Read any MG/YA novel.
Watch, too, any film/serial adaptation of a MG/YA novel (theatrical release and/or streaming). Or, indeed, any film or show ostensibly directed at younger audiences. For instance, watch Sabrina or Stranger Things or Shadow & Bone or Gravity Falls or Dead Boy Detectives or Lemony Snicket, post 250 words about it below, and get extra credit. It's that easy!
5 comments:
The book "Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief" was adapted into a movie and tv series. They were both solid adaptations but I think it shows the big difference between what can be done in a 2 hour movie and an 8 hour TV show compared to a book. I grew up on the Percy Jackson series and hold it close to my heart so that's when I saw there would be an adaptation. I was the first in the seat to see both versions. The movie, though decent enough, didn't have enough time to really get every bit that was important and honestly didn’t really feel like a good movie adaptation. The tv show on the other hand gave just the right amount of time to really get all the important details. The casting was solid and the show actually worked with the author to make a faithful adaptation and it really showed. It brought the books I had so come to love to my living room and it was everything I needed. The long run time was significant enough that it was able to take a 200 page book and not leave out important details that made the book series so lovable in the first place. A movie with only 2 hours never had that kind of effect. It left out a lot of small details and honestly made it difficult to love this new version of already established characters.
The first Hunger Game movie was a pretty violent film when I watched it as a kid and even now. I think the violence was meant to confront the brutality of Panem with the full weight of the Capitol's newly realized power. To us it is barbaric, but that is the point, as it shows the lengths governments will go to feel powerful
The raw brutality of the event left a visceral impression. Tributes were thrown into an arena without a care and just a feeling of bewilderment which we the audience can relate to. It was raw survival, a grim reflection of the Capitol's iron-fisted rule over everyone, body and soul.
To the Districts, the Hunger Games were a brutal punishment for rebellion, a raw wound to remind them of their subjugation. Families had to watch, in helpless horror, as their children were taken with no noble end to defend them. The crudeness of the technology and lack of polish made it more like a public execution than a broadcast spectacle.
But for the Capitol, this was only a macabre tradition. In their unpolished form, the Games did what they were supposed to do: instill terror and guarantee obedience. The winners were hailed as victors but they were tormented as survivors, a living testament to the Capitol's control. Looking back I do not think I was prepared to watch this but I am happy it did. It got me to think about how power works in panem and in the real world
I recently watched the movie adaptation of the YA novel, "Crazy Rich Asians," and I have to say it is one of the best romantic comedies I have ever seen. The humor in each scene is fantastic and it doesn't take away from the message that the overall film is trying to send. I haven't necessarily gotten the chance to read the novel the movie is based on, yet I know some of the differences from word of mouth. For example, we learn in the book that Rachel's biological father is not the man she thought he was, and not the man anyone else in the book, especially her boyfriend's mother, thought he was, as she goes on a journey to find him and figures out that he has also earned a name for herself in Asia's elite families. We never got to meet Nick's father in the movies, and yet, while making a small appearance in the books, he became a source of support for Rachel, as he wasn't as snobbish as the rest of the family and helped give her hope that her and Nick's relationship could work. There were also several side plots in the novel that never got to be resolved in the movie, leaving a couple of loose ends. Despite all of this, Crazy Rich Asians is a fantastic depiction of the struggles Asian Americans have to maintain their roots when clashing with those who hold more traditional life values. Not only that, but embracing how despite the difference in class, if one is determined, that can be a minor inconvenience at best. And also learning to respect each other's values and needs in a relationship, as each member of the relationship needs to be willing to make changes and sacrifices to make one another happy, which is something both Rachel and Nick do, which helps me see their relationship as so healthy and loving. And lastly, please don't blindside your boyfriend or girlfriend by not telling them you come from a rich family after a year of dating, Rachel might've not cared, but others might feel a bit cheated of understanding what exactly they were getting into.
One of the shows that was mentioned in the prompt was probably one of my favorites growing up. That being Gravity Falls, the deep lore and weird unexplainable mysteries and events always drew me in. I love stories that keep you guessing but, that also have a reason for doing so. Gravity Falls never felt like it took a cheap out of a plot hole or a boring ending to an arc, no matter how crazy or silly something was, there was a reason and that made me love and respect the show and its creators so much. I love mystery, I love psychological deep dives and Gravity Falls is a show that has it all. It is has been a huge inspiration for my writing especially when I first started taking it seriously. The protagonist's Dipper and Mable were always perfect fits and never felt like an out of place choice for the story, they represented polar opposites that were able to work together in tandem. The crazy villains my most favorite being Bill Cypher felt like this vital pieces to the story. I usually don't like when villains are these black and white evil people but, Gravity Falls has many flat out evil people and other things. But, I truly enjoy their presence in the story, I never think that their lack of good qualities is a bad thing and I think it works out very well in the story as a whole. Gravity Falls is a very out of the box show and it works great.
I had never actually watched the Disney adaptation of Alice in Wonderland before, but because of how the book was written, I assumed that the difficulty in adapting a book that just works so well in both spoken word and reading would make the viewing experience lackluster in comparison. But when I re-read Carroll's original one while preparing for the movie, I realized how it could definitely be done properly. Lots of singing, slapstick, and verbal humor that could be reproduced well in the adaptation. Squeezing it into just over an hour, though? Well, that'd be tough, but not impossible. If the story was going to be done well, some parts would need to be cut. My guess was that the Griffon and the Mock Turtle weren't going to be in the movie (they weren't).
Was surprised that Disney wasn't satisfied with the adaptation because it was "too faithful." In a lot of ways it felt different from what the book was doing, and in my opinion the best parts were when it was being faithful to the book. The first five minutes set up what at the beginning feels like a different story--specifically the beginning and end's conversations with her Sister and Diana, as well as Alice's characterization being different to the book (she never talked to her sister, and Diana never shown)--for the rest of it was following the same general plot points and vibe. And she didn't feel as proactive in the book as she is in the animation, but the latter really works. I especially liked the comedic parts, and so many nice touches from the book "I shall think nothing of falling down stairs!" I especially like how they did her reaction to seeing the White Rabbit with the waistcoat-pocket. But all in all the faithful parts were definitely the best moments in the movie. There were parts that were skipped and edited, and there were other small differences that I really liked (Alice being stuck in a bottle instead of swimming to shore, and the sequence from the chase up to her waking up).
After talking about it with some friends I realized that some additions weren't completely new, but from Alice In Wonderland's sequel, Through the Looking-Glass. Maybe I should've read the other book, too? It was unexpected, but still I'd 100% recommend it after reading the first book, even if the mashup feels a bit unnecessary. The ending was... fine. I think the book did it a lot better, but writing a monologue like that wouldn't really hit the same way as it would when reading it. The scenes were painted in so well from the words and they were just like how I imagined them to be in the movie. And, obviously, the musical parts were really well done.
I think that Carroll would've loved the movie, too.
Post a Comment