Remysun <remysun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 3:55 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>> Even if you personally don't like what he does, George Lucas *IS* the
>> person who created it, paid for 95% of it, and is the only person who is
>> morally allowed to make changes, and decide what does and doesn't happen.
>> The franchise does not need some moron coming in trying to change it into
>> some overly realistic, ill-fitting pile of dog poo simply because they
>> think they know better than the person who actually created it.
> One, he's sold off the rights. Two, by your reckoning, there should be
> no Superman, James Bond, Godzilla, or even Tolkien movies either.
in other words, he got to decide what happened, and what happened is, he
gave it to Disney and granted them the right to make those decisions from
now on.
> In article
> <495c8d4d-c438-4549-af37-3a51aef08...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> Remysun <remysun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 3:55=A0pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>>> Even if you personally don't like what he does, George Lucas *IS* the
>>> person who created it, paid for 95% of it, and is the only person who is
>>> morally allowed to make changes, and decide what does and doesn't happen.
>>> The franchise does not need some moron coming in trying to change it into
>>> some overly realistic, ill-fitting pile of dog poo simply because they
>>> think they know better than the person who actually created it.
>> One, he's sold off the rights. Two, by your reckoning, there should be
>> no Superman, James Bond, Godzilla, or even Tolkien movies either.
> Not when they include lots of silly, ill-fitting changes, no there
> shouldn't be. The person who created it did so in a certain way,
> particular style, etc.
> In article <1352800...@sheol.org>, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> > : YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
> > : I do wish people could actually read!.
> > Seems more like you wish people would not notice when you pull a retcon
> > and/or would ignore all your previous statements when you try to draw
> > attention away from the fact you made a false claim.
> > But whatever. Your claim was that all Pixar movies are aimed at kids (by
> > implication, only at kids; this implication is because you later denied
> > it was possible to have multiple targets). That claim is incorrect.
> > Just saying "look! Haley's comet" and talking about Sesame street
> > instead doesn't make it correct. Simple as that.
> The American education system obviously has some massive issues and
> apparently doesn't teach any form of reading comprehension
Is that your excuse? You're going to blame your teachers? Take some
damn responsibility for your total lack of education and stop blaming
it on other people!
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Michael Stemper wrote:
>>> Okay, now I'm picturing him getting out of his life-support unit to
>>> do the deed. Not a pretty picture, and he doesn't last long.
>> They have special tools to take his seed an impregnate the willing or
>> unwilling mother to be.
> This is the part that Harlan Ellison wrote, right?
For I have no ________ and I must ________
-- The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted, hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate wouldn't tolerate.
> On 11/12/2012 6:20 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 12/11/12 11:26 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 12, 2012 1:35:22 AM UTC, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/12 1:34 PM, Kip Williams wrote:
>>>>> Brian M. Scott wrote, On 11/10/12 9:27 PM:
>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:30:53 +0800, Robert Bannister
>>>>>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> Do people have moral rights to write plays about
>>>>>>>> Shakespearean characters?
>>>>>>> I would prefer they didn't.
>>>>>> I wouldn't. For starters, that would eliminate
>>>>>> Lamplighter's Prospero/Miranda trilogy and Lisa Mantchev's
>>>>>> Th tre Illuminata books. Besides, Shakespeare himself was
>>>>>> a great borrower of characters.
>>>>> So much so that saying "Shakespeare characters" is much like saying
>>>>> "Disney characters."
>>>> Where's the nearest Shakespeare theme park? A Dickens theme park would
>>>> go down well too. I presume a Star Trek one already exists.
>>> Dickens World is in Kent, the Shakespeare experience is in any
>>> theatre but notably the reconstructed Globe and of course all over
>>> Stratford-on-Avon, and somewhere a fellow fitted out his apartment
>>> with Star Trek: THe Next Generation furnishings, to the point where
>>> his girlfriend left him.
>>> As for borrowing characters, would we have the song "I'm Henry the
>>> Eighth,
>>> I Am", if it wasn't allowed?
