*Disclaimer* There will be no pictures here, just read it. I don't feel like I'm breaking any new ground with this comparison, I just thought it would be funny. I will still be coming out with a list this week.
*Warning* This post is going to contain a lot of grammar mistakes. It just dawned on me that I should make this and I didn't feel like bothering my editor with two issues this week. Pretty much, this was just too long for me to feel right about posting it as a Facebook status. I will do what I can about the errors, but I don't necessarily fix too many of my Facebook statuses. Anyways, here it is.
After watching "Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" I have come up with a comparison for movies based on books that I have read. Movies based upon books are like rolling a D20 (twenty sided dice for those of you who don't play dungeons and dragons).
You got your critical 20-18: Like "The Lord of the Rings"/"The Hobbit," where the movie leaves out a good amount of moments and characters from the book, but the fans don't care because the movie is so blindingly awesome that everyone just enjoys the ride.
Than you have 17-15: Like the "Harry Potter" series, where a fair amount of fans are pissed off by them adding to or subtracting from the books, but they don't really care because in the end they know they are going to buy all eight movies on bluray or dvd or both.
Than there is the 14-12: Like the "Hunger Games" series, where the movie is fairly accurate, sans a couple of minor annoyances, and the fans don't necessarily love it nor do they hate it. They might buy it or they will wait for it to come to Netflix.
After that you have 11-9: Like any movie based on a Stephen King novel where it is expected that they are going to mess up the ending and piss off all of his fans, but the movies themselves if looked away from the source material are amazing and live on in the horror classics. Sure to scare us anytime we watch them.
Followed by 8-6: Like the "Twilight" series, where the fans are as equally pissed off at the inaccuracies as Harry Potter fans to their movies are, but the movies spawn some weird cult following where the fans will jump in front of a freight train for Edward or Bella. The movies are horrible because of the source material but somehow the train wreck is interesting to watch.
After which you have 5-3: Like Mortal Instruments where they try to fit everything from the book into the movie in a short amount of time making it feel rushed as hell, and still leave out and add too much stuff. Not only that but make a huge reveal in the first movie that makes the rest of the series not worth watching. The movie by itself is ok but probably won't spawn any new readers.
Finally you have the fumbles 2-1: Like Percy Jackson where fans want to go to the house of every person involved in making the movie and torture them to the point of death for messing up the movie so horribly. It's like the creators skimmed the cliff notes of the book and decided to try and make money off of it anyways.
It makes me wonder how the upcoming "Fifty Shades of Grey" movie is going to do, when that is based off of shitty source material as well.
--------------------------------------------------------
After I thought of that, I thought about other comparisons for movies based on something and got the following.
Movies inspired by true events or based on a historical figure are like playing "Monopoly."
You get free parking upon rolling doubles for the first time and avoid anyone's property: The movie is spectacular and doesn't try to make the person into some kind of saint. In the case of inspired by true events, it tells the story in an interesting and less boring way. Like "The Social Network" or "Argo."
You roll doubles a second time and land on a hotel that takes a good portion of your finances but doesn't bankrupt you: The movie is okay but lacks vision and plays up the main character as a saint. In the case of based on true events, the movie is a bit dull, or you can tell that nothing in this movie actually happened but is still fine to watch. Like "The Conjuring" or "42."
You roll doubles a third time and land on a blue property with a hotel, you are almost forced into bankruptcy now having only one not mortgaged property with no houses or hotels, and you are in jail: The very concept of the movie is offensive to people and makes them want to boycott your film. You go to see it, thinking that if a movie is that offensive it must be worth the watch. Turns out the movie is horrible and you join the boycott out of spite for having paid to see it. If no one is starting a boycott on the movie because no one was offended you start a boycott on the film because it was just that bad. Like "30 minutes or less" or "Jobs."
It makes me wonder how the newest Nelson Mandela movie is going to do, with a great actor like Idris Elba at the helm.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Movies based upon comic books are like flipping a coin.
Either you call it right: The movie is the best thing you have ever seen, regardless of how true it is to the source material and you will do anything in your power to make sure that it gets the box office it deserves. Like "The Avengers," "The Dark Knight," or "Sin City."
Or you call it wrong: The movie is so blatantly bad that you wait until it is in the bargain bin at gas station and buy it. Only to cover it in lighter fluid and set it on fire so its filth no longer has to infect the rest of the world. Like "Batman and Robin" or "Hulk."
Makes me wonder how the "Thor" sequel is going to do, with Natalie Portman back as the damsel in distress
--------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, you have movies based upon video games which is like your friend getting drunk at a party and throwing up all over the place. It is funny to watch but you are still pissed because he just threw up all over your carpet. Like every movie based on a video game to date that wasn't "Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children"
Doesn't make me wonder about a damn thing, just makes me hope for something to break the cycle of horrible bullshit.
