#A Book Based on a Popular Movie

[shesamreads]

I absolutely adored this movie.

[tragicallyunaesthetic]

kids these days are growing up without the narnia, spiderwick chronicles and bridge to terabithia movies and it shows

[readthebookfirstpodcast]

[cinemaobscura]

Karaoke Terror | 昭和歌謡大全集 (2003) dir. Shinohara Tetsuo

[angy-grrr]

There is gonna be more than that coming from the poll, but whatever it is vote Kacchan/Deku for best hero. Idc who wins i just need them to be together again

if they just announced it today without saying anything before, I would probably immediately do it.

Right now im just bitter because of the hype -I thought it would at least slightly relate to the actual story (adaptations of other stories, extra content for the volume which once again may I remind everyone is extremely short, almost half what a manga volume usually looks which is a huge problem).

This disappointed me extremely, as its not even related to any content from the manga beyond the characters it uses. I get that many ppl will work on this, and that artist will get excited over being able to get the spotlight, some will be able to ask specific questions, and a character will get a statue and a movie.

Still extremely disappointed because of the "special project will be announced on the 5th *wink wink*".

I can't feel excitement over it as, in my mind, I lost something that felt better -more content related to the story. So at best this would be "oh cool I can try it", a feeling pretty similar to the other announcements -not my favorite thing in the world, but I wont reject it and try to see what comes out of it.

This isnt at best to me right now

[shevr]

hey yesterday i got distracted until 5am into browsing lists of old animated movies on wikipedia and there's a bunch of stuff that i wanna get around to dig up & watch but i crave even more older, more obscure, more forgotten stuff

plz feel free to drop any obscure animated flick you know of so i can go check it ( extra bonus points if you're not american and it's a movie from your country )

[honourablepranksinatra]

Me about a book series I loved as a kid and still is super popular: wait this is really good does anyone know about this

[athetos]

Btw yes I saw the live action zelda news and yes I am pretending I didn’t

[jules-9-7-1]

That reminds me....

I need to read the 124 year old book.

[elibeeline]

Also hot take apparently but whoever's playing Haymitch in the new hunger games movie should be a 🤏 lil bit fugly right? Everyone's fancasting finnick lookalikes but i dont think that suits his character

[uss-edsall]

Ridley Scott, regarding his new Napoleon movie, is being aggressively defensive about its inaccuracies with historians. He's gone on record saying "When I have issues with historians, I ask: ‘Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up then.’" This is a classic argument of people with no idea how historians do their work, how historical accuracy is determined and evaluated, and - in Ridley Scott's case in particular - how important it is to properly portray historical accuracy in other media.

The reason why Ridley Scott is being so aggressively dismissive of complaints about historical accuracy is due to past beef leading to a problem he likely has.

This is a movie that, by din of being touted as a 'nonfiction' movie about a historical figure, is basing much of its marketing on historical accuracy by default. The trailers show it's not, and reviews by historians say it is riddled with dozens if not hundreds of inaccuracies. Napoleon's portrayal is frankly a surface level depiction and nowhere near the nuance that historians were hoping for.

Scott's defensive about it. He need not be. If he had a historical consultant then he could go "I'm not an expert on the time period, but I have someone who is, ask them about it" and fob them off on his movie's historical consultant. It's a whole Thing. He doesn't have one, however, so he has to defend it personally.

You see, Ridley Scott probably didn't hire a historical consultant for Napoleon. The last time he had one - Kathleen Coleman for Gladiator - she was so upset over the inaccuracies he pushed through and how little her work affected the film, she requested her name be taken off of it.

Why this is important is because so many more people will watch a movie made by Ridley Scott than I or any other person could write. More people will watch Scott's Napoleon in the States than five hundred books about Napoleon combined worldwide.

More people watched Dunkirk than ever read a book about the Evacuation of Dunkirk. The movie Breaker Morant did so much for public perception about the execution of a genuine war criminal people in Australia still on occasion call for a pardon for Morant.

Fundamentally, mass media like movies will always have more impact of a popular perception about somebody, a time period, an event. That's why Ridley Scott making an inaccurate movie and going 'oh, you weren't there, you didn't see it with your own eyes, so how could you know, I don't have to listen to you' is a problem.

[biromanticwritergal]

I also broke down and got a tiktok just to see why it was so popular. I'm going to try to limit my using it so much. I put some booktoks up there but I don't read a lot of what's popular on there.

[alpaca-clouds]

Why the media CEOs will always learn the wrong lessons

Yesterday a friend and I talked about how the entire (AAA) game industrie looked at BG3 being as popular as it is and going: "Oh, we need to produce 100+ hour games, I guess! Those sell!" Which... obviously is not why it is popular. The game is not popular because it has 100+ hours of gameplay, but because it has engaging characters, that are well-acted and that work as good hooks for the players. Like, let's face it: The reason why I so far have sunken 160 hours into this game is, because I wanna spend time with these characters - and because I wanna give them their happy endings.

But the same has happened too, just a bit earlier this year, right? When Barbie broke the 1 billion and every Hollywood CEO went: "Oh, so the people want movies based on toy franchises! Got it!" To which the internet at large replied: "... How is that the lesson you learned from this?"

Well, let me explain to you, why this is the lesson they learn: It is because the CEOs and the boards of directors at large are not artists or even engaged with the medium they produce. They mostly are economists. And their dry little hearts do not understand stuff more complex than numbers and spread sheets.

That sounds evil, I know, but... It is sadly the truth. When they look at a successful movie/series/game/book/comic, they look at it as a product, not a piece of art or narrative. It is just a product that has very clear metrics.

To them Barbie is not a movie with interesting stylistic choices that stand out from the majority of high budget action blockbusters. It is a toy movie with mildly feminist themes.

Or Oppenheimer is not a movie to them with a strong visual language and good acting direction. No, it is a historical blockbuster.

And this is true for basically every form of media. I mean, books are actually a fairly good example. In my life I do remember the big book fads that happened. When Harry Potter was a success, there was at least a dozen other "magical school" book series being released. When Twilight was a big success there was suddenly an endless number of "teen girl falls in love with bad boy, who is [magical creature]" YA. When the Hunger Games was a success, there were hundreds of "YA dystopia" books. Meanwhile in adult reading, we had the big "next Game of Throne" fad.

Of course, the irony is, that within each of those fads there might have been one or two somewhat successful series - but never even one that came even close to whatever started the fad.

Or with movies, we have seen it, too. When Avengers broke the 1 billion (which up to this point only few movies did) the studios went: "Ooooooh, so we need shared universe film series" - and then all went to try and fail to create their own cinematic universe.

Because the people, who call the shots, are just immensely desinterested in the thing they are selling. They do not really care about the content. All they care about is having a supposedly easy avenue of selling it. Just as they do not care about the consumer. All they care about is that the consumer buys it. Why he buys it... Well, they do not care. They could not care less, in fact.

So, yeah, get ready for a 20 overproduced games with a bloated 100+ hours of empty gameplay, but without the engaging characters. And for like at least 15 more moves based on some toy franchise, that nobody actually cares about.

And then get ready for all the CEOs to do the surprised Pikachu face, when all of that ends up not financially successful.

Really, I read some interviews yesterday from some AAA-studio CEOs and their blatant shock and missing understanding on why BG3 works for so many people.

Because, yeah... capitalism does not appreciate art. Capitalism does not understand art. It only understands spread sheets.

[mask131]

So... Wicked is coming back in style. And as such I need to make a little informative post.

Because since as early as my arrival onto the Internet, in the distant years of the late 2000s, a lot of people have been treating Wicked as some sort of "official" part of the Oz series. As part of the Oz canon or as THE "original" work everything else derives from (literaly, some people, probably kids, but did believe the MGM movie was made BASED on Wicked...) And as an Oz fan, that bothers me.

[Damn, ever since I watched Coco Peru's videos her voice echoes in my brain each time I say this line.]

So here's a few FACTS for you facts lovers.

The Wicked movie that is coming out right now (I was sold this as a series, turns out it is a movie duology?) is a cinematic adaptation of the stage musical Wicked created by Schwartz and Holzman, the Broadway classic and success of the 2000s (it was created in 2003).

Now, the Wicked musical everybody knows is itself an adaptation - and this fact is not as notorios, somehow? The Wicked musical is the adaptation of a novel released in 1995 by Gregory Maguire, called Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. A very loose and condensed adaptation to say the least - as the Wicked musical is basically a lighter and simplified take on a much darker, brooding and mature tale. Basically fans of the novel have accused the musical of being some sort of honeyed, sugary-sweet, highschool-romance-fanfic-AU, while those who enjoyed the musical and went to see the novel are often shocked at discovering their favorite musical is based on what is basically a "dark and edgy - let's shock them all" take on the Oz lore. (Some do like both however, apparently? But I rarely met them.)

A side-fact which will be relevant later, is that this novel was but the first of a full series of novel Oz wrote about a dark-and-adult fantasy reimagining of the land of Oz - there's Son of a Witch, A Lion Among Men, Out of Oz, and more.

However the real fact I want to point out is that Maguire's novel, from which the musical itself derives, is a "grimmification" (to take back TV Tropes terminology) of the 1939 MGM movie The Wizard of Oz. The movie everybody knows when it comes to Oz, but that everybody forgets is itself the adaptation of a book - the same way people forget the Wicked musical is adapted from a novel. The MGM movie is adapted from L. Frank Baum's famous 1900 classic for children The Wonderful Wizard of Oz - and a quite loose adaptation that reimagines a lot of elements and details.

Now, a lot of people present Maguire's novel as being based/inspired/a revisionist take on Baum's novel... And that's false. Maguire's Wicked novel is clearly dominated by and mainly influenced by the MGM movie, with only a few book elements and details sprinkled on top. Mind you, the sequels Maguire wrote do take more elements, characters and plot points from the various Oz books of Baum... But they stay mostly Maguire's personal fantasy world. Yes, Oz "books" in plural - because that's a fact people tend to not know either... L. Frank Baum didn't just write one book about the Land of Oz. He wrote FOURTEEN of them, an entire series, because it was his most popular sales, and his audience like his editor pressured him to produce more (in fact he got sick of Oz and tried to write other books, but since they failed he was forced to continue Oz novels to survive). Everybody forgot about the Oz series due to the massive success of the starter novel - but it has a lot of very famous sequels, such as The Marvelous Land of Oz or Ozma of Oz (the later was loosely adapted by Disney as the famous 80s nostalgic-cursed movie Return to Oz).

So... To return to my original point. The current Wicked movies are not directly linked in any way to Baum's novel. The Wicked musical was already as "canon" and as "linked" to the MGM movie as 2013's Oz The Great and Powerful by Disney was. As for Maguire's novel, due to its dark, mature, brooding and more complex worldbuilding nature, I can only compare it to the recent attempt at making a "Game of Thrones Oz" through the television series Emerald City.

The Wicked movies coming out are separated from Baum's novel at the fourth degree. Because they are the movie adaptation of a musical adaptation of a novel reinventing a movie adaptation of the original children book.

And I could go even FURTHER if you dare me to and claim the Wicked movies are at the 5TH DEGREE! Because a little-known-fact is that the MGM movie was not a direct adaptation of Baum's novel... But rather took a lot of cues and influence from the massively famous stage-extravaganza of 1902 The Wizard of Oz... A musical adaptation of Baum's novel, created and written by Baum himself, and that was actually more popular than the novel in the pre-World War II America. It was from this enormous Broadway success (my my, how the snake bites its tail - the 1902 Wizard of Oz was the musical Wicked of its time) that, for example, the movie took the idea of the Good Witch of the North killing the sleeping-poppies with snow.

[emberwhite]

Do people judge a book by its cover? They absolutely do. They take one look at this, and they either often instantly hate it or love it.

Talking about how things should be is just yelling into the void. There is just reality. And this is the reality of being a self-published indie author.

People make complete conclusions based off of incomplete information. In this case, my book, there are no adults pressuring the boy into getting any surgery. There's no mention of surgery at all even. This person is thinking of a children's book written by a very popular political figure. Some people have had the courtesy to ask me if it's like that book. It's not at all. It's not even political. It's a story told from the perspective of a kid who grows up knowing they are very different and yet can tell no one about it. Even saying a word about it would bring all of his deepest and darkest fears into reality.

The challenge was to make the story as dark and scary as I could without ever going too far for a children's book. There are already some scary children's books and movies out there that prove what's possible, and I worked with my illustrator, Marta, to push it as far as we could go. There's one page we had to re-do almost completely because even I said that's a bit much.

But I'm very happy with the final result because we also got to do so many fun and colorful pages like this.

There will be plenty more drive-by reviews as the book continues to grow and grow. They take one look and see a soapbox to express all of their disappointments and frustrations in life.

I think they might be scared of the book. The world they grew up in is slowly fading away day by day, and it's all they have come to know. They've been around for so long that everything has become a bore to them, and the only remaining pleasure is to escape into the past in order to better preserve it. I can oddly relate, actually.

So the book is on Amazon, and you can watch the whole thing for free on YouTube as well. If you get the chance, let me know what you think. Literally, watching it for free and then giving it a simple rating on Amazon is the best way to support the book. But I also love waking up to reviews like this every day.

[facts-i-just-made-up]

Five Famous Book Monsters Drawn: EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED BY AUTHORS!

Many movie adaptations of famous novels change the character and creature designs, some very drastically. Here are five famous monsters or villains that I've rendered with great care toward their original descriptions in their first books. Some aren't what you might expect from the movie versions! Enjoy!

#1- The Exorcist

The Exorcist by Ira Levin features a demon named Pazuzu. In the book, we see a few glimpses of a wicked face and a horribly injured Linda Blair, but in the original novel, Pazuzu is described as a skeletal ghost with a snakelike spinal column that ends in a devil tail. His hands float separately, and his many horns are topped by a hat with a pigeon feather, much like the biblical description of the demon.

#2- Jaws

Jaws by Peter Benchley was much more of a sci-fi novel than the movie based on it. In the original story, the shark had a human-like mind and arms and legs. It was well armed and killed not with its teeth, but its two AK-47s. It is only defeated when the sheriff ties its loose shoelaces together.

#3- The Lord of the Rings

Sauron is described by J.J.R. Tolkien not as the fiery eyeball or armored mammoth seen in Peter Jackson's movies, but rather as a beautiful long haired man in a white robe with chubby cheeks and enormous, pendulous bosoms. Over 30 pages are spent describing the Mounds of Doom, or in Elvish "Orodroobies" and in Sindarin, "Amon Amammaries."

#4- Frankenstein

Mary Shelly's masterpiece is considered the dawn of sci-fi and horror alike, but it's iconic monster looked nothing like Boris Karloff in the text. Rather it was a tentacled half-octopus, half-man, half-dragon that caused madness in anyone who saw it emerge from its home, the lost island of R'lyeh. Note that the name "Frankenstein" is not that of the monster itself, but is the closest a human can come to pronouncing its true name, as recorded by Igor Alhazrad.

#5- The Lorax

It's hard to guess what Roald Dahl pictured just from the descriptions in his novel, but the title monster from his 15-Volume Norwegian language epic "The Lorax" is nothing like you may have seen in the popular CGI erotic film. In the novel, it has orange hair and big eyebrows but is more like a spectral demon with crystal eyes and jagged fangs that bounds through the Norwegian desert on its two massive feet, each of which has one claw. A similar fate met Agent Smith from his novel "The Matrix" who was a big green robot in the book, but is clearly a Hugo Weaving in the movies.