Yeah that's inevitable but some changes aren't always for thr better
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Yeah that's inevitable but some changes aren't always for thr better
Again, Mik.... Working with your last quote.... To YOUR personal liking. Factor out your own ego. Your views on the MCU/Star Trek/WhatNot aren't the correct ones. They are just yours. You aren't right by definition. Just right by your personal preferences.
Being unfaithful to the original does not necessarily make an adaptation bad. The original might be improved substantially; I'd call that a good, if not a great, adaptation.
Not sure why you're being like this. I didn't say others couldn't like stuff. Do I have to preface everything with "imo" so you don't accuse me of being egotistical?
Frankly I wasn't the biggest fan of rebooting the James Bond timeline in 2006 and retelling his career from the start but that doesn't mean Casino Royale wasn't a rollicking good 007 film and one of the best since GoldenEye. I ended up being wrong to a large part. Source material can be honored without a tick-off-all-the-boxes checklist of having to hone to the exact look and feel of said source material.
In the history of debating and normal conversation, we have always used the words in my opinion... I think.... I feel.... And it is indeed a forgotten art. Just stating 'It is dull' or 'It is bad' literally according to any language out there means you are stating a fact, not a opinion. We invented vocabulary for a reason. Use it.
Which was the cinematic source material, by the way. Bond was corny and hokey from the beginning of the film franchise.
So...yeah. Not honoring the original to the letter sometimes works.
Maybe not for everybody, but it can work.
So...yeah. Not honoring the original to the letter sometimes works.
Maybe not for everybody, but it can work.I don't need to preface everything with "imo" because I'm saying it's a fact. I'm only mentioning my opinion
I'm not interested in this debate anymore. If you just want to argue and be condescending, go to someone else
I cannot even begin the amount of applause this comment deserves.
A good rule of thumb: Within any group of like-minded individuals devoted to a specific topic, given sufficient time there will come a point where a certain segment of that group thinks their viewpoint is more "pure." This is true whether it's about TV and movies, or it's politics or music (e.g., any time a politician appeals to "real Americans," or the fans of a band feeling the new fans who came in after the big hit single aren't "real fans").
If you were to ask Stephen King, he will tell how much he dislikes Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining. That he thinks Kubrick's interpretation of Wendy was "misogynistic" and Jack Nicholson's performance was wrong. For King, his book was about a flawed man with personal demons who goes crazy after being pushed over the edge by the forces within the hotel, where Kubrick's film shows a disturbed man from the start who is an extension of the evil at the heart of the hotel.
I think the argument which goes Kubrick made a great movie, but a horrible adaptation of King’s work is probably right. King’s story is a metaphor for the disintegration of a dysfunctional family dealing with alcoholism, domestic abuse and cycles of violence. And King seems to have sympathy for Torrance, given King’s own history with alcohol and drugs.
Kubrick, on the other hand, kinda says fuck all that, sees Jack Torrance as a drunk that broke his kid’s arm, and treats him like a weak person who allows himself to be seduced by monsters.
I will in fact go everywhere I would like. This is my good right. Posting on any forum means you're going to get feedback. Part of adult life. Welcome.
As an educator, I'd just like to applaud this.
The attitude of "why do I have to use the correct words to express my meaning?" is incredibly frustrating.
I think this is a great comment. Because King also once mentioned he wished he came up with the ending of the movie adaptation of The Mist and saying it was better than this his. The person who created the source of the adaptation does get a voice. But in the end, it also up to how people interpreted the source material and choosing to make something else out of it. And it is left to the viewers to decide what works. There are fans of the novel that liked the movie. And those that didn't. No one is wrong.
Knock it off.
Knock what off? I didn't start this. I was trying to be polite. Don't "both sides" this
That is the opposite of "knocking it off".
I'm not interested it arguing with you either.
Good because when a moderator gives instructions, people are expected to follow them, and not argue to derail the actual topic.
Just stop.
Similar threads
- Locked
