Forums · An article I wrote for The Student Newspaper
I'm an editor for my school's Student Newspaper (more of a newsletter, but whatever floats my co-editors boat) called the Loop (blame the previous editors for that one). As such, I'm about to become one of the prevalent writers for my Loop (yes it's mine!) sooo, I'm going to share most of my articles with you - so long as they don't reflect to much on my school and whatnot. Paranoid. Yeah.
ANYWAY, this one I just wrote is called 'Respect' and is relatively long (and therefore, possibly unsuitable to be published, but I'll work around that). It's something written to suit like, me, rather than most of the kids at school, but I like the article nonetheless. Will it get published? If I get it my way, yes, if she gets it her way - who knows? she hasn't read it yet.
So, read it, and then feedback and criticisms please.
Respect
I am not going to go on and on about how important it is to respect every other person, I am not going to tell you to give respect where respect is due and I am not going to do tell you do to unto other as you would have them do unto you. I don?t see the point, no one listens. In fact, I?m not even going to talk about respect within those boundaries; truth be told I don?t care whether or not you show another person the respect he or she deserves, that?s your decision and their problem. I have no reason to get up on my high-horse and preach, not about people anyway. I?m going to be talking about graphic novels, cartoons, toys and books and the movie adaptations in relation to the source material from which they spawn. I forewarn you: I will be ranting about things that you may not be able to relate to. Some readers may become distressed and/or angered by some of the words they see on this page.
I think I?ll start with a movie that no one liked, so that I can offer you a point of reference. Unanimously criticised and bashed, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer was hated. And with good reason - the movie was horrible. The one, single saving aspect of the movie was The Silver Surfer who was superbly animated and true-enough to his original comic-book character. But then along came the final nail in the coffin: Galactus. Galactus is omnipotent, a massive humanoid creature dressed in purple garb (complemented by an oh-so-stylish purple and blue skirt), with a booming voice that can be heard by all as the thirty-foot-tall cosmically-power God bellows: ?I hunger.? Then he devours that world that has been scouted for him, he uses his machines to drain the earth beneath him of all of its natural resources. He is not a wisping cloud and he is not a creature that can be destroyed by his herald ? his slave! His inferior! His minion! The movie failed to respect the source material and I question the motivation. I ask why the source material was ignored. Why was there such a need? Why did Marvel, the propriety owner?s of the Fantastic Four, allow it to be ignored?
Movie adaptations of comic books are notoriously bad for disrespecting the source material. Rise of the Silver Surfer, as I?ve already made a point of, took a character?s name and nothing else in its portrayal of Galactus. He didn?t have his m-body and he didn?t speak, he was an insult to the core fan base. V for Vendetta was so different, in regards to the political message it was trying to push, when compared to the graphic novel that its writer, Alan Moore, actually disowned the movie. X-Men: The Last Stand completely ignored The Phoenix?s inter-stellar origin and turned Jean Grey into a crazy person. Spider-Man used Mary Jane when they should have used Gwen Stacey. Even 300, though absolutely true to Frank Miller?s graphic normal, shows an absolute disrespect for the original story on which it is based. The amount of disrespect varies, but there is always too large of a degree to which the source material is ignored. And, for the life of me, I don?t understand why. Fans ? and I will let you quote me on this ? would be happy with a poor movie that is source-accurate. If Galactus had have stood strong and bellowed in the name of his hunger then, despite the quality of the movie, there would have been one more thing to praise and one less thing to criticise. Why does Hollywood decide to change aspects of the source material in the making of these adaptations? Because these writers, these directors, these producers, they all feel that ?creative license? gives them the right. Because they believe that something like this is more likely to be accepted by mainstream, easier for them to relate to, than that other something that this thing is supposed to be. But they don?t get it. They miss the point. Movies like this aren?t made for the mainstream audience; they are the extra dollars, the bonus levels, the people who are looking for a good movie and not a good adaptation. These movies are not made for them, they are made for us: the fans. We want a good adaptation before we want a good movie.
