posted
...Books turned to films. I have been asking this to many people for the past few weeks, and an oppion from an author who (as rumor has it)is going to have a book turned into a film, would be fantastic! Some films are amazing, others are.. well lets just say others are not. For instance, I think that the Lord of the Rings trilogy, as good as the movies were, were pretty far off from the books. I dont know about your opinion, or any other opinions, but I would like to know them!
Posts: 29 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's hard to translate a story from one medium to another. If you think the book-to-film transition is hard, you should see how tough it is to go from film to epic poem. The only reason you don't know about this is because nobody in their right mind tries to do it.
Books are generally three to five times as long as a movie, in terms of the amount of story that is presented. Also, film can't see inside the character's mind; any subtlety of motivation therefore has to be explained. In film, dialogue takes up an excruciatingly long time on the screen, while it takes almost no time at all when you're reading it. And film thrives on spectacle - long passages of two or three people talking become almost unbearable to watch, like being trapped at a bad party.
These things combine to make it necessary to transform certain stories from one KIND of experience to another. The logic puzzles of "I, Robot" had to become an action-adventure film that dealt with the same fundamental moral issue: the possible sentience of machines and their moral potential. This is a radical example, but it WAS a good film made from a book that in its time was important and influential.
Some books simply can't be filmed at all, as "The French Lieutenant's Woman" proved.
What is the most important goal: to be true to the story as presented in the book? or to make a good, entertaining movie?
It's a tough call, and it can NEVER be made to the satisfaction of all the audience. Somebody's going to hate the result. Financially, though, the investors in the film will always find one call correct: Whatever makes it a good movie IN THE EYES OF THE AUDIENCE is more important than any degree of fidelity to an original.
But the audience is the ultimate determiner: In the Harry Potter books, the audience was so familiar with the original that any deviation was a big deal. Whereas with Troy, most of the audience was so unfamiliar with the original that any responsibility to the original came from the hearts of the filmmakers rather than from any need to please the general audience.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What sounds better. Letting the author of the book, who has won awards for writing it, write the script, or lettin two guys sit around a table crossing out lines. Apparently to WB's its the second answer. But im sure the book/movie will turn out fine.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Harry potter wasnt bad, I felt there was little or no deviation from what I can tell. In Lotr the elves coming to helms deep was to me the most OBVIOUS deviation but still a spectacular movie (did any elves survive helms deep I dont remember).
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I completely understood every deviation made in LOTR except for omitting the scouring of the shire. Unforgivable.
Posts: 94 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgivable. Sorry, didn't need another 30 minutes at the end of the movie. It was almost too melancholy an end for the non-LOTR fanatics to begin with.
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it wouldn't FEEL like another half hour if they had included the Scouring of the Shire. For one thing, it would have been fifteen minutes. For another, it would have felt like a sharp twist on the story - rather like the ending-after-the-ending of Poltergeist.
The people working on the script are very very good and they're taking the book very very seriously.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well the Extended edition of Return of the King adds 50 minutes to the movie (for a grand total of 251 minutes,) and still doesn't add the Scouring of the Shire. So I suppose another 15 minutes wouldn't matter that much.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can understand leaving it out of the theatrical version but I would have loved to have seen it in the extended.
As to how long the ending was for ROTK, remember it was the ending for an 11 hour movie, not a 3-1/2 hour movie. View all three as one movie and the ending is barely long enough to tie up all the loose ends.
posted
Meh. Maybe my perspective is different. I didn't read the books until the movies were coming out, so I don't have any more of an attachment to one story or the other. I haven't been imaging for 25 years what a really good LOTR movie would be. I have them more seperated in my mind, so I don't really care if Tom Bombadill-o isn't there, or Treebeard had a different motivation, or whatever other change you can pick out. I like both the way they are.
I may just be ornery because I'm suffering through what these yanks think is 'Southern Barbecue'.
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which was more unforgiveable - leaving out the scouring of the shire, or having Samwise give in to the power of the ring. I vote for ruining Samwise, who I agree is the real hero of the story.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I first heard that the filmakers had decided to skip the Scouring, I was very disappointed.
But after watching the EE vrsion of RotK, I didn't miss it. It would have caused an already very long film to drag, and been anti-climactic, although it would have helped the Saruman plotline make more sense. It worked well in the book, it wouldn't have added enough to the film to make it worthwhile. And 15 minutes would not be enough to do it justice.
I have mixed emotions about the treatment of Sam in the film.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Besides, it leaves room for another sequel: Hobbits Strike Back! the Scouring of the Shire--sponsored by Scrubbing Bubbles cleanser.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, Mr.Card have you met the writters of the script, cause i would be very reassured of a good written script. Mr.Card will you ever be on set of the making of the movie, to tell us Hatrackers little detales, mabye even bring a camera Posts: 262 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: But it wouldn't FEEL like another half hour if they had included the Scouring of the Shire. For one thing, it would have been fifteen minutes. For another, it would have felt like a sharp twist on the story - rather like the ending-after-the-ending of Poltergeist.
The people working on the script are very very good and they're taking the book very very seriously.
are you working on the script as well, for your movie that is
Posts: 29 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I have them more seperated in my mind, so I don't really care if Tom Bombadill-o isn't there, or Treebeard had a different motivation, or whatever other change you can pick out. I like both the way they are.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
