The Storytelling Thread

Topic

This is a thread to talk about a storytelling

Replies

This is a complete aside. When Law & Order first came on British TV (very early 90s not long after it was aired in the US) my dad commented that it had the worst theme tune in the history of TV, that it’s just a sequence of jazzy noises. I had to take his point, there’s no real memorable tune there, it’s a baseline and a series of musical noodlings.

Then a week or so back I happened upon a list article that named it the 7th best theme in the history of global television.

Everything in art is subjective I suppose.

Rocket wrote:

Hey would NCIS be the same show if you replaced Gibbs?

It wouldn’t be the same show, no, since the way the other actors interact with Mark Harmon would likely not be the same as their interaction with a different Gibbs. But whereas the other shows you mention are built around the title/lead character, shows like NCIS, CSI, Law & Order and their various spinoffs are ensemble shows that focus more on the procedural aspects than on the characters. L&O: Criminal Intent has basically told the same stories for 10 seasons, regardless of whether the lead male detective was played by Vincent D’Onofrio, Chris Noth, or Jeff Goldblum.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I heard some say that Silence of the Lambs is just an overrated B movie horror flick done with good actors.

I thought about it and it can be seen that way.

Just saying

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I know this is quite off-topic for this thread but I decided to post it here for reasons. Valid reasons.

I was recently thinking about stuff completely unrelated to storytelling when I read somewhere that Silence of the Lambs isn’t a lynchpin of modern cinema, or a masterpiece of many genres but rather just an overrated B-Movie with good actors. Without argument, this supposedly profound interpretation was presented as is and then promptly validated without any thoughts of the matter.

Sure, it’s a valid opinion, but it’s also completely wrong, not to mention demeaning to a film that is to many a staggering achievement in cinema. I don’t think Silence is a B-movie by any stretch of my definitions of a B-movie but maybe the guy who said it first and I are just on a different wavelengths.

Is Silence of the Lambs a B-Movie? What actually constitutes a B-movie? Now that is thought-provoking!

A B-movie isn’t any special sort of movie to me, it’s just like any other movie but with a lower budget and lesser production values compared to A-list hollywood movies. There are some common tropes, somethimes, like B-Movies pertaing to one (or two) of a number of particular genres, like western, horror, scifi, etc.. I don’t think any of that is applicable to Silence of the Lambs since it did cost a whole lot of money to make and as as genres go, it is very nuanced to the point where I can’t squarely define it as any genre. It’s equal parts a psychological thriller, a crime drama and a character exposition in that it’s just not the plot of the movie that matters. What matters isn’t just catching Buffalo Bill, it’s just as much the meetings between Sterling and Lecter and us getting to know Lecter.

And there is a lot more than acting to that. The script is good – Not only are the characters well-written and presented to us, it’s lacking traditional one-liners often in B’s. Also the camera work, music, set pieces (like Lecters cell or Buffalo Bills domicile) all contribute to the overall experience and nothing about any of those things feel  like those of a B-movie to me. Quite the opposite. I never feel like any notable “shortcuts” had been made in regards to expenses, and that’s also a thing about B’s. They’re without artistic integrity and do not give a shit about any shortcomings. Unless they take a creative approach and and embrace artistic liberties

Those may be opposites, but B-movies can be two things! Neither of which, to me, can be readily applied to Silence of the Lambs.

What makes a movie a B-Move for you? What’s the je ne sais quoi? Does Silence of the lambs, apart from good acting, fit that? What widely regarded masterpiece would you call a “B-movie but with great actors”?

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Todd

Al-x wrote:

A lot of past shows have been relegated to their sensational aspects like:

Miami Vice – the drug deal of the week
Star Trek – the space anomaly of the week
Sopranos – who gets whacked this season

All these CSI shows are the murder case of the week etc.

Just saying…

Apart from Sopranos, that’s not sensational aspects, that’s what the standalone plots of the episodes were.

Sopranos didn’t have that, it was one of the shows that first established true long-form storytelling. And honestly, I don’t think anyone who watched it really reduced it to “who gets whacked this season”. There was a far too rich tapestry of character interaction to watch it like that.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

Al-x wrote:

I heard some say that Silence of the Lambs is just an overrated B movie horror flick done with good actors.

That doesn’t sound like a thing people say. Who did you actually hear say that?

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM

Christian wrote:

That doesn’t sound like a thing people say. Who did you actually hear say that?

Michael Bay! Bet!

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Christian

I was going to joke Scorsese. Then I searched Michael Bay Silence of the Lambs because no reason:

https://entertainment.ie/cinema/movie-news/anthony-hopkins-calls-michael-bay-a-genius-and-compares-him-to-martin-scorsese-231128/

Christian wrote:

Al-x wrote:

I heard some say that Silence of the Lambs is just an overrated B movie horror flick done with good actors.

That doesn’t sound like a thing people say. Who did you actually hear say that?

