Good stories crossing boundaries, but still not appealing all the time. I've heard Bendis' Ultimate Spider-man/Parker run was great. I read a couple storylines & they were okay...but I never felt they were for me.
M
But, see, you actually tried it before you came to that conclusion. You didn't automatically write it off beforehand simply because it was targeted at new readers. If people only read books or watched movies they knew were targeted to them, and never tried anything that might fall outside of that zone, we'd just end up with tons of sequels. No one would try to create anything differ...
Wait a minute...
Actually, I only read the issues with Black Cat & Moon Knight. They were a chore to get through. Bendis' style is definitely not for me.
Definitely not going to this movie. Anytime I see the trailer, poster or pics, the thought that keeps automatically popping up in my mind is, "I don't know these people".
The Fantastic Four concept explained in one line: A family of scientific explorers who gain superpowers in their quest for knowledge, and use those powers to defend their planet while continuing to “challenge the unknown.”
This new trailer: 1) Family: check, 2) Scientific explorers: check, 3) Gain superpowers while exploring: check, 4) Defend the planet: check, 5) Continue scientific exploration: TBD.
So far so good.
Bingo! Loving the real discussion! Especially about tone. I can see the demographic here leaning to the Young Adult Reader crowd. Which isn't really the proper name since look at the crowd going to see Hunger Games. It may not be the next Hunger Games or Maze Runner but it's also not all the different than Oblivion or some other sci-fi generic movie. I'm liking it!
The "Young Adult Reader" feel is definitely a turn off for me. After watching The Girl Next Door in theatres & realizing I was one of the oldest there...by about 5-7 years, I realized I'm not in that niche anymore.
I get a similar feel for Twilight, Hunger Games, Maze Runner, ASM, & that movie series with Shailene Woodley.
I hope they all make hundreds of millions of dollars...but they just aren't for me.
M
As with all things, there's good Young Adult and bad Young Adult. The stuff you named—all based on novels, except ASM, which I'm excluding here—is derivative, contrived material that panders to its audience. (Okay, I haven't read/seen Maze Runner or Divergent, so I could be wrong about them, but their descriptions make it pretty plain.)
A good story is a good story, no matter the target audience. I feel no shame in reading/watching something labeled Young Adult if the story is worth my time.
It's a shame that it seems like most of the successful young adult film franchises are based on bland source material, but I suppose that's what appeals to Hollywood - something generic enough to appeal to a wider audience.
The concepts of Divergent and Maze Runner sound like someone just cut and pasted together something that would sell to Hollywood.
The Fantastic Four concept explained in one line: A family of scientific explorers who gain superpowers in their quest for knowledge, and use those powers to defend their planet while continuing to “challenge the unknown.”
This new trailer: 1) Family: check, 2) Scientific explorers: check, 3) Gain superpowers while exploring: check, 4) Defend the planet: check, 5) Continue scientific exploration: TBD.
So far so good.
Bingo! Loving the real discussion! Especially about tone. I can see the demographic here leaning to the Young Adult Reader crowd. Which isn't really the proper name since look at the crowd going to see Hunger Games. It may not be the next Hunger Games or Maze Runner but it's also not all the different than Oblivion or some other sci-fi generic movie. I'm liking it!
The "Young Adult Reader" feel is definitely a turn off for me. After watching The Girl Next Door in theatres & realizing I was one of the oldest there...by about 5-7 years, I realized I'm not in that niche anymore.
I get a similar feel for Twilight, Hunger Games, Maze Runner, ASM, & that movie series with Shailene Woodley.
I hope they all make hundreds of millions of dollars...but they just aren't for me.
M
As with all things, there's good Young Adult and bad Young Adult. The stuff you named—all based on novels, except ASM, which I'm excluding here—is derivative, contrived material that panders to its audience. (Okay, I haven't read/seen Maze Runner or Divergent, so I could be wrong about them, but their descriptions make it pretty plain.)
A good story is a good story, no matter the target audience. I feel no shame in reading/watching something labeled Young Adult if the story is worth my time.
It's a shame that it seems like most of the successful young adult film franchises are based on bland source material, but I suppose that's what appeals to Hollywood - something generic enough to appeal to a wider audience.
The concepts of Divergent and Maze Runner sound like someone just cut and pasted together something that would sell to Hollywood.
Exactly. The one good thing I can say about the Percy Jackson books/movies—which also fall into this category—is that they got my daughter (age 9) into mythology. She read tons of books on the subject—and not just the kids’ books. She just did a play in her AG class last week where she played Freya and Sif, and she was the only one in the class who knew who they were and what they represented.
I feel it's more about "what's hot now" when it comes to those YA books becoming movies. If they are moving units on the book level, why wouldn't they want to try in another medium? Plus, it could be the publishers shopping their books around - it can't always just be "Hollywood" that is the initial start of these projects.
I do have to laugh that some people in this thread continue to let us know they won't be seeing the movie - you know, in case we forgot after the other 4-5 times. Haha.
I feel it's more about "what's hot now" when it comes to those YA books becoming movies. If they are moving units on the book level, why wouldn't they want to try in another medium? Plus, it could be the publishers shopping their books around - it can't always just be "Hollywood" that is the initial start of these projects.
YA books and kids' books are the biggest sellers in today's book market. Hollywood likes to target that 15-25 age range because they have disposable income. Put the two together and you have a bunch of people trying to create the next Harry Potter—“Let’s see, instead of the four houses at Hogwarts, I'll have a house for each major god (see Percy Jackson), or maybe a group for each of the human virtues (see Divergent)”—rather than just focusing on telling a good story.
The sad part is that it works, just not to Harry Potter levels—though Hunger Games has come close.
But there's the thing: the YA targeted readers don't always need the books to be "good". Ya know? My oldest just wants the basic plot points and over the top drama and relationship stuff. They don't want literature. They want Dan Brown-esque page flippers. So again - regardless of Hollywood - they are just trying to capture the market. And then let it take off from there. The content doesn't have to be outstanding - that's not the point. Even in comics we read fluff. Haha.
But there's the thing: the YA targeted readers don't always need the books to be "good". Ya know? My oldest just wants the basic plot points and over the top drama and relationship stuff. They don't want literature. They want Dan Brown-esque page flippers. So again - regardless of Hollywood - they are just trying to capture the market. And then let it take off from there. The content doesn't have to be outstanding - that's not the point. Even in comics we read fluff. Haha.
You can have both. A good story and over the top drama and relationship stuff are not mutually exclusive. I don't think anyone would classify Harry Potter as literature, but it is a good story, and it's got plenty of drama and relationship stuff. And I think the success of Harry Potter proves that kids can tell the difference between a page-turner and a page-turner with a good story.
My original point was that there is plenty of really good YA material out there. I just find it sad that it's usually the dreck that gets the attention.
Also, does this trailer put to rest the rumor (I think it was only a rumor, right?) that Doom is just some blogger? From this it looks like he was part of the team that made the universe jump with the 4. Bad things happen, that he likely blames the rest for, and then he comes back at them.
That works for me.
Well, the actor who plays Doom says his character is a programmer and is known on blogs as "Doom."
“He’s Victor Domashev, not Victor von Doom in our story. And I’m sure I’ll be sent to jail for telling you that. The Doom in ours—I’m a programmer. Very anti-social programmer. And on blogging sites I’m ‘Doom.’
Also, does this trailer put to rest the rumor (I think it was only a rumor, right?) that Doom is just some blogger? From this it looks like he was part of the team that made the universe jump with the 4. Bad things happen, that he likely blames the rest for, and then he comes back at them.
That works for me.
Well, the actor who plays Doom says his character is a programmer and is known on blogs as "Doom."
“He’s Victor Domashev, not Victor von Doom in our story. And I’m sure I’ll be sent to jail for telling you that. The Doom in ours—I’m a programmer. Very anti-social programmer. And on blogging sites I’m ‘Doom.’
