Posts by electriccanyon26

wanderingbison9 said:You should really check out Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100519/...it was actually filmed right here in the States, and both actors (Gary Oldman and Tim Roth) seemed to be constantly high or totally wasted during production; honestly, watching it feels a bit like seeing Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas happen in real life...😬

Thanks, I haven't seen it yet.

Brian Vaughn5 said:The movie is pretty trashy and naive in its fun, but honestly, that moment when Leeloo realizes just how messed up humanity and life can be—spiraling into that existential crisis—didn't feel shallow to me at all. I actually find myself thinking back to that scene whenever I’m wrestling with some heavy stuff. It feels like most Hollywood movies tend to steer clear of those kinds of themes. American culture, in general, seems obsessed with escapism and this frantic, underlying fear of death.

Btw, my favorite quote from the flick is when Zorg says, 'If you want to do it right, you have to do it yourself!' Or even that part where he just loses it and yells, 'I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED!!!' 🤣

That version of Gary Oldman—the energy he brings to roles like those in Leon or True Romance—is easily his best work. I can't quite think of any other character where he's played someone that unhinged.

silentcanyon58 said:I'm actually quite glad to be making films that tackle themes outside of what the typical American filmography usually offers.

I feel the same way. Someone mentioned that even Canada is ahead of the US in some ways, though they still haven't moved past war stories—I just can't watch those anymore. I'll always give a Matanić film a shot, but I usually end up disappointed by how superficial they feel; a few rare scenes might hit hard, but the movies themselves always fall below his usual standard.

northerncrane4 said:Sure, he could. But it wouldn't hurt if he actually took some time to write them properly.

Absolutely. That’s the biggest issue with Matanić; I watched Mother of Asphalt and the dialogue is just a disaster. It sounds like: "Here I am... everything's fine, you know how things are going and stuff... the kid is running and jumping and all that... uh..." or "Do you think if I do this... that it's... crap and I don't know what..." The actors are left hanging because there's simply nothing substantial to say. Honestly, I could probably pen more coherent lines than that if I had to. I don't get it. On top of that, it feels like Matanić doesn't even know what kind of movies he wants to make anymore.

Eastwood seems to be on an ego trip lately. It feels like he's chasing an Oscar with every project, and I'm sure he'll land nominations for J. Edgar again this year. His films always seem to aim for cheap sentimentality—if that's the right way to put it—mostly just tearjerkers. The last one I sat through, Hereafter... I honestly wonder if he doesn't feel any embarrassment about it. As for Woody Allen, I thought Match Point and Cassandra's dream were great, though Scoop didn't really do it for me. It seems to me they churn them out so fast because they're technically simple; you could shoot any Allen film in no time at all. Maybe I'm wrong, though. I don't know.

Austin Robinson19 said:Feel free to check it out. Since the movie is based on the play—and they actually brought over some of the original cast—it’s definitely a double win.
It turned out really well. It’s actually a pretty charming film.
If you can, borrow it on DVD; there are some extra features about the play included.

I'm sure they're on YouTube too😉

Austin Robinson19 said:I'll just drop in here like a paratrooper... I've read through some of the great discussions happening here, but I won't get sidetracked by those. Instead, I'll just suggest a movie.

The History Boys

In October 2006 a film adaptation of the play was released in The United States , and later in November 2006 in Britain. The film was directed by Nicholas Hytner and featured the original stage cast.

😍

If you haven't seen it yet, give it a watch. It was pretty good.😍

I haven't seen that yet, nor have I heard much about it. I've added it to my watchlist. 🙂

Karen Smith9 said:That was just a side argument... as for the main point, I’m standing my ground. I'll say it again: you still don't seem to grasp that a screenwriter adapts the script—the drama text—not the live performance itself... that's my stance, and period.

I hear you, but I'm not going to rename this thread to something like "movies based on stage plays" or "films based on dramas." First off, that makes zero sense. To an average moviegoer, that would be totally misleading.

edit: I honestly still don't follow what you mean by "the actual stage performance"! OMG

Karen Smith9 said:Look, kid, I actually work in a library... In our system, besides the standard classification for national literature, we add a "2" code to signify a drama text. On the shelves, those books sit right after poetry (coded as 1) and just before the novels (coded as 3).
The performing arts section is reserved for things like theater theory, theater history, and various similar texts... seriously, just walk into any public library in town and you'll see it's exactly the same...

I completely misread your last post: I thought you were saying drama texts belong in the theater department rather than the literature section.... my bad. It’s not exactly news that plays are kept in a library—why even bring that up? I've been saying that this whole time! But it doesn't support your theory that movies aren't based on stage productions, but rather on their scripts. Period.

Karen Smith9 said:Hura, you finally admitted that a drama text counts as literature...

Please quote me when I actually said that wasn't the case!

Karen Smith9 said:Listen, kid—if what you're saying were true, dramatic texts would be filed under theater in the Library of Congress system at number 79... instead of being categorized under literature... sorry, but that's how it works globally. A dramatic text can certainly serve as the foundation for a play and be an essential part of that art form, but the text itself, as a printed work, is literature. So, maybe take a breath and settle down—if you can—because that's just the reality. And if there's any confusion, project that onto your pet parrot if you have one, because you're repeating the same nonsense over and over like a parrot...
Basically, a movie is filmed based on the script that a stage production was built from, not based on the performance itself... and that's that. good night...

My local library doesn't split things into "literature and theater." There is an entire section dedicated specifically to plays—but I suppose that's too confusing for you to grasp...

Laura Palmer25 said:A drama isn't theater. It's literature that happens to be performable on stage, or since film exists, it can be adapted for the screen. Guess What, you can actually read a drama. Some plays aren't even practical for the stage (think Maeterlinck or early Krleža), so they find their soul in film instead.

Movies don't necessarily rely on theater to get to the screen.

I don't see how you're missing this. Drama is text meant for the stage—it *is* the theater. We admire Shakespeare and his plays as works of literature, which means we value drama within the literary canon because, even though they provide dialogue for actors, they function as flawless pieces of writing. But the true essence of Shakespeare lives in the theater! You have to see that.

Karen Smith9 said:The text itself is literature; the performance is theater. Get it together...🙂

A play, a drama text, and finally a performance—that’s theater. A drama belongs to literature, much like a libretto is a literary work; however, once you combine a libretto with a performance, you have an opera. Don't tell me I need to get my act together; you're the one who's confused here. I'm just trying to help.

Laura Palmer25 said:And calling a comedy a drama is pretty bold, buddy 😛

good night. Try repeating screenplay written by the play like a mantra 432 times before bed; maybe it'll clear things up for you tomorrow.

I know that much... but I’m not mixing up my terms like you are.

Karen Smith9 said:That’s exactly my point... so why did you call it a drama in one of your previous posts, only to then mention comedy in parentheses—as if we weren't already aware?? I honestly can't wrap my head around all these contradictions and rambling...
And those very same texts—those dramas—can serve perfectly well as templates for film scripts or just a starting concept; at that point, it has nothing to do with the theater anymore... and that's really all there is to it. If that isn't clear enough for you, well... maybe Laura Palmer25 could explain it more clearly, though I doubt it would help much.

It's because theater covers everything: drama, comedy, and musicals. If I were choosing a play to write, I'd have to decide whether it's a drama, a comedy, or a musical. There’s already a thread on this forum under the theater subforum called Drama Text; tell them instead that the topic belongs in literature, not theater.

Laura Palmer25 said:The movie would be based on the literary work that came out of your friend's head. Basically, an adaptation of that text. Not some amateur performance in a field.

And you still haven't answered my question: which plays were actually made based on movies?

That isn't right. The text was originally written for the stage. This is theater—it's a different art form entirely. The film will be based on the theatrical play. It couldn't be any clearer than that.

As for the title of the movie, you'll just have to wait. I can't recall the specific name, but I know for a fact I've seen something like it before...

Karen Smith9 said:There are four primary literary forms: poetry, prose, drama, and the essay. Right? So, here is the simple question: a comedy script written specifically for the stage falls under which category?

It falls under drama. Drama is its own genre designed for the stage. Without the theater, there wouldn't even be such a thing as drama, for goodness' sake.

Karen Smith9 said:Based on the script, obviously—not the play itself, despite what the thread title implies, my dear friend...😉

Well done. What do you even call that? I'm finished here and have nothing left to ask. There’s no point in arguing further; you'll just keep defending those impulsive posts and conclusions, when really, you're just defending your own lack of understanding. Have a good night. And seriously, go read some drama text or a comedy.

I assume you're all still in elementary school, so maybe go ask your teachers to explain this to you...

Karen Smith9 said:See, this is proof you don't have a clue what you're talking about... comedy is a literary work that falls under the genre of drama—drama, poetry, prose, essays... remember anything from middle school? Comedy is part of drama... I knew there was a breakdown somewhere in basic terminology...
And regarding what you said about that student—the movie will be based on the screenplay, or rather the text for the play... it's that simple.

So, comedy is a theater genre alongside drama? You missed the mark this time. Prove you actually know the subject: what's the fundamental difference between drama and, say, prose?

Karen Smith9 said:Quote: that hasn't even had many different runs.

electriccanyon26 says: That’s really not how you look at it—those are just your own assumptions! I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, but some movies simply aren't based on plays that have been staged a million times in theaters all over the world. You know, those massive classics? Some films—like Tape—are based on versions of a stage production

The point being made is this: Tape is a 1999 play by Stephen Belber. So, the text exists, and the screenplay was adapted from that text... is a screenwriter really going to sit there watching a live performance and transcribe dialogue for a movie like some kind of court reporter tracking events on a stage? It's the same damn story all over again...

Just a half hour ago, I asked the same thing, though perhaps more ironically: will the director adapt the screenplay based on the theatrical text, or just rely on memory? 🤣