I read I, Robot thought the movie was on except they didn't credit the 3 laws to Asimov which peveed me off. Change the story, fine but give credit where credit is do!
Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Anthony Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Has anyone on this list read I Robot or I am legend and have watched the > films? > > I think both of these sum up what Ray is saying nicely! > > Anthony > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 17 Apr 2012, at 23:28, "Raymond E. Feist" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 17, 2012, at 2:59 PM, Strider1974 wrote: >> >>> I personally never understood the la-la land mentality that seems to go like >>> >>> OK, we have the rights to this book but it is obvious that we know way >>> better than the author how this should be done. So we will completely >>> change the substance of the characters and the tone of book and make >>> something completely different. >>> >>> For some reason they don't feel that that they need the fans to watch/buy >>> the movie/TV show etc or that these fans are not going to jump on the >>> internet and trash the production to everyone they can. I get that when >>> changing the story format from print to live action that changes have to be >>> made, but in my view there is never a reason to change the tone of the >>> story or the substance of the characters. The recent productions of Terry >>> Practchett's books and Game Of Thrones is proof of how wrong this attitude >>> can be. >>> >>> Michael >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
