The Wanted book/graphic novel has little to nothing to do with the flick anymore than Damnation Alley the flick had to do with the book.
Exactly.
Why not leave the property alone? Why change it at all? And if you're going to change it that much, why not just make your own original property where you can set the rules however the fuck you want?
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Whenever people say things like "But that's not like the original" I'm always like "So? You already have the original - If you like it - stick with it." I don't see any point in recreating something as it already exists.
TheCatt wrote:Whenever people say things like "But that's not like the original" I'm always like "So? You already have the original - If you like it - stick with it." I don't see any point in recreating something as it already exists.
And it still sucked worse than the original, even with a shot-for-shot remake.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
TheCatt wrote:Whenever people say things like "But that's not like the original" I'm always like "So? You already have the original - If you like it - stick with it." I don't see any point in recreating something as it already exists.
That's the kind of thing that People Who Just Don't Get It do.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Whenever people say things like "But that's not like the original" I'm always like "So? You already have the original - If you like it - stick with it." I don't see any point in recreating something as it already exists.
The problem with that line of thinking here is that it doesn't already exist.
Sure, the story has been told, but not visually.
Some changes to an existing property are understandable to translate it to the screen and fit it within a certain time frame, but to dramatically change almost every key element of the existing property makes no sense. Why spent the 6 figures to buy the property? Why not just create your own original idea?
And following those lines to your point, why buy the property if you're not trying to please the fans of that property?
It'd be like buying the rights to make films based on Lord of the Rings, and then making a film about a jewelry dealer in Wichita.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
You buy the rights because you want to leverage existing IP. Now, how you use that existing IP (taking just the name, taking most of the characters, taking most everything, etc) is up to the licensees. Why buy the property just to please the existing fans? Why not try to expand the, or redirect it? Maybe there's better markets, or more potential? Using the existing IP (in whatever amount) can provide a stepping stone. Maybe it makes sure that a film gets a green-light when an original (or semi-original) idea wouldn't?
There are plenty reasons to do it. The story already exists, regardless of the medium. If you want a dot for dot retelling of a story to a movie/tv show, just do a better job of picturing it in your head. Let's face it, very few visual reproductions of books do nearly as good of a job telling a story anyway. (Shawshank Redemption excepted)
I would be okay with taking an existing IP in a new direction as long as 1) it doesn't suck, and 2) it doesn't directly and strongly contradict and/or mock the original versions. The changes made must be good in their own right and at least make a passing attempt to play nice with the past incarnations.
In the vast majority of cases this is not true. Usually the changes either suck or are insulting to the original work. The Starship Troopers movie, for example, did both.
Battlestar Galactica would be a good example of doing it right.
EDIT: The same rules apply to sequels and series. I'm looking at you here George Lucas.
Edited By TPRJones on 1289407082
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
You buy the rights because you want to leverage existing IP. Now, how you use that existing IP (taking just the name, taking most of the characters, taking most everything, etc) is up to the licensees. Why buy the property just to please the existing fans? Why not try to expand the, or redirect it? Maybe there's better markets, or more potential? Using the existing IP (in whatever amount) can provide a stepping stone. Maybe it makes sure that a film gets a green-light when an original (or semi-original) idea wouldn't?
There are plenty reasons to do it. The story already exists, regardless of the medium. If you want a dot for dot retelling of a story to a movie/tv show, just do a better job of picturing it in your head. Let's face it, very few visual reproductions of books do nearly as good of a job telling a story anyway. (Shawshank Redemption excepted)
We're going to agree to disagree here.
I get what you're saying, but as many positives as you list for changing an existing IP, I can list negatives.
(And again, to be clear, I'm not talking about minor changes, but major changes in plot, story, characters, etc. that almost make the movie a completely different entity than the source.)
The trick is to figure out how best to use the IP in a way that its audience will flock to the film and spread good word of mouth, while not making it too difficult for a casual audience to get into.
To be fair to your point, many would argue Peter Jackson veered too far away from the source material for the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but I think the box office receipts prove otherwise. He was able to satisfy the majority of existing fans, while also drawing in a massive audience not familiar with the IP.
Wanted wasn't faithful to the source material, and got horrible word of mouth. It still did ok with the casual audience (like Gordon), but nothing like the studio's expectations. In fact, the only reason it did even remotely ok is because of weak competition at the theaters at the time.
My favorite example on the topic of incompetence with an existing IP, Godzilla, is a perfect illustration of how not to use an existing IP. When the Matthew Broderick version was released the studio thought they had a mega hit on their hands based on record ticket sales (at the time). They were thinking franchise. Then it was in theaters for a second day and the numbers dropped dramatically. By the following weekend, nobody was buying tickets. Why? Because the movie had nothing to do with Godzilla. The title said "Godzilla", and the audience was primed for "Godzilla", but they got Jurassic Park 2 instead. Bye bye franchise.
Then. there are films that stuck with the IP almost perfectly and did great, like 300, Watchmen, Shawshank Redemption, Harry Potter, etc.
Of course, there are also films that stuck with the existing IP nearly perfectly and bombed like Whiteout.
I think it depends on the source material, its core audience, who you're targeting with the movie, and what you're changing.
Edited By Leisher on 1289414199
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
My point really was: I just want to be entertained, so even if something is different that doesn't necessarily merit complaint. And if something sucks, then suckage alone is reason to complain.
Fair point and I hope you realize I am looking for the same thing.
I just have the added caveat of "If you're going to recreate something that has entertained me in the past, try not to shit all over it."
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
So far, the show is still good. Attention to detail is still a little spotty in my opinion, but I love that a zombie show is getting such good ratings. Gives me a slight hope for World War Z not sucking as much as it looks to be sucking.
Or, this show could torpedo WWZ because WWZ would try to be different, when in reality The Walking Dead could conceivably be one small story in the WWZ universe.
Edited By GORDON on 1289756506
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Marathon this Sunday, December 5th of the first season (6 episodes). If you didn't give it a shot or wanted to wait to ensure it was a hit in the ratings (it is and has been renewed) now is the time to start watching.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
TPRJones wrote:Want to write for the show? Maybe you can.
What the hell? He 86'd all of them?
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
For those who don't know, Robert Kirkman the Exec Producer, is the writer of The Walking Dead books. He's the brains behind the show and is still there.
I'm not going to panic as long as he's around.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Well shit, I have to wait HOW long for a new season of this? I'm surprised the executives didn't do a full 12 episode season, everyone loves Zombies these days.
Also, to add: I have to admit, I am kind of glad that they fired all the remaining writers, providing they were responsible for the last episode. I enjoyed the first 5 much more. It seemed like whoever was writing the CDC bits borrowed their material from Lost or Resident Evil. (Mysterious metal door with light, Facility with AI that can't be overridden and is about to explode, etc.)
Here's to hoping they get back to the overall Zombie Apocalypse in the next season.
I've emailed someone to confirm, but the entire CDC thing and Dr. Jennings was not in the books. No "the French were close to a cure". No whispering in Rick's ear. No lady staying behind to die. No attempted rape of Laurie by Shane. No Shane telling Laurie Rick was dead. No attempted rescue of Rick at the hospital by Shane.
All of that was new to me, which is cool.
What wasn't new, and I'd have to go back to see the exact specifics, but Dale's speech and rescue of Andrea was in the books, just not the same way it went down on the show, obviously.
Ok...just did a little research and here's why things have played out the way they have:
-The CDC thing was Frank Darabont's idea (big wig on the show and wrote three episodes this season). He said if something like this happened, and they were in Atlanta, wouldn't you seek out the CDC? Makes sense.
-Them driving away in the RV at the end puts them right back on track with the books.
-Ok, if you're trying to avoid ALL spoilers for future seasons, you may want to skip this bullet point as it may help you piece together a spoiler. With the obvious exception being a few characters. One should already be dead and a few others don't exist in the book. Robert Kirkman explained that the one character who died in the books that is still alive on the show is being fleshed out more in the show because they have time to tell the story. In the books, he rushed things early on because he didn't know if he was about to be canceled or not.
As for season 2, if they are heading back to the books, I know where they should end up almost right away (a bunch of new characters), and most likely where season 2 will end. If I'm right season 3 is going to be awesome...and bloody.
So much more to discuss and speculate on, but I don't want to spoil things for anyone.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