More examples: The first Resident Evil movie did not use a single character from the first Resident Evil video game ? to that same point, the movie failed to use any of the same storylines with the only exception being a loose allusion to the T-virus. Transformers, a movie that I loved absolutely and would pay top-dollar to see again and again, made a mockery of the fan base. Optimus Prime, the idol of so many childhoods, was butchered beyond recognition. Prime is a red flat-nose truck, not a blue long-nose truck. And, for everyone who doesn?t realise this: Transformers is a movie about toys. Furthermore, Transformers do not look like robots, they look like Transformers. It was appalling how badly the Autobots and Decepticons were treated ? none of them had even an ounce of their character from the cartoon shine through. Why do these people insist on catering more for the demographic, the mainstream audience, that simply does not care so much about these details as the core fan base does? They should not care about whether or not the mainstream audience can relate to the characters or the storyline. What they should care about is the fans, and whether or not they can relate to what they grew up with, or to the storylines and/or characters that they fell in love with. But they don?t. They don?t show the source material any respect and they don?t show the fans any more or any less.
And you?re all reading this thinking, ?What the Hell is this guy talking about?? Well let me call upon two final examples to allow a point of comparison: The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The former was a great trilogy of movies, as source-accurate as it needed to be. Any exclusions that were made, any changes were made, were made for good reason while all the things that were kept the same were the aspects of the source that could not be changed. Then we have the latter? then we have The Prisoner of Azkaban. That movie excluded plot points (did the movie once mention that James Potter was an animagus? Did it at all mention the significance of Padfoot, Moony, Wormtail and Prongs?) that were absolutely necessary to the development of the story while including scenes that were absent in the source material and, might I add, absolutely unnecessary (that stupid scene with those stupid lollies that make Ron make an elephant noise). Lord of the Rings gives the example of what all the other movies I mentioned should have been and The Prisoner of Azkaban gives the example of what I?m glad the other movies weren?t as bad as. And now you (well, hopefully) have a point a reference. Now you can relate to my point; movie adaptations should show absolute respect to their source material because, if and when they don?t, they suffer. All I?m askin? is for a little respect. Just a little bit. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. But, no one ever listens.
Now, Harry Potter fans, tell me how wrong I am.
--Adam ^>^
Forgot about how I initially planned on closing the article. Fixed it to include "But, no one ever listens.
ANYWAY, this one I just wrote is called 'Respect' and is relatively long (and therefore, possibly unsuitable to be published, but I'll work around that). It's something written to suit like, me, rather than most of the kids at school, but I like the article nonetheless. Will it get published? If I get it my way, yes, if she gets it her way - who knows? she hasn't read it yet.
So, read it, and then feedback and criticisms please.
Respect
I am not going to go on and on about how important it is to respect every other person, I am not going to tell you to give respect where respect is due and I am not going to do tell you do to unto other as you would have them do unto you. I don?t see the point, no one listens. In fact, I?m not even going to talk about respect within those boundaries; truth be told I don?t care whether or not you show another person the respect he or she deserves, that?s your decision and their problem. I have no reason to get up on my high-horse and preach, not about people anyway. I?m going to be talking about graphic novels, cartoons, toys and books and the movie adaptations in relation to the source material from which they spawn. I forewarn you: I will be ranting about things that you may not be able to relate to. Some readers may become distressed and/or angered by some of the words they see on this page.
I think I?ll start with a movie that no one liked, so that I can offer you a point of reference. Unanimously criticised and bashed, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer was hated. And with good reason - the movie was horrible. The one, single saving aspect of the movie was The Silver Surfer who was superbly animated and true-enough to his original comic-book character. But then along came the final nail in the coffin: Galactus. Galactus is omnipotent, a massive humanoid creature dressed in purple garb (complemented by an oh-so-stylish purple and blue skirt), with a booming voice that can be heard by all as the thirty-foot-tall cosmically-power God bellows: ?I hunger.? Then he devours that world that has been scouted for him, he uses his machines to drain the earth beneath him of all of its natural resources. He is not a wisping cloud and he is not a creature that can be destroyed by his herald ? his slave! His inferior! His minion! The movie failed to respect the source material and I question the motivation. I ask why the source material was ignored. Why was there such a need? Why did Marvel, the propriety owner?s of the Fantastic Four, allow it to be ignored?
