|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 4, 2006 22:01:01 GMT -5
pureevilmatt:
There you go yet again,interpreting the definition of adaptation so incorrectly to the point of downright disreguarding it all together...would it help if I typed this in all caps and in bold?
MOVIES CANNOT BE ADAPTATIONS OF OTHER MOVIES BY DEFINITION BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME EXACT GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING FORM OF ARTISTIC EXPRESSION.
Kill yourself...please...
Yep,thats why they are both considered seperate film adaptations...good job on finally saying something thats correct...hopefully you will continue this bold and enlightening trend...
...And so much for that prospect...
Let me ask you something...you said Hitchcock's Psycho is based on Bloch's novel,did you not? Then you immediatly said that Van Sant's Psycho is based on Hitchcock's Psycho,right? This is just a complete stab in the dark,but if Hitchcock's Psycho is based on Bloch's novel,and Van Sant's Psycho is based on Hitchcock's Psycho,wouldn't that make Van Sant's Psycho ALSO based on Bloch's novel by the mere fact that Hitchcock's Psycho is? Logically it does...so if one is an adaptation by definition (Hitchcock's Psycho),then that makes the other (Van Sant's Psycho) ALSO an adaptation by definition via association. Game Over.
Pretty much everything you argue to the contary is useless and limited because you completely ignore fact and apparently don't know the first thing about proper context and interpretation...which pretty much makes you a shit salesman with a mouthful of samples...
|
|
|
|
Post by pureevilmatt on Dec 4, 2006 22:01:40 GMT -5
"What kind of movie is Dawn of the Dead 04,Private matt?!" "AN ADAPTATION OF THE 1978 SCREENPLAY AND MOVIE BY THE SAME NAME SIR!" "ARE you SURE Private matt?!" "YES SIR!" SLAP!Take that slap back. I've never said Dawn of the Dead 2004 wasn't a remake. It's based on the 1978 movie. Its such a loose remake though, that I would call it a reimagining. Remakes and reimaginings of course being different degrees of the same thing: adaptations. |
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 4, 2006 22:09:47 GMT -5
Take that slap back. I've never said Dawn of the Dead 2004 wasn't a remake. It's based on the 1978 movie. Its such a loose remake though, that I would call it a reimagining. Remakes and reimaginings of course being different degrees of the same thing: adaptations.^The whole punchline of the joke and why I ain't taking shit back... |
|
|
|
Post by pureevilmatt on Dec 4, 2006 22:16:43 GMT -5
Let me ask you something...you said Hitchcock's Psycho is based on Bloch's novel,did you not? Then you immediatly said that Van Sant's Psycho is based on Hitchcock's Psycho,right? This is just a complete stab in the dark,but if Hitchcock's Psycho is based on Bloch's novel,and Van Sant's Psycho is based on Hitchcock's Psycho,wouldn't that make Van Sant's Psycho ALSO based on Bloch's novel by the mere fact that Hitchcock's Psycho is? Logically it does...so if one is an adaptation by definition (Hitchcock's Psycho),then that makes the other (Van Sant's Psycho) ALSO an adaptation by definition via association. Game Over. I think of it like a tree: The roots are the inspiration for the original work. The trunk is the original work. Branches on the trunk are adaptations of the original work. Twigs on the branches are adaptations of the adaptation. Now, if you say the twigs are ultimately based on the trunk... you're not technically wrong. But, you are ignoring the branch it's based on. When you say Van Sant's Psycho is based on the written novel, you're not wrong... but you're ignoring Hitchcock's work altogether. You're implying that they're each separate branches, each independant interpretations of the original work... that's not true, and if it is, then it's quite the amazing coincidence that they both cut out the same parts of the novel, both adapted the dialogue in the exact same way, and both opted for very specific cinematography and editing styles... etc. That's how I see it. |
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 4, 2006 22:34:07 GMT -5
I think of it like a tree: Oh great,now we've got a tree involved to over complicate and disrupt a very simple process...THIS ought to be good...I'll be sure to sit down for this... The roots are the inspiration for the original work. The trunk is the original work. Branches on the trunk are adaptations of the original work. Twigs on the branches are adaptations of the adaptation. Now, if you say the twigs are ultimately based on the trunk... you're not technically wrong. But, you are ignoring the branch it's based on. LMAO oh my god...where in the hell do you come up with this shit? When you say Van Sant's Psycho is based on the written novel, you're not wrong... but you're ignoring Hitchcock's work altogether. "Hitchcock's work" is nothing more than Bloch's work in film form with a slightly different interpretation... You're implying that they're each separate branches, each independant interpretations of the original work... that's not true, and if it is, then it's quite the amazing coincidence that they both cut out the same parts of the novel, both adapted the dialogue in the exact same way, and both opted for very specific cinematography and editing styles... etc. That's how I see it. How "you see it" is completely retarded and flat out wrong...something you're no stranger to it seems...I don't say that because I think my way of thinking is better...I say that because I KNOW my way of thinking is better because fact confirms that it is...nobody has the right to be wrong when the facts say they're wrong because they're facts...bringing a fucking tree of all things into the equation in a horrible attempt at an analogy comparison only confirms how wrong and retarded your way of seeing it is...I don't even particularly need to get into detail as to why that analogy comparison is so fucking awful because the mere thought of it even applying it to this is enough to make a retard shutter at the pure idiocy of it... |
|
|
|
Post by pureevilmatt on Dec 4, 2006 23:28:27 GMT -5
MOVIES CANNOT BE ADAPTATIONS OF OTHER MOVIES BY DEFINITION BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME EXACT GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING FORM OF ARTISTIC EXPRESSION. What do you call it when an author adapts a short story into a novel or visa versa? Personally, I'd say that's changing the form of the work, without changing the form of artistic expression. |
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 5, 2006 0:44:19 GMT -5
What do you call it when an author adapts a short story into a novel or visa versa? Personally, I'd say that's changing the form of the work, without changing the form of artistic expression. I call that making a shorter or longer version of the story (a rewrite)...they're not adaptations because they're the same form...the form of published literature...again,your interpretation of the word form is way too litteral and completely out of context...If it wanted you to interpret it as such,the definition would have provided examples such as "The short story is an adaptation of the novel" or "the movie is an adaptation of the previous movie"...but it didn't...the example given was a change in form of artistic expression,which means that it's a requirement for something to be an adaptation and is to be interpreted as such... |
|
|
|
Post by pureevilmatt on Dec 5, 2006 2:54:41 GMT -5
What do you call it when an author adapts a short story into a novel or visa versa? Personally, I'd say that's changing the form of the work, without changing the form of artistic expression. I call that making a shorter or longer version of the story (a rewrite)...they're not adaptations because they're the same form...the form of published literature...again,your interpretation of the word form is way too litteral and completely out of context...If it wanted you to interpret it as such,the definition would have provided examples... It gave the most common example... not the only possible example. I'm interpretting the word "form" litterally because that's what you're supposed to do with defintions. the example given was a change in form of artistic expression,which means that it's a requirement for something to be an adaptation and is to be interpreted as such... If it was a requirement in changing the artistic form, then it would have said exactly that... it didn't, therefore it's not. It means form in the "shape, appearance, outline, structure" sense of the word. Being a fan of science fiction books, I can tell you that there are numerous anthologies released each year, in which the most popular stories go on to be adapted into full length novels. Almost every novel Issac Asimov ever published was first published as a short story. It is not uncommon for an author to adapt his own work, or have another author do it. This isn't the case of a "rewrite", or a "revision", as we're talking about two separate finished products that often vary in many other ways aside from length. These are Adaptations. Here are a couple of examples of short storys, which were adapted into novels, which were in turn adapted into movies: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightfall_(Asimov)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bicentennial_ManNow, if you want to make the argument that a short story is a different medium(artistic form) than a novel because they cater to different audiences, I might go along with that... although you'd probably have to re-evaluate a lot of what you've said about the different art forms and the difference between TV and Movie Theatres in displaying "film" or movies. My point, is that you can adapt something without changing it's artistic form, people do it all the time with novels, and in the past, radio plays, stage theatre, etc. Movies are no different. When a movie is adapted from another movie, most people call that a remake. _________ as a suggestion for your site, how about instead of alternating green and black, you have alternating green and some other non-black color so that the quote boxes stand out from the background. this site is pretty good for creating a unique color scheme: www.degraeve.com/color-palette/index.php?q=httpIt's actually pretty neat: what you do, is you point it to a picture that you like, and it generates a scheme based on that picture. |
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 5, 2006 15:14:58 GMT -5
It gave the most common example... not the only possible example. I'm interpretting the word "form" litterally because that's what you're supposed to do with defintions. No,it gave an example that APPLIED TO THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE DEFINITION...you applying the word form litterally takes the definition completely out of context...but I know I'm dealing with somebody who seemingly doesn't know the first thing about context,so I'm not the least bit surprised... If it was a requirement in changing the artistic form, then it would have said exactly that... it didn't, therefore it's not. It means form in the "shape, appearance, outline, structure" sense of the word. It DID say that with the example it provided...Jesus Christ... Being a fan of science fiction books, I can tell you that there are numerous anthologies released each year, in which the most popular stories go on to be adapted into full length novels. Almost every novel Issac Asimov ever published was first published as a short story. It is not uncommon for an author to adapt his own work, or have another author do it. This isn't the case of a "rewrite", or a "revision", as we're talking about two separate finished products that often vary in many other ways aside from length. These are Adaptations. Here are a couple of examples of short storys, which were adapted into novels, which were in turn adapted into movies: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightfall_(Asimov)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bicentennial_ManNow, if you want to make the argument that a short story is a different medium(artistic form) than a novel because they cater to different audiences, I might go along with that... although you'd probably have to re-evaluate a lot of what you've said about the different art forms and the difference between TV and Movie Theatres in displaying "film" or movies. Well,first of all,using Wikipedia isn't completely wise because it can be altered by anyone...this means it can be altered by those that have the same fucked up interpretation of what an adaptation is as you do...the only reason why I used Wikipedia for the Psycho novel was because it was the quickest source I could find that the original publish date for it that I know to be factually correct...I'll now go ahead and negate that use of Wiki to prove this: www.edsbooks.com/new.htmlSecond of all,the two seperate finished products are both in the litterary form...therefore their form is no different,therefore NOT adaptation...written word is still written word no matter the lengh or the medium used to do it...calling it by a new title won't change the source material used either...it's a rewrite to make the story longer...nothing more... My point, is that you can adapt something without changing it's artistic form, people do it all the time with novels, and in the past, radio plays, stage theatre, etc. Movies are no different. When a movie is adapted from another movie, most people call that a remake. No you can't according to definition and most people are idiots... as a suggestion for your site, how about instead of alternating green and black, you have alternating green and some other non-black color so that the quote boxes stand out from the background. this site is pretty good for creating a unique color scheme: www.degraeve.com/color-palette/index.php?q=httpIt's actually pretty neat: what you do, is you point it to a picture that you like, and it generates a scheme based on that picture. Duely noted and taken under advisement... |
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 5, 2006 15:20:16 GMT -5
N2NOther:
Maybe you should pay more attention to who you're responding to and about...I'll walk you through it seeing as how you apparently need it:
tibber:
"That guy" is me...the focus is on me...
Shoulder-Devil666:
Still on me...
tibber:
Yep,me still...which is what you responded to with:
I'll bet your dad would be pretty glad he's dead so he wouldn't have to witness first hand how fucking retarded his son has become as to address the wrong person in response to quotes directed at somebody else AND bringing in homosexuality as a means to cover up his mistake in reading that wouldn't even be made by a middle school student...and I see you didn't even bother to deny or remotly address any of that quote of mine that shows how full of shit you are in your argument about remakes,so I guess I'm to conclude you can't...but then,I already knew this...
And I really don't care if my mom is proud of me or not,seeing as how I've disowned her for being one of the stupidest,most irresponsible,and most eratic cunts I've ever had to deal with...so that clockwork last retort isn't gonna work on me...
|
|
|
|
Post by pureevilmatt on Dec 5, 2006 15:48:20 GMT -5
Wikipedia illustrates the process I was talking about with those 2 works. I wasn't citing it as evidence of anything, just as an example of what I'm talking about. Second of all,the two seperate finished products are both in the litterary form...therefore their form is no different,therefore NOT adaptation...written word is still written word no matter the lengh or the medium used to do it...calling it by a new title won't change the source material used either...it's a rewrite to make the story longer...nothing more... Even though it has been rewritten, they're certainly not "rewrites" or revisions, since we're dealing with two seaparate and clearly different finished products. Which brings me back to my question from before... if they're not Adaptations then what are they? |
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 5, 2006 18:19:19 GMT -5
Wikipedia illustrates the process I was talking about with those 2 works. I wasn't citing it as evidence of anything, just as an example of what I'm talking about. Using examples to show what you're talking about in an argument IS a method of evidence to support what you're talking about...I seriously can't believe I have to clarify this...just like in the legal system,theres good solid evidence and then theres bad evidence that can easily have holes poked through them...your example from Wiki falls into the latter catagory because Wiki articles can be altered by anybody,even the stupid...like THIS for example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ThingEven though it has been rewritten, they're certainly not "rewrites" or revisions, since we're dealing with two seaparate and clearly different finished products. Which brings me back to my question from before... if they're not Adaptations then what are they? The finished products are both in the form of published written word AKA published literature...if the second longer/shorter versions weren't,you'd have a point...but since they are,you don't and they're rewrites... |
|
|
|
Post by pureevilmatt on Dec 5, 2006 19:24:54 GMT -5
Even though it has been rewritten, they're certainly not "rewrites" or revisions, since we're dealing with two seaparate and clearly different finished products. Which brings me back to my question from before... if they're not Adaptations then what are they? The finished products are both in the form of published written word AKA published literature...if the second longer/shorter versions weren't,you'd have a point...but since they are,you don't and they're rewrites... Okay, so you want to call them "rewrites"... let's call movies that follow a similar process "refilms". |
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 5, 2006 22:11:35 GMT -5
Okay, so you want to call them "rewrites"... let's call movies that follow a similar process "refilms". Or better yet,remakes...that is assuming the film being remade has never been in any other form of fictional artistic expression before the intial film was made... |
|
|
|
Post by pureevilmatt on Dec 6, 2006 3:07:57 GMT -5
Okay, so you want to call them "rewrites"... let's call movies that follow a similar process "refilms". Or better yet,remakes...that is assuming the film being remade has never been in any other form of fictional artistic expression before the intial film was made... hahaha, soooo damn close. but oh well. i don't think we're ever gonna agree on the terminology so long as we're stuck on the meaning of the word "form" in the definition of adaptation. but as long as people agree that van sant's psycho is based on hitchcock's psycho which is in turn based on bloch's psycho... i couldn't care a less if they choose to call it an Adaptation or a Remake... so long as they are aware of the hierarchy of it's sources. As for the John Carpenter's "The Thing", I'd say it's ~75% based on "Who goes there", and ~25% based on "The Thing from another world." Does that make it a remake or an adapation? I no longer care. |
|
