quote:Originally posted by ScottF: Can anyone name a highly acclaimed novel who's movie version is generally considered equal or better than the written version? I can't.
Twilight. >_>
I don't know if you were joking or not but I actually agree with the sentiment. For all its faults, I thought the movie was better than the book. It was pretty faithful to the book while the changes that were made improved it. Plus it was hugely popular though I don't think "critically acclaimed" applies. Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't joking, but I didn't think "better than the written version" was a very high hurdle in this case.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My friend and I both agreed that it was better than we expected, though not as good as it could have been had it been presented on a long-format medium.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the script was horrible, and if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have known what was going on half the time or cared about any of the characters at all.
Posts: 4292 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just saw it and spent almost the entire time grinning. It wasn't perfect but it was better than I thought it would be. It made me want to come back to Hatrack.... What a nice surprise to see so many familiar faces. )
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another lapsed hatracker here, saw the movie with my girl friend and we both agreed it wasn't as bad as it could of been but it could have have been so much better if only they would of split the movie in two or three parts. If I hadn't read the book I would have no idea who most of the characters were. I wonder if there is a extended directors cut or something.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wowbagger AND jeniwren in the same thread? Wow...banner day!
I saw it, and loved it....right until the end. I hated the queen being right outside the bunker.....hated it had to be face to face. We can speak across the stars faster than light, and control thousands of drones, but can't make a small drone to explore the structure RIGHT OUTSIDE OUR FREAKING BASE THAT WE'VE BEEN USING FOR 50 FREAKING YEARS?
Of all the weird places to lose suspension of disbelief.....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw it and I enjoyed it. The emotional impact at the end was better than I expected. There is so much about the film that could be better, of course, especially as I continue to think about it. But I enjoyed it and I am happy for that.
However, if I had not already read the book, I am not sure how much I would have enjoyed it. Much of my enjoyment came from the fact that I was subconsciously interpreting the story through both the lense of the movie and the book. But I was expecting it to have less heart than it did. I can tell they tried to retain the heart of the story, and despite all its flaws, I am appreciative of that, because that is the one thing that was most important to me to see in this movie.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it was garbage from start to finish. The pacing was jarring in the extreme and the only actors turning in decent performances were the children. Many lines that worked well on the page come off terribly on screen (like the one about understanding the enemy and loving them in that moment).
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: My friend and I both agreed that it was better than we expected, though not as good as it could have been had it been presented on a long-format medium.
Yup.
For a two hour movie, I was happy with it. It could have had more focus on the core of the story rather than the glitz and peripheral details, but if it's going to be lacking in something, I'd rather it be that. The casting was good. The special effects were awesome. The arc felt compelling, if hurried, and the changes to the plot weren't ruinous to the story.
Of course it would be better if it was longer. Of course of course. But big movies like this tend not to be longer than two hours (Jackson movies excluded), and I'm irritated by the negative reactions centered on complaints of "if only it were longer it would be better!"
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So much stupidity in this movie. For example, they trot out the "enemy's gate is down" line before the battle room game is even explained to them. It doesn't make any sense.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I thought it was garbage from start to finish. The pacing was jarring in the extreme and the only actors turning in decent performances were the children. Many lines that worked well on the page come off terribly on screen (like the one about understanding the enemy and loving them in that moment).
Nice to hear someone be that blunt about it. I always feel like I'm the wettest blanket in the room when it comes to bad reviews of adaptations.
I really tend to agree. But what I liked about it was that it proved a movie adaptation CAN work, but it needs to be done about 80% differently than this was.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I can think of so many adaptations that were much more trashy and awful than this one. The whole medium for movies like these necessitate a specific filter. A filter that brings more explosions, more campy moments, and more explanation of whats going on.
I can think of only a few movies that matched/improved upon the source material. Bladerunner was one. Naked Lunch another. The Road, I guess. Really, that's about it.
I can think of many that were disastrous. Golden Compass. Hunger Games. It. Battlefield Earth. Starship Troopers. Lorax. Dune. HG2G.
If I had $100 million dollars, and a lot of help, I could make Ender's Game pretty close to exactly what's in my imagination, but I've probably misinterpreted and given the story so much personal baggage that it would be blasphemous to other people. While I liked the Formics in this adaptation, my mind had a different image in mind. Black and shinier. The giant looked different. Bean looked different. The Battle Room looked different. Etc. Etc.
Lyrhawn, I know you have a very specific movie in mind, but do you think it ever could actually be made? Because if it can't, I think it's better to keep it comfortably locked away and treasured in each individual imagination.
P.S. Maybe I've given up on movies. Is this too cynical?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes I think to some people anything lower than a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10 is "garbage". At least that's the only way I can make sense of calling this movie garbage from start to finish.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Golden Compass was pretty bad. Hunger Games was not. Let's be clear, Hunger Games wasn't exactly Shakespeare. The movie was a pretty faithful adaptation to a decent to good YA book. I've never seen the Dune movie, but the Dune Miniseries that the Sci-Fi channel did, and the Children of Dune follow up that combined CoD and Dune Messiah were both pretty good. They left a fair bit out, but they told the story in a cogent, believable way that did the original justice.
That's what I want at the end of the day. Does the movie do the book justice? It doesn't need to be a word for word direct adaptation, it doesn't need to conform to all of my preconceived notions, it just needs to do the original justice. This movie failed on just about every measuring point that I would use to evaluate whether or not the book got its justice.
You're focusing on the visuals, which are okay, because pretty much everything in the movie looked different than I imagined it either, but that was really the smallest issue I had with it. Really it wasn't an issue at all. Much of it looked different, but by the end of the movie I was won over by just about all the visuals. The fantasy game's stylistic take was weird at first, but I bought it by the end. The Battle Room I think could use some tweaking, and I didn't like how the guns worked, but the overall visualization and function of Zero G combat worked. And I think they nailed how stars look and work. Bean looked fine to me, but he ACTED wrong. He was totally out of character. They could have made him a little white girl and it wouldn't have bothered me as much as the gutting of his character.
A good Ender's Game can be made. It might have to be two movies, or it might have to be a much more stripped down version of what this was, but it can be done. Pointing out all the holes in this movie isn't to say "it's unfilmable!" it's to say "Look, you could have fixed this, nixed that, added this, and it WOULD have worked!"
But they did what they did for purely financial reasons: 1. Those of us with an emotional connection were going to go whether it sucked or not. So they weren't really catering to us except in the same way JJ Abrams "catered" to Star Trek fans in Into Darkness. Just throw in some catch phrases and code words to make people smile at their favorite parts but don't actually try to use them within the correct context, thus robbing most of them of their meaning and impact. They threw us some bones, and for a lot of people that really worked, because their emotional connection was that strong.
2. It was for younger kids who weren't already fans. With us as a captive audience, they needed little kids who like explosions and flashy lights but have no tolerance for cerebral storytelling. Ender's Game is an internal, nuanced, character building story. That's something a young person can understand on paper if they like to read and they get it, but it's not what they go to their movies for. You don't see a lot of kids going to see documentaries and "serious" movies. Once they decided to target that audience and make it about "kids in space!" they really didn't need the story any more. So they gave kids the bare bones cliffs notes version they needed to get a basic understanding of the plot, then focused on a very surface layer treatment of Ender as the Chosen One, with everyone adoring him, and then a big space battle. Frankly it was a bit like Mary Sue fan fiction.
If they decided to focus on us, the long time slightly older reading crowd, they'd tell a much different, slower, less explodey story. It absolutely can be done. It wasn't done here because they made the decision not to, not because they're incapable.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As soon as the decision was made to make a blockbuster style movie, the 'older reading crowd' was rejected.
As soon as the first trailer was aired, the producer's intentions were clear. If I wanted a longer Ender's Game adaptation, I would look to networks, brave, probably dying networks, to try something dramatic and amazing, at which they'd probably failed anyway.
Dune, I believe, is an exception because it's awesome purely on a YA basis, and awesome on a more mature basis. It stands out as one of the few things that works in both realms. The Dune movie was alright, and the series were a little bit better, but still paled in comparison to the novel.
I don't even think I'd want a great 2-hour Ender's Game. It would never be great. It'd only be good, or passable. I'll never look to a movie to get Cryptonomicon, or the Dark Tower, or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress right.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
