Oscars

[ImmunityBow]

Hi, I am extraordinarily upset that How to Train Your Dragon did not win Best Original Score.

I will now proceed to drown myself in tears and sorrow. We'll see if I'm still here tomorrow.

[NyteFyre]

nice.

[ImmunityBow]

I listened to some of the HTTYD soundtrack, and feel much better now. That's how good it is.

[NyteFyre]

I've seen the movie, and it was great, i don't doubt that. but i don't care for such frivolous intricacies, such as awards. Even so, which DID it win?

[ImmunityBow]

Nothing.

Toy Story 3 beat it out in best animated feature film (I haven't seen Toy Story 3 since it came out while I was away and went out of theatres just as I got back), which I don't mind since I'm in no position to judge. The Social Network beat it out in best original score which makes me sad since How To Train Your Dragon's soundtrack is my favourite album of all time.

[MeekRhino]

I loved that movie D:

[Tyrannigon64]

The only similarities to the book are the existence of vikings, the existence of dragons, the title, and the main character's name is Hiccup. The movie is still awesome though. Also, the main character of the book is Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III, so perhaps the main character of the movie is Hiccup Horrendous Haddock I? In the book, everyone's learning how to train dragons instead of how to kill them, so it could've been the movie's Hiccup that started that trend, but the rest of the vikings took it the wrong way (the only book on training dragons says "Yell at it. The end.").

[zeroality]

Ugh I glanced real fast and when I saw Haddock, I thought you posted about Hancock.

Which was a pretty cool movie until they threw in the thing about the chick towards the end.

[Tyrannigon64]

I never watched Hancock.

[MeekRhino]

I liked that one pretty well also.

[NyteFyre]

I believe the movie is just an adaptation of the book, like with most books turned movies.

[MeekRhino]

I am almost always disappointed by movie adaptations of books (e.g. Harry Potter, LoTR, Golden Compass, and many more)

[NyteFyre]

Some of them I like, and some i didn't even know there was a book of, and therefore have no comparison for. -shrugs-

[Tyrannigon64]

The plot is quite different in these two books, though. The only similarities, like I said, are the existence of vikings and dragons, and the title.

[MeekRhino]

Well, if I haven't actually read the book I am much more likely to enjoy the movie (since I'm not constantly criticizing every difference)

[Tyrannigon64]

Actually, I still enjoyed the movie. A lot. But I don't think they are the same character, the guy from the movie and from the book. As I said above, in the book the main character is Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III, so the movie's Hiccup could be Hiccup Horrendous Haddock I, and the person who started the tradition of training dragons.

[zeroality]

Well, if I haven't actually read the book I am much more likely to enjoy the movie (since I'm not constantly criticizing every difference)

Yes, very true. They say movies ruin books but the other way around also applies, in a different sense. :p

[MeekRhino]

Interesting thought. However, I will always prefer a book to a movie. I'd rather not follow America in amusing myself to death (thank you, Neil Postman)

[ImmunityBow]

Movies can provide some things that the books can't though (soundtrack mainly, the principal reason why I really like FFAC and Pirates of the Caribbean)

[MeekRhino]

Read the book Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman. Then you will understand what I'm trying to say.

[zeroality]

Movies can provide some things that the books can't though (soundtrack mainly, the principal reason why I really like FFAC and Pirates of the Caribbean)

Not to mention saving about 2-16+ hours of your time, depending on your reading speed and the length of the book.

[Cyndadile]

Despite that, I feel like reading provides a type of suspense and stimulation of your creative mind that movies will never be able to match.

[MeekRhino]

Agreed. Saying that avoiding the mental effort just to save time is a positive thing.....that's precisely the problem with our culture

[ImmunityBow]

Are you sure? There's a lot of reflection that can be done on the choices directors make when superimposing dialogue, music, images, panning and zooming, cuts and angles. The choices of how to represent ideas and concepts. Saying that books are automatically more creatively stimulating seems a little narrow-minded to be honest. They're just two different art forms that you have to look at with a different perspective.

For example, I'm just going to take How to Train Your Dragon since it actually impressed me with how much nuance in had:

In the beginning, Hiccup says "Welcome to Berk, we have fishing, lovely views of the sunsets etc. The only problem are the pests. You see, other places have flies, and etc. We have... dragons." (ACTION STARTS HERE)
In the end, Hiccup says "This is Berk, where it snows for 9 months of the year and rains for the other 3, where the food is tasteless and the people even more so. The best part is the pets. You see, other places have dogs, or parrots. We have... dragons."

It just wouldn't work in book form since the book would have to interrupt the whole logue with description, breaking up the flow and the parallelism. In movie format the simultaneity brings a lot of creative ideas to the image that a book couldn't necessarily match as effectively.

[MeekRhino]

Although there may be some interesting and creative ideas, the medium is the metaphor. The fact that it is a picture and not a text forces a change of the way the ideas are interpreted by the consumer. The medium of communication effects that which is possible to be communicated. Different mediums inhibit portions of communication. For example, "texting" could technically be used to write a novel. However, it simply isn't reasonable for two reasons. A: It is an inefficient means of producing large quantities of text, pure and simple. B: Those reading texts are not apt to be in the 'mode' for reading and processing meaningful information. This analogy can be carried to movies v text. Although creative ideas may be imparted by movies, it is not nearly as effective as reading, since the receiver of the information percieves information differently depending on the medium by which he/she receives it. Like I said, read Neil Postman.

[ImmunityBow]

I disagree. Limitations breed creativity, and you're still looking at this a bit narrowmindedly. Texting could "technically" be used to write a novel, but that isn't the point. You're not trying to recreate one medium with another. Texting shouldn't be used to write a novel because... it's not a novel. If there was a texting art form, it would be one that sticks to low character counts, and there's beauty in that! Can anyone truly say that spriting is a lesser form of art as compared to drawing, simply because we work with so few pixels? That's like saying Impressionist artists are simply just worse than Realist artists, since they are less realistic.

Taking this further, does this mean that painted art is less creative than textual media, simply because you can see it? Are shaped poems suddenly inferior to other forms, because they have a visual element, or haikus inferior to other forms, since they have so little text? Or is it the other way around, since haikus can leave so much to the reader to interpret, even more so than novels?

And now movies. Movies juxtapose dialogue and images. That's so vastly different from other art forms (besides shorts and TV episodes, of course, but those too have different conventions and methods, similar to how poetry and short stories are different from novels) that the interpretation is entirely different. The art is in the juxtaposition, and just because it isn't the one specific way of evocation (description) present in novels doesn't mean that it is somehow an inferior art form, and that somehow less creativity and thought is put into it.

This is what I mean. Different art forms are different art forms. I can read Neil Postman, but if this is your opinion I think that either you misinterpreted him or Neil Postman is just wrong.

[Cyndadile]

I wasn't trying to start World War III!

I'm basically saying what IB said: There is NOTHING wrong with moviies. I love a good movie every once in a while. But movies and books are so vastly different; they each bring something entirely different to the table. What I was talking about earlier is that the reader interprets the imagry in the book, whereas in a movie, the director kind of interprets it for you. There are still plenty of things to interpret in a movie, however. People shouldn't only watch movies and not read books, and the reverse is true. It can shed a whole new light on things if you read a book and watch its movie. Every art form has its place.

Except texting. Texting's only place is in a garbage can.

[MeekRhino]

Ok, IB. First of all, I'm not saying that movies can't be creative. I'm just saying that they don't stimulate intelligent public discourse. Movies have continued the trend that began with the telegraph--increasing importance placed on the focus on irrelevant information. While movies may be an interesting occasional deviation from intelligent discussion, they don't add anything to the 'wisdom' of the human race. Can you please mention the last social or political metaphor or deeper understanding of society you gained from a movie?

[Tyrannigon64]

Can you guys stop trying to compare books to movies? It's like trying to say "Which is better? An orange or an elephant?"

[Cyndadile]

Can you guys stop trying to compare books to movies? It's like trying to say "Which is better? An orange or an elephant?"

Elephants. I hate oranges.

Can you please mention the last social or political metaphor or deeper understanding of society you gained from a movie?

I can give quite a few.
12 Angry Men, Inception, Toy Story 3, Kung Fu Panda, they are ALL social commentary. Whether it is discussing the "following the pack" tendency of people, stating how we see what we want to see, etc. If you were to analyze a movie as you would a book, that would be quite clear.

[ImmunityBow]

MeekRhino, this is where I believe that Neil Postman went wrong.

By instilling in you the conviction that there is nothing to be gained from movies by the way of intelligent public discourse, you have stopped looking for it, and somehow missed the depths that movies can provide.

Most recent example? Inception. Just the ending alone caused so much debate over the last year that the scene alone could fill the criteria. The exploration of dreams, and the interpolation and extrapolation of mechanics that seem fitting in a dream, and especially the idea of inception itself (causing someone to generate an idea themselves, which is a paradox already and worth discussion) are all powerful and rich sources of intelligent debate. You could write books about the concept of inception, but nothing could demonstrate the possibility as beautifully as Nolan did in Inception.

Or how about V for Vendetta (adaptation of a graphic novel, I know. But graphic novels get a lot of flak themselves, just look at how people reacted when Maus won the Pulitzer)? Commentary on fascism, anarchy, and the value of integrity. Ideas are bulletproof. The implications and ethics of torture. How to judge or evaluate morality, based off of current actions, traumatic pasts, future potential?

@Tyrannigon: It's a valid debate, just let it happen, it's healthy for the community.

[Tyrannigon64]

Well if Inception is that good, then I'll have to see it at some point.

[Cyndadile]

Ideas are bulletproof.

I couldn't put it better than that. Any medium can really express ideas. Even video games can provide social and political commentary.

And Tyrannigon: Watch it. Be enlightened.

[Tyrannigon64]

Even video games can provide social and political commentary.

Just as long as that isn't the only thing the game does (i.e. the actual game should be good)

[MeekRhino]

Have you actually read Neil Postman? If you have I am impressed. From what I have seen, the majority of the population isn't capable of comprehending or even of generating the interest to actually read it.

By instilling in you the conviction that there is nothing to be gained from movies by the way of intelligent public discourse, you have stopped looking for it, and somehow missed the depths that movies can provide.

This is a point that Postman makes, in a way. Because each mode of communication has a specific impact on the way we perceive the information, that actually limits the information that can be given. You are an example of someone who doesn't fall into that vast majority of people who are unable to see anything of intellectual value in movie(they simply don't notice it) because they subconsciously expect entertainment.

Another point to consider is that, by considering a form of entertainment to be of intelligent value, we are allowing that entertainment to pervade our lives and limit our capacity for enlightenment. The epitome of this problem is reality TV. It was originally created, of course, purely for entertainment. However, many people have begun to take it seriously, which is most unfortunate.

[XTS]

Late, but...if the book is very good in its own right, the best way a movie can do it justice is by following the book as well as possible. Or at least kept in the general vicinity and not screwing up any major plot points that ruin the legitimate potential of keeping the storyline on track for the sequel movies (looking at YOU, Eragon and Lightning Thief). That's part of why one of the best movies I've seen lately is Scott Pilgrim vs The World (granted I saw the movie before I read the graphic novels, but I loved the movie and then I saw how well it matched up with the books and just thought, "well done". might not hold true for all 7 books, but at least for the first 1.5 or so, aka how much of them I got the chance to read).

...there were some other similar plot points between the HTTYD book and movie besides the basics...at least the whole "having to defeat a massive sea monster that suddenly appears to destroy them, then being save by the dragons" bit. In any case, I actually did like the spin DreamWorks put on it. They did break from the book a lot, but in this case it actually worked. Makes me think they had a script thought up beforehand, and then bought the rights to the book and adapted some of the elements to fit it. Regardless, it worked....I'm gonna go listen to the soundtrack, too.

[ImmunityBow]

@MeekRhino: Sorry, I haven't read Postman, I was basing my arguments off of my observations from your arguments. I might try sometime, when I've got occasion and circumstance to. It seems that your argument as changed from "Movies are for entertainment, and thus have no depth" (which is short for intelligent discussion/debate/enlightenment/creativity all the other goodies) to "most people watch movies for entertainment, and thus get very shallow value out of them." I'm not sure how much I agree with the second sentence, since people who don't look for more in a movie seem to be more than an exception than a rule in my social circle, but I could obviously be wrong since I probably tend to gravitate towards people who are more like me.

@XTS: I think the reason movies try so hard to imitate the book is because of the expectations that are set up by those who have read the book. It just comes down to brand recognition versus adaptation decay. There's a possibility that your vastly different movie version is comparable or better than the novel (I haven't read How to Train Your Dragon, but from what I understand beyond a select vocal minority of diehard HTTYD fans it is widely regarded as an excellent movie by even most of those who have read the novel), but there's a greater chance that it will flop. By minimizing the differences between the movie and the book, you up brand recognition as much as possible while reducing adaptation, and therefore adaptation decay, as much as possible, netting the most money on average.

And Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World was tons of fun to watch.

[MeekRhino]

@IB: Both arguments are presented by Postman. They are, in fact, connected actually.

[Silver]

I was pretty pissed when the kings speech got best picture, it should have beentoy story 3