Got it. Though, I feel like, there was a point that people were worried that Doom would *only* be a blogger, as if that is his whole thing, and he is going to try to blog the FF to death, etc. And I think that has not panned out as feared.
Whereas we see now that he has a closer connection to the rest of the group, is in the metal mask, etc. It may be that, in keeping with a more grounded tone of the movie (and, in this way, similar to the Daredevil episodes I have seen so far), they might know him more as "Victor". He might never declare "I am DOCTOR DOOM!", but instead, the "Doom" name still gets a nod if he uses it as his handle.
But there's the thing: the YA targeted readers don't always need the books to be "good". Ya know? My oldest just wants the basic plot points and over the top drama and relationship stuff. They don't want literature. They want Dan Brown-esque page flippers. So again - regardless of Hollywood - they are just trying to capture the market. And then let it take off from there. The content doesn't have to be outstanding - that's not the point. Even in comics we read fluff. Haha.
You can have both. A good story and over the top drama and relationship stuff are not mutually exclusive. I don't think anyone would classify Harry Potter as literature, but it is a good story, and it's got plenty of drama and relationship stuff. And I think the success of Harry Potter proves that kids can tell the difference between a page-turner and a page-turner with a good story.
My original point was that there is plenty of really good YA material out there. I just find it sad that it's usually the dreck that gets the attention.
I'm actually writing a book aimed at 12-13 year olds, and when I started, I made myself two rules:
1) There would be no rigid groups that somehow one automatically belongs to or gets shuffled into.
and 2) At no point, ever, would the lead character learn or be told it was their destiny to do something.
It's beyond me as to why anyone would want to read a story in which you spend most of the time learning a bunch of ridiculous rules and terms that make almost no sense in the real world, or why they would care to read about someone who doesn't decide on their own to do something, but simply does so because an ancient prophecy says they're supposed to.
I give Harry Potter and Hunger Games credit for at least tweaking that second cliche (Voldemort basically creates his own fatal prophecy through his actions, and Katniss volunteering herself to save her sister may be the most important decision in that whole series), but I think Potter especially is to blame for why so many books make sure to include some nonsense so that readers can debate which group they'd belong to. I get that it's a good gimmick, but it's so diminishing to characters to say they're automatically one-sided. And the best series, like Potter, end up ignoring most of that anyway.
I think Potter especially is to blame for why so many books make sure to include some nonsense so that readers can debate which group they'd belong to.
Yep.
Reminds me of all the White Wolf roleplaying games.
It's beyond me as to why anyone would want to read a story in which you spend most of the time learning a bunch of ridiculous rules and terms that make almost no sense in the real world,
Seems to me that being a teenager was all about that.
But there's the thing: the YA targeted readers don't always need the books to be "good". Ya know? My oldest just wants the basic plot points and over the top drama and relationship stuff. They don't want literature. They want Dan Brown-esque page flippers. So again - regardless of Hollywood - they are just trying to capture the market. And then let it take off from there. The content doesn't have to be outstanding - that's not the point. Even in comics we read fluff. Haha.
You can have both. A good story and over the top drama and relationship stuff are not mutually exclusive. I don't think anyone would classify Harry Potter as literature, but it is a good story, and it's got plenty of drama and relationship stuff. And I think the success of Harry Potter proves that kids can tell the difference between a page-turner and a page-turner with a good story.
My original point was that there is plenty of really good YA material out there. I just find it sad that it's usually the dreck that gets the attention.
I'm actually writing a book aimed at 12-13 year olds, and when I started, I made myself two rules:
1) There would be no rigid groups that somehow one automatically belongs to or gets shuffled into.
and 2) At no point, ever, would the lead character learn or be told it was their destiny to do something.
It's beyond me as to why anyone would want to read a story in which you spend most of the time learning a bunch of ridiculous rules and terms that make almost no sense in the real world, or why they would care to read about someone who doesn't decide on their own to do something, but simply does so because an ancient prophecy says they're supposed to.
