| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| penguin jones |
Posted - 25 Dec 2010 : 01:59:15
Mod Edit: Removed web address.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jakk |
Posted - 03 Mar 2012 : 04:33:46
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Oh, well. I don't really care for the genre-naming. If I enjoy a book, then that's it.
I completely agree, and I feel the same way about my music. I distinguish between classical, traditional, and contemporary (and I listen to bands and artists that blur the lines between all three, such as the "lines" exist in the first place), and beyond that, either I like it or I don't. To come back to books, is Jack Vance's Dying Earth series fantasy or sci-fi? Some will call it science fantasy, and add Star Wars to the category; I'm tempted to lump both genres together into the decidedly un-sexy genre title of "speculative fiction" (largely because categorization questions hurt my brain and contribute to a false world-view of pigeonholing everything). YMMV.  |
| Dennis |
Posted - 03 Mar 2012 : 02:00:34
I once visited a forum dedicated to the Twilight saga. And many fans said it's actually romantic sci-fi. The romance part is obvious. As for the sci-fi, well, they said there's really no magic in the setting. The vampires' powers are more like mutant powers. Incidentally, Stephenie Meyer is a fan of X-Men and Anne Rice. So you see the connection....Oh, well. I don't really care for the genre-naming. If I enjoy a book, then that's it. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 03 Mar 2012 : 01:32:47
-And nerds arguing over if something some subgenre really is 'fantasy', or 'science-fiction', or whatever else is always amusing. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 03 Mar 2012 : 01:19:55
Fantasy has grown into several subgenres...There's epic (LotR, Riftwar, WoT), high, paranormal, sword and sorcery, elven, romantic, horror, young adult, occult, etc. In other words, in some cases, novels are a mix of two or more genres. Twilight is fantasy, but also romance and occult. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 14:21:52
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention... I think Icelander mentioned the No true scotsman phrase because it could have been read you were saying Harry Potter and Twilight were not fantasy as a genre, rather than a shelving label.
Just so.
Shelving labels are not especially useful as... anything. They are applied idiosyncratically and haphazardly, if at all.
I mentioned, as an example, that 90% of Realms-novels are shelved in children's literature in my local library. This is, I suppose, the equivalent to 'young adult' literature.
By contrast, science-fiction and fantasy is seperately classed, but some science-fiction and fantasy books are classified with the 'normal' novels, apparently on the theory that if they've won 'serious' awards, received critical acclaim or existed for longer than an arbitrary period, works of fantasy or science-fiction suddenly change genre.
Most book-stores I've visited have their own classification systems, again. In addition, if a given author has written works in multiple genres, the tendency is to classify all his work under one of them, both in libraries and bookstores.
As a result, when someone talks about 'fantasy books', I tend to assume that he means 'books that a reasonablu consistent, if somewhat hazy at the edges, definition might consider as falling under fantasy'. That, at least, would make conversation about it possible.
If he then clarifies that he actually means something else, something which coincidentally serves to exclude all the specific works being discussed; including not only R.A. Salvatore's work and most other Realms novels, but the majority of recent popular fantasy work and the most sought-after intellectual properties in the movie world, I find myself forcibly reminded of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 13:19:44
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Harry Potter was not sold as the Fantasy genre. It has never been shelved as it in bookstores, and was always sold as a young adult market. Certainly it is fantasy.
-I just came back from going to Barnes and Noble, and the Harry Potter books were indeed in the Fantasy section. They had their own little cardboard cut-out stand, but they were in Fantasy. I can't tell you about Twilight, because I don't recall noticing them.
I was just in Barnes & Noble the other day, and there were no Harry Potter books to be found in the fantasy section. I've not seen them in fantasy in any other bookstore I've been in, either.
Not sure why one store would organize them that way and another wouldn't...
I just checked Amazon -- they're categorized as children's books, there.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Lastly, I am not a Scotsman. I am an American of Irish descent, with a dash of Seminole blood mixed in there.
-It's the name of a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman).
I see. That now makes even less sense than before.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention... I think Icelander mentioned the No true scotsman phrase because it could have been read you were saying Harry Potter and Twilight were not fantasy as a genre, rather than a shelving label.
|
| Mournblade |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 13:17:37
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I was just in Barnes & Noble the other day, and there were no Harry Potter books to be found in the fantasy section. I've not seen them in fantasy in any other bookstore I've been in, either.
Not sure why one store would organize them that way and another wouldn't...
I just checked Amazon -- they're categorized as children's books, there.
The reason for this is relatively simple. If a worker in B&N knows it is fantasy they will shelve some in the fantasy section. Otherwise they leave it as imprinted.
My wife has read Harry Potter 3 times. I still haven't because I have not yet because I have it ingrained in my head from B&N that it is a children's series. I am sure it is good, but with my backlogged reading list, I don't feel I am missing much. Especially since I know the first half of the series because I watched the first three films.
|
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 04:48:52
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I was just in Barnes & Noble the other day, and there were no Harry Potter books to be found in the fantasy section. I've not seen them in fantasy in any other bookstore I've been in, either.
Not sure why one store would organize them that way and another wouldn't...
I just checked Amazon -- they're categorized as children's books, there.
-All the other Barnes & Nobles are doing it wrong, what can I say? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 04:13:34
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Harry Potter was not sold as the Fantasy genre. It has never been shelved as it in bookstores, and was always sold as a young adult market. Certainly it is fantasy.
-I just came back from going to Barnes and Noble, and the Harry Potter books were indeed in the Fantasy section. They had their own little cardboard cut-out stand, but they were in Fantasy. I can't tell you about Twilight, because I don't recall noticing them.
I was just in Barnes & Noble the other day, and there were no Harry Potter books to be found in the fantasy section. I've not seen them in fantasy in any other bookstore I've been in, either.
Not sure why one store would organize them that way and another wouldn't...
I just checked Amazon -- they're categorized as children's books, there.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Lastly, I am not a Scotsman. I am an American of Irish descent, with a dash of Seminole blood mixed in there.
-It's the name of a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman).
I see. That now makes even less sense than before. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 01:41:32
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Harry Potter was not sold as the Fantasy genre. It has never been shelved as it in bookstores, and was always sold as a young adult market. Certainly it is fantasy.
-I just came back from going to Barnes and Noble, and the Harry Potter books were indeed in the Fantasy section. They had their own little cardboard cut-out stand, but they were in Fantasy. I can't tell you about Twilight, because I don't recall noticing them.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Lastly, I am not a Scotsman. I am an American of Irish descent, with a dash of Seminole blood mixed in there.
-It's the name of a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman).
That is now Karsus. Harry Potter is shelved in the Fantasy section now because marketers know with its popularity, general fantasy readers will buy it. it is important to note, not all B&N shelve it in fantasy. If workers know it is fantasy, they will shelve it there. Often workers at B&N shelve it where it is imprinted for which is Young Adult.
I worked in B&N for about 5 years. Harry Potter was NEVER in fantasy in the store I worked in. Also it is not there now, except for when SCHOLASTIC imprints it for Fantasy.
This makes sense. Elementary school kids and teachers are not going to look for young reader books in the scifi/fantasy section. Fantasy readers are not going to look for a fantasy book in the childrens/young adult section.
Now HP is released as both, but not all book store workers know this. When Harry Potter was released as a film, it was still exclusively scholastic imprint in Young Adult.
|
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 01:28:01
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Harry Potter was not sold as the Fantasy genre. It has never been shelved as it in bookstores, and was always sold as a young adult market. Certainly it is fantasy.
-I just came back from going to Barnes and Noble, and the Harry Potter books were indeed in the Fantasy section. They had their own little cardboard cut-out stand, but they were in Fantasy. I can't tell you about Twilight, because I don't recall noticing them.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Lastly, I am not a Scotsman. I am an American of Irish descent, with a dash of Seminole blood mixed in there.
-It's the name of a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 00:22:43
Indeed, what Mournblade said. Harry Potter, at least, clearly is fantasy, but that's not how it was marketed. And I'm a huge fan of the series; I re-read the books every year. I'm not sure where it came across that I wasn't a fan.
Twilight it, as I understand it, paranormal romance. Like the Harry Potter books, these are not marketed as fantasy, and I've never seen them shelved with fantasy, either.
Marketing is everything.
But even if it wasn't, a handful of successes doesn't prove that any fantasy novel is going to make a huge movie. There are thousands of fantasy novels that have never even been considered for movies, and I'm sure we've all read hundreds of them.
And even a successful novel still won't guarantee a huge movie. It took what, three tries before Lord of the Rings was a movie success?
Lastly, I am not a Scotsman. I am an American of Irish descent, with a dash of Seminole blood mixed in there. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 28 Feb 2012 : 23:44:47
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
No true Scotsman, eh?
How are Harry Potter and Twilight not fantasy? Remember, this is not a value judgment. Whether you liked them or not isn't the point. One series is about witches and wizards casting spells, using magical items and defeating monsters and undead, as well as evil sorcerers. The other is about the undead, werewolves, diviners, mages and prophecies.
Tim Powers' 'On Stranger Tides' has always been and will always be a fantasy novel.
As for 'young adult', that's what Realms novels are classified as in my library. The age-group that they are directed at has nothing to do with whether they are fantasy.
It seems that you've redefined 'fantasy' to mean 'books about the Forgotten Realms' or 'books I like'.
Harry Potter was not sold as the Fantasy genre. It has never been shelved as it in bookstores, and was always sold as a young adult market. Certainly it is fantasy.
However, the Harry Potter appeal was not its FANTASY, it was the fact that when the movies were released, kids grew up WITH harry potter. harry Potter is a phenomenon that is equivalent to my generation's STAR WARS.
harry Potter sold well because because it was marketed as books to the young adult reader. I do not think if it was marketed as a 'fantasy' genre book, it would have done nearly as well.
Teacher's put it on elementary school reading lists, and JK rowling got kids to read.
I do not think Wooly meant it was not fantasy, but it was certainly not marketed as the fantasy genre.
Twilight is not marketed as fantasy either (thank god:)). Marketers have it clearly labeled as teen romance. This makes a difference.
|
| Icelander |
Posted - 28 Feb 2012 : 23:25:36
No true Scotsman, eh?
How are Harry Potter and Twilight not fantasy? Remember, this is not a value judgment. Whether you liked them or not isn't the point. One series is about witches and wizards casting spells, using magical items and defeating monsters and undead, as well as evil sorcerers. The other is about the undead, werewolves, diviners, mages and prophecies.
Tim Powers' 'On Stranger Tides' has always been and will always be a fantasy novel.
As for 'young adult', that's what Realms novels are classified as in my library. The age-group that they are directed at has nothing to do with whether they are fantasy.
It seems that you've redefined 'fantasy' to mean 'books about the Forgotten Realms' or 'books I like'. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Feb 2012 : 23:01:00
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
This is relevant to the discussion how?
It demonstrates that far from being a tiny, insignificant market demographic, people who read fantasy books and would see movies based on them are actually numerous enough for movie studios to compete for the most popular IPs.
Of recent high-grossing films and film series, a significant number are based on fantasy books. Twilight, Harry Potter, the newest Pirates of the Carribean, etc. All of the above are on the top 10 list of highest-grossing movie series of all time, by the way. So is the Lord of the Rings series.
Significantly, out of 10 highest-grossing movie series, two are entirely 'original' screenplays. One is based on a non-fantasy book series. One is based on a TV series. Two are based on comic books. Four are based on fantasy books.
In light of this, I feel that there exists considerable doubt about the validity of your statement that the readers of fantasy books are too small a demographic for it to be viable to market movies to them. The evidence points to the exact opposite. In fact, marketing to existing fans of popular fantasy series looks like it is more attractive than using an original screenplay or marketing to any other demographic.
The evidence does not point to that. The Harry Potter books were written as young adult, which gets more attention than fantasy. And despite being written as young adult, the books quickly became popular outside of that genre.
Some educators even liked them for encouraging younger readers.
And their popularity became such that even the Pope commented on them. I'm pretty sure he's never commented on any other fantasy characters.
So those books never had the same small audience that shared setting fantasy novels have, and are therefore not a valid comparison.
Twilight is not a fantasy book, either.
And Pirates of the Caribbean is based on a Disney ride, not a book. Interestingly, Disney has revamped the ride to make it more like the movie! |
| Icelander |
Posted - 28 Feb 2012 : 21:55:27
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
This is relevant to the discussion how?
It demonstrates that far from being a tiny, insignificant market demographic, people who read fantasy books and would see movies based on them are actually numerous enough for movie studios to compete for the most popular IPs.
Of recent high-grossing films and film series, a significant number are based on fantasy books. Twilight, Harry Potter, the newest Pirates of the Carribean, etc. All of the above are on the top 10 list of highest-grossing movie series of all time, by the way. So is the Lord of the Rings series.
Significantly, out of 10 highest-grossing movie series, two are entirely 'original' screenplays. One is based on a non-fantasy book series. One is based on a TV series. Two are based on comic books. Four are based on fantasy books.
In light of this, I feel that there exists considerable doubt about the validity of your statement that the readers of fantasy books are too small a demographic for it to be viable to market movies to them. The evidence points to the exact opposite. In fact, marketing to existing fans of popular fantasy series looks like it is more attractive than using an original screenplay or marketing to any other demographic. |
| Wolfhound75 |
Posted - 28 Feb 2012 : 21:36:06
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Hmm, maybe LotR would be a great way to go, in terms of how to present it.
Tongue in cheek:
LotR was the most boring set of movies ever made and while well-written, the books were the underlying cause. What! you exclaim. Why? How could you possibly think that? They did so well at the box office.
It's simple. It was three movies about walking. Let's walk east. Ok, far enough. Uh oh, we have to walk some more. We'd better head south now. Ok, we've gone far enough and we're tired & hungry. Now let's walk east some more. End with dancing and falling. The main characters weren't even directly responsible for the competion of their quest.
Walk, Walk, Walk. Yawn.
Let's not let that happen to any Forgotten Realms movie, please!
Good Hunting! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Feb 2012 : 20:05:31
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Besides... People that read books for pleasure are a small portion of the movie-going audience. People that read fantasy books are a smaller portion of that small portion. And people that read Realms novels are a smaller portion of that. If they make a movie to cater to us, they'd be lucky to start with the budget of Clerks and still break even.
It's a good thing that poor Rowling didn't quit her day job. After all, she was aiming at a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction. Lucky to sell to friends and family, really.
Yet I seem to recall her doing all right. And they even made movies based on her books.
This is relevant to the discussion how? |
| Icelander |
Posted - 28 Feb 2012 : 19:36:45
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So what drew people to movie theaters in 1977, when no one had heard of Mark Hamill or Luke Skywalker?
A product which simultaneously tapped into the collective zeitgeist and packaged an enduring myth into a sleek, fun, 'cool' form with miraculous visual effects for the time.
The extent to which deep insight on one hand or incredible luck on the other were involved are disputed. What no one really doubts is that expecting any untried property to hit this 'magic' spot again is not realistic. Yes, miracles happen. But that doesn't mean that planning to win the lottery is a realistic fiscal model for the year.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Besides... People that read books for pleasure are a small portion of the movie-going audience. People that read fantasy books are a smaller portion of that small portion. And people that read Realms novels are a smaller portion of that. If they make a movie to cater to us, they'd be lucky to start with the budget of Clerks and still break even.
It's a good thing that poor Rowling didn't quit her day job. After all, she was aiming at a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction. Lucky to sell to friends and family, really.
Yet I seem to recall her doing all right. And they even made movies based on her books.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If you want a Wizards movie to be successful, it has to appeal to a larger portion of the populace, which means a lot of people that wouldn't know the difference between a drow and a krakentua. You have to cater to them, which means a simpler story, and more draw than just "yeah, there's this guy who fights with two curved swords, and he kicks everyone's butt!"
