2023 promises to be a year of great cinema with brilliant sequels, remakes, and new territories explored. From mystery and fantasy to romance, there’s something for everyone—whether you’re a self-proclaimed movie critic or someone looking to explore a new movie genre.

Missing 

Directors: Nicholas D. Johnson, Will Merrick
Starring: Storm Reid, Nia Long, Megan Suri and Ken Leung
After the success of Searching (2018), Nick Johnson and Will Merrick bring its sequel. June Allen (Storm Reid, known from HBO’s Euphoria) brings her detective skills to light when her mother disappears whilst on holiday with her boyfriend. As she delves further and further into the mystery, she utilises all forms of digital technology to bridge the gap between her and her missing mother.

What’s Love Got to Do with It?

Director: Shekhar Kapur
Starring: Lily James, Shazad Latif, Emma Thompson and Sajal Ali
For all romance lovers out there, celebrate the month of love with this British romantic comedy from Shekhar Kapur. A filmmaker (Lily James) documents her best friend and neighbour’s (Shazad Latif) arranged marriage. Expect to view a feel-good ‘friends to lovers’ trope unveiled across the big screen.

Renfield

Director: Chris McKay
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Nicholas Hoult, Awkwafina and Ben Schwartz
If you’re a fan of classics, especially the Gothic genre, then you know all about Renfield and his strange depictions throughout cinema. Moving away from Tom Wait’s portrayal from Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992), we see Nicholas Hoult (Warm Bodies and The Menu) take on the role of the tortured assistant across from his superior, played by Nicolas Cage (Face/Off).

“Sorry to interrupt […] I need to get out of a toxic relationship.” The trailer for Renfield begins with Hoult’s familiar expression of despair. The comedy horror seeks to establish Renfield as an anti-hero dealing with life’s issues which include having a terrible boss.

The Little Mermaid

Director: Rob Marshall
Starring: Halle Bailey, Melissa McCarthy, Simone Bailey and Jacob Tremblay
The classic tale hits the screen once again but this time, live action edition. Halle Bailey plays Ariel, a mermaid who trades her voice in exchange for human legs so she can visit the mainland. During this time, she meets a Prince (Jonah Hauer-King) she can’t help but fall for but the evil sea witch Ursula (Melissa McCarthy) isn’t done with Ariel.

Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse

Directors: Joaquim Dos Santos, Kemp Powers, Justin K. Thompson
Starring: Hailee Steinfeld, Oscar Isaac, Miguel O’Hara, Shameik Moore, Brian Tyree Henry and Jake Johnson
For your fellow Marvel fan, be sure to be seated for the sequel of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. Miles Morales and Gwen Stacy team-up on a journey that sees them, once again, meeting multiple Spider-Mans.

Elemental

Director: Peter Sohn
Starring: Leah Lewis and Mamoudou Athie
An animated film that explores the elemental signs through anthropomorphism. Fire, water, land, and air individuals live together in Element City. The narrative explores how a hot-headed young woman named Ember and a peaceful water-sign man Wade realise they are more alike than first anticipated.

Oppenheimer

Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Cillian Murphy, Florence Pugh, Robert Downey Jr., Matt Damon and Jack Quaid
Nolan brings a biopic about American scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer and his role in the development of the atomic bomb. With a star-studded cast that includes Cillian Murphy (Inception, Peaky Blinders, Red Eye) and Florence Pugh (Midsommar, Little Women, Black Widow), Oppenheimer looks to join the next Award Season with its stunning visuals.

Barbie

Director: Greta Gerwig
Starring: Margot Robbie, Ryan Gosling, Simu Liu, Michael Cera, Emma Mackey and America Ferrera
Noah Baumbach and Greta Gerwig collaborate to bring Mattel’s beloved doll to life. Robbie told E News at the 2023 Golden Globes that the live-action is “gonna blow your mind”. The film follows the titular character, played by Robbie, as she adventures with well-known characters such as Ken (Ryan Gosling) after being exiled. Barbie has been met with all sorts of criticism and praise throughout the years, here’s to hoping that Barbie (2023) exceeds all expectations.

Dune: Part Two

Director: Denis Villeneuve
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Zendaya, Florence Pugh, Rebecca Ferguson, Austin Butler and Dave Bautista
Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) returns to take revenge against those that caused the fall of his family. Expect more giant worms and long shots of sand as he and his fellow adventurers (new inclusions of Florence Pugh and Austin Butler) deal with the pain of sourcing Spice and the politics around who will become the new ruler. 

Wonka

Director: Paul King
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Olivia Colman, Tracy Ifeachor, Rowan Atkinson, Sally Hawkins and Keegan-Michael Key
In the final month of the year, Chalamet returns but instead of being the head of the Atreides family he is the renowned chocolatier Willy Wonka. King directs Chalamet as a young Wonka who journeys into an adventure that will change the course of his future. The film explores Wonka’s relationship with the Oompa-Loompas.

The post 10 Movies To Look Out For In 2023 appeared first on The Nerd Daily.

So let’s start with perhaps the biggest example of the divergence between books and films being so significant that we might be better to simply view them as distinct entities: Disney. Almost all Disney movies are remakes of classic stories, many of which are very different to the original versions.

While the fairy tales themselves have several versions—sometimes even the same author would rewrite them multiple times. This was the case with the Brothers Grimm who rewrote their stories in order to incorporate elements which were in keeping with fashions of the times. But the versions that were immortalised by Disney are very different to their initial incarnation.

A version of the Sleeping Beauty folk tale, published by Charles Perrault, then collected by the Brothers Grimm, sees the prince stumbling across the princess. He finds her so entrancing that he has sex with her while she is still asleep (given when this was written, instead of being rapey, it’s considered romantic) and she subsequently bears him twins. Clearly then, the version of Sleeping Beauty where the Prince and Aurora dance in the clouds singing to each other is a significant deviation from the original story, as is the fact that Maleficent transforms into a dragon and is valiantly defeated by the Prince. In one version she is an ogre who demands the twins be served to her by a cook who substitutes the children with lamb and goat…sound familiar, Disney’s Snow White?

Hans Christian Andersen’s version of The Little Mermaid sees her feel as though she’s walking on knives in order to actually get her legs and the prince views her as a pet rather than a person. Then, the Prince doesn’t actually choose her, he marries someone else and the condition of her becoming a human aside from the agony of walking is that she must be married of she will die, she must kill the Prince.

Moreover, the happy ending in which the princess is not only alive, but gets her man and her throne is a total deviation from the manner in which these stories originally ended. I suppose in Cinderella she does indeed get the Prince, but the eyes of her stepsisters are gruesomely pecked out by birds, which to me at least ruins the wholesomeness of the ending. As such, while the films themselves indisputably draw heavy inspiration from the original folk tales, it is compelling to suggest we should view them as distinct products and stories rather than a simple translation of a story.

Equally, Howl’s Moving Castle is a great example of a film which takes many of the original story’s elements but is not constrained by them. Arguably, there are sufficient differences that the book and film take on lives of their own. Miyakazi’s introduction of the war plot, and the different treatment of the Witch of the Waste are significant deviations from the book, but they contribute to the story that Miyazaki tells—one in which kindness and a gentle heart are the attributes which ultimately resolve the significant problems of the plot.

Indeed, this article discusses the arguably significant deviation between the two versions in noting “One difference is in its attitudes to evil. Miyazaki doesn’t do incorrigible villainy, and Howl the movie lifts that burden from the shoulders of Jones’s Witch of the Waste, sharing it out among a number of warmongers and miscreants.” In the words of Jones herself: “My philosophy would say that they would go to the bad for some other reason, if they didn’t have that one. I really do believe there are some people who are just irredeemable. But yes, Miyazaki is much more genial about the human race than I am.”

This therefore suggests that the divergences between the two creative forces of each version are grounded in fundamental differences of outlook and philosophy, leading to the creation of two very different stories. As a result, the film and book may be better viewed as two separate stories which happen to have several elements in common.

Less severe could be The Hunger Games films. The first film was reasonably faithful to the story barring the included scenes between President Snow and the Gamesmaster where the nature of power and control is teased out, giving us the audience greater insight into the kind of calculated control that President Snow extends across Panem. Is this sufficient to say that the book and film are two separate entities? Probably not, but the medium of the film enabled these scenes to take place whereas the first-person narration of the book limits its capacity to cut away to the Capital in such a fashion. It’s a great example of how films can move beyond the limitations of books in a way that augments the story.

Of course, there are then example of films that are clear in the adherence to the book, but deviate slightly in the telling. Baz Luhrmann’s version of The Great Gatsby offers a specific vision of the film that is both faithful to the book and moves away from it. The soundtrack is a really great example of this. It features rap, hip hop, and RnB songs, none of which existed in the roaring ‘20s. Luhrmann in an interview noted that he wanted to pay homage to the fact that F. Scott Fitzgerald was a modernist, as he was “in the moment, and the music of the moment was African-American street music called Jazz, and when he put Jazz music in Gatsby, everyone was like ‘What are you crazy? It’s a fad.”

As such, the movie Luhrmann created could be considered distinct from the original piece due to its inclusion of elements which simply did not exist when Fitzgerald wrote the book. Yet he was building upon and within the framework Fitzgerald’s legacy within the parameters of his own distinct style.

This article beautifully surmises: “Using technology, music, and the sheer emptiness of raw spectacle, he translates the exuberant spirit of the Jazz Age for an audience raised on Jay Z [who was the executive producer of the soundtrack], and wedges a wide enough rift between style and substance for Gatsby himself to fit comfortably inside.”

It goes on to note some of Lurhmann’s other works, and mentions his adaptation of Romeo and Juliet where; “he thread Shakespearean iambic pentameter through an explicitly 90s milieu, combining the feisty tribalism of Verona with the florid style of Venice Beach in order restore the present tense to a tragedy that feels like it predates all of civilisation”.

Interestingly, this leads into a quick discussion on adaptations. Ten Things I Hate About You may just be the greatest 90s teen film of all time (fight me if you disagree). It is a fabulous retelling of The Taming of the Shrew, updating the gossipy, jock-esque behaviour that Shakespeare captures so perfectly within his society by transposing it into a high school. Similar comments can be made about Bridget Jones’ Diary as both a book and film as a retelling of Pride and Prejudice, and Clueless as an adaptation that I would argue is better than the book of Emma.

Now of course, these are adaptations and very clearly re-interpretations, not faithful translations, but they themselves offer us the question of where the line exists between a retelling of the same story but in a different medium, and a distinct and new story, exists. There is also a somewhat compelling argument that The Lion King is based on Hamlet. If you happen to be well acquainted with the play, you too can sit glass of wine in hand and obnoxiously comment on the departures from the play throughout this children’s movie while also militantly skipping Mufasa’s death scene because you were too traumatised by it when you were four… or you could just read this article.

Ultimately, when books are made into movies, things are going to be different. If you imagined Dumbledore to be really tall and really thin, Michael Gambon was going to disappoint you. Sometimes the changes movies make are small deviations, or simply retellings of the story within the context of the modern world (like Gatsby). Sometimes the movies simply change things that happen, or place such a significant emphasis on certain parts of the plot, that the original message and original story has become transfigured. When this happens, perhaps it is best not to use the reductive phrase “the book was better than the film”, but instead to view them as distinct stories that happen to have similar elements.

But sometimes interpretations of books and the need to alter the specifics of the story in translating from page to screen can go awry. I ask you to look no further than the below evidence, which obviously arises from a distinct vision, but has perplexed some of the best minds of our generation:

What do you have to say about book to film adaptations? Tell us in the comments below!

The post When Book To Film Adaptations Are Simply Different appeared first on The Nerd Daily.

If there’s one thing that is certain in life, it’s that Disney movies will always be a hit and as an adult, and like many others out there, I still love Disney. We all have our favourite films and characters, but how do they fare against one another?

Let’s start with the sidekicks, as they are the ones who are often forgotten. We’ve decided to tackle the near-impossible task of ranking Disney sidekicks into a top 10! While many great candidates, from Thumper to Baloo and Gus Gus, didn’t make it into our list, would someone else be on yours?

Who’s your top Disney sidekick? Let us know in the comments below!

10. Flounder (The Little Mermaid)

PROS: An adorable little fish and his petite size is a bonus when it comes to escaping from sharks!
CONS: Unfortunately he helps or lets Ariel do lots of questionable things. There’s a line between being a supportive friend and letting your friend pine over a human and give up her voice for him. Yes?

9. Timon and Pumbaa (The Lion King)

PROS: This sidekick duo adds much-needed humour to this emotional story and with the best musical numbers, they clearly were successful since they got their own sequel.
CONS: Prey befriending a common predator? Except we do love those unlikely animal friendship videos…

8. Louis (Princess and the Frog)

PROS: Hilariously incompetent, endearing and who doesn’t love a shy, jazz-playing swamp crocodile?
CONS: Just a little lazy and lacks self-confidence, but he does make a great underdog character.

7. Maximus and Pascal (Tangled)

PROS: A horse and a chameleon makes another unlikely animal pairing. They’re both smarter and more resourceful than the humans are most of the time, so they owe them a lot.
CONS: Neither can speak which leads to a language barrier that not everyone can cross as easily as Rapunzel.

6. Genie (Aladdin)

PROS: The amazing voice of Robin Williams brings this character to the next level. He’s also responsible for most of the humour in the movie and probably one of the more popular Disney characters of all time.
CONS: Aladdin is an idiot and doesn’t listen to him ever. He also has no choice but to be a major enabler.

5. Lumiere (Beauty and the Beast)

PROS: This movie has a ton of sidekicks, but Lumiere beats them all. With a killer accent, the master of sick burns (ha, get it?), and he gets the best musical number of the movie!
CONS: Only gets to be a human for like 2 minutes and is a non-human servant for a jerky beast.

4. Raymond (Princess and the Frog)

PROS: Somehow a freaking firefly steals the show, and he is the sweetest, most lovable sidekick ever. Well, he is in love with a star for heaven’s sake. My nomination for most underrated character.
CONS: [SPOILER] Unfortunately faces the  most tragic death in a Disney movie.

3. Mushu (Mulan)

PROS: Eddie Murphy. Isn’t that enough? Also, he’s a tiny, sassy ass dragon.
CONS: Major inferiority complex.

2. Olaf (Frozen)

PROS: Best part of the movie and received a ton of hype. He’s also the king of one-liners without even knowing it and he is a snowman that wants to go to the beach…
CONS: Doesn’t have a solo movie yet. Need it ASAP.

1. Dory (Finding Nemo)

PROS: The greatest Disney character of all time! Dory has got the proof with her own solo movie and she’s also constantly quoted by real life humans.
CONS: Zero.

Image Credit: Playbuzz

The post The 10 Best Disney Movie Sidekicks appeared first on The Nerd Daily.

There seems to be a few Little Mermaid’s in the sea as this adaption comes from Conglomerate Media and Kingsway Productions. There is an official Disney live-action film in the works with Lin-Manuel Miranda and another was previously in the works by Universal until Chloe Moretz dropped out of the film last year.

In this reimagining of the classic tale a young girl and her reporter brother travel to a small Mississippi town to meet a woman believed to be a mermaid of legend. The film stars William Moseley (Narnia), Poppy Drayton (The Shannara Chronicles) and Shirley MacLaine.

The Little Mermaid is slated for release in mid-2017.

What did you think of the trailer? Let us know in the comments below!

The post There’s A New ‘Little Mermaid’ Swimming Around! appeared first on The Nerd Daily.