Rotate your
×
Safety first

Rita Niño

Find your Sunshine

May Ortega

2nd annual 9/11 run/walk rememberance

Adrian Castillo

Guardians of the net

Kristela Garza

Jumping the page

Jose S. De Leon III

  • News
  • Editorial
  • Arts & Life
  • Sports
  • Blogs
  • News
  • Editorial
  • Arts & Life
  • Sports
  • Blogs

Jumping the page

Jumping the page

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 Jumping the page

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 Jumping the page

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 Jumping the page

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 Jumping the page

Stream these now

Stream these now

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 Stream these now

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 Stream these now

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 Stream these now

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 Stream these now

TL;DW

TL;DW

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 TL;DW

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 TL;DW

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 TL;DW

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 TL;DW

Nicolas Cage

Nicolas Cage

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 Nicolas Cage

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 Nicolas Cage

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 Nicolas Cage

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 Nicolas Cage

Why James Wan is the man

Why James Wan is the man

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 Why James Wan is the man

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 Why James Wan is the man

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 Why James Wan is the man

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 Why James Wan is the man

Summer movie preview – Part 1

Summer movie preview – Part 1

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 Summer movie preview   Part 1

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 Summer movie preview   Part 1

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 Summer movie preview   Part 1

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 Summer movie preview   Part 1

Ten years of ‘Mean’

Ten years of ‘Mean’

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 Ten years of ‘Mean’

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 Ten years of ‘Mean’

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 Ten years of ‘Mean’

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 Ten years of ‘Mean’

Please don’t cancel this!

Please don’t cancel this!

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 Please don’t cancel this!

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 Please don’t cancel this!

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 Please don’t cancel this!

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 Please don’t cancel this!

How I Met Your Mother

How I Met Your Mother

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 How I Met Your Mother

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 How I Met Your Mother

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 How I Met Your Mother

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 How I Met Your Mother

TV’s most shocking deaths

TV’s most shocking deaths

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 TV’s most shocking deaths

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 TV’s most shocking deaths

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 TV’s most shocking deaths

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 TV’s most shocking deaths

Oscars 2014- The predicted winners: Part 2

Oscars 2014- The predicted winners: Part 2

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 Oscars 2014  The predicted winners: Part 2

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 Oscars 2014  The predicted winners: Part 2

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 Oscars 2014  The predicted winners: Part 2

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 Oscars 2014  The predicted winners: Part 2

Life after cancellation

Life after cancellation

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 Life after cancellation

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 Life after cancellation

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 Life after cancellation

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 Life after cancellation

Oscar 2014 – The predicted winners: part 1

Oscar 2014 – The predicted winners: part 1

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 Oscar 2014   The predicted winners: part 1

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 Oscar 2014   The predicted winners: part 1

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 Oscar 2014   The predicted winners: part 1

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 Oscar 2014   The predicted winners: part 1

The Lego Movie

The Lego Movie

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 The Lego Movie

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 The Lego Movie

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 The Lego Movie

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 The Lego Movie

Things to get excited about in February

Things to get excited about in February

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 Things to get excited about in February

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 Things to get excited about in February

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 Things to get excited about in February

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 Things to get excited about in February

Sleepy Hollow and other great TV cliffhangers

Sleepy Hollow and other great TV cliffhangers

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 Sleepy Hollow and other great TV cliffhangers

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 Sleepy Hollow and other great TV cliffhangers

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 Sleepy Hollow and other great TV cliffhangers

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 Sleepy Hollow and other great TV cliffhangers

2014 Oscar Nominations: Part 2

2014 Oscar Nominations: Part 2

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 2014 Oscar Nominations: Part 2

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 2014 Oscar Nominations: Part 2

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 2014 Oscar Nominations: Part 2

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 2014 Oscar Nominations: Part 2

2014 Oscar Nominations: Part 1

2014 Oscar Nominations: Part 1

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 2014 Oscar Nominations: Part 1

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 2014 Oscar Nominations: Part 1

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 2014 Oscar Nominations: Part 1

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 2014 Oscar Nominations: Part 1

January TV Preview

January TV Preview

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 January TV Preview

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 January TV Preview

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 January TV Preview

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 January TV Preview

Favorite television shows of 2013

Favorite television shows of 2013

 

*The spoilers are strong in this one. Read at your own risk*

 

If you picked up our previous issue of The Pan American, there’s a chance that you read the editorial written by our news editor Melinda Garza on novels being adapted into movies.

 

My co-worker expressed disappointment with recent movie adaptations like The Giver, based on the beloved novel in which a pre-teen discovers some really dark secrets involving his utopian society. Garza called the recent film adaptation “poor” due to its addition of a romantic subplot that was non-existent in the book and the aging of the main character. She concluded her editorial by saying “the film industry can at least attempt to be faithful for the sake of the readers.”

 

With all due respect to my co-worker, I actually thought The Giver was a faithful adaptation despite all the changes Garza was critical of. Without spoiling much, the subtlety of the novel is lost in the film, but somehow the movie keeps the soul of its source. Yes, the main character Jonas was clearly aged up (from 12 to 16 and played by a 25-year-old) just so that the studio could cast a hunk to draw in audiences. But in spite of this, the film was still a thoughtful meditation on loss of innocence that stressed the importance of memory and individuality just like the award-winning novel. This was anchored by a wonderfully mournful Jeff Bridges who, for the first time in ages, seems to actually care about his performance.

 

However, Garza did raise a good issue in her editorial. Films based on novels should be faithful and please readers, but they have the difficult task of also drawing in non-fans and letting them enjoy the movie by allowing the work to stand as a separate entity. The question is, how do studios find this compromise?

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but one of the best and most recent examples I can think of where a movie is actually elevated by screwing with audience expectations is the final Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn: Part 2.

 

Hear me out on this. In case you haven’t seen or read it, the novel builds up to a battle between our lame main characters and the not-as-lame-but-still-lame villains. The book essentially flashes the middle finger to readers by having the battle not happen, while the movie does the same to the book by actually going through with the climax and presenting audiences with a full-scale vampire war. Limbs are decapitated, lava is erupted and vampires get eaten. It’s actually surprisingly awesome in how this climax in gleeful violence that’s been missing from the series. Of course this is ruined once it is revealed that the entire climax has been nothing but a vision presented to Dr. William Masters.

tumblr milepbHnXm1r8j2zyo2 500 Favorite television shows of 2013

Oddly enough, by not going through with the fight scene, Twilight actually becomes smart. It violates audience expectations for the better, only to rip the rug out from under them and revert back to the book’s story and reminding us just how lame the source was to begin with. Fans of the book were probably pleased that the film kept the happily-ever-after of the novel, but can you imagine how differently people would think of Twilight had it kept its faux ending? The movie demonstrates that there are damaging restrictions in relying too much on the built-in expectations of book fans. The fact that a Twilight movie had to remind us of this is downright scary.

 

Just look at how the final Harry Potter movie is loved by fans because it is considered a “good” adaptation of the novel, but I think it’s a poor movie. It’s incredibly rushed and is too focused on the big battle at the end that it misses out on several intimate character beats that made the characters in the series stand out.

 

Of course, other movies beside Breaking Dawn have actually destroyed fan expectations and done their own thing. Let’s look at Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, a 1980 film based on my favorite Stephen King novel that’s usually considered one of the best horror films ever made.

 

The novel is about a father, Jack, who struggling with alcoholism. He transplants his family into a hotel once he gets the job of its caretaker. Jack is an everyman who genuinely loves his family and wants to do right by them. Of course, this doesn’t go smoothly since ghosts in the hotel try to get Jack to kill his son, Danny, as he’s in possession of a psychic ability the ghosts are after.

 

The film adaptation gets rid of this motivation, as well as much of the alcoholism abuse themes, and replaces it with a weird, ambiguous one that I still don’t get. Also, by casting Jack Nicholson in the lead role, his character loses the everyman edge and makes it obvious that Jack will snap and try to kill his family. Despite this, the movie is critically acclaimed. I personally hate how much the film strays from the book, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect the film as an exercise in psychological horror that allows Kubrick to make the adaptation into a film that’s distinctly his.

52f7aceace997 Favorite television shows of 2013

WHEN IS IT BAD?

 

Simply put, changes are bad when it messes with the main theme of the source. Worse yet is when the adaptation in question results in something that’s barely recognizable to people who are familiar with the source. Let’s take a look at The Cat in the Hat. It is a storybook about a humanoid cat who teaches two bored kids the importance of having fun. The 2003 live-action adaptation featured Mike Meyers making sex jokes, Alec Baldwin being disgusting and Paris Hilton. Do you see what’s wrong with this picture? This is the very definition of something that should be killed with hellfire.

tumblr ls23a82YxZ1r2wm2po1 500 Favorite television shows of 2013

Let’s take a look at Disney’s upcoming musical Into the Woods. The film is an adaptation of the award-winning musical by Stephen Sondheim, the genius behind Sweeney Todd and West Side Story, among other masterpieces. Into the Woods mashes up several famous Grimm fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and Rapunzel. Despite its kid-friendly origins, the musical is an innuendo-laden, dark story as the characters do some very un-kid-friendly things (Cinderella’s Prince Charming cheats on her!).

 

The Disney adaptation, starring Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Chris Pine, seems intent on sanitizing most of these developments. During a presentation this past summer, Sondheim revealed several of the plot changes in store for the movie. Among these changes is the fact that Rapunzel won’t die in the film and that Prince Charming doesn’t embark on his affair with Emily Blunt’s character. All these developments mean that there’s a high chance that the songs “Moments in the Woods, Witch’s Lament” and “Children will Listen” are cut from the movie. Each of these songs were directly influenced by the actions involved in the death of Rapunzel and Prince Charming’s tryst with the Baker’s Wife (Blunt).

 

The main theme in the musical is the consequences of wish fulfillment by subverting all of these fairy tales and arguing, “life isn’t a happily ever after, that’s the point!” Isn’t Disney sort of diluting that message by getting rid of key hardships that the characters go through? I’m just glad that Netflix has a Broadway recording of this musical available to stream on their site for me to watch should I hate Disney’s Into the Woods.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and Into the Woods could end up being good. Then again, when am I ever wrong?

 

Movies are a separate medium and, in my opinion, this means that they should not be compared to the book it’s adapting. Let’s face it though, this is easier said than done. All of us will grow attached to a novel and we won’t be able to not complain when a change occurs, or when something happens in a different manner than we had though.

 

In the end, we have to remember that studios have yet to truly perfect a compromise between pleasing fans of the book and people who are being introduced to the world created by an author on screen. Let’s just try to enjoy the ride. After all, there is one thing you can do if the movie sucks:

 

8682704 Favorite television shows of 2013

Your browser is out-of-date!

Update your browser to view this website correctly. Update my browser now

×