Post by The Curmudgeon on Aug 16, 2008 16:03:28 GMT 2
God bless the internet. Ever since absolutely everyone could air their ill-informed, biased opinions on the net, that's just what they've done. And so when any movie comes out there's always some dick doing a Comic Book Guy and calling it the Worst Movie Ever, only because it didn't do THIS bit right or refer to THIS moment from the original book or whatever.
Now, we're not like that in here I know, but there have been several instances where we've derided a film (with good reason) because of some major flaw in the film with regard to its source material. The two best examples I can think of right now are Superman's Superson and the criminal treatment of Venom in Spider-Man 3.
So imagine, if you will, that the net, and indeed this very site, had been around since we all started making critical observations about films. What do you think we would have bitched about, due to the shitty ending, bad characters or major changes from the book or comic?
I think the Superman franchise would be a perfect contender. Now, it seems that people have got major rose-tinted glasses on with these films, because while they're still charming, fun and a genuine step forward for anything comic book related, they also contain numerous knuckle-chewing howlers that todays net community would rip apart.
In todays age where a scene from the new Indiana Jones movie (where Mutt swings through the jungle on a vine) can produce a "WTF" t-shirt, can you imagine today's audience seeing Superman wipe Lois's mind with a KISS? (Isn't that, like, date rape?) Or when he flies so fast he makes the world spin and then, um, makes time go backwards? Who green-lit that crap?
As far as book adaptations go, I remember reading Stephen King hated Kubrick's version of The Shining, thinking he'd taken only the best bits and left out the real story. And, now I'm actually reading it, I can really see his point. I think there would be a LOT of objection on the net back then aimed at the film because it is completely different to the book. Heart-stopping though it is, it's still a bare-bones version of the book that omits almost all of the frightening stuff from the actual book. I can see where Kubrick's coming from though, because some things sound good on paper only; horrible little twins in a corridor? Scary. Jack Nicholson being stalked by fucking hedge animals? How bad would THAT have looked?
And a small, sinister part of me would have LOVED to have seen today's audiences let loose on this..
While that intro is 57 varieties of funky, I remember the TV show (NOT from its original airing, I'm pleased to say) being fatally flawed. Like, there's a bank being robbed and Peter's Spider-Sense goes off, even though he's nowhere near it. He's not psychic, you dumb-asses. And when Mr Nice Guy Stan Lee himself criticizes it, you know you're onto a failure.
Anyway, what movies from the past do you think would never go unscathed by today's more cynical net freaks?
Now, we're not like that in here I know, but there have been several instances where we've derided a film (with good reason) because of some major flaw in the film with regard to its source material. The two best examples I can think of right now are Superman's Superson and the criminal treatment of Venom in Spider-Man 3.
So imagine, if you will, that the net, and indeed this very site, had been around since we all started making critical observations about films. What do you think we would have bitched about, due to the shitty ending, bad characters or major changes from the book or comic?
I think the Superman franchise would be a perfect contender. Now, it seems that people have got major rose-tinted glasses on with these films, because while they're still charming, fun and a genuine step forward for anything comic book related, they also contain numerous knuckle-chewing howlers that todays net community would rip apart.
In todays age where a scene from the new Indiana Jones movie (where Mutt swings through the jungle on a vine) can produce a "WTF" t-shirt, can you imagine today's audience seeing Superman wipe Lois's mind with a KISS? (Isn't that, like, date rape?) Or when he flies so fast he makes the world spin and then, um, makes time go backwards? Who green-lit that crap?
As far as book adaptations go, I remember reading Stephen King hated Kubrick's version of The Shining, thinking he'd taken only the best bits and left out the real story. And, now I'm actually reading it, I can really see his point. I think there would be a LOT of objection on the net back then aimed at the film because it is completely different to the book. Heart-stopping though it is, it's still a bare-bones version of the book that omits almost all of the frightening stuff from the actual book. I can see where Kubrick's coming from though, because some things sound good on paper only; horrible little twins in a corridor? Scary. Jack Nicholson being stalked by fucking hedge animals? How bad would THAT have looked?
And a small, sinister part of me would have LOVED to have seen today's audiences let loose on this..
While that intro is 57 varieties of funky, I remember the TV show (NOT from its original airing, I'm pleased to say) being fatally flawed. Like, there's a bank being robbed and Peter's Spider-Sense goes off, even though he's nowhere near it. He's not psychic, you dumb-asses. And when Mr Nice Guy Stan Lee himself criticizes it, you know you're onto a failure.
Anyway, what movies from the past do you think would never go unscathed by today's more cynical net freaks?
;D 
.jpeg)
