More Porn

On 8/13/2008 4:16 PM, Anne Elizabeth Baldwin wrote:
> "Ree" <geet.DeleteThis@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
[snip of Heinlein discussion]
>> One thing, if he reads Starship Troopers and then wants to see the movie
>> by the same name....advise him *strongly* that they are not at all the
>> same and if he expects the story from the book, he will be vastly
>> disappointed.
>
> I think that's a pretty good thing to keep in mind with books and movies
> anyway. A lot movies don't follow their books well at all. {smile}
>
> Even when they do, the books have enough more space to develop the
> story, they're usually better. I can think of exceptions - Mary Poppins and
> Jumanji pop to mind first - but in general, the book is better. {Smile}
>

One movie I liked a heck of a lot more than the book was Disney's take
on _The Three Musketeers_. But then, I thought the book's D'Artangnan
was an s.o.b. (Probably a pretty accurate depiction of the males of the
time period, but still.....)

But yes, usually the books are always better. (Don't get me started on
the wrongness-es in the film version of _Prince Caspian_!)

--
victoreia
Goddess of Dark Chocolate
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

Anne Elizabeth Baldwin wrote:
> "Ree" <geet RemoveThis @teksavvy.com> wrote in message
<snip - RAH>
>>I'd forgotten about Tunnel in the Sky.....I loved that one!
>>
>>One thing, if he reads Starship Troopers and then wants to see the movie
>>by the same name....advise him *strongly* that they are not at all the
>>same and if he expects the story from the book, he will be vastly
>>disappointed.
>
> I think that's a pretty good thing to keep in mind with books and movies
> anyway. A lot movies don't follow their books well at all. {smile}

Some movies don't follow their books, but are good movies as long as
the plot differences don't bother you. Uhhhh... (no, wait, I'll think
of an example) well, the Harry Potter movies are like that. Good
movies, even if they don't include a number of "vital" plot points
from the books.

Maybe not a good example; the Potter movies are fairly faithful.

I suppose 'I, Robot' might be an example. It seems to have been a
popular movie. And it wasn't baaaaddd, per se, it was simply not at
all like the book it shares a title with. (Not at all!)

"Starship Troopers" is bad. Just bad. A bad adaptation, a bad
movie... the only thing good about it is the physical appearance of
the movie's stars. (Soap opera looks, one and all.)

> Even when they do, the books have enough more space to develop the
> story, they're usually better. I can think of exceptions - Mary Poppins and
> Jumanji pop to mind first - but in general, the book is better. {Smile}

Oh, yes. But we may be biased!

--
Megan
Journeyperson Dancing Barbarian
Keeper o' the FAQ: http://home.earthlink.net/~m_thomas3/abml/
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

victoreia wrote:

> On 8/13/2008 4:16 PM, Anne Elizabeth Baldwin wrote:
>
> [snip of Heinlein discussion]

>> I think that's a pretty good thing to keep in mind with books and
>> movies anyway. A lot movies don't follow their books well at all. {smile}
>>
>> Even when they do, the books have enough more space to develop the
>> story, they're usually better. I can think of exceptions - Mary
>> Poppins and Jumanji pop to mind first - but in general, the book is
>> better. {Smile}
>
> One movie I liked a heck of a lot more than the book was Disney's take
> on _The Three Musketeers_. But then, I thought the book's D'Artangnan
> was an s.o.b. (Probably a pretty accurate depiction of the males of the
> time period, but still.....)

The attitudes in some older novels do take a bit of mental adjustment,
don't they? I agree with you -- adaptions of 'Three Musketeers' can
be more fun than the original. Possibly true for 'The Man in the Iron
Mask', too, but no film has properly achieved that. (That I know of.
A bunch of individually excellent actors were recruited into a
rather weak attempt at it, a decade or so ago.) The original book is
a trifle tedious by modern standards.

> But yes, usually the books are always better. (Don't get me started on
> the wrongness-es in the film version of _Prince Caspian_!)

I'm guessing I can safely skip that film?

--
Megan
Journeyperson Dancing Barbarian
Keeper o' the FAQ: http://home.earthlink.net/~m_thomas3/abml/
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:59:30 -0700, "m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"
<"m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Anne Elizabeth Baldwin wrote:
>> "Ree" <geet.DeleteThis@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
><snip - RAH>
>>>I'd forgotten about Tunnel in the Sky.....I loved that one!
>>>
>>>One thing, if he reads Starship Troopers and then wants to see the movie
>>>by the same name....advise him *strongly* that they are not at all the
>>>same and if he expects the story from the book, he will be vastly
>>>disappointed.
>>
>> I think that's a pretty good thing to keep in mind with books and movies
>> anyway. A lot movies don't follow their books well at all. {smile}
>
>Some movies don't follow their books, but are good movies as long as
>the plot differences don't bother you. Uhhhh... (no, wait, I'll think
>of an example) well, the Harry Potter movies are like that. Good
>movies, even if they don't include a number of "vital" plot points
>from the books.
>
>Maybe not a good example; the Potter movies are fairly faithful.

Lord of the Rings!

--
John Oliver
jdoliver.DeleteThis@westnet.com.au
AIM or MSN jdoliver98
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:08:24 +1000, John Oliver stomped through
my brain with:

>>Some movies don't follow their books, but are good movies as long as
>>the plot differences don't bother you. Uhhhh... (no, wait, I'll think
>>of an example) well, the Harry Potter movies are like that. Good
>>movies, even if they don't include a number of "vital" plot points
>>from the books.
>>
>>Maybe not a good example; the Potter movies are fairly faithful.
>
>Lord of the Rings!

Considering the Lord of the Rings, as I've pointed out before,
that novel (yes, I call it one novel... sue me. ) has a LOT
of information and detail that, if were to all be put on the
screen, the movies would be unbearably long. As it was, they
pushed that limit already with the three theatrical releases.
So, considering the audience, the media, and the environment,
they needed to modify the plot in some places (much to the horror
of purists of course) in order to convey the same story line and
same themes of a book that is EXTREMELY rich in verbal imagery
and exposition in such a manner that is viable for the target
media.

Starship Troopers... That Sucked... there were two reasons for
that movie.

1) Denise Richards in the shower to draw in the fanboy
demographic
2) Lot's of special effects with big bugs and big guns.

Plot was secondary and adherence to the book was barely on the
radar at all.

Tristaan

--
Beware Spam Trap!: "us" is an "ogre"
*******************************************************
Ogre-Monk, AIM TristaanOgre
"So good-bye for now and I'll see you again
Some way, some how
When it's my time to go to the other side
I'll hold you again and melt at your smile
Now I have all the ones that I am with
You taught me not to take for granted
The time that we have to show that we care
Speak into their lives and their hearts while they're here
And say I LOVE YOU!!"

~Disciple "Things Left Unsaid"

Theologian in training http://ballymennoniteblogger.blogspot.com/
*******************************************************
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

John Oliver wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:59:30 -0700, "m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"
> <"m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Anne Elizabeth Baldwin wrote:

>><snip - RAH>
>>> I think that's a pretty good thing to keep in mind with books and movies
>>>anyway. A lot movies don't follow their books well at all. {smile}
>>
>>Some movies don't follow their books, but are good movies as long as
>>the plot differences don't bother you. Uhhhh... (no, wait, I'll think
>>of an example) well, the Harry Potter movies are like that. Good
>>movies, even if they don't include a number of "vital" plot points
>>from the books.
>
>>Maybe not a good example; the Potter movies are fairly faithful.
>
>
> Lord of the Rings!

I think the LoTR movies are at least as faithful to their books as the
Potter movies are to theirs. Working under much more severe
space/time constraints. :>

I was trying to think of examples where the alterations are more
radical. Characters living who died in the books, entire new subplots
added in. "Tone" entirely altered.

Which is why I went with 'I, Robot' as my selection. I, personally,
did not like it, because the differences from the book drove me up the
wall. But if it had had a different title, and not included Asimov's
name (poor man) anywhere in the credits, I might have thought it a
decent action flick. A bit cliched, but aren't they all?

The movie 'Mansfield Park' might be a better example. Some fairly
radical changes to Fanny (the protaganist), relative to the novel, and
some (strong) references to political and social issues Austen never
wrote about, but a very good movie. Not very faithful to the novel in
tone, but in this case 'different' does not mean 'bad'.

--
Megan
Journeyperson Dancing Barbarian
Keeper o' the FAQ: http://home.earthlink.net/~m_thomas3/abml/
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

On 8/14/2008 10:05 AM, m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage] wrote:
> victoreia wrote:
>
>> On 8/13/2008 4:16 PM, Anne Elizabeth Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> [snip of Heinlein discussion]
>
>>> I think that's a pretty good thing to keep in mind with books and
>>> movies anyway. A lot movies don't follow their books well at all.
>>> {smile}
>>>
>>> Even when they do, the books have enough more space to develop the
>>> story, they're usually better. I can think of exceptions - Mary
>>> Poppins and Jumanji pop to mind first - but in general, the book is
>>> better. {Smile}
>>
>> One movie I liked a heck of a lot more than the book was Disney's take
>> on _The Three Musketeers_. But then, I thought the book's D'Artangnan
>> was an s.o.b. (Probably a pretty accurate depiction of the males of
>> the time period, but still.....)
>
> The attitudes in some older novels do take a bit of mental adjustment,
> don't they? I agree with you -- adaptions of 'Three Musketeers' can be
> more fun than the original. Possibly true for 'The Man in the Iron
> Mask', too, but no film has properly achieved that. (That I know of. A
> bunch of individually excellent actors were recruited into a rather weak
> attempt at it, a decade or so ago.) The original book is a trifle
> tedious by modern standards.
>
>> But yes, usually the books are always better. (Don't get me started on
>> the wrongness-es in the film version of _Prince Caspian_!)
>
> I'm guessing I can safely skip that film?
>
Let me put it this way....it took me about half the film to "forget"
reading the book; if you can approach it as a total Narnia novice,
you'll enjoy it more. (Some parts were great: Eddie Izzard as
Reepicheep! Some parts got changed, and completely bugged the
"But-that's-not-how-it-happened!" part of the brain, not to mention the
"What-the-h*ll-were-they-thinking?!?" reaction.)

On the other hand, _Wardrobe_ was actually fairly close..........

--
victoreia (if you want specific gripes, _do_ let me know....my soapbox
is around here somewhere......[grin])
Goddess of Dark Chocolate
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:42:44 -0400, Tristaan <tristaanus.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:08:24 +1000, John Oliver stomped through
>my brain with:
>
>>>Some movies don't follow their books, but are good movies as long as
>>>the plot differences don't bother you. Uhhhh... (no, wait, I'll think
>>>of an example) well, the Harry Potter movies are like that. Good
>>>movies, even if they don't include a number of "vital" plot points
>>>from the books.
>>>
>>>Maybe not a good example; the Potter movies are fairly faithful.
>>
>>Lord of the Rings!
>
>Considering the Lord of the Rings, as I've pointed out before,
>that novel (yes, I call it one novel... sue me. ) has a LOT
>of information and detail that, if were to all be put on the
>screen, the movies would be unbearably long. As it was, they
>pushed that limit already with the three theatrical releases.
>So, considering the audience, the media, and the environment,
>they needed to modify the plot in some places (much to the horror
>of purists of course) in order to convey the same story line and
>same themes of a book that is EXTREMELY rich in verbal imagery
>and exposition in such a manner that is viable for the target
>media.
>
>Starship Troopers... That Sucked... there were two reasons for
>that movie.
>
>1) Denise Richards in the shower to draw in the fanboy
>demographic
>2) Lot's of special effects with big bugs and big guns.
>
>Plot was secondary and adherence to the book was barely on the
>radar at all.
>
>Tristaan

Triss,

I agree with you about the LOTR movies. I love them. But I was
responding to

>>>Some movies don't follow their books, but are good movies as long as
>>>the plot differences don't bother you. Uhhhh... (no, wait, I'll think
>>>of an example)

with Lord of the Rings as an example.
--
John Oliver
jdoliver.TakeThisOut@westnet.com.au
AIM or MSN jdoliver98
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

"m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"
<"m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9uudnRPy_Ns5MD7VnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> Anne Elizabeth Baldwin wrote:
>> "Ree" <geet DeleteThis @teksavvy.com> wrote in message
> <snip - RAH>
>>>I'd forgotten about Tunnel in the Sky.....I loved that one!
>>>
>>>One thing, if he reads Starship Troopers and then wants to see the movie
>>>by the same name....advise him *strongly* that they are not at all the
>>>same and if he expects the story from the book, he will be vastly
>>>disappointed.
>>
>> I think that's a pretty good thing to keep in mind with books and
>> movies anyway. A lot movies don't follow their books well at all.
>> {smile}
>
> Some movies don't follow their books, but are good movies as long as the
> plot differences don't bother you. Uhhhh... (no, wait, I'll think of an
> example) well, the Harry Potter movies are like that. Good movies, even
> if they don't include a number of "vital" plot points from the books.
>
> Maybe not a good example; the Potter movies are fairly faithful.

Yes, I think Harry is pretty faithful. They leave out most sub-plots,
but they have to cut something to make it fit into 2 hours or so. What they
leave in seems pretty close.

> I suppose 'I, Robot' might be an example. It seems to have been a
> popular movie. And it wasn't baaaaddd, per se, it was simply not at all
> like the book it shares a title with. (Not at all!)

Think of my LiveJournal icons. _Wizard_of_Oz_ is a good film in my
opinion, but... well, the characters have the same names, and Dorothy does
want to get home. {Smile} However, much has changed. {SMILE}

> "Starship Troopers" is bad. Just bad. A bad adaptation, a bad movie...
> the only thing good about it is the physical appearance of the movie's
> stars. (Soap opera looks, one and all.)

I'll take your word for it. {Smile}

>> Even when they do, the books have enough more space to develop the
>> story, they're usually better. I can think of exceptions - Mary Poppins
>> and Jumanji pop to mind first - but in general, the book is better.
>> {Smile}
>
> Oh, yes. But we may be biased!

Of course we're biased... but we're still right. {wink, BROAD SMILE}


Anne Elizabeth Baldwin
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

victoreia wrote:
> On 8/14/2008 10:05 AM, m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage] wrote:
>
>> victoreia wrote:
<snip>
>>> But yes, usually the books are always better. (Don't get me started
>>> on the wrongness-es in the film version of _Prince Caspian_!)
>>
>> I'm guessing I can safely skip that film?
>>
> Let me put it this way....it took me about half the film to "forget"
> reading the book; if you can approach it as a total Narnia novice,
> you'll enjoy it more. (Some parts were great: Eddie Izzard as
> Reepicheep! Some parts got changed, and completely bugged the
> "But-that's-not-how-it-happened!" part of the brain, not to mention the
> "What-the-h*ll-were-they-thinking?!?" reaction.)

If it helps, I *am* a total Narnia novice. I'm reasonably confident I
read 'Wardrobe'... when I was 10. I meant to read the others. I
think. I have a looooong "mean to read someday" list.

And 10 was a long time ago...

> On the other hand, _Wardrobe_ was actually fairly close..........
>
> victoreia (if you want specific gripes, _do_ let me know....my soapbox
> is around here somewhere......[grin])

When are our soapboxes ever very far away? :>

--
Megan
Journeyperson Dancing Barbarian
Keeper o' the FAQ: http://home.earthlink.net/~m_thomas3/abml/
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:56:19 -1000, "Anne Elizabeth Baldwin" <anneb @ aloha
.. net> wrote:

>"m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"

>> I suppose 'I, Robot' might be an example. It seems to have been a
>> popular movie. And it wasn't baaaaddd, per se, it was simply not at all
>> like the book it shares a title with. (Not at all!)

The thing is, I Robot (the book) isn't a story, it's a collection of
loosely related short stories.

It is true that the movie Susan Calvin is nothing like the Susan Calvin of
the short stories. (I would like to have seen a movie that incorporated
"Liar" into it).

> Think of my LiveJournal icons. _Wizard_of_Oz_ is a good film in my
>opinion, but... well, the characters have the same names, and Dorothy does
>want to get home. {Smile} However, much has changed. {SMILE}

Well, there, the changing actually started with Baum. He constantly
changed the background and history of Oz even in the books, and was
perfectly willing to depart from the books in his own stage plays and
films, even further than MGM did when it got around to remaking it. About
the only one of his Oz films that stayed even modestly close to the books
was The Patchwork Girl of Oz, and there, he did the film before the book
was published.


--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

"victoreia" <inkypaws.DeleteThis@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a2893$48a3b7fa$32189@news.teranews.com...
> On 8/13/2008 4:16 PM, Anne Elizabeth Baldwin wrote:
>> "Ree" <geet.DeleteThis@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
> [snip of Heinlein discussion]

>>> One thing, if he reads Starship Troopers and then wants to see the
>>> movie by the same name....advise him *strongly* that they are not at
>>> all the same and if he expects the story from the book, he will be
>>> vastly disappointed.
>>
>> I think that's a pretty good thing to keep in mind with books and
>> movies anyway. A lot movies don't follow their books well at all.
>> {smile}
>>
>> Even when they do, the books have enough more space to develop the
>> story, they're usually better. I can think of exceptions - Mary Poppins
>> and Jumanji pop to mind first - but in general, the book is better.
>> {Smile}
>>
>
> One movie I liked a heck of a lot more than the book was Disney's take on
> _The Three Musketeers_. But then, I thought the book's D'Artangnan was an
> s.o.b. (Probably a pretty accurate depiction of the males of the time
> period, but still.....)

I'm not familiar with that movie. It does sound more palatable to modern
tastes than the original. If I stumble across it, I'll try to remember to
check it out. {Smile}

> But yes, usually the books are always better. (Don't get me started on
> the wrongness-es in the film version of _Prince Caspian_!)

Unfortunately, I'm curious what you have to say about it. I'm intrigued
by my friends' reactions to it. {Smile} (No, I haven't seen it myself;
movie theaters are too much of a bother these days. That's okay; I don't
mind spoilers. {Smile})

> victoreia

Anne Elizabeth Baldwin
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

Anne Elizabeth Baldwin wrote:

> "m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"
> <"m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"@earthlink.net> wrote in message
<snip>

>>movies don't follow their books, but are good movies as long as the
>>plot differences don't bother you. Uhhhh... (no, wait, I'll think of an
<snip>
>>I suppose 'I, Robot' might be an example. It seems to have been a
>>popular movie. And it wasn't baaaaddd, per se, it was simply not at all
>>like the book it shares a title with. (Not at all!)
>
> Think of my LiveJournal icons. _Wizard_of_Oz_ is a good film in my
> opinion, but... well, the characters have the same names, and Dorothy does
> want to get home. {Smile} However, much has changed. {SMILE}

Wizard of Oz is a good example. Pinochio might be better -- fewer
written sequels to confuse the issue. :>

--
Megan
Journeyperson Dancing Barbarian
Keeper o' the FAQ: http://home.earthlink.net/~m_thomas3/abml/
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn