I hated the non-existent LXG movie the first time I saw it. The second time I remember thinking that once you adjusted for nerd-rage, it wasn't terrible.
I reserve the right to change that opinion if there is ever a third viewing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think any of them should be made into movies.
If only not to give the nerd population something else to gripe and complain about.
So sick of people not understanding that the written word and film are two completely different medium and dont work in the same way to entertain.
Sick of people not understanding that even if it's a director's intent to make a COMPLETELY FAITHFUL ADAPTATION of their favorite book or whatever there are about a million factors that can impact on that intent.
Basically im sick of a bunch of inflexible fanboys just looking to rag on something and cut any effort off at the knees.
Does each of us have that one book that they wish can be translated faithfully from book to screen? OF COURSE. (for me it's 'Salems Lot). But if I want 'Salems Lot? I can go pull it off of my shelf and start reading it.
I saw the movie of THE SHINING before I ever read the book.
When I was a teenager i read the book and then HATED the movie.
Now as an adult I view them both as very different but equally valid experiences in different mediums and I can enjoy them BOTH for what they are.
I read the Hobbit and LOTR when I was younger. Several times in fact and the first half of Fellowship bores the hell out of me. It always has.
The movies while not completely faithful are a different experience. An Experience that I happen to really, REALLY enjoy.
But they are NOT the books. Which doesn't invalidate them or make them lesser. Which is my problem with a lot of fanboys and people in general when it comes to film adaptions of books.
Enjoy it for what it is.
Sitting there and going "well they didn't include this part of the story or this character or that scene or they added in all of these things that weren't in the books..." doesn't make you smarter or increase your nerd cred. It just makes you that obnoxious know it all that I pretty much hated when I was in school.
If you cant enjoy something or wont allow yourself to then why bother with it? Just clutch that book to your chest with that vise like grip of yours and JOG ON.
Also, not to say anything one way or the other about nerd-rage, but your example just happens to be a film by one of the previous century's greatest auteurs.
And...while we're at it...whatever happened to that 21st chapter in A Clockwork Orange?!?!?!?!
[Nerdragesmash!!!]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So sick of people not understanding that the written word and film are two completely different medium and dont work in the same way to entertain.
I think you just have to accept the fact that some adaptations are good and some are bad. And sometimes the movie is just bad on it's own and being a fan of the original work just rubs salt in the wound.
I agree, some fans take it way too far (that *any* change makes the movie horrible), but saying a fan can't dislike the movie/TV show is going in the opposite extreme.
I think what bugs me most these days is that many directors and writers don't even make an attempt to pay homage to the original material. For example, why did "World War Z" even have the same title as the book if the only thing they have in common was zombies? Yeah, that makes fans mad, and rightfully so.
|
I SAID, NOBODY MADE A MOVIE ADAPTATION OF THAT ONE!!!
Just like there was never a sequel to that amazing Highlander movie.
Not. Ever.
"There can be only one." (Unbroken pane of glass in the city?)
+1 to a Lord of Light movie. Or Isle of the Dead.
Probably see a movie (or HBO mini-series) adaptation of that Chronicles of Amber pap first.
|
|
Sean Connery was priceless in that one though. So was Stuart Towsend.
Stuart Townsend's Dorian Grey and Mina the Vampire were the only parts of the movie I liked (although I wanted to like Nemo). Sean Connery's character and Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer or whoever that kid was dragged it down, IMO.
Planetary might make for an interesting adaptation. Half the team is pretty much taken straight from the matrix anyway. Not-Trinity and the dude who runs up walls and fights in bullet-time, most obviously.
|
Of course some people can accept the differences in different mediums and still dislike certain movies. The vast majority of my problems with Jackson's LotR/Hobbit movies have more to do with his general stylistic choices than specific deviations from the plot. For example, I find his action sequences too drawn, overly dramatic and pretty much boring. So over the top, I lose any sense of excitement.
Not all criticism of book based movies can be reduced to "It's not exactly like the book so Waaah!"
