True...I know many people who started reading HP after the movie released(and some who positively swooned after seeing Radcliffe in the posters)...some of friends who have never read an HP book still go out to watch the movies...so i guess star power works...Holly and Artemis can be unknown/new actors(but they have to be reasonably good looking...but suiting the book's description)...Besides, plenty of people will go to a movie who've never heard of the book it's based on, movies are more for the general public than proper fans. Heck, even the graphic novel seems to be reaching a wider audience than the original books, and despite still requiring reading, and having art I wouldn't like even if every character was drawn in 100% compliance with descriptions.
True...I know many people who started reading HP after the movie released(and some who positively swooned after seeing Radcliffe in the posters and swore to read all the books in one night)...and some of my classmates who have never read an HP book still do go out to watch the HP movies...also i guess star power works...Holly and Artemis can be unknown/new actors(but they have to be reasonably good looking...of course suiting the book's description)...Besides, plenty of people will go to a movie who've never heard of the book it's based on, movies are more for the general public than proper fans. Heck, even the graphic novel seems to be reaching a wider audience than the original books, and despite still requiring reading, and having art I wouldn't like even if every character was drawn in 100% compliance with descriptions.
We would probably be quite disappointed. I think we're expecting too much...adapting a book into a movie is actually quite hard. remember Eragon? and stormbreaker? and howl's moving castle? so many disappointments...
but i am still looking forward to seeing the movie.
Yeah, that's true, but that happens in any movie. And it's possible that they could show things like that on the characters' faces. I don't know, I think they could. I mean, obviously the book will be better, but a movie can still be good too.But a good part of the charm of Artemis Fowl is the commentary Eoin makes in a description, like in TAC "crushed like a soda can in the hand of a giant who was immensely strong and didn't like soda cans". How can you put that on a movie?
And the thoughts of the characters ("I hope zombies are soft") also have their charm. Is very difficult to show a character's thoughts is a movie.
So, according to my argument, you have to take out the funny descriptions (keep the important and literal) and the thoughts of the Artemis Fowl books and that's how the movie will be like.
I'm definitely going to see the movie, but the book is ALWAYS going to be better
Woah, woah, woah...What do you have against the LOTR movies? They were amazing!! And, I think, one of the only movies that is actually better than the books, because they just make the books so much more tangible. I mean, sure, PJ left out Tom Bombadil, and the Scouring of the Shire, but the sheer awesome-ness of the movies makes up for that.personally, I'm expecting a massive disappointment with this one. After Lotrs came out (sorry, lotrfan) I have no confidence in directors and screenplays based off of books. If the casting isn't botched up (which it probably will be if Freddy Highmore or Keira Knightly end up getting signed on), then the plot will be all mashed up and the characters will suffer. Aaarrgh.
Honestly? I cannot think of one movie I have seen that does justice to the book it was based off of. Sorry to sound like the voice of doom here, guys, but this is going to be a flop. f.l.o.p.
LOL sorry, lotrfan, but I have a LOT against the movies. Yes, the special effects, the score, the mass-scale production was all awesome and amazing. And I am not quibbling over parts they left out (Tolkien actually didn't know where he was going when he was writing Tom Bombadil and that whole part of the story - he admitted it - so I don't mind that. I wasn't expecting that, anyway). The thing I dislike about the movie is the casting. Some characters were awesome: Boromir, Faromir, Denethor, Theoden, Eowyn, Gimli, Gandalf . . . basically everyone was either great or passable. But Frodo and Sam make me want to gag, personally. I mean, if they were going to totally wreck of the relationship between the two anyway by making Frodo like twenty years younger than Sam, then why not have gone the whole hog and changed his personality a little to make the face fit the actions? It seems really weird to me that they gave Wood and Astin the same relationship that Frodo and Sam had in the books, where Frodo was older than Sam. So here is Astin totally dependent upon this guy who could be his son, who in turn acts patronizing and stuck up. I dunno - those two ruin the movie for me.Woah, woah, woah...What do you have against the LOTR movies? They were amazing!! And, I think, one of the only movies that is actually better than the books, because they just make the books so much more tangible. I mean, sure, PJ left out Tom Bombadil, and the Scouring of the Shire, but the sheer awesome-ness of the movies makes up for that.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests