#adaptations

Webcam Model(cute-tanvi) is live
LIVE

sabrecmc:

diandrahollman:

appreciation-post:

“Captain Marvel should smile more” “she looks so serious all the time” “she should smile more” “she’ll look better with a smile”

BRIE LARSON SNAPPED

My God, did some clueless asshole actually say that?

This is hilarious

lordturkeyfist:

kryptonians:

lesbianbritneyspears:

perrisbueller:

lesbianbritneyspears:

when people are like “the hunger games just stole the plot of battle royale” like listen everything steals from the plot of everything the lion king is just furry hamlet westworld is jurassic park but sexier lost is edgy gilligan’s island there are no original stories and the only good piece of media is jennifer’s body

Michael crichton wrote westworld and jurassic park tho so he just pirated himself

michael crichton keeps TRYING to tell y’all about the evils of capitalism impeding on the progress of science when will y’all LISTEN

Maybe he just doesn’t like theme parks

michael crichton in line for a roller coaster at six flags: fuck this

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about movie franchises and how they can be awesome if done right or terrible if done wrong.  Today I want to expand on that theme and talk about some other trends that studios have been using to try to cash in.

The first trend is the reboot, which has a spotty track record.  There are some franchises that have been rebooted with much success and critical acclaim.  The ones that jump immediately to mind are The Dark Knight trilogy reboot of the Batman franchise and the J.J. Abrams Star Trek movies.  Both of these reboots took well known and well traveled characters and storylines and breathed new life into them which led to commercial and critical success.  However, there are plenty of reboots that fail to achieve the success of their predecessors, both at the box office and from the critics.  

Things get even more insane when franchises get rebooted multiple times.   The Spiderman franchise  had some success with Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker and then the reboot did pretty well with Andrew Garfield.  Now there are rumors that Spiderman will be rebooted yet again with another new star.  James Bond has been re-cast so many times I’ve lost count and, other than the recent Daniel Craig movies, it hasn’t been a boost to the quality or success of the franchise.  Hollywood will try to squeeze blood out of a stone and every last dollar out of a potentially lucrative franchise.  

The second trend in Hollywood is the remake, which is slightly different than the reboot.  A remake is when a well-known film is copied as the framework for another film but many of the settings, characters, and plot points are changed or updated.  A recent example of this is the remake of the 1982 classic musical movie Annie, which was (quite unnecessarily) remade in 2014 with a new plot, new characters, and several new songs.  

Remakes can sometimes be great.  Ocean’s Eleven is a remake of a “rat pack” film from the 60’s and it’s one that I enjoy considerably.  The Coen Brothers remake of True Grit is another that I thought was well done and added a new dimension to the John Wayne starring original.  But the remakes that match or exceed the original films they are based on are rare, and too often they lose what made the original films so special and loved.

The last trend I’m going to talk about today, and the one that I really can’t stand, is the trend towards increasingly absurd adaptations.  It’s not uncommon for TV shows to be adapted to films, and sometimes with a lot of success.  Batman was a television show first.  21 Jump Street was a television show first.  There would have been no Serenity without the television show Firefly.  And of course the wonderful films of the Monty Python comedy troupe would not have been possible without the television success of Monty Python’s Flying Circus.  There have been plenty of duds too, but it’s not the worst thing that Hollywood has done.

But the trend is spiraling downward recently with more and more absurd adaptations.  Disney turned a relatively popular theme park attraction into the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, which is sadly still continuing long past it’s expiration date.  Video games have been adapted into several films, none of which were as good or as popular as the games they were based on.  In recent years, sanity has been stretched to the point where board games like Battleship, Monopoly, Candy Land, and the Ouija Board have been adapted into films or are at some point in the development process.  I’m just waiting on movie studios to adapt crappy television commercials or cell phone games into movies.  It’s going to happen.

It’s hard to generalize and say that reboots, remakes, and adaptations are a good thing or a bad thing.  When done with care and craft they can be great to watch and successful financially.  However, as I said in part one of my thoughts on movie franchises, I think that the lack of creativity and over-reliance on proven commodities is one of the reasons that people aren’t going to the movies as often.  Plus there is more competition for our time and money with the increased quality of television and online entertainment.  Angela will have more thoughts on that in the next few days.

One of my friends commented that there seems to be a wealth of huge blockbuster franchises and an explosion of low budget independent films but the “middle class” movies are getting squeezed out.  I don’t have exact figures, but my initial reaction is that he’s on to something.  I know studio executives want to try to minimize risk and maximize profits by creating films that can be cross-marketed and have a wealth of merchandising opportunities, but the primary reason for making a movie should be because it’s a good movie.  When movie studios figure that out, maybe they will see the business grow.

Cassowary have many stunning and intimidating features - bright coloration, immense size, and a gian

Cassowary have many stunning and intimidating features - bright coloration, immense size, and a giant talon on each powerful foot - but nothing compares to the regal profile created by the crests on the top of their heads. Called “casques”, the function of these hard, keratinized structures has long been debated by scientists, but a recent thermal imagery may have offered an answer. Many birds in tropical climates have developed areas of their bodies that are full of little blood vessels and not covered by feathers; these “thermal windows” help them vent excess heat from their bodies. In many birds, that structure is the beak - but in cassowary, it appears to be the #casques that help them stay cool! #ratite #doublewattledcassowary #bigbird #adaptations #tropicalstyle #thermalwindows (at Houston Zoo)
https://www.instagram.com/p/BzDxkjvBhWB/?igshid=17kfkf2zu32b2


Post link

Alice May: The Complete List

Here are all the overviews I’ve written of Alice’s Adventures in WonderlandandThrough the Looking-Glass adaptations throughout the month of May.

I haven’t included the Tim Burton duology, because they’re sequels to the original story, not adaptations.

*Alice in Wonderland (1915 silent film) – Alice played by Viola Savoy

*Alice in Wonderland (1931 Metropolitan Studios film) – Alice played by Ruth Gilbert

*Alice in Wonderland (1933 Paramount Pictures film) – Alice played by Charlotte Henry

*Alice in Wonderland (1949 British-French film) – Alice played by Carol Marsh

*Alice in Wonderland (1951 Disney animated film) – Alice voiced by Kathryn Beaumont

*Alice in Wonderland (1966 BBC TV film) – Alice played by Anne-Marie Mallik

*Alice in Wonderland, or What’s a Nice Kid Like You Doing in a Place Like This? (1966 Hanna-Barbera animation) – Alice voiced by Janet Waldo

*Alice Through the Looking Glass (1966 NBC TV musical) – Alice played by Judi Rolin

*Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1972 British film) – Alice played by Fiona Fullerton

*Alice Through the Looking-Glass (1973 BBC TV film) – Alice played by Sarah Sutton

*Alice at the Palace (1981 filmed stage musical) – Alice played by Meryl Streep

*Alisa v Strane Chudes (“Alice in Wonderland”) (1981 Russian animated film) – Alice voiced by Marina Neyolova

*Alisa v Zazerkal (“Alice Through the Looking-Glass”) (1982 Russian animated film) – Alice voiced by Marina Neyolova

*Children’s Theatre Company: Alice in Wonderland (1982 filmed stage production) – Alice played by Annie Enneking

*Alice in Wonderland (1983 filmed Broadway production) – Alice played by Kate Burton

*Alice in Wonderland (1985 two-part CBS TV film) – Alice played by Natalie Gregory

*Alice in Wonderland (1985 Anglia Television 5 miniseries) – Alice played by Giselle Andrews

*Alice in Wonderland (1986 BBC miniseries) – Alice played by Kate Dorning

*Alice Through the Looking Glass (1987 Burbank Films animation) – Alice voiced by Janet Waldo

*Alice in Wonderland (1988 Burbank Films animation) – Alice voiced by Olivia Martin

*Něco z Alenky (“Something from Alice”) (1988 Czech film) – Alice played by Kristýna Kohoutová

*Alice in Wonderland (1995 Jetlag Productions animation) – Alice voiced by Bailee Reid

*Alice Through the Looking Glass (1988 British Film) – Alice played by Kate Beckinsale

*Alice in Wonderland (1999 NBC TV film) – Alice played by Tina Majorino

*Alice in Wonderland (2007 opera by Unsuk Chin) – Alice played by Sally Matthews

*Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (2011 ballet by Joby Talbot) – Alice played by Lauren Cuthbertson

@ariel-seagull-wings,@superkingofpriderock,@faintingheroine,@the-blue-fairie,@amalthea9

This episode we’re talking about Adaptations! We discuss (the fictional) Junji Ito’s Anne of Green Gables, The Muppets presents Dune the Musical, bad wigs in adaptations, and more!

You can download the podcast directly, find it on Libsyn, or get it through Apple Podcasts,Stitcher, Google Podcasts,Spotify, or your favourite podcast delivery system.

In this episode

Anna Ferri|Meghan Whyte|Matthew Murray|Appleberry

Media We Mentioned

Links, Articles, and Things

18 Metafiction books by BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, & People of Colour) Authors

Every month Book Club for Masochists: A Readers’ Advisory Podcasts chooses a genre at random and we read and discuss books from that genre. We also put together book lists for each episode/genre that feature works by BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, & People of Colour) authors to help our listeners diversify their readers’ advisory. All of the lists can be found here.

Give us feedback!

  • Fill out the form to ask for a recommendation or suggest a genre or title for us to read!

Check out our Tumblr, follow us on TwitterorInstagram, join our Facebook Group, or send us an email!

Join us again on Tuesday, December 7th we’ll be discussing the genre of Thrillers!

Then on Tuesday, December 21st it’s our Best Books we Read in 2021episode!

does anyone else feel lowkey a little uncomfortable when ppl make fanart of characters in sexually explicit scenarios and use the actors’ faces? Esp when it’s like a YA adaptation? Or is that just the aroace in me?

counterwiddershins:

lafcadiosadventures:

Splendeurs et misères des courtisanes, 1975

Ah oui, tiens. You weren’t kidding. Ils y vont fort, pour 1975.

unshelfeed: It never fails. They always disappoint me. Unshelved for Tuesday, April 22 Twitter | Fac

unshelfeed:

It never fails. They always disappoint me.

UnshelvedforTuesday, April 22

Twitter|Facebook|Store

“Aren’t great books miracle enough?”


Post link

As I said in my opening post–for this month anyway– I wanted to do a little posting on adaptations. 

The first question is obviously, what makes a good adaptation? 

I know the answer seems obvious:  copy the original. I mean, it’s there for a reason. You shouldn’t take the source material and then just ignore it completely–that’s not an adaptation. That’s a new story with beloved characters. 

An example of this would be Penny Dreadful. It uses many characters we’ve known through novels and stories but only for the sole purpose of telling a new story. They introduced Mina and the Dracula myth, but not to tell that story. That was just the way to get everyone else involved in the hunt. Same with Dorian Grey and Victor Frankenstein–though I will say that the creature, Caliban or John Clare is the most true adaptation of the creature from Frankenstein.

All that being said, Penny Dreadful never set out to be an adaptation. 

To be an adaptation, you need to stay true to the story; most importantly the point of the story. If there’s a theme, you have to keep it. If there’s a lesson at the end of it, that should still be there. 

For all those times that we update/modernize Shakespeare, normally those are brilliant adaptations. They bring the stories to modern day without ignoring their points or the lesson they are trying to teach. They simply make the source material easier to understand and relate to.

Another good example of this would be the 2014 film version of Annie. It kept the same feeling of the original but modernized it. They didn’t try and tell an entirely new story or change anything drastic. They simply changed it to fit with the current times, changing Annie from living in an orphanage (which are not very popular/well-known today) to living in foster care. Yes, some people were upset by this change, but it honestly didn’t change the story in any way that should make Annie’s journey unrecognizable. 

That’s a good rule of thumb to go by:  the story should be recognizable. Though, that can’t be the only thing you think about when beginning to adapt anything. The Game of Thrones series is recognizable, but it is not an adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire. At least not anymore. (Personally I would argue that they started straying from the source material back in season two.)

I think that’s why so many people have issues with adaptations: they change things that they don’t see as important or BIG DEALS, but they are. Like changing Captain Kirk’s personality in the JJ Abrams’ films changes the entire feeling of the movies. Making Robb Stark’s character ignore his promise to follow his heart is a romantic moment, but so incredibly Out Of Character. Making Ron the Comedic Relief Best Friend and giving all his smart moments to Hermione makes both of their characters a little less interesting and Hermione nearly impossible to see her as human and not a goddess in human form since she Never Does Anything Wrong Ever and Is Always Level-Headed About Everything. 

Having Kirk be a playboy is fine, as long as you keep his fairly feminist and respectful attitude about it. Robb marrying for love and dragging all his men to battle because of it might not have been so difficult to swallow if he’d actually gotten word that his brothers were dead because it could have been an act of I’m living while I can. Ron could have been the CRBF, so long as they still gave him the actual Wizarding World Knowledge that he had since he grew up in it. And letting Hermione fail every once in a while would have only helped her be more relatable. (I still think of the boggart of her learning that she failed all her exams.)

This all boils down to:  staying true to the feeling, point, theme of the original. 

While it’s their choice to do what they want, I think most writers and filmmakers would do well to remember the main key to an adaptation. This will help them make an overall better film.

psalm22-6:La Jeune Garde was a Bonapartist newspaper that ran from 1877 to 1905 and this is there re

psalm22-6:

La Jeune Garde was a Bonapartist newspaper that ran from 1877 to 1905 and this is there review of the 1878 production of Les Miserables, drame (Charles Hugo’s adaptation of LM for the stage) so if you wonder who is the HE that Hugo slighted, that would be Napoleon. 

The preamble is actually pretty funny to me but the part I especially liked I’ve put in bold because this adaptation (aka the first adaptation) seems to have set the standard for soo many adaptations that came after it in terms of how it abridges the book and they make a good point about how C. Hugo went about it. 

It is with most profound sentiment, with the most great respect, and with the most legitimate admiration that we write or pronounce that great name Hugo, which is the living incarnation of that Romantic school from which appeared the masterpieces which constitute the literary glory of our nation.  

Following the example of the envious and the slanderous, we will not reproach the poet for his political life: the best among us also have their weaknesses. We will content ourselves to mention in passing the sadness that we felt on reading certain work by the master. 

Although he outraged and insulted our political convictions, though he slandered the name of HE to whom we have promised our boundless devotion, it matters very little to us. We don’t want to see in Hugo and never will see in him anything but a sublime poet and a genius; just as we only see in Napoleon a monarch who is good, affable, loved, and esteemed by all who approach him, to whom our country will one day do justice in honoring the idea of having been governed by a sovereign who wanted before all else the happiness of his people. 

Having said this in the form of a preamble, let us speak of the play at the Porte-St-Martin: 

When a play is adapted from a source that is so powerful and so gigantic as Les Misérables, the spectator should expect many disappointments, not because this adaptation is devoid of interest - may God preserve us from ever implying such a falsehood - but because the author is often obligated, despite his will and his talent, to abridge the plot, to sacrifice a part of the action, and that is in order to comply with the requirements of the stage. 

Just as in Balsamo [adapted from the novel by Alexandre Dumas], the play at the Porte-Saint-Martin, only has one problem in our eyes: that of having, as we said above, been submitted to numerous mutilations, mutilations made all the more regrettable because they were done to the most moving pages of this remarkable book. However it would be useful to add, in defense of this drama by Hugo, that these cuts were more necessary than in the case of the play by Dumas. 

