Vault101 said:
Lvl 64 Klutz said:
VanQQisH said:
I wouldn't mind seeing some adaptations of comics like Calvin & Hobbes, for example. Hell, I'm sure there are some web comics with followings worth an adaptation or two.
Somebody never saw the live action Garfield movies. Consider yourself warned.
the difference is the scource material
Garfeild is a barley funny strip that you could literally just make with photoshop and never have to even draw it...it lacks any kind of substance visually or written
Calvin and Hobbs has heart and humour...of coarse somone could fuck it up in the wrong hands (think the Lorax) but in the right hands theres alot to work with
Except that anyone who would have the gall to make a movie out of
Calvin and Hobbes, in direct violation of the creator's wishes (and, if I understand the terms of his contract with the syndicate correctly, copyright law), is exactly who I would consider "the wrong hands".
This is one case where I say let the source material stand on its own merits. If people are too lazy to read it instead of plunk themselves in front of a screen watching some other writer's stripped-down, 90-minute reinterpretation of it, they don't deserve to be pandered to.
And for what it's worth,
Garfield earned its place as the most popular comic strip in America by being genuinely funny and clever for almost two decades, and it spawned a TV show that was even better. It's just that by the time the movie came along, it had devolved into the humorless dreck it is today. More information on
Garfield's decline can be found on the Internet. [http://wondermark.com/the-comic-strip-doctor-garfield/]
Not G. Ivingname said:
Let's hope youtube replaces film as the major form of artistic expression before that happens.
Except YouTube was what gave the world shit like
Fred and
The Annoying Orange in the first place, among other things that are just as terrible. Not to mention the implications of giving a single website a monopoly on all media. People like you scare me sometimes.