ifvbailfgvb



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2007 04:50AM by Shakespeare.

Tim Burton!

I'm gonna have to go with Tim too!

Insert comma where applicable

Providing it isn't anyone who was involved in the debacle that became the film version of Hitchhikers Guide!

As my youngest daughter is determined to be a producer, I'd have of vote for her, at the moment she is trying to pursuade her drama teacher to do "We Will Rock You" I hope she succeeds

I vote for Tim B. and I agree with you: I don't want to wait for them to finish the next two HP movies. Just KILL HIM OFF as JKR should have done...........

(What was wrong with H2G2 the movie?)

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

My computer beat me at chess, but I won at kickboxing

I can see Burton doing The Well, as that's a bit bleak and could be interesting from a set-design point of view. But Eyre? Nah. TEA is more of a standard action movie with some clever jiggery pokey as people move in and out of books. I'd rather plump for someone a bit more mainstream who can handle gun-toting action sequences and is happy to mess about in editing. Maybe even Ang Lee, or (if he was still alive) Sergio Leone.

I take your point and I also like Ang Lee's films, most of the time, but will point out that Burton did "Batman" and "Batman Returns" and Ang Lee directed "The Hulk".

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

My computer beat me at chess, but I won at kickboxing

heh heh.

Skids won that round.

Tim Burton is good. Dave McKean also!

Skid wins utterly.

__________________________________
'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland

I have been waiting for years to see if they would make a movie out of any of these lovely books, but who would you like to see play Thursday?

hjxfjxfj



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2007 04:50AM by Shakespeare.

I should like to see a Ken Russell version of the Thursday stories.

Not as the definitive version but to set a limit as to how far out one could go.

This would then force other productions to follow the scripts more closely, as occurred with LOTR I believe. Extreme parody/bastardisation I can watch.

I don't go and watch movies of good stories, as they usually can't do the thinking bits as well, and the images I have in my head are far more true to me than a portrayal by an actor, no matter how good they are.

Even in something as literal as 'the Dam Busters' 1953 version with Richard Todd I still cannot accept Michael Redgrave as Barnes Wallis.


Anyone else feel this way?

I understand your POV, but don't quite go along with it.

A good book can have much more depth than a movie, due to time constraints, but sometimes, pareticularly if there are action sequences, the film version can bring a different slant to a story. And I don't just mean special effects.

The best example that I can think of at the moment is "Catch 22" where the book and the movie get to the same point by different routes.

My all-time favourite movie, 'The Princess Bride', is based on a book, but I have a hard time thinking of others that would make my personal top ten. Much as I enjoy The LOTR trilogy, I would not put any one of them into my top ten, although they may all be fighting for places in the top twenty.

What's interesting is that both the book and the screenplay of the movie of The Princess Bride were written by the same person, but they are very different in tone, with different themes ("life's not fair" vs. "love conquers all"). I generally think this is a good thing, for the reasons you mention--books and movies have different strengths, and for a movie to attempt to follow the book too closely will just result in a bad movie.

Sometimes they completely stuff up what made the book enthralling in the first place, by not sticking to it enough.






Example: I find Howl's Moving Castle the story, the people to be great, it is not meant to be serious and Howl is a complete and total coward. I have loved the book from a young age and re-read it at least 5 times a year.
The film version made no sense, and the plot (which wasn't 100% plausible in the first place) became just stupid. I felt it dragged the whole story down. I was disappointed as you can see ^_^
The animation was great, but I felt everything else was lacking.

The book is for kids and is written in a light hearted style.

My son has been reading LOTR and had to take a break and watch the films again to remind himself why he likes the story so much. 'Jeez, mom, they were crossing ANOTHER stream, I just couldn't stick with it.'

In The Princess Bride Goldman has to abridge the 'original' book and just do the 'good parts version.'

Does that mean we are too dumbed down to read any more? I don't think so.

Interesting argument by my friend Damian here:

[damianarlyn.blogspot.com]

I haven't read the book in a while, but I seem to recall the parts that were "cut down" (bearing in mind Goldman's version IS the original) including something like a seventeen-page description of all the shoes Buttercup has. I don't think skipping that is a sign of being dumbed down!