>> I, and in all likelihood, the Royal Family, do not see Henry VIII as a
>> Shakespearean creation. Shakespeare invented Falstaff and Shylock and
>> Hamlet, but not Richard II or III or Edward VI or any number of Henrys.
> Shakespeare didn't exactly invent Hamlet either.
> And Falstaff would have been named Oldcastle, except that a descendent
> of the historical Oldcastle objected to having his ancestor portrayed in
> such a way.
Damn. I knew that once. I think my last brain upgrade hid a lot of data.
> On Nov 10, 3:55 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>> Even if you personally don't like what he does, George Lucas *IS* the
>> person who created it, paid for 95% of it, and is the only person who is
>> morally allowed to make changes, and decide what does and doesn't happen.
>> The franchise does not need some moron coming in trying to change it into
>> some overly realistic, ill-fitting pile of dog poo simply because they
>> think they know better than the person who actually created it.
> One, he's sold off the rights. Two, by your reckoning, there should be
> no Superman, James Bond, Godzilla, or even Tolkien movies either.
I think translating a work into another medium is rather different from adding bits to an existing opus.
> Apparently the study reported in today's newspaper which was done in
> America is true ... the average human being IS getting dumber with each
> generation and the human race are past their peak intelligence level.
> Either that or Usenet is over-flowing with old foggies who have dementia.
Hell, I must be dementing already because I haven't the foggiest what a "foggie" is. Of course, I am an old fogey, but I did get an education.
> On 14/11/12 3:51 AM, Remysun wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 3:55 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>>> Even if you personally don't like what he does, George Lucas *IS* the
>>> person who created it, paid for 95% of it, and is the only person who is
>>> morally allowed to make changes, and decide what does and doesn't
>>> happen.
>>> The franchise does not need some moron coming in trying to change it
>>> into
>>> some overly realistic, ill-fitting pile of dog poo simply because they
>>> think they know better than the person who actually created it.
>> One, he's sold off the rights. Two, by your reckoning, there should be
>> no Superman, James Bond, Godzilla, or even Tolkien movies either.
> I think translating a work into another medium is rather different from
> adding bits to an existing opus.
Well the original creator of James Bond is the original creator of James Bond. Assuming the moral right "YourName" claims exists actually did exist, it should ban both, since it's virtually impossible to translate them across media without changing them. It should probably also ban translation into other languages. Of course no such right exists.
> In article <k7ubv2$8l...@dont-email.me>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 11/13/12 2:58 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>> In article <1352800...@sheol.org>, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>>>> : YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
>>>> : I do wish people could actually read!.
>>>> Seems more like you wish people would not notice when you pull a retcon
>>>> and/or would ignore all your previous statements when you try to draw
>>>> attention away from the fact you made a false claim.
>>>> But whatever. Your claim was that all Pixar movies are aimed at kids (by
>>>> implication, only at kids; this implication is because you later denied
>>>> it was possible to have multiple targets). That claim is incorrect.
>>>> Just saying "look! Haley's comet" and talking about Sesame street
>>>> instead doesn't make it correct. Simple as that.
>>> The American education system obviously has
>> Failed you, if you are American, or else has triumphed for the rest of
>> us, if you aren't, as Wayne's summary there is dead-accurate, and all
>> your weaseling, "whatever you want to believe", and insults will fail to
>> obscure this truth.
> Yep, it's "accurate" - if you ignore the fact that, as I've already said,
> we had gone past solely Pixar movies into general "kiddie" movies / shows,
No, "we" hadn't. You were just trying to change the subject.
: YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
: ep, it's "accurate" - if you ignore the fact that, as I've already
: said, we had gone past solely Pixar movies into general "kiddie"
: movies / shows, and ignore the fact that I never said that everything
: was in the deluded adult mind (in fact I said the opposite - SOME
: things are put into "kiddie" movies to keep adults forced to go along
: entertained, but that
It's simple. Your claim was
From: YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
Subject: Re: New 'Star Wars' Movie Writer, Big 3 May Be Back
Message-ID: <YourName-1111120939050...@203-118-187-13.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:39:05 +1300
The Incredibles, like all Pixar movies, is indeed aimed at kids.