When I saw Silence of The Lambs it felt like a B-movie but with an actual production budget.  Can’t understand why anyone took it seriously.

Actually, a lot of fans reduced the Sopranos season to who gets whacked to determine if it was a good or bad season.

Sopranos had many storylines: mob intrigue, family drama, Tony’s psychoanalysis and so on but the the majority of fans saw it for the mob intrigue and who gets whacked this season.

As for Silence of the Lambs, the usenet group forum said that the premise of the movie was B movie horror but the approach to it with production and good actors made it seem better than the premise. In that sense, the movie is overrated.

I also heard that Gladiator was overrated too for its reasons, but I don’t want to bash these Best Picture Oscars, just overrated storytelling. Wasn’t there one with some woman and the Creature from the Black Lagoon a few years back? I digress…

Anyway…Shifting gears…. Since TV wants to reboot, it would be hard to bring back Three’s Company. Could the audience buy a landlord regulating the lifestyle of the tenants who live in the complex?

Al-x wrote:

Anyway…Shifting gears…. Since TV wants to reboot, it would be hard to bring back Three’s Company. Could the audience buy a landlord regulating the lifestyle of the tenants who live in the complex?

That, and they definitely couldn’t do the gay jokes today that they did then.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Al-x

garjones wrote:

To be honest I’ve never really understood how syndication works, it seems to be repeats on a less popular channel,

Yeah, more or less.

Traditionally, American television has had three major networks that broadcast over the air for free, supported by commercials. These networks have local affiliates in all major cities that cover the entire US. So if you were a fan of Seinfeld, it would be on at 8:00PM on Thursday evenings on your NBC affiliate.

If a series proved popular enough, it went into syndication.(Usually, that mark was one hundred episodes, but syndication is what kept Star Trek alive in the 1970s, and it only had 79 or so episodes.)

That means the owner of the series (which may or may not be the network) then sells the re-runs to individual local stations (which may be the parent network of the series, the affiliate of a competing network, a local independent tv station with no affiliation), and they schedule these re-runs in an open spot on their schedule.

Occasionally, there would be a series that is “first-run syndication” that is produced directly for syndication. Star Trek The Next Generation is probably the most famous example of this. STTNG was never shown on a network, but instead sold to individual local tv stations; I would reckon that most them were either independent stations or Fox Network affiliates (since they only had two hours of programming per night) because they had more room on their schedules for a high-profile hour-long.

This landscape has changed a lot in recent years, with cable channels scooping up re-runs of old shows and the streaming services streaming catalogs of old content.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Dave

Al-x wrote:

As for Silence of the Lambs, the usenet group forum said that the premise of the movie was B movie horror

That usenet group is wrong and doesn’t know what the f**k it is talking about.

Al-x wrote:

As for Silence of the Lambs, the usenet group forum said that the premise of the movie was B movie horror but the approach to it with production and good actors made it seem better than the premise. In that sense, the movie is overrated.

Okay, for one thing, what makes a B-movie a B-movie is precisely that there’s so little money in the production and that the actors are hokey and that the movie doesn’t give a shit. B-movies are fun because they don’t have a care in the world, they go for their outlandish ideas with a sense of abandon. It’s all about production, not really about premise. I mean, the premise of Toxic Avenger is not that different from other superhero movies (obviously), it’s the production that makes it a B-movie.

Silence of the Lamb’s premise, on the other hand, is not that much of a stretch really. FBI enlists the help of a serial killer to catch another one. And it’s a very carefully consctructed movie in every way. So, you know, you can say it’s a B-movie in every way except that it has nothing in common with a B-movie at all. Or like Jerry said, that usenet group didn’t know what the fuck it was talking about.

And that goes for you too, Lorcan, damn your eyes!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

Anonymous wrote:

I was going to joke Scorsese. Then I searched Michael Bay Silence of the Lambs because no reason:

https://entertainment.ie/cinema/movie-news/anthony-hopkins-calls-michael-bay-a-genius-and-compares-him-to-martin-scorsese-231128/%5B/quote%5D

You have to wonder if he’s taking the piss there.

I tend to think that a banana is very much like a piece of cheese, if you took the middle of the cheese out and replaced it with a banana, and then took the outside off and replaced it with a banana skin.

Christian wrote:

Silence of the Lamb’s premise, on the other hand, is not that much of a stretch really. FBI enlists the help of a serial killer to catch another one. And it’s a very carefully consctructed movie in every way. So, you know, you can say it’s a B-movie in every way except that it has nothing in common with a B-movie at all. Or like Jerry said, that usenet group didn’t know what the fuck it was talking about. And that goes for you too, Lorcan, damn your eyes!

But everything that happens in it is so stupid, and the music is so over the top. I’m not saying you can’t enjoy it, I’m just baffled as to why it’s described as a great of cinema

1 user thanked author for this post.

Al-x

In all fairness, Michael Bay is a fucking genius when setting up his shots. Hue, saturation, camera movement etc. Bayformers, Armgeddon and Bad Boys may be crapfests but they’re all beautiful crapfests.

