More Porn

"m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"
<"m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u5udncqCHJs4HTnVnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> 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. :>

LOTR is a looser adaptation than most of the Harry Potter films. They
changed things beyond collapsing or leaving stuff out much more. Still,
most book-to-movie adaptations are looser. {Smile}

> 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?

I'm not familiar with this one, so I can't comment on how well it fits
or doesn't. {smile}

> 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'.

I don't know this one either. {smile}


Anne Elizabeth Baldwin
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage] wrote:
> 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'.
>

I would even say that the movie is BETTER than the book, in this case. I
like what they did with Fanny and the story, even if it wasn't what
Austen wrote. Another good example of this same sort of thing is the
Winona Rider/Susan Sarandon version of _Little Women_ They added things
to the movie that never took place in the book- although they were
certainly were true to Louisa May Alcott's upbringing- and I think they
were a good addition.

Sometimes, I think they should give movies a new name. Like Ella
Enchanted- the movie was cute enough, for what it was, but it bore very
little resemblance to the book it was based on. It wasn't BAD, but it
wasn't the same story.

Did anyone here see that movie that claimed to be based on the first
Dark is Rising book? After just watching the ads for it, I went back and
re-read the book because I was thinking maybe I was remembering the book
wrong! It might have been a perfectly good movie, but it wasn't wasn't
the same plot!

There was something else we DID see in the past year or so, that both of
us said was a decent movie, but NOT the story that was in the book.
Which always makes me wonder- they spend all kinds of money for the
rights to the books, because the book was so popular and will have a
'built in audience' and then they completely change the plot and THEN
wonder why the movie bombs! Do they think the books get so popular for
no reason? That the plot had nothing to do with it? It's insane.

Kat
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

Anne Elizabeth Baldwin wrote:

> "m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"
> <"m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"@earthlink.net> wrote in message
<snip>
>>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?
>
> I'm not familiar with this one, so I can't comment on how well it fits
> or doesn't. {smile}

Not worth seeing, if you are older than 17 or have ever read anything
by Asimov. For stereotypical 15 year old boys, might be just the thing.

>>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'.
>
> I don't know this one either. {smile}

'Mansfield Park', OTOH, is worth seeing. :>

But I'm biased. I really like all things Austen. OTOH, my brother
thought 'Mansfield Park' was ok, and he's not an Austen-ite.

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

In article <49Sdnf04i47fXjTVnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d DeleteThis @earthlink.com>,
"m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"
<"m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Anne Elizabeth Baldwin wrote:
>
> > "m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"
> > <"m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> <snip>
> >>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?
> >
> > I'm not familiar with this one, so I can't comment on how well it fits
> > or doesn't. {smile}
>
> Not worth seeing, if you are older than 17 or have ever read anything
> by Asimov. For stereotypical 15 year old boys, might be just the thing.
>
> >>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'.
> >
> > I don't know this one either. {smile}
>
> 'Mansfield Park', OTOH, is worth seeing. :>
>
> But I'm biased. I really like all things Austen. OTOH, my brother
> thought 'Mansfield Park' was ok, and he's not an Austen-ite.


I mostly try to avoid movie adaptations of books that I liked. With some
exceptions, of course--I did see all of the LotR and Harry Potter movies.

My husband and I, once upon a time, rented Starship Troopers (we
couldn't find anything else interesting at the local rental place.) Big
mistake.

I think we actually own I, Robot on DVD, but I've never seen it. My son
liked it, though, and he's read several of Asimov's books.

Edna


---|)--- Edna Huelsenbeck (huelsenbeck@gmailDOTcom) ------------
---|---- Goddess of the ABML Out-of-Practice-Musicians Band -----
--/|---- Member, Brute Squad, Mommy Division --------------------
-| |')-- Provisional Member of the Sisterhood of Mess -----------
--\|/----Official Bard of the Book and Bridle -------------------
|
'
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

"William George Ferguson" <wmgfrgsn.DeleteThis@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:803ca4deui956pcv9d8cbuvbnuqekgl8h5@4ax.com...
> 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).

I'll keep that in mind... probably when I check out the book. We don't
have the movie, but I bet the book just across the room. {Smile}

>> 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.

The fellow was known for his wild imagination, not his continuity. By
the last books, he changed some facts between the beginning of a chapter
and the end. I remember checking to make sure, and yes, he'd changed the
facts he'd established not-that-many pages before. {wry look}

> 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.

I didn't realize that. I never got into his films. I'm just as glad I
didn't; the lack of continuity within and between books was quite enough to
cope with. {Amused Smile}


Anne Elizabeth Baldwin
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

Kathleen Hein wrote:

> m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage] wrote:
>
>> 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 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.
<snip>
>>
>> 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'.
>>
>
> I would even say that the movie is BETTER than the book, in this case. I
> like what they did with Fanny and the story, even if it wasn't what
> Austen wrote. Another good example of this same sort of thing is the
> Winona Rider/Susan Sarandon version of _Little Women_ They added things
> to the movie that never took place in the book- although they were
> certainly were true to Louisa May Alcott's upbringing- and I think they
> were a good addition.

The 'Mansfield Park' movie is good enough one can, at least, make a
good argument that it is better than the book. More in tune with the
changes in attitudes that have occurred between Austen's time and
ours, definitely. Of all her novels, that is the one that has aged
worst. Attitudes towards what constitutes "good" behaviour has changed!

And, since the 'Mansfield Park' movie borrowed from Austen's own
letters and childhood writings to create Fanny's updated 'voice', the
Austen-like tone and wit was maintained. :>

'Little Women' (Ryder/Sarandon version)... I think of that as a fairly
faithful adaptation. Not enough changed, plot-wise, from the book to
really feel different.

> Sometimes, I think they should give movies a new name. Like Ella
> Enchanted- the movie was cute enough, for what it was, but it bore very
> little resemblance to the book it was based on. It wasn't BAD, but it
> wasn't the same story.

Good example. I had to visit the library and double-check my memories
of the novel's plot after I saw the movie. Did they change things, or
was I thinking of the wrong novel?

Better example of the "different is not necessarily bad" movie/book
argument.

> Did anyone here see that movie that claimed to be based on the first
> Dark is Rising book? After just watching the ads for it, I went back and
> re-read the book because I was thinking maybe I was remembering the book
> wrong! It might have been a perfectly good movie, but it wasn't wasn't
> the same plot!

Yes, to my regret I was curious enough to rent that movie. It was
close enough to the novel to be heart-breakingly *wrong*.

And it wasn't a perfectly good movie. That was the worst, most
cliched, anti-climactically badly done finale I've seen in a long
while. The movie almost might have made "different, but ok" status,
if they hadn't so completely cheesed up the last 10 minutes.

> There was something else we DID see in the past year or so, that both of
> us said was a decent movie, but NOT the story that was in the book.
> Which always makes me wonder- they spend all kinds of money for the
> rights to the books, because the book was so popular and will have a
> 'built in audience' and then they completely change the plot and THEN
> wonder why the movie bombs! Do they think the books get so popular for
> no reason? That the plot had nothing to do with it? It's insane.

I do wonder about the logical leaps movie scriptwriters and directors
make, to justify to themselves some of the changes they make in plots.
"Generations of children have loved this plot, but I think my idea
is better" ??

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

"m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"
<"m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:v9Kdnf1JWeiCxDvVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> 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. :>

Besides, Pinocchio wasn't written by L. Frank Baum. This means the
internal continuity was in better shape than in the later Oz novels.
{Smile}


Anne Elizabeth Baldwin
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

Edna wrote:
<snip, snip, snip>
> I mostly try to avoid movie adaptations of books that I liked. With some
> exceptions, of course--I did see all of the LotR and Harry Potter movies.
>
> My husband and I, once upon a time, rented Starship Troopers (we
> couldn't find anything else interesting at the local rental place.) Big
> mistake.
>
> I think we actually own I, Robot on DVD, but I've never seen it. My son
> liked it, though, and he's read several of Asimov's books.

Ok, maybe it is only readers of 'I, Robot' who were bothered by the
movie. Or readers who read 'I, Robot' *before* seeing the movie.

Or old fuddy-duddies like me. :>

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

m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage] wrote:
> Edna wrote:
> <snip, snip, snip>
>> I mostly try to avoid movie adaptations of books that I liked. With
>> some exceptions, of course--I did see all of the LotR and Harry Potter
>> movies.
>>
>> My husband and I, once upon a time, rented Starship Troopers (we
>> couldn't find anything else interesting at the local rental place.)
>> Big mistake.
>>
>> I think we actually own I, Robot on DVD, but I've never seen it. My
>> son liked it, though, and he's read several of Asimov's books.
>
> Ok, maybe it is only readers of 'I, Robot' who were bothered by the
> movie. Or readers who read 'I, Robot' *before* seeing the movie.
>
> Or old fuddy-duddies like me. :>
>


Jesse saw it and puts it in the "different but okay" category. He said,
however, that he would have found it a lot more interesting if they'd
kept it closer to the actual universe Asimov created, and in that way he
was disappointed.

Kat
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage] wrote:
> Kathleen Hein wrote:
>
>> m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage] wrote:
>>
>>> 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 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.
> <snip>
>>>
>>> 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'.
>>>
>>
>> I would even say that the movie is BETTER than the book, in this case.
>> I like what they did with Fanny and the story, even if it wasn't what
>> Austen wrote. Another good example of this same sort of thing is the
>> Winona Rider/Susan Sarandon version of _Little Women_ They added
>> things to the movie that never took place in the book- although they
>> were certainly were true to Louisa May Alcott's upbringing- and I
>> think they were a good addition.
>
> The 'Mansfield Park' movie is good enough one can, at least, make a good
> argument that it is better than the book. More in tune with the changes
> in attitudes that have occurred between Austen's time and ours,
> definitely. Of all her novels, that is the one that has aged worst.
> Attitudes towards what constitutes "good" behaviour has changed!
>
> And, since the 'Mansfield Park' movie borrowed from Austen's own letters
> and childhood writings to create Fanny's updated 'voice', the
> Austen-like tone and wit was maintained. :>
>
> 'Little Women' (Ryder/Sarandon version)... I think of that as a fairly
> faithful adaptation. Not enough changed, plot-wise, from the book to
> really feel different.

You're right in that they didn't change things as much as they just
added things.

Normally, the only time I think the movie is better than a book is when
I didn't like the book. Like anything Gothic, especially French Gothic.
LOL Or maybe being forced to read Three Musketeers or The Count of Monte
Cristo- IN FRENCH- in high school is what ruined the books for me. I
don't think so, though, because I've read Les Miserables on my own (in
English) and I discovered that I find Hugo as interminably boring as I
do Dickens (with a couple exceptions) but since movies can SHOW you
things instead of feeling they need to describe every last crack in the
sidewalk and aren't trying to fill out the story for the
pay-by-the-word/add enough to make an installment in the magazine part....

I also approve of things like cutting out things like most of the teen
whining in the Harry Potter movies. I wish they weren't making Deathly
Hallows into 2 movies, since I would happily see them cut out 2/3 of the
roaming around the countryside and arguing among themselves parts!

>
>> Sometimes, I think they should give movies a new name. Like Ella
>> Enchanted- the movie was cute enough, for what it was, but it bore
>> very little resemblance to the book it was based on. It wasn't BAD,
>> but it wasn't the same story.
>
> Good example. I had to visit the library and double-check my memories
> of the novel's plot after I saw the movie. Did they change things, or
> was I thinking of the wrong novel?

The name and "curse" were the same, and that's about where the
similarities ended. LOL

>
> Better example of the "different is not necessarily bad" movie/book
> argument.
>
>> Did anyone here see that movie that claimed to be based on the first
>> Dark is Rising book? After just watching the ads for it, I went back
>> and re-read the book because I was thinking maybe I was remembering
>> the book wrong! It might have been a perfectly good movie, but it
>> wasn't wasn't the same plot!
>
> Yes, to my regret I was curious enough to rent that movie. It was close
> enough to the novel to be heart-breakingly *wrong*.
>
> And it wasn't a perfectly good movie. That was the worst, most cliched,
> anti-climactically badly done finale I've seen in a long while. The
> movie almost might have made "different, but ok" status, if they hadn't
> so completely cheesed up the last 10 minutes.

It looked so bad we didn't even rent it. I'll warn Jesse, since he did
feel curious enough to watch Starship Troopers a few months ago on
cable. He regrets that loss, too.

>
>> There was something else we DID see in the past year or so, that both
>> of us said was a decent movie, but NOT the story that was in the book.
>> Which always makes me wonder- they spend all kinds of money for the
>> rights to the books, because the book was so popular and will have a
>> 'built in audience' and then they completely change the plot and THEN
>> wonder why the movie bombs! Do they think the books get so popular for
>> no reason? That the plot had nothing to do with it? It's insane.
>
> I do wonder about the logical leaps movie scriptwriters and directors
> make, to justify to themselves some of the changes they make in plots.
> "Generations of children have loved this plot, but I think my idea is
> better" ??


They just don't get it. I think it comes from things that work in a book
don't necessarily work on screen, at least not easily, and then once
they start making changes, they can't stop themselves. Or, they and the
producers think they "know" better. All I know if that at some point,
you'd think they'd learn, but they do it over and over again.

Kat
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

Kat Hein wrote:

> m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage] wrote:
>
>> Kathleen Hein wrote:
>>
>>> m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage] wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>>> 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'.
>>>>
>>> I would even say that the movie is BETTER than the book, in this
>>> case. I like what they did with Fanny and the story, even if it
>>> wasn't what Austen wrote. Another good example of this same sort of
>>> thing is the Winona Rider/Susan Sarandon version of _Little Women_
>>> They added things to the movie that never took place in the book-
>>> although they were certainly were true to Louisa May Alcott's
>>> upbringing- and I think they were a good addition.
>>
>> The 'Mansfield Park' movie is good enough one can, at least, make a
>> good argument that it is better than the book. More in tune with the
>> changes in attitudes that have occurred between Austen's time and
>> ours, definitely. Of all her novels, that is the one that has aged
>> worst. Attitudes towards what constitutes "good" behaviour has changed!
>>
>> And, since the 'Mansfield Park' movie borrowed from Austen's own
>> letters and childhood writings to create Fanny's updated 'voice', the
>> Austen-like tone and wit was maintained. :>
>>
>> 'Little Women' (Ryder/Sarandon version)... I think of that as a fairly
>> faithful adaptation. Not enough changed, plot-wise, from the book to
>> really feel different.
>
> You're right in that they didn't change things as much as they just
> added things.
>
> Normally, the only time I think the movie is better than a book is when
> I didn't like the book. Like anything Gothic, especially French Gothic.
> LOL Or maybe being forced to read Three Musketeers or The Count of Monte
> Cristo- IN FRENCH- in high school is what ruined the books for me. I
> don't think so, though, because I've read Les Miserables on my own (in
> English) and I discovered that I find Hugo as interminably boring as I
> do Dickens (with a couple exceptions) but since movies can SHOW you
> things instead of feeling they need to describe every last crack in the
> sidewalk and aren't trying to fill out the story for the
> pay-by-the-word/add enough to make an installment in the magazine part....

I enjoyed 'Count of Monte Cristo', which I also read for
school, but I read it in English. That may have helped. :>

However, I liked 'Les Miz' (in translation) on my own, and
liked it -- not as much as the musical, of course, but it
wasn't bad. And I have been known to enjoy Dickens, though
not enough to read him anytime in the past decade. So
perhaps I have greater tolerance for lengthy verbiage than
you do.

Or, perhaps I used to have greater tolerance. I've recently
stopped reading an author or two for no other reason than
that the "words to plot" ratio in their novels was tilted
too far towards words.

> I also approve of things like cutting out things like most of the teen
> whining in the Harry Potter movies. I wish they weren't making Deathly
> Hallows into 2 movies, since I would happily see them cut out 2/3 of the
> roaming around the countryside and arguing among themselves parts!

They are doing 'Deathly Hallows' as two movies? Huh. I'd
think one of the other novels from the end of the Potter
series would be a better choice for splitting up, for
exactly the reason you cite.

But just think of the profit in ticket sales they'd lose!

<snip>
>> Better example of the "different is not necessarily bad" movie/book
>> argument.
>>
>>> Did anyone here see that movie that claimed to be based on the first
>>> Dark is Rising book? After just watching the ads for it, I went back
>>> and re-read the book because I was thinking maybe I was remembering
>>> the book wrong! It might have been a perfectly good movie, but it
>>> wasn't wasn't the same plot!
>>
>> Yes, to my regret I was curious enough to rent that movie. It was
>> close enough to the novel to be heart-breakingly *wrong*.
>>
>> And it wasn't a perfectly good movie. That was the worst, most
>> cliched, anti-climactically badly done finale I've seen in a long
>> while. The movie almost might have made "different, but ok" status,
>> if they hadn't so completely cheesed up the last 10 minutes.
>
> It looked so bad we didn't even rent it. I'll warn Jesse, since he did
> feel curious enough to watch Starship Troopers a few months ago on
> cable. He regrets that loss, too.

In all fairness, the 'Dark is Rising' movie is probably
better than the 'Starship Troopers'. More faithful to its
source, at any rate... not that that is saying very much.

Anyone else have an informed opinion on that movie,
particularly the final scenes? I truly had the sense, when
watching the 'finale', that they completely flubbed it. It
is possible that a Johnny Depp-like main actor might have
rescued the dialogue at the climax, but to hand lines that
cliched to a relatively young actor and expect him to rescue
the film using such cheesy material seemed to ask too much
of the poor lad.

