We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

	Subtopic	Started By	Posts
	Archive through Jan 09, 2005 Last Post: Feb 08, 2005, 10:27 am		20
	Archive through Feb 11, 2005 Last Post: Feb 15, 2005, 01:07 pm		20

Posted By: Manjionlaptop Feb 11, 2005 - 09:16 am

A few words about your post, Aldan: Over reactive melodrama.
We're not talking about making everything new. We're talking about using your own ideas and not those of Tolkien. There's a difference between what we're saying, Aldan, and what I guess you believe we're saying.

Posted By: Aldan Feb 13, 2005 - 09:59 am

Actually, while I was being over-dramatic, it was to catch attention. When I inputted my second-to-the-last paragraph, that was the point I was making.

FZ had stated, "What I see is supply and demand. I do not see the creativity of an artist. When I do, I love it, but it doesn't happen often, and thats what's horribly wrong with fiction these days. And most writers I know are contributing to this flaw as I write this very post. And most writers I know post on this forum. So maybe I am addressing you people."

My point was that art must develop, grow and change. That takes TIME. Nobody would have considered splashing paint on a canvas art back in the Renaissance, not even other artists. However, in the Modern time period, while it was still an extreme concept, there had been enough changes in art up to that point where it could much more easily be accepted.

That was why I said to use some of your original ideas to get the concepts out there. Then you would have a basis to build on. Otherwise, people would just toss down the book if it ever got published (which, knowing how business-minded most publishers are, would be a task in and of itself).

Our art form isn't something that we can get out to a lot of people by putting our "canvas" out on a street corner for passersby to look at. This website, and others like it, are the closest we can come, but most people not considering getting involved in writing will tend to avoid sites like this, so you'd still be speaking to the other artists and not the people who could make or break your art career, and that is the toughest row to hoe...

Posted By: Spiderkeg Feb 14, 2005 - 10:00 am

As for the movie studios, they have this winning format for set movies. There are pre-made movie templates that have been constructed, tested, and approved to be money makers. This is the whole reason why so many movies follow the same format. When a movie studio comes out with something original it is daring and risky, because it can potentially fail. The original movies are the ones that are harder to sell. A person usually needs some major backing, such as a high profile director or actor.

Posted By: Magus Feb 14, 2005 - 01:01 pm

A set template? Could you posty a link to it or explain it. I'm just curious.

Posted By: Spiderkeg Feb 15, 2005 - 01:07 pm

Heh, I don't really have a template at my fingertips but if you think about it you will clearly understand what I mean. Most of the romance movies regurgitated by Hollywood, the successful ones at least, all follow the same or similar plot format. There are usually the same plot devices included too.

I'm sure you have seen PLENTY of Hollywood movies in which, upon watching them, you realized that the movie reminded you of another movie. Don't mess with success... just wash, rinse, repeat.

Many novels and video games, unfortunately, follow similar formats.

My simple example: Watch "Not Another Teen Movie" and you will blatantly see all the cliché points that the movie makes fun of that exist in real made movies. Teen movies, granted, but they follow a format and rake in the cash.

Sequels are another attempt to cash in on a working format, but sometimes a sequel works or fails. Ahem, "Die Hard 4" which is being written.

Posted By: gnollslayer Feb 15, 2005 - 01:26 pm

I almost cried when I heard this, but then I laughed instead. Jurassic Park IV is due to be released around Christmas '05. Isn't it terrible?

Posted By: Magus Feb 15, 2005 - 02:51 pm

INdeed. The first was awesome, due mainly to being based off of a book. The second was, at the time I saw it at least, decent. No more no less, and I have yet to read the book to see how it compares. The third was horrible. I blame this on the fact that it wasn't based on a book. I'm not even wasting my time with a fourth.

Posted By: gnollslayer Feb 15, 2005 - 04:31 pm

The first one was great, the second one still good, the third: terrible. The fourth promises to be even worse.

By the way, you should read the second book. Indescribably better than the movie in every way.

Posted By: Magus Feb 15, 2005 - 05:49 pm

I'd hope so... otherwise everything I know of adaptations of any kind goes down the drain.

Posted By: Spiderkeg Feb 16, 2005 - 06:15 am

I found the third Jurassic Park to be decent. I like Sam Neill as an actor. I liked the idea of the flying dinosaurs (sorry, the exact name escapes me). I also really liked that the film was more of a fast paced action movie, only about 1.15 - 1.30 hours in length. The first two were about two hours or more. The plot was simple, which I really enjoyed. Go there, get person, leave island. The dinosaurs and conflicts were merely eye candy that were an added touch, and there was no reason to linger on the dinosaurs because if you saw the first two then you already knew the backstory. Short, sweet, to the point.

Posted By: Magus Feb 16, 2005 - 12:55 pm

Pterydactyls.

They appeared in the first book but I don't think they were in the movie though...

Posted By: gnollslayer Feb 16, 2005 - 04:04 pm

For me, the third Jurassic Park movie lost its credibility when the Spinosaurus defeated the T-rex. It just wouldn't happen. Spinosaurus was not as thick-boned as Tyrannosaurus, and the fossils don't show the same degree of musculature either. Michael Chrichton put so much work into making the books credible from a paleontological point of view that it does him an injustice to just abandon all scientific basis so you can have a new "king dino."

I realize the previous two movies took liberty with the scientific basis, but at least they had originality on their side. The third movie is basically just an underdeveloped rehash of one of the subplots in the second (rescuing someone off of the island).

Anyways, back to the topic of classic fantasy, the first Chronicles of Narnia movie is set to come out this year, and from all things I've seen, it looks good. The budget for this movie equals two-thirds of the budget for the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy. But the budget doesn't matter nearly as much as the people moving the project forward. After both the Shrek movies, I trust Andrew Adamson as a director; and of course WETA will do a stunning job on the visuals. I haven't heard of many of the cast members, but in a lot of ways that's better than if they had a star-studded cast.
It's a good time to be a fantasy fan.

Posted By: Magus Feb 16, 2005 - 06:36 pm

The first one? So would that be The Magician's Nephew?

Posted By: Magus Mar 05, 2005 - 03:37 pm

I found an excellent essay on realism in fantasy here. I highly suggest that evryone read it. It's very good and points out quite a few good points and clarifies on certain matters.