Cartoon into film?

Anime, cartoons and 3D. Animated shorts and features. And don't forget the animation genius in Bulgaria.

Postby MonkeyM666 on Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:11 pm

This is a biscuit wrote:
Adam Balm wrote:
This is a biscuit wrote:I have one, I have one!

It's called 'Hey, why not make something original and stop robbing people's childhoods, you talentless, ghoulish hacks!'

I know the title's a bit long, but it's fixable.

I figure you take a show like, 'Battle of the Planets'. But instead of using the 5 main characters from that show, all of the villians, and the entire plot, you make up something totally different with a different name, characters, and a different plot!

It's BRILLIANT!!


Even more brilliant would be, when complaining about originality, to have an original argument. I know you probably think you're the first to bring this up, but really the only difference I see between the people remaking stuff and the people complaining about it is that at least the movie studios can see when they're being unoriginal...


Ok, how about complaining about a thread that's promoting un-originality? I'm sure if you looked around enough, you'd find a Best TV Show to Movie, Best Toy to Movie, Best Cereal to Movie. I'm hoping to discourage this trend. And BTW, I may not have been the first to think it, but I was the first to say it here in this thread, and just because its been said before, doesn't make it untrue, and I disagree that studios can see they're being unoriginal. They probably think they're brilliant, like you.

BTW, it's $.25 everytime I'm quoted, make checks payable to 'Biscut LLC'.

kthx.


Hi Bickie!

To start, I try to always be fair to you and your opinions, and I don't think that anyone here would say that I hassle anyone or give any real grief; but this is just too much.

What you're saying is just stupid. The same way it's fucking stupid to walk into a wild west saloon and yell ‘I HATE HORSES, WHORES AND WHISKEY!’ What is the point of even coming in here if you have nothing but negative vibes to voice. By your logic no creative outlet (other than books, you didn’t say books) has ever been original and none have ever been worthy of moving forward. Is Serenity a crap movie and unoriginal because it’s an offshoot of Firefly? Star Trek?

This thread is not promoting unoriginality; it’s promoting the love for cartoons and the hope for the advancement of some. Transformers is a fine (but yet unproven) example. Naruto is another.

Your attempt to discourage this thread is a pathetic and futile one. Why even type that? Don’t be a Winslow, suck it up and realise that the world isn’t about biscuits. It’s about the passion and dedication of different individuals. Grow up and stop posting stupid things, you're just trying to cause trouble for the sake of it...

In closing, As Ben Franklin once said…’ Originality is the art of concealing your sources’. Almost everything isn’t original if you look back far enough.

Move on dude... it's a fucking stupid line of thought.


Image
Image
User avatar
MonkeyM666
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5403
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby This is a biscuit on Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:33 pm

Image

Ah, you're right, of course, what was I thinking?
Mean, ignorant, narrow-minded douchebag, at your service. Pissing people off since '72.
Image
User avatar
This is a biscuit
MONKEY BUTLER
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:15 am
Location: The Bowels of a Giant Corporaton

Postby MonkeyM666 on Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:35 pm

So what? ? You think that proves your point? One movie....?








:roll:







At least now I know that you really don't read others posts.
Image
User avatar
MonkeyM666
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5403
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby Al Shut on Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:40 pm

You almost got me monkey but then I realized your argument was fundamently flawed.

MonkeyM666 wrote: and realise that the world isn’t about biscuits.


Biscuits make the world go round.
Note to myself: Fix this image shit!
User avatar
Al Shut
THE LAUGHING ZONER
 
Posts: 6192
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Oberhausen, Germany

Postby This is a biscuit on Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:59 pm

MonkeyM666 wrote:So what? ? You think that proves your point? One movie....?








:roll:







At least now I know that you really don't read others posts.


Well, then, please let me know about a wildly successful 'Cartoon-to-film'? Something that would make a person say, 'Wow, that was really a great movie! If that's what they've done with 'Snorks', I can't wait until they make Smurfs into a live-action film!'

Now I'm genuinely curious.

Over in the 'Goyer to direct Magneto' they're complaining that maybe they're stretching the X-Franchise into suckatude (and really, after X-Men 2...kinda the way they're doing it for nearly every comic). It's kinda the angle I'm taking here, in a pre-emptive way.

And Al is exactly right, Biscuits DO make the world go around. Ever been to breakfast at a restaurant where they DIDN'T offer you a biscuit?

I think you see what I'm saying.
Mean, ignorant, narrow-minded douchebag, at your service. Pissing people off since '72.
Image
User avatar
This is a biscuit
MONKEY BUTLER
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:15 am
Location: The Bowels of a Giant Corporaton

Postby godzillasushi on Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:04 pm

This is a biscuit wrote:Well, then, please let me know about a wildly successful 'Cartoon-to-film'? Something that would make a person say, 'Wow, that was really a great movie!


Ah just to give something for us to argue about....George of the Jungle was pretty darn funny. And it was pretty darn fun!
ImageImage
Image
User avatar
godzillasushi
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Destroying Sony Headquarters in Japan

Postby Al Shut on Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:10 pm

That was based on a cartoon?

I agree dumb but fun.
Note to myself: Fix this image shit!
User avatar
Al Shut
THE LAUGHING ZONER
 
Posts: 6192
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Oberhausen, Germany

Postby buster00 on Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:21 pm

Josie and the Pussycats wasn't too horrid...

Dick Tracy wasn't that bad either, although that's technically a comic strip.
User avatar
buster00
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6401
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:12 pm

Postby This is a biscuit on Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:37 pm

buster00 wrote:Josie and the Pussycats wasn't too horrid...

Dick Tracy wasn't that bad either, although that's technically a comic strip.


I wasn't even aware that Josie and the Pussycats was a movie. But didn't THAT start off life too as a strip? Like an Archie comics spin-off?
Mean, ignorant, narrow-minded douchebag, at your service. Pissing people off since '72.
Image
User avatar
This is a biscuit
MONKEY BUTLER
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:15 am
Location: The Bowels of a Giant Corporaton

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:56 pm

MonkeyM666 wrote:Almost everything isn’t original if you look back far enough.


You donna say?
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby buster00 on Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:24 pm

This is a biscuit wrote:
buster00 wrote:Josie and the Pussycats wasn't too horrid...

Dick Tracy wasn't that bad either, although that's technically a comic strip.


I wasn't even aware that Josie and the Pussycats was a movie. But didn't THAT start off life too as a strip? Like an Archie comics spin-off?


Ah, touche. That is true.

So, yeah, I got nothin'.
User avatar
buster00
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6401
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:12 pm

Postby This is a biscuit on Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:05 pm

DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
MonkeyM666 wrote:Almost everything isn’t original if you look back far enough.


You donna say?


But there's a difference between unknowingly copying something, and agressively looking to exploit existing material almost verbatim. And there's nothing wrong with being inspired by existing material, in fact, I don't even think it's possible NOT to be inspired by existing material. (Magnificent Seven - Seven Samurai)

But that is a far cry from saying, 'Hey, let's make a live-action Flintstones!'.

Like the upcoming Transformers movie, apparently they're from Mars now, I guess. At least, the previews lent that view. But wasn't the plot already fairly intriguing? The teaser preview had a nifty premise; the Mars rover has a close encounter as a harbinger of an invasion or at least a contact by, aliens.

Why not leave it at that? Why handcuff yourself to having to use the Transformers? Since you've already had to change the story from the original show (I don't remember any Martian references in the show), why bother with the tie-in? Why not just keep going and develop your story without having to use the Transformer motif?

S'alls I'm saying.
Mean, ignorant, narrow-minded douchebag, at your service. Pissing people off since '72.
Image
User avatar
This is a biscuit
MONKEY BUTLER
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:15 am
Location: The Bowels of a Giant Corporaton

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:41 pm

This is a biscuit wrote:Why not leave it at that? Why handcuff yourself to having to use the Transformers? Since you've already had to change the story from the original show (I don't remember any Martian references in the show), why bother with the tie-in? Why not just keep going and develop your story without having to use the Transformer motif?


It's a called "Marketing," eh? It's a the common inna the movie business...
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby This is a biscuit on Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:43 pm

DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
This is a biscuit wrote:Why not leave it at that? Why handcuff yourself to having to use the Transformers? Since you've already had to change the story from the original show (I don't remember any Martian references in the show), why bother with the tie-in? Why not just keep going and develop your story without having to use the Transformer motif?


It's a called "Marketing," eh? It's a the common inna the movie business...


Yep, so's crap. All TOO common.

Oh well.