I give Harry Potter and Hunger Games credit for at least tweaking that second cliche (Voldemort basically creates his own fatal prophecy through his actions, and Katniss volunteering herself to save her sister may be the most important decision in that whole series), but I think Potter especially is to blame for why so many books make sure to include some nonsense so that readers can debate which group they'd belong to. I get that it's a good gimmick, but it's so diminishing to characters to say they're automatically one-sided. And the best series, like Potter, end up ignoring most of that anyway.
I blame the Potter movies (even though I've never seen them) for starting the trend of decompressing the final movie into 2 parts.
It's beyond me as to why anyone would want to read a story in which you spend most of the time learning a bunch of ridiculous rules and terms that make almost no sense in the real world,
Seems to me that being a teenager was all about that.
True, and there's nothing wrong with cliques or social customs and such causing drama. I just have an aversion to a story that says something like "You were born on a cloudy day on the fifth day of the month, so that means you're a WubWub, which means you're destined to be a hero who saves the land of Starjewel, but only if the Ring of JoJo fits your left index finger." Life has enough things to cause tension, I don't need things that feel like board game rules. Hunger Games has some of that, but at least the categories make some socio-economic sense, so I think that's a case of it being handled well. Divergent - not so much.
Incidentally, if anyone reading this works in Hollywood, I'm willing to sell my concept of ""WubWub of Starjewel" for an acceptable offer.
It's beyond me as to why anyone would want to read a story in which you spend most of the time learning a bunch of ridiculous rules and terms that make almost no sense in the real world, or why they would care to read about someone who doesn't decide on their own to do something, but simply does so because an ancient prophecy says they're supposed to.
I agree with Stewart regarding the rules and terms aspect. Middle school and high school is all about cliques and unwritten rules. With Harry Potter, it was done in a very organic way—and in imitation of British boarding schools. With something like Divergent, it comes off as forced and derivitave, and that's where my problem with it lies.
And ancient prophecies are so heavily ingrained in our written (and oral) traditions, it's part of our literative DNA. I agree that it can be a short-cut and/or a crutch, but it does provide a sense of resonance and can be used effectively with a little imagination.
I give Harry Potter and Hunger Games credit for at least tweaking that second cliche (Voldemort basically creates his own fatal prophecy through his actions, and Katniss volunteering herself to save her sister may be the most important decision in that whole series), but I think Potter especially is to blame for why so many books make sure to include some nonsense so that readers can debate which group they'd belong to. I get that it's a good gimmick, but it's so diminishing to characters to say they're automatically one-sided. And the best series, like Potter, end up ignoring most of that anyway.
I don't know if I'd apply the word “blame” directly to the Potter books. I prefer to place the blame on the imitators who think the books’ success lies in the surface details. I equate it to comics post-Watchmen and Dark Knight, where creators were imitating the tone but not bothering with the craft behind the stories which actually made those books so good. I will never blame someone for creating a thought-provoking, finely crafted story. Don't blame the messenger, blame the interpreter who mistranslated the message.
Life has enough things to cause tension, I don't need things that feel like board game rules.
I'm with you on that. And like you said, with Potter, a lot of that was ignored or at least blurred. And there's Dumbledore’s line, “Sometimes I think we sort too soon,” which is basically telling the reader that just because you may get categorized one way in high school, it doesn't mean that's all you are as a person.
I probably should have phrased it better, since my book has cliques and rules, just like real life. I just don't like it when those things become the be all and end all of a story. As silly as I found the four houses thing to be in Harry Potter, at least we didn't have characters constantly limited to their category, or saying things like "I wish I could get angry and mean, but I can't because I'm a Hufflepuff, and we're always so timid."
And I do actually blame the Potter books some, because I think the four houses is one of the flawed elements of the books. Seeing as how their importance diminishes over the course of the series, I suspect Rowling lost interest in them herself. As I sit here, I can't even recall what all four of them were.
But I think at heart I agree with you, as it was things like Divergent that I was thinking of when I made that statement. Things like that take something that was, at best, amusing, at worst, a little misguided, and make it the spine of their story.
It's beyond me as to why anyone would want to read a story in which you spend most of the time learning a bunch of ridiculous rules and terms that make almost no sense in the real world,
Seems to me that being a teenager was all about that.
True, and there's nothing wrong with cliques or social customs and such causing drama. I just have an aversion to a story that says something like "You were born on a cloudy day on the fifth day of the month, so that means you're a WubWub, which means you're destined to be a hero who saves the land of Starjewel, but only if the Ring of JoJo fits your left index finger." Life has enough things to cause tension, I don't need things that feel like board game rules. Hunger Games has some of that, but at least the categories make some socio-economic sense, so I think that's a case of it being handled well. Divergent - not so much.
I don't know if I'd apply the word “blame” directly to the Potter books. I prefer to place the blame on the imitators who think the books’ success lies in the surface details. I equate it to comics post-Watchmen and Dark Knight, where creators were imitating the tone but not bothering with the craft behind the stories which actually made those books so good. I will never blame someone for creating a thought-provoking, finely crafted story. Don't blame the messenger, blame the interpreter who mistranslated the message.
I came so close to making the exact same comparison, but I was interrupted by actual work.
And I do actually blame the Potter books some, because I think the four houses is one of the flawed elements of the books. Seeing as how their importance diminishes over the course of the series, I suspect Rowling lost interest in them herself. As I sit here, I can't even recall what all four of them were.
As the students grew up and became more ... complete ... people, the somewhat arbitrary house divisions became less significant to *them*.
Like sports team loyalties, some people never outgrew them.
I don't know if I'd apply the word “blame” directly to the Potter books. I prefer to place the blame on the imitators who think the books’ success lies in the surface details. I equate it to comics post-Watchmen and Dark Knight, where creators were imitating the tone but not bothering with the craft behind the stories which actually made those books so good. I will never blame someone for creating a thought-provoking, finely crafted story. Don't blame the messenger, blame the interpreter who mistranslated the message.
I came so close to making the exact same comparison, but I was interrupted by actual work.
I'm sick with a virus of some kind, so work isn't on my agenda today.
And I do actually blame the Potter books some, because I think the four houses is one of the flawed elements of the books. Seeing as how their importance diminishes over the course of the series, I suspect Rowling lost interest in them herself. As I sit here, I can't even recall what all four of them were.
As the students grew up and became more ... complete ... people, the somewhat arbitrary house divisions became less significant to *them*.
Like sports team loyalties, some people never outgrew them.
And I do actually blame the Potter books some, because I think the four houses is one of the flawed elements of the books. Seeing as how their importance diminishes over the course of the series, I suspect Rowling lost interest in them herself. As I sit here, I can't even recall what all four of them were.
As the students grew up and became more ... complete ... people, the somewhat arbitrary house divisions became less significant to *them*.
Like sports team loyalties, some people never outgrew them.
I've never been certain as to how much of that was intentional on Rowling's part, or at least planned from the beginning, and how much was her just becoming a better writer. It's been ages since I've read the books, but one thing I do remember is finding the first two fun but unremarkable. If you'd told me back then the series was going to be more than just "Harry and his friends solve a mystery", I might not have believed you.
At a certain point we get less of the "two points for Gryffindor" silliness and chapter-length descriptions of Quidditch matches, and I think the books are all the better for that.
And I do actually blame the Potter books some, because I think the four houses is one of the flawed elements of the books. Seeing as how their importance diminishes over the course of the series, I suspect Rowling lost interest in them herself. As I sit here, I can't even recall what all four of them were.
As the students grew up and became more ... complete ... people, the somewhat arbitrary house divisions became less significant to *them*.
Like sports team loyalties, some people never outgrew them.
I've never been certain as to how much of that was intentional on Rowling's part, or at least planned from the beginning, and how much was her just becoming a better writer. It's been ages since I've read the books, but one thing I do remember is finding the first two fun but unremarkable. If you'd told me back then the series was going to be more than just "Harry and his friends solve a mystery", I might not have believed you.
At a certain point we get less of the "two points for Gryffindor" silliness and chapter-length descriptions of Quidditch matches, and I think the books are all the better for that.
Some of each. Mostly planning, I think, though. She was pretty good from the get-go.
That first chapter of Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone was excellent. There's an astonishing amount of world-building in that chapter, and setups for things that paid off several books later.
The books get more complex as the characters get older. Remember, those kids were only eleven in the first book!
At a certain point we get less of the "two points for Gryffindor" silliness and chapter-length descriptions of Quidditch matches, and I think the books are all the better for that.
Again, that stuff become less important to the characters as the years went by and shit got serious.
Comments
M
Not wasting my money.
The concepts of Divergent and Maze Runner sound like someone just cut and pasted together something that would sell to Hollywood.
I do have to laugh that some people in this thread continue to let us know they won't be seeing the movie - you know, in case we forgot after the other 4-5 times. Haha.
The sad part is that it works, just not to Harry Potter levels—though Hunger Games has come close.
My original point was that there is plenty of really good YA material out there. I just find it sad that it's usually the dreck that gets the attention.
Got it. Though, I feel like, there was a point that people were worried that Doom would *only* be a blogger, as if that is his whole thing, and he is going to try to blog the FF to death, etc. And I think that has not panned out as feared.
Whereas we see now that he has a closer connection to the rest of the group, is in the metal mask, etc. It may be that, in keeping with a more grounded tone of the movie (and, in this way, similar to the Daredevil episodes I have seen so far), they might know him more as "Victor". He might never declare "I am DOCTOR DOOM!", but instead, the "Doom" name still gets a nod if he uses it as his handle.
1) There would be no rigid groups that somehow one automatically belongs to or gets shuffled into.
and 2) At no point, ever, would the lead character learn or be told it was their destiny to do something.
It's beyond me as to why anyone would want to read a story in which you spend most of the time learning a bunch of ridiculous rules and terms that make almost no sense in the real world, or why they would care to read about someone who doesn't decide on their own to do something, but simply does so because an ancient prophecy says they're supposed to.
I give Harry Potter and Hunger Games credit for at least tweaking that second cliche (Voldemort basically creates his own fatal prophecy through his actions, and Katniss volunteering herself to save her sister may be the most important decision in that whole series), but I think Potter especially is to blame for why so many books make sure to include some nonsense so that readers can debate which group they'd belong to. I get that it's a good gimmick, but it's so diminishing to characters to say they're automatically one-sided. And the best series, like Potter, end up ignoring most of that anyway.
Reminds me of all the White Wolf roleplaying games.
M
Incidentally, if anyone reading this works in Hollywood, I'm willing to sell my concept of ""WubWub of Starjewel" for an acceptable offer.
And ancient prophecies are so heavily ingrained in our written (and oral) traditions, it's part of our literative DNA. I agree that it can be a short-cut and/or a crutch, but it does provide a sense of resonance and can be used effectively with a little imagination.
I don't know if I'd apply the word “blame” directly to the Potter books. I prefer to place the blame on the imitators who think the books’ success lies in the surface details. I equate it to comics post-Watchmen and Dark Knight, where creators were imitating the tone but not bothering with the craft behind the stories which actually made those books so good. I will never blame someone for creating a thought-provoking, finely crafted story. Don't blame the messenger, blame the interpreter who mistranslated the message.
And I do actually blame the Potter books some, because I think the four houses is one of the flawed elements of the books. Seeing as how their importance diminishes over the course of the series, I suspect Rowling lost interest in them herself. As I sit here, I can't even recall what all four of them were.
But I think at heart I agree with you, as it was things like Divergent that I was thinking of when I made that statement. Things like that take something that was, at best, amusing, at worst, a little misguided, and make it the spine of their story.
Like sports team loyalties, some people never outgrew them.
At a certain point we get less of the "two points for Gryffindor" silliness and chapter-length descriptions of Quidditch matches, and I think the books are all the better for that.
That first chapter of Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone was excellent. There's an astonishing amount of world-building in that chapter, and setups for things that paid off several books later.
The books get more complex as the characters get older. Remember, those kids were only eleven in the first book!
M