PLEASE DON'T GIVE UP ON THE SEQUELS
This was not a bad film, just came out at the wrong time. I think the sequels have a chance, please ptb, don't give up on them.
shareToo much was changed so any sequels have to be vastly changed from the source material, just to connect with the first one. Look at Percy Jackson.
I would always rather be happy than dignified.
Percy jackson actually did a great job with fixing its material for the sequel. The remaining movies can actually follow the books fairly closely minus the age. I personally found it had better continuity than the Harry Potter films, of which I am actually surprised more people are not angry at them for changing so much in the Potters.
sharePercy jackson actually did a great job with fixing its material for the sequel.
I find that hard to believe since there were still complaints, plot holes and inconsistencies in regards to the book AND the first movie.
I would always rather be happy than dignified. share
I find that hard to believe since there were still complaints, plot holes and inconsistencies in regards to the book AND the first movie.
Would you please explain what those plot holes and inconstancies were? Here is how they fixed it:
They made Annabeth a blond (which if you look closely when she is younger is a cross of blond and dark hair, so you could argue that she dyed her hair to either colour or that it became black with her deciding to go back to blond).
They made Chiron much more like he is in the books, which you could say he calmed down and matured from his roughness in the first movie.
Camp Half blood was not anywhere near as noticeably different as Hogwarts from PS/ss & Cos to POA. The Entrence even looked the same and kept the Minotaur out like the Cyclopes in both films (though the shield did look different but you could say that the magic was starting to fade over time and it may be different to humans than it is to monsters, as per Sally trying to get in).
Luke did NOT die! I am personally tired of explaining this and am quite ashamed that people have not thought more critically about this, considering how much they apparently "know" and "love" the books. Would they REALLY kill off such a big character also considering that he is contracted for three films like Logan, Alex and Brandon? They showed a close up of his face which looked ambiguous meaning that like the 1st if there is no sequel then u can write off that he did die, or if there is he can just escape. If you have read the books, then you should know that Luke would not die or give up that easily. Most thought he died in LT's movie, so y can he not escape here?
Kronos was only HALF resurrected, hence him in the process of forming. If you interrupt the download of a program online, for example, then it can be easily deleted just like that. Same principle here. More to the point, film is SHOW, don't tell, this is what Luke was trying to do, so in the sense of telling a stand alone movie, then they show an example of the consequences giving all that they got in telling what is relevant to the story as PErcy faces the potential ultimate consequence and is able to confront his insecurity of destiny through it. If he can stand up to the most evil of all time, then he can stand up to whatever life throws at him. This was more in line with the morals of the books than in the actual book itself. As well, they can reface Kronos again in a different form. How many times have they fought Voldemort in the Harry Potter movies? In next to ALL of the movies, each time in a different form or style. Kronos does appear in a different form in the books and per the last shot of the movie and Luke's determination, like Arnold says, he will be back
With Tyson coming back, I do agree that that part was lame but one could argue that although Sea of Monsters was outside of Poseiden's domain, Tyson is a cyclops so therefore Poseiden may have control over monsters there or since Tyson is a cyclops, whoever does own the sea of monsters either took pity on him/his blood enabled him to survive longer where he possibly drifted out to Posiedan's actual domain and came back through there, hence him taking some time to get back to them.
With Poly's eye problem, like IMDB says here on this site, maybe thats not uncommon for adult cyclops's eyes to be that way/different from human injuries/works different on monsters than on people (it worked on the tree because she was technically still half human, only frozen) As well, like he says in the movie he was so hungry that he became blind. Hunger is not injury, its the need of nutrients and healing as the Fleece heals, not fulfills what the body needs from energy.
Aging the prophecy up makes a lot more sense. 20 is the age where there is no more teenager and is truly the age of being an adult hence the turning point for when the demi god children will make significant decisions. 16 is so cliched and overused , I mean its the age of driver's licence, the age of apparition in Hp, the age where one can drop out of school, etc. Its nice to see the movie as its own thing, which most people who haven't read the books will see as just a Hp rip off.
You do not need all of this set up for the remaining books. They can easily reintroduce elements like Clarisse in Som fine. books and movies WILL NEVER b the exact same. What I personally do not get is y people r fine with them completely changing the story for comic book movies, going so far as to the first X-Men film being considered (one of) the best, and being its own original story, with its sequels following the comics more closely, but not for novels when there is a lot of potential with doing that. They can create a movie that follows the main plot of the books, while being its own thing overall. Percy jackson has so far been that and while it can b better, there is every bit the opportunity that it can follow the remaining books quite closely with the age being the only major difference.