Movie adaptations of comic books are notoriously bad for disrespecting the source material. Rise of the Silver Surfer, as I?ve already made a point of, took a character?s name and nothing else in its portrayal of Galactus. He didn?t have his m-body and he didn?t speak, he was an insult to the core fan base. V for Vendetta was so different, in regards to the political message it was trying to push, when compared to the graphic novel that its writer, Alan Moore, actually disowned the movie. X-Men: The Last Stand completely ignored The Phoenix?s inter-stellar origin and turned Jean Grey into a crazy person. Spider-Man used Mary Jane when they should have used Gwen Stacey. Even 300, though absolutely true to Frank Miller?s graphic normal, shows an absolute disrespect for the original story on which it is based. The amount of disrespect varies, but there is always too large of a degree to which the source material is ignored. And, for the life of me, I don?t understand why. Fans ? and I will let you quote me on this ? would be happy with a poor movie that is source-accurate. If Galactus had have stood strong and bellowed in the name of his hunger then, despite the quality of the movie, there would have been one more thing to praise and one less thing to criticise. Why does Hollywood decide to change aspects of the source material in the making of these adaptations? Because these writers, these directors, these producers, they all feel that ?creative license? gives them the right. Because they believe that something like this is more likely to be accepted by mainstream, easier for them to relate to, than that other something that this thing is supposed to be. But they don?t get it. They miss the point. Movies like this aren?t made for the mainstream audience; they are the extra dollars, the bonus levels, the people who are looking for a good movie and not a good adaptation. These movies are not made for them, they are made for us: the fans. We want a good adaptation before we want a good movie.
More examples: The first Resident Evil movie did not use a single character from the first Resident Evil video game ? to that same point, the movie failed to use any of the same storylines with the only exception being a loose allusion to the T-virus. Transformers, a movie that I loved absolutely and would pay top-dollar to see again and again, made a mockery of the fan base. Optimus Prime, the idol of so many childhoods, was butchered beyond recognition. Prime is a red flat-nose truck, not a blue long-nose truck. And, for everyone who doesn?t realise this: Transformers is a movie about toys. Furthermore, Transformers do not look like robots, they look like Transformers. It was appalling how badly the Autobots and Decepticons were treated ? none of them had even an ounce of their character from the cartoon shine through. Why do these people insist on catering more for the demographic, the mainstream audience, that simply does not care so much about these details as the core fan base does? They should not care about whether or not the mainstream audience can relate to the characters or the storyline. What they should care about is the fans, and whether or not they can relate to what they grew up with, or to the storylines and/or characters that they fell in love with. But they don?t. They don?t show the source material any respect and they don?t show the fans any more or any less.
And you?re all reading this thinking, ?What the Hell is this guy talking about?? Well let me call upon two final examples to allow a point of comparison: The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The former was a great trilogy of movies, as source-accurate as it needed to be. Any exclusions that were made, any changes were made, were made for good reason while all the things that were kept the same were the aspects of the source that could not be changed. Then we have the latter? then we have The Prisoner of Azkaban. That movie excluded plot points (did the movie once mention that James Potter was an animagus? Did it at all mention the significance of Padfoot, Moony, Wormtail and Prongs?) that were absolutely necessary to the development of the story while including scenes that were absent in the source material and, might I add, absolutely unnecessary (that stupid scene with those stupid lollies that make Ron make an elephant noise). Lord of the Rings gives the example of what all the other movies I mentioned should have been and The Prisoner of Azkaban gives the example of what I?m glad the other movies weren?t as bad as. And now you (well, hopefully) have a point a reference. Now you can relate to my point; movie adaptations should show absolute respect to their source material because, if and when they don?t, they suffer. All I?m askin? is for a little respect. Just a little bit. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. But, no one ever listens.
Now, Harry Potter fans, tell me how wrong I am.
--Adam ^>^
Forgot about how I initially planned on closing the article. Fixed it to include "But, no one ever listens.
