wmp: sacred distance - kh3d ost
1:05pm.. over 2 hours since i woke up. impressive, no? and despite the conflicting urges upon waking up of playing ranked/LoL (typical) and wanting to look up piano videos of beethoven symphony 7.2 and sacred distance.. i was instead flanked by my subscriptions. both screen junkies and cinema sins uploaded today.. though i naturally always gravitate to the former.. id unno if i go a day without it these days.
so yes, my day began with a lot of raving from nick mundy about "how to fix marvel". and i'm praying that my post is somehow safe from his ever-cynical eyes lel.. but all of his desires are ridiculously unrealistic. it's like the screamings of an angry fanboy/fangirl.. well thats what it basically was. and no i don't think xmen and fantastic 4 should be part of the avengers.. spiderman maybe but that's not gonna happen. although spiderman is strong enough to stand on his own, evidently. for a while spiderman was THE go-to hero until batman happened lel.
over the course of today, i noticed something that i'll get to later.. but it starts with this guy ranting and raving in this video. i for one, would never expect "agents of shield" to feature any heroes. why would it be called agents of shield otherwise.. they wouldn't make a tv show featuring the avengers heroes.. then what would be the point of making the movies. it's a marvel CINEMATIC universe.. of course agents of shield would be a smaller deal. ridiculously unrealistic needs and wants from this guy.
STAR WARS PREQUEL TRILOGY (i realise sub-headings make my posts cleaner and easier on readers)
i moved on to "belated media", who i have no subscribed to. a guy who seems to like kids movies, hurray because i like kids movies haha. well he reviewed frozen (surprise surprise) but revealed some more things that i never thought of.. nice input. and he clarified that the songs all feel different.. which i agree with strongly. and i totally agree with him that tangled and wreck it ralph kick ass too. disney are going very well right now.
but what stood out for me (and what i was watching first) was his "how to make star wars" good videos. hence, the obi-wan in this post. it's worth checking out (at least episode 1).. it features a lot of really good ideas, and a strong premise i never thought of (and dunno why lucas didn't either) of obi-wan being the main character. he goes on to talk about a completely different episode 2 (which honestly seems too short unless you're okay with it being only 90 minutes). I QUITE LIKE THE POLITICS IN THE PREQUEL TRILOGY but agree that episode 2 is.. well i don't like watching it.
and here's where i'm gonna start talking.
it's come to my attention that perhaps a lot of the hate that gravitates (hurr) towards the star wars prequel trilogy stems from star wars' huge original fanbase. holy shit it's almost been 10 years since episode 3 came out.. this must be how it felt like when episode 1 was announced. anyway.. it seems like where lucas screwed up was taking too much out of what people loved while adding too much of what people hated. zhou says that the original trilogy was so good because it had the whole "quest" thing going for it.. meanwhile i actually get bored watching the original trilogy (yes take this chance to smite me now). or perhaps i only really like episodes 1 and 3 in the new trilogy anyway. lel. my favourite from the original trilogy is 5 btw. i think.
anyway we're sidetracking. i get a lot of complaints.. well i hear a lot of complaints from my friends about book to movie adaptations.. harry potter gets a lot of shit. but i didn't realise that this is also true for comic to movie adaptations.. and even weirder.. movie to movie adaptations. this is why the star wars prequel trilogy is so hated.. because people keep juxtaposing it to the original 3. that and they're probably worse as films too. probably. i dunno man i liked 1 and 3.
but let's take another example here.. it seems like man of steel cops a lot of crap because it's "too dark" and stuff like that. obviously the intention was to make it more like nolan's dark knight trilogy, and in that regard, it worked in at least making it feel similar. similar, not the same. actually batman didn't feel that dark.. well at least not batman begins. but who's to say what is "too dark" or not? it's because people have this image of superman, that he's meant to be the beacon of hope and whatever. "superman is meant to be hopeful". if this was any other miscellaneous superhero movie.. they wouldn't give as much of a crap. sure they could say it's dark.. but they wouldn't give extra hate for it because it's dark. in fact people love v for vendetta for that raeson, and that's a standalone comic book movie.
but because superman is so iconic.. it seems like people hate him more. also i'm blogging in a new kind of shit today.. i feel too much like i'm being careful what i say, as to not anger readers. but i don't even have readers i'm treating it like i'm making a public broadcast xx
anyway.. take in comparison.. captain america. (still hands down my favourite avenger.. i don't even know why.. i think i just love the pseudo-military feel his original character had in his film debut). no one knows shit about captain america (although out of all the avengers.. next to hulk he was the only one i knew prior to their film releases) so no one complains about stuff like red skull is a separate entity to hydra.. actually scratch that.. rha's al ghul is a completely separate entity to both bane and scarecrow normally.. but no one complained about that either.. why are people complaining about zhod in man of steel?
THE REAL QUESTION
i dunno it's all just a thought. but the real question is.. where do you draw the line between loyalty to source material, and reworking for the big screen? because things have got to change. they have to become more epic, or less epic to fit the structure, arc and flow of a 2 hour film. but are people to let things change just for that?
the dark knight trilogy was a complete rework of batman fundamentals (well not COMPLETELY, but it shifted around characters here and there).. but then there's peter jackson, who right now seems like the god of book to movie adaptations. while most fanatics complain about stuff that's missing or changed or what from harry potter or man of steel or whatever have you.. i hear nothing but good news about lord of the rings in how it stays true to the source material.
but then again i suppose it really depends on what you're adapting.. coz it all honesty.. a lot of the first death note movie was direct to film adaptation.. and it just did not work. i suppose it depends on what you're adapting huh?
until then.. just gonna keep pondering on these things.