I am actually working on a script for Titan's Curses' movie, and think that you should give it a chance and see what I have to say with it. share
I can't make comparisons since I'm not into the Percy Jackson fandom, I'm only telling you what I heard.
books and movies WILL NEVER b the exact same. What I personally do not get is y people r fine with them completely changing the story for comic book movies, going so far as to the first X-Men film being considered (one of) the best, and being its own original story, with its sequels following the comics more closely, but not for novels when there is a lot of potential with doing that.
Yes, they will never be exactly the same, word-for-word, scene-for-scene but that does not mean they should change things and add pointless scenes. I have seen this excuse constantly and I see it as a cop out to why they can't keep scenes from the book but have no problem adding pointless scenes.
I am actually working on a script for Titan's Curses' movie, and think that you should give it a chance and see what I have to say with it.
I don't get how. It's alright been said by Logan Lerman that there will be no more Percy Jackson films and the actors are already too old looking. And as I've said, I'm not into Percy Jackson so what does your script matter to me?
I would always rather be happy than dignified. share
I can't make comparisons since I'm not into the Percy Jackson fandom, I'm only telling you what I heard.
As u r not a fan, you should have stated that from the get go. In either case you have no authority to make this statement because you have not experienced it, and may in fact be wrong. Its reasonable that u r going by what u have heard, but it may not in fact be true. In any case it is hoped that you can at least share what i have said here to those fans for them to at least consider.
Yes, they will never be exactly the same, word-for-word, scene-for-scene but that does not mean they should change things and add pointless scenes. I have seen this excuse constantly and I see it as a cop out to why they can't keep scenes from the book but have no problem adding pointless scenes.
Some scenes just do not make sense on film. As SoM screenwriter Marc Guggenhiem said in an interview here: http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2013/08/09/marc-guggenheim-reset s-the-board-for-percy-jackson-sea-of-monsters/ the empathy link between Percy and Grover for example just does not make sense, or rather is another factor that is waaay too similar to the Hp films.
And would u care to give me some examples of "pointless" scenes you've seen in book adaptation films if it would not be too much to ask.
Heck, I have found that several books had pointless scenes themselves, like the fact that it takes 30 pages to describe Saphira's entrance into the Varden in the Eragon book. Say what you will about the Eragon movie, but we do not need all of that dull detail. Plus, y does next to EVERY chapter in that book have to end with them sparring? It gets sooooo boring and repetitive. I get that it is part of Eragon's training, but you can just write it off as saying that they frequently trained in the narration, no need to bore us with the chapters repeatedly ending all the same.
I don't get how. It's alright been said by Logan Lerman that there will be no more Percy Jackson films and the actors are already too old looking. And as I've said, I'm not into Percy Jackson so what does your script matter to me?
Logan actually later retracted his statement, stating that his report was "taken out of context" and that a third movie could still go ahead: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/noah-star-l ogan-lerman-percy-jackson-3-could-still-happen-9226407.html
About you not into Percy Jackson, well how was i supposed to know that until you said that in the same comment that you first told me about it? Even if you do not like it u can still give me feedback as to how to make it better as a movie in general, which is my goal. I want to make it accessible to those who have not seen the first two, kind of like PoA for the Hp series of which i'd like to point out, was when many considered the Hp series to officially begin. Many PJ fans have stated that the TC book is what got them into the series in the first place, or rather, as Riordan stated, where it "really kicked off". share
In either case you have no authority to make this statement because you have not experienced it, and may in fact be wrong. Its reasonable that u r going by what u have heard, but it may not in fact be true. In any case it is hoped that you can at least share what i have said here to those fans for them to at least consider.
If a majority of the fanbase thinks the same thing, It's fact. Just like a majority of fans thought Vampire Academy was terrible and it failed miserably, I agree with them and I have read ALL the VA books prior.
Some scenes just do not make sense on film.
Marc Guggenheim: He’s off on a quest to find the Golden Fleece, and he only interacts with Percy via this telepathic connection that the two of them have. That’s something that can really only work in a novel. It’s very hard to make that work in a motion picture.
1. A telepathy link CAN work in motion picture, That was one of the few things Vampire Academy got right. The Host also did a good job of a alien still being able to talk to the human whose body she was preoccupying. He sounds like he didn't even try to make it work.