While we're at it: Put my vote in for the Thundarr remake, as well. Out of all of them, that's the one that would probably make a pretty decent flick.
Mean, ignorant, narrow-minded douchebag, at your service. Pissing people off since '72.
Image
User avatar
This is a biscuit
MONKEY BUTLER
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:15 am
Location: The Bowels of a Giant Corporaton

Postby Adam Balm on Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:42 pm

This is a biscuit wrote:
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
MonkeyM666 wrote:Almost everything isn’t original if you look back far enough.


You donna say?


But there's a difference between unknowingly copying something, and agressively looking to exploit existing material almost verbatim. And there's nothing wrong with being inspired by existing material, in fact, I don't even think it's possible NOT to be inspired by existing material. (Magnificent Seven - Seven Samurai)

But that is a far cry from saying, 'Hey, let's make a live-action Flintstones!'.


I'm curious if you could elaborate on this point. See my problem with what you originally said (no pun intended) was the fallacy in the argument that this is all somehow new, or that Hollywood is somehow less original than it used to be, that there was some golden age where Hollywood never said "Hey, let's make a movie version of this!"

Hollywood was founded on unoriginality. Literally actually. The people who started the movie studios moved to California in order to use Edison's new movie technology without paying him (He owned the intellectual property on much of it.) who himself had stole Georges Méliès' silent film Le Voyage Dans La Lune without paying him. And then of course Le Voyage itself was just an adaptation of Jules Verne's novel. In fact, nearly all the first hollywood films were adaptations of penny westerns, plays, and the like. And the American cartoon industry (not that it matters, but since we're discussing cartoons I thought I'd mention it) traces itself back to Steamboat Willie, which of course like all of Walt Disney's stuff, was just an adaptation of Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill Jr. And seven of the top ten films on AFI's list of the best movies of the twentieth century not original works at all, but are adaptations of books or plays. Adapting cartoons is no more unoriginal than what they've been doing all along, IMHO.
Image
User avatar
Adam Balm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: factored in this happening when it has happened

Postby This is a biscuit on Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:06 pm

Adam Balm wrote:
This is a biscuit wrote:
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
MonkeyM666 wrote:Almost everything isn’t original if you look back far enough.


You donna say?


But there's a difference between unknowingly copying something, and agressively looking to exploit existing material almost verbatim. And there's nothing wrong with being inspired by existing material, in fact, I don't even think it's possible NOT to be inspired by existing material. (Magnificent Seven - Seven Samurai)

But that is a far cry from saying, 'Hey, let's make a live-action Flintstones!'.


I'm curious if you could elaborate on this point. See my problem with what you originally said (no pun intended) was the fallacy in the argument that this is all somehow new, or that Hollywood is somehow less original than it used to be, that there was some golden age where Hollywood never said "Hey, let's make a movie version of this!"

Hollywood was founded on unoriginality. Literally actually. The people who started the movie studios moved to California in order to use Edison's new movie technology without paying him (He owned the intellectual property on much of it.) who himself had stole Georges Méliès' silent film Le Voyage Dans La Lune without paying him. And then of course Le Voyage itself was just an adaptation of Jules Verne's novel. In fact, nearly all the first hollywood films were adaptations of penny westerns, plays, and the like. And the American cartoon industry (not that it matters, but since we're discussing cartoons I thought I'd mention it) traces itself back to Steamboat Willie, which of course like all of Walt Disney's stuff, was just an adaptation of Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill Jr. And seven of the top ten films on AFI's list of the best movies of the twentieth century not original works at all, but are adaptations of books or plays. Adapting cartoons is no more unoriginal than what they've been doing all along, IMHO.


Saying that its founded on unoriginality because they made use of someone else's machine is like saying the Renaisannce was unoriginal because they used paintbrushes that predated the period.

It's (as I mentioned already) one thing to be inflenced by and produce new product that's clearly based on what came before. If this didn't happen, progress would be impossible.

It's quite another to basically 'port' one idea from visual medium to another, nearly identical visual medium. As I indicated before, there was already a nifty concept, why muddy it unnecessarily with The Transformers tie-in? Has there been some resurgence in popularity for the show?

It's not like you absolutely have to have a previous story tie-in for every sci-fi movie you make in order to make it successful. Check out the top 10 grossing films of all time, how many are based on other films/tv shows? There all based on either original screenplays or comic strips (or in 'Pirates' case, theme park rides).

