Thread: let's resurrect
View Single Post
Old 07-05-2007, 05:03 PM   #157
Registered Amuser
Joshi's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Wherever the wind takes me... or failing that the nearest cinema.
Posts: 7,196
LFN Staff Member 
Originally Posted by Fealiks
There's no way they can get away with a third of the hour being filled with adverts... Are you sure that this is true?
I have 5 seasons on DVD... yes, I'm sure it's true.

Ad breaks in the states are actually quite long compared to ours. It's somewhat ridiculous, I stayed with an American family in Ohio over Christmas and a single ad break (of which there will be about 3 or 4 in one half hour programme, so you can guess how bad hour long ones would be) can last very very long.

Also you should remember, we basically do the same thing here (although with only one ad break in a half hour program and a basic 3 in an hour long one), we don't have as many adverts, but because we get a lot of our programmes from the States, we have to have basic fillers, most if not all hour long TV shows from America are about 40 minutes long without ads. As an example, here in the UK, we used to show Buffy the Vampire Slayer (a US hour long TV show) on Sky One and BBC 2. As the BBC don't air adverts, it filled a 40 minute timeslot on BBC2, but because Sky did, it could fill an hour.

Originally Posted by Fealiks
Actually, Now that I think about it, when I used to watch Lost (when it was good(ish); the first season) the adverts came on before the title sequence and after, with frequent breaks throughout.
Yeah, that's kind of how they did things, it annoyed the hell out of me in the states. The program would start with a cold opening and then as soon as the opening credits sequence passed, they'd go into advert for a good 5-6 minutes (no joke), back to the program for a while, another couple of ad breaks and then a final adbreak before showing the closing moments of the show OR just showing us the credits outright at which point it'll launch straight into the cold opening or opening credits of the next show on and then once the credits are over, go to ad break where it'll start all over again.

And we thought we had it bad.

Originally Posted by fealiks
I was made to watch the disgraceful Stormbreaker today. Please don't watch it, it will make you cry. The fact the Ewan McGregor was in it was really sad, he was superb in Trainspotting and now... this...
Anyway, the product placement in this film is terrible and blatant. One of the "gadgets" given to the main character (a secret agent...) is a "Nintendo DS Game system" given to him by Stephen Fry (Stephen F*cking Fry). The games are all "gadgets" too, utilizing the console's wireless capabilities as a bug-tracking device, and somehow getting the DS to emit smoke by inserting a cartridge into it. The last game presented by Fry, however, is Mario Cart. When asked what benefits this game has, Fry explains that it's just a game for if he gets bored on the flight, doing nothing for the plot or the development; the whole scene cshould have been avoided. There are other instances too, although this one was timed with the release of the DS, boosting the potential income from this scene. I wonder how much money they got from the product placement in that film. That really pisses me off, they knew it would be a successful, profitable film anyway because they had enough money to launch it properly. The obviously didn't have enough to make a good film, though. Arseholes.
Every so often good people do bad films. :|

As for product placement, the same happened (although not as bad) in iRobot... so much so in fact that I actually own a pair of Converse All Stars now. Same happens with loads of other films, but none so much as actually making me buy the damn things (yes, I was suckered in). I seem to remember the game Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory having a thing with Airwaves Gum...

Originally Posted by fealiks
Now, On the topic of book to film projects, I was disappointed with the made-for-TV Hogfather (Pratchett). In my opinion, Night Watch would make an epic film; much more potential than Hogfather. As is the way with Thud! in my opinion.
Agreed, Hogfather only worked for people who'd at least read the book and even then, it was fairly poorly executed. Night Watch, like Thud, I don't think would work that well, both excellent books, but Thud in particular came under scrutiny because to fully enjoy the book, you'd need to know about the past of at least the 4 main characters out of Guards! Guards! (not so much Carrot in Night Watch). I figure Mort would work well, but the only problem there's been so far with the screen adaptions is that no ones yet been able to capture Pratchett's humour on screen properly. Hogfather in particular took a very childish view of the humour which annoyed me, and Death wasn't done as well as he could be (please bring back Christopher Lee for Death, he did him wonderuflly in Weird Sisters and Soul Music). If they can do that, they've got it made.

Originally Posted by elTee
You can sit down and watch an entire season of 24 without getting bored? Jesus. In my experience 24 works in sort of four-episode cycles - for three episodes a plot runs along and ends on major cliffhangers making you pull your hair out, but by the fourth episode it kind of resolves and something new starts up which allows you to get away before you get sucked in again.
In all fairness, I can sit through an entire season of anything (as long as it's good, mind) without getting bored. I went through 2 seasons of House in a weekend, I can do about 3 of Family Guy in one sitting and all of Futurama.

Originally Posted by elTee
The thing with the Harry Potter series is that they would make seven excellent mini-series of about ten or twelve hour-long episodes each (the same goes for Lord of the Rings, really.) This would be far too expensive for anyone to really do of course, and as it would make much less money than a single movie it's bad business too. Order of the Phoenix, compared to Goblet of Fire, is really a less eventful book. I'm sure they can fit quite a lot of what happens in the novel into the movie without having to cut entire storylines (like the 'SPEW' thing in Goblet) just by converting three separate scenes/conversations into one.
I also had the same idea with the mini-series, this way you can deal with individual storylines per episode and a year per season. As for the cost thing though, considering the budgets of a lot of TV shows these days it wouldn't be too bad. Simply put, as long as it's picked up after it's first season, it shoudln't do too badly. There are loads of long running effects ridden TV shows out there.

I don't think SPEW was needed in Goblet of Fire, it would have slowed things down tremendously. As for not much happening in OotP, granted, there aren't a lot of events, but I think there are a lot of emotional cues, especially for Harry that need to be put down and the story is quite rich. Myself and a group of people on another board did actually attempt to adapt this and the Half Blood Prince to screen (us all being major fans of screenwriting) and found that whilst you're right, larger book, not as much story, there was still a lot we had to try and get into 2 hours.

Originally Posted by elTee
And I read that Kreacher had to be in the movie, because he still has some kind of important role in the last book. I can't remember where I saw that though so take it with a pinch of salt.
SeaTurtle already linked to that a few posts back, yes it's true. The thing is, whilst I have nothing much against Kreacher being in the movie (in fact it's just easier to have him in anyway from a plot point of view) I don't like the reasoning given here. Whether they'd have had difficulty introducing him in the seventh movie or not is irrelevent, you can't include scenes in a movie purely for the purposes of a movie that will, in all likelyhood come out about four years in the future, by then most of your audience have forgotten about it (movies like the LOTR or POTC don't fit into this because the sequels came out only a year after each other with the exception of the first POTC which was meant to be a standalone movie anyway, and even still, LOTR made a few small mistakes in that area... not as much in the last POTC, but it had it's reasons and they're not good ones).

Kreacher works because he actually has a purpose in this film (Chekovs gun will be mounted on the wall in the first act and fired in the third, if you don't know what Chekovs gun is, look it up), but if he didn't (like the Howler) he shouldn't have been included.

God that's a long post...

Joshi is offline   you may: quote & reply,