Crowded Caribou
Registered
We see a lot of movies that are inspired by other media sources, however we always see movies get portrayed differently than its original source. The directors/writers always claim it’s so they can appeal to a wider audience. This seems so asinine cause you already have a solid audience that likes the story as it is, why change it? Does leaving the story/movie as is not gain enough appeal? Is there any truth behind this?
So, has there ever been any movies that suffered because of their accuracy to their original source?
The only one I somewhat think of is Twilight. Kristen Stewart and Robert Patterson get a lot of flack for their portrayals of Belle Swan and Edward Cullen, especially Kristen. People said Kristen was emotionless and had zero expressions. However, that was literally how the character is and Kristen portrayed the character perfectly. It’s just a bad character. I can’t really call this a good example though cause it’s really only the actors that suffered as the franchise was very successful and got four movies and were a cultural phenomenon for a time. So it didn’t really suffer for being “too accurate.”
submitted by /u/MrIrishman1212
[link] [comments]
Continue reading...
So, has there ever been any movies that suffered because of their accuracy to their original source?
The only one I somewhat think of is Twilight. Kristen Stewart and Robert Patterson get a lot of flack for their portrayals of Belle Swan and Edward Cullen, especially Kristen. People said Kristen was emotionless and had zero expressions. However, that was literally how the character is and Kristen portrayed the character perfectly. It’s just a bad character. I can’t really call this a good example though cause it’s really only the actors that suffered as the franchise was very successful and got four movies and were a cultural phenomenon for a time. So it didn’t really suffer for being “too accurate.”
submitted by /u/MrIrishman1212
[link] [comments]
Continue reading...