Now I'm prolly going to get bitched at for having an opinion and being all 'negative'. Hang on, lemmie put on my hate-helmet...
:lol:
Mean, ignorant, narrow-minded douchebag, at your service. Pissing people off since '72.
Image
User avatar
This is a biscuit
MONKEY BUTLER
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:15 am
Location: The Bowels of a Giant Corporaton

Postby Adam Balm on Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:10 pm

This is a biscuit wrote:Hang on, lemmie put on my hate-helmet...
:lol:



Image

I don't think it worked...
Image
User avatar
Adam Balm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: factored in this happening when it has happened

Postby MonkeyM666 on Tue May 01, 2007 4:24 am

Al_Shut wrote:You almost got me monkey but then I realized your argument was fundamently flawed.

MonkeyM666 wrote: and realise that the world isn’t about biscuits.


Biscuits make the world go round.


mmmmmmm..... choc chip biscuits dunked in ice cold milk.

You're making me hungry Al! DAMN YOU...

I was going to write a big ass long reply but I really to you TIAB but I don't know if I can be bothered. You're obviously now just saying shit to be abrasive, something that the EFBR is for. I shall now activate my in head virtual ID blocker so I don't read your shit stirring, uninformed yet over opinionated posts.
Image
User avatar
MonkeyM666
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5403
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby This is a biscuit on Tue May 01, 2007 8:50 am

MonkeyM666 wrote:
Al_Shut wrote:You almost got me monkey but then I realized your argument was fundamently flawed.

MonkeyM666 wrote: and realise that the world isn’t about biscuits.


Biscuits make the world go round.


mmmmmmm..... choc chip biscuits dunked in ice cold milk.

You're making me hungry Al! DAMN YOU...

I was going to write a big ass long reply but I really to you TIAB but I don't know if I can be bothered. You're obviously now just saying shit to be abrasive, something that the EFBR is for. I shall now activate my in head virtual ID blocker so I don't read your shit stirring, uninformed yet over opinionated posts.


See? Now I'm abrasive, apparently. And I never said one derogatory thing to the guy. Oh yeah, and I'm back to being uninformed as well.

You forgot sardonic and cruel! Oh, he can't hear me, he's jammed his fingers in his ears, the way adults do I guess.

I see Owen Wilson as Thundarr, comments?
Mean, ignorant, narrow-minded douchebag, at your service. Pissing people off since '72.
Image
User avatar
This is a biscuit
MONKEY BUTLER
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:15 am
Location: The Bowels of a Giant Corporaton

Postby The Todd on Tue May 01, 2007 9:02 am

This is a biscuit wrote:Check out the top 10 grossing films of all time, how many are based on other films/tv shows?


Define "based on".....

Taking a counter-point here, Shrek 2 is in the top 10 grossing films of all time. While the original Shrek was based on William Steig's Shrek! kids book, the sequel is "based on" the original film. The took the beloved characters from a previous movie (and book) and made up something totally different. And they agressively looked to exploit existing material almost verbatim (you got to admit, a lot of the jokes were taken from Shrek) and that film ended up in the top 10 grossing films of all time.....
i reject your reality and substitute my own
User avatar
The Todd
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:40 am
Location: surgery

Postby MonkeyM666 on Tue May 01, 2007 9:05 am

That's a very good point Todd... thanks for the input.
Image
User avatar
MonkeyM666
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5403
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby Adam Balm on Tue May 01, 2007 9:26 am

This is a biscuit wrote:Check out the top 10 grossing films of all time, how many are based on other films/tv shows?


No, most were based off of books. As highlighted below:

Rank Movie name Worldwide Gross
1 Titanic (1997) - 20th Century Fox / Paramount $1,845,034,188
2 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) - New Line Cinema $1,118,888,979
3 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) - Buena Vista/Walt Disney Pictures $1,065,659,812
4 Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone (2001) - Warner Bros. $976,475,550
5 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) - New Line Cinema $926,287,400
6 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) - 20th Century Fox $925,307,558
7 Shrek 2 (2004) - DreamWorks SKG $920,665,658
8 Jurassic Park (1993) - Universal $914,691,118

9 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) - Warner Bros. $892,213,036
10 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) - Warner Bros. $876,688,482



Shrek was based on an illustrated book which brings up another point of debate. In your argument you later said that you're just talking about adapting from one visual medium to another visual medium. You then noticeably said that movies based on comic strips don't count, forgetting that sequential art is itself a visual medium. And you also forget that a good chunk of the AFI "best films" that critics picked were adapted from plays, yet another visual medium. (A live action visual medium might I add.) But you seem to keep moving the goal posts "Oh, this doesn't count because blah blah" which tends to weaken your argument IMHO.
Image
User avatar
Adam Balm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: factored in this happening when it has happened

Postby MonkeyM666 on Tue May 01, 2007 9:36 am

Wow... Shrek 2 is #7....


I understand it, but don't like it.
Image
User avatar
MonkeyM666
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5403
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby thebostonlocksmith on Tue May 01, 2007 9:46 am

I can't see me any spiderman...???
User avatar
thebostonlocksmith
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:31 am

Postby The Todd on Tue May 01, 2007 9:49 am

thebostonlocksmith wrote:I can't see me any spiderman...???


Adam Balm put the worldwide box office total, not US domestic. Worldwide, the Spidey's come in as follows:

14 Spider-Man (2002) - Sony $821,708,551
19 Spider-Man 2 (2004) - Sony $783,766,341
i reject your reality and substitute my own
User avatar
The Todd
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:40 am
Location: surgery

Postby Adam Balm on Tue May 01, 2007 10:15 am

And btw, as Todd alluded to earlier, 7 of the top 10 are sequels/prequels and are more than just 'inspired' by other films. They're not remakes in the sense of 'based on' but they're not 'original' either. In fact in the strictest sense of the word, Titanic is probably the only movie that appears in the top ten that you could actually call an original work.
Image
User avatar
Adam Balm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: factored in this happening when it has happened

Postby thebostonlocksmith on Tue May 01, 2007 10:22 am

The Todd wrote:
thebostonlocksmith wrote:I can't see me any spiderman...???


Adam Balm put the worldwide box office total, not US domestic. Worldwide, the Spidey's come in as follows:

14 Spider-Man (2002) - Sony $821,708,551
19 Spider-Man 2 (2004) - Sony $783,766,341


Arrrr, that's better... smell done the todd
User avatar
thebostonlocksmith
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:31 am

Postby MonkeyM666 on Tue May 01, 2007 10:27 am

Adam Balm wrote:And btw, as Todd alluded to earlier, 7 of the top 10 are sequels/prequels and are more than just 'inspired' by other films. They're not remakes in the sense of 'based on' but they're not 'original' either. In fact in the strictest sense of the word, Titanic is probably the only movie that appears in the top ten that you could actually call an original work.


Titanic an origional work....:roll:


HELLO??!?!






:lol:
Image
User avatar
MonkeyM666
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5403
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby Adam Balm on Tue May 01, 2007 10:32 am

MonkeyM666 wrote:
Adam Balm wrote:And btw, as Todd alluded to earlier, 7 of the top 10 are sequels/prequels and are more than just 'inspired' by other films. They're not remakes in the sense of 'based on' but they're not 'original' either. In fact in the strictest sense of the word, Titanic is probably the only movie that appears in the top ten that you could actually call an original work.


Titanic an origional work....:roll:


HELLO??!?!


Hah!

You know I was actually expecting that someone would've brought up Futility. The sinking of the Titanic after all was just a big rip off of a book that was written a few years earlier.
Image
User avatar
Adam Balm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: factored in this happening when it has happened

Postby MonkeyM666 on Tue May 01, 2007 10:41 am

Na, I'm not that well read Balm... you'll have to be contented with my lame wiki links :)
Image
User avatar
MonkeyM666
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5403
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby This is a biscuit on Tue May 01, 2007 10:57 am

Adam Balm wrote:
This is a biscuit wrote:Check out the top 10 grossing films of all time, how many are based on other films/tv shows?


No, most were based off of books. As highlighted below:

Rank Movie name Worldwide Gross
1 Titanic (1997) - 20th Century Fox / Paramount $1,845,034,188
2 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) - New Line Cinema $1,118,888,979
3 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) - Buena Vista/Walt Disney Pictures $1,065,659,812
4 Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone (2001) - Warner Bros. $976,475,550
5 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) - New Line Cinema $926,287,400
6 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) - 20th Century Fox $925,307,558
7 Shrek 2 (2004) - DreamWorks SKG $920,665,658
8 Jurassic Park (1993) - Universal $914,691,118

9 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) - Warner Bros. $892,213,036
10 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) - Warner Bros. $876,688,482



Shrek was based on an illustrated book which brings up another point of debate. In your argument you later said that you're just talking about adapting from one visual medium to another visual medium. You then noticeably said that movies based on comic strips don't count, forgetting that sequential art is itself a visual medium. And you also forget that a good chunk of the AFI "best films" that critics picked were adapted from plays, yet another visual medium. (A live action visual medium might I add.) But you seem to keep moving the goal posts "Oh, this doesn't count because blah blah" which tends to weaken your argument IMHO.