From a financial point of view, 'The Forgotten Realms' sticker on a movie about characters that no one has ever heard about isn't going to guarantee an audience. An 'R.A. Salvatore's Drizzt Do'Urden' sticker will guarantee a devoted core of fans much larger than Realmsfans, D&D-players or even P&P gamers as a whole.
R.A. Salvatore has 22 New York Times bestsellers to his credit. He has sold 17 million books in the US alone, which puts him, even conservatively estimating, well over 30 million worldwide. More than half of the money WotC makes from publishing, counting everything, comes from his books.
By contrast, the total number of people who regularly play any form of D&D are less than 2 million. If you put together the sales of the 1e, 2e, 3e and 4e setting book or boxed set for the Forgotten Realms, you'd be lucky to break even this low number*. Even Wizard of the Coast in its most optimistic publicity blurbs makes no claim that more than 20 million people 'play D&D', which has been discovered to mean that they estimate that this is the number of people who have ever tried the game, at any point.***
For every one fan of the Forgotten Realms, a conservative estimate suggests that there are at least ten fans of R.A. Salvatore. The only reason to pay Wizards of the Coast money to use their IP would be because it brought an established fan-base to form a ready-made audience.
If the intention is just to make a good fantasy movie with original characters, there is no need to pay Wizards of the Coast anything. The studio will just make a good original fantasy movie set in a world created for that story. If they want to take risks, they can. Maybe they even will.
But they are not going to buy someone's IP and then make an original story with no name recognition. That goes against the whole rationale for basing movies on established IPs.
*2e sold 175,000 copies and it far outsold the first edition. I'm generously assuming that 3e outsold 2e and 4e outsold 3e, but I have no basis for this and am doing so only for the purposes of this exercise. The actual numbers are not publicly available, which in itself isn't a rousing endorsement.
***As noted earlier, 10% of them still play. The rest are dead, occupied with real life or tried it once in collage and didn't like it. At a guess, not all that many of the 90% know or care about the Forgotten Realms. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 28 Feb 2012 : 18:14:56
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If you want a Wizards movie to be successful, it has to appeal to a larger portion of the populace, which means a lot of people that wouldn't know the difference between a drow and a krakentua. You have to cater to them, which means a simpler story, and more draw than just "yeah, there's this guy who fights with two curved swords, and he kicks everyone's butt!"
This is my argument why NOT to do a Drizzt movie. If its not going to be done right, I don't want it. If that means it can't be done, I am OK with that.
I agree... simply because Wooly's argument, IMHO, is self-defeating... you want it to appeal to a wide audience, and yet you want it to be more than "yeah, there's this guy who fights with two curved swords, and he kicks everyone's butt!"? I'm sorry, but this doesn't work. Peter Jackson's LotR did well commercially because of the costuming, makeup, effects, and fight scenes... particularly the last... and the only reason the story entered into it at all in the minds of the audience was simply the fact that the books have been around for so long. If you want a Drizzt movie to do well, it needs to be vacuous story-wise and filled with hack-and-slash (not necessarily graphic gore; LotR demonstrated that to be unnecessary, and I - and many others - wouldn't go to see it)... or you need to wait another 50 years and hope that Drizzt reaches the same literary status as LotR.
Just my 2 coppers, and yes, I realize that I'm placing about the same value on the opinions of the movie-going public. Part of it could be just that I'm tired of the character, and have been for some time. That being said, Seravin has a point with his vision of a Crystal Shard movie... but how would it be significantly different (in the eyes of the movie-going public) from LotR? My answer is, probably not enough to matter, and people won't bother. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Feb 2012 : 17:58:12
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's simple numbers. A successful movie is one that makes millions of dollars in its opening weekend, and millions more before its time in theaters is done.
A paperback costs about the same as a movie ticket. And yet how many paperbacks sell millions?
COnveresely though, how many paperbacks cost 172 million dollars to write?
True... But most movies that cost that much to make still pull in a hell of a lot more.
And it's immaterial, anyway -- movie ticket prices are not dependent on the cost of the movie, and whether a huge summer blockbuster or a small indie flick, the ticket still costs the same as a paperback. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Feb 2012 : 17:53:24
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
Maybe but even Star Wars was a movie that was expected to fail. The only one that believed in it was Lucas himself. So are the D&D staff willing to take such a chance? I mean some recognition is better than none. If people see 'based on besting selling novel' in the trailer they may decide to watch.