2. Also according to the interview, he deviated for the sake of deviating.
In a way, I'd agree. But there are times that things CAN work with a little effort instead of just giving up on the spot.
And would u care to give me some examples of "pointless" scenes you've seen in book adaptation films if it would not be too much to ask.
Twilight made pointless changes like Jacob telling Bella only a little about the Cullens and her figuring out the rest from a few words in a book, "Cold Ones." What was the point of the book if she was just gonna read two measly words?
Vampire Academy was pointless with the stupid Stiogoi dream scene since it was nothing more than shock value and as if we didn't get enough of Strigoi so far at that point, Dimitri kicking a piece of ceiling molding at Victor to stop him? Not only was that pointless, it was hilariously bad. Having Natalie licking the wall or going on about how she wants Ray, again, is pointless. I thought that the whole Rose trying to found out about Ms. Karp would be an okay change but when I saw the movie, I realized it was super pointless and dragging endlessly and It made Rose come off as dumb compared to the book.
I also didn't understand the point of changing that the accident was one year ago and that Rose and Lissa were on the run another year after. I thought they were in hiding for two years. Also why did Dimitri beat up his Moroi dad when he was ten when he was actually thirteen? POINTLESS.
Heck, I have found that several books had pointless scenes themselves, like the fact that it takes 30 pages to describe Saphira's entrance into the Varden in the Eragon book.
Author Richelle Mead also acknowledged that there were scenes in the VA series that she was surprised didn't get cut by the editor such as the Christian making Bread (or was it Meatloaf?) scene.
Eragon has other problems besides that or so I've heard.
About you not into Percy Jackson, well how was i supposed to know that until you said that in the same comment that you first told me about it?
You never asked, since I give no indication about whether or not I was a Percy Jackson fan, you could have, at least, asked.
I would always rather be happy than dignified. share
If a majority of the fanbase thinks the same thing, It's fact. Just like a majority of fans thought Vampire Academy was terrible and it failed miserably, I agree with them and I have read ALL the VA books prior
Not to cause a bigger russ, but a majority of something can be wrong. Your point is nevertheless valid, but have you considered my points in my original response and thought y others have not thought of them? If u can, please show my initial reply to any of these fans and consider their reaction. I dunno if it is just me, but quite frankly, i am noticing a lot of people on this site and in my real life always jumping to negative conclusions without really thinking/ considering things in a positive light.
Another user on a different site replied to me and said that "this is the world we live in". I for one do not want to live my life/live in a world always jumping to the negative side without at least critically thinking about the situation and looking at it in a positive way. The re two sides (positive and negative) to EVERYTHING that happens in the world, they will always coexist.; it is in the eye of the beholder to decide which side they chose.
Going back to my point about the majority being wrong, well the majority thought that the original Star Wars was going to flop and all but one turned down the chance to distribute it. Same with the publishers for Harry Potter, of which 12 turned down JK Rowling b4 she finally got it published. Most originally thought Blade Runner, Wizrd of Oz, etc originally sucked/they failed miserably and then they became HUGE cult classics over time, now considered to be the among the greatest movies ever made.
The Dark aka Negative side does not always rule my friend. You r also aware that most thought the blacks and women had to be treated a certain way b4 Martin Luther King's speech/ they become official "people". Like I said your point is very valid and makes perfect sense, but it is also as equally falsified. You cannot assume that others, even the main majority, are always right.
1. A telepathy link CAN work in motion picture, That was one of the few things Vampire Academy got right. The Host also did a good job of a alien still being able to talk to the human whose body she was preoccupying. He sounds like he didn't even try to make it work.
2. Also according to the interview, he deviated for the sake of deviating.
In a way, I'd agree. But there are times that things CAN work with a little effort instead of just giving up on the spot.
Once again you make a good point but also (with all due respect) fail to see a very difficult to see loophole(s):
For the record, SoM made a LOT more money than those other two films of which, like he said, may have been TOO loyal to the book, hence their failure. Like I have also said, the empathy link was already used in the later Harry Potters. Cut Percy some slack for wanting to be its own thing instead of just copying other book adaptations, of which those other two films mentioned were actually heavily criticized for, which also lead to their box office demise.
