Film

Book-to-movie films (and—more regularly, now—shows) are especially common in young adult franchises such as The Maze Runner, The Hunger Games, and Divergent. The first three Harry Potter films are some of the most beloved book-to-movie adaptations in history. The latter movies, while successful in other regards, were criticised (especially by book purists) for cutting out, altering, or ignoring large chunks of the source material. I have heard several fans say that they would watch a Harry Potter reboot if it was a high-budget streaming show that adapted each chapter into an episode, with the dialogue and plots and sub-plots remaining exactly the same as the books. Whether this would ever be done remains to be seen,

Movies face an issue in that they are limited in run-time. While there are long movie adaptations out there (The Lord of the Rings is a prime example), more commonly, they are cut to fit at a little over 2 hours. They prioritise entertainment and a streamlined story. Books can vary in length to a great degree—the first Harry Potter book was around 77,000 words while the fifth (the longest) was around 257,000. Yet the fifth movie (2hrs and 18 minutes long) was actually shorter than the first (2 hours and 32 minutes long). The movie arguably benefited from cutting much of the meat of the book, at least from an entertainment perspective, if not from a story and world perspective.

How important is it for the plot to be accurately represented in films, given that they are, indeed, adaptations of the source material and not direct translations? Is it enough for the characters and world to be represented with care and detail? Are fans right in complaining about inaccuracy and missing scenes in book-to-movie adaptations? What are some examples of book-to-movie adaptations done well, and done poorly?

Can it or can it not? Or can aspects be objectively bad for a film? Or is it all subjective? This is a neverending debate to some or an easy yes or no for others.

Critics tend to highlight mostly negative aspects of a movie and tend to ignore that there are passionate filmmakers behind these films, while fans are generally too forgiving, or tend to not demand better and just want a good time.

So what makes a movie good or bad, or is it more important how it makes you feel?

DON’T LOOK UP was a controversial satire on the climate problem, and while every political satire is bound to divide audiences– this one made a large mistake. It wasn’t just a satire, it was a call to action. It was a combination of the greatest forces in entertainment, telling you, the average moviegoer, that we need to solve this problem. Perhaps if the film had given a portion of not all proceeds to climate action, there would be a legitimate attempt at change. However, because of its lack of self-awareness and enormous star-power, whether or you liked the film, nothing is going to change.

Other films have successfully navigated this fine line of educating vs enlisting (Wag the Dog, 1997 comes to mind) but for a giant industry with enough money to solve world hunger to shake their finger at an audience made up of working class moviegoers is both ignorant and somewhat classist.

James Gunn and Peter Safran, the new leadership at DC Films, recently announced a slate of ten new projects that will start a new era of DC Films. The team is moving on from much of the properties and actors associated with DC’s past films (for example, Henry Cavill will not return as Superman). The author would analyze the slate of releases announced by Gunn and Safran, as will as discuss the viability of their approach to developing a new connected television and film universe. The author could also touch on their handling of outside universe projects like Joker 2 and The Batman Part II.

The Dark Knight is widely regarded as one of the best movies of its kind. It is officially a sequel to Batman Begins, but unlike most sequels, audiences don’t really need to watch the first movie to understand or enjoy the plot of the second. The only major plotline that continues between the two (apart from Bruce Wayne Being Batman, of course) is Bruce and Rachel’s relationship ("If there is ever a time when Gotham doesn’t need Batman, we can be together.")
Does the stand-alone nature of this movie make it a better sequel? Or a worse one? What metrics do you use to measure the quality of a sequel? We don’t determine the quality of a horror movie by how much it makes us laugh, for example. Do we determine the quality of a sequel by how much it depends on the story of the first movie?
Compare to Terminator 2, Rocky 2, John Wick 2, Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back, and other movies considered some of the best sequels of all time.

500 Days of Summer features Zooey Deschanel as Summer, a quirky, aloof, "perfect" woman who quickly becomes the object of main character Tom’s obsession. Her main purpose is to complement and complete him, rather than embark upon any character arc or self-improving journey of her own. Is this a harmless play on a stock character, or is it offensive on a deeper level– suggestive of women as only objects or commodities to enhance the lives of men? Furthermore, Tom is totally blind to reality or anything else around him when in the presence of Summer. Does this mean her character is manipulative and bitchy, or simply that she is so explicitly designed to be his perfect object of desire that no one else can possibly compare?

The most recent horror film on Hollywood’s docket is Prey for the Devil, which concerns Sister Ann. This devout nun wants to be an exorcist and would be great at it, but her training school accepts only men. Yet Sister Ann may be the only one who can help the patients in the school’s attached hospital for the possessed, including a ten-year-old girl. The blending of Christianity and horror in this film is by turns respectful to the Church and seems to encourage audiences to explore, if not root for, the demonic.

It’s a conundrum found in many similar films, such as The Exorcist and The Nun. The question is why this blend comes up so often, and especially why the Catholic Church is presented on the front lines in this murky battle between good and evil (they aren’t always on the "good" side). Are these portrayals as balanced as they could and arguably should be? How can or should horror films stay true to their genre, while portraying Christians or perhaps people of other faiths, as those who would protect or save innocents from the demonic? What do these films say about spiritual battle lines in real life? Discuss.

Among the many motifs in Quentin Tarantino’s cinematography, food is one of the most important ones. It has been pointed out that the relation between food and power/domination is key to understanding the functionality of violence in his films. For example, when Jules bites some guy’s hamburger and drinks his soda (“Pulp Fiction”), he does it as a prelude to intimidate and kill. When Hans Landa forces Shosanna Dreyfus to try strudel with a glass of milk (“Inglourious Basterds”), he does it to let her know he knows who she really is. When Beatrix struggles with chopsticks and finally uses her hands to eat (“Kill Bill”), Pai Mei throws her food away and tells her that if she wanted to behave like an animal, she will be treated like an animal. These are just some examples of the many ways food is used to dominate and to impose over someone, and ultimately to exert violence. A study that analyzes this phenomenon in deep using one or two specific examples in Tarantino’s movies is something that has not been done yet. The goal of an article on this subject would be to delve into an aspect of Tarantino’s films that has not been fully explored, but it is evidently important to understand how this director’s mind works.