posted
I was massively dissapointed by almost every movie-adapted-from-a-book I saw over the past, say, six months. And with the pending release of the adaptation (try utter and total literary rape) that will have Isaac Asimov spinning in his grave, I say we revolt.
We must rise up, take the movie theaters by storm, and force them to show Shrek 2, Harry Potter, and the LotR trilogy on every screen. Argh! Who's with me, ye scallywags?
Posts: 550 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we start with the theater where I work? While we're at it, can we force them to pay their employees more money? Posts: 4569 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm . . . We'll need Johnny Depp to buckle all the swashes for us . . . Orlando Bloom to look pretty and shoot arrows . . . and Lord Voldemort to curse Chris Columbus and his ilk forever.
Let's see . . .
Usernames: A-D, bring aforementioned celebrities E-H, napkins, silverware, tableclothes, etc I-L, pitchforks and torches M-Q, dessert items, particularly brownies R-T, pasta U-X, grappling hooks Y and Z, drinks. Alcoholic prefered.
Posts: 550 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foolish muggles! What makes you think that you can make me do your bidding? But you're right, amazingly.
*Points wand at foolish muggle directors who butcher books, especially the man who made I, Robot, unless he can come up with a darn good application of the Zeroth Law* Avada Kedavra!
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Oh man. I saw the worst preview in the world before PoA. The whole time I was going, "What is this crap?"
Then the movie title..."I, Robot".
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? I'd heard it was going to be bad, but for crying out loud! I didn't even recognize it! They had to tell me what it was. That's a good sign that they have royally screwed up a movie.
The stupidity of it all is this:
Who's going to care about this movie except for us geeks who've read the book? And "us geeks" are just geeky enough to care that it's totally inaccurate.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I saw the preview for "I, Robot" several times and finally decided to get Asimov taken off my very long "to-be-read" list. So I checked out I, Robot and Foundation from the libary, and burned through `em both in a day.
They were awesome (I've my library transport all the foundations from this ridiculously long and thin county I live in) but I'm trying to remember the preview, and I can't possibly imagine how it will be even remotely like the book!
Nowhere are humans murdered in the book. There is ONE *attempted* murder that is really more of a sting operation, and in fact there is one robot murdered by a human. I think the movie might be OK, but it won't bear any resemblence beyond the title to "I, Robot"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can I get Lord Voldemort? That would be fun. Though we will have to wait until he's finally officially cast...
I say we use Moldiewarts to curse theatre owners who jack up the prices on nachos (mmm... nachos...) and tickets. We can keep Chris Columbus around for a while, because who else are we going to mock mercilessly?
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, I, Robot the movie looked a lot more like the plot of the Caves of Steel by Asimov than any of his short stories. Which really doesn't make it any better, since it still has next to nothing to do with the book...it just looks more like it.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole uber-plot of the robot series is that Robots programed for peace and non-violence will always run into problems with humans not so programed.
The whole plot of the movie seems to be--Don't trust those #$@#$@#$@#$ robots.
The whole idea behind converting a book to a movie is to bring in the fans of the book, and their friends. If you destroy this movie that much, who will go see it?
posted
I can't even figure out who Will Smith is supposed to *be* whenever I see the previews. I remember Susan Calvin, and the two guys who always work together, but who is Smith supposed to be?
posted
The action character, because a skinny old robo-psychologist and two bumbling scientists don't work for the movie they're making.
Posts: 550 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
If definately with you. Movies should also be cheaper. They should show more obscure movies (better but less well-known) and also they could make a killing showing old classics (which the theatres near me at least never do!)
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hold the phone. In honor of fairness, there have been some great movie adaptations beyond Peter Jackson's opus:
Fear and Loathing in Los Vegas Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Cider House Rules (to be fair, I didn't read the book but enjoyed the movie and was told by others that it was a good adaptation). Band of Brothers (granted, made for TV movie but it WAS based on a book...oh, and real life...but...it WAS a book...
Spider Man (both 1 and 2 are adaptation of comic books...and ruled. so did X-Men 1 and 2 2001 Pride and Prejudice (my wife's personal fave...and I love it as well) Little Women (the 1994 version) Importance of Being Ernest (okay, an adaptation of a play but still...) Sense and Sensibility (Emma Thompson's script was brilliant and funny) Bridget Jones's Diary (another wife fave) Little Princess (by same guy who did second good book adapation on this list)
posted
Really? You put PoA in there? I thought it was enjoyable, but not a very accurate adaptation.
And before someone cries "They aren't supposed to be identical", I want to say that my husband read the book after seeing the movie and was amazed at the differences in the story.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, it was different from the book but so was the gold standard, Lord of the Rings. If we want to list "most like the book" then I would have to remove half of the book-to-movie transitions up there. The Little Princess is set in NYC instead of London, like the books. If it was enjoyable, then it is a good adaptation. In Potter, the main themes were the same and the big plot points were covered, if a bit altered. But if you had to boil the book down to basics, the basics were there. And it was entertaining as all get out, which helps.
posted
But everyone's using "not like the book" to condemn "I, Robot". What if it's a really good movie? Will we put it into the good adaptation list, even though the only thing they have in common is the title?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But PoA kept to the basic points of the book...they didn't make Lupin evil or the Dementors cute and cuddly or whatever. I, Robot clearly is changing the premise of the books...which is the ironclad Rules of Robotics. Big difference. Pointing out differences while at least keeping to the basic presmise, theme and tone of the books is what is most important in adapting a book. PoA did it. I, Robot clearly will not (unless the previews are VERY misleading).
Interesting points on 2001...though I think their important synergy just adds to the point that books and movies can share good stories.
posted
See, that's the beauty of it. When we conquer them, we choose what they show.
Look, either we raid the cinemas or we sit outside singing "We Shall Overcome". Raiding you get beer.
(Pssst: anyone with a number in their sn has to also bring alcoholic beverages--mead, beer, and ale are best. Absinthe works too)
Posts: 550 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh, and for the record, ABOUT A BOY although the last half strayed considerably, as in total rewrite, and dynamics of certain relationships changed, was a very enjoyable book to film transfer.
and CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND was alot of fun, and it too took many liberties.
posted
The newer (1999) version of Jakob the Liar is still a really good movie, even though it varies much more from the book than the original 1975 film did (which is probably because Jurick Becker wrote the film script first and only adapted it into novel form to help get the original film made in the first place, so the book didn't differ much from his concept of the film). At any rate, I know people who thought the American remake was much better than the East German original. I know the remake had a much bigger emotional impact, although I'm not sure if that makes it better (There's something to be said of the quiet sadness left by the final shots/last page of the original film and novel.).
At any rate, I don't think it's at all bad for directors to make changes to the plot of the story they're adapting, as long as they keep the main feel/idea of the original. (And even when they completely change the point, like in The Count of Monte Cristo, you can still have a perfectly enjoyable film experience if you go into it knowing it will differ from the original.)
Posts: 3801 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and most Sherlock Holmes adaptations are good to great. I know the TV ones are the best (Jeremy Brett, R.I.P.) but some film ones are quite good.
See? They CAN do it.
Save Our Cineplex!
fil
PS Was "Master and Commander" a good adaptation? I never read the books but heard they are great. I saw the DVD of the movie and enjoyed it for what it was (though I like the Horatio Horblower series better).
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I was muttering very loudly during a preveiw of I, Robot the other day (we were seeing Spiderman 2 - now that was a good film. I loved the opening credits!) about how it didn't follow Asimov's universe. I think the people behind me thought I was slightly geeky.
Mind you, given the demographic of the cinema we were at, I would have been suprised if they actually had heard of Asimov. So what do they know, huh? (Not that I'm snobby )
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
