Page 72 of 89

Re: Worried about Breaking Dawn?

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:33 pm
by Tornado
I can understand from a movie critic's perspective. The book is irrelevant as far as they are concerned. They are reviewing a movie, and the movie should be able to stand alone and explain itself. That's what good movies do. If you tell them that they should read the book or research first they're going to say, "Then the movie has failed". Because a good movie should contain all the explanation you need.

And they are right. A movie should have all the plot in it, if it's working properly as a movie. This has been a bone of contention for me with fans who have demanded things from the books in the movies, even if we all agree that it's going to be massively difficult to do in a visual medium. I'd rather it worked well as a movie, perhaps giving me something different from the books, than stick so rigidly to canon that the film is a stiff as a board with a plot that only makes sense if you've read the book. If the moviemakers are going to spend millions of dollars on this I think it's reasonable that it's the best it can be as a stand alone entity.

This is, of course, the inherent problem in turning a book into a movie. Things work differently between the two mediums, and either you have to be prepared to compromise on certain aspects, or you're asking the moviemakers to spend millions of dollars on making a movie that will be understood only by fans of the book. Admittedly, Summit has earned its money back on Twilight, but still, I like movies and I'd like to think BD could work as a movie in itself, rather than having to tell everyone if they're planning to see it "read the book first or you won't know what's going on". That seems like a bit of a cop out to me.

Re: Worried about Breaking Dawn?

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:57 pm
by Chernaudi
And that is the problem here. Summit and MR have thrown canon out the window to explain things, but almost without exception, the changes over do it and often end up seeming gratuitous and unnecessary.

But then again, most of the people who see the movies will have read the novels. But to me, one not doing some basic research on a film or book or whatever before buying the book or a ticket to the movie to see if they'd like it or not either shows laziness or ignorance, or at least a willingness to waste their time, energy and money on something that they don't like.

I do sort of have a conservative point of view on things like this. No matter how many people try to explain to me that Baz Luhrmann's William Shakspeare's Romeo + Juliet was an excellent movie, I still think it sucked. End of story. I don't care how much of a critics' darling it was, taking WS's original dialogue and using it in a setting set in 1995 didn't cut it for me. I'd have rather have seen the 1968 Franco Zeffirelli version, which I also saw and freakin' loved.

One wouldn't buy a car without doing some research on it to see if they'd at least like some aspects of it, would they? I tend to view my entertainment choices the same way.

But we also have to remember that what critics say isn't gonna stop people from seeing the movies. The fact that they don't read a book or at least cheat and look up stuff about it even on Wikipedia to see how well the movie matches up to the book doesn't, in my eyes at least, lend them much credibility--I feel that if one likes the book, they should find things to like in the movie and vice versa.

Just as telling people that they should do some research on a film before they watch it may be a cop out, it is at the same time to me a cop out for the people who complain about the film whining about it without doing some research on it to see if it's something worth while before they saw it.

Fact of the matter is this: Summit and MR had their best chance to put some of us worried about BD and the imprint stuff a bit at ease by explaining some of it in Eclipse, and they basically blew it! So what do they do now? Bend canon to it's breaking point, or end up with something that sticks to the novel, but blows it elsewhere?

To be honest, I sometimes sort of wish the films were never made, because BD was gonna get made, and it seems that a studio like Summit doesn't care about the fans and whatnot as long as they make their record profits, though that line of thought can be applied to many other things.

Sorry if it seems like I'm blowing up, but it seems that some mistakes made in the past may now catch up with Summit and the writers and producers of the films. I only hope that Stephanie being a producer may've righted the ship along with BC and the cast, but I don't know, and Stephanie herself may be regretting leaving imprinting to be such a plot hole in BD itself.

And I don't wanna see Kristen, Rob, Stephanie, and the rest of the cast get drug though the mud more than they already have been.

So am I worried about Breaking Dawn? Given all of the uncertainly around it, I kinda am. And it's not so much the movie itself, as for the sake of the people involved.

Re: Worried about Breaking Dawn?

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:21 am
by Tornado
Yes, but movie critics are just that - movie critics. It's not their job to make sure that movies based on books match up to the books in question. They just want to know if it's a good movie. It's their job to critique movies, not the level of accuracy in a book-to-screen adaptation. A movie that sticks to a book like glue does not necessarily make a good movie. They're employed to tell the audience if the movie is good, not if it's canon.

And you're right, many of us find we disagree with the critics anyway, so what they say won't necessarily stop anyone from going to see it. In fact, if some critics in particular trash BD, I will probably be relieved! Most movie-goers have critics they trust and critics they ignore. Because, as with any creative entertainment, it's largely down to different tastes anyway.

In spite of the difficulties in bringing a book to the screen there have definitely been things in the Twilight movies that could have been done better. I think we all agree on that. I think everyone also agrees that some of the changes have not been bad. Certainly, some of them have been unnecessary, even from a movie point of view.

But I still think it makes more sense to put the news about Quil and Claire in BD than in Eclipse. That makes it fresh in everyone's mind. Now, I guess it's possible that they might leave it out altogether, but I think that would be foolish, as the audience needs warning on it. But I think that warning is best done in BD the movie rather than Eclipse the movie. As far as fans go, I'm not sure it makes too much difference to most of us so long as they get the information right.

It's a little like Jacob running off after he finds out about the wedding. He does that in the epilogue of Eclipse, but it looks like it's at the beginning of BD the movie. I think it works there, as then the audience can see him going, and have it fresh in their minds when he suddenly appears at the reception. I certainly hope it does work, just as I hope any foreshadowing they do of the imprinting also pays off!

Re: Worried about Breaking Dawn?

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:09 am
by Chernaudi
I really hope that you're right. The only concern I have with your suggestion as you phrase it is that if the imprinting happens in BD2, then if the references get made in BD1, then we'll still have to wait the best part of a year to see the final film.

That, of course, is the disadvantage of BD being a two parter. I know that four hour long movies aren't common, but if people can sit though Titanic (nearly four hours long), the Academy Awards (often almost four hours long in past years), NASCAR races (3 1/2 to 4 hours long) or the 24 Hours of Le Mans sportscar race (the name explains it all), then a four hour long BD film wouldn't be much of a strain for some fans at least.

Of course, the average film goer probably wouldn't watch a four hour long film if they can help it, and the same goes for film makers. And, as some have criticized and sneared, Summit breaking BD in two is a bit of a money grab, too.

I guess that all we can do is hope for the best. Best case scinerio is that BD does a better job explaining things than the novel did, and if they have to bend canon to a slight extent to get the point across as long as it doesn't damage the core of the story, then so be it.

Re: Worried about Breaking Dawn?

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:47 am
by Tornado
From the sounds of what Taylor said at Comic Con, the audience will know that Jacob has imprinted on Renesmee at the end of BD 1. Taylor said that the scene were Edward throws Jacob is in reaction to the knowledge that Jacob has imprinted on his daughter. This would suggest that the imprinting and its ramifications are touched on enough that Edward gets upset when he hears about it. Hopefully it will be enough information for the audience to pick it up.

Re: Worried about Breaking Dawn?

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 11:07 am
by Jazz Girl
Tornado wrote:Yes, but movie critics are just that - movie critics. It's not their job to make sure that movies based on books match up to the books in question. They just want to know if it's a good movie. It's their job to critique movies, not the level of accuracy in a book-to-screen adaptation. A movie that sticks to a book like glue does not necessarily make a good movie. They're employed to tell the audience if the movie is good, not if it's canon.

Personally, I don't really agree. Yes, a movie critic's job is to critique the quality of the movie. But, I also think it behooves the critic to understand the source material and see how the production decisions and adaptation decisions effect the movie overall. They give an Oscar for that, afterall.

Not to mention, when the movie adaptation and/or actors are criticized and/or things are listed as mistakes because they are true to the source material, in this case The Saga, but vary from other established backgrounds or mythologies, then the critic's ignorance and laziness does a horrible disservice to the film as a whole. Granted, in my opinion, it also makes the critic look like a total jackwagon and completely lazy, but I digress. I remember seeing things like the fact that you could see Edward's & James' reflections in the dance studio mirrors listed as mistakes, or the fact that Edward was so close to the sun without exploding/melting in New Moon listed as well. I mean, for the love of all that's holy, by THAT POINT, that bonehead should have at least understood that TwiVampires do not burst into flame in sunlight. I think the one that kills me the most is that Rob was criticized for looking like he was in physical agony while dancing with and kissing the "supposed love of Edward's existence" to which the critic made some stupid comment like, if that's how he looks around his own girlfriend, he's clearly confusing love and something else. I literally hurled the magazine across the room and started shouting, "that's because he IS in physical agony to be near her you {insert words I cannot use onLex here}!!!!"

In the end, it is the screenwriter's job (oh, and we're right back there again) to ensure that the dynamics and emotional issues within the novel are translated to the screen in a way that it accurately conveys the world of the novel. I think we've established that there have been some really large holes left. But, somehow, that criticism rarely seems to get laid at her feet.

Re: Worried about Breaking Dawn?

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:35 pm
by Chernaudi
Issue with the imprinting is that it seems that Stephanie, as much as I don't wanna say it, left a hole with the imprinting because of a lack of a clear cut, black and while explanation--fans get it, sort of at least, but will the uninformed? You do sort of have to put some of the blame to Steph on that one, which is why I hope if anything the film does a better job of explaining things than the novel did, but I do sort of think that with Summit's track record, that's a prayer that may go unanswered.

But what I don't get is that with canonical things that Jazz has pointed out, why the critics either didn't do their research or simply ask themselves "why is this..." before they wrote their snarky comments. I sort of guess that who ever pays them will pay them anyways and it doesn't matter how bad they atrophy as far as reviewer.

I do think that the films should explain most of the novel's nuances, but at the same time, it wouldn't kill these critics to do some research on the source material before the pass judgment. I think that they should consider the fact that the movie is novel based in if fans of the novel might like it, as opposed to just assuming that. And with libraries, bookstores, E-readers, and even for god's sake Wikipedia, they can easily prepare a decent cheat sheet. Not doing so doesn't lend them much credibility, and in that instance, even if the film explains everything that the book does, they're still gonna complain because of their lack of knowledge, because it goes against whatever mythology that they believe in.

Re: Worried about Breaking Dawn?

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:08 pm
by Tornado
Jazz Girl wrote:Not to mention, when the movie adaptation and/or actors are criticized and/or things are listed as mistakes because they are true to the source material, in this case The Saga, but vary from other established backgrounds or mythologies, then the critic's ignorance and laziness does a horrible disservice to the film as a whole. Granted, in my opinion, it also makes the critic look like a total jackwagon and completely lazy, but I digress. I remember seeing things like the fact that you could see Edward's & James' reflections in the dance studio mirrors listed as mistakes, or the fact that Edward was so close to the sun without exploding/melting in New Moon listed as well. I mean, for the love of all that's holy, by THAT POINT, that bonehead should have at least understood that TwiVampires do not burst into flame in sunlight. I think the one that kills me the most is that Rob was criticized for looking like he was in physical agony while dancing with and kissing the "supposed love of Edward's existence" to which the critic made some stupid comment like, if that's how he looks around his own girlfriend, he's clearly confusing love and something else. I literally hurled the magazine across the room and started shouting, "that's because he IS in physical agony to be near her you {insert words I cannot use onLex here}!!!!"
Yes, and that's because those reviewers were going beyond their paid rate, so to speak, by delving into the mythology. Their job is not to say what vampire canon is, their job is to say if the movie is good - if it has a good plotline, if the story is engaging, if the characters are interesting and well played, etc. If they're going to be saying things like that, then they should be researching, as Chernaudi suggested, to make sure they've got it right, but it's really not their place to make a call like that.
Jazz Girl wrote:In the end, it is the screenwriter's job (oh, and we're right back there again) to ensure that the dynamics and emotional issues within the novel are translated to the screen in a way that it accurately conveys the world of the novel. I think we've established that there have been some really large holes left. But, somehow, that criticism rarely seems to get laid at her feet.
She's missed out on being blamed for that one? I thought everyone blamed every problem with the movies on MR.

Besides, I don't think you can say that it wasn't made clear in the movie that SM's vampires don't burst into flames in the sunlight, but sparkle. That should be enough to tell any reviewer that these vampires will not follow vampire canon. It's just that some reviewers are lazy so-and-sos who probably didn't even really watch the movie they were supposed to be watching. Not to mention that these things can be hard to fit in to the story, and don't really need to be unless they are part of the plotline. I don't think the no-reflection-in-mirrors idea was covered in the first book, either. And in the second, Bella's dream gives the opposite impression - that they don't cast reflections. And those kinds of things don't have to be cut and dried, because they are not the real plot of the story, and shouldn't matter to a reviewer. An audience member will be different, but they are the people who are going to say, "I want to know more!" and can be directed to the books and the internet to satisfy their curiosity.

Re: Worried about Breaking Dawn?

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:26 pm
by Chernaudi
If it's not their place to complain about things in the movies going against "conventional" vampire mythology, then why do the whine about it? I think that they do that because they believe that they can get away with it and still have a job come Monday morning.

And with the reflection thing, I do believe that Bella saw her reflection in the mirror in BD after she became a vampire, so that goes against "conventional" mythology, and, as you've said, shouldn't be a point of contention.

I have to agree with ELR on Stephanie in that she does a good job 95% of the time explaining things. But she does leave a few big holes with the lack of a clear explanation of imprinting that leaves even some fans going "huh?!", and with the ending to BD having no clear cut full bore resolution, which leaves us to our own devices, and hence why so many post-BD fan fics. I do wonder if that was on purpose, though, so Stephanie can go back and write a sequel if she chooses, or to read our fan fic.

MR is at fault for a lot of this with her interpretations of the story, and Summit with amping up the action to get guys to not feel so awkward watching the movies and selling the love triangle as opposed to the actual story. Stephanie is culpable for a few hiccups, but Summit has done far worse than anything she's done as a writer.

Re: Worried about Breaking Dawn?

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:42 pm
by Tornado
Chernaudi wrote:If it's not their place to complain about things in the movies going against "conventional" vampire mythology, then why do the whine about it? I think that they do that because they believe that they can get away with it and still have a job come Monday morning.
That's exactly right. They're not going to be fired over something like that, so why not behave like they're the be-all end-all on all forms of knowledge? Plenty of them do it, it's just not something they should be doing. But very few people are going to call them out on it, and certainly no one who really "matters". In my mind, it's a sign of a good reviewer as opposed to a bad reviewer. If they stick to what they're supposed to be commenting on, they're a good reviewer, even if I don't agree with those comments. If they start commenting on whether they think the story is "right" on a more personal level, then that's the sign of a bad reviewer. It's not their job to say if a story is right or wrong, except perhaps if it's about a historical event and gets facts wrong. Even then, if it still works as a movie, it should get marks for that.
Chernaudi wrote:And with the reflection thing, I do believe that Bella saw her reflection in the mirror in BD after she became a vampire, so that goes against "conventional" mythology, and, as you've said, shouldn't be a point of contention.
Exactly. It has nothing to do with the overall story arc, and should only be commented on by those who are vampire mythology experts, and even they should be able to stand back and acknowledge that, when you're talking about mythical monsters, anything goes!
Chernaudi wrote:MR is at fault for a lot of this with her interpretations of the story, and Summit with amping up the action to get guys to not feel so awkward watching the movies and selling the love triangle as opposed to the actual story. Stephanie is culpable for a few hiccups, but Summit has done far worse than anything she's done as a writer.
She certainly is at fault in a lot of areas, but sometimes it seems like she is blamed if anything is bad, no matter what. I'm happy to chew MR out over things when there is evidence that she is responsible for it, like the motorcycle scene, but this is different. I think there were enough things in the movie that the reviewer Jazz Girl mentioned should have realised that they were not dealing with canonical vampires. In fact, in Twilight the movie, I think everything of that nature was mentioned, such as not sleeping, the change of eye colour, the sparkling in the sun instead of burning, etc. So there was sufficient evidence in the film for the reviewer to get the message. It's not MR's fault that they weren't paying attention.