Respect
I am not going to go on and on about how important it is to respect every other person, I am not going to tell you to give respect where respect is due and I am not going to do tell you to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I don?t see the point; no one listens. In fact, I?m not even going to talk about respect within those boundaries; truth be told, I don?t care whether or not you show another person the respect he or she deserves; that?s your decision and their problem. I have no reason to get up on my high-horse and preach; not about people, anyway. I?m going to be talking about graphic novels, cartoons, toys and books and the movie adaptations in relation to the source material from which they spawn. I forewarn you: I will be ranting about things that you may not be able to relate to. Some readers may become distressed and/or angered by some of the words they see on this page.
I think I?ll start with a movie that no one liked, so that I can offer you a point of reference. Unanimously criticised and bashed, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer was hated. And with good reason - the movie was horrible. The one, single saving aspect of the movie was The Silver Surfer who was superbly animated and true enough to his original comic-book character. But then, along came the final nail in the coffin: Galactus. Galactus is omnipotent, a massive humanoid creature dressed in purple garb (complemented by an oh-so-stylish purple and blue skirt), with a booming voice that can be heard by all as the thirty-foot-tall cosmically-power God bellows: ?I hunger.? Then he devours that world that has been scouted for him, he uses (try "using" over "he uses") his machines to drain the earth beneath him of all of its natural resources. He is not a wisping are you sure that's a word? cloud and he is not a creature that can be destroyed by his herald ? his slave! His inferior! His minion! The movie failed to respect the source material and I question the motivation. I ask why the source material was ignored. Why was there such a need? Why did Marvel, the propriety owners of the Fantastic Four, allow it to be ignored?
Movie adaptations of comic books are notoriously bad for disrespecting the source material. Rise of the Silver Surfer, which I?ve already made a point of, took a character?s name and nothing else in its portrayal of Galactus. He didn?t have his m-body and he didn?t speak; he was an insult to the core fan base. V for Vendetta was so different, in regards to the political message it was trying to push, when compared to the graphic novel that its writer, Alan Moore, actually disowned the movie. X-Men: The Last Stand completely ignored The Phoenix?s inter-stellar origin and turned Jean Grey into a crazy person. Spider-Man used Mary Jane when they should have used Gwen Stacey. Even 300, though absolutely true to Frank Miller?s graphic normal, shows an absolute disrespect for the original story on which it is based. The amount of disrespect varies, but the degree to which the source material is ignored is always too large. And, for the life of me, I don?t understand why. Fans ? and I will let you quote me on this ? would be happy with a poor movie that is source-accurate. If Galactus had stood strong and bellowed in the name of his hunger, then - despite the quality of the movie - there would have been one more thing to praise and one less thing to criticise. Why does Hollywood decide to change aspects of the source material in the making of these adaptations? Because these writers, these directors, these producers, all feel that ?creative license? gives them the right. Because they believe that something like this is more likely to be accepted by the mainstream audience, easier for them to relate to, than that other something that this thing is supposed to be. But they don?t get it. They miss the point. Movies like this aren?t made for the mainstream audience; they are the extra dollars, the bonus levels, for the people who are looking for a good movie and not a good adaptation. These movies are not made for them, they are made for us: the fans. We want a good adaptation before we want a good movie.
More examples: The first Resident Evil movie did not use a single character from the first Resident Evil video game ? to that same point, the movie failed to use any of the same storylines with the only exception being a loose allusion to the T-virus. Transformers, a movie that I loved absolutely and would pay top-dollar to see again and again, made a mockery of the fan base. Optimus Prime, the idol of so many childhoods, was butchered beyond recognition. Prime is a red flat-nose truck, not a blue long-nose truck. And, for everyone who doesn?t realise this: Transformers is a movie about toys. Furthermore, Transformers do not look like robots, they look like Transformers. It was appalling how badly the Autobots and Decepticons were treated ? none of them had even an ounce of their character from the cartoon shine through. Why do these people insist on catering more for the demographic, the mainstream audience, that simply does not care so much about these details as the core fan base does? They should not care about whether or not the mainstream audience can relate to the characters or the storyline. What they should care about is the fans, and whether or not they can relate to what they grew up with, or to the storylines and/or characters that they fell in love with. But they don?t. They don?t show the source material any respect and they don?t show the fans any more or any less.
