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

7281faulty adaptations

Expand Messages
  • Geoff Willmetts
    Jun 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Dino

      I know what you mean about changing things in films although it�s more annoying when it deviates more from the original book source. Imagine something like Jane Austen or Dickens made the American way!! �Can�t Scrooge be nice� because so-&-so won�t play him otherwise.
      Then it�s director indulgence as people go to see something which resembles the source. With film re-makes it�s up to the viewer as to whether they want to see it or not. It depends on how much they are re-making the original film. Oddly, both second versions of �Invasion Of The Body-Snatchers� and �The Thing� are separate entities, regardless of how close to the source. For the former, it never got to the end of the book with the snatchers moving on. It�s not quite the same as a new singer doing a version of an old song and not doing a different interpretation.

      James Bond is like Sherlock Holmes, getting passed to each new generation with a few tweaks. Both are made for the type of story they�re portrayed in. It�s only confusing because they have newer actors taking the roles.

      As to rich megalomaniacs. It isn�t money they want but control of as many people as possible without using an election process. Probably the closes to this is Richard Murdock.

      I don�t think the David Niven �Casino Royale� was supposed to be canon. The title got bought up before Cubby B got his hands on the Bond books.

      Hello Rob

      I take to heart what you say about the films being nothing like the original books, especially of thrillers that didn�t get onto the book stands over here so we didn�t see the source. I suspect a lot of the time, American directors liked the premise or title, realised there was something out there like it if they came up with the idea separately � I mean, can you see directors reading books trying to find something they can use?? � and then buying the rights. Although, saying that, I expect studios bought rights as job lots just in case they could use them and not worry about being sued.
      One author that didn�t seem to get pissed over was author Jim Thompson and for the life of me I still haven�t figured why he was so revered when others weren�t. I should point out that I love Thompson�s books.

      Hello Stephen Russell

      I never saw the original �Wild, Wild West�, although did catch the return with the original actors.
      What puzzles me most about the film version is why make it a film vehicle for Will Smith? If it was true to the original West (the era not the series), then the black man barely got a look in. This isn�t a racist comment but a sign of that time period. It stretches reality a little too far. I think they thought if �Blazing Saddles� could do it...

      Geoff

      ********* GF Willmetts ****************************
      Commissioning Editor: http://www.sfcrowsnest.co.uk or http://www.computercrowsnest.co.uk
      THE SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY MAGAZINE THE E-BOOK PUBLISHER THAT TRIES HARDER
      Between 42-48 million hits a month!!!

      WE DON�T CHOOSE OUR RANK POSITIONS, OTHERS PUT US THERE:-

      AOL AOL ranks SFcrowsnest #1 most popular SFF site on the Internet http://search.aol.com/aolcom/browse?id=906&source=subcats Yahoo Yahoo ranks SFcrowsnest #4 most popular SFF site on the Internet http://dir.yahoo.com/Entertainment/Genres/Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy/ DMOZ DMOZ ranks SFcrowsnest #1 most popular SFF site on the Internet http://dmoz.org/Arts/Literature/Genres/Science_Fiction/ Google Google ranks SFcrowsnest #2 most popular SFF site on the Internet http://directory.google.com/Top/Arts/Genres/Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy/

      ***************************************************




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic