Comments on: The foetid taint of Hollywood http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/10/31/the-foetid-taint-of-hollywood/ As honest as a gambling man can be Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:07:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Homo Sum » Blog Archive » Sunday night quick book links http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/10/31/the-foetid-taint-of-hollywood/#comment-51054 Homo Sum » Blog Archive » Sunday night quick book links Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:33:52 +0000 http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/10/31/the-foetid-taint-of-hollywood/#comment-51054 [...] list. Other favourites that leap to mind (besides Wolfe and Crowley, the ones already mentioned in past grumping) include Valis, Mindplayers, and The Collector Collector5–but I hear at least one of those is [...] [...] list. Other favourites that leap to mind (besides Wolfe and Crowley, the ones already mentioned in past grumping) include Valis, Mindplayers, and The Collector Collector5–but I hear at least one of those is [...]

]]> By: Mr. McLaren http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/10/31/the-foetid-taint-of-hollywood/#comment-44934 Mr. McLaren Sun, 04 Nov 2007 00:13:48 +0000 http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/10/31/the-foetid-taint-of-hollywood/#comment-44934 I don't mind money being made of my various subcultures. Although I like it to be discreet. I just hate the dilution of the subcultures (and associated identifiers) in order to use them to make money from everyone else. But then I'm in just feeling <em>dubhach agus duairc</em> generally. I don’t mind money being made of my various subcultures. Although I like it to be discreet.

I just hate the dilution of the subcultures (and associated identifiers) in order to use them to make money from everyone else.

But then I’m in just feeling dubhach agus duairc generally.

]]> By: Kira http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/10/31/the-foetid-taint-of-hollywood/#comment-44929 Kira Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:05:11 +0000 http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/10/31/the-foetid-taint-of-hollywood/#comment-44929 God, I just realized how terrible that comment could sound. I'm sorry. By special please read "amazing and unique." Even if they mash your cultural identifiers into porridge. God, I just realized how terrible that comment could sound. I’m sorry.

By special please read “amazing and unique.” Even if they mash your cultural identifiers into porridge.

]]> By: Kira http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/10/31/the-foetid-taint-of-hollywood/#comment-44928 Kira Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:56:05 +0000 http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/10/31/the-foetid-taint-of-hollywood/#comment-44928 Aw, you're just cranky because they're stealing your subculture and making hay with it. What's the point of feeling good about feeling different when Hollywood is a giant Regression-to-the-Mean-Machine? Don't worry, it'll pass. You're still special. Aw, you’re just cranky because they’re stealing your subculture and making hay with it. What’s the point of feeling good about feeling different when Hollywood is a giant Regression-to-the-Mean-Machine?

Don’t worry, it’ll pass. You’re still special.

]]> By: Fred http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/10/31/the-foetid-taint-of-hollywood/#comment-44888 Fred Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:54:19 +0000 http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/10/31/the-foetid-taint-of-hollywood/#comment-44888 I used to feel like that. Then I learned to accept that I am largely powerless to change any of this, and that, if I choose to rant, it makes me feel better only in the short term and does not affect Hollywood's thinking or decision-making process one jot. They will continue to adapt books to film because: a) it's cheap; b) it's <i>corporate synergy</i>; and/or c) people in Hollywood read books, too. And those movies, by and large, will continue to suck because: a) they're cheap; b) corporate synergy sucks; and/or c) the people <i>with the purse strings</i> probably have not read the books. Or simply because adaptation is really hard, even when those doing it have the best of intentions, doubly hard when there are so many cooks involved in the broth. Which is not to say that Hollywood adaptations are not more often bad than good -- and often <i>predictably</i> bad -- or that bad adaptations should not be discouraged. Just that life's too short to keep getting irritated over it. I just think hoping that Hollywood will stop making bad movies is a losing battle, is all. I used to feel like that. Then I learned to accept that I am largely powerless to change any of this, and that, if I choose to rant, it makes me feel better only in the short term and does not affect Hollywood’s thinking or decision-making process one jot. They will continue to adapt books to film because: a) it’s cheap; b) it’s corporate synergy; and/or c) people in Hollywood read books, too. And those movies, by and large, will continue to suck because: a) they’re cheap; b) corporate synergy sucks; and/or c) the people with the purse strings probably have not read the books. Or simply because adaptation is really hard, even when those doing it have the best of intentions, doubly hard when there are so many cooks involved in the broth.

Which is not to say that Hollywood adaptations are not more often bad than good — and often predictably bad — or that bad adaptations should not be discouraged. Just that life’s too short to keep getting irritated over it.

I just think hoping that Hollywood will stop making bad movies is a losing battle, is all.

]]> By: Mr. McLaren http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/10/31/the-foetid-taint-of-hollywood/#comment-44872 Mr. McLaren Thu, 01 Nov 2007 04:39:52 +0000 http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/10/31/the-foetid-taint-of-hollywood/#comment-44872 Would that that were true. There is also a question of public perception. If I tell someone I like X, and they think of the horrible movie version of X, then I have failed to communicate, and probably created a really false impression of my level of critical faculty. Even if I explain that "the book was better", the negative bias is already set. This is particularly important for works in genre or media that already deal with some level of stigma or stereotyping. I'm really tired of being annoyed by that. I'm tired of having to say the book was better. I'm tired of having to say "You think that had a lot of layers? That whole movie was based on a 26-page short story, not a novel, and the story had several more layers." I'm tired of saying "I don't even know why they paid, since the movie has almost nothing to do with the source material." And most of all, I'm tired of losing my markers for cool people. Right now if I hear someone who says something like "God is a pink laser" or "We're still living in the Black Iron Prison" or "George W. Bush might as well just change his name to Ferris F. Freemont" or whatever, I know something about that person. After the movie comes out, I don't. Two years ago if I saw someone with a Guy Fawkes mask as a costume, or an avatar, or whatever, I knew something about them. Now I don't. Mostly though, I am a cranky old man who hates the necessary result of the differing economics of books and movies. Would that that were true.

There is also a question of public perception.

If I tell someone I like X, and they think of the horrible movie version of X, then I have failed to communicate, and probably created a really false impression of my level of critical faculty. Even if I explain that “the book was better”, the negative bias is already set. This is particularly important for works in genre or media that already deal with some level of stigma or stereotyping. I’m really tired of being annoyed by that.

I’m tired of having to say the book was better. I’m tired of having to say “You think that had a lot of layers? That whole movie was based on a 26-page short story, not a novel, and the story had several more layers.” I’m tired of saying “I don’t even know why they paid, since the movie has almost nothing to do with the source material.”

And most of all, I’m tired of losing my markers for cool people. Right now if I hear someone who says something like “God is a pink laser” or “We’re still living in the Black Iron Prison” or “George W. Bush might as well just change his name to Ferris F. Freemont” or whatever, I know something about that person. After the movie comes out, I don’t. Two years ago if I saw someone with a Guy Fawkes mask as a costume, or an avatar, or whatever, I knew something about them. Now I don’t.

Mostly though, I am a cranky old man who hates the necessary result of the differing economics of books and movies.

]]> By: Fred http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/10/31/the-foetid-taint-of-hollywood/#comment-44871 Fred Thu, 01 Nov 2007 04:26:01 +0000 http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/10/31/the-foetid-taint-of-hollywood/#comment-44871 The worst that would happen is that there would be bad movie versions of those books. Which would, themselves, still exist. The worst that would happen is that there would be bad movie versions of those books. Which would, themselves, still exist.

]]>