3 ms·
I suppose it depends on what you're looking for in a film. For example, I can't stand musicals, because I think characters breaking out into song and dance eve
by ken 9y ago
I suppose it depends on what you're looking for in a film.
For example, I can't stand musicals, because I think characters breaking out into song and dance every 5 minutes destroys any attempt at immersiveness or believability. But lots of people love them, and don't find this incongruity problematic. So I don't think breaking from the flow of the main story necessarily breaks the story.
Did the structure of "Adaptation" detract from its 'immersiveness'? I'd say it's the wrong question to ask.
My purpose was not humor, but to pull back the curtain and show the absurdity inherent in all action movies, and the work involved. Satire can be humorous, but that's not really the goal. I'd still love watching Jackie Chan outtakes even if his movies weren't comedic.
I have no use for yet another (whitewashed) action movie. Then again, as I said, there's probably a reason I'm not a Hollywood filmmaker.
- r00fus 9y agoHonestly I really liked Adaptation, but then again I liked Stranger than Fiction, and many other existentialist flicks (Run Lola Run? hell yes). I know a bunch of folks who walked out feeling cheated or confused. I think most of the issue is that people want a) a story b) to be entertained and c) to forget about the outside world for a bit. Anything that fills these boxes is good for mass consumption (from Hollywood producer/ purely dollars point of view). Enlightening the subject or shocking them with with new points of view are entirely stretch goals.
- ken 9y agoThat's believable. Also, my idea is a single movie. It doesn't easily generate other movies. Hollywood today wants franchises, i.e., mass production, too.