This is for those people that always get mad at new movies being shown that are based on books because they think the movie directors did them wrong. So, there are tons of movies right now that are being based on popular books. Which one would you choose to re-do and why? For me it is definitley Twilight by Stephanie Meyer becuase they left out a lot of important things!;)
Joyce's Ulysses.
the last version of Persuasion that was made a couple of years ago. god awful.
I dont really think they left out alot of information. I think that they did poor casting choices and cut certain scenes shorter than what they should have been. But for how it turned out without using a green screen was really good.Quote:
Originally Posted by ehs13
For me I think it would have to be.... hmmm....this is hard. I think for now it would have to be Twilight mainly because I didnt like some of the cast. And to me the cast is what makes the movie.
I could probably mention many movies but right now I can only think of Marley and me. I read the book mainly because it's a true story of a dog and his owner, and loved it, so many things I could relate to. But the movie was crap, not at all close to the book, to much about the family and to little about the dog.
oh and Perfume, good actors but to much left out and just a bad script.
An utterly futile task. Ulysses is one of those books that belongs in and only in novel format.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
The difficulty has been previous adaptations either trying to be faithful to a narrative that IS the medium that Joyce used or, executing the story of Bloom as a conventional film. A successful Ulysses adaptation would be a cinematic interpretation. The Oxen of the Sun episode, for example, would substitute the progression of English language with that of cinema, perhaps starting with still photographs and moving into silent feature, german expressionism, Eisenstein's work to non-narrative shorts like Man Ray and Duchamp or pure cinema.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
It can be done, but the medium of cinema has to be approached the same way that Joyce approached literature.
Heeey! I think you've got something here! Wow! You're right. The stream-of-consciousness technique has been applied before in cinema, like in Tarkovsky's The Mirror.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
That said, I've always been able to see the stories Dubliners as a film, they differ greatly from Joyce's later work and make excellent uses of silence and understantement, and can convey its ideas in images more easily because of the fact that it doesn't use a stream-of-conscousness as in Ulysses.
The Aeolus episode could be done in the style of one of those March of Time newsreel shorts, with its sensationalistic headlines over the soundtrack of that deep melodramatic voice.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
Exactly, and approach each episode like that. The Ithaca episode would be interesting to do.
If I ever get a chance to film it, I would use this format as a starting point, but there is so much to Joyce that everyone involved would have to be both passionate and patient.
I would redo Ivanhoe
"Battlefield Earth" I think a Muppet version would have been a better adaptation than the travesty that was released to the public (but I'm not being critical or anything :brow:).
Beowulf
The latest version was such an utter bloody travesty... the sad thing is that Neil Gaiman is such an intelligent, scholarly fellow. His usual standard, and his understanding of OE literature, could have made for a brilliant adaptation.
I actually felt insulted watching that film... if I were directing, it would be entirely faithful to the poem, unlike that exercise in adolescent stupidity...