Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Public Domain Day: Here's What Copyright Term Extension Stole from You in 2015
38 views
Skip to first unread message
BTR1701
Jan 1, 2016, 4:57:00 PM1/1/16
to
When Congress amended US copyright law in 1976, they extended the
copyrights on works whose creators had produced them with the promise of
not more than 56 years. Since then, almost nothing has entered the US
public domain.
Every year, Jennifer Jenkins and Jamie Boyle at the Duke Center for the
Public Domain list out all the works that today's artists would be free to
work from -- as the creators who got their copyrights extended in '76 did
-- except for the retroactive extension of copyright terms.
This year, we lost a lot of good stuff.
What books and plays would be entering the public domain if we had the
pre-1978 copyright laws? You might recognize some of the titles below.
Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers
Walter Miller, A Canticle for Leibowitz
Lorraine Hansberry, A Raisin in the Sun
E.R. Braithwaite, To Sir, With Love
William Burroughs, The Naked Lunch
Richard Condon, The Manchurian Candidate
Cornelius Ryan, The Longest Day
Gunter Grass, The Tin Drum
Ian Fleming, Goldfinger
Saul Bellow, Henderson the Rain King
Strunk and White, The Elements of Style
C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination
Agatha Christie, Cat Among the Pigeons
The books above are but a fraction, a tiny fraction, of what would be
entering the public domain on January 1. Imagine them being freely
available to students and educators around the world. Readers-- from the
conspiracy theorist to the grammar enthusiast, the student of racial
injustice to the sociologist-- would have something to celebrate. And then
there are the sci-fi offerings, from Canticle to Troopers. "Long ago,
during the last age of reason, certain proud thinkers had claimed that
valid knowledge was indestructible-- that ideas were deathless and truth
immortal." At least if you can get to it. On the bounce, readers!
You would be free to use these books in your own stories, adapt them for
local theater, or make them into a film. You could translate them into
other languages, or create accessible Braille or audio versions. (If you
think publishers wouldn't object to this, you would be wrong.) You could
read them online or buy cheaper print editions, because others were free to
republish them. Empirical studies have shown that public domain books are
less expensive, available in more editions and formats, and more likely to
be in print-- see here, here, and here. Imagine a digital Library of
Alexandria containing all of the world's books from 1959 and earlier,
where, thanks to technology, you can search, link, annotate, copy and
paste. (Google Books has brought us closer to this reality, but for
copyrighted books where there is no separate agreement with the copyright
holder, it only shows three short snippets, not the whole book.) Instead of
seeing these literary works enter the public domain in 2016, we will have
to wait until 2055. (Assuming Congress, at the behest of Big Content,
doesn't retroactively extend the copyright term even further in the
meantime.)
http://boingboing.net/2015/12/31/happy-public-domain-day-here-2.html
copyrights on works whose creators had produced them with the promise of
not more than 56 years. Since then, almost nothing has entered the US
public domain.
Every year, Jennifer Jenkins and Jamie Boyle at the Duke Center for the
Public Domain list out all the works that today's artists would be free to
work from -- as the creators who got their copyrights extended in '76 did
-- except for the retroactive extension of copyright terms.
This year, we lost a lot of good stuff.
What books and plays would be entering the public domain if we had the
pre-1978 copyright laws? You might recognize some of the titles below.
Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers
Walter Miller, A Canticle for Leibowitz
Lorraine Hansberry, A Raisin in the Sun
E.R. Braithwaite, To Sir, With Love
William Burroughs, The Naked Lunch
Richard Condon, The Manchurian Candidate
Cornelius Ryan, The Longest Day
Gunter Grass, The Tin Drum
Ian Fleming, Goldfinger
Saul Bellow, Henderson the Rain King
Strunk and White, The Elements of Style
C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination
Agatha Christie, Cat Among the Pigeons
The books above are but a fraction, a tiny fraction, of what would be
entering the public domain on January 1. Imagine them being freely
available to students and educators around the world. Readers-- from the
conspiracy theorist to the grammar enthusiast, the student of racial
injustice to the sociologist-- would have something to celebrate. And then
there are the sci-fi offerings, from Canticle to Troopers. "Long ago,
during the last age of reason, certain proud thinkers had claimed that
valid knowledge was indestructible-- that ideas were deathless and truth
immortal." At least if you can get to it. On the bounce, readers!