It is what it is: overrated storytelling like Nell, Evita, Chariots of Fire… even Pulp Fiction which I like makes Tarantino overrated. All he did was trace over the storylines of the black exploitation movies from the early 70’s. Pulp Fiction is derivative of that era.

Just saying.

true, but how bout CSI? They replaced William Peterson and it was never as popular even though they had stars like Ted Danson and Lawrence Fishburne replace him.

How many of those years of L&O had Sam Waterson on the show? how many years has SVU had Mariska Hargitay on that show?

L&O
S. Epatha Merkerson… Lieutenant Anita Van Buren / …391 episodes, 1991-2010 

Sam Waterston… E.A.D.A. Jack McCoy / …368 episodes, 1994-2010 

2 users thanked author for this post.

JRCarter, Todd

Al-x wrote:

even Pulp Fiction which I like makes Tarantino overrated. All he did was trace over the storylines of the black exploitation movies from the early 70’s. Pulp Fiction is derivative of that era

Pulp Fiction does a lot more than that I think, particularly structurally.

2 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, lorcan_nagle

Anonymous wrote:

In all fairness, Michael Bay is a fucking genius when setting up his shots. Hue, saturation, camera movement etc. Bayformers, Armgeddon and Bad Boys may be crapfests but they’re all beautiful crapfests.

I can see what Hopkins is getting at. Plus Sir Anthony is a genius at promoting a movie. Still funny to see the names together.

[Rocket]

I clicked on that link and got this response.
UH OH – WE’VE NOTHING TO SEE HERE!

• This reply was modified 4 years, 9 months ago by Rocket.

lorcan_nagle wrote:

But everything that happens in it is so stupid

I think if you’re willing to suspend disbelief where the premise is concerned, the rest become not-stupid? But it’s been about thirty years since I saw it, so it’s not like it’s fresh in my mind…

Al-x wrote:

All he did was trace over the storylines of the black exploitation movies from the early 70’s. Pulp Fiction is derivative of that era.

That it’s derivative of an era doesn’t mean it’s overrated. Nothing creative comes out of a vaccuum. Pulp Fiction was original in a great many ways, and Tarantino’s way of writing dialogue was pretty revolutionary back then.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Don’t get me wrong. Pulp Fiction is great, I liked it and I like Tarantino, but I just won’t make Tarantino out to be
this great movie genius.

Not to get into cultural appropriation, but there are things that really were overrated like Bo Derek wearing cornrows and that is seen as sexy, exotic, but it was just a black woman’s style on a white woman. Elvis’ dancing wasn’t revolutionary just a mimic of lesser known black performers before him in a much smaller audience.

As for Tarantino, he isn’t that much of a cultural appropriator. He does borrow from other past genres and eras and repackages it for today. I don’t feel he is lazy in doing it, he is resourceful. I put his storytelling in a good level, but not godlike for lack of a better term.

Just saying…

Who would you say is a genius in the world of cinema, Al?

I say it is not about genius but great storytelling. Scorcese comes to mind as critics say he should have won the Oscar so many years sooner than he did.

My intent was not to bash Tarantino, Pulp Fiction, or Silence of the Lambs. I was just saying don’t make something out to be more than what it really is.

Al-x wrote:

I heard some say that Silence of the Lambs is just an overrated B movie horror flick done with good actors.

Interestingly though, viewing at a different angle. The novel it was based on was feted and won awards, I actually read it before the film was made because of positive reviews in the magazines of the time. Okay maybe not  Pulitzer or Booker winning material but it was definitely not regarded as shlocky horror as seen in so many paperbacks.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Dave

Christian wrote:

That it’s derivative of an era doesn’t mean it’s overrated. Nothing creative comes out of a vaccuum. Pulp Fiction was original in a great many ways, and Tarantino’s way of writing dialogue was pretty revolutionary back then.

Yup Tarantino has made no secret of the fact that he borrows heavily. I think one thing he clearly does though is borrow from a wide range of sources, blaxplitation was part of it but he wasn’t copying and pasting any of those films. The Bruce Willis scenes lean heavily on noir and European cinema and don’t really have any of that 70s influence at all. The chatty dialogue style isn’t something taken from those films either.

You see things like the tune whistles by Darryl Hannah’s character in Kill Bill is from a 1960s British film, the influence of westerns and Asian cinema are blended in. At worst I think you can call it a collage of stolen items but not direct rip-off.

5 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Al-x, Todd, Dave

Al-x wrote:

I was just saying don’t make something out to be more than what it really is.

No, you were clearly doing the opposite of that, making Silence of the Lambs out to be something that it wasn’t – A B-Movie with great acting.

There are many films that garnered a lot of critical acclaim and/or box office success and/or major industry awards, that in retrospect really didn’t warrant such success — La La Land, Life is Beautiful, and Chariots of Fire come to mind. All good films, but (IMHO) not worthy of the attention they got at the time. Silence of the Lambs and Pulp Fiction (again, IMHO) earned their success.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Al-x, Todd, Christian, Dave

Al-x wrote:

My intent was not to bash Tarantino, Pulp Fiction, or Silence of the Lambs. I was just saying don’t make something out to be more than what it really is.

That’s fine, I was just wondering what that “more” is that you are looking for. People saying that Scorcese should’ve won an Oscar earlier isn’t a reason why you’d see him as a genius. Just going ex negativo and naming people who aren’t a genius to you seems somewhat unsatisfactory – who do you truly see as a genius, based on the work they did and why?

(I do have a few suggestions on my own, of course.)

What Scorsese did with his earlier movies live Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, shows he is a good storyteller on film.

My intent originally is not to bash others saying he/she is good or bad but who is a little overrated
I storytelling.

I like Tarantino for Pulp Fiction and I like Silence of the Lambs, but it is possible to relegate the movies to shortcuts as even critics have done.

Did Tarantino trace over black movies to make Pulp Fiction? Can Silence of the Lambs be relegated to a B movie plot with good actors? Possibly but who knows.

Anyway, what would really get to you would be to say that Tarantino traces in his own way like Greg Land does in comics.

Al-x wrote:

Did Tarantino trace over black movies to make Pulp Fiction? … Possibly but who knows.

No, because you can’t point to an earlier movie anything like Pulp Fiction that he ‘traced over’.

Al-x wrote:

What Scorsese did with his earlier movies live Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, shows he is a good storyteller on film.

Being a good storyteller isn’t the same as being a genius.

It is part of it though. The thread is about storytelling as reflected in movies, shows, books, comics, and so on.

I did say that Tarantino is good and so is Silence, just that I wouldn’t put them as high as you and others would.

I guess we must agree to disagree.

Come now. Let us shift gears and move on.

Shifting gears – a genius storyteller – whatever the medium, is more than good is what you’re all agreed upon sayin’

I have a few suggestions. Who would you suggest?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Al-x

Thank you so much Bernadette!

It is so nice to hear from you in this thread.

Who would you suggest? Who are your favorite authors, writers, movie makers, showrunner, etc?

I already mentioned Scorcese. I would add someone who gets the source material and translates it to the audience just right. Whedon did that in the first Avengers movie.

Millar is good in comics.

I have to give it more thought….

David Lynch

Todd wrote:

David Lynch

Aye, he’s the bloke who does the weather report. He’s cool.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Todd wrote:

Millar is good in comics.

He’s no genius though.

David Lynch

Very much so, yeah.

Also, I would call Lars von Trier a genius. He is also a very good director, and fascinated with very interesting topics, but most of all just like Lynch he has a unique vision of what he wants to create and manages to realise that vision in a work that will surprise and challenge you again and again.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I’ve never watched a Lars Von Trier movie… as far as I know at least… and I still have zero interest in doing so… don’t know why though

Oh also, to me, as in someone who generally can’t stand “art cinema”, honestly I’d say Chris Nolan is the most “genius” director out there at the moment because of his ability to do smart, beautifully made blockbusters. He’s basically what the Watchowskis should’ve been but never managed to be, much to everyone’s disapointment.

I think to me, Nolan is a bit of a genius but not always a great craftsman. Kind of the opposite of James Cameron.

Christian wrote:

I think to me, Nolan is a bit of a genius but not always a great craftsman

It’s interesting as I feel the opposite about him. His films are always well-made even when the content isn’t hugely inspiring.

1 user thanked author for this post.

njerry

Anonymous wrote:

Shifting gears – a genius storyteller – whatever the medium, is more than good is what you’re all agreed upon sayin’

I have a few suggestions. Who would you suggest?

Any medium?

Alan Moore.

Johann Sebastian Bach.

2 users thanked author for this post.

njerry

Dwayne McDuffie (RIP)

3 users thanked author for this post.

njerry, Todd

Dave wrote:

It’s interesting as I feel the opposite about him. His films are always well-made even when the content isn’t hugely inspiring.

I think we’re maybe describing the same thing in opposite ways… for me, the thing is that he always comes up with really great concepts and ideas, but the way he goes about them is often pretty banal in the end.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

I see David Lynch as someone with a truly unique vision and an absolute dedication to fully realizing it. You may not understand or even like it it, but it is true and pure to what he envisioned. You will also have a visceral reaction and feel it.

Lynch also assumes a higher than normal intelligence in the viewers of his work as a lot of what is experienced in his works is not explained directly. A lot of it is either inferred or just left to the viewer’s interpretation.

Lynch really is an auteur.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, lorcan_nagle

Lynch also does that integrity thing where he doesn’t give a damn what the presumed audience wants but instead make the things that he wants, and he does it to the nth degree.

3 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Christian, Todd

He makes what he wants to see because he does give a damn. The weather is changeable:

3 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Christian, Todd

https://www.buzzfeed.com/sam_cleal/american-teen-movie-things-im-jealous-of?utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bffbbuzzfeed&ref=bffbbuzzfeed&&fbclid=IwAR033QPflEi2rwwhkDa8B2QHn60DokAQQc7dKhbZsO0bPlL4WD_P2brnMFg

Now there is going to be a reboot of The Fresh Prince as a drama. Also, a follow-up series of Saved by the Bell and (wait for the drum roll) Moesha.

I watched but never really cared for a tight group of friends like Friends, Seinfeld, Met You Mother, even Jaime Foxx, and Martin. To me, they were all a bunch of people who felt they had one over on everyone else because they were in this “cool” clique. Never related to that kind of thing.

As for the Fresh Prince as a drama, have to wait and see. We already have blackish and so on. I don’t expect it to be preachy liberalism like Norman Lear’s shows in the 70’s. Have to see what angle it comes from….

Al-x wrote:

As for the Fresh Prince as a drama, have to wait and see. We already have blackish and so on. I don’t expect it to be preachy liberalism like Norman Lear’s shows in the 70’s. Have to see what angle it comes from….

The weird thing is that this is all based on this trailer (which we saw here a while ago, too), apparently:

Which… I don’t know, man. It’s great as a trailer, as a joke, but what is a movie supposed to do with it? You can’t really play it entirely straight as a drama, because the fun of it is that you can see the sitcom through the cracks of it, but you also can’t make it funny, because that would destroy the joke. I don’t know how this could be anything but corny and tiresome after ten minutes of it.

But who the fuck knows what this guy is capable of. We will see if it really makes it to production.

Christian wrote:

The weird thing is that this is all based on this trailer (which we saw here a while ago, too), apparently: Which… I don’t know, man. It’s great as a trailer, as a joke, but what is a movie supposed to do with it? You can’t really play it entirely straight as a drama, because the fun of it is that you can see the sitcom through the cracks of it, but you also can’t make it funny, because that would destroy the joke. I don’t know how this could be anything but corny and tiresome after ten minutes of it. But who the fuck knows what this guy is capable of. We will see if it really makes it to production.

I actually really like the trailer beyond the joke aspect and think it could be a good setup for a drama.

Whenever a movie based on a comic book is released, the first things fans ask is if it is true to the
source material and do the people behind the movie really “get” the character, material, etc… Everybody
wants the movie to be done right and any deviations or liberties have to improve the movie. Amazing how even
the costume to the smallest detail is critiqued. Such high standards, even regular movies based on a novel is not
held so high. Just saying…

So long as the overall storytelling is there, along with the needed gratuitous fighting and effects, it will be entertaining.

Al-x wrote:

the first things fans ask is if it is true to the
source material

…whereas the rest of the viewing public just care whether or not they will be entertained. In a similar vein, the biggest critics of the LORD OF THE RINGS films were fans of the books who bitched about how the scene with Tom Bombadil was left out of the first film, etc.; and HARRY POTTER book fans complained that the film left out The Marauders and got Harry’s eye color wrong. The general public hasn’t pored incessantly over every minor detail of the source material the way obsessive fanboyr (and girls) do, so again the public just cares if the films are well done and entertaining.

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Todd

Don’t forget Game of Thrones, Star Wars, The Witcher, Transformers, Star Trek, recent Disney remakes and literally everything else that has fans.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

True… As for costumes, every year at a comic convention we get cosplay with very accurate costumes. You can sort of tell which are good to see for snapshot, and which would look campy and silly on the big screen for two hours.

Al-x wrote:

Whenever a movie based on a comic book is released, the first things fans ask is if it is true to the source material and do the people behind the movie really “get” the character, material, etc…

Well I mean yeah, but you also have to take into account that people are stupid and fans even more so… they say they want this or that but it’s usually bullshit… So for example, CB fans are super bitchy about it always being true to the source material, but then you have movies like MCU spidey movies which are about as far removed from the source material as you can get, and yet people ate them up and praise them like crazy… so yeah…

It can depend a lot if it ‘feels’ right as much as the actual accuracy.

For example Patrick Stewart is often praised as perfect casting for Professor X. Prof X in the comics is American but he’s been played as British in the films but it’s never mentioned as a major difference because it does seem right.

In the Spider-Man example Tom Holland feels right as the teenage Spidey from the comics, even if many details are changed (e.g. Aunt May much younger, MJ is more nerdy than fashionable party girl, being mentored by Iron Man and minded by Happy etc).

I’m admittedly though more into something being in the spirit of the original than a to the letter adaptation. Say Singer’s original X-Men film where loads of details are different but from the opening WW2 scene I was like ‘they get it’.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, DavidM

garjones wrote:

In the Spider-Man example Tom Holland feels right as the teenage Spidey from the comics,

Does he though? ’cause he sure as fuck doesn’t feel anything like the original Peter… he’s a bit more like Ultimate Peter, sure, but then USM ain’t exactly the “source material”. But yeah, he does feel like Spider-man, which is super weird… maybe it’s just that he feels like how a WE (the audience) think a modern teenage Spider-man would be like.

This would be my argument. Compared to the previous two he hits the right balance.

Maguire had a lot of the Ditko era Peter Parker down but Spider-Man was largely silent and didn’t do the wisecracks.

Garfield was too cool and handsome as Peter and sounded cruel when delivering the wisecracks.

Yes maybe the Holland version is a modern re-reading in our heads but that’s kind of inevitable as none of the characters (well maybe Captain America excepted) sound like the era they originated. You also get with characters that have been around that long a broader brush on how they are represented. You couldn’t really get away with the poor fragile Sue Storm who’s asked to stay at home of early Lee and Kirby FF so you’d use the Byrne era one more and still stay true to some of the source material.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Yeah I guess… also, I suppose the definition of “geeky” and “nerdy” has changed enough in the last 20 years that you can’t really have a Peter like he orginally was portrayed because he’d just look fake at this point. But yeah,  I guess the very basic core elements are still there and so people recognise him as Peter.

[DavidM]

Al-x wrote:

Such high standards, even regular movies based on a novel is not held so high

I am still seeing people complain about the lack of Tom Bombadil 20 years later.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by DavidM.

Jon wrote:

USM ain’t exactly the “source material”.

This raises a very interesting point about source material, particularly with regard to films based on Marvel and DC comics. With so many reboots and multiple universes, how does a screenwriter or director decide which “source” to use? Clearly the MCU Avengers films are more closely with Millar’s Ultimate Universe version of the Marvel characters (see Nick Fury, Tony Stark, Hawkeye) than with the 616 Universe, but the MCU Spidey is still Peter Parker, not Miles Morales. Yet, as has been pointed out, the films as a whole get high marks from comics fans and from the general public despite (or perhaps because of) not adhering faithfully to a particular source material.

2 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, Todd

Stan kinda tended to write Peter Parker as a school shooting waiting to happen, going by some of his internal monologues. Never got that vibe from any other depiction.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

DavidM wrote:

I am still seeing people complain about the lack of Tom Bombadil 20 years later.

I’ve honestly necevr undesrtood the obsession with Tom Bombadil… those chapters in the books feel completely out of place with the rest of the story, like remnants from a different story. I’m not surprised they left him out.

njerry wrote:

This raises a very interesting point about source material, particularly with regard to films based on Marvel and DC comics. With so many reboots and multiple universes, how does a screenwriter or director decide which “source” to use?

Yeah and Batman is the ultimate in that as there’s been virtually every reading possible of the character over 81 years. You can go detective, camp comedy, fascist cop, troubled soul, mentor to troubled kids, arrogant billionaire. It’s all true to some of the source material.

Grant Morrison reminded us that pretty much no adaptation of Superman follows the very original source material of an angry warrior against social injustice, who couldn’t fly, waging physical fights against corrupt bosses.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I think the “MCU is based on Ultimate Marvel” claims are a little bit overstated when you look at the movies closely.

Cosmetically, they certainly draw heavily on a lot of Hitch’s visuals (costume designs, helicarrier/triskelion designs, SLJ as Fury) and a couple of story ideas around a slightly more militaristic bent to the team, the involvement of SHIELD etc.

But when you look at the characterisation of Stark, Thor, Cap, Hulk etc. it’s all much more deeply rooted in the “classic” versions from the regular MU than the Ultimate versions.

Basically, the movies picked details from all over the place that worked – Ultimate, 616, whatever – and put them together to make new versions of these characters that still felt “right”.

What the MCU did right was to preserve the essential core of the characters while updating aspects that need to be updated for the characters to work in the modern era, which is what I think we’re really talking about here with the Spidey example.

A literal interpretation of Amazing Fantasy #15 arguably wouldn’t be a faithful interpretation of Spider-Man today, because a lot of those details are now outdated. Preserving the essence of the character by updating the aspects that need to be updated to be relevant and relatable to modern audiences is exactly what needs to happen to properly adapt them.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Dave wrote:

I think the “MCU is based on Ultimate Marvel” claims are a little bit overstated when you look at the movies closely.

Yeah, I’ve never understood that line of thinking. Everything that’s in the first Iron Man movie (which effectively set the template for the MCU) is straight out of the 616 Iron Man tales. Same with Cap, same with Thor. From the characterisation, to the origins, there’s only a few superficial details that were borrowed from the Ultimate Universe.

2 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, Dave

Yeah, I don’t want to diminish the Ultimate line creators as there was definitely some influence there, obviously – even down to direct scenes being lifted occasionally, like the one with Hulk being kicked out of the helicopter – but the MCU feels more grounded in classic Marvel to me.

Feige seems to have a good instinct for what works when translating comics for the screen, and when/what changes are necessary.

Dave wrote:

the one with Hulk being kicked out of the helicopter

It wasn’t verbatim – It cut to the next scene without a 13 month waiting time.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Bruce, garjones, Todd

[Christian]

njerry wrote:

In a similar vein, the biggest critics of the LORD OF THE RINGS films were fans of the books who bitched about how the scene with Tom Bombadil was left out of the first film, etc.; and HARRY POTTER book fans complained that the film left out The Marauders and got Harry’s eye color wrong. The general public hasn’t pored incessantly over every minor detail of the source material the way obsessive fanboyr (and girls) do, so again the public just cares if the films are well done and entertaining.

I would also argue that in both cases, while there were fans who complained about these changes, the vast majority of fandom was very happy and excited about both movies. I wasn’t into Harry Potter at the start of it, but I was right in the middle of LotR fandom (more as a bystander, but still) when the first movie hit. People were besides themselves, and pretty much everyone agreed that Bombadil wouldn’t have worked no matter how you’d have tried to get him in there.

(And honestly, replacing GLorfindel with Arwen should’ve been more controversial anyway, but it wasn’t as much as you’d have expected because, Liv Tyler.)

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by Christian.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Christian wrote:

Liv Tyler

Casring her at all was and is one of my biggest problems with the trilogy. In my eyes, her acting is terrible.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

The LOTR is one of the rare cases where I think all of their changes for the adaptation were right. There are some I wish they hadn’t made, but I understand and fully support their reasons for making them. For example, they had to create a significant presence for Arwen because, basically, you can’t make a movie in the 21st century that has so few roles for women.

Yes you can.

Christopher Nolan did not get that memo.

3 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, DavidM

DavidM wrote:

For example, they had to create a significant presence for Arwen because, basically, you can’t make a movie in the 21st century that has so few roles for women.

I don’t think that was the reason, tbh… It was more a matter of making the audience care at all for her, because she’s barely in the books… so you kinda need to show why she’d make the sacrifice at all and why would Aragorn even care for her instead of Eowyn who has a more active role and would’ve otherwise made a better fit for him.

Sometimes I wonder if they should’ve just cut the whole ent thing and give more time to other characters and plots… I mean, the whole ent chunk would be completely skippable with a few tweaks… but I guess it’d be too big of a change for fans of a book.

[Rocket]

Anonymous wrote:

Christopher Nolan did not get that memo.

really? then what do you called the character of Rachel Dawes?

I realize your point was that he has very few female roles in his movies but Dawes was a role created from scratch for those Batman movies by Nolan.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by Rocket.

[Rocket]

Rocket wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Christopher Nolan did not get that memo.

really? then what do you called the character of Rachel Dawes?

I realize your point was that he has very few female roles in his movies but Dawes was a role created from scratch for those Batman movies by Nolan.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by Rocket.

You could have replaced her with a sexy lamp and not much would have changed in the movies.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Dave, garjones

[Rocket]

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Rocket wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Christopher Nolan did not get that memo.

really? then what do you called the character of Rachel Dawes?

I realize your point was that he has very few female roles in his movies but Dawes was a role created from scratch for those Batman movies by Nolan.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by Rocket.

You could have replaced her with a sexy lamp and not much would have changed in the movies.

Plus they wouldn’t have had to recast the role.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, garjones

Anonymous wrote:

Casring her at all was and is one of my biggest problems with the trilogy. In my eyes, her acting is terrible.

I agree. But in my memory at least, most of the fans didn’t mind her acting so much, being more focused on other qualities.

DavidM wrote:

The LOTR is one of the rare cases where I think all of their changes for the adaptation were right. There are some I wish they hadn’t made, but I understand and fully support their reasons for making them. For example, they had to create a significant presence for Arwen because, basically, you can’t make a movie in the 21st century that has so few roles for women.

Well, all changes in the FIRST movie. There were some dumb choices in the other ones. One of the things that I really disliked was shoving Frodo and Sam into Osgiliath to have even more BATTLE scenes instead of letting everybody take a break in Henneth Anûn with Faramir and building up the tension again from there. The other thing I hated was turning Denethor into an utter bastard, reducing one of the most interesting characters in the novels to a vaudeville villain.

Reading some of the latest Batman title, how DC is rushing Punchline as a major character, having the Joker take over Gotham right after Bane did the same thing… No real rest in between. Poor Gothamites!

Anyway the characters seem to be caricatures and metaphors. The Joker seems to be a methaphor for pure insanity and sociopathy, nothing redeemable at all. Batman is vigilantism and trauma.

There was an article years ago where Grant Morrison painted the JLA as the pantheon of the ancient Greek gods ie. Flash is Mercury, Aquaman is Neptune. I will find that article someday.

Batman is Order out of Chaos and the Joker is Chaos out of Order.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Al-x

The things that gets to me is that Batman has all this training in the martial arts, detective work, always a step ahead of everything. Yet when it comes to the Joker who has no such training but is just insane, he barely wins.

It’s almost as if it’s a work of fiction rather than reality.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Is that good or bad storytelling?