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 3:58=A0am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > In article <1352800...@sheol.org>, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote=
> :
> > > : YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
> > > : I do wish people could actually read!.
> > > Seems more like you wish people would not notice when you pull a retcon
> > > and/or would ignore all your previous statements when you try to draw
> > > attention away from the fact you made a false claim.
> > > But whatever. =A0Your claim was that all Pixar movies are aimed at kids=
> (by
> > > implication, only at kids; this implication is because you later denied
> > > it was possible to have multiple targets). =A0That claim is incorrect.
> > > Just saying "look! Haley's comet" and talking about Sesame street
> > > instead doesn't make it correct. =A0Simple as that.
> > The American education system obviously has some massive issues and
> > apparently doesn't teach any form of reading comprehension
> Is that your excuse? You're going to blame your teachers? Take some
> damn responsibility for your total lack of education and stop blaming
> it on other people!
You're simply proving my point about the American education system. :-\
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> On 14/11/12 3:51 AM, Remysun wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 3:55 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> >> Even if you personally don't like what he does, George Lucas *IS* the
> >> person who created it, paid for 95% of it, and is the only person who is
> >> morally allowed to make changes, and decide what does and doesn't happen.
> >> The franchise does not need some moron coming in trying to change it into
> >> some overly realistic, ill-fitting pile of dog poo simply because they
> >> think they know better than the person who actually created it.
> > One, he's sold off the rights. Two, by your reckoning, there should be
> > no Superman, James Bond, Godzilla, or even Tolkien movies either.
> I think translating a work into another medium is rather different from > adding bits to an existing opus.
It would normally be, but Hollyweird also has an incredibly bad habit of
altering things when they turn them into movies or TV shows.
In article <1352867...@sheol.org>, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
> : Yep, it's "accurate" - if you ignore the fact that, as I've already
> : said, we had gone past solely Pixar movies into general "kiddie"
> : movies / shows, and ignore the fact that I never said that everything
> : was in the deluded adult mind (in fact I said the opposite - SOME
> : things are put into "kiddie" movies to keep adults forced to go along
> : entertained, but that
> It's simple. Your claim was
> From: YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
> Subject: Re: New 'Star Wars' Movie Writer, Big 3 May Be Back
> Message-ID: <YourName-1111120939050...@203-118-187-13.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>
> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:39:05 +1300
> The Incredibles, like all Pixar movies, is indeed aimed at kids.
> Your statement is incorrect. Live with it.
A. It's not incorrect ... it's what Pixar themselves say,
B. As I said, yet again, that's about two sub-topics ago. Let's try using capital letters: THE TOPIC HAS GONE PAST SOLELY PIXAR MOVIES
INTO GENERAL "KIDDIE" MOVIES / SHOWS.
But continue to believe whatever utter garbage your tiny little brain can
handle, which obviously isn't anything remotely resembling an actual fact.
Geez, people REALLY need to learn some reading comprehension skills. :-\
In article <50a3025d$0$26840$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 7:37 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
> > Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Michael Stemper wrote:
> >>> Okay, now I'm picturing him getting out of his life-support unit to
> >>> do the deed. Not a pretty picture, and he doesn't last long.
> >> They have special tools to take his seed an impregnate the willing or
> >> unwilling mother to be.
> > This is the part that Harlan Ellison wrote, right?
> For I have no ________ and I must ________
chair bite your leg
-- "Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 11/12/2012 7:37 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Michael Stemper wrote:
>>>> Okay, now I'm picturing him getting out of his life-support unit to
>>>> do the deed. Not a pretty picture, and he doesn't last long.
>>> They have special tools to take his seed an impregnate the willing or
>>> unwilling mother to be.
>> This is the part that Harlan Ellison wrote, right?
>For I have no ________ and I must ________
Which segues nicely, and I won't say why, into my having found to-day that
the South Knoxville library branch was rather more well-supplied with recently-
out SF hardbacks than I had figured. So today I read The Apocalypse Codex. Yay!
Dave, and giggled for a while when the bodyguard revealed who he was talking to
-- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
In article <r046a8dus54qghodurcmnl2abk7ruq5...@4ax.com>, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> writes:
>On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:52:39 +0000 (UTC), mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>[snip]
>>0.250.
>>> even if they do now own the legal rights.
>>0.167.
> Hey, let him make another mistake before you give him 1 out of 6.
Yeah, I noticed that after I read my post. Interestingly s/he didn't
notice it, so its claims about the deteriorating American educational
system appear to be substantiated.
-- Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Reunite Gondwanaland!
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:39:53 +1300, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
wrote:
>It would normally be, but Hollyweird also has an incredibly bad habit of
>altering things when they turn them into movies or TV shows.
Movies and TV are different from books or plays or even each other.
Sometimes a work is better suited for one medium or another. Expecting
them to be the same is dumb - wanting them to be the same isn't smart
either.
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:39:53 +1300, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
> wrote:
>> It would normally be, but Hollyweird also has an incredibly bad habit of
>> altering things when they turn them into movies or TV shows.
> Movies and TV are different from books or plays or even each other.
> Sometimes a work is better suited for one medium or another. Expecting
> them to be the same is dumb - wanting them to be the same isn't smart
> either.
In article <s5j7a8ldm2u5ojgp4bt05cce7c96u2j...@4ax.com>, Howard Brazee
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:39:53 +1300, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
> wrote:
> >It would normally be, but Hollyweird also has an incredibly bad habit of
> >altering things when they turn them into movies or TV shows.
> Movies and TV are different from books or plays or even each other.
> Sometimes a work is better suited for one medium or another. Expecting
> them to be the same is dumb - wanting them to be the same isn't smart
> either.
I'm not talking about minor changes. Sometimes they swap characters from
male to female, add or remove entire sequences, etc. ... "The Lorax" was
basically an entirely new made-up story just for the movie because the
book simply doesn't have enough in it to make a 1+ hours long movie.
In article <s5j7a8ldm2u5ojgp4bt05cce7c96u2j...@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:39:53 +1300, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
> wrote:
> >It would normally be, but Hollyweird also has an incredibly bad habit of
> >altering things when they turn them into movies or TV shows.
> Movies and TV are different from books or plays or even each other.
> Sometimes a work is better suited for one medium or another. Expecting
> them to be the same is dumb - wanting them to be the same isn't smart
> either.
Wanting the resulting translation to have at least at least a recognizable connection to the original version is entirely reasonable.
The Tolkien flicks mentioned elsewhere in the thread (Although nobody that I've noticed has specified whether they meant the Jackson films, the Rankin-Bass animation of The Hobbit, or the Rotoscoped "part one" of the trilogy from - er, I forget right now) are a prime example of "doing it right" - ALL of them, despite some changes, some of which are needful simply due to the fact that "we just can't figure out a way to do that", are instantly recognizable to anyone who has read the books.
As a counter-example, there's a movie you might be familiar with, called "The Running Man", which, despite being a fun, albeit dated, way to waste a couple hours, bears practically NO resemblance whatsoever to the novel of the same name that it claims to be based on. The translation from book to screen resulted in something almost entirely unrecognizable to someone who read the novel - The title, and the involvement of a TV game show were essentially the only things that the two works had in common.
This isn't to say that the result was horrible (although some would say it was indeed terribly hokey) just that the adaptation was no such thing - it was a completely unrelated story that simply latched on to the "Based on the novel by <insert famous name here>" concept in an effort to promote itself.
Could have it stood on its own under some other title, or without the "story by Stephen King" promotional kicker? Who can say?
But what CAN be said with certainty is that, as a translation from one medium to another, it was an utter failure, since the resulting movie had only the most superficial resemblance to the (claimed) source material - What comes out the lens of the projector is completely unrecognizable as having any connection whatsoever to the novel that it's supposed to be an adaptation of.