But maybe that is just my oversensitivity to use of language
cropping up, again.

>>> There was something else we DID see in the past year or so, that both
>>> of us said was a decent movie, but NOT the story that was in the
>>> book. Which always makes me wonder- they spend all kinds of money for
>>> the rights to the books, because the book was so popular and will
>>> have a 'built in audience' and then they completely change the plot
>>> and THEN wonder why the movie bombs! Do they think the books get so
>>> popular for no reason? That the plot had nothing to do with it? It's
>>> insane.
>>
>> I do wonder about the logical leaps movie scriptwriters and directors
>> make, to justify to themselves some of the changes they make in plots.
>> "Generations of children have loved this plot, but I think my idea is
>> better" ??
>
> They just don't get it. I think it comes from things that work in a book
> don't necessarily work on screen, at least not easily, and then once
> they start making changes, they can't stop themselves. Or, they and the
> producers think they "know" better. All I know if that at some point,
> you'd think they'd learn, but they do it over and over again.

I think you may be correct that they start with just the
tiny nips and tucks necessary to fit the material into a 1.5
hour film... and just can't stop themselves. Evidently the
script creation system doesn't have anyone near the end of
line with the authority to read a script with a fresh eye
and say, "no, go back, you've wandered too far from the
source material". So they just keep wandering... and
wandering...

Ah, well. Makes me glad I don't work in Hollywood!

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

On 8/18/2008 5:52 PM, m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage] wrote:
> Kat Hein wrote:
>
>> m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage] wrote:

[huge snip]
>> I also approve of things like cutting out things like most of the teen
>> whining in the Harry Potter movies. I wish they weren't making Deathly
>> Hallows into 2 movies, since I would happily see them cut out 2/3 of
>> the roaming around the countryside and arguing among themselves parts!
>>
>
> They are doing 'Deathly Hallows' as two movies? Huh. I'd think one of
> the other novels from the end of the Potter series would be a better
> choice for splitting up, for exactly the reason you cite.
>
> But just think of the profit in ticket sales they'd lose!
>
Actually, I read somewhere that the powers-that-be decided on the split
because they felt there was too much material they _couldn't_ cut; my
impression was we'd end up with an old-style epic a la _Gone With the
Wind_ if they hadn't split _Hallows_.
Can you see modern audiences coming back after the ten-minute intermission?


>>>> Did anyone here see that movie that claimed to be based on the first
>>>> Dark is Rising book? After just watching the ads for it, I went back
>>>> and re-read the book because I was thinking maybe I was remembering
>>>> the book wrong! It might have been a perfectly good movie, but it
>>>> wasn't wasn't the same plot!
>>>
>>> Yes, to my regret I was curious enough to rent that movie. It was
>>> close enough to the novel to be heart-breakingly *wrong*.
>>>
>>> And it wasn't a perfectly good movie. That was the worst, most
>>> cliched, anti-climactically badly done finale I've seen in a long
>>> while. The movie almost might have made "different, but ok" status,
>>> if they hadn't so completely cheesed up the last 10 minutes.
>>

Oh, good. Now I'll know to avoid the movie after I get around to
borrowing _The Dark is Rising_ series....

[another snip]
>>> I do wonder about the logical leaps movie scriptwriters and directors
>>> make, to justify to themselves some of the changes they make in
>>> plots. "Generations of children have loved this plot, but I think my
>>> idea is better" ??

Maybe they get carried away with the idea that they're playing in an
idol's universe? Think of all the badly written fan fiction floating
around out there! A lot of those stories are either badly written in the
sense of "I don't need no steeenkin' grammar!" or in the sense of "Plot?
What's that? I want to see Character X and Character Y do _this_!"
(Sadly, there are quite a number that suffer from both afflictions.)

There are some good writers out there (both in Hollywood, and in fan
fiction), but quality seems to be a dying concept. (As does restraint.)

--
victoreia (trying to get the soapbox back in the closet again)
Goddess of Dark Chocolate
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
 >> Stay informed about: More Porn 

On 8/18/2008 12:35 PM, Anne Elizabeth Baldwin wrote:
[snip]
>> Okay, rant over for now.
>> --
>> victoreia (wrestling soap box back into the closet......)
>
> Need help? I know those are hard to stash when you're done with them.
> {Smile}
>

Thanks, but it's escaped again. I think it's grown teeth!

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