I'm not moving the goal posts and I stand by my earlier statement. Not one of those top 10 films is based on another film or TV show. It's not like Dreamworks made Shrek 2 based on Warner Brothers' Shrek 1.

And I will grant you that yes, comic strips are a visual medium just as films are. In the same way that 10-speed bikes and F-16s are both modes of transportation. But since comic strips are somewhat less intensive than films, I consider them different mediums.

And again, I was very specific, I said based on other films and tv shows. Movies based on books are of course, perfectly fine, because after all, you essentially write a book when you make a movie anyway. And you are translating a story from a realatively non-visual medium into a visual & audible medium. And the movie version of a book can be dramatically different than the source material, another reason why such conversions are not only ok, but in a lot of cases, desirable. (see The Shining)

Thanks for posting the top 10, it butressed my point.

See? This is how you have a discussion. No hyperbole, no ad hominems, just a discussion.
Mean, ignorant, narrow-minded douchebag, at your service. Pissing people off since '72.
Image
User avatar
This is a biscuit
MONKEY BUTLER
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:15 am
Location: The Bowels of a Giant Corporaton

Postby The Todd on Tue May 01, 2007 11:02 am

This is a biscuit wrote:It's not like Dreamworks made Shrek 2 based on Warner Brothers' Shrek 1.


Then what did they base it on? It's the same characters from Shrek 1 in a new story that wasn't written by the creator of said characters.

And didn't Dreamworks release both movies? (Serious question, I'm really not sure)
i reject your reality and substitute my own
User avatar
The Todd
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:40 am
Location: surgery

Postby Adam Balm on Tue May 01, 2007 11:08 am

This is a biscuit wrote:And the movie version of a book can be dramatically different than the source material, another reason why such conversions are not only ok, but in a lot of cases, desirable. (see The Shining)


And the reasons why you can't have a dramatically different adaptation in the case of a film/tv show/cartoon are...?
Image
User avatar
Adam Balm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: factored in this happening when it has happened

Postby MonkeyM666 on Tue May 01, 2007 11:18 am

Ok Bickie,

I'm paying attention again, the blinkers are off....

I think that what is annoying me so much about your line of reasoning is where you're placing it. This thread is about cartoons and what favourites a studio should make a cinematic version of. Your argument may be worthy of a new thread if you want to push the point on originality and taking off TV shows/cartoons etc then do it but do it in a thread that isn’t about the embracement of childhood favourites.

Maybe even make it in the EFBR then it's all in fun and no-one will get too annoyed.
Image
User avatar
MonkeyM666
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5403
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby This is a biscuit on Tue May 01, 2007 12:51 pm

MonkeyM666 wrote:Ok Bickie,

I'm paying attention again, the blinkers are off....

I think that what is annoying me so much about your line of reasoning is where you're placing it. This thread is about cartoons and what favourites a studio should make a cinematic version of. Your argument may be worthy of a new thread if you want to push the point on originality and taking off TV shows/cartoons etc then do it but do it in a thread that isn’t about the embracement of childhood favourites.

Maybe even make it in the EFBR then it's all in fun and no-one will get too annoyed.


Fair enough.

- Also, I'm pretty sure that Dreamworks put out both Shreks.

So NO ONE else is down with Wil Smith as Thundarr? :lol:
Mean, ignorant, narrow-minded douchebag, at your service. Pissing people off since '72.
Image
User avatar
This is a biscuit
MONKEY BUTLER
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:15 am
Location: The Bowels of a Giant Corporaton

Re:

Postby TheButcher on Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:51 am

Retardo_Montalban wrote:I want to see Captain Planet and the Planeteers. Of course, that chick with the facial scar HAS to be in it, because that shit turns me on. Gaia has to get naked too. R rated Captain Planet.



Let's save the Earth, people.

Live-action 'Captain Planet' heads to big screen - 'Transformers' film producers pact with Cartoon Network
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Previous

Return to Animation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests