• Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Writers' Workshop General Chat Thread

Thought for discussion: with the release of The Killing Joke adaptation and the negativity directed toward the first half an hour (which I'm sad to say I agree with the negativity) , while recalling the negativity to the added portions of The Hobbit trilogy such as the romance aspect, what are your thoughts on additional content in film adaptations around the adapted story?
 
I think it would depend upon the story, though it's hard to think of many books that would benefit from expansion on the transition to the big screen.

The Hobbit is an excellent example of how not to do it. Nearly all the additional elements in those films have less to do with improving the story for a different medium, and far more to do with ticking arbitrary Hollywood boxes (Arbitrary romance, arbitrary heroism, arbitrary human villain to arbitrarily hate, blah blah blah). The Battle of Five Armies, in the process, manages to completely miss the point of, well, The Battle of Five Armies
 
I agree with BP that it would depend but that it also hasn't really worked well. The sixth Harry Potter comes to mind as something they tried to make more interesting (the Burrow being attacked) but didn't really serve any purpose in the wider film nor the series since the house was completely rebuilt by the next movie despite catching on fire and the Weasley's being dirt poor.
 
So much of making a successful book-to-movie adaptation relies on cleverly paring down the immense amount of content in a novel to two hours of action. The original Lord of the Rings movies were a solid example of how to do this, although every Tolkien reader has something they wished was left in. When adapting from such a deep source material, there's so many promising scenes and characters that have to fall by the wayside, it feels like sheer idiocy to pass them over in favour of original stuff, especially as casually as the Hobbit did it. While the Hobbit is a far lighter read than the LotR trilogy, it still feels like a shame to create movie-original plots and characters, essentially wrapping up bad fanfiction in a canon adaptation (Tauriel in particular reads like somebody's self-insert OC: she's a nobody among the elves, risen to her rank through her natural talents and hard work or whatever. Legolas McTightPants is in love with her, but she instead carries out a steamy forbidden romance with the hottest and un-dwarfiest dwarf the world has ever seen, etc etc).

So yeah, wasn't a fan of the Hobbit films. Could have - should have imo - easily been two films. One would have been rushed, but three was definitely overkill. I think ultimately the decision of how true to stay to the source material should be down to the director and his vision, and a skilled director - such as I believed Peter Jackson to be - should absolutely have the freedom to chop and change, or else he's sacrificing his own creative and artistic integrity to preserve the original author's. In the case of the Hobbit movies, it didn't pay off (understatement alert) but that's not to say that directors shouldn't receive free reign over adaptations.

I've also done a little poking around, my interest piqued by a visit to Weta Workshops during a holiday this year, and it looks like a lot of the problems with the Hobbit films come down to a lack of time and serious executive meddling. Guillermo del Toro had been at the helm of the project, but when he had to jump ship Jackson got dumped with a half-finished movie and not a lot of time to decide whether he was going to continue del Toro's work - possibly creating an unrecognisable mess thanks to mushing two distinct directorial styles together, possibly creating an atmospheric masterpiece the likes of which the world had never seen - or to start more or less from scratch on a tight schedule, rushing to get things done.

Spoiler alert: he chose option B. The story of the Hobbit movies was a tragedy of the highest order. Could they have been better in a world where Peter Jackson had the time and resources he needed to achieve his vision? Most likely. The three LotR movies came out in sequential years (2001, 2002, 2003) but Jackson had been working on them for more than four years before the first one saw the light of day. Because of MGM's financial troubles, the Hobbit movies still hadn't been greenlit as of 2010, two years before the first installment was released. Del Toro had been working on the project since 2006, but all of that went down the drain when he had to step down. Between that and the issues with the SAG, it sounds like a right nightmare with execs still pushing for a Christmas 2012 release when it should have been pushed back by another year at least.

This video helps to explain a bit of it, and I think the shot at around 3:20 sums it all up. I have many mixed feelings regarding the Hobbit movies and Peter Jackson's handling of them. On the one hand, they kind of took a big steaming dump over my favourite childhood book, turning it into a mindless Hollywood blockbuster with all the swagger and loud noises and special effects of LotR, but none of its gravitas. On the other hand, the production process was clearly a comedy of errors from start to finish.
 
My thoughts on adaptations boil down to this: if you're adapting an existing work (Let's say for film, for the sake of argument), it's not your work. In fact, the bigger the fanbase for it, the less yours it is. This is rather why I wince whenever I hear of putting one's own creative spin on it, because it's all too easy for a director to take that as less interpreting the source material and more slapping existing names onto their own (Usually worse) story.

Given how badly The Hobbit bungles the material in the book itself, I'm glad the rights to the Lord of the Rings appendicies were withheld. It's ironic that The Lord of the Rings helped open the door for big fantasy CG blockbuster-fests, and now that new genre of Hollywood rubbish seeps right back into The Hobbit

It's just such a shame. The Lord of the Rings is on the whole an excellent film trilogy. To see the prequel to that crammed with stock music, awful jokes, garish CG and heaps of Hollywood clichés, it's just a huge disappointment
 
I personally enjoyed the first two Hobbits movies, haven't seen the third yet though, nor have I read the book. The fact is that there doesn't exists a movie for every person in existence, no matter if it is an adaptation of another media or not. There will always be people who enjoy a movie, and those that don't. The same can be said about books and games.
 
Anyone rushed out and brought a coyp of Cursed Child yet? I'm sorely tempted but I have also heard very bad things about it so not sure yet.

(No spoilers if discussing!)
 
Hmm, I haven't decided yet. Eight years ago I would've given anything for more Harry Potter, but now the hype has kind of worn off. I'm curious, but not obsessively so. I also never really got into Pottermore, which I have a funny feeling might be necessary to fully understand where the canon is at.
 
Fulcrum said:
Hmm, I haven't decided yet. Eight years ago I would've given anything for more Harry Potter, but now the hype has kind of worn off. I'm curious, but not obsessively so. I also never really got into Pottermore, which I have a funny feeling might be necessary to fully understand where the canon is at.
Click to expand...
It's basically how I feel. I've ordered it from my local library and the book is quite short actually so don't imagine I will be waiting very long at all, maybe a month or so, and that is fine with me.

I think if they had waited longer I'd be more interested, actually. I think letting the franchise break for a while before ressurrecting everything would have been better, so it's a bit of a shame they waited only 9 years for a new 'book' and five years for a new film.
 
okay but
the published premise is that
(spoilers below)
small!Harry decides to time turner back in time to save Cedric
CEDRIC
like if you're going to fuck up all of time and space to do a heroic rescue, you may as well go big
save sirius or dobby or remus or tonks or fred
or the man who is your namesake
or the other man who is your namesake
or, I don't know, just fucking kill baby voldemort

THINK THIS THROGH, SMALL!HARRY
THIS IS THE THIRD MAJOR WIZARDING WAR
THOUSANDS OF CASUALTIES, TONS OF WHOM WERE INNOCENTS
YOU ARE GOING TO RIP A HOLE IN REALITY ITSELF TO STOP A SINGLE EVENT IN THIS TIMELINE AND YOU PICK
CEDRIC
FUCKING
DIGGORY

like if this doesn't scream "illogical bullshit cash grab for another daring exhibit at harry potter world," I'm not sure what else does
 
I'm gonna wait until it's on Danish by October. Otherwise...

TychoGabeSquee.jpg

So has anyone seen the new Sun and Moon trailer yet? Certainly a game changer.

 
I always make a point about not getting hyped for games and that...

Well, screw that. This looks interesting.

So where does one get an ice vulpix? Y'know, just in theory, of course.

Edit: Not sure this new avatar's going to work, doesn't show up that well with white or black backgrounds. Well, I'd best get my look sorted out at some point, or else next time I show up here, I'll get a rather frosty reception.
 
Last edited:
Looks like Firefox froze again...

Beth Pavell said:
I wondered whether the idea of regional variation would find its way into the games
Click to expand...

I wonder if they'll make Arbok actually retain it's regional differences depending on what region you caught it, instead of all of them sharing the same graphic...
 
Well, I just came back from the most legendary argument that went down in Pokecommunity.

Somebody tried to argue against all the changes Sun and Moon was taking. With a hashtag.
 
0bs1d1an_kn1ght said:
Well, I just came back from the most legendary argument that went down in Pokecommunity.

Somebody tried to argue against all the changes Sun and Moon was taking. With a hashtag.
Click to expand...

If in doubt, add a hashtag. #AlwaysWorks #JustSaying #WhatDoYouMeanI'mJustMakingThisUp

Seriously though, what was their argument?
 
Lord Kyuubi said:
If in doubt, add a hashtag. #AlwaysWorks #JustSaying #WhatDoYouMeanI'mJustMakingThisUp

Seriously though, what was their argument?
Click to expand...

I cant remember specifically, but it was pretty much a genwunner complaining about Sun/Moon. Im sure if you go to pokecommunity, and search through the Sun/Moon thread youll find it, it's the one starting with a hashtag.
 
Seriously, if Pokémon remained the same since 20 years ago, I highly doubt that we would celebrate it's 20th anniversary this year. If you don't like the games after gen 1, fine. Just don't shove that down our throats with your hands or we'll be like angry piranhas, with your hands as the first casualties. At least, that what I would've said.
 
Back
Top Bottom