Assume you mean the movies not the books. Hope to see Sniper soon. Hope it isn't cheesy like Lone Survivor.
Yes the movies.. what does cheesy mean.. I never understood that term to the fullest.. How was LS cheesy.
Honestly, I wasn't a big fan of either and I like war movies. Lone Survivor was like watching a long battle of aimbotting Call of Duty. They should have focused on developing the characters more, perhaps with more background. American Sniper was too segmented. It was more like a chronological biography of Chris Kyle's tours. The only character that was developed was Chris Kyle and everyone else were nameless grunts. I think his story would have been better as a miniseries. I thought both movies were praised solely on the subject material and not as a movie. I enjoyed Hurt Locker more than either of them. Black Hawk Down is still probably my favorite war movie.
Best parts of Lone Survivor were the very beginning and the very end. Definitely got choked up seeing pictures and video of the real men who were killed.
from what i remember of the book lone survivor the battle and the time it took for him to get found was much longer and a lot was cut out of the movie. so really if it was based on the book there wasnt much more "character development" to be had.
A factor that just doesn't make the movie good... I don't care if it followed the book 100%, the movie adaption was boring and cheesy.
That's exactly what I thought about with American Sniper. After reading the book the movie seemed cliched and over dramatic (with things that never happened).
Can't y'all just discuss or grade or decide if a movie is good WITHOUT comparing to the book? Are y'all really thinking one is better or worse than the other just because of how it adapted the story? Just watch the dang movie. Evaluate it on its own. It would help if we knew what "it" was, noob.
I would agree if we were talking about fiction. Personally, if I'm watching a non-fiction movie or a bio-pic etc. I want it to be as true to the actual story as possible. There's no need to add Hollywood fluff like a kid handing him a knife during a fight when in reality, there was no kid. Why do that? The story is dramatic enough without adding things that never happened.
My argument is the reverse. I watch a movie, I don't like it, then someone comes along and says -- yeah, but that's how it happened in the book. Okay... that doesn't automatically make it interesting on film. Lone Survivor sucked on film regardless of what happened in the book.