It’s superhero comicbook sotrytelling… none of it works if you think about it for more than 10 seconds. You just need to get on board with it…

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, njerry, Al-x

If you can accept that Batman can run and jump and fight with that huge-ass cape flopping around, you should be able to accept everything else about him.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Dave, lorcan_nagle, Al-x

If comic book characters had any semblance to reality, the vast majority of heroes and villains would be dead, crippled, or severely brain damaged very quickly due to all the fights and other things they normally endure.

Here’s a Cracked video explaining what it would really take to be Batman:

I get it but the flaw is: What is it with him and the Joker? He has all this training and figuring it all out, yet he struggles against the Joker.

Oh well it is as Jon said above.

Storytelling works provided the premise the story gives. The story suspends belief a little like a momentary worldwide blackout alters the timeline, a carnival wish makes you older, or a time machine made from an old car implanted with technology and plutonium.

It works if you can buy into the premise. The premise is where its at… Just saying.

Al-x wrote:

Is that good or bad storytelling?

I’d say it’s completely unrelated.

Realism has its virtues but a great story can be surreal and ridiculous. Fairy tales have persisted through centuries despite not making much sense (a talking wolf disguising itself as an old woman for example).

What you do have to be is consistent in what’s being presented. If for example you had someone lift a truck in an episode of The Walking Dead it would have ‘jumped the shark’ because while it is fantasy it is also based on it being grounded in something that could happen in the real world. Superheroes are another step removed from that.

Almost everything we watch requires some suspension of disbelief. In the UK the soap operas are very kitchen sink working class dramas, heavily into it being our reality (unlike their US versions which are normally glossy fantasy lives). However after a while you realise that guy who’s been in it for 30 years has been married 4 times, had his kids kidnapped and rescued, been shot at twice, had his business burnt down twice, made a fortune and lost it. Any of these on its own would be credible but all of it happening to one guy in a suburb of London? Now it becomes fantasy. However it’s also a necessity of storytelling that something interesting keeps happening to him. You could avoid that by turning over the cast frequently  but then that becomes unrealistic because in a normal street people do stay for 30 years and you don’t have everyone moving in and out of houses annually. So you just have to suspend the disbelief and go with it.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Al-x, lorcan_nagle, Todd, Dave

Al-x wrote:

What is it with him and the Joker?

Well, that depends too… which Joker are we talking about? And which Batman as well?

I mean, take a look at the 60’s TV show… That Batman was a joke, literally, and so was the Joker… in that instance it’s 2 bafoons going at it, it’s not hard to see why the both struggle…

So yeah, in some instances it might be a case of bad writing: if the current Batman is a batgod, then sure, it doesn’t make sense he’d struggle with a bafoonish Joker, but then there are also more vicious joker iterations, some of them can actually physically fight Batman, some of them are smarter, etc… so yeah, I suppose a good writer will make it so you can believe his Joker is a genuine threat to Batman for x or y reason.

I’d pay to see Adam West Batman vs Heath Ledger Joker.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

I’m of the opinion that, if the 60’s Batman show were done more seriously, Cesar Romero’s Joker might have been more frightening, especially if the backstory Adam West had thought up for him were canon.

3 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd, njerry

Jon wrote:

So yeah, in some instances it might be a case of bad writing: if the current Batman is a batgod, then sure, it doesn’t make sense he’d struggle with a bafoonish Joker, but then there are also more vicious joker iterations, some of them can actually physically fight Batman, some of them are smarter, etc… so yeah, I suppose a good writer will make it so you can believe his Joker is a genuine threat to Batman for x or y reason.

Pretty much.

I think the approach that makes most sense it, the Joker has to be brilliant in a particular way – bit of a prodigy really – and at the same time his madness gives him an edge, because Batman is a strategic thinker and the Joker’s insanity makes him unpredictable. Predicting everything, being prepared for everything is the Batman’s edge, and the Joker takes that away.

There was that supervillain book a few years back, where they had all the villains on an island or something, and the writers had to figure out how Lex and the Joker would become the top dogs in a place with dozens of super-powered villains all wanting the same. It was pretty interesting.

Jon wrote:

I mean, take a look at the 60’s TV show… That Batman was a joke, literally,

 

Working on a script and I need to know if it's "asshat" or "ass-hat." A cursory search on the Internet seems the opinion is split, so I'm willing to go with whatever you guys decide.

— James Gunn (@JamesGunn) September 6, 2020

Watching some Cobra Kai and seeing how most of the trouble is based on a misunderstanding. A few shows are similar like the old Three’s Company and even Shakespeare’s Othello where it was the main scheme.

Funny how the two parties never have a direct sit down to get it all straightened out. But that is the thing.

Aquaman

Attempts have been made to change him like losing his hand and the movies now are trying to make him a badass. I guess Aquaman’s finest moment was in Morrison’s JLA when he used his telepathy to give that white Martian a stroke.

Aside from these underwater kingdom epics, most of the adventures are on land.

Aquaman is hard to write.