Two studios expected it to fail. The third was willing to take a chance -- something they wouldn't have done if they'd've expected it to fail.
If all studios had expected it to fail, we'd not be talking about it now because it never would have been made.
Uhh not really they still expected it to do badly but Lucas begged and waived his fee in return for the rights to the franchises and that's why today he has his own studio and neither fox or Universal or any of the rest who laughed at him own a piece of Star wars.
People thought he was crazy for taking less money to have rights to sequels and merchandizing, because those things were unheard of at the time.
That doesn't change the fact that if the studio thought it was doomed to failure, they wouldn't have spent any money on it. The other studios he went to didn't spend any money on it, did they? No, they didn't, and thus did not make the movie.
Lucas's fee wasn't the only money needing to be spent to make the movie. |
| Thauranil |
Posted - 28 Feb 2012 : 13:49:51
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
Maybe but even Star Wars was a movie that was expected to fail. The only one that believed in it was Lucas himself. So are the D&D staff willing to take such a chance? I mean some recognition is better than none. If people see 'based on besting selling novel' in the trailer they may decide to watch.
Two studios expected it to fail. The third was willing to take a chance -- something they wouldn't have done if they'd've expected it to fail.
If all studios had expected it to fail, we'd not be talking about it now because it never would have been made.
Uhh not really they still expected it to do badly but Lucas begged and waived his fee in return for the rights to the franchises and that's why today he has his own studio and neither fox or Universal or any of the rest who laughed at him own a piece of Star wars. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 28 Feb 2012 : 13:38:36
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's simple numbers. A successful movie is one that makes millions of dollars in its opening weekend, and millions more before its time in theaters is done.
A paperback costs about the same as a movie ticket. And yet how many paperbacks sell millions?
COnveresely though, how many paperbacks cost 172 million dollars to write?
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Feb 2012 : 03:45:15
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
I wouldn't be so quick to say most movie-goers who saw films adapted from novels didn't read the books. At least, that's not the case where I'm at.
It's simple numbers. A successful movie is one that makes millions of dollars in its opening weekend, and millions more before its time in theaters is done.
A paperback costs about the same as a movie ticket. And yet how many paperbacks sell millions? |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 28 Feb 2012 : 03:14:09
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
You have to care about them, otherwise the story just doesn't work as well.
Maybe. However, I don't see how this supports the notion that introducing "new" characters is better than banking on the already famous ones. The said characters might be unknown to many moviegoers, but, as I noted earlier, what drew most of them was GL himself. And the actor, of course. IMO, that is.
So what drew people to movie theaters in 1977, when no one had heard of Mark Hamill or Luke Skywalker?
Besides... People that read books for pleasure are a small portion of the movie-going audience. People that read fantasy books are a smaller portion of that small portion. And people that read Realms novels are a smaller portion of that. If they make a movie to cater to us, they'd be lucky to start with the budget of Clerks and still break even.
If you want a Wizards movie to be successful, it has to appeal to a larger portion of the populace, which means a lot of people that wouldn't know the difference between a drow and a krakentua. You have to cater to them, which means a simpler story, and more draw than just "yeah, there's this guy who fights with two curved swords, and he kicks everyone's butt!"
I wouldn't know. I wasn't yet around that time. But I might ask my grandfather. Heck, I never liked any SW movies. Nor would I plan to see any.
I wouldn't be so quick to say most movie-goers who saw films adapted from novels didn't read the books. At least, that's not the case where I'm at.
geek heresy! Heresy I say! Thou shalt not speak ill of star wars! I demand your geek club card now! |
| Dennis |
Posted - 28 Feb 2012 : 00:42:03
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
You have to care about them, otherwise the story just doesn't work as well.
Maybe. However, I don't see how this supports the notion that introducing "new" characters is better than banking on the already famous ones. The said characters might be unknown to many moviegoers, but, as I noted earlier, what drew most of them was GL himself. And the actor, of course. IMO, that is.
