spider-bot on 25/6/2007 at 12:38
I'd like to read the screenplay too, please send it to: [email]spiderswebofdust@hotmail.fr[/email]
Beleg Cúthalion on 25/6/2007 at 13:43
What thrilled me in Thief were neither zombies nor burricks or magicians. It was rather a dirty setting (or at least a characteristical one) and (distinctive) persons acting in it, plus elements that rather whispered than shouted what they are (to quote this from Jordan Thomas). I never said I'd like the history to be ostensible but you sometimes give me the impression that you would recognize an authentic coat and suddenly hit the roof because you think it sucks. Additionally, I don't think the only result of creativity is to invent monsters and even more monsters and last but not least light sabres wielded by monsters....to blow it a little out of proportions.
I am curious about the opinions of all the others who read the script.
Doc_Brown on 25/6/2007 at 14:23
I tend to agree with Jackablade's analysis. Though like I said, my main issue is with the direct vs loose adaption issue, which is a much broader subject.
Maddermadcat on 26/6/2007 at 00:53
I'd love to read the screenplay too. [email]Maddermadcat@gmail.com[/email].
crazy jon on 26/6/2007 at 01:37
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
What thrilled me in Thief were neither zombies nor burricks or magicians. It was rather a dirty setting (or at least a characteristical one) and (distinctive) persons acting in it, plus elements that
rather whispered than shouted what they are (to quote this from Jordan Thomas). I never said I'd like the history to be ostensible but you sometimes give me the impression that you would recognize an authentic coat and suddenly hit the roof because you think it sucks. Additionally, I don't think the only result of creativity is to invent monsters and even more monsters and last but not least light sabres wielded by monsters....to blow it a little out of proportions.
I am curious about the opinions of all the others who read the script.
No, the problem is that some try to pass a script off on the sole basis that it's historically accurate. Forget story, forget characters or anything remotely interesting, it's just historically accurate. That's a tool to tell a story, it's not a story in itself, and it sure as heck isn't Thief's story.
Beleg Cúthalion on 26/6/2007 at 06:35
You don't think adding historical elements (the so-called "props") would change the story, do you? I hope not, at least most of the time this is something that has nothing to do with the script, save for some social constructions maybe. This idea of mine is different to the other one of excluding importunate fantasy things like the monsters and (too much) magic.
CD Set on 26/6/2007 at 20:29
Ok so I've read through the entire thing now, and I must say, I found it quite entertaining. Like many other movies based on video games it had this specific feeling to it, like you could tell it was written based on another type of media (much like fanfiction). That's not saying I didn't like it though, I could tell it was well thought-out and the fact that we saw another main character than Garrett (seeing Garrett from another POV) was also interesting.
What I didn't like was that some parts were a bit cheesy and unessesary, like they were there merely to keep the action junkies interested. Since I'm not qualified or have too much knowledge about movie making and financing though, I can't really complain. I guess the most important way to make money is to make as many people as possible happy...
crazy jon on 26/6/2007 at 23:59
which parts were you thinking of? My guilty admission is the big battle at the end. I just felt it was too obligatory. But at the same time if ever anyone would pitch this to a major movie executive they would absolutely demand some major action so they could market it similarly to LotR, Chronicles of Narnia, Pan's Labyrinth, etc.
Quote:
You don't think adding historical elements (the so-called "props") would change the story, do you?
I do in the way that filmmakers don't feel as obligated to make a great story so long as they're historically accurate. Name of the Rose is a good example of this: huge attention to historical detail but a dumb, boring, old story with uninteresting characters. Ron Pearlman's hunchback was the only one worth a second look. It's almost like they shelved the whole plot development part once production took place and just concentrated on making things accurate. That's a sin of which that filmmaker's (I forget his name) often guilty. Seven Years in Tibet was also slow and boring. I would say it ruined the movie but...what movie? It was practically a Discovery Channel documentary with Brad Pitt popping up intermittently.
jtr7 on 27/6/2007 at 04:45
I haven't dove in and read my copy yet, crazy jon. Apologies. With all the comments here, I wonder how this script might have been received if all the familiar names were simply changed. I wonder if the "loosely-based" aspect would have been understood better.
Beleg Cúthalion on 27/6/2007 at 09:12
Quote Posted by crazy jon
I do in the way that filmmakers don't feel as obligated to make a great story so long as they're historically accurate. Name of the Rose is a good example of this: huge attention to historical detail but a dumb, boring, old story with uninteresting characters.
Well, I think that is nonsense. I don't want to exclude that there might be some directors like that, but in my humble opinion it's naive to believe that these originalities belong together. Additionally, The Name of the Rose doesn't contain Eco's theoretical/philosophical elements, of course, but still I think that both characters and the way the film was made (atmosphere etc.) are great and intelligent. And I guess most of those who've seen it think the same. Am I provoking some kind of defiance reaction?
Your script reminds me more and more of VanHelsing, a movie that would have been three times better if published without spoken dialogue. There IS some atmosphere there, there IS some cool look, there IS some humor and there ARE few inidications that there might have been some depth concerning the characters. But in fact it's an almost ridiculous rollercoaster trip through monster clichés, cheap dialogues and one-dimensional persons. Plus, it was also meant to...
Quote Posted by crazy jon
[...] take the world in a different direction; try to breathe new life into it.
Don't let yourself be distracted by my little history issue, that's something that does not appear on the agenda for now. I just don't want my idea to be demonized as long as there is nothing it could really harm.
PS: I am almost sick of this "it's not a documentary" argument. I have seen few documentaries that were at least roughly historically correct. Even some movies are better. A few weeks ago I read about re-enactors that had replicas of the time the documentary was about to be and they were forced by the director to leave them out and wear grey clothes instead to fit the medieval cliché.