And you?re all reading this thinking, ?What the Hell is this guy talking about?? Well, let me call upon two final examples to allow a point of comparison: The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The former was a great trilogy of movies, as source-accurate as it needed to be. Any exclusions that were made, any changes were made, were made for good reason, while all the things that were kept the same were the aspects of the source that could not be changed. Then we have the latter? then we have The Prisoner of Azkaban. That movie excluded plot points (did the movie once mention that James Potter was an animagus? Did it at all mention the significance of Padfoot, Moony, Wormtail and Prongs?) that were absolutely necessary to the development of the story while including scenes that were absent in the source material and, might I add, absolutely unnecessary (that stupid scene with those stupid lollies that make Ron make an elephant noise). Lord of the Rings gives the example of what all the other movies I mentioned should have been and The Prisoner of Azkaban gives the example of what I?m glad the other movies weren?t as bad as. And now you (well, hopefully) have a point a reference. Now you can relate to my point; movie adaptations should show absolute respect to their source material because, if and when they don?t, they suffer (try "because they suffer if and when they don't"). All I?m askin? for is a little respect. Just a little bit. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. But, no one ever listens.
Now, Harry Potter fans, tell me how wrong I am.
^Okay, I went on an editing spree there. But I like the article. And yes, Harry Potter movies are butchered to oblivion.
I am not going to go on and on about how important it is to respect every other person, I am not going to tell you to give respect where respect is due and I am not going to do tell you to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I don?t see the point; no one listens. In fact, I?m not even going to talk about respect within those boundaries; truth be told, I don?t care whether or not you show another person the respect he or she deserves; that?s your decision and their problem. I have no reason to get up on my high-horse and preach; not about people, anyway. I?m going to be talking about graphic novels, cartoons, toys and books and the movie adaptations in relation to the source material from which they spawn. I forewarn you: I will be ranting about things that you may not be able to relate to. Some readers may become distressed and/or angered by some of the words they see on this page.
I think I?ll start with a movie that no one liked, so that I can offer you a point of reference. Unanimously criticised and bashed, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer was hated. And with good reason - the movie was horrible. The one, single saving aspect of the movie was The Silver Surfer who was superbly animated and true enough to his original comic-book character. But then, along came the final nail in the coffin: Galactus. Galactus is omnipotent, a massive humanoid creature dressed in purple garb (complemented by an oh-so-stylish purple and blue skirt), with a booming voice that can be heard by all as the thirty-foot-tall cosmically-power God bellows: ?I hunger.? Then he devours that world that has been scouted for him, he uses (try "using" over "he uses") his machines to drain the earth beneath him of all of its natural resources. He is not a wisping are you sure that's a word? cloud and he is not a creature that can be destroyed by his herald ? his slave! His inferior! His minion! The movie failed to respect the source material and I question the motivation. I ask why the source material was ignored. Why was there such a need? Why did Marvel, the propriety owners of the Fantastic Four, allow it to be ignored?
Movie adaptations of comic books are notoriously bad for disrespecting the source material. Rise of the Silver Surfer, which I?ve already made a point of, took a character?s name and nothing else in its portrayal of Galactus. He didn?t have his m-body and he didn?t speak; he was an insult to the core fan base. V for Vendetta was so different, in regards to the political message it was trying to push, when compared to the graphic novel that its writer, Alan Moore, actually disowned the movie. X-Men: The Last Stand completely ignored The Phoenix?s inter-stellar origin and turned Jean Grey into a crazy person. Spider-Man used Mary Jane when they should have used Gwen Stacey. Even 300, though absolutely true to Frank Miller?s graphic normal, shows an absolute disrespect for the original story on which it is based. The amount of disrespect varies, but the degree to which the source material is ignored is always too large. And, for the life of me, I don?t understand why. Fans ? and I will let you quote me on this ? would be happy with a poor movie that is source-accurate. If Galactus had stood strong and bellowed in the name of his hunger, then - despite the quality of the movie - there would have been one more thing to praise and one less thing to criticise. Why does Hollywood decide to change aspects of the source material in the making of these adaptations? Because these writers, these directors, these producers, all feel that ?creative license? gives them the right. Because they believe that something like this is more likely to be accepted by the mainstream audience, easier for them to relate to, than that other something that this thing is supposed to be. But they don?t get it. They miss the point. Movies like this aren?t made for the mainstream audience; they are the extra dollars, the bonus levels, for the people who are looking for a good movie and not a good adaptation. These movies are not made for them, they are made for us: the fans. We want a good adaptation before we want a good movie.
