Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • spark654@aol.com
    In a message dated 12/31/02 9:08:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... But no one claimed that the film Casablanca helped the original source, and it s a pretty
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 12/31/02 9:08:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      mythsoc@yahoogroups.com writes:

      > I wasn't trying to think of _good_ books, Wendell; I was picking the
      > weakest I could think of. (I knew that "Everybody Comes to Rick's" was
      > unproduced, but that does not weaken my case too much--the success of the
      > movie _could_ have spurred the production of the play, but it did not.)

      But no one claimed that the film Casablanca helped the original source, and
      it's a pretty weak case against my original idea about a movie not hurting
      the original source. Sure, Casablanca didn't help the original play...except
      to get the basic story to millions of people. Without the play, Rick's
      wouldn't have been successful. With it, it wasn't successful--how does that
      argue against the point that the original sources weren't harmed by the film

      > OK, then how about Gustav Hasford's _The Short-Timers_, Nicholas
      > Pileggi's _Wiseguy_, Robert Bloch's _Psycho_. All pretty good books,
      > from what I've heard; all more or less obscured by the success of their
      > film adaptations.

      Short-Timers never sold many copies when first published many years before
      Full Metal Jacket came out; it was "obscure" long before the movie was
      released, and had at least one movie-related republication. The movie was
      more popular than the book; that in no way changes the "Cain Rule" of a book
      not being hurt by a movie version. Wiseguy is still in print; the screenplay
      was co-written by Pileggi, who has never complained about his vision being
      altered, to the best of my knowledge. The general public knows Goodfellas,
      but the book is considered a classic by the audience it was aimed at, fans of
      Mafia-oriented material--the book was never something that was in the minds
      of the average person, and then jettisoned to be replaced by the film's
      images. It was considered a great book and is still today, and is still in

      Psycho was a paperback original when Hitchcock bought the rights for under
      $1000 dollars. It hadn't swept the nation or become part of American pop
      culture until the movie. That this paperback, doomed to go out of print and
      be forgotten, has been republished and is considered a masterpiece of modern
      psychological horror, if not it's grandparent. Bloch's two sequels to the
      original would never have been written without the film, so I hardly think
      the movie version supplanted the book's place in the American or worldwide
      consciousness; who would ever know about the book at all without the movie

      My original point was that movies don't hurt the books, and I still think
      that's true. The cases mentioned have only increased access to the original
      books, not replaced them, and have in fact put more copies of the books in
      peoples' hands.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.