On the gripping hand, another Stephen King work you might be familiar with made the transition from book to (small)screen *VERY* well indeed - The Stand. Trying to do a straight "turn a book into a movie" operation on it would have resulted in an ungodly huge thing - I'd bet that a running time of 20+ hours wouldn't have been able to do it justice. Instead, with some judicious surgery, the folks who did it managed to turn it into a TV miniseries that, despite the chopping that had to be done, comes as close to being a perfect movie adaptation of a book as I've ever encountered.
Point being, it *IS* entirely possible to keep a book and a movie "the same enough" that what comes out of the process is recognizable. But *FAR* too often, what happens is that Hollywood grabs the title, and maybe a single key element of the book's story, and goes in a direction that doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the book being "adapted".
-- If the door is baroque don't be Hayden. Come around Bach and jiggle the Handel
> it was a completely unrelated story that
> simply latched on to the "Based on the novel by <insert famous
> name here>" concept in an effort to promote itself.
Which is why you more often see "Inspired by . . . " rather than "Based on . . . " these days.
(All too often, it's actually "Inspired by the title of a book my mother's cousin's barber's auto mechanic once met someone who read.")
-- Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:02:44 -0700, David Johnston
<Da...@block.net> wrote in <news:k80mc4$sr2$1@dont-email.me>
in rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.tv:
> As a counter-example, there's a movie you might be familiar with, called
> "The Running Man", which, despite being a fun, albeit dated, way to
> waste a couple hours, bears practically NO resemblance whatsoever to the
> novel of the same name that it claims to be based on. The translation
> from book to screen resulted in something almost entirely unrecognizable
> to someone who read the novel - The title, and the involvement of a TV
> game show were essentially the only things that the two works had in
> common.
> This isn't to say that the result was horrible (although some would say
> it was indeed terribly hokey) just that the adaptation was no such thing
> - it was a completely unrelated story that simply latched on to the
> "Based on the novel by <insert famous name here>" concept in an effort
> to promote itself.
> Could have it stood on its own under some other title, or without the
> "story by Stephen King" promotional kicker? Who can say?
When that movie came out, it wasn't promoted as coming from Stephen
King. I've just had a quick glance at some of the movie posters from
the time and only one had "Stephen King" in letters large enough to
read.
All, however featured the word SCHWARZENEGGER in large friendly
letters. Most had the tagline "It is the year 2019. 'The Running
Man' is a deadly game no-one has ever survived. But... Schwarzenegger
has yet to play."
So, yes, it did stand on its own with a Stephen King promotional
kicker.
> On Nov 15, 10:22 am, Don Bruder <f...@spamdump.invalid> wrote:
> <snip>
> > As a counter-example, there's a movie you might be familiar with, called
> > "The Running Man", which, despite being a fun, albeit dated, way to
> > waste a couple hours, bears practically NO resemblance whatsoever to the
> > novel of the same name that it claims to be based on. The translation
> > from book to screen resulted in something almost entirely unrecognizable
> > to someone who read the novel - The title, and the involvement of a TV
> > game show were essentially the only things that the two works had in
> > common.
> > This isn't to say that the result was horrible (although some would say
> > it was indeed terribly hokey) just that the adaptation was no such thing
> > - it was a completely unrelated story that simply latched on to the
> > "Based on the novel by <insert famous name here>" concept in an effort
> > to promote itself.
> > Could have it stood on its own under some other title, or without the
> > "story by Stephen King" promotional kicker? Who can say?
> When that movie came out, it wasn't promoted as coming from Stephen
> King. I've just had a quick glance at some of the movie posters from
> the time and only one had "Stephen King" in letters large enough to
> read.
> All, however featured the word SCHWARZENEGGER in large friendly
> letters. Most had the tagline "It is the year 2019. 'The Running
> Man' is a deadly game no-one has ever survived. But... Schwarzenegger
> has yet to play."
> So, yes, it did stand on its own with a Stephen King promotional
> kicker.
