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.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
To 3D or Not to 3D? That is the question!
WE'RE BACK....so I have finally got my affairs in order enough to post again. I thank those who stuck with us here at Reel Geekz and hope we can win back those who may have lost interest.
So lets get right to the point...so 3D is here! It started officially with the release of Avatar which was filmed with a special camera as to give it a sense of depth, and has now expanded to the newly released 3DTV's and a slew of other movies. However, is the technology really that good? Well, that is a bit of a yes and no answer.
A recent visit to a local Futureshop that had a Samsung 3DTV on display was an eye opening experience. The picture is incredible. Media designed specifically for 3D is smooth and crisp and literally appears to jump off the screen. The TV even has a mode that will convert your favourite 2D TV shows into 3D. Imagine Baywatch in 3D??? eh??? I know the scene you are picturing too. Pam Anderson or the Hoff running in glorious slow motion 3D. Sorry, I digress. True you have to wear special glasses in order to see the 3D effects and these can give some a slight headache (yours truly included), but incredible none-the-less. When combined with movies such as Avatar makes for a truly amazing viewing experience.
However, the problem arises when other movies try to capitalize on the 3D phenomenon that were never originally in 3D. Take Clash of the Titans for example. The movie was filmed in traditional 2D with 2D effects and were never originally meant to be in 3D as the Director felt the technology was too expensive. However after witnessing the conversion process, felt the 3D enhanced the look of the film and the movie was converted for theaters. I am here however to humbly disagree with the Director. There are many points in the movie where the film looks better when you take the glasses off. Whenever something passes between the main subject and the viewer, you loss your focus for a moment. This is particularly bad during the movies many fight scenes...in fact, it is so bad that sometimes you cannot tell who is winning until the very end. Furthermore, the glasses have a slight tint and darkens the film noticeably.
Overall, I saw if you are interested in seeing this 3D craze, then go see the movie. It is still an enjoyable movie that differs much however, from the original AND the source material. As more movies come out that are filmed in 3D, my opinion may change but right now I think a great 2D movie is far better than a mediocre 3D.
So lets get right to the point...so 3D is here! It started officially with the release of Avatar which was filmed with a special camera as to give it a sense of depth, and has now expanded to the newly released 3DTV's and a slew of other movies. However, is the technology really that good? Well, that is a bit of a yes and no answer.
A recent visit to a local Futureshop that had a Samsung 3DTV on display was an eye opening experience. The picture is incredible. Media designed specifically for 3D is smooth and crisp and literally appears to jump off the screen. The TV even has a mode that will convert your favourite 2D TV shows into 3D. Imagine Baywatch in 3D??? eh??? I know the scene you are picturing too. Pam Anderson or the Hoff running in glorious slow motion 3D. Sorry, I digress. True you have to wear special glasses in order to see the 3D effects and these can give some a slight headache (yours truly included), but incredible none-the-less. When combined with movies such as Avatar makes for a truly amazing viewing experience.
However, the problem arises when other movies try to capitalize on the 3D phenomenon that were never originally in 3D. Take Clash of the Titans for example. The movie was filmed in traditional 2D with 2D effects and were never originally meant to be in 3D as the Director felt the technology was too expensive. However after witnessing the conversion process, felt the 3D enhanced the look of the film and the movie was converted for theaters. I am here however to humbly disagree with the Director. There are many points in the movie where the film looks better when you take the glasses off. Whenever something passes between the main subject and the viewer, you loss your focus for a moment. This is particularly bad during the movies many fight scenes...in fact, it is so bad that sometimes you cannot tell who is winning until the very end. Furthermore, the glasses have a slight tint and darkens the film noticeably.
Overall, I saw if you are interested in seeing this 3D craze, then go see the movie. It is still an enjoyable movie that differs much however, from the original AND the source material. As more movies come out that are filmed in 3D, my opinion may change but right now I think a great 2D movie is far better than a mediocre 3D.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Site Changes
Hello all readers,
So I know I haven't posted anything for a while and I apologize but life is making it hard to keep up with he pace I set for myself when I created this blog. My goal is to post something by the weekend and then make a post a week instead of three.
I there is anyone interested in being a writer with me please let me know. Maybe as a team or small group we can produce a steady flow of material and expand our reader base together. Not that I don't appreciate each and every one of you already following the blog from the beginning. THANK YOU EVERYONE!
Anyway, heading to bed after a long night shift. I'll have something posted shortly, I promise.
