Let's admit it; everyone who has read any sort of piece of literature has experienced this phrase in their lives:
"The book was better."
or
"That wasn't in the book!"
or
"This is kind of like Harry Potter!"
Because really- books SHOULD be better than their movie adaptations, considering there is more room for, well, everything. Movies sum a book up into about an hour and a half's worth of CG-animation, mediocre acting, and craploads of cash.
The authors are rollin' in the dough, the actors are rollin' in the dough, and directors and crew are rollin' in the dough, the fans who didn't read the book are screaming and crying, and those who did read the books are unimpressed 99.99% of the time.
"Meh."
One of the things I've recently heard that ticked me off was about the latest Stephenie Meyer adaptation for The Host, her non-vampire-related book about aliens. Yeah, friggin' aliens! And the trailer doesn't look half bad! Come on, guys.
Sure, there's a romance aspect. If you think there isn't even a hint of romance in EVERY MOVIE EVER, then you're stupid and I hate you. That trailer ain't half bad, and for some reason, everyone seems to think that when they see Stephenie Meyer's name Edward Cullen is going to pop out being all constipated and whatnot.
Seriously, someone needs fiber in his diet.
But as an author who is basically guaranteed a movie adaptation for any book she writes, Stephenie Meyer isn't donating any shits to the hater fund. She's like "oh I'm sorry, let me just finish leaving this room by maneuvering around all this CASH."
Some people probably won't go see The Host because of Twilight, and I think that's kind of unfair. She's obviously not going to write something that is so much like Twilight and have it not be about, well, Twilight. This movie looks packed with action, a script, and great actors like Saoirse Ronan, who starred in The Lovely Bones.
ANYWHO. Another example is The Wizard of Oz. Most of you are probably thinking "really Ryan? The Wizard of Oz? Isn't that for kids?"
YES THE WIZARD OF OZ IT'S A CLASSIC AND YOU'RE STUPID
Sorry I got a little carried away there. Yes, you heard me right. The classic book has many sequels, and those of you who are thinking that Hollywood is selling out and making up random-ass sequels to a '40's ('30's? HA research. Who needs it?) then you're ignorant and obviously know nothing about Dorothy's "bump on the head." Coughcoughacidtripcoughcough.
Frank L. Baum, the author of the original book, wrote like, a billion sequels, give or take. This newest movie adaptation is Oz: The Great and Powerful, telling the story of the wizard himself, who just happens to be Harry Osbourne on LSD. I MEAN, just Harry Osbourne....
"Dad's taking his explosive pumpkins a little TOO far."
(BTW, if you're not getting my Spider-Man jokes, then ... You're going to be confused. Sucks.)
Many criticisms are rolling around about how similar this movie looks to Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. The posters all connect together to look oddly similar, yes, but obviously they're going to be different movies because if you're not aware, The Wizard of Oz (the person) is not the Mad Hatter, and if you are arguing otherwise, you sound like those "Harry Potter vs. Twilight" folks who should be cast away to the Hunger Games.
Got it? No? Well if wizards are now vampires, then everyone's knowledge of folklore has been Lewis Carroll'd. Seriously that guy had some issues, regardless of how brilliant he was.
No but really, when you think about it, that story is freakin weird.
It's great.
Sure, though, stories aside, the newest Oz adaptation does look like it's been dunked in way too much CGI, but if y'all think that we can really GO to Oz, then we've got some more important issues to discuss.
Now, onto what's included in these cinematic counterparts to our favorite pieces of literature.
Honestly, if you leave something out, fine by me. I'd rather not be 24 parts to a 300-page book.
I'M TALKING TO YOU HOBBIT
AND MOCKINGJAY
They were both excellent books, and I'd love to see the movies, but neither were that long and don't need a part two. Seriously.
"But Ryan, The Hobbit is being put into three parts-"
I KNOW THAT- THAT'S WORSE.
Nevertheless, I'm sure they'll all be great. But what annoys me more than cutting parts out is BOTH:
1. cutting IMPORTANT parts out, and
2. adding UNIMPORTANT crap in.
For example: In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, nearly all of the experiences in the memories involving Lord Voldemort's childhood were cut from the movie. Sure, we got the ones in which we learn about Horcruxes and whatnot, but we DON'T learn about how his parents were and his history as a young child in a terrible home.
What we DID get instead was the Weasley's house absorbing some Death Eater fireballs.
Yeah how terrible SEE THAT? THAT'S A WAND. THE WEASLEYS HAVE THOSE TOO AND CAN FIX THEIR HOUSE IN LESS THAN THREE MINUTES. THIS SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AS DEVASTATING AS IT WAS.
*Ahem* sorry about that. Just kidding I'm not sorry. That had to have been a good 5-10 minutes of pure stupid. Sorry, Helena Bonham Carter- it's true, though.
Conclusion: Don't judge a book by its cover, and don't judge a movie before you know freaking anything about it.
Only I'm allowed to judge whatever I want.
Oh and if you notice mistakes or inconsistencies in my blog entries, as I've noticed a few, you can let me know, but it most likely won't be changed because... Either I'm too lazy or it's too funny.
THANKSBYE