Yes. Some parts of the reason why I'm not a big Peter Jackson fan come down to differences between the books and the film, but despite some fairly extensive revisions compared to the first book in LotR I really liked the Fellowship movie - it was the rest of the films I didn't like. And it was less the specific changes from the source material and more the change in tone to one of pervading dumbness and sentimentality of character and situation, which would probably have irritated me if I hadn't read the books. (And his action sequences have been getting sillier and siller too, and the puntuation of the second Hobbit movie with a fight scene every five minutes made it ludicrous. Watchable, but ludicrous.)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I much prefer some of Peter Jackson's choices, to those of the original Hobbit. Making the dwarves (and Bilbo) competent in their fights against the goblins (Bilbo *choosing* to sneak away, and not just being knocked out and slipping out of view, the dwarves doing some real damage to the goblins on their own, etc.) and the orcs (the dwarves participating in the throwing fiery pine cones, Thorin and Bilbo first, then the others coming down from the trees and fighting) and the trolls (the dwarves holding their own against the trolls initially, then Bilbo stalling them while Gandalf gets into position and the sun rises, instead of it being 'Gandalf shows up and saves the useless twits, Take Five.') all great choices that I very much approve.
Adding female characters of note into the action? Even if he had to invent Tauriel out of whole cloth, and turn Arwen from a footnote into an actual character, I totally approve.
Tolkien re-used some beats, a bit too much, in my opinion. The dwarves arrive in dribs and drabs at Bilbo's door. Then they do the same thing with the trolls (and are taken out in ones and twos). Then they do the same thing at Beorn's. That's a little too much recycling of the same scene, IMO, and so I don't mind at all that Peter Jackson used it once, with the dwarves arriving at Bag End, and then skipped it for both the troll encounter and the arrival at Beorn's house.
That said, I'm not a fan of the roller-coaster action scenes, and feel that the goblin city collapsing thrill ride or the 'mountain giants' scene felt like exactly the sort of 'the bumbling idiots only survived because they were lucky' thing that I would rather *not* see in my heroic adventure. With one hand Peter Jackson giveth (competent dwarves and Bilbo, not hapless buffoons who only survive because Gandalf keeps showing up and rescuing them in the nick of time) and with the other hand, he taketh away (these darn roller coaster chase scenes, that look like something out of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom).
For the second movie, Bombur's barrel flying around killing orcs was laugh out loud funny, but belonged in a different movie, with a dwarf with a bowl-cut who then poked him in the eyes and said Nyuk Nyuk. I found less to love and more silly stuff in this second movie.
(Although I do kind of prefer where he seems to be going with this black arrow-as-ballista bolt stuff. That's the kind of change I can approve of!)
I don't entirely care if it's 100% faithful to the Hobbit, as written, because the Hobbit, as written, had some gaping flaws.
I just want it to be good, and not an advertisement for the latest ride at Six Flags over Middle-Earth.
|
|
I much prefer some of Peter Jackson's choices, to those of the original Hobbit. Making the dwarves (and Bilbo) competent in their fights against the goblins (Bilbo *choosing* to sneak away, and not just being knocked out and slipping out of view, the dwarves doing some real damage to the goblins on their own, etc.) and the orcs (the dwarves participating in the throwing fiery pine cones, Thorin and Bilbo first, then the others coming down from the trees and fighting) and the trolls (the dwarves holding their own against the trolls initially, then Bilbo stalling them while Gandalf gets into position and the sun rises, instead of it being 'Gandalf shows up and saves the useless twits, Take Five.') all great choices that I very much approve.