In effect, Les Misérables was conceived of with a humanitarian goal, resounding with its eloquent and profound thesis, and written in favor of the disinherited classes of humanity; but in order to vanquish certain passages that would have been insurmountable to present in the theater, Charles Hugo contented himself with showing the public just the main characters that play an important role in his father’s masterpiece. That is how we saw, one by one, Jean Valjean, Cosette, Fantine, Javert, etc., etc.

Let us just say simply that the actors have really gone the highest that they could with the roles given to them. Dumaine, assuming the traits of Jean Valjean and M. Madeleine, was by turns the terrible convict, and the good man who is sensible and just, exactly as the book made him known to us. 

Taillade played the classic policeman Javert strikingly. This role brings great honor to an actor whose theatrical career has been a long string of successes and as for Lacressonnière, there is no one better than him to play the part of Monseigneur Myriel, full of selflessness and goodness. 

Mlle Jeanne Essler is not the Fantine that we dreamed of in reading the novel. Of course, we cannot reproach this imminent actress who did more than her duty when charged with a role as crushing as that of the poor woman who, because of her maternal love, submits to all humiliations, all tortures of the soul and who tumbles all the way down the dark pit of infamy in order to save her child from poverty. 

Mlle Jeanne Essler is among the best actress, it is true, but we would have preferred to see an actress whose youth would remind us of the heroic Fantine. This simple remark can not weaken the success that Mlle Jeanne Essler achieves each evening before the audience at the Porte-St-Martin. To finish, let us speak of the little Daubray who, in the role of Cosette, showed herself to be a consummate artist in producing tears from the whole audience. This child - and in this we are sharing the opinion of most of our brothers - will one day become an elite actress. Keep going mademoiselle! We hope that you will not make liars out of us. 

In summary, Les Misérables was staged with luxurious sets and décor that surpass anything we have seen before in the theater and we are grateful for this lavishness. This deployment of luxury is a fitting tribute to the drama of our eminent poet who provided the French stage with so many works of art.

This is such a fascinating review AND an interesting demonstration of at least this particular bonapartist’s worldview at the time, how the bonapartists really did see themselves as progressives while also having this unquestioning, worshipping admiration for a long dead military dictator…

Also I can’t get over how EASILY I can imagine this being written by Marius


Post link

sinceremercy:

The highlight of @barricadescon for me so far was most definitely at the end of David Bellos’s panel when he did a surprise reveal of the first page of the score to the previously-undiscussed 1863 musical “Fantine”, which was arranged b Charles Koppitz and staged briefly in Philadelphia, never published, and survives in the Houghton Library at Harvard.

The Houghton Library themselves have kindly digitized the entire manuscript for your perusal online.

ariel-seagull-wings:

the-blue-fairie:

ariel-seagull-wings:

TOP 10 LIVE-ACTION FAIRY TALE MOVIES

@princesssarisa@faintingheroine@the-blue-fairie@amalthea9@angelixgutz@sabugabr@superkingofpriderock@chansondefortunio@notyouraveragejulie@giuliettaluce@solevenus

Note: this is just a list of personal favourite live-action fairy tale movies, not a list of “what are the objective best fairy tale movies”.

To make the list slightly organized and consistent, i setted up some basic rules:

They must have been theatrically released. Direct- to-Video or Made-for-TV releases, like the Hallmark Hall of Fame series, the Muppets Fairy Tale TV specials or Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Cinderella, will not be counted here.

They must be adaptations of pre existing fairy tales, be they directly collected from oral tradition like the Brothers Grimm tales, or literary tales slightly inspired by elements of oral tradition, like the works of Andersen. Movie script original stories like Labyrinth and The Dark Crystal or adaptations of fantasy novels like Alice in Wonderland, Wizard of Oz, Peter Pan and Pinocchio will not be on the list.

Now that the rules are set, let’s go onto the countdown.

10° Snow White and The Three Stooges (1961)

Got the tenth place on this list because of how much i love the found family dinamic developed between Snow White, the Prince and the Three Stooges (who got the role of the Seven Dwarfs)

09° Jak se budi princezny (1977)

Princess Ruzhenka is a very outspoken and charismatic encarnation of the princess Sleeping Beauty, and because of that her and the movie she stars in has winned my hearth.

08° The Glass Slipper (1955)

This is one of the early cinematic adaptations of the Cinderella tale that experimented with turning the supernatural elements more subtle, exploring a more grounded love story between the heroine and the Prince, wich would be a very influential aproach over later adaptations. The highlight are the performances of Leslie Caron as the strong tempered but vulnerable EllaandEstelle Winwood as the unconventionally wise Mrs. Toquet.

07° La Belle et la Bete (1946)

Probably the most historically influential fairy tale movie of all time, in his masterpiece Jean Cocteau tooked what was considered a simple morality tale about a woman preparing to marriage, and turned it into a study about the minds of two complex characters in search of deep connection and their place in the world

06° Three Wishes for Cinderella (1973)

The late Libuse Safrankova brought with her performance one of the most funny, adventurous energetic and sassy encarnations of Cinderella. This is her movie, where she gets to be a scrappy maid, a confident warrior, and am elegant damsel, all at once, and i forever will be glad of finding her.

05° The Scarlet Flower (1977)

This live action film adaptation of SergeyAksakov’s take on the ’Beast and Beauty’ type of story is very unique in its exploration of the russian countryside and its folklore, the plant inspired design of the Beast, and in its slow paced storytelling that invests more in the characters facial expressions and body language than in dialogue, all factors that have captivated me.

04° Zolushka (1947)

My number one favorite Cinderella live action movie. When i watch this movie and see the costume and set designs, the theatrical acting styles, the coloring work, the music, the small nods to other Perrault tales, i feel transported to my childhood, touched by how those artists joined together to bring one of my favourite storybooks to life with all emotional sincerity and no hint of irony.

03° Panna a Netvor (1978)

While Jean Cocteau set the stage for using the ’Beast and Beauty’ type of tale as the basis for a cinematic psychological character study, 1978’s Panna a Netvor went even deeper with the idea, choosing not to use any villain or external antagonistic force and instead completely centering the heroine and the Beast’s characters as they interact in the closed space of the old castle and talk about the fears they have of their own feelings. Both get equally developed in this beautifull coming of age gothic fairy tale.

02° Donkeyskin (1970)

A loving homage to the storytelling legacy of both Charles Perrault and Jean Cocteau, this movie is the combination of a Medieval Book of Hours with the 1970s Psychodelia, wich when mixed resulted in something uniquely beautifull and colorfull.

01° The Company of Wolves (1984)

Based on Little Red Riding Hood, wich is my favorite fairy tale, i love the fact that this movie explores the fairy story at its root: the people, most of wich were working class women, who reunited their loved ones to tell them a story they learned in their dreams, and from those stories people would take different lessons about topics such as nature, spirituality, love, family, sexuality, life. Following Rosaleen’s dream, where she and her Grandmother shares tales about humans turned wolves, we are invited to reflect about the roles of man and women in society and their arbitrareness, and how those roles can be subverted once we take consciousness that we all share a dark, wolf like side. All this, and more, are what makes The Company of Wolves my number favorite live action fairy-tale film adaptation.

Honorable Mentions:

Beauty and the Beast (1960)

This movie presented an interesting combination of fairy tale romance with political drama in an italian renaissance setting and a Beast who would turn human during day light, all very creative ideas that deserve to be complemented.

The Slipper and The Rose (1976)

This adaptation of the tale of Cinderella has great performances, beautifull costumes and magnificent songs by the Sherman Brothers. It was just that The Glass Slipper, wich shares the same 18th Century Setting, has personally touched me more.

*cries* The transfer on the 1947 Cinderella looks so gorgeous, but all the versions with English subtitles I can find online look so blurry; it’s a shame. I think there’s a Russian Blu-ray but it doesn’t have subtitles, I don’t think? Alas… But I want to see it so much!

@the-blue-fairie

Versions with english subs i found

This one is with the digital Youtube subs:

This one, same color as the digital ones, but they are fused directly into the video this time:

loading