So what drew people to movie theaters in 1977, when no one had heard of Mark Hamill or Luke Skywalker?
Besides... People that read books for pleasure are a small portion of the movie-going audience. People that read fantasy books are a smaller portion of that small portion. And people that read Realms novels are a smaller portion of that. If they make a movie to cater to us, they'd be lucky to start with the budget of Clerks and still break even.
If you want a Wizards movie to be successful, it has to appeal to a larger portion of the populace, which means a lot of people that wouldn't know the difference between a drow and a krakentua. You have to cater to them, which means a simpler story, and more draw than just "yeah, there's this guy who fights with two curved swords, and he kicks everyone's butt!"
I wouldn't know. I wasn't yet around that time. But I might ask my grandfather. Heck, I never liked any SW movies. Nor would I plan to see any.
I wouldn't be so quick to say most movie-goers who saw films adapted from novels didn't read the books. At least, that's not the case where I'm at. |
| Seravin |
Posted - 27 Feb 2012 : 18:43:39
If Peter Jackson would do a Crystal Shard filmed in New Zealand...omg...drool. Someone make it happen. They could open with a battle between Errtu and the Deva and having Crenshinibon being tossed to the Icewind Dale...then glowing in the ice creating the crater...then credits..then the caravan from Luskan with the wizards and omg...it would be soo good.
*sigh* I can dream, right?
If they ever did a Drizzt movie I don't think they could do the Homeland/Exile part well, a movie set in the Underdark just wouldn't be a big hit I don't think. I realize that those novels are considered the best, but for me I love Crystal Shard (and Servant of the Shard). |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 27 Feb 2012 : 18:27:33
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly RupertBesides... People that read books for pleasure are a small portion of the movie-going audience. People that read fantasy books are a smaller portion of that small portion. And people that read Realms novels are a smaller portion of that. If they make a movie to cater to us, they'd be lucky to start with the budget of Clerks and still break even.
If you want a Wizards movie to be successful, it has to appeal to a larger portion of the populace, which means a lot of people that wouldn't know the difference between a drow and a krakentua. You have to cater to them, which means a simpler story, and more draw than just "yeah, there's this guy who fights with two curved swords, and he kicks everyone's butt!"
This is my argument why NOT to do a Drizzt movie. If its not going to be done right, I don't want it. If that means it can't be done, I am OK with that.
I INTENSELY dislike when directors make 'their own version' of an established property. XMEN and XMEN II were good. Wolverine origins broke down horribly. Splitting emma frost into two characters, adding deadpool for NO reason and then creating their own version of the character really made a good movie terrible.
I remember the old Hul vs Thor tv movie in the 80's. I am a THOR fan through and through. Yet I hated that movie as it did nothing for marvel's properties. The movies coming out of MArvel studios are finally done correctly. Comic fans and noncomic movie goers alike enjoy the films because they are done correctly.
A movie about Drizzt could sell to gamers. Never to the larger crowd so don't bother. Make a new character, set in the forgotten realms, and name it something cool (not D&D). Using the Forgotten Realms as set dressing and not including it in the name is completley viable. Make a fantasy film in the vein of Lord of the Rings and set it in the forgotten realms, possibly introducing Drizzt as a secondary character. The realms is easier to do correctly than a character.
Making a Drizzt movie untrue to the character is a simple 1980's B movie botch.
In today's world of Lord of the Rings and competent Comic book films, I could not settle for less with a character like Drizzt Do'Urden. I would have settled in the 80's or 90's, not now when films can prove they can sell when true to their properties.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Feb 2012 : 18:17:37
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
Maybe but even Star Wars was a movie that was expected to fail. The only one that believed in it was Lucas himself. So are the D&D staff willing to take such a chance? I mean some recognition is better than none. If people see 'based on besting selling novel' in the trailer they may decide to watch.
Two studios expected it to fail. The third was willing to take a chance -- something they wouldn't have done if they'd've expected it to fail.
If all studios had expected it to fail, we'd not be talking about it now because it never would have been made. |
|
|
