Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
My mission in life is to make YOU smile
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The time has come," the Walrus said,"To talk of many things:
Forum Rules- You know you want to read 'em
|Litnet Challange status = 5/260
|currently reading
The women in Robin Hood are so annoying...and Robin Hood is more like Christopher Robin.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, well, does it mean that everything should racially be engineered?
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
As far as the BBC is concerned, the answer would definitely be yes.
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?
Hart's War
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.
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.
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...It was something with kig Richard and the seriff and Guisborne involved (Jerusalem), but I can't recall wat really happened. Someone help?
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote