of the Simpsons who love it most, are the same ones who would most likely are going "Kill it! Kill it now!" because of what the show has become.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:57 AM on September 24, 2012


I’d like to see more short stories getting film adaptations.

They seem to be about the right length and structure to fit easily into 90 minutes in a way novels don't. Though it's less flashy than a novel - often if the writer isn't Steven King or PKD or someone the audience will never even know it's an adaptation.
posted by Artw at 9:59 AM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


the hardcore fans of the Simpsons who love it most, are the same ones who would most likely are going "Kill it! Kill it now!" because of what the show has become

During the last season of Seinfeld, I nervously kept track of how many more episodes they had to crank out before they crossed the finish line because it seemed to be getting worse and worse.
posted by Egg Shen at 10:00 AM on September 24, 2012


grubi: gauche, that ends up being an individual person's issue, not an inherent problem with adaptations.

No, I think gauche is right, because in addition to the movie overwriting one's own internal perception of the book, we also have the popular culture on all sides reinforcing that view. And with Tolkien the phenomenon is immediately and readily observable, since the books were extremely popular before the movie and had a huge culture built up around them. Now when you talk about LOTR, you have two groups of people, book fans, and movie fans who have never heard of Tom Bombadil, or Barrow Wights, or Radagast, and who think Saruman died at Orthanc instead of in the Shire much later.
posted by JHarris at 10:05 AM on September 24, 2012


Hope they don't go the Battleship route and put aliens in it.

Everything I hear about that movie is more hilarious than the one before.


The "synopsis" of Battleship about 4 minutes into this movie podcast might put an end to your streak because I can't imagine anything more hilarious coming from that movie.
posted by straight at 10:06 AM on September 24, 2012


I can't have a Lucky Charms movie because your fragile, precious imagination must remain unsullied? Screw that.

It's not the existence of the movie that's the problem. It's how the marketing for the movie PUTS THE DAMN THING IN THE AIR AND FORCES US TO BREATHE IT, and then all our friends go on about catchphrases and action scenes and makes us want to vomit rather than hear about the property any more.
posted by JHarris at 10:09 AM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


movie fans who have never heard of Tom Bombadil

One of many ways in which the films are better than the books - inasmuch as TB is Tolkien at his fey, simpering worst.
posted by Egg Shen at 10:16 AM on September 24, 2012 [2 favorites]


No. EVERYONE MUST EXPERIENCE THE GLORIES OF BOMBADIL. BRIGHT BLUE HIS JACKET IS, AND HIS BOOTS ARE YELLOW MUTHAFUCKA!
posted by JHarris at 10:19 AM on September 24, 2012 [11 favorites]


Well, spare a thought for us lot who never much cared for LotR but loved The Hobbit and are now getting LotR: The Three Part Prequel.
posted by Artw at 10:19 AM on September 24, 2012 [2 favorites]


They saved Tom Bombadil for his own movie. He'll be played by Jason Statham.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:24 AM on September 24, 2012 [5 favorites]


I'm pretty sure if you were to edit out the scenes of characters singing in the original LOTR you could quite comfortably get one book out if it.
posted by panboi at 10:37 AM on September 24, 2012


JHarris: "and movie fans who have never heard of ... Radagast,"

The Brown One will be in the Hobbit trilogy, played by Sylvester "Seventh Doctor" McCoy. Even has some scenes with him tending to a hedgehog who's out-of-sorts in the lastest five-different-endings trailer.
posted by radwolf76 at 10:43 AM on September 24, 2012 [2 favorites]


grubi - when I talk about badly or well-translated, I'm not talking about how completely faithful the translation is, but how well the core of the original artwork is translated: the philosophy, the characters, the story. I agree that a completely faithful translation can be very problematic - the movie of Watchman reproduces many of the original panels of the comic book, but was still pretty bad.
posted by jb at 10:59 AM on September 24, 2012


There’s usually not enough time in a movie to fit in all the good bits of a novel (a TV series is probably a better choice for novel adaptations), but short stories can work beautifully without leaving anything out.

Based on BBC results, it seems that the perfect amount of time for an adaptation for a Jane Austen novel (about 200 pages) is 6 hours -- and the best novel adaptations I've seen have just about all been 6-8 hour mini-series.
posted by jb at 11:03 AM on September 24, 2012


'Why is it so important to the fans that there be a film adaptation of the franchise they love?'

Why do people seem to think their specific aesthetic taste translates to the universal experience?
posted by mrgrimm at 11:09 AM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


grubi: "Everyone except for FOX has had enough of the Simpsons by now.

I haven't. And I doubt Fox, a network driven by ratings, would keep it going if it weren't being watched.
"

"Who knows what adventures they'll have between now and the time the show becomes unprofitable? "
posted by Chrysostom at 11:16 AM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


Holy crap, that episode aired 17 years ago.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:17 AM on September 24, 2012 [4 favorites]


mrgrimm - my point exactly. We tend to forget what WE like or dislike isn't what EVERYONE likes or dislikes.
posted by grubi at 11:19 AM on September 24, 2012


Based on BBC results, it seems that the perfect amount of time for an adaptation for a Jane Austen novel (about 200 pages) is 6 hours

The Emma Thompson Sense and Sensibility ran 2 hours 16 minutes. I didn't feel like anything was missing.
posted by Egg Shen at 11:27 AM on September 24, 2012


"This feels precisely backwards, for the reasons mentioned above. The movie is necessarily going to have to compress and simplify whatever the original work was (the exception being board games, which is beyond my capacity to explain as anything other than: here, spend money on this), so at best the movie can only be an ad introducing the overall themes and major characters of the original work."

Naw, I'd rather experience the book first. I'm sure it's an issue of how one experiences media and how one's imagination works. I don't have a very visual imagination, so when I see a movie (as gauche notes), those movie scenes are indelibly written over my own imaginings of a place or character or scene. (This is also why I don't ever watch horror movies -- can't get rid of the visuals.) I'd rather experience the novel myself first, and then see a movie.

But then I don't mind when a movie selects and edits while remaining true to the heart of the novel -- the 1994 Little Women updated a bunch of things (Marmee's hardcore feminist in the movie, for starters), but it was very smartly done, in ways that drew on the novel and on Louisa May Alcott's life, and in ways that made it a better movie story and left aside things that wouldn't translate well from the page. It had a particular interpretation and point-of-view, but it was one that made sense, honored the story, and honored the medium. Too many adaptations fail by remaining too true to the story (keeping things that don't translate to screen) or by straying far too far from the story.

My enjoyment of Little Women 1994 is greatly enhanced by my knowledge of the novel. Ditto LotR. Also the Emma Thompson Sense and Sensibility.

I can't really think of a situation, though, where I saw the movie and then read the book afterwards and was happy about it. Probably because I'm a more book-oriented person and I don't watch a ton of movies. I enjoy them, but it's not my first media choice. (I do sometimes just watch the movie and don't ever read the book because I know it's not really my kind of book.) Sometimes reading the book first and then seeing the movie means I loathe the movie, but when it's a good adaptation I get far more pleasure out of seeing the movie after I've read the book.

I don't know, MeFi is such a book nerdy place, and most book nerds I know prefer to read the book before seeing the movie, that I'm surprised there aren't more people here who are book-then-movie people, or who inwardly groan in fear of a bad adaptation when they hear one announced.

But there are also good and bad times for adaptations -- realistic period dramas and many fantasy adaptations are being done pretty well right now, which are both genres I really like. But it seems like an awful time for comic book and cartoon adaptations; many become too market-driven to be anything but a mess. You can think of other eras where period dramas are just cheezeball city, while sci-fi is being interestingly done.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:42 AM on September 24, 2012


I find myself saying "I wish they turned this book into a miniseries" more often. Longer than a movie, so you can afford a slower pace and details; and it has a predefined beginning and end, so it's less likely to be indefinitedly extended (and ruined) for profit's sake, like what happens with regular tv shows.
posted by palbo at 11:46 AM on September 24, 2012


I was really sad that the HBO The Magicians series got nixed. That would have been a great one.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:02 PM on September 24, 2012


I'm surprised there aren't more people here who are book-then-movie people, or who inwardly groan in fear of a bad adaptation when they hear one announced.

