[More from Alex.]
Adaptation is tricky for film but lucrative. Cinema is essentially a nervous medium. We want it to be bold but with so much money at stake Hollywood wants to be sure.
"Sure things" can't be bold. The best thing "sure things" can be is mediocre; sure things can also be terrible of course. The surest sign of artistic success is the divisive rating; some people loved it, some people hated it but everyone talked about it. Almost always a film that nobody hated is also a film that nobody loved.
You can't make an omelette without shooting some film - they say. Or at least I say. Or at least I said right then.
Adaptations seem like they are safer. They are known as "Pre-Sold Franchise" because the studio believes (probably correctly) that they don't have to do the work to get you to go to the cinema the first time. If you know what Transformers is already then the studio doesn't have to convince you to go and see it. Bad reviews matter less as well. Tomorrow I'll talk more about why people adapt films.
2 comments:
I guess, in the films that aren't franchises, they get around this by having big stars/directors. That way you know what you're seeing - a Tom Cruise movie - even though you don't know the plot.
Absolutely. Although its weaker I guess, although that may just be my personal experience.
Of course I'm lying.
People like me like to think that we're no swayed by such things, "Tom Cruise" or "Tom Hanks" being in a movie. I'm not really, but I'll go and watch any movie that says, "Spielberg", "Coen Brothers", "Woody Allen" etc above the door. The star director is similar too.
Post a Comment