In that case, I will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
Printable View
In that case, I will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
That is a perfect example. LOTR really shows how a movie should sometimes deviate from the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
I'm guessing you haven't been to the IMDb boards much, nor have too much experience with "fanboys." Some would gladly make any deviations from source material punishable by death. Just look at the complaints about the re-release of the Star Wars trilogy (episodes 4-6). While I agree mist changes were stupid, it just infuriates (irrationally) a lot of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
Your argument is different than what I was talking about. If a movie is based on a book, it is telling the story of the book-hence the name of the book "The Great Gatsby", and the name of the movie "The Great Gatsby". The characters in the movie are supposed to be the characters in the book
According to whom? A film is a work of art created by a group of artists... the most important being the director. The original book is but a starting point... just as the "original" narratives employed by Shakespeare were but starting points. A film and novel cannot help but differ. They employ different media. They must respond to different limitations. A film-maker beginning with an original text will make any number of deviations from the original text. Some of these may be deviations necessitated by the art form. Others are artistic decisions.
one would assume the movie keeps to the story...
Some would make this assumption... but this assumes that the film is subservient to the book and that the goal of the film-maker is nothing more than to re-tell the original narrative adhering as closely as possible to the original.
The Great Gatsby movies of the past were not that good because they did not or could not tell the story effectively...
If the film versions of the Great Gatsby of the past failed, they failed on their own terms... as films. Martin Scorsese's Last temptation of Christ differs a great bit from Nikos Kazantzakis novel of the same name... and both are quite divergent from the original Biblical Gospel narratives. All three succeed as works of art on their own terms.
Due to the unique narrative style of the book, I am skeptical of the upcoming movie.
My only reason for questioning the film would be based upon my doubts as to "Baz" Luhrmann's abilities as a film-maker. His over-the-top manner of directing is hit-or-miss. In the case of Romeo + Juliette he missed by a mile... and I say this without the least expectation that he should have been more respectful of Shakespeare's text... which itself was stolen from Italian models. It was simply one endless MTV video marketting Leonardo di Caprio and Claire Danes to giddy adolescents.
It is a problem for me and many others who love the book.
Again, the question is "WHY?" You still have the book. Even if the film were brilliant and adhered as closely to the novel as possible, the film would not replace the book. A film is an independent art work that may be inspired by a great novel, my a short story, by personal experiences, by a visual idea, by a work of music, by a painting, or by nearly anything. Now I fully understand as a book-lover a feeling of disappointment with almost any adaption of a favorite book... for the simple reason that nothing can possibly match the image or film we have in our heads while reading. Of course a great film-maker brings something of his or her own to the table... and after I get over the initial dislike, I will probably find myself coming around to admiring the unique interpretation of a great film.
It is only a problem if one anticipates seeing a good movie though.
The path to making a "good movie" is not limited to those who adhere most closely to the original text.
Those are all really great points stlukes, which I agree with. I don't think the two forms should be compared in the manner in which we often compare them... they're different art forms and as such produce quite different impressions and products.
This is another reason I love the movie Adaptation. Brilliant and it touches on all of these issues and more.
That's such an amazing movie. Charlie Kaufman is fantastic. We like a lot of the same stuff, PP.Quote:
Originally Posted by PoeticPassions
J
Yes, I love Kaufman. And it would appear that we do... we should randomly list things we like and see how many overlap between us :) ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts
Probably a lot would. We're classy. Cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by PoeticPassions
J
I'm with stluke.
Thirty-odd years ago, Jonathan Miller gave a lecture called Putting Shakespeare On, in which he said that it really doesn't really matter if someone offers a production of King Lear set in a space station on one of the moons of Jupiter, with all the daughters' lines spoken by robots and the King himself played as a transvestite second-hand warp-engine salesman - because the original text is still there on the page the following morning, and someone'll be along in a minute to give a production of Lear in full Elizabethan garb, with the smells and sounds of fifteenth century Southwark piped in through the vents and flagons of mead and gnawable hambones provided for the constantly chattering audience. As a theatre-goer, you might like one, you might like both, you might like neither. But that's all there is to it.
(It does raise, actually, the theoretical possibility of a person who loves King Lear but has never seen a theatre production of it that he thought was any good.)