So I know I haven't posted anything for a while and I apologize but life is making it hard to keep up with he pace I set for myself when I created this blog. My goal is to post something by the weekend and then make a post a week instead of three.
I there is anyone interested in being a writer with me please let me know. Maybe as a team or small group we can produce a steady flow of material and expand our reader base together. Not that I don't appreciate each and every one of you already following the blog from the beginning. THANK YOU EVERYONE!
Anyway, heading to bed after a long night shift. I'll have something posted shortly, I promise.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
DVD, HD and Blu-Ray...oh my!
So, you may be asking yourself "Self..what is the difference between my current DVD's and the new HD format disc?" Go ahead, I'll wait for you to ask.
Finished? Good, okay well I happen to have found the answer. In the new world of HD digital media there were two main formats produced: the failed HD-DVD and the champion the Blu-ray disc. Described in this post is what makes the formats different from regular DVD's and from each other. We will also discuss why the Blu-ray media format won the HD format war.
The Basics
So, if you've ever seen inside a CD or DVD player you will know that there is a little red laser that reads little pits on the surface of the disc. In the case of rewritable media, the pits are replaced by burn marks (hence, burning a disc!). The laser of a CD driver has a wavelength of 780 nanometers (nm) and general use recordable DVD is 640 nm. The CD laser reads the pits/burns as 1's and 0's, or binary and translates that to the information the computer displays or the stereo projects. The need for a new HD format was answers by Sony and Toshiba. Sony created the Blu-ray and Toshiba created the HD-DVD. The main difference between regular DVD/CD's and HD media is the type laser used. HD media use a blue laser with a smaller wavelength, 405 nm to be exact. This means that smaller pits can be used since the laser is smaller and more information can be saved. However, both HD-DVD's and Blu-rays discs use the same 405 nm blue laser. If this is true, what should you ask, is the difference between the two? Furthermore, why did Blu-ray win over HD-DVD? Good questions, you ask and I'll wait right here.
Good to go? Okay, lets continue.
The Difference
The distinguishing difference between these two formats is the coating on the disc. HD-DVD's have the same coating as regular DVD's. The coating is 0.6 mm thick and allows the HD-DVD to focus at a certain length close to the surface and record so much information. The coating of a Blu-ray disc is 0.1 mm thick and allows for a longer focus length and therefore store more layers of information. In the end, Blu-ray won the format war because it could store more information, the production methods were new and the technology to record them was not available to the public (which would limit the ability of criminals to pirate the media) and with the adoption of the format into the Sony PS3, the backing of several prominent movie companies and Disney pushed the market in Sony's favour. The War was over.
Finished? Good, okay well I happen to have found the answer. In the new world of HD digital media there were two main formats produced: the failed HD-DVD and the champion the Blu-ray disc. Described in this post is what makes the formats different from regular DVD's and from each other. We will also discuss why the Blu-ray media format won the HD format war.
The Basics
So, if you've ever seen inside a CD or DVD player you will know that there is a little red laser that reads little pits on the surface of the disc. In the case of rewritable media, the pits are replaced by burn marks (hence, burning a disc!). The laser of a CD driver has a wavelength of 780 nanometers (nm) and general use recordable DVD is 640 nm. The CD laser reads the pits/burns as 1's and 0's, or binary and translates that to the information the computer displays or the stereo projects. The need for a new HD format was answers by Sony and Toshiba. Sony created the Blu-ray and Toshiba created the HD-DVD. The main difference between regular DVD/CD's and HD media is the type laser used. HD media use a blue laser with a smaller wavelength, 405 nm to be exact. This means that smaller pits can be used since the laser is smaller and more information can be saved. However, both HD-DVD's and Blu-rays discs use the same 405 nm blue laser. If this is true, what should you ask, is the difference between the two? Furthermore, why did Blu-ray win over HD-DVD? Good questions, you ask and I'll wait right here.
Good to go? Okay, lets continue.
The Difference
The distinguishing difference between these two formats is the coating on the disc. HD-DVD's have the same coating as regular DVD's. The coating is 0.6 mm thick and allows the HD-DVD to focus at a certain length close to the surface and record so much information. The coating of a Blu-ray disc is 0.1 mm thick and allows for a longer focus length and therefore store more layers of information. In the end, Blu-ray won the format war because it could store more information, the production methods were new and the technology to record them was not available to the public (which would limit the ability of criminals to pirate the media) and with the adoption of the format into the Sony PS3, the backing of several prominent movie companies and Disney pushed the market in Sony's favour. The War was over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)