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

Etc....

Expand Messages
  • spark654@aol.com
    In a message dated 1/1/03 4:14:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... Please. You re being extraordinarily nit-picky about the good/accurate wording. I wasn t
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 1/1/03 4:14:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      mythsoc@yahoogroups.com writes:


      > Sparkdog, you didn't allow much time for a flood of replies, and you've
      > changed the terms of the question. You first asked for a good adaption
      > ("how [it] should be done"), and now you say that an _accurate_ adaptation
      > of a complex book is difficult.

      Please. You're being extraordinarily nit-picky about the good/accurate
      wording. I wasn't asking that member for a flood of replies, I was just
      making an observation at that point.


      >
      >
      > That's one example. Here's three better ones, movies which made major
      > changes to the book yet were absolutely dead-on in conveying the spirit:
      >
      > 1. "The Princess Bride" (especially in the frame story, replacing the
      > book's introduction and "editorial notes")
      > 2. "Cold Comfort Farm" (Schlesinger, 1995)
      > 3. "The Battle of the Sexes" (Crichton, 1959) actually improves on its
      > source, James Thurber's "The Catbird Seat", by entirely changing the
      > setting and some of the characters, while conveying the spirit
      > perfectly. Only the film's lousy title is a bust.

      That's quite a flood. ;)


      >
      >
      > More from Sparkdog:
      >
      > >I've never heard, or read of, someone saying "The book was a
      > >disappointment after seeing the movie."
      >
      > Well, you have now. My usual reaction to a first-time reading of a book,
      > after seeing a good movie of it, is a severe sense of disappointment, even
      > if I can tell that I'd have liked the book better had I read it first. My
      > first encounter with Dickens on the page, at the age of 12 in the wake of
      > great enthusiasm for the musical "Oliver!", was such a shock that it put me
      >
      > off Dickens permanently. If I were a 12-year-old LOTR-film enthusiast
      > turning to Tolkien's book today, I wonder if I'd have the same reaction.
      >
      >
      >
      That's too bad about the Dickens. I guess you've disproved my entire point:
      I'll have to ignore all those hundreds of times I thought I heard people say
      they preferred the book over the movie....

      As someone who has so much to say about this problem, I'm surprised you
      haven't tried again. Considering your affection for the Peake, I'd think
      you'd want to.

      Sparkdog


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