The problems is that the dwarfs, as characters, still come off as a bunch of goofy goons who are stupid, silly, and incompetent. When they later go on to destroy armies of orcs and goblins (and even emerging from a face off with a dragon with not as much as a scratch on any of them), it just makes the bad guys seem to be a trivial threat. How are you supposed to take those orcs seriously if they can't even seriously menace this bunch of silly little dwarfs? In the original Lord of the Rings movie trillogy, Peter Jackson managed to make the orcs intimidating even while the main characters shredded them in wholesale numbers. In the Hobbit, that balance was lost.
|
|
I much prefer some of Peter Jackson's choices, to those of the original Hobbit. Making the dwarves (and Bilbo) competent in their fights against the goblins (Bilbo *choosing* to sneak away, and not just being knocked out and slipping out of view, the dwarves doing some real damage to the goblins on their own, etc.) and the orcs (the dwarves participating in the throwing fiery pine cones, Thorin and Bilbo first, then the others coming down from the trees and fighting) and the trolls (the dwarves holding their own against the trolls initially, then Bilbo stalling them while Gandalf gets into position and the sun rises, instead of it being 'Gandalf shows up and saves the useless twits, Take Five.') all great choices that I very much approve.
Adding female characters of note into the action? Even if he had to invent Tauriel out of whole cloth, and turn Arwen from a footnote into an actual character, I totally approve.
Tolkien re-used some beats, a bit too much, in my opinion. The dwarves arrive in dribs and drabs at Bilbo's door. Then they do the same thing with the trolls (and are taken out in ones and twos). Then they do the same thing at Beorn's. That's a little too much recycling of the same scene, IMO, and so I don't mind at all that Peter Jackson used it once, with the dwarves arriving at Bag End, and then skipped it for both the troll encounter and the arrival at Beorn's house.
That said, I'm not a fan of the roller-coaster action scenes, and feel that the goblin city collapsing thrill ride or the 'mountain giants' scene felt like exactly the sort of 'the bumbling idiots only survived because they were lucky' thing that I would rather *not* see in my heroic adventure. With one hand Peter Jackson giveth (competent dwarves and Bilbo, not hapless buffoons who only survive because Gandalf keeps showing up and rescuing them in the nick of time) and with the other hand, he taketh away (these darn roller coaster chase scenes, that look like something out of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom)....
Part of the problem is, of course, that the Hobbit was a book for children and so this explains some of the whimsical touches. On the other hand, Jackson used Gimli for comic relief in the LotR movies and made him a somewhat ludicrous character, which he most definitely wasn't in the book, so it's also down to Jackson's choices too. (I won't deny that some of Jackson's choices were good - losing Tom Bombadil for a start - but overall his "vision" isn't mine.)
And the big problem with many of the action scenes in the films is that they belong more properly in a cartoon - Jackson's grip on what is physically possible is a bit loose, and the CGI means he doesn't bother to worry about it. They are so incredible (i.e. lack credibility as real scenes) as to stretch credulity beyond breaking point. Magic I can handle, but these elements are largely non-fantastic, just extremely unlikely.
Two books that I'd love to see adapted well would be
C J Cherryh's Gate of Ivrel. Moody and dark, low key with some nice blood, dread characters and an atmosphere oozing menace and mystique. Then make Well of Shiuan and Fires of Azeroth. Bonus points for Exile's Gate.
Ian McDonald's Hearts Hands and Voices. Well revolutionary, with some awesome technology and transhumance. Way too political for US studios.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, not to say anything one way or the other about nerd-rage, but your example just happens to be a film by one of the previous century's greatest auteurs.
Yeah I know everyone thinks that Kubrick was the bees knees. But I'm not that big of a fan of his later films. I think a fair amount of them were just really overrated.
One of my favorite films of all time is PATHS OF GLORY an earlier Kubrick film which is probably the best anti-war film ever. Also The Killing is up there in terms of great noir films as will.
The Shining? it's good but not the classic that everyone thinks it is.
There's obviously room to argue whether or not Kubrick or The Shining is the bestest evah, but, still, your example of a passable book-to-film adaptation seems a little strange to me.
"You know, most plays about historical figures are kinda crappy, but that Henry V was alright."
In other news, I'm about to, years after it debuted, finish the first season of True Blood which is hawt! hawt! hawt!, baby. Are the books any good, or should I stick with Anna Paquin?
|
<insert bunch o' stuff I agree with here>
For the second movie, Bombur's barrel flying around killing orcs was laugh out loud funny, but belonged in a different movie, with a dwarf with a bowl-cut who then poked him in the eyes and said Nyuk Nyuk. I found less to love and more silly stuff in this second movie.
That, the whole "dwarves try to drown Smaug in gold" thing, and the interspecies googly eyes make much more sense to me if you assume that the book is Bilbo's memoir as told to a younger hobbit and the movie is in part taken from the recollections of the dwarves. Of course Bombur is going to tell stories that make him out to be heroic (in more than appetite and girth, anyway), and of course one of the older dwarves is going to make a point about how making googly eyes at elves will eventually get you killed. And none of the dwarves will admit to staying by the door while Bilbo sneaks alone into the dragon's lair, so when they're challenged on it they'll make something up.
Two books that I'd love to see adapted well would be
C J Cherryh's Gate of Ivrel. Moody and dark, low key with some nice blood, dread characters and an atmosphere oozing menace and mystique. Then make Well of Shiuan and Fires of Azeroth. Bonus points for Exile's Gate.
Ian McDonald's Hearts Hands and Voices. Well revolutionary, with some awesome technology and transhumance. Way too political for US studios.
Ocean, have you heard about this? I mean, the two guys mentioned in the link have a grand total of one movie under their belts, and C.J. has said that her work have been optioned before with no result whatsoever, so it's definitely in the hope for the best, prepare for the worst box, but here's hoping. :)
In other news, I'm about to, years after it debuted, finish the first season of True Blood which is hawt! hawt! hawt!, baby. Are the books any good, or should I stick with Anna Paquin?
True Blood is the only series that I can think of that (in my opinion) the TV show is better than the books. In the books you only get the story from the eyes of Sookie only. So alot of the fan favorite characters from the show, Sam and Jason for example are just bit players in the book and their side plots do not exist. I have only read the first 2 books though it may have changed later.
|
There's obviously room to argue whether or not Kubrick or The Shining is the bestest evah, but, still, your example of a passable book-to-film adaptation seems a little strange to me.
"You know, most plays about historical figures are kinda crappy, but that Henry V was alright."
In other news, I'm about to, years after it debuted, finish the first season of True Blood which is hawt! hawt! hawt!, baby. Are the books any good, or should I stick with Anna Paquin?
Oh man my ol lady loves this show and it gets worse every season. Please somebody help me................
|
|
I much prefer some of Peter Jackson's choices, to those of the original Hobbit. Making the dwarves (and Bilbo) competent in their fights against the goblins (Bilbo *choosing* to sneak away, and not just being knocked out and slipping out of view, the dwarves doing some real damage to the goblins on their own, etc.) and the orcs (the dwarves participating in the throwing fiery pine cones, Thorin and Bilbo first, then the others coming down from the trees and fighting) and the trolls (the dwarves holding their own against the trolls initially, then Bilbo stalling them while Gandalf gets into position and the sun rises, instead of it being 'Gandalf shows up and saves the useless twits, Take Five.') all great choices that I very much approve...
The dwarves and Bilbo are a stand-in for... a bunch of kids. The Goonies basically ripped off The Hobbit.
That's why they are surviving on luck, optimism and determination: that all they've got, just like kids.
I loved how Fellowship used Bombadil, Old Man Willow and the Barrow Downs to transition from The Hobbit's child-like vibe to something more mature.
Hobbits never say die!!!!
As for TB as long as the clothes keep coming off, I don't care if the quality falls.
Vive le Sookie!
|
|
Speaking of...I don't know whether or not I really want Rahne Sinclair to show up in an X-Men movie or be relieved that they've left her alone so far...Needs more girl werewolves, 'though.
IMO, CGI isn't 'there' yet when it comes to realistic looking fur or feathers. I'd rather not see her turn into a crappy looking werewolf, like something out of Underworld, or the wargs in the Hobbit.
I like the character (she's probably my favorite New Mutant), but I'd rather wait to see her later (or a good looking physical costume, like they used for the Beast in First Class) than see a sloppy version of her.
|
|
There's obviously room to argue whether or not Kubrick or The Shining is the bestest evah, but, still, your example of a passable book-to-film adaptation seems a little strange to me.
"You know, most plays about historical figures are kinda crappy, but that Henry V was alright."
I would actually argue against that. While the movie "The Shining" is doing some very good things, it has so little to do with the book holding the same name that I'd say it's not "The Shining" but rather, "based on the shining". Not only did it lose 98% of the plot and depth of character (replacing both with some really splendid camera work), it also completely, 100% changed the themes of the story. The book was about the personal demons that a love/fear relationship with an abusive, alcoholic father and the never ending cycle of repeating, violent, sucky lives it creates. The movie is about the crumbling of American families and society. How are these even comparable? Imagine a movie about Hamlet which decides to forgo with that whole silly "to be or not to be" thing and replace it with the theme "to bee or not to bee - are honey producing bees abused in modern times?". It might be a kick ass film about awesome things, but presenting it as an example of a book adaptation? I don't think that's right.
Oh man my ol lady loves this show and it gets worse every season. Please somebody help me................There's obviously room to argue whether or not Kubrick or The Shining is the bestest evah, but, still, your example of a passable book-to-film adaptation seems a little strange to me.
"You know, most plays about historical figures are kinda crappy, but that Henry V was alright."
In other news, I'm about to, years after it debuted, finish the first season of True Blood which is hawt! hawt! hawt!, baby. Are the books any good, or should I stick with Anna Paquin?
Well this is the last season...so only 12 more episodes to go. Remain strong.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not having seen the Shining, or read the book, this is not what I'd call a well-founded opinion, but as I understand it, the book is a good book, and the movie is a very good movie, despite the divergence. That excuses any movie adaptation, at least in my book.
|
|
The dwarves and Bilbo are a stand-in for... a bunch of kids. The Goonies basically ripped off The Hobbit.
That's why they are surviving on luck, optimism and determination: that all they've got, just like kids.
I loved how Fellowship used Bombadil, Old Man Willow and the Barrow Downs to transition from The Hobbit's child-like vibe to something more mature.
Bombadil, not so much. Old Man Willow (although it's Bombadil who gets them out) and the Barrow Downs - agreed, they were a loss to the films. I know Bombadil is supposed to be this sort of great nature spirit and relates the LotR to the greater mythology of Middle Earth, but he's also a bit of a twee deus ex machina.
|
|
Not having seen the Shining, or read the book, this is not what I'd call a well-founded opinion, but as I understand it, the book is a good book, and the movie is a very good movie, despite the divergence. That excuses any movie adaptation, at least in my book.
Having seen the Shining movie but not read the book, I'd say it was OK but nothing very special. There is a sense of dread and so on but really nothing much happens. And...
... just kind of confused me. And then...
... what was that about? I've never really understood why it's considered so great. But Kubrick, of course, does enigmatic, as 2001 ably demonstrates.
The trilogy based on the Rifts RPG. Namely Sonic boom, deception's web and treacherous awakenings.
All three book were great reading despite having lots of errors in it (spelling, missing words etc.) I like the story, the characters, the world and I think it would make for a really cool movie with fantasic speccial effects.
For the record, I haven't read or seen The Shining since adolescence, and they both scared the shiznit out of me.
Also, IIRC, almost all (all?) of Kubrick's films have been literary adaptions, going back at least to The Killing.
Only seen the movie version of Shining...I liked it but I do think it's a bit overrated. Although that might be mostly because a lot of the tropes used in that movie have been recycled into later films that I have seen, making them a lot less novel.
Not having seen the Shining, or read the book, this is not what I'd call a well-founded opinion, but as I understand it, the book is a good book, and the movie is a very good movie, despite the divergence. That excuses any movie adaptation, at least in my book.Having seen the Shining movie but not read the book, I'd say it was OK but nothing very special. There is a sense of dread and so on but really nothing much happens. And...
** spoiler omitted **
... just kind of confused me. And then...
** spoiler omitted **
... what was that about? I've never really understood why it's considered so great. But Kubrick, of course, does enigmatic, as 2001 ably demonstrates.
Honestly, the ending of 2001 was more or less straight out of the book, it's just that a heavily descriptive ending without dialogue isn't easy to convey in pictures. Read it, it should explain what you need to know.
|
|
Not having seen the Shining, or read the book, this is not what I'd call a well-founded opinion, but as I understand it, the book is a good book, and the movie is a very good movie, despite the divergence. That excuses any movie adaptation, at least in my book.
Yeah, but let's say someone made an adaptation of your book, and it turned out to be a football drama. Might be a very nice movie, but why even bother saying it had anything to do with your book?
O.K, tongue-in-cheek aside, I believe that if a film adaptation is as different from the book as in "The Shining", I'd really prefer that they just make another film that "burrows" some concepts from the book in good taste, rather than calling it by the same name. Because really, if they twicked a detail or two and changed the name of the movie, it would have been hard to guess that it's based on "The Shining". And, as a fan of the book, I know that the odds for it getting another, truthful adaptation are extremely low now.
They did a tv miniseries in '97. I have no idea whether it's on DVD and, even if it is, I don't know if it would be available in Israel. But there it is.
In regards to your earlier post, I looked up the credits of The Shining on youtube. Skip to 2:20.
Like I said above, I haven't read or seen it in years, but I don't remember them being all that different. I mean, yeah, there's differences, but it's not like Kubrick took characters from other Stephen King novels and rammed them into The Shining in order to stretch it out to a trilogy...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The original "Elric" saga by Michael Moorcock could be made into an epic miniseries for the right cable network.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adding another +1 to calls for Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy. I'm only 2/3rds the way through the first book, but the writing is superlative and the low/rare magic of the settin would definitely keep the costs down.
If only they could spend the money on believable/fantasy-authentic costume/clothing. I haven't seen anything on the big screen I thought approached this yet.
I would like to see Jim Butchers "Codex Alera" (furies of calduron etc.) made into a decent movie series or TV show (with a decent special effects budget). They were highly underated books IMO, or really most likely overshadowed by the awesomeness that is "The Dresden Files."
I think the Honor Harrington books by David Weber would make good sci-fi.
Eragon should not have been made when it was...
My only thoughts on battlefied: earth is: garbage in, garbage out.
I agree with Ruick that the Codex Alera story would be good for TV, but also think only after a proper Dresden movie is made. The tv show that was on syfy was ok, but lacking. The entire first (and only) season is on netflix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always wanted to see The Belgariad made into a movie or TV series. Its a richly developed world, and the characterizations would translate well to the screen I think.
It's surprising that nobody took on the Vorkosigan saga yet. Mr Dinklage would make an awesome Miles.
It's surprising that nobody took on the Vorkosigan saga yet. Mr Dinklage would make an awesome Miles.
Miles starts out at 17. Whilst my admiration for Dinklage's acting skills have no limits, I don't think he can sell being 25 years younger than he really is.
Hey man, it worked for Dawson's Creek.
Adding another +1 to calls for Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy. I'm only 2/3rds the way through the first book, but the writing is superlative and the low/rare magic of the settin would definitely keep the costs down.
If only they could spend the money on believable/fantasy-authentic costume/clothing. I haven't seen anything on the big screen I thought approached this yet.
The amount of magic does increase as the story continues, but it's still mostly low key apart from a few VERY big moments. That said, books two and three involve some pretty grand settings, and a lot of large scale battles.
On another topic related to the books though, is Logan Nine-Fingers not the most chilled out barbarian you've ever come across? Almost makes you wonder why they sometimes call him the Bloody-Nine...
The amount of magic does increase as the story continues, but it's still mostly low key apart from a few VERY big moments.
KA-BOOOOOOOM!!!!!
On another topic related to the books though, is Logan Nine-Fingers not the most chilled out barbarian you've ever come across? Almost makes you wonder why they sometimes call him the Bloody-Nine...
It would be quite the challenge finding an actor that could convincingly portray both the docile and berserker aspects of Logen Ninefingers.
On a related note, as I read First Law and The Heroes, I always pictured Ian McShane as Black Dow and Mads Mikkelson as Caul Shivers.