They could probably do a better version of The Fountainhead, now that Rand isn't around to get all possessive with the script.
your probably right. i dont think you could really do a version of that book right without having about 4-5 hours of footage. i would assume eventually one day it will be done though, i just hope its high quality like lord of the rings. i mean think about is anyone EVER going to try and redo what jackson did with lord of the rings? probably not in our lifetimes i would think.
A Blockbuster can be defined as a movie that makes money at the box office but not necessarily a critically acclaimed movie. ex: Transformers, Watchmen An epic is usually critically acclaimed and can withstand the test of time and still be admired by many generations. ex: Godfather, Shawshank Redemption
Wrong again. An epic movie has nothing to do with critical acclaim, although it is usually geared more towards historical accuracy and creative license, which in many instances leads to critical acclaim. There are many instances of epics that were terrible movies... (Alexander, Caligula) Shawshank Redemption is not about a historical figure portrayed carefully over a large scope of time carefully drawn out with at least 3 hours in length including prolonged scenes of character development. Its mostly a prison drama with a happy ending. For this reason I would not classify is as an "epic"
Shrugged is a ridiculously long book as well, I think 300-400 pages longer than TFH. But I agree, The Fountainhead would be a ridiculously hard movie to make. There are so many events central to the final chapter that almost have to be included.
Is Lord of the Rings an epic? Does it have to be based on actual history? The simplest way to look at it, I think, is that a blockbuster makes a lot of money. And an epic is a really long movie. Any movie that's 3 hours long is, mostly likely, an "epic". Maybe someone can bring up some counterexamples. None come to mind.
Wiki: [rquoter]An epic is a genre of film which places emphasis on human drama on a grand scale. They are more ambitious in scope than other genres which helps to differentiate them from similar genres such as the period piece or adventure film. This often entails high production values, a sweeping musical score by an acclaimed film composer, and an ensemble cast of bankable stars, placing them among the most expensive of films to produce. The genre likely derives its name from the similarities it shares with epic poetry.[/rquoter] So what's a feel-good movie (of the whatever season)?
Looks like you're not going to find a definitive definition on here either. The definition of epic when used as an adjective are the following: An extended narrative poem in elevated or dignified language, celebrating the feats of a legendary or traditional hero Surpassing the usual or ordinary, particularly in scope or size Heroic and impressive in quality I disagree with others that say an epic film must be a certain length or have factual, historic value. According to the definitions, either one could be correct.
yeah i dont think i have read another book as long as shrugged. there was a che bio that i read that was too long for its own good. as far as im concerned they can go ahead and make both.
Any movie that is released at the box-office can be a blockbuster, a movie simply has to make 50, 100, 150, 200, or 300+ million to do so. Independent movies, like Halloween, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Blair Witch Project, Mad Max, and My Big Fat Greek Wedding were considered blockbusters, because they made so much money at the box office. Like other posters have said, epics are usually big productions for historical accounts, biographies, pseudo-biographies, fantasy (sometimes), and time pieces (It doesn't necessarily have to be about a real person or actual accounts, but it can be based on a certain time period and culture). Epic Movies = Titanic, Ben-Hur, Spartacus, The Hunchback of Notre Dame (20s and 30s versions), Gone with the Wind, Braveheart, and etc.
Epic: Usually adapted from a book. Some movie that has a reputation that precedes itself. Usually some kind of historical or fantasy film. Highly critically rated (i.e. Lord of the Rings) Blockbuster: Usually not adapted from a book, but can be taken from pop culture or tv, etc. Something extremely popular but may not be critically acclaimed. Grosses a ton of money, may spawn sequels. Usually an action or sci-fi movie.
I don't think it has anything to do with the source material. I think epics tend to be difficult to distinguish...there are obvious examples sure...but what one person may deem an epic another may not. And epics aren't strictly relegated to historical themes either. As long as it's grand in scale, you can probably consider it an epic. It doesn't have to be successful on a financial or critical level. A good example of that would be Australia; that definitely meets the definition of an epic but it was received quietly by moviegoers and the critics. In any case, the fundamental difference between these two terms is that one is a genre or sub-genre of film and the other is not a genre at all.
Somewhat OT: Great example - Fast & Furious was a blockbuster by the well. Very surprising, it is currently estimated to finish at $72 milllion by tomorrow. Highest grossing opening of the year.