I simply consider the adaptation as a separate item altogether. It's better for the ol' blood pressure. If they make a shitty movie (regardless of the source material), then it's a shame. But I try not to have any expectations with regards to the source. No matter what, someone's going to be bothered.
posted by grubi at 12:15 PM on September 24, 2012


/me thinks The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would make a great radio series
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:03 PM on September 24, 2012 [4 favorites]


I thought Sophie's Choice was an excellent movie and delivered the story exceptionally well.
I am still on the fence about the Harry Potter series.

Many movies make me wish there were books because I loved the characters so much I wanted the deeper experience that reading brings (i.e. Broadcast News).
posted by I_Love_Bananas at 1:31 PM on September 24, 2012


I'm usually one of those curmudgeonly folk decrying every single moderately successful non-moving picture property turned into a movie, but I'm actually glad that I saw the movie of No Country for Old Men before I read the book, because I know I wouldn't have come up with anything as menacing as Javier Bardem's voice on my own.

/me thinks The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would make a great radio series

Indeed it did.
posted by adamdschneider at 1:31 PM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


/me thinks that one verse of Led Zeppelin's Ramble On would make a good trilogy oh all right I'll stop now
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:52 PM on September 24, 2012


I've been waiting for years now and Ridley Scott's Monopoly still hasn't hit the theater. Now it looks like Adam Sandler's Candy Land might get there first and steal all the glory!
posted by mbrubeck at 2:07 PM on September 24, 2012


....see If I was Hasbro I would've gotten Pendleton Ward on board for a Candy Land movie like yesterday
posted by The Whelk at 2:12 PM on September 24, 2012 [1 favorite]


I dunno, man, I recently, uh, acquired some Judge Dredd and what I've read of it is just dumb as a box that has had numerous rocks added to it. It's not very clever or witty, just "Dredd is unemotional as he brutally does something that requires him to be very hard, but in a surprise twist, he is harder than anybody else and wins." I don't get the appeal.

You have to realise, I think, that Judge Dredd's foil in all this is the City of Mega-City One (and the wider universe derived from it) itself. It's so filled with all kinds of future crazy stuff that the implacable, almost incapable of character growth JD serves as a rock that the waves of crazy constantly rush toward and finally break upon. His continuously helmeted head ensures he is a cypher for teenagers to implant there powerlessness induced potency fantasies upon but there's only so much you can do with that as a concept - the endlessly refreshing environment is what gives Dredd its satirical edge.

Mind you - I haven't read it in 20 years so it could be complete bollocks now. Super excited for when the movie hits NZ though.
posted by Sparx at 2:26 PM on September 24, 2012


I don't know, MeFi is such a book nerdy place, and most book nerds I know prefer to read the book before seeing the movie, that I'm surprised there aren't more people here who are book-then-movie people, or who inwardly groan in fear of a bad adaptation when they hear one announced.

I waver. Generally, if I see the movie, then read the book, I will like both (as with most of E.M. Forster). But if I read the book first, I won't like the movie.

The 2-Hour Sense and Sensibility was a good adaptation, but not as rich or as true to the time (some character moments felt a bit anachronistic) as the 6-hour BBC Pride and Prejudice. Caveat: I haven't see any other S&S and I avoided the 2-hour P&P because, yeah, 2 hours and Keira Knightly? Wasn't interested.
posted by jb at 2:45 PM on September 24, 2012


I can't really think of a situation, though, where I saw the movie and then read the book afterwards and was happy about it.