*Warning* This post is going to contain a lot of grammar mistakes. It just dawned on me that I should make this and I didn't feel like bothering my editor with two issues this week. Pretty much, this was just too long for me to feel right about posting it as a Facebook status. I will do what I can about the errors, but I don't necessarily fix too many of my Facebook statuses. Anyways, here it is.
After watching "Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" I have come up with a comparison for movies based on books that I have read. Movies based upon books are like rolling a D20 (twenty sided dice for those of you who don't play dungeons and dragons).
You got your critical 20-18: Like "The Lord of the Rings"/"The Hobbit," where the movie leaves out a good amount of moments and characters from the book, but the fans don't care because the movie is so blindingly awesome that everyone just enjoys the ride.
Than you have 17-15: Like the "Harry Potter" series, where a fair amount of fans are pissed off by them adding to or subtracting from the books, but they don't really care because in the end they know they are going to buy all eight movies on bluray or dvd or both.
Than there is the 14-12: Like the "Hunger Games" series, where the movie is fairly accurate, sans a couple of minor annoyances, and the fans don't necessarily love it nor do they hate it. They might buy it or they will wait for it to come to Netflix.
After that you have 11-9: Like any movie based on a Stephen King novel where it is expected that they are going to mess up the ending and piss off all of his fans, but the movies themselves if looked away from the source material are amazing and live on in the horror classics. Sure to scare us anytime we watch them.
Followed by 8-6: Like the "Twilight" series, where the fans are as equally pissed off at the inaccuracies as Harry Potter fans to their movies are, but the movies spawn some weird cult following where the fans will jump in front of a freight train for Edward or Bella. The movies are horrible because of the source material but somehow the train wreck is interesting to watch.
After which you have 5-3: Like Mortal Instruments where they try to fit everything from the book into the movie in a short amount of time making it feel rushed as hell, and still leave out and add too much stuff. Not only that but make a huge reveal in the first movie that makes the rest of the series not worth watching. The movie by itself is ok but probably won't spawn any new readers.
Finally you have the fumbles 2-1: Like Percy Jackson where fans want to go to the house of every person involved in making the movie and torture them to the point of death for messing up the movie so horribly. It's like the creators skimmed the cliff notes of the book and decided to try and make money off of it anyways.
It makes me wonder how the upcoming "Fifty Shades of Grey" movie is going to do, when that is based off of shitty source material as well.
--------------------------------------------------------
After I thought of that, I thought about other comparisons for movies based on something and got the following.
Movies inspired by true events or based on a historical figure are like playing "Monopoly."
You get free parking upon rolling doubles for the first time and avoid anyone's property: The movie is spectacular and doesn't try to make the person into some kind of saint. In the case of inspired by true events, it tells the story in an interesting and less boring way. Like "The Social Network" or "Argo."
You roll doubles a second time and land on a hotel that takes a good portion of your finances but doesn't bankrupt you: The movie is okay but lacks vision and plays up the main character as a saint. In the case of based on true events, the movie is a bit dull, or you can tell that nothing in this movie actually happened but is still fine to watch. Like "The Conjuring" or "42."
You roll doubles a third time and land on a blue property with a hotel, you are almost forced into bankruptcy now having only one not mortgaged property with no houses or hotels, and you are in jail: The very concept of the movie is offensive to people and makes them want to boycott your film. You go to see it, thinking that if a movie is that offensive it must be worth the watch. Turns out the movie is horrible and you join the boycott out of spite for having paid to see it. If no one is starting a boycott on the movie because no one was offended you start a boycott on the film because it was just that bad. Like "30 minutes or less" or "Jobs."
It makes me wonder how the newest Nelson Mandela movie is going to do, with a great actor like Idris Elba at the helm.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Movies based upon comic books are like flipping a coin.
Either you call it right: The movie is the best thing you have ever seen, regardless of how true it is to the source material and you will do anything in your power to make sure that it gets the box office it deserves. Like "The Avengers," "The Dark Knight," or "Sin City."
Or you call it wrong: The movie is so blatantly bad that you wait until it is in the bargain bin at gas station and buy it. Only to cover it in lighter fluid and set it on fire so its filth no longer has to infect the rest of the world. Like "Batman and Robin" or "Hulk."
Makes me wonder how the "Thor" sequel is going to do, with Natalie Portman back as the damsel in distress
--------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, you have movies based upon video games which is like your friend getting drunk at a party and throwing up all over the place. It is funny to watch but you are still pissed because he just threw up all over your carpet. Like every movie based on a video game to date that wasn't "Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children"
Doesn't make me wonder about a damn thing, just makes me hope for something to break the cycle of horrible bullshit.
No comments:
Post a Comment