You would be free to use these books in your own stories, adapt them for
local theater, or make them into a film. You could translate them into
other languages, or create accessible Braille or audio versions. (If you
think publishers wouldn't object to this, you would be wrong.) You could
read them online or buy cheaper print editions, because others were free to
republish them. Empirical studies have shown that public domain books are
less expensive, available in more editions and formats, and more likely to
be in print-- see here, here, and here. Imagine a digital Library of
Alexandria containing all of the world's books from 1959 and earlier,
where, thanks to technology, you can search, link, annotate, copy and
paste. (Google Books has brought us closer to this reality, but for
copyrighted books where there is no separate agreement with the copyright
holder, it only shows three short snippets, not the whole book.) Instead of
seeing these literary works enter the public domain in 2016, we will have
to wait until 2055. (Assuming Congress, at the behest of Big Content,
doesn't retroactively extend the copyright term even further in the
meantime.)
http://boingboing.net/2015/12/31/happy-public-domain-day-here-2.html
Adam H. Kerman
Jan 1, 2016, 5:32:37 PM1/1/16
to
BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>When Congress amended US copyright law in 1976, they extended the
>copyrights on works whose creators had produced them with the promise of
>not more than 56 years. Since then, almost nothing has entered the US
>public domain.
>Every year, Jennifer Jenkins and Jamie Boyle at the Duke Center for the
>Public Domain list out all the works that today's artists would be free to
>work from -- as the creators who got their copyrights extended in '76 did
>-- except for the retroactive extension of copyright terms. . . .
>When Congress amended US copyright law in 1976, they extended the
>copyrights on works whose creators had produced them with the promise of
>not more than 56 years. Since then, almost nothing has entered the US
>public domain.
>Every year, Jennifer Jenkins and Jamie Boyle at the Duke Center for the
>Public Domain list out all the works that today's artists would be free to
>work from -- as the creators who got their copyrights extended in '76 did
In the next amendment of Copyright Law, it will be illegal to criticize
Congress's motives in how it enforces the constitutional provision.
BTR1701
Jan 1, 2016, 6:27:08 PM1/1/16
to
Your Name
Jan 1, 2016, 7:04:43 PM1/1/16
to
In article <z-OdnSlpw7O3axvL...@giganews.com>, BTR1701
<no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
<snip>
<no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> What books and plays would be entering the public domain if we had the
> pre-1978 copyright laws? You might recognize some of the titles below.
>
> Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers
> Walter Miller, A Canticle for Leibowitz
> Lorraine Hansberry, A Raisin in the Sun
> E.R. Braithwaite, To Sir, With Love
> William Burroughs, The Naked Lunch
> Richard Condon, The Manchurian Candidate
> Cornelius Ryan, The Longest Day
> Gunter Grass, The Tin Drum
> Ian Fleming, Goldfinger
> Saul Bellow, Henderson the Rain King
> Strunk and White, The Elements of Style
> C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination
> Agatha Christie, Cat Among the Pigeons
>
> The books above are but a fraction, a tiny fraction, of what would be
> entering the public domain on January 1. Imagine them being freely
> available to students and educators around the world.
Most of them are boring crap that almost nobody wants to read anyway.
> What books and plays would be entering the public domain if we had the
> pre-1978 copyright laws? You might recognize some of the titles below.
>
> Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers
> Walter Miller, A Canticle for Leibowitz
> Lorraine Hansberry, A Raisin in the Sun
> E.R. Braithwaite, To Sir, With Love
> William