Brokeback Mountain

I didn't like the movie that much, but I loved the story.

We tend to forget what WE like or dislike isn't what EVERYONE likes or dislikes.

My main point was that sci-fi/comic-con-type books and movies aren't only movies and books. Books like Atonement, The English Patient, Like Water for Chocolate, The Hours, No Country for Old Men aren't really considered here.

I would actually love to see a good adaptation of Galactic Pot Healer. Glimmung is one of my favorite characters EVER (Gary Oldman in a fat, er, whale suit?)

....see If I was Hasbro I would've gotten Pendleton Ward on board for a Candy Land movie like yesterday

Candy Land would be a decent movie, if they butched it up a bit. I see Jeff Goldblum in a dual role as Mr. Mint/Lord Licorice; Jack Black as Gloppy; Seth Rogan or Rosemary Clooney as Mamma Gingertree; Verne Troyer as Jolly; Natalie Portman as a Molotov-lollipop-wielding Lolly; Amanda Seyfried as lipstick lesbian Princess Frostine; Kathy Bates as Mamma Nutt; Channing Tatum as the sleazy Duke of Swirl, and Morgan Freeman as King Kandy.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:46 PM on September 24, 2012


Candy Land would be a decent movie, if they butched it up a bit.

No. That would be betraying the game's roots. They should ideally hand it off to the PONY people, who proved you don't have to be stupid or exclusionary to make something appealing to girls.

But really, they should just not do it at all. I'd like to think there are limits to Hollywood's powers of cultural exploitation.
posted by JHarris at 4:13 PM on September 24, 2012


I'm surprised there aren't more people here who are book-then-movie people

I find that surprises in the plot are more important in movies than in books. And I'd usually rather see a story expanded into a book than abridged into a movie.
posted by straight at 4:34 PM on September 24, 2012


movies (including television) are the story experience most people enjoy most because movies feel closest to reality. A movie about Batman is the closest you are going to get to making Batman feel real.

I don't know, man. My imagination has an unlimited budget and the acting is always superb.

I've been getting more disciplined about reading books before movie/television adaptations because the other way round I can't erase the movie version of a character to form my own impression of him/her/it. However, this has recently resulted in a few adaptations basically becoming unwatchable as they can't compare to the experience of reading the story.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 6:32 PM on September 24, 2012 [2 favorites]


"Candy Land would be a decent movie"

Like so.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:43 PM on September 24, 2012


I'm always optimistic (and usually disappointed) by the idea a thing I love becomes a thing I can see and enjoy. Like Watchman (which I loved).

Conversely, I recently purchased The Hunger Games books because I found the movie exceeded my expectations.

(Of course, there is a furniture company here giving away copies of the 50 Shades trilogy with each bed purchase... and the bed doesn't even have anywhere to put handcuffs... or any sort of cuff).
posted by Mezentian at 5:43 AM on September 25, 2012


Conversely, I recently purchased The Hunger Games books because I found the movie exceeded my expectations.

Ugh, I downloaded the digital version of the first one for free via Amazon thru some sort of gimme, but I couldn't get through more than 10 pages. Does it get good?
posted by mrgrimm at 3:14 PM on September 25, 2012


The number of Hasbro properties that have been made into movies (even when there's not really anything to make a movie out of) is nothing short of astounding. It's like they went, "Hey, the Transformers movies were a huge hit; let's replicate that success with Spirograph and Lite-Brite!"
posted by Sys Rq at 5:30 PM on September 25, 2012


So anyway... I finally saw the Dredd movie, it's fucking awesome. An actual proper hard R action movie that is actually pretty different from the comic in a log of ways but captures the spirit incredibly well. It's everything a fan of a franchise could hope for, except the people actually going to see it part.

Has Scott Pilgrim made its money back yet?
posted by Artw at 12:58 AM on September 29, 2012 [1 favorite]


« Older Circa 2005, Steve Jobs was introducing a new featu...  |  "On the morning of Saturday Se... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments