Alright so I saw Iron Man 2 last night and I must say "AWESOME F'ING MOVIE". However, it does brig up a topic I want to talk about. Artistic Licensing according to Wikipedia (I know, not a great source) as "a colloquial term, sometime euphemism, used to denote the distortion of fact, alteration of the conventions of grammar or language, or rewording of pre-existing text made by an artist to improve a piece of art." Basically when a director or writer change details of something from the source material.
Recently this can be seen in the majority of comic book, novel, televisions and video game adaptations or movie remakes. Often these the details of these movies do not match the original work or are pieced together in a way that changes the overall look, feel or message of the story. I won't say exactly how this applies to Iron Man 2 as many of you reading this may not have seen it yet, but rest assured, some characters are not exactly as they were in the comics (*cough* Mickey Rourke's character). Another example is Spider-man shooting webs from his wrists. This did not happen in the comics until after the movie came out (and in fact, has since been ret-coned out of existence) and Spider-man had mechanical devices that shot the webbing from cartridges. The reason he makes the characteristic hand motion in the movie and comics is in reality based on the fact that the mechanical devices relied on a pressure button in his palm to activate. However, this is an example of good artistic licensing. Whats the difference? Let me example.
Good Artistic Licensing
This is when details are changed due to copywrite laws on the source material, to modernize a story or to make the story more believable. Such examples are Spider-man's webbing. This was done to make the story more believable as it was felt that a teenager being able to develop a substance like his webbing when the government could not was a problem. This type of licencing I am okay with as it helps the story out. However, the other side of the coin is changes made for no apparent reason or that twist the source material.
Bad Artistic Licencing
In the Transformers comics, the Matrix of Leadership is possessed by Optimus Prime as a symbol of his leadership not a key to start a machine. Or how the Allspark is transformer heaven, not an advanced jumpdrive and source of all transformers. Or in Spider-man, the character Venom speaks in the third person because it's a combination of the symbiote and the mind of Eddie Brock. However, in the movie he calls himself "I". There was no reason for these changes and I say they tend to ruin the movies for die hard fans. It could be said that changes in the source material are sometimes for the benefit of the new audience rather than die hard fans so that they can better understand whats going on or enjoy the work with no idea of the history already established. However, some changes like in Transformers or Spider-man does not make the movies any easier to follow or get into and just anger fans (like me). I am sure there are more examples of good and bad artistic licencing but right now those came to mind. If you don't have to make a change....DON'T!!! The source material is good, that is why people make them into movies!
Place a comment below if you have any other examples of good or bad licensing.
No comments:
Post a Comment