More examples: The first Resident Evil movie did not use a single character from the first Resident Evil video game ? to that same point, the movie failed to use any of the same storylines with the only exception being a loose allusion to the T-virus. Transformers, a movie that I loved absolutely and would pay top-dollar to see again and again, made a mockery of the fan base. Optimus Prime, the idol of so many childhoods, was butchered beyond recognition. Prime is a red flat-nose truck, not a blue long-nose truck. And, for everyone who doesn?t realise this: Transformers is a movie about toys. Furthermore, Transformers do not look like robots, they look like Transformers. It was appalling how badly the Autobots and Decepticons were treated ? none of them had even an ounce of their character from the cartoon shine through. Why do these people insist on catering more for the demographic, the mainstream audience, that simply does not care so much about these details as the core fan base does? They should not care about whether or not the mainstream audience can relate to the characters or the storyline. What they should care about is the fans, and whether or not they can relate to what they grew up with, or to the storylines and/or characters that they fell in love with. But they don?t. They don?t show the source material any respect and they don?t show the fans any more or any less.
And you?re all reading this thinking, ?What the Hell is this guy talking about?? Well, let me call upon two final examples to allow a point of comparison: The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The former was a great trilogy of movies, as source-accurate as it needed to be. Any exclusions that were made, any changes were made, were made for good reason, while all the things that were kept the same were the aspects of the source that could not be changed. Then we have the latter? then we have The Prisoner of Azkaban. That movie excluded plot points (did the movie once mention that James Potter was an animagus? Did it at all mention the significance of Padfoot, Moony, Wormtail and Prongs?) that were absolutely necessary to the development of the story while including scenes that were absent in the source material and, might I add, absolutely unnecessary (that stupid scene with those stupid lollies that make Ron make an elephant noise). Lord of the Rings gives the example of what all the other movies I mentioned should have been and The Prisoner of Azkaban gives the example of what I?m glad the other movies weren?t as bad as. And now you (well, hopefully) have a point a reference. Now you can relate to my point; movie adaptations should show absolute respect to their source material because, if and when they don?t, they suffer (try "because they suffer if and when they don't"). All I?m askin? for is a little respect. Just a little bit. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. But, no one ever listens.
Now, Harry Potter fans, tell me how wrong I am.
^Okay, I went on an editing spree there. But I like the article. And yes, Harry Potter movies are butchered to oblivion.
Otter, thanks I guess. I hadn't got around to the editing process yet, so the things you've pointed out help, but I'm sure the other editor and I would have picked up on them all. I'm particularly grateful for you pointing out that error with the whole do unto others thing. Wisping - it's not red underlined, but does it mean what I think it does? I'm about to find out.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Wisping -- looks like it can work for what I intended.
Gameboy - shutup. Spelling was fine, grammar errors were genuine mistakes and all my failures in fluency deserved to be pointed out.
I'd still appreciate more feedback, what would you leave out if you had written it and stuff like that.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Wisping -- looks like it can work for what I intended.
Gameboy - shutup. Spelling was fine, grammar errors were genuine mistakes and all my failures in fluency deserved to be pointed out.
I'd still appreciate more feedback, what would you leave out if you had written it and stuff like that.
| QUOTE (gameboy3333 @ Oct 17 2007, 05:06 PM) |
| Tsk tsk tsk And you bug me for me grammar & spelling. |
Well you just don't give two craps about it, so...
Anyway, I've not been able to read through this whole thing yet, but I just wanted to point out that you shouldn't use "and/or."
Also, pretty cool that you're on newspaper. I'm on it this year, and it's more of a hassle than I thought...
Copyright © 2007-2025 Cherubi