The same principle applies to movies based on books. The movie is an interpretation or an adaptation or a loose exploration of the text, in a completely different medium. All that matters is whether it works in its own terms. To say that it's "not as good as the book" is like saying that Rhapsody in Blue isn't as good as the New York skyline.
Right this is true... but also I would like to add that most books are not written with the intent to have them made into film or produced, whereas Shakespeare wrote his plays to have them be on stage... I think that they were not so much meant to be read as to be seen.. so in this sense you could critique a production of Shakespeare's... But the text is still there of course, and I think it is great that there are so many versions of his plays...Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Speaking of King Lear, however, I still haven't seen a production I like. Last winter I went and saw it in DC as part of the syntetic theater (no words were used) and I was so appalled by the production that I walked out half way through (which I had never done.. ever... not even in a movie theater). But maybe because King Lear is my favorite play and I felt like they had really done a disservice to it...
King Lear gives the 'experimentalists' plenty of scope but audiences should be warned of their extent. A colleague once told me that he went to see a production in which Lear stripped naked and then did hand stands on the stage. At which point a row of uniformed schoolgirls departed with the teacher who was accompanying them.Quote:
Originally Posted by PoeticPassions
Um, how do I say this politely? Duhhh! I know this already.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
[/QUOTE]
Some would make this assumption... but this assumes that the film is subservient to the book and that the goal of the film-maker is nothing more than to re-tell the original narrative adhering as closely as possible to the original.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. The film would not be subservient to the book. It is a really exciting challenge to be able to re-create this book on film, adhering to the story. That in itself would be a wonderful accomplishment.
[/QUOTE]
If the film versions of the Great Gatsby of the past failed, they failed on their own terms... as films. Martin Scorsese's Last temptation of Christ differs a great bit from Nikos Kazantzakis novel of the same name... and both are quite divergent from the original Biblical Gospel narratives. All three succeed as works of art on their own terms.
[/QUOTE]
Certainly that is true.
[/QUOTE]
My only reason for questioning the film would be based upon my doubts as to "Baz" Luhrmann's abilities as a film-maker. His over-the-top manner of directing is hit-or-miss. In the case of Romeo + Juliette he missed by a mile... and I say this without the least expectation that he should have been more respectful of Shakespeare's text... which itself was stolen from Italian models. It was simply one endless MTV video marketting Leonardo di Caprio and Claire Danes to giddy adolescents.
[/QUOTE]
Your claim that it was stolen is still debatable. But as you state above, the adaptation of a great writers text should be held with much respect. I don't know if I have faith in the director either.
[/QUOTE]
Again, the question is "WHY?" You still have the book. Even if the film were brilliant and adhered as closely to the novel as possible, the film would not replace the book. A film is an independent art work that may be inspired by a great novel, my a short story, by personal experiences, by a visual idea, by a work of music, by a painting, or by nearly anything.
[/QUOTE]
Again, duhh. I know this already
[/QUOTE]
The path to making a "good movie" is not limited to those who adhere most closely to the original text.
[/QUOTE]
But as I said before, it this movie is not adhered closely to the original text, it will be either a different story of the same name, or a boring failure, in my opinion.
Oh I am kidding, I know you didn't mean it in the literal sense. I have no idea what a "fanboy" is, I don't really think I want to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
I'm only talking about ONE PARTICULAR book here. I don't go to a movie and think "oh, I hope this is just like the book". I am 54, and I do know better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
It's amusing that he quotes Jurrasic Park because, although I gave it a wide birth, as I do to all catch the impressionable kids efforts, two different people in their early twenties and not in the least connected, told me that they fell asleep while watching the film. Perhaps the explantions for the over the top computer generated graphics were too long for their attention span. At 54 you are bound to know better but try telling that to a 20+ who has still to learn that he/she doesn't know it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
I don't?!?!?!?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by emil miller
Actually, that was the last thing that you didn't know. Now, you know everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
For those of you who don't know everything, here's a link to my blog with a recommendation of the best films for each year. http://www.online-literature.com/for...og.php?b=12188
:cheers2: Thanks Socrates!Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
hahaha... I probably would have departed with them. But I am sure those schoolgirls were never the same...Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
I try to put myself back in time when I was 20, that helps. I like young people though- however I find that many may think people my age talk down to them, which I don't ever want to do. Many 20 year olds are smarter than I was at that age. You have to have 20 year old thoughts to get to age 54. We have more in common than many young people think. That's one reason I am here, I like the energy. I still like punk rock-try to keep up with new bands I think are good. I try not to be "stuck" like so many my age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Okay enough of that. Back to Jurrasic Park. That was not even a well written book, so ofcourse the movie was better! JMO!
As for whether books are written to be films or not, nowadays, they sort of are. If your book is good enough/lucky enough to become a bestseller, chances are you're going to have people interested in making a movie of it.
[QUOTE=KCurtis;1114333]
So at that rate, by the time you get to 80 you'll be the oldest punk rocker on the block and will probably sound like Minnie Bannister on this recording.Quote:
I still like punk rock-try to keep up with new bands I think are good. I try not to be "stuck" like so many my age.
JMO!
http://youtu.be/cZIQZZpprHw
[QUOTE=Emil Miller;1114344]LOL!!!! In the Nursing Home, listening to the Pixies, everyone else yelling at me to turn it down!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
[Butting in] I'm not a "proper" writer, but I've had poems published, and I certainly wouldn't be happy if people thought my poems meant something other than what I intended. It would suggest either than I hadn't made myself clear enough, or that the reader hadn't read them properly, or that the reader is so arrogant he doesn't regard my intentions as important. None of these possibilities is flattering to a writer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Desolation
The purpose of art is to communicate. There's a word for art that doesn't intend to communicate, and that word is pretentious.
Just as it is frustrating and alienating not to get one's point across in conversation, so it is in writing.
American Beauty has probably already been mentioned. So I'll mention it again. After watching it I always think how it would make a beautiful book if written by the right author. I wonder who would be the best person - alive or dead - for it.
I was surprised not to see "American Beauty" mentioned in this thread - a genuinely "poetic" film from what I recall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veho
I guess it’s strictly not a film script per se, but my vote goes to Oscar Wilde’s, “The Importance of Being Earnest.”
The 1952 production directed by Anthony Asquith, starring Edith Evans as Lady Bracknell, Michael Redgrave as Jack Worthing; and the lady with the most beautiful voice in the all Christendom, the gorgeous Joan Greenwood, as Gwendolen Faifax.
I would have given anything to have just touched the hem of Joan Greenwood’s garment.
She was adorable in the Ealing comedies: Whiskey Galore, Kind Hearts and Coronets, and The Man in the White Suit.
Check out the clip from The Importance. Just listen to Joan’s voice! It is a tragedy in itself when she is sent to wait in the carriage outside by Lady Bracknell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIxJvENNp4E
Thanks for the view point.Quote:
Originally Posted by FranzS
Do you like metaphors? Spinning words around? If you write poetry, I'm guessing that you do (and how could you not?). Let's say you write a great metaphor about war. Your intentions are purely centered on war and your only intention was to comment on war. A woman reads your poem, and she has recently suffered abuse. Your excellently crafted metaphor on war speaks to her and she feels that she can apply it directly to her situation. This gives her comfort. Is that frustrating?
This..^^ And Citizen Kane, the quintessential American saga of success and failure, triumph and adversity, youth and elderly decrepitness... Some parts of the script seemed to be pieced together by a bard who is just gauging each character's significance and writing a beautiful story through each of their perspectives.Quote:
Originally Posted by FranzS
Difficult question without being able to conjure up a concrete example... Because poetry is (or should be IMO) suggestive rather than simply declarative, there are always emotional overtones. Any decent poem about war is, by definition, going to be about violence in general. I'd never set out to write a poem whose "only intention is to comment on war".Quote:
Originally Posted by Desolation
The question is whether the reader is making a valid association with her own situation, or whether she is completely misreading the poem and does not realise it is about war at all.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
There isn't a bad line in this movie.
Katherine Hepburn and Peter O'toole are just brilliant.
Acting debuts for Anthony Hopkins and the unrecognizable Timothy Dalton
My favorite lines:
Prince Geoffrey: I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know Henry knows, and Henry knows we know it. We're a knowledgeable family.
2010 I Saw The Devil, Inception
2009 The Secret in Their Eyes
2008 The Good, The Bad, The Weird, In Bruges
2007 No Country For Old Men, The Man From Earth
2006 Pan's Labyrinth, Children of Men, The Fountain, Curse of the Golden Flower
2005 Serenity
2004 Downfall, The Aviator, Tai Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War,
2003 Master and Commander, LOTR Return of the King, Oldboy, The Best of Youth, The Fog of War
2002 Infernal Affairs, City of God, Bowling For Columbine, 28 Days Later, LOTR: The Two Towers, Hero, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance,
2001 Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, Band of Brothers, The Devil's Backbone, Black Hawk Down, Spirited Away, Amelie, A Beautiful Mind, Training Day
2000 Battle Royale, Memento, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Requiem For a Dream, Traffic
1999 The Matrix, American Beauty, One Day in September, The Boondock Saints, Dogma
1998 The Big Lebowski, Saving Private Ryan, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, The Thin Red Line
1997 L.A. Confidential, Character, Boogie Nights, Life is Beautiful, Gattaca, Taste of Cherry,
1996 Hamlet, Trainspotting, Pretty Village Pretty Flame, Fargo
1995 The Usual Suspects, Shanghai Triad, Mallrats, Se7en, Ghost in the Shell, Day of the Beast
1994 Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption, To Live, Forest Gump, The Professional, Natural Born Killers, Three Colors Red,
1993 Schindler's List, Farewell My Concubine, The Fugitive, Sonatine, Stalingrad, Tombstone,
1992 Reservoir Dogs, Glengarry Glen Ross, A Few Good Men
1991 The Silence of the Lambs, Raise the Red Lantern, Terminator 2, JFK
1990 Goodfellas, Total Recall, Edward Scissorhands, Miller's Crossing, Dances With Wolves, Cyrano de Bergerac, Europa Europa, Dreams,
1989 Do the Right Thing, Lonesome Dove, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Henry V, When Harry Met Sally, Field of Dreams, Driving Miss Daisy
1988 Die Hard, Heathers, Akira, Cinema Paradiso, A Short Film About Killing, Dangerous Liasons, Rain Man
1987 Full Metal Jacket, The Untouchables, Lethal Weapon, Robocop, The Princess Bride, Predator, The Last Emperor, Wings of Desire, Au Revoir Les Enfants
1986 Aliens, Platoon, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Big Trouble in Little China, Jean de Florette, Ginger and Fred
1985 Brazil, Ran, Back to the Future, Come and See
1984 The Terminator, Amadeus, Once Upon a Time in America, The Killing Fields
1983 Scarface, The Right Stuff, And the Ship Sailed On
1982 Fanny and Alexander, Blade Runner, The Thing, Ghandi, The Wrath of Khan, First Blood, Conan the Barbarian
1981 Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Road Warrior, Das Boot, Chariots of Fire
1980 Raging Bull, Kagemusha, The Shining, The Empire Strikes Back, Ordinary People, Breaker Morant
1979 Apocalypse Now, Alien, Stalker,
1978 The Deer Hunter, Autumn Sonata, Dawn of the Dead
1977 Star Wars, Saturday Night Fever
1976 Rocky, Network, Taxi Driver, All the President's Men
1975 Jaws, Barry Lyndon, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Dersu Uzala
1974 Hearts and Minds, Blazing Saddles, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Chinatown, The Godfather Part II
1973 Amarcord, Mean Streets
1972 The Godfather, Solaris
1971 A Clockwork Orange, The French Connection, Dirty Harry
1970 Patton, The Conformist, The Garden of the Finzi-Continis
1969 The Wild Bunch, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Z
1968 2001 A Space Odyssey, The Lion in Winter, Hour of the Wolf
1967 In the Heat of the Night, Samurai Rebellion, Cool Hand Luke, The Graduate, Marat/Sade
1966 The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, Andrei Rublev, Sword of Doom, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The Battle of Algiers, Closely Watched Trains, Persona
1965 Doctor Zhivago, The Sound of Music, The Shop on Main Street, For A Few Dollars More, The Flight of the Phoenix, Juliet of the Spirits
1964 Dr. Strangelove, A Fistful of Dollars, Zulu, Zorba the Greek
1963 8 1/2, High and Low, The Leopard, Winter Light, The Great Escape
1962 Lawrence of Arabia, Harakiri, The Longest Day, The Miracle Worker, Sanjuro
1961 Yojimbo, Through a Glass Darkly
1960 La Dolce Vita, Spartacus, The Virgin Spring, Inherit the Wind
1959 Anatomy of a Murder, 400 Blows, Fires on the Plain, Some Like it Hot
1958 Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Hidden Fortress
1957 Wild Strawberries, The Seventh Seal, Paths of Glory, Nights of Cabiria, Throne of Blood, The Bridge on the River Kwai, 12 Angry Men, Witness For the Prosecution
1956 The Searchers, A Man Escaped
1955 Smiles of a Summer Night, Night of the Hunter
1954 Seven Samurai, La Strada, On the Waterfront
1953 Julius Caesar, The Wages of Fear, From Here to Eternity, I Vitelloni,
1952 High Noon, Ikiru, Umberto D., Singin' in the Rain, Forbidden Games, The White Sheik
1951 A Streetcar Named Desire, An American in Paris, The African Queen
1950 Rashomon, Sunset Boulevard, All About Eve, Asphalt Jungle, Harvey
1949 All the King's Men, Stray Dog, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon
1948 The Bicycle Thief, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Drunken Angel, Red River, Rope, The Red Shoes
1947 Out of the Past, The Lady From Shanghai
1946 The Big Sleep, It's a Wonderful Life
1945 Rome, Open City, Children of Paradise, Scarlet Street
1944 Double Indemnity, Arsenic and Old Lace
1943 Ossessione
1942 Casablanca
1941 Citizen Kane, The Maltese Falcon, How Green Was My Valley
1940 The Philadelphia Story, His Girl Friday
1939 Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz
1938 Pygmalion
1937 The Grand Illusion
1936 My Man Godfry
1935 Mutiny on the Bounty
1934 The Scarlet Empress
1933 Gold Diggers of 1933
1932 Trouble in Paradise
1931 M, City Lights
1930 All Quiet on the Western Front
1929 Living Russia, or The Man With A Camera
1928 The Passion of Joan of Arc
1927 Metropolis
1926 The General
1925 The Gold Rush
1924 Sherlock Jr.
1923 Safety Last!
1922 Nosferatu
1921 The Kid
1920 The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
1919 Sunnyside
1918 A Dog's Life
1917 The Immigrant
1916 Intolerance
1915 The Birth of a Nation
1903 The Great Train Robbery
1902 A Trip to the Moon
The Libertine (2004) with Johnny Depp
Mortal Terror...
No "Moon" for 2009
No "There Will Be Blood" for 2007
Shame on you.
Looked up my reviews of both:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rores28
There Will Be Blood(2007)- Honestly, I expected more from Anderson. I loved Boogie Nights, but that was his imitation of Scorsese, and I'm not sure, but I'm guessing this was his imitation of Robert Altman, a director I've never been able to stand. This film is very long, and very short on dialogue. There aren't really any characters in it to speak of beyond Plainview and the preacher, and the preacher's part is miniscule at best. It's not really a biopic, not really a comprehensive depiction of capitalism or religion of the time. I can't really tell what it's supposed to be or why so many people seem to like it. I don't see a steadily maintained conflict throughout the film, and so most of the scenes remain undynamic and uninteresting to me for that reason. I guess you could say it's a movie about competition, a character study, or a film about obsession, but it's not a great example of any of those. Boogie Nights had a great soundtrack, but this film really surprised me by how quiet it was. People keep talking about how great Daniel Day Lewis' acting was in this. He won the Oscar for it, but I don't see what they are all raving about. His performance is decent but not great or even as memorable as his role in Gangs of New York.
Moon(2009)- I was entertained throughout, but there were no surprises in this film. Seriously, I could tell what was going to happen just by watching the trailer. It was good for what it was though.
Inception is okay and moderately entertaining, but is extremely overrated.