![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyear"Expectation blinds us to the moment." -- Frippism
On the topic of why people can't just accept a film for what it is...
The problem is that because of advertising and hype, people come to a film with a set of expectations, and when those expectations aren't met, bad feelings result that can be expressed as hatred, annoyance, anger, depression, or something else entirely.
The LOTR films are great in and of themselves, but they aren't the books. This is particularly true in the characters of Faramir and Denathor (much of Denathor's "changes" for the 3rd movie were utterly unnecessary and made for a poorer character and poor drama over the books). For any who know the books so well, the changes from their own vision are particularly jarring. Some can handle it, others can't. After the bad feelings resulting from my first viewing of Towers (I like the film much more now than that first day, particularly the extended cut), I intentionally read every "spoiler" page I could on RotK in order to get the "its not the books" aspect out of the way and let the film be the film.
Its more acceptable when a change from the source material improves the film. This is particularly true in Fellowship in the "cliffhanger" (literally) on the collapsing stone stairs in Moria. Another example is Spielberg adding the T-Rex saving the day in Jurassic park (and the poster-reference to "The Day the Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth") that isn't in Criton's original novel.
RotK had the potential (again, an expectation thing) for being really good drama, as some people have interpreted the 3rd book. Instead, its a great action movie with some dramatic moments, but others are lost because of poor characterization. When Denathor dies, you should feel sympathy for a man of greatest nobilty betrayed by his own imagination; instead, its "good riddance, the guy was a jerk" and lets get back to the fun stuff with Legolas in it. That sort of thing bothers some people.
Hidalgo again is fighting its own hype. Particularly in the way it advertises itself as "based on a true story" when there are historical records on the Arab side that contradict many of the facets of the original story and primary documents that reveal the guy was a known embellisher of stories (in other words, he often flat-out lied and made it all up).
The Star Trek franchise has been trying to figure out what made ST2 work for 20 years now, and haven't got it right since.
Much like Braveheart, which to anybody who knows ANYTHING about scotland at the time, is the most annoyingly fictional work I've ever seen. And no, I won't get into a rant on "Passion" here. I personally get into a rant on most versions of 3 Musketteers because only 1 (the Michael York version, 1973-1974) actually followed the real plot line of the book.
Hype gets us to see the movies. However, it also gives us an expectation of what to see, and the film then has to meet or beat that expectation or its a failure. Failure in film has nothing to do with what a film does on its own; it has everything to do with what a film does when compared to its own hype.
The best films in my collection are films in which I had no idea whatsoever of what to expect. I just watched it 'cause it was there. And it was GOOD. Buckaroo Banzai. Time Bandits, Baron Munchausen. Goonies. Highlander (the original). Dogma. Dark Crystal.
just to name a few...
On the topic of why people can't just accept a film for what it is...
The problem is that because of advertising and hype, people come to a film with a set of expectations, and when those expectations aren't met, bad feelings result that can be expressed as hatred, annoyance, anger, depression, or something else entirely.
The LOTR films are great in and of themselves, but they aren't the books. This is particularly true in the characters of Faramir and Denathor (much of Denathor's "changes" for the 3rd movie were utterly unnecessary and made for a poorer character and poor drama over the books). For any who know the books so well, the changes from their own vision are particularly jarring. Some can handle it, others can't. After the bad feelings resulting from my first viewing of Towers (I like the film much more now than that first day, particularly the extended cut), I intentionally read every "spoiler" page I could on RotK in order to get the "its not the books" aspect out of the way and let the film be the film.
Its more acceptable when a change from the source material improves the film. This is particularly true in Fellowship in the "cliffhanger" (literally) on the collapsing stone stairs in Moria. Another example is Spielberg adding the T-Rex saving the day in Jurassic park (and the poster-reference to "The Day the Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth") that isn't in Criton's original novel.
RotK had the potential (again, an expectation thing) for being really good drama, as some people have interpreted the 3rd book. Instead, its a great action movie with some dramatic moments, but others are lost because of poor characterization. When Denathor dies, you should feel sympathy for a man of greatest nobilty betrayed by his own imagination; instead, its "good riddance, the guy was a jerk" and lets get back to the fun stuff with Legolas in it. That sort of thing bothers some people.
Hidalgo again is fighting its own hype. Particularly in the way it advertises itself as "based on a true story" when there are historical records on the Arab side that contradict many of the facets of the original story and primary documents that reveal the guy was a known embellisher of stories (in other words, he often flat-out lied and made it all up).
The Star Trek franchise has been trying to figure out what made ST2 work for 20 years now, and haven't got it right since.
Much like Braveheart, which to anybody who knows ANYTHING about scotland at the time, is the most annoyingly fictional work I've ever seen. And no, I won't get into a rant on "Passion" here. I personally get into a rant on most versions of 3 Musketteers because only 1 (the Michael York version, 1973-1974) actually followed the real plot line of the book.
Hype gets us to see the movies. However, it also gives us an expectation of what to see, and the film then has to meet or beat that expectation or its a failure. Failure in film has nothing to do with what a film does on its own; it has everything to do with what a film does when compared to its own hype.
The best films in my collection are films in which I had no idea whatsoever of what to expect. I just watched it 'cause it was there. And it was GOOD. Buckaroo Banzai. Time Bandits, Baron Munchausen. Goonies. Highlander (the original). Dogma. Dark Crystal.
just to name a few...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-03-08 09:22 am (UTC)However, this was on hype and expectation, and hyping a movie as being "authentic to ..." (history, or some novel) sets an expectation that simply can't be met.
The one exception, I would say, has been the Harry Potters so far, though with each getting longer, its going to be harder to keep all the book's content on screen.
On the other hand, some films just take the idea and go their own direction with it, and admit it up front, like Jurassic Park and half the Steven King originated films out there. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. A director aiming to make a great movie will usually do so.
In a sense, I value honesty over hype. Hype as "based on" vs. honesty as "inspired by", and you'll see my preference...
no subject
Date: 2004-03-08 09:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-08 11:07 am (UTC)