I bet if Peter Jackson made Goodkind's books into a movie or a tv series it wouldn't suck. Sam Raimi was blatantly trying to repeat Hercules and Xena and it showed. Super campy crap. Now, why he went that way I'm guessing is major money was perceived to be in the syndication and they thought the real stories were too complex to make syndication work well, but any way you slice it, it was bad. Two seasons is a really short run for something with literally millions of embedded fans around the world.
On Apr 17, 2012, at 9:16 PM, Parks White <[email protected]> wrote: > It would be great to have great directors who are also great fans. From what > I understand, Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh were Tolkien fans since childhood > and this comes through in the movies. It is a hard act to follow... > > Sent from my iPad > > On 18/04/2012, at 11:38 AM, Jayne Taylor <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> *snip >> >> > Again I don't mean to imply that people who don't know how film making >> > works are stupid, but rather that ignorance of how an industry works can >> > lead to some very erroneous assumptions. >> > >> > "We know way better than the author how this should be done." Well, ya. >> > Otherwise the author would be a film maker and not a novelist. >> > >> > No one sets out to make a bad film or a bad TV show. Really. There are >> > some seriously fringy bits like Troma and the films of Fred Olin Ray that >> > are sort of in an "Ed Woods-ish" category all by themselves. John Waters, >> > too, but he's more mainstream. But there are people who can't stand >> > Quintin Tarrantino's or Tim Burton's films. >> > >> > So assume you've got a mainstream company. They often make choices that >> > are about what audience they're shooting for, or what the realistic >> > running time for the film is, or any of a dozen other reasons. You can >> > have a screenwriter who read the book and said, "I really like this bit >> > over here, but we need to lose that thing over there, and it works better >> > if the two lads aren't friendly rivals, but bitter enemies. . . " Your >> > milage may vary. Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship is a good example of a >> > bit that improves it. In the book, Aragorn makes a choice to follow Pippin >> > & Merry that makes no sense, given Frodo is the ring bearer and needs >> > protection. In the movie they have an interaction where Frodo convinces >> > Aragorn it's a better choice if he and Sam sneak in so he should go save >> > the pair. It is a small improvement, but it is better writing. >> > >> > Sometimes the train flies off the tracks and you end up with something >> > that just makes no sense at all. Alan E. Nourse sold his story The >> > Bladrunner to the studio because they wanted a cool title for Philip K. >> > Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" So, what he saw on the >> > screen looked nothing like his story. Philip Dick's story was changed >> > radically in places, but it's still a hell of a film. >> > >> > And sometimes studios do things for specific reasons. >> > >> > You just never know. >> > >> > The only way to look at it is what Kingsley Amis said after the premier of >> > the film based on his first book, Lucky Jim. A lady friend said after, >> > "Oh, you poor dear. What horrible things they did to your book." His >> > reply: "Why, nonsense. Not one word on the page of my book has changed." >> > It was actually a decent film; it just wasn't his book. >> > >> > Best, R E.F. >> > >> > >> > ---- >> > www.crydee.com >> > >> > Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by >> > stupidity. >> > >> > >> >> Ray, I don't thnk that it's people's ignorance of movie making that is the >> problem here. It's rather that we read a book and love it - then when we see >> a movie coming out called the same thing, we expect it to be like the book >> that we love. Quite often it's not and then we're angry that someone has >> "destroyed" our belongings (a strange way to put it, but people tend to own >> the emotions that books evoke). If studios don't want to follow the book >> then don't call the movie the same name as the book. Call it a different >> name and say it's "based" on such and such a novel. Otherwise, to me, it's >> like advertising an apple and selling a banana - both fruit, but you know >> what I mean. >> >> When you say "It was actually a decent film; it just wasn't his book." >> therein lies the problem. The reader expects it to be his book. >> >> Regards >> Jayne >> >> >> >>
