Unpopular Movie Opinions.

Howard the Duck · 07-01-2011, 08:17 PM

monochrome silent movies are much better than modern movies

a picture speaks a thousand words, as they say - the German Expressionist movies are like frames of several thousand moving paintings

and it's much harder to create something in B&W look good than colour, so it's definitely an art

Urban Hat€monger ? · 07-02-2011, 08:57 PM

Sorry my reply doesn't reach your standards.
I wasn't trying to prove Jackhammer wrong, just that it works the other way around too.

I'm not saying all films are bad, most of the films he listed are very good.

What I am saying is I've never seen a film that was better than the book or the TV series if it was originally made as those things. I enjoy character development, watching plot strands come to fruition, evolution of concepts. Most of those things don't translate into films very well due to the time constraints that most films have.
So from my point of view the only things that movies have as a plus point is a bigger budget which is probably why I watch so few.
Last year I spent about 2 months working my way through the entire run of The Sopranos. I got a hell of a lot more out of that than I ever did watching The Godfather Trilogy or Goodfellas, as good as they are.

If you want something to fill a couple of hours then movies are great, I just like to invest a bit more time into something a little deeper, that's all.

Dr.Seussicide · 07-02-2011, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Sorry my reply doesn't reach your standards.
I wasn't trying to prove Jackhammer wrong, just that it works the other way around too.

I'm not saying all films are bad, most of the films he listed are very good.

What I am saying is I've never seen a film that was better than the book or the TV series if it was originally made as those things. I enjoy character development, watching plot strands come to fruition, evolution of concepts. Most of those things don't translate into films very well due to the time constraints that most films have.
So from my point of view the only things that movies have as a plus point is a bigger budget which is probably why I watch so few.
Last year I spent about 2 months working my way through the entire run of The Sopranos. I got a hell of a lot more out of that than I ever did watching The Godfather Trilogy or Goodfellas, as good as they are.

If you want something to fill a couple of hours then movies are great, I just like to invest a bit more time into something a little deeper, that's all.

I can definitely agree with the bolded point, granted you have the time, and I do love television series, even especially mini-series a lot as well. But I guess the point I was trying to make is just that, movies do actually do pretty well for themselves given their time frame, and I guess the fact that they can pull it off is what make movies special. I can appreciate your view on plot outlines and character development as well in books and tv series being fundamentally better than movies . I can completely understand that. So I guess the second side of the coin isn't as dirty as I originally thought.

METALLICA_RULES · 07-02-2011, 09:24 PM

I do agree that movies based on a book are not as good as the book. That's because of the limitations a movie has compared to a book.

~~Sansa Stark~~ · 07-02-2011, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by METALLICA_RULES

I do agree that movies based on a book are not as good as the book. That's because of the limitations a movie has compared to a book.

This is an unpopular opinion?

**Frownland** · 09-11-2011, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by METALLICA_RULES

I do agree that movies based on a book are not as good as the book. That's because of the limitations a movie has compared to a book.

This is false. Lord of the Rings, No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood (even though that one is only partially based off of Upton Sinclair's "Oil!") are all exponentially better than the books.

lucifer_sam · 09-11-2011, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

This is false. Lord of the Rings, No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood (even though that one is only partially based off of Upton Sinclair's "Oil!") are all exponentially better than the books.

This may very well be, but the main theme of the film came nowhere near that of the book (which is easy to detect, because Sinclair almost exclusively writes politicized narratives). As far as I'm concerned they are completely disparate works.

Add to that list: The Count of Monte Cristo (both 1934 & 2002 adaptations), Apocalypse Now!, A Clockwork Orange & Trainspotting. Which is pretty immense, because those last two novels are pretty immense themselves.

djchameleon · 09-11-2011, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

This may very well be, but the main theme of the film came nowhere near that of the book (which is easy to detect, because Sinclair almost exclusively writes politicized narratives). As far as I'm concerned they are completely disparate works.

Add to that list: The Count of Monte Cristo (both 1934 & 2002 adaptations), Apocalypse Now!, A Clockwork Orange & Trainspotting. Which is pretty immense, because those last two novels are pretty immense themselves.

I feel like more people should treat films based off of novels as two different works.

Two different mediums are being used and they each have their own strengths.

The whole "the book was better" attitude that people love to gravitate towards shouldn't be even used.

RVCA · 09-12-2011, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

This is false. Lord of the Rings, No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood (even though that one is only partially based off of Upton Sinclair's "Oil!") are all exponentially better than the books.

Surly, surely, surely you're kidding that the LOTR trilogy is better than the original set of novels?

The Big Lebowski is okay.

METALLICA_RULES · 07-02-2011, 09:38 PM

No, I just said that I agreed with Urban Hatemonger. That's all.

07-02-2011, 08:57 PM	#2 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,626	Sorry my reply doesn't reach your standards. I wasn't trying to prove Jackhammer wrong, just that it works the other way around too. I'm not saying all films are bad, most of the films he listed are very good. What I am saying is I've never seen a film that was better than the book or the TV series if it was originally made as those things. I enjoy character development, watching plot strands come to fruition, evolution of concepts. Most of those things don't translate into films very well due to the time constraints that most films have. So from my point of view the only things that movies have as a plus point is a bigger budget which is probably why I watch so few. Last year I spent about 2 months working my way through the entire run of The Sopranos. I got a hell of a lot more out of that than I ever did watching The Godfather Trilogy or Goodfellas, as good as they are. If you want something to fill a couple of hours then movies are great, I just like to invest a bit more time into something a little deeper, that's all. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

07-02-2011, 09:24 PM	#4 (permalink)
METALLICA_RULES Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 127	I do agree that movies based on a book are not as good as the book. That's because of the limitations a movie has compared to a book.

07-02-2011, 09:38 PM	#10 (permalink)
METALLICA_RULES Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 127	No, I just said that I agreed with Urban Hatemonger. That's all.