blind_fury
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 13,584
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
yeah you completely missed the point. LOTR wasn't revamped to appeal to non-geeks. That would be ruining alot of the appeal.Even sillier misconception.
You're actually comparing literature to an 1980 toy line?
Are you saying that the reason it was successful is ONLY because of the fans?
Exactly. Those people aren't they type to like Dungeons and Dragons but Peter Jackson showed them the light by staying true to the source material.The reason it did so well, is BECAUSE it appealed to the jocks and soccer moms in addition to the fans.
Oh I forgot, "my bad".Besides, this doesn't help your argument any, as Bay is giving an epic depiction of the Transformers.
Why even take fans into consideration? What do the lifelong fans who live and breathe Transformers know?You concentrate on making the best film you can, and don't be a slave to fandom. It helps to take it into consideration, but never to let them be the driving force behind things.
Yeah there were fans who thought it could've been closer to the book. But they know Peter Jackson minimized the changes and therefore appreciate his overall effort.PS - There's even LOTR fans who were disappointed it wasn't as faithful as it could have been for what it's worth.
*sigh*You missed the point. 300 the film didn't change the graphic novel. Nor did LXG change the comic. This film won't change anything about Transformers.
You originally said TINO would make people seek out the old stuff. Then I pointed out that LXG didn't improve the sales for the graphic novel but 300 greatly improvd sales for the graphic novel. Today 300 is a best seller. How am I missing the point?
The ten year wait was about allowing the general public time to forget about Batman and Robin. They got Goyer to write and Nolan to direct because they understood the appeal of the characters. TINO has the writer of Catwoman and the producer of LXG so they decided to go in the other direction.Actually, again, you're wrong.
BB was made cause the studios wanted another franchise. If fans were responsible, why was there a ten year break between films?
Jar Jar is a valid point. Reduced Jar Jar screen time was mostly due to outraged Star Wars fans not because the Phantom Menace bombed at the box office.And Jar Jar? C'mon, you're using Jar Jar to support an argument. Outside of kids, there wasn't many people who liked the character. Fans didn't cause that, the jocks and soccer moms as you put it also did.
It's appearent that Bay resents the source material and fanbase. I didn't have to be a mind reader to know the makers of Batman and Robin or Catwoman had little to no appreciation for the source material. Directors and writers who understand the appeal of the source material minimize the changes. Directers and writers who don't care and just want to exploit the popularity of the properties have a hack and slash approach.Well, the purist can think that, but he doesn't really know now does he?
Unless he was on set and talking to Bay, or somehow a mind reader.
I'd imagine they also picture Bay setting G1 figures on fire in effigy, but that's not reality now is it?
Harry Potter and the Simpsons are movie adaptations. Yet the characters that made those properties popular aren't being revamped.Still to reality, where fans are exactly that, fanatics. There's a reason the word is called adaptation.
You want to do a movie called Transformers because it's popular? Fine. But don't change what made it popular. That defeats the purpose of adapting it.