He also makes a very reasonable point in that Grover is missing for most of the film. This is actually a reason why they cut next to all the memories from the HBP, movie, as otherwise that woulda meant having to cut Ron, Hermione and essentially all of the Hogwarts stuff from the movie in order to make a reasonable film length. As this was the last Hp film to REALLY feature Hogwarts, and it is characters that make films work/so beloved, then this made sense. Its the same here, plus quite frankly the link thing does not really make a lot of sense/is so cliched and overused. Like u said, it CAN work, but maybe it should not b worked in.
I do agree that u can argue that they coulda tried to make it work, but I can not really see it working in the structure of a film. The interview does not necessarily dictate that he deviated for the sake of it, he was merely trying to make it work as a film, also catering to those who r perhaps not familiar with this work which is what sequels SHOULD b doing, in trying to make each film stand on its own and have all of its efforts put out to make the story work as if it were the first and last instalment in a series. Even if they cut things out, they can just reintroduce them later like how they easily reintroduced Bill and Mundungus in DH1 without previous introduction. Having read the books, I find the empathy link can easily be replaced by other things, and more to the point, the movies should b their own thing, offering up a new version of the story while keeping the essence of it like he said in the interview. Have u and the fans ever considered that maybe the books r perhaps not that good, due in part because they copy way too much off of other books/mediums? Lets look at how many times the empathy link has been used b4:
- Harry Potter
- Star Wars
- VA
- The Host (sort of, like you said)
- Flash Gordon
- Star Trek
- Fringe
- The Golden Compass/His Dark Materials
And the list goes on and on. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PsychicLink
Also, about your comment on " giving up on the spot", well it occurs to me that the fans seem to be giving up on the spot in the hope that the movies can only get better/that the movies can actually b considered good. b4 I go into your comments on Vampire Academy, have you actually thought critically about WHY they were changed, if they REALLY r that pointless, if it even MATTERS that it is different? All of these changes and YES i have read the books of all of these adaptations mentioned, do not change the story/add pointless things anymore than:
- Michael Gambon's Dumbledore being such an ass hole in his Hp movies (pointlessly tapping Ron's damaged leg in the hospital wing, slamming Harry against the wall, yelling at his students, etc.). He is supposed to be the same character from the first two movies, and the Dumbledore I know from those movies would NEVER Do any of those mentioned things. Its also sad considering that the original Dumbledore was the Hp movie producer's godfather. What a great way to honour his memory.
- Another, albeit minor , character named Tom acting so oddly (his laugh at Fudge anyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3_4YY_sQG0 )
- Hogwarts all of a sudden being changed, also pointlessly.
- Padma PAtil now in Gryffindor instead of Ravenclaw,
- Many inconstancies in the plot like Ron and Ginny suddenly being on the Quidditch team in HBP with no previous mention of it in the other films.
All of the above pertaining to Hp. Look at how successful and beloved they turned out despite all of this. Y can fans accept these atrocities and not the changes made here? Or rather, what is the difference between them? They were all quite different from the book and yet they flowed (for the most part) through smoothly. I apologize if this downs like I am contracting my views as I am trying to state not just what my views r, but the views of others, even if they r wrong/at least disagree with me.
[Twilight made pointless changes like Jacob telling Bella only a little about the Cullens and her figuring out the rest from a few words in a book, "Cold Ones." What was the point of the book if she was just gonna read two measly words?
Vampire Academy was pointless with the stupid Stiogoi dream scene since it was nothing more than shock value and as if we didn't get enough of Strigoi so far at that point, Dimitri kicking a piece of ceiling molding at Victor to stop him? Not only was that pointless, it was hilariously bad. Having Natalie licking the wall or going on about how she wants Ray, again, is pointless. I thought that the whole Rose trying to found out about Ms. Karp would be an okay change but when I saw the movie, I realized it was super pointless and dragging endlessly and It made Rose come off as dumb compared to the book.
I also didn't understand the point of changing that the accident was one year ago and that Rose and Lissa were on the run another year after. I thought they were in hiding for two years. Also why did Dimitri beat up his Moroi dad when he was ten when he was actually thirteen? POINTLESS. [quote]
1) How is that pointless? As memory serves that/something similar happened in the book. If nothing else it shows what can happen with researching,/making connections among things and made for a very informative sequence. As well, would u/Bella REALLY believe/jump to such a conclusion from just being TOLD that? There needs to be more evidence than it just being a local legend.
Having learned all of that from Jacob would have just made for a very clunky and fast sequence that would have ruined the flow and structure of the film. The research part is a great visual representation of the discovery of the Vampire world. Very contemporary too may I add. Jacob is actually not supposed to actually be saying ANYTHING about the supernatural world anyways, so it makes it more realistic and relatable, again adding on a mystery element that proceeds the story along
2) The Strogi scene was actually a great visual repsentatin of the fear and main conflict of the film, on a par with Woody's nightmare in Toy Story 2. It was so unpredictable the first time you see it, very cinematic of the fears and thoughts of the characters.
How was Dimitri kicking the piece of mould pointless? Its part of the battle and action, would u not do the same if u were in that situation to distract him?
Natatlie talking about Ray is HER story, her role in the movie, what she wants, it is a high school/ teen movie after all. And here you complain that some things that have worked b4 were cut. She had to lick the wall to find out what kind of vampires they were.
How is Rose dumb for trying to find Ms. Karp, a weird, mysterious teacher who kept popping up, and who would very well represent what could happen to Rose herself or Lissa.
Changing the timeline and age has no effect on the story. making the age younger just shows how good of a warrior Dimitri is, and I mean its kinda pointless that he waited till he was older if he knew his dad was sooo bad right? Them being on the run for a long time makes more sense as it adds more weight to them not wanting to b back there and them being wanted to be found.
[quote]Author Richelle Mead also acknowledged that there were scenes in the VA series that she was surprised didn't get cut by the editor such as the Christian making Bread (or was it Meatloaf?) scene.
Eragon has other problems besides that or so I've heard.
I have no idea what scene you are talking about. Having seen VA many times, I do not remember that scene at all.
[You never asked, since I give no indication about whether or not I was a Percy Jackson fan, you could have, at least, asked.
Despite my argument against you, once again you are right in that I should have asked you in the first place. I do not seek out for u to b an enemy of mine I am merely stating what I know is right just as what u r doing. :) If you wish, I would appreciate ur feedback in my script (whenever it gets done) as well as feedback on my views and comments, if possible sharing them with fans/ others that have mutual opinions.
Thank yu for replying and have a great day share
How was Dimitri kicking the piece of mould pointless? Its part of the battle and action, would u not do the same if u were in that situation to distract him?
He is a Guardian and he shouldn't be relying on ceiling molding to help in battle. Besides, he didn't even need it anyways, Also the fact that Rose, a NOVICE had to help him kill Natalie also looks pretty bad since he isn't as flawless a Guardian as he is suppose to be in the books.
Changing the timeline and age has no effect on the story. making the age younger just shows how good of a warrior Dimitri is, and I mean its kinda pointless that he waited till he was older if he knew his dad was sooo bad right?
No, it makes him look like a Gary Stu and like Natalie, they are trying way too hard to show us that he's a supposed big, bad super-mega awesome Guardian yet he needs help from a ceiling and a novice? That's pretty bad inconsistency.
Natatlie talking about Ray is HER story, her role in the movie, what she wants, it is a high school/ teen movie after all. And here you complain that some things that have worked b4 were cut. She had to lick the wall to find out what kind of vampires they were.
This isn't even Natalie's story, it's ROSE AND LISSA'S story. Natalie is nothing more than a character who serves her purpose and then is killed off, nothing more.
What does licking the wall even matter, anyways? Mason finds out who did it WITHOUT licking a wall. So yes, it's completely pointless in the end.
The fact that they tried to flesh her out and hammed her up pretty much gave away what would happen to her later in the movie. People even figured it out just by the dance picture of her, Lissa and Rose. If people can figure everything out from a simple picture then you failed very badly as a filmmaker.
I have no idea what scene you are talking about. Having seen VA many times, I do not remember that scene at all.
I'm talking about the books, In Shadow Kiss, Rose is assigned to protecting Christian instead of Lissa and she was with him while he was in Home Ec? making Meatloaf and Richelle mentioned how she was surprised that it didn't get cut from the book.
Whenever people get upset about humor in the VA movie, I always think, "Do you not remember that there's a whole scene in Shadow Kiss revolving around a vampire making bacon-wrapped meatloaf?" Honestly, I'm kind of surprised my editor originally let this stay in the book, but I'm so glad it did.
Source: http://blue-succubus.livejournal.com/318418.html
She's also wrong about the humor, I might add. I don't recall Rose's dialogue being nothing but wisecracks so she really missed the point, sadly. A vampire making Meatloaf is a visual humor. The movie didn't do well with visual humor.
I would always rather be happy than dignified. share