# Reading > General Literature >  Books That Shouldn't Have Been Films...

## MissTwain

Since I'm a newb I thought I'd start a discussion... which books should not have been made into films?

Just throwing it out there...

----------


## sixsmith

Ha. So many. I'm coming at this from the angle of books that can't possibly translate into film (which is the vast majority of good books IMO) rather than simply crap films based on books

Some recent undertakings:

"Revolutionary Road" - Richard Yates
"The Human stain", "Portnoy's complaint" - Philip Roth
"Seize the day" - Saul Bellow
"Brideshead Revisited" - Evelyn Waugh
"Pride and Prejudice" - Jane Austen

----------


## MissTwain

THERES SO MANY PRIDE AND PREJUDICES IT HURTS hahaha

----------


## Uberzensch

> Ha. So many. I'm coming at this from the angle of books that can't possibly translate into film (which is the vast majority of good books IMO) rather than simply crap films based on books
> 
> Some recent undertakings:
> 
> "Revolutionary Road" - Richard Yates
> "The Human stain", "Portnoy's complaint" - Philip Roth
> "Seize the day" - Saul Bellow
> "Brideshead Revisited" - Evelyn Waugh
> "Pride and Prejudice" - Jane Austen


Did you really think Revolutionary Road was _that_ bad?

----------


## Thespian1975

Stephen King's - Pet Semetary, IT, and most others except the shining. I've not seen the shawshank redemption so I withhold comment on that one

----------


## kelby_lake

> Ha. So many. I'm coming at this from the angle of books that can't possibly translate into film (which is the vast majority of good books IMO) rather than simply crap films based on books
> 
> Some recent undertakings:
> "Brideshead Revisited" - Evelyn Waugh
> "Pride and Prejudice" - Jane Austen


But these two did make brilliant TV series- although the films were abysmal.

This is mainly the problem of theatre- 'Oh What A Lovely War!' just doesn't work on film. Any book where metaphor or figurative things play a part is unlikely to make a good film. Film's too literal a medium.

----------


## Dionido

In many cases even the best of films can still ruin a book. When you watch a movie about a book you've read or that you're going to read in the future, you kill a little part of it I think. 

Anyway, ironically the first the comes to mind is Disney's _Hunchback of Notre-Dame_. Yes of course it is only a cartoon for children, but I hate how it ruins the spirit of the original novel.

Another thought that comes to mind: it's funny how in many cases some very famous movies are based on books that nobody seems to know about (Zorba the Greek, Clockwork Orange...)

----------


## MissTwain

> Stephen King's - Pet Semetary, IT, and most others except the shining. I've not seen the shawshank redemption so I withhold comment on that one


Stanley Kubrick MADE the Shining, it was a fabulous work... and Shawshank is a brilliant film as well. I'm going to admit I've only ever read Hearts in Atlantis by Stephen King and the movie was mediochre, so I can't say much more about him. 

I always hate it when they remake movies of classic movies that were once books (examples: Dracula and Frankenstein). Because it makes these creatures into such different monsters than the deeply complex ones of the classic novels. Frankenstein is a fantastic and complex novel that doesn't need to be made into film...

----------


## The Atheist

> Frankenstein is a fantastic and complex novel that doesn't need to be made into film...


You're right, but DeNiro's reanimation is worth the film.

The same could be said about any good book, but lots of them make good films as well.

I agree with the Stephen King analysis as well - everything but Stanley Kubrick's _Shining_ ought not to have been made.

----------


## Mr Endon

_Portnoy's Complaint_ in film, is it? Must see that one.

I agree that 'Shining' deserves a positive mention, great film indeed.

Though there are many books which are impossible to render into film, the ones that have been are usually theoretically 'filmable', yet sometimes it just goes more than awry. My votes go to 'Dracula' (the Browning's 1931 version, that is; the 1922 German version 'Nosferatu' is terrific), 'Odyssey' (eponymous poem), 'Troy' ('Iliad'). All of these were excruciating to watch.

(Oh, and I have mixed feelings about 'Women in Love'. It's as weird as they come - but then again, so is the novel. So perhaps it's a good rendering, I don't know.)

----------


## sixsmith

> Did you really think Revolutionary Road was _that_ bad?


No. It was far from horrible but it was a prime example of the limitation of film as a medium (as many film reviewers pointed out at the time).

----------


## sixsmith

> _Portnoy's Complaint_ in film, is it? Must see that one.
> 
> I agree that 'Shining' deserves a positive mention, great film indeed.
> 
> Though there are many books which are impossible to render into film, the ones that have been are usually theoretically 'filmable', yet sometimes it just goes more than awry. My votes go to 'Dracula' (the Browning's 1931 version, that is; the 1922 German version 'Nosferatu' is terrific), 'Odyssey' (eponymous poem), 'Troy' ('Iliad'). All of these were excruciating to watch.
> 
> (Oh, and I have mixed feelings about 'Women in Love'. It's as weird as they come - but then again, so is the novel. So perhaps it's a good rendering, I don't know.)



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069112/

----------


## JuniperWoolf

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Swamp Thing, by Allan Moore.

----------


## mtpspur

That wasn't Alan Moore's Swamp Thing on the screen--as to League of Extraordinary Gentlemen I have my own issues with the series which I dropped after Volume 2--mostly due to the ineffectiveness of Allan Quaterman--an old favorite of mine. (But I've never forgiven Moore for his take on adam Strange either so there you go.

----------


## stlukesguild

Film and Novels are two distinctly different art forms, each with its own strengths and limitations. There are films that are far greater than the books they were based upon, there are films that are far worse, and there are films that are equally brilliant as their literary source material... but they are never one and the same. I don't imagine that there is a book that cannot be turned into a great film under the hand of the right director. Different artistic forms certainly share elements from time to time... but they also have a great many differences. As such we cannot judge the success of a work in one art form by the standards of another. Puccini was notorious for selecting mediocre literary sources (at best) for his operas... and yet in spite of these flaws the resulting works remaining marvelous and engaging works of art.

----------


## sixsmith

> Film and Novels are two distinctly different art forms, each with its own strengths and limitations. There are films that are far greater than the books they were based upon, there are films that are far worse, and there are films that are equally brilliant as their literary source material... but they are never one and the same. I don't imagine that there is a book that cannot be turned into a great film under the hand of the right director. Different artistic forms certainly share elements from time to time... but they also have a great many differences. As such we cannot judge the success of a work in one art form by the standards of another. Puccini was notorious for selecting mediocre literary sources (at best) for his operas... and yet in spite of these flaws the resulting works remaining marvelous and engaging works of art.


Fair points. Though i think in many instances a film would have to diverge significantly from its progenitor to succeed.

I think Kelby's point about the artistic success of tv adaptations is well made. The cumulative and extended nature of a series allows characters, themes and narratives to be more fully realised and explored. It allows nuances and undercurrents to be observed. To my mind the achievement of,say, 'The Sopranos' or 'Deadwood' or 'The Wire' dwarfs that of any film i have seen recently. On reflection many films, even films that i love, would have benefited from a tv treatment. There are numerous exceptions to that of course. But i think film generally struggles with a layered or complex narrative or multiple characters.

----------


## stlukesguild

I think Kelby's point about the artistic success of tv adaptations is well made. The cumulative and extended nature of a series allows characters, themes and narratives to be more fully realised and explored. It allows nuances and undercurrents to be observed. To my mind the achievement of,say, 'The Sopranos' or 'Deadwood' or 'The Wire' dwarfs that of any film i have seen recently.

This is what I am speaking of when I say that it is unfair to judge one art form by the standards or values of another. You point out that an extended TV series has the advantage of further character development and a more nuanced and broadly developed narrative. Such are certainly some of the strengths possible to the novelist... but I'll suggest that almost no TV series has ever struck me as rivaling the achievements of the strongest films. While the narrative is one element of film it is just as much a visual and an auditory experience. The cinematography and stage sets/costumes, etc... of film far outclass almost any television series. But still television... as you note... has its strengths. Certainly most films made after television series (whether the _X-Files_ or _Sex and the City_). The theatricality of film is quite different from the narrative style of TV.

----------


## Mathor

i love pride and prejudice and revolutionary road, i think it's nice to see the two mediums. I've never seen a film that truly RUINED a novel. Bad movies are made about Great books, but that doesnt mean they "shouldn't have been films" Maybe I'm just too much of a film buff but I think whether or not the movie is good just about any great book should be made to film if not for another filmmakker to make a remake of said crappy film. Art should never be constricted to one medium.

----------


## Desolation

I think "Which books made good films" would be a better discussion, as it seems that anytime a book is made into a movie, there's a large outcry that "it ruined the novel;" "it didn't capture the novel;" "it left parts out;" or the classic "The book is better than the movie. 

I agree with stlukesguild, it's best to judge the two mediums independently from each other.

----------


## Mathor

> I think "Which books made good films" would be a better discussion, as it seems that anytime a book is made into a movie, there's a large outcry that "it ruined the novel;" "it didn't capture the novel;" "it left parts out;" or the classic "The book is better than the movie. 
> 
> I agree with stlukesguild, it's best to judge the two mediums independently from each other.


for instance Alfred Hitchcock took a lot of pretty terrible plays and books and made them all into great movies. So I think it works both ways.

----------


## MissTwain

> Fair points. Though i think in many instances a film would have to diverge significantly from its progenitor to succeed.
> 
> I think Kelby's point about the artistic success of tv adaptations is well made. The cumulative and extended nature of a series allows characters, themes and narratives to be more fully realised and explored. It allows nuances and undercurrents to be observed. To my mind the achievement of,say, 'The Sopranos' or 'Deadwood' or 'The Wire' dwarfs that of any film i have seen recently. On reflection many films, even films that i love, would have benefited from a tv treatment. There are numerous exceptions to that of course. But i think film generally struggles with a layered or complex narrative or multiple characters.


I'm adding six feet under to that list of HBO shows :P I just finished the series and wept like a baby in a basket...

----------


## MissTwain

> for instance Alfred Hitchcock took a lot of pretty terrible plays and books and made them all into great movies. So I think it works both ways.


I agree and feel free to start the discussion about which books made good films, I merely wanted to begin a discussion since this is my first time here. Although you're all right saying that the two mediums are seperate and independent, it is difficult to be fully aware of the book and the film based upon it and NOT compare them. We've been conditioned to compare experiences so it's only natural to think about them, even if they segregate.

I thought Peter Jackson did alright... I mean, that must have been difficult to cut Tom Bombadil, but something had to be cut right? I do seperate those movies from the books just because they give completely different experiences, but it is difficult not to notice the changes.  :Tongue:

----------


## kiki1982

I agree with the point that film/tv and novel are two different mediums and that they should not be judged the one with the other's criteria. 

But...

I think it can be done well. Even a poetic book with a lot of metaphor/pictorial language/imagery can be adapted to a poetic film, but the problem these days I find is, that the writer(s) of the screen play do(es) not seem to get what the metaphor and what-not in the book is about or how important it might be that it is dark or cold!

I am mainly a fan of historical things.

Yesterday I watched _Jane Eyre_ 1997 with Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt... Two more passionless actors I have never seen and there were a few trip-ups in the screenplay, but on the whole, the piece with Rochester and Jane was absolutely brilliantly poetic. Shame about the rest. The light/shadow-thing from _The Merchant of Venice_, his (secret) love for Adèle, Mrs Fairfax as the one who knows, his moodiness... It was there. It was a brilliant try at poeticising the thing. Only the acting was not passionate enough. It might have been Zefirelli's plan, but the affections of Rochester should still be seen, I imagine, for Jane and the viewer to realise something is going on... Or the music should have been adapted, like they seem to do in French film a lot, to convey the passion that does not filter through in the actions of the characters. 

_Pride and Prejudice_ 1995 was also very good. The book was studied in a philosohpical way and was put on screen in a brilliant, poetic way as well. 

Kenneth Brannagh's adaptations of Shakespeare are also brilliant. But he does not try to make them more film-like, he keeps them a little artificial, on a stage-like set, and works very authentically with not a lot of special film-techniques (I find). In his version of _Much Ado about Nothing_, an accordeon features. That is not historically accurate, but it does not disturb, nor are the costumes Elizabethan, but does it matter when the eaning is conveyed so well? No. 

I also believe series are better than films, because films don't have such a lot of time... The English version of _The Count of Monte-Cristo_ (2002?) was absolute sh*t. Excuse the word, but there is just no other name for it. But here again: the writer did not get the meaning of the book he was adapting. When adapting a book to another medium, it is important to convey the meaning. It is translating the one to the other. No matter how, but properly. Due to lack of time, the writer of _The Count of Monte-Cristo_ just made a shambles of the story, and made an explosive end that was not true to the book and certainly not true to the spirit of the novel. In the French version, Monte-Cristo does re-unite with Mercédès, but it highlights, without further ado (and more filming and money-spending) the fact that the count becomes human again, like in the original. So meaning was conveyed, only not really true to the original, but then readers still have something to read, haven't they.

You can also get it wrong in mini-series: the BBC got it wrong with _Ivanhoe_, two episodes I think. As the viewer knows about Ivanhoe in his disguise and king Richard in his disguise, it is not fun anymore to watch. The women are too potent in the film (naturally) and the comedy-effect of the Jew was totally destroyed by making him a poor persecuted person; I know it is a difficult subject, the persecution of Jews, but if you don't want to address it, then don't do _Ivanhoe_ or anything medieval with Jews in it. Also the total ridicule of Beaumanoir and the Templar Order was destroyed in favour of a debauched Bois-Guilbert, who was supposed to turn out an idealist. De Bracy has suddenly become all nice and noble whereas he was the one who wanted to claim Rowena for his wife and kidnapped her posing as Robin Hood. Bois-Guilbert should have been the noble one here... He is also the one who is the most realistic in seeing that the battle is lost. Consequently they did ignore the judgment of God in the end and made the film end with a duel between Ivanhoe and Bois-Guilbert and nearly treacherous behaviour of Beaumanoir who is thrown out of England by Richard who finally takes up his throne. What queen Eleanor is doing on the beach, it totally passes me. Athelstane has turned, from the 'Uready' and kind of cowardish Saxon who is redeemed after, into the fun-loving lovely man who is no longer obsessed with food while kidnapped. It is too long ago that I saw the Hollywood-version of it, but I seem to remember that there at least the enigma of Richard and Ivanhoe was kept in the beginning...
The biggest gaf in this adaptation was the fact that Prince John asks for 'pen and paper' at a certain moment  :FRlol: . If I am not mistaken, that is totally impossible at the time, as paper did not exist in Europe as they wrote on perchment and they had messengers to remember the message because perchment was to expensive to use for any whim... Please correct me if I am wrong, but it says on wikipedia that the first papermill in England was constructed in 1588 and that paper was being produced properly in Germany and Italy only round about 1400. They were about 200 years out with that... Although, a case could be made for the imossible amount of letters that are written in the film (and the smaller amount that is written in the book, notably on by the gang of Locksley who certainly did not have so much money as to just buy some perchment), as it was proably Scott who did not do his research properly...

ITV's _Brideshead Revisited_ is still legendary. I watched it first and then read it, and all things were in there. It cost an awful lot of money apparently, but it was really really good. Unlike the last version, cited here... I saw the trailer and it was awful. 

I don't think an adaptation should be accurate at all, but it should convey the meaning properly. As it is, there are very few adaptations or films that do do that. It seems that writers read a summary and then write a screenplay or something, have the characters say something totally against their very character and do things they would never have done. Something which would easily have been avoided by just reading and analysing properly. I don't now what it is. Maybe it is a time-issue, or maybe sluggishness or it might be just total ignorance. Or a wish to do something with film technique and desperately want to use flashbacks where they don't fit, or symbolic images that convey the wrong meaning. Sometimes I think it is total ignorance. Certain things they just seem to have lost somehow in a fit of estheticism:

Alec d'Urberville (2008) on the white horse. Wonderful grey decor, only he was not the 'prince on the white steed' as in the fairytales...  :Thumbs Up:  In the same miniseries they featured a hymn only translated into English in the 1950s.  :Thumbs Up: 

Julia and Charles fall in love in Venice (2008, _Brideshead_). What was Julia doing in Venice? and why did they have to fall in love? Oh, yes, 'because Venice is the most romantic place.' (literally said on BBC Breakfast!). Get real. It probably would have been more appropriate to have Sebastian and Charles fall in love, but that could have made too much of a statement as far as the book is concerned... 

Then there are of course the total mishaps: _Robin Hood_ is a loose adaptation of Scott's works and folk legends, but friar Tuck has suddenly become black... Nothing against blacks, but how many of them were around in those days. Furthermore, the series should have finished two seasons ago, when Richard returned, but he has (conveniently) gone back to the Holy Land and the same boring format continues. It was not boring as long as the threat was there that Richard was going to return, both for John and the other abusers, but now he knows what's going on, why does he return to Palestine? 

_Merlin_ is even better. A cross between fantasy and a prequel of the old Merlin of king Arthur. The only problem is that that story seems to play in the middleages when King Arthur was long dead, if he was ever alive at all. And anyway, have dragons ever existed? or have people ever been able to fly? That magical stuff was a result of the ignorance of people and the desire to make literature more true than it was originally (ironically!). It would be more interesting to have made a sociological/political very early medieval version of that. With so-called magic, but not with so many special effects. Or a version that stands in its own time, with no real historical accuracy anyway, like _Twelfth Knight_. It was not medieval, not modern, but it was good in its own timeless frame. Historical inacuracy did not disturb. 

I haven't dared to watch the Saramago-film as it will probably be a total muck-up. 

I'll finish my rant as that seems to be a very big answer for a simple question. There is much to be said on the topic, far too much...

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I also believe series are better than films, because films don't have such a lot of time... The English version of _The Count of Monte-Cristo_ (2002?) was absolute sh*t. Excuse the word, but there is just no other name for it. But here again: the writer did not get the meaning of the book he was adapting. When adapting a book to another medium, it is important to convey the meaning. It is translating the one to the other. No matter how, but properly. Due to lack of time, the writer of _The Count of Monte-Cristo_ just made a shambles of the story, and made an explosive end that was not true to the book and certainly not true to the spirit of the novel. In the French version, Monte-Cristo does re-unite with Mercédès, but it highlights, without further ado (and more filming and money-spending) the fact that the count becomes human again, like in the original. So meaning was conveyed, only not really true to the original, but then readers still have something to read, haven't they.


I was so excited when I had heard that they were making _The Count of Monte Cristo_ into a film version. Then I saw it. I guess I will learn to hold my excitement until the end. I guess it might have been a good movie had I never heard of the book, but then maybe they should have given it an entirely different name, different characters, set it in a different era, and put a footnote, (based on loose conceptual adaptations of...)!

Another movie was _The Man in the Iron Mask_. I guess to me...if you are a director/producer, if you don't like the ending of a book, just don't make it into a movie.

----------


## Emil Miller

Similar discussion has been made before on this forum and I imagine will come up again at some point as it is an interesting topic. For the purposes of this thread,however, I would say that the cinema is effectively dead. I haven't been to the cinema in years and cannot conceive of any reason to go again.
Why? Because its demise set in with the end of the studio system which, whatever the dross it produced, made some of the greatest films ever seen. Independant producers now scratch around Wall Street and elsewhere for the vast sums required by the publicity departments to sell the film before it actually comes out. The result is a film made by an ad hoc group of people rather than the dedicated film makers of the past. Film stars are no longer actors and actresses but "celebrities" whose totally manufactured celebrity status is all part of the hype that gets bums on seats. Most so-called actors today couldn't act their way out of a paper bag and the same goes for directing and directors. Which is why there are none such as James Cagney, Kirk Douglas, Spencer Tracy, Orson Welles, Marlene Dietrich, Jennifer Jones, Vivien Leigh, Bette Davis etc etc etc but an abundance of pretty boys and grotesques who shall remain nameless. No directors like Lean,Welles, Huston, Dieterle, Reed, Lang etc etc etc. but amateurs who occasionally get lucky. 
I am referring to the US scene but the decline is pretty general and it is obvious that there will never be another Citizen Kane or Brief Encounter for example, neither of which were originally books.

When it comes to filmed adaptations of books there is little likelyhood that David Lean's Great Expectations, William Dieterle's Hunchback of Notre Dame or John Huston's The Red Badge of Courage etc etc, will ever be equaled.
As for television adaptations, whilst some of them have been quite good, few, if any can claim to be great and television to my mind, notwithstanding LCD, still remains the box in the corner of the room. 

Now I shall sit back and watch the proverbial excrement hit the fan.

----------


## mortalterror

> For the purposes of this thread,however, I would say that the cinema is effectively dead. I haven't been to the cinema in years and cannot conceive of any reason to go again.


Hmm. And as a person who doesn't read, I'm predicting the demise of books.

----------


## Emil Miller

> Hmm. And as a person who doesn't read, I'm predicting the demise of books.


I read the reviews. That's enough for me.

----------


## mortalterror

> I'll suggest that almost no TV series has ever struck me as rivaling the achievements of the strongest films. While the narrative is one element of film it is just as much a visual and an auditory experience. The cinematography and stage sets/costumes, etc... of film far outclass almost any television series. But still television... as you note... has its strengths. Certainly most films made after television series (whether the _X-Files_ or _Sex and the City_). The theatricality of film is quite different from the narrative style of TV.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APQ8Z_UyEak

I'd say that the first three seasons of The Sopranos were something special. I, Claudius was as well written and acted as any movie, with characters and situations as nuanced as any book. Band of Brothers was as good as Spielberg's earlier offering Saving Private Ryan. Visually, we are experiencing a golden age of television when for the first time there is parity between production budgets and visual styles. Lost, 24, House, Deadwood, the first season or two of The West Wing, are all as polished and engaging as most feature films.

----------


## kiki1982

> I was so excited when I had heard that they were making _The Count of Monte Cristo_ into a film version. Then I saw it. I guess I will learn to hold my excitement until the end. I guess it might have been a good movie had I never heard of the book, but then maybe they should have given it an entirely different name, different characters, set it in a different era, and put a footnote, (based on loose conceptual adaptations of...)!
> 
> Another movie was _The Man in the Iron Mask_. I guess to me...if you are a director/producer, if you don't like the ending of a book, just don't make it into a movie.


I remember watching it one Christmas evening at family, before reading the book because I thought it was too difficult for me in French (big mistake!) and only having watched the French adaptation. After one hour of the two (?) hours total duration, they were still stuck in the prison. This might be a little exaggerated but it was really one third of the total duration... I was puzzled as I knew what had to come after... 

_The Man in the Iron Mask_, I knew I forgot one! Of course, the tragic tale of the prince in the iron mask because of his evil twin brother, notably the result of an affair and not of the king... Anyway, it contained a few fun bits (like the one where he needs to develop manners), but it could not have been further from the original work with political intrigue, usurpers and fun parts mainly from d'Artagnan... And both women (the queen and Louise) had suddenly become sad girls, moaning about the past, while Athos has miraculously become poor all of a sudden... Very well cast, I have to say, but really sad script. Although not a bad film, but as you say, they could better have given it another name and said that it was losely based upon...

----------


## kelby_lake

> I am referring to the US scene but the decline is pretty general and it is obvious that there will never be another Citizen Kane or Brief Encounter for example, neither of which were originally books.


Brief Encounter is based on a one-act play by Noel Coward called 'Still Life', so it is sort of based on a book. I see what you mean though.

Films used to do it with plays- now they do it with the latest pulpy dross.

It's hard for the director. How much loyalty should they have to the book? Should they translate it exactly to the screen, or should they change it so it becomes a good film?

Oh, Northern Lights. The film of that was DREADFUL.

----------


## Emil Miller

> Then there are of course the total mishaps: _Robin Hood_ is a loose adaptation of Scott's works and folk legends, but friar Tuck has suddenly become black... Nothing against blacks, but how many of them were around in those days. .



Presumably this is a BBC production. So unless you have been watching BBC television with you eyes shut, you would have been aware that they have been engaged in this crude racial engineering for a number of years.

----------


## kelby_lake

I don't think it's that bad. If Friar Tuck has been rebranded as a magic man, he would be very much an outsider if he was black.

----------


## Nightshade

> Then there are of course the total mishaps: _Robin Hood_ is a loose adaptation of Scott's works and folk legends, but friar Tuck has suddenly become black... Nothing against blacks, but how many of them were around in those days. Furthermore, the series should have finished two seasons ago, when Richard returned, but he has (conveniently) gone back to the Holy Land and the same boring format continues. It was not boring as long as the threat was there that Richard was going to return, both for John and the other abusers, but now he knows what's going on, why does he return to Palestine? 
> ]


PLEASE! that whole series ahs been a disater from the first season. I mean the first season the clothes were straight outr of a Next catlouge!
And _and_  what was with the what did they call her serasin? a female one at that. I mean pfft.
And the most heinous of all they got the power structure backwards. Guy was a nobleman, the sheriff was a commoner Vassle whatever you want to cll him. The sheriff was Guy's man not the other way round. 
and as a side note Linocln green is actually a shade of red, not green at all. 
My yopungest sisters are obsessed with the show, and I am constast;ly being told the latest  :Rolleyes:  



> _Merlin_ is even better. A cross between fantasy and a prequel of the old Merlin of king Arthur. The only problem is that that story seems to play in the middleages when King Arthur was long dead, if he was ever alive at all. And anyway, have dragons ever existed? or have people ever been able to fly? That magical stuff was a result of the ignorance of people and the desire to make literature more true than it was originally (ironically!). It would be more interesting to have made a sociological/political very early medieval version of that. With so-called magic, but not with so many special effects. Or a version that stands in its own time, with no real historical accuracy anyway, like _Twelfth Knight_. It was not medieval, not modern, but it was good in its own timeless frame. Historical inacuracy did not disturb. 
> ...


Meriln is supposed to be based on the Crystal caves series. Apparantly its got it all wrong, but I havent read the crystal caves. I actually enjoyed it, espscially teh whole justification arch theyve got going for Morgana turning bad. But it is if I let myself think about it remarkably inconsistant with the legends ( any of them) concidering how varierd they are its actually a fairly remarakable feat.And Gwenivere is black, a servant and in love with merlin. 
Its great as long as I don't let myself think of the original like Smallville , which annoys me becuase I can not figure out how they are going to get back to the original story.

----------


## kelby_lake

The women in Robin Hood are so annoying...and Robin Hood is more like Christopher Robin.

----------


## Emil Miller

> It's hard for the director. How much loyalty should they have to the book? Should they translate it exactly to the screen, or should they change it so it becomes a good film?.



Even though, of necessity, a film cannot encompass a whole novel, a good director should be able to convey the substance of the book without changing it to a point where it ceases to resemble the author's original intention.

----------


## Mr Endon

Brian Bean, I see your point, but I agree with Mortal Terror. I think that if you know where to look you can still find some dazzling little treasures in contemporary cinema. And I wouldn't trust critics too much. Sure, they're important, and I do rely on them when I'm deciding which movie I should watch, but ever since they hailed 'Slumdog Millionaire' as the best thing since bread came sliced... well, I'd just be very careful about the critics I'd listen to, that's all.

Kelby, as for the directors' conundrum, I think it really depends on the film. For example, 'O Brother, Where art Thou?' is *very* loosely based on the _Odyssey_, and it works perfectly; the film version _The Crucible_ is faithful to the play in every single speech and scene and is also an accomplished adaptation.

----------


## Emil Miller

> Brian Bean, I see your point, but I agree with Mortal Terror. I think that if you know where to look you can still find some dazzling little treasures in contemporary cinema. And I wouldn't trust critics too much. Sure, they're important, and I do rely on them when I'm deciding which movie I should watch, but ever since they hailed 'Slumdog Millionaire' as the best thing since bread came sliced... well, I'd just be very careful about the critics I'd listen to, that's all..


Paradoxically, it is precisely the critical hype about films such as 'Slumdog Millionaire' that tells me that it isn't worth seeing, which is the same criterion I apply to over-hyped films generally. As for more moderate criticisms I invariably find they apply to films that seem contrived or just simply vacuous and, therefore, equally missable. I don't know what the situation is vis-a-vis film critics in the US, but in the UK it is lamentable compared to when we had critics of the calibre of C.A.Lejeune and Graham Greene reviewing films.

----------


## Mr Endon

I know what you mean. One has to get good at understanding the film's real potential based what reviewers say. After much training I've acquired the faculty of immediately knowing whether I'd like a film or not based on a couple of reviewers' sentences in the promotional poster. Unfortunately I went to see the Slumdog without having read anything about it.

Well I'm European as well, but I do know that one of the greatest authorities in US mainstream movie criticism, Roger Ebert, is a hack. I'd suggest you to ask the people of this forum for contemporary suggestions based on your favourite movies.

----------


## kiki1982

> Presumably this is a BBC production. So unless you have been watching BBC television with you eyes shut, you would have been aware that they have been engaged in this crude racial engineering for a number of years.



Yes, well, does it mean that everything should racially be engineered?

----------


## Emil Miller

> Yes, well, does it mean that everything should racially be engineered?


As far as the BBC is concerned, the answer would definitely be yes.

----------


## Bark

The Wizard of Oz

It lost all its metaphor when the silver slippers were turned ruby for effect. How can you have a diatribe on bimetallism without silver in it?

----------


## Bark

Hart's War

----------


## kelby_lake

> Even though, of necessity, a film cannot encompass a whole novel, a good director should be able to convey the substance of the book without changing it to a point where it ceases to resemble the author's original intention.


That's how I feel- that the director should find and capture the spirit of the novel, and that they engineer the film so it does that. Otherwise we just get a bad case of: 'Wouldn't this book be MUCH better if X died/didn't die?' or 'I like films on racism. Let's turn Y into a film on racism'

Hence Pride and Prejudice is a well-made film but the director hasn't captured any of Austen's spirit. It's all so gloomily shot.

----------


## Emil Miller

> I know what you mean. One has to get good at understanding the film's real potential based what reviewers say. After much training I've acquired the faculty of immediately knowing whether I'd like a film or not based on a couple of reviewers' sentences in the promotional poster. Unfortunately I went to see the Slumdog without having read anything about it.
> 
> Well I'm European as well, but I do know that one of the greatest authorities in US mainstream movie criticism, Roger Ebert, is a hack. I'd suggest you to ask the people of this forum for contemporary suggestions based on your favourite movies.


After many, perhaps too many, years of cinema going, and also having an interest in the film business per se, I can virtually dispense with today's critics and say that most films made nowadays are likely to have already been filmed and also been better made. I can usually tell by the meretricious title that a film is not worth seeing and, as I have said, what passes for acting today is laughable.
I am also quite interested in finance and a couple of years ago someone asked an investment magazine I was reading that, considering the vast box office take on so-called Blockbuster films, wouldn't films be a good investment option? The answer a definite NO, because practically all of the money made on films these days goes on the the world-wide hyping of the film. The return to investors was about 5% and they could have made more simply by leaving their money on deposit. In this environment it is difficult to give much credence to the film industry today.
I don't think that asking other forum members' views on my own favourite films would be productive. There is already a thread dedicated to films that members have seen recently and, whilst some of the older films are surprisingly good, most are of more recent vintage and judging by the comments, I don't think many members would find my choice in tune with theirs.
Of course, a person's appreciation of a film is subjective but a certain amount of objectivity is required to pass valid judgement on it and that usually only comes with experience.

----------


## kiki1982

> That's how I feel- that the director should find and capture the spirit of the novel, and that they engineer the film so it does that. Otherwise we just get a bad case of: 'Wouldn't this book be MUCH better if X died/didn't die?' or 'I like films on racism. Let's turn Y into a film on racism'


Just what I think. But they don't seem to get it.

About _Merlin_: I take back what I said about it. Haven't read the books, so can't comment. 

@Brian Bean:
I am afraid the answer is yes. The BBC has/is fallen/falling from its perch when it comes to good quality things. Certainly in drama. 

I don't know how they did with _Little Dorrit_. It seemed quite ok, but what was with the eye? I tried to read the book but it was just a little too long for an e-book and I haven't had the courage to buy a paper copy yet (found it a little boring to my liking). 

About _Robin Hood_ and the saracen: I found that still alright, actually. She had a role and it was still possible. Now, they just can't seem to stop. 
I already found it strange with the sheriff and Guisborne... There was something that disturbed me. Thank you, Nightshade. Seems indeed a little strange that a good nobleman would tolerate and being kept under the thumb by a subordinate... 
What was the end of the second season again? I seem to remember that I renounced watching it ever again, but now I can't remember why... :Tongue:  It was something with kig Richard and the seriff and Guisborne involved (Jerusalem), but I can't recall wat really happened. Someone help?

----------


## Nightshade

Umm I think the end of the second season ( if its the third season now  :Confused:  anyway the end of last season brought on hysterical tears in the children because this time Guisbourne did kill marion and she was really dead as opposed to last time when he killed her but she wasn't really dead (??) I have only seen the odd episode when I was strongarmed into watching it when I was baby sitting ( and the first 2 episodes of teh first season) but Im fairly sure that was the end of the second season.

I have to say though I wish the BBc would do a dramatisation of _Belinda_. Did you know that the vertsion they did of Daniel Deronda is only availabe on DVD in the USA? When I rang up to complain ( I was in an annoyed mood one day and need somoene to yell at :lol ) apparntly they have no rights to it in the UK. But it was broadcast here first ?

----------


## kiki1982

Nope, that must be the third season, and now it is the fourth. Because I watched the first (which was still slightly acceptable, because it was still interesting to watch what with Marian and Guisborne and all that on the side going on), and then I started to get bored halfway the second one and renounced ever watching it again because of the end... I'll have to have a look on YouTube... 

Maybe Daniel Deronda was co-prodced by another network and broadcast by the BBC first in the UK, but with the rights to the other production company. A&E by any chance? They seem to have worked a lot with them. Or else, buy the DVD on the internet...

----------


## Nightshade

> Nope, that must be the third season, and now it is the fourth. Because I watched the first (which was still slightly acceptable, because it was still interesting to watch what with Marian and Guisborne and all that on the side going on), and then I started to get bored halfway the second one and renounced ever watching it again because of the end... I'll have to have a look on YouTube... 
> 
> Maybe Daniel Deronda was co-prodced by another network and broadcast by the BBC first in the UK, but with the rights to the other production company. A&E by any chance? They seem to have worked a lot with them. Or else, buy the DVD on the internet...


Sadly its locked NTSC/region 1 Im hoping one day they will broadcast it again in the tv. 

then the second season was when he shot marion and robin and they died but really they didnt becasu ethey had taken poisons that make them appear to be dead and stopped them from dying? 

Or marion was going to marry guisborne then ran off with Robin at the wedding.
I am going to baby sit tomorrow, Im sure the youngest will be happy to go on and on about it for an hour I will enquire and find out. 
 :Nod: 
*
EDIT* You never guess who just rang me up! the siblings confirm that the final episode of the season before last was marion walking out on Guy at their wedding.  :Biggrin:  
One sister instsits though this is season 3 not 4 ( but she isnt the one who would know all the details so ignore her)

----------


## kiki1982

haha  :FRlol: 

I now know what annoyed me so much, actually... I went on YouTube and checked out the end of season two:

Robin Hood goes to the Holy Land because Richard is in danger of being killed by the sheriff and Gisborne (or their men anyway) and wants to save him. Marian in the meantime is still at Gisborne's place and tries to kill the sheriff. The sheriff finds out and, as he is going to the Holy Land with Guy to do the job himself, he can't do anything else but take her with him. 

They all end up in the Holy Land, and Marian tries to persuade Guy not to kill Richard, but on the contrary to kill the sheriff as 'he will be rewarded both ways' (Richrd would be thankful and she would of course marry him...). A lie of course. He doesn't kill the sheriff anyway and the plot continues. Somehow (that was cut out, I think), Richard is shot with an arrow in his shoulder and falls off his horse on a square. Gisborne sees his chance to finally kill him, but Marian poses herself in front of Richard, after which Gisbrne kills her in a fit of rage because she told him she'd rather die tan marry him and she was going to marry Robin Hood anyway, that she loved Robin Hood and blablabla. Robin comes running on the scene of course and Richard is helped and... everone is miraculously occupied with the two victims (although there are about 20 of them...) and the villains escape yelling 'I will have England!' Where Prince John is in all this, is the great question... Then they bury her and everything. It passes me how she can possibly get out of her grave. I suppose the actress changed her mind afterwards? 

What most annoyed me was that Marian got killed, and certainly that the two villains escaped. It really smelt like an excuse for another season. Why put them so close to each other then? Just make it longer, but don't do a JR: 'Oh, it wasn't real, it was a dream.' (If you know what I mean).

The ignorant girl (nt me!) could be right, however... Because there is no season 4on YouTube... Did they take a year out then?

----------


## Apocrypha75

> Did you really think Revolutionary Road was _that_ bad?


I know the question wasn't for me, but yes!  :Smile:  

Perhaps you have to have been through the whole 'serious' relationship thing to fully appreciate it but I thought the film (and performances) lacking. Sam Mendes has produced much better work and I really didn't see the Oscar worthiness of it. Overhyped IMHO! 

I might take a stab at the book if it received some accolades from the good members here, however the film has really put me off.  :Frown:

----------


## Mr Endon

Apocrypha75, how I feel your pain. I didn't see any Oscar worthiness in this year's films, but there had to be nominees. I must admit, however, I didn't see 'The Reader' (want to read it first) nor 'Milk' (unfortunately, I'm sure).

Another one: I'm not at all a fan of the 'Wuthering Heights' with Juliette Binoche. She plays the part perfectly, which is not surprising, but still it was a terrible experience. I mean, the novel is seemingly perfect for cinema, but ultimately its strange (dare I say masterful) mixture of love and relentless hatred renders its successful adaptation into film just unfeasible. I'm sure there are some hardline wuthering heighteans here; what did you make of this film?

----------


## emily00

> Apocrypha75, how I feel your pain. I didn't see any Oscar worthiness in this year's films, but there had to be nominees. I must admit, however, I didn't see 'The Reader' (want to read it first) nor 'Milk' (unfortunately, I'm sure).
> 
> Another one: I'm not at all a fan of the 'Wuthering Heights' with Juliette Binoche. She plays the part perfectly, which is not surprising, but still it was a terrible experience. I mean, the novel is seemingly perfect for cinema, but ultimately its strange (dare I say masterful) mixture of love and relentless hatred renders its successful adaptation into film just unfeasible. I'm sure there are some hardline wuthering heighteans here; what did you make of this film?


Not much, I have to say. On reflection, I don't think WH_ is_ made for cinema. The only think which works half well is the physical violence, because cinema has had a lot of practice with that. The emotional intensity of the novel evaporates; the character of Nelly Dean is ridiculous; but more than anything else, the mastery of Bronte's narrative craft - form, structure and language, are inevitably lost - and they are the best things about it! The plot itself is tenuous and some of the characters, pains. I don't think the Binoche version (or any version, in fact) comes anywhere near - it's impossible. Timothy Dalton in the 70s - just a big dimple on legs, really.

I was swanning round the Bronte Parsonage a few weeks ago (as one does) and I noticed there will be a new TV version in the autumn. Probably just as naff.

----------


## Emil Miller

> Apocrypha75, Another one: I'm not at all a fan of the 'Wuthering Heights' with Juliette Binoche. She plays the part perfectly, which is not surprising, but still it was a terrible experience. I mean, the novel is seemingly perfect for cinema, but ultimately its strange (dare I say masterful) mixture of love and relentless hatred renders its successful adaptation into film just unfeasible. I'm sure there are some hardline wuthering heighteans here; what did you make of this film?


Stop right there! You need only watch William Wyler's 1939 version to seperate the men from the boys in film direction. The film is necessarily curtailed at the point where Cathy dies but all other versions pale into insignificance against the performances of Merle Oberon and Laurence Olivier in the lead roles.

----------


## sixsmith

> I know the question wasn't for me, but yes!  
> 
> Perhaps you have to have been through the whole 'serious' relationship thing to fully appreciate it but I thought the film (and performances) lacking. Sam Mendes has produced much better work and I really didn't see the Oscar worthiness of it. Overhyped IMHO! 
> 
> I might take a stab at the book if it received some accolades from the good members here, however the film has really put me off.


The book is an absolute classic. I implore you to read it.

----------


## kiki1982

> I was swanning round the Bronte Parsonage a few weeks ago (as one does) and I noticed there will be a new TV version in the autumn. Probably just as naff.


Of Wuthering Heights? This Autumn? Because it's not announed on the BBC Drama press site... Anyway, I'll have a look regularly on BBC so I can read it and send a review.  :Tongue:  I'm going to annoy them so much untill they get it. In the meantime I can get studying the book. Interesting as well. Good excuse.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Apocrypha75

> Apocrypha75, how I feel your pain. I didn't see any Oscar worthiness in this year's films, but there had to be nominees. I must admit, however, I didn't see 'The Reader' (want to read it first) nor 'Milk' (unfortunately, I'm sure).


I can thoroughly recommend Milk, great film and great performances. 

The Reader I didn't like as a film (all hype) but I can recommend the book which I really, really enjoyed. Despite each of them depicting an under-age affair in the first half, I found the book to be more tasteful and subtle with it. The film just seemed to use it as an excuse for displaying Winslet flesh and, as a result, the film really became about the sex scenes and less about the main themes and ideas of the story; which I found interesting and rather profound.

Overall the Oscars were a bit of a bust for me this year:

I applaud Sean Penn's win and would not have been disappointed with Mickey Rourke taking the idol for the Wrestler; which despite a fairly straightforward tale of woe was elevated by lovely performances. Marisa Tomei especially, deserves props for her role.

Kate Winslet was the darling of the awards but shouldn't have got in the door. I liked Meryl Streep for best actress for 'Doubt', but it wasn't completely successful as a film -- although I did really enjoy it and Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams turned in great performances. 

I liked 'Slumdog' for the first two-thirds: Once the flash backs stopped the film just got a bit obvious and bland compared to the kinetic energy of the beginning and middle sections. I wholly applaud it on a technical basis: some excellent direction, cinematography and editing throughout. I think the performances of the youngsters were also natural and affecting. Mostly worthy of the hype I thought.

Heath Ledger for best supporting I was happy with. Okay, some will accuse the academy of sending an idol his way for charity sake, but I certainly thought he deserved it. Although his performance (and the film) started fairly conventionally, from the Batman/Joker interrogation sequence onwards I thought the film struck out into places not seen from a 'blockbuster' for some time and Ledger inhabited that role. 

I'd also like to mention Frank Langella for Frost/Nixon, which was a nice little 'sleeper' of a movie, that is worth a watch for Langella's performance alone. I enjoyed it.

I'm sad to say I have not seen any of the foreign entries thus far, although I am excited about the French film 'The Class'; which I hear is outstanding!

As you can probably tell, I like my films as much as my books.  :Smile:

----------


## Mr Endon

Brian Bean, cheers for that, must watch that one.

Great Oscar overview, Apocrypha75! And you're right, I ought to be fairer to Slumdog: I thought the first third was marvellous, the second very good, and the third disgraceful. Performances were good, like you say, and probably the editing too, now that I recall that chase scene, for instance. But as a man of literature I always pay more attention to the plot, I can't help it. And though the overall premisse was really good I detested the ending. It was really the only ending possible, I guess, and though it's not my favourite solution to a film I can appreciate it when it's well done, but there's something about this one that is too rainbowy. I guess you could say I find "we good, they bad, we win" movies unnerving.

Well I'll definitely watch 'Milk' soon then (also, I always figure I can't go wrong with Sean Penn), and yes, 'The Class' has had raving reviews from all the right places, I'm sure I'll enjoy this one.

EDIT: What did you make of 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'? What I made of it: entertaining; struck me as being a supernatural Forrest Gump from the beginning, it's almost a rip-off. Pretty long (3h) but times goes by alright. Of course it will always pale in comparison to 'Forrest Gump', but that's the movie's own fault. Overhyped.

(Interestingly 'Slumdog Millionaire' too is in many ways an Indian Forrest Gump, a theory which I also had to explain to my friend upon exiting the cinema. The ending of 'Forrest Gump', though, is evidently ten times better)

----------


## Apocrypha75

> Brian Bean, cheers for that, must watch that one.
> 
> Great Oscar overview, Apocrypha75! And you're right, I ought to be fairer to Slumdog: I thought the first third was marvellous, the second very good, and the third disgraceful. Performances were good, like you say, and probably the editing too, now that I recall that chase scene, for instance. But as a man of literature I always pay more attention to the plot, I can't help it. And though the overall premisse was really good I detested the ending. It was really the only ending possible, I guess, and though it's not my favourite solution to a film I can appreciate it when it's well done, but there's something about this one that is too rainbowy. I guess you could say I find "we good, they bad, we win" movies unnerving.
> 
> Well I'll definitely watch 'Milk' soon then (also, I always figure I can't go wrong with Sean Penn), and yes, 'The Class' has had raving reviews from all the right places, I'm sure I'll enjoy this one.
> 
> EDIT: What did you make of 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'? What I made of it: entertaining; struck me as being a supernatural Forrest Gump from the beginning, it's almost a rip-off. Pretty long (3h) but times goes by alright. Of course it will always pale in comparison to 'Forrest Gump', but that's the movie's own fault. Overhyped.
> 
> (Interestingly 'Slumdog Millionaire' too is in many ways an Indian Forrest Gump, a theory which I also had to explain to my friend upon exiting the cinema. The ending of 'Forrest Gump', though, is evidently ten times better)


I agree, Slumdog's plot wasn't fantastic. I enjoyed it initially with the flashbacks providing an explanation for his quiz show successes etc, but as that is repeated over and over it becomes a little tired and at the core the rest is an A-typical tale of triumph over adversity with an ending that is hardly unexpected. As a piece of entertainment, it stands above others (hence the Oscar buzz) because of the zeal and frenetic energy with which it is delivered. Unfortunately there is no real depth for folks who prefer a bit more to get their teeth into. It's a crowd pleasing fairytale, which is well above average for that sort of fair and highly enjoyable for the most part. I've certainly recommended it to people I know, despite my personal reservations about it.

In regard to 'The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button'. I saw it recently and was slightly underwhelmed. I certainly found entertainment value in it and agree with your comparisons with Forrest Gump (which is far superior). I liked Brad Pitt's performance but it was hardly Oscar worthy. The length was a bit of a worry, but it was quite well paced and, for the most part, the duration was required to tell the tale. I think the worst I could say is that I was disappointed with the direction; it was just so-so. David Fincher is capable of much better. I forgave him for Alien 3 when he produced Seven, which has a fantastic ending for a mainstream film, and would appeal to you if you haven't seen it  :Wink:

----------


## kelby_lake

> EDIT: What did you make of 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'? What I made of it: entertaining; struck me as being a supernatural Forrest Gump from the beginning, it's almost a rip-off. Pretty long (3h) but times goes by alright. Of course it will always pale in comparison to 'Forrest Gump', but that's the movie's own fault. Overhyped.
> 
> (Interestingly 'Slumdog Millionaire' too is in many ways an Indian Forrest Gump, a theory which I also had to explain to my friend upon exiting the cinema. The ending of 'Forrest Gump', though, is evidently ten times better)


I liked Slumdog Millionaire- nice to have an upbeat film for a change.

I wanted to see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (it's based on a Fitzgerald short story, apparantly, so I don't think the story can be a rip-off). Will probably try and read book first because the film looks interesting, but formulaic as in 'This is like X but with Y'

----------


## Mr Endon

Oh I liked it well enough, but it's in no way an award winner.

As for the Benjamin Button, when you read the story you'll notice how besides from the key theme (inverted biological growth), the short story and the film tell two different tales entirely, from beginning to end. I don't want to spoil it for you, but the handling of the love interest in the two is abismally different; in the film the girl's actions, behaviour, the way they meet, the way they end, etc, are all exactly like in Forrest Gump. I'm sure you'll agree with me after you've watched it.

----------


## kelby_lake

> Oh I liked it well enough, but it's in no way an award winner.
> 
> As for the Benjamin Button, when you read the story you'll notice how besides from the key theme (inverted biological growth), the short story and the film tell two different tales entirely, from beginning to end. I don't want to spoil it for you, but the handling of the love interest in the two is abismally different; in the film the girl's actions, behaviour, the way they meet, the way they end, etc, are all exactly like in Forrest Gump. I'm sure you'll agree with me after you've watched it.


That's the thing with movies, isn't it? They kind of feel they must be like another movie but with variations.

----------


## Apocrypha75

> That's the thing with movies, isn't it? They kind of feel they must be like another movie but with variations.


I would say the studios have a fair hand in this, making sure a script has the hallmarks of past Oscar winners etc. I can imagine them now: "This Benjamin Button script is pretty great, but with a few more tweaks we could be looking at this year's Forrest Gump!!"

----------


## Mr Endon

> That's the thing with movies, isn't it? They kind of feel they must be like another movie but with variations.





> I would say the studios have a fair hand in this, making sure a script has the hallmarks of past Oscar winners etc. I can imagine them now: "This Benjamin Button script is pretty great, but with a few more tweaks we could be looking at this year's Forrest Gump!!"


Yes, well, on the one hand, with a century already under its belt, cinema is bound to start playing on tradition, as it has already happened to all other more ancient forms of art. On the other hand, you can't help but think, like Apocrypha and I seem to, that 'riding the wave' of past successes is an irresistible temptation to such a profit-oriented industry like Hollywood.

----------


## librarius_qui

I don't think I should say this, but:

The Lord of the Rings

----------


## kiki1982

> I don't think I should say this, but:
> 
> The Lord of the Rings


I am sure my father agrees with you. He found it a ghastly film... 

I never read the book, because I don' like phantasy, but it's not because it's a hype that it is good, is it?

----------


## Emil Miller

> I am sure my father agrees with you. He found it a ghastly film... 
> 
> I never read the book, because I don' like phantasy, but it's not because it's a hype that it is good, is it?


There was a certain amount of hype about the book when it was first published but the answer to your question is NO.

----------


## kiki1982

To clarify... 

The hype-thing was about the film...

About the book I can't really say anything as I haven't read it and I don't intend to. I wouldn't enjoy it... It seems very well thought of. Maybe I will take an attempt once at _The Hobbit_, but not soon...

----------


## higley

I'll be curious to see how HBO adapts A Song of Ice and Fire. That is such an ambitious project and the fans are very protective of accuracy.

But honestly I loved the Lord of the Rings movies.  :Smile:

----------


## Nick Capozzoli

Though I liked Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Holmes and Watson, their films were different from Doyle's stories. The BBC series with Jeremy Brett (sp?) catches Doyle's characters better, I think.

I think that _The Last of the Mohicans_ with Daniel Day Lewis as Hawkeye is probably the best film adaptation of a novel. The novel and the film are surely "different," but both are great. I can't imagine why the film did not win the Best Picture oscar that year.

Nick

----------


## Nightshade

> I think that _The Last of the Mohicans_ with Daniel Day Lewis as Hawkeye is probably the best film adaptation of a novel. The novel and the film are surely "different," but both are great. I can't imagine why the film did not win the Best Picture oscar that year.


That is a book and film I need to reread.
The terry preatchett adaptations by Sky annoyed me, or rather I lioved the hog father but then they cast the same actor as a different charcter inthe Color of Magic, and it was like _What ARE you doing?!_ I mean sure David Jason is sort of short and fitts the desciption but 2 different charcters in one series ? Nope, not good.

----------


## Sapphire

Wait, work by Terry Pratchett has been made into a movie?!? I totally missed out on that  :Goof:

----------


## feignfeign

> Stanley Kubrick MADE the Shining, it was a fabulous work... and Shawshank is a brilliant film as well. I'm going to admit I've only ever read Hearts in Atlantis by Stephen King and the movie was mediochre, so I can't say much more about him. 
> 
> I always hate it when they remake movies of classic movies that were once books (examples: Dracula and Frankenstein). Because it makes these creatures into such different monsters than the deeply complex ones of the classic novels. Frankenstein is a fantastic and complex novel that doesn't need to be made into film...


ive heard that King despised Kubrick's interpretation of The Shining. He especially disagreed with Kubrick's casting of Nicholson as Jack. King viewed Jack as a person with a troubled pass who was ultimately good but was tempted and twisted by the evil of the house. Kubrick's interpretation portrayed Jack to be a bit of a twisted individual from the on set, because you know, Nicholson always sounds and looks a little wicked  :Smile: 

But these type of thing is pretty common in novel to film situation..

I haven't read The Shining so i will withhold my judgment on the matter  :Smile:

----------


## Emil Miller

> To clarify... 
> 
> The hype-thing was about the film...
> 
> About the book I can't really say anything as I haven't read it and I don't intend to. I wouldn't enjoy it... It seems very well thought of. Maybe I will take an attempt once at _The Hobbit_, but not soon...



I have to admit to a mistake on my part. I thought you were referring to The Lord of the Flies; a completely different book.

Nevertheless, I think my original comment is valid for The Lord of the Rings. It appeared during the 1950s and the first volume was in all probabilty hyped by the publishers as they already had parts two and three because they had sub-divided the original novel into three parts. 
As for the film (s)?, I have only seen about 20 minutes on TV before switching off. I don't see why it shouldn't have been filmed, the whole concept of the books, it seems to me, is to tell a fantasy story that will appeal to children and childlike adults, in much in the same way as Star Wars and similar books and their film adaptations. Once the pseudo philosophy is stripped away there remains just another over-hyped extravaganza.

----------


## lichtrausch

> As for the film (s)?, I have only seen about 20 minutes on TV before switching off. I don't see why it shouldn't have been filmed, the whole concept of the books, it seems to me, is to tell a fantasy story that will appeal to children and *childlike adults*, in much in the same way as Star Wars and similar books and their film adaptations. Once the pseudo philosophy is stripped away there remains just another over-hyped extravaganza.


I think the term you're looking for is "adults who are able to appreciate a fantastic space opera".

----------


## Emil Miller

> I think the term you're looking for is "adults who are able to appreciate a fantastic space opera".


Are they the same adults who appreciate a fantastic soap opera?

----------


## wessexgirl

> Though I liked Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Holmes and Watson, their films were different from Doyle's stories. *The BBC series with Jeremy Brett (sp?) catches Doyle's characters better, I think.* 
> 
> I think that _The Last of the Mohicans_ with Daniel Day Lewis as Hawkeye is probably the best film adaptation of a novel. The novel and the film are surely "different," but both are great. I can't imagine why the film did not win the Best Picture oscar that year.
> 
> Nick



It was ITV Nick. I know it's usually the Beeb that do the best period dramas, but on this occasion, ITV surpassed themselves, casting the best Holmes there has ever been. Would that they could produce some more such high-class stuff.

----------


## kiki1982

> It was ITV Nick. I know it's usually the Beeb that do the best period dramas, but on this occasion, ITV surpassed themselves, casting the best Holmes there has ever been. Would that they could produce some more such high-class stuff.


Sadly auntie Beeb has surpased herself in the last years by making crap ones... I believe in the 90s they had a good period, but since then, I have seen nothing but violation... 

Oh, yes. _Tess of the d'Urbervilles_ was also such one that should never have been made! A Belgian newspaper called the first episode 'the worst we have seen in its kind so far.' 

_Persuasion_ 2007 (ITV) was not much better. It is the most boring, tedious, flat piece I have ever seen. Even worse than _Jane Eyre_ 1996. Those actors were passionless, but at least the director had somehing to say. Here, no-one had anything to say, it was badly cast, and badly written. It ignored all fun bits. What is left from Austen then?

----------


## lichtrausch

> Are they the same adults who appreciate a fantastic soap opera?


While the groups could overlap here and there, I'm going to have to say that they usually don't.

----------


## wessexgirl

> Sadly auntie Beeb has surpased herself in the last years by making crap ones... I believe in the 90s they had a good period, but since then, I have seen nothing but violation... 
> 
> Oh, yes. _Tess of the d'Urbervilles_ was also such one that should never have been made! A Belgian newspaper called the first episode 'the worst we have seen in its kind so far.' 
> 
> _Persuasion_ 2007 was not much better. It is the most boring, tedious, flat piece I have ever seen. Even worse than _Jane Eyre_ 1996. Those actors were passionless, but at least the director had somehing to say. Here, no-one had anything to say, it was badly cast, and badly written. It ignored all fun bits. What is leftfrom Austen then?


That version of Persuasion (2007) was ITV Kiki. The excellent 1995 one was the Beeb.

----------


## kiki1982

I know... I changed it just now. I only saw it in the end...  :Wink:

----------


## Nick Capozzoli

> It was ITV Nick. I know it's usually the Beeb that do the best period dramas, but on this occasion, ITV surpassed themselves, casting the best Holmes there has ever been. Would that they could produce some more such high-class stuff.


Thanks for correcting me...some of us Yanks tend to think that BBC is synonymous with all British TV...In any case, I grew up on Holmes and his Hollywood incarnation, Basil Rathbone. As an adult, Jeremy Brett appeals to me more, though I probably wouldn't have appreciated him 40 years ago...

Nick

----------


## kiki1982

@ Wessexgirl and Nick:

I don't like Holmes so much (too simple), but what about Poirot? He is absolutely great.

@ Wessexgirl and Nick:

I don't like Holmes so much (too simple), but what about Poirot? He is absolutely great.

----------


## Seraphina

The quickest way for me to answer that is list the films of books that I think /did/ work:

Atonement (book by Ian McEwan)
Memoirs of a Geisha (Arthur Golden)


And that's it. There have been some I've managed to enjoy as long as I totally seperate it in my mind from the book. There are also some that did stick to the book, but the book just wasn't made for film (Twilight; ridiculously boring as a film. Perfume; decent book, not a decent film, despite it being rather faithful).
The adaptions I find most offensive are Lord of the Rings (mainly because of the over done hollywood acting...nice one vandalising Legolas, Mr Bloom), The Other Boleyn Girl, and Eragon (I didn't even like the book, so the fact that the film managed to be worse was shocking).

As for Pride and Prejudice, I liked the BBC series very much, but the film wasn't great. Mainly because I think Kiera Knightley's portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet wasn't faithful (she lost a lot of her wit, and just looked petulant at times), and because a film is too short to do the book justice.
Brideshead Revisited, I absolutely adore the series. I havn't seen the film yet, because I don't think I'm going to want to associate the book and series with it...

----------


## Psynema

Lord of the Rings  :Biggrin: 

And Pay it forward

----------


## Stargazer86

I see that someone mentioned the Jeremy Brett portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, which is the best Sherlock Holmes I've seen yet.

I think he captured the character quite well. I used to watch those all the time after reading the stories

----------


## JimmyRow

All of them

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> All of them


 :Eek:  But then we wouldn't have American Psycho!

----------


## Desolation

I thought I'd evaluate the movie versions I've seen of books that I've read...

_Dracula_ - This was the first book I ever finished as a teenager, and I was obsessed with it. I think I've seen just about every English film adaptation of it, and I thought that both versions of Nosferatu were good, as well as the classic version of Dracula with Bela Lugosi and the 90's version with Gary Oldman(which I actually liked better than the novel) were great.
_Frankenstein_ - I've only seen the version with Robert De Niro, and I hated it. There was nothing redeemable or enjoyable about it in my view.
_A Clockwork Orange_ - It was alright, but it pretty much got rid of the entire message of the novel, being that a man deprived of choice and made mechanical is completely without merit.
_Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas_ - I liked it a lot. 
_One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest_ - Pretty much exactly on par with the novel. I actually preferred the ending in the film to the ending in the book, Kesey made it drag much longer than necessary. 
_Lord of the Rings_ - I hated the books, other than The Hobbit. They were boring and dragged on forever. But I thought that the movies were excellent.

----------


## kelby_lake

> As for Pride and Prejudice, I liked the BBC series very much, but the film wasn't great. Mainly because I think Kiera Knightley's portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet wasn't faithful (she lost a lot of her wit, and just looked petulant at times), and because a film is too short to do the book justice.
> Brideshead Revisited, I absolutely adore the series. I havn't seen the film yet, because I don't think I'm going to want to associate the book and series with it...


Agree- the P and P film was a very bad adaptation. It was so miserable and grey! It's a social satire- looks like they were trying to make it into Cinderella- the Bennets aren't farmers!!

Film of Brideshead- character of Rex completely changed. DVD got stuck so got to Venice and then nothing. The guy playing Charles is just doing a bad Jeremy Irons impression; the guy playing Sebastian is okay but they keep makling a big point about him being gay. He probably is, but more importantly, 'he's in love with his own childhood'. He doesn't want to grow up and be an adult.

I like watching films of books- mainly plays- just to see what they've done with it. Sometimes they surprise you and do something different, which still works.

On my list to watch is A Thousand Acres. The film looks good and I like Colin Firth and all, but he does not look like a Southern farmer working away.

----------


## kiki1982

> Agree- the P and P film was a very bad adaptation. It was so miserable and grey! It's a social satire- looks like they were trying to make it into Cinderella- the Bennets aren't farmers!!


It always puzzles me how they can make a drama or tragedy out of something witty like Jane Austen. If you do it well, it is hilarious...

----------


## Seraphina

i do enjoy the Austin adaptions (usually just made for tv, not films) but they lose a lot of what makes the books enjoyable. less social satire, more period romance with a quirky character or two thrown in.


ooo,Desolation, I'd forgotten Francis Ford Coppola's adaption of Dracula. that's one i enjoyed seperately from the book, because it is an entirely different story, really. I also preferred it to the book, despite loving the book.

----------


## kiki1982

How is _Emma_ with Gwyneth Paltrow, anyway? 

I saw the trailer on YouTube, and that looked quite alright, but maybe they just changed the whole story around...

----------

