21 - Page 2

Solariss · 03-30-2008, 01:55 AM

This movie didn't do the book justice at all. I know how stupid it may sound since you hear it all the time but it's true. The movie was nothing like the book in any way. The characters were different and the plot was totally skewed. The main character in the book never wanted to go to Harvard from what I remember, and his name wasn't even Ben. Not that any of it matters, but I think the movie would have been much better had they stuck to the actual true story.

Korioni · 03-30-2008, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solariss

This movie didn't do the book justice at all. I know how stupid it may sound since you hear it all the time but it's true. The movie was nothing like the book in any way. The characters were different and the plot was totally skewed. The main character in the book never wanted to go to Harvard from what I remember, and his name wasn't even Ben. Not that any of it matters, but I think the movie would have been much better had they stuck to the actual true story.

If the movie were exactly like the book, why would you go see it?

The only reason they say these movies are "based on soandso" is to give credit to whatever gave them the inspiration for their film. It's a new piece of art, not a copy or a replica.

In other words, it's like viewing Van Gogh's painting of Starry Night and criticizing it for not being accurate. There are pieces of architecture in his painting that are art themselves in their physical form, yet he paints the scene in his own interpretation making it his own artwork. Not to compare 21's directer with Van Gogh, strictly speaking, but it's the same in this case. 21 is an artists interpretation of another piece of art. Beyond the inspiration for the story and a marketing tactic, the book means nothing in relation to 21.

Arbitrary · 03-30-2008, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korioni

The only reason they say these movies are "based on soandso" is to give credit to whatever gave them the inspiration for their film. It's a new piece of art, not a copy or a replica.

No, it's licensing. People had to pay money for the rights to make the movie and there is often an effort made to keep the book and the movie connected even if they don't have much to do with each other.

When I was at Wal-Mart yesterday I saw they had the book Bringing Down the House with the same cover as the movie poster. Now a major motion picture!

Eomer · 03-30-2008, 12:37 PM

The movie is only very very loosely based on the book and RL events, it's not meant to really represent either.

The Dauntless One · 03-30-2008, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eomer

The movie is only very very loosely based on the book and RL events, it's not meant to really represent either.

Is da moovee guud tho?

Turgur · 03-30-2008, 03:14 PM

I enjoyed it.

huh · 03-30-2008, 05:58 PM

I thought it kinda sucked. Predictable as hell and I didn't find any of the main characters likable at all.

Main character needs to learn what a safe deposit box is... stupid movie.

Arbitrary · 03-30-2008, 06:02 PM

That was the problem I most had with the movie. The only possible reason a character would keep his money up in his drop ceiling was so it could be stolen as a plot device.

Korioni · 03-30-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

No, it's licensing. People had to pay money for the rights to make the movie and there is often an effort made to keep the book and the movie connected even if they don't have much to do with each other.

When I was at Wal-Mart yesterday I saw they had the book Bringing Down the House with the same cover as the movie poster. Now a major motion picture!

Eh, seeing as most book-based-movies are only loosely based on the book, it's unnecessary to pay money for the rights to it. Any writing, story, paper, book, screenplay, etc. has to be at least 20% different (no, not just pulling the number out of my ass) than the thing you're copying to avoid copyright laws unless you want to use the fact that it's a prior story for marketing purpose or want to give credit to the original/inspiration. Have a writer spend 2 days replacing the names of characters and pulling out a thesaurus for every 5th word and you wouldn't have to pay a damn thing.

However, licensing your film and advertising it as "based on this famous book or another" will generally net you far more money than if you hadn't spent the money for the rights.

Akileese · 03-30-2008, 08:36 PM

I expected it to be better than Rounders but it wasn't which was disappointing. The money bugged me, but I accepted it as a plot device.

Arbitrary · 03-30-2008, 10:30 PM

I actually heard someone whisper in the theater "wow, if someone found that..."

Awanka · 03-31-2008, 03:11 AM

Main character was a moron. I was rooting for Kevin Spacey the whole movie.

Ham n Cheese · 03-31-2008, 03:18 AM

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awanka

Main character was a moron. This movie suffers from not being more like "Wicker Man" - the best movie of all time.

prescient63 · 03-31-2008, 05:07 AM

Hi2U retarded monkey who doesn't know what a bank is.

prescient63 · 03-31-2008, 05:11 AM

On the subject of rounders I love but hate that movie. Weee I'm matt damon and can read your soul, but fail at bankroll management.

Movie synopsis.

Mike: Hedz up for rollz?

KGB: I like Oreos.

Mike: Oh noes the variance! I quit pokerz.

KGB: HAHAHA I have your moniez.

Bunch of stuff happens.

Mike: Hedz up for my life?

KGB: I like Oreos

Mike: Oh yeahz the variance i livs!

KGB: Pay dat man his monies!

I actually think that sums up the movie pretty well.

03-30-2008, 01:55 AM	#16 (permalink)
Solariss Registered User Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 417 +15 Internets	This movie didn't do the book justice at all. I know how stupid it may sound since you hear it all the time but it's true. The movie was nothing like the book in any way. The characters were different and the plot was totally skewed. The main character in the book never wanted to go to Harvard from what I remember, and his name wasn't even Ben. Not that any of it matters, but I think the movie would have been much better had they stuck to the actual true story. __________________ Wii Code: 5856 6001 3791 5993

03-30-2008, 03:14 PM	#21 (permalink)
Turgur Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 65 +3 Internets	hiiii I enjoyed it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

03-30-2008, 12:37 PM	#19 (permalink)
Eomer You mean I can change this? Neat! Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 10,202 +39 Internets	The movie is only very very loosely based on the book and RL events, it's not meant to really represent either.

03-30-2008, 05:58 PM	#22 (permalink)
huh Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 667 +20 Internets	I thought it kinda sucked. Predictable as hell and I didn't find any of the main characters likable at all. Main character needs to learn what a safe deposit box is... stupid movie.

03-31-2008, 05:07 AM	#29 (permalink)
prescient63 You can't blame women for what they do wrong in the same way that you can't blame a dog for what it does wrong. Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,490 -5 Internets	Hi2U retarded monkey who doesn't know what a bank is.

03-31-2008, 05:11 AM	#30 (permalink)
prescient63 You can't blame women for what they do wrong in the same way that you can't blame a dog for what it does wrong. Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,490 -5 Internets	On the subject of rounders I love but hate that movie. Weee I'm matt damon and can read your soul, but fail at bankroll management. Movie synopsis. Mike: Hedz up for rollz? KGB: I like Oreos. Mike: Oh noes the variance! I quit pokerz. KGB: HAHAHA I have your moniez. Bunch of stuff happens. Mike: Hedz up for my life? KGB: I like Oreos Mike: Oh yeahz the variance i livs! KGB: Pay dat man his monies! I actually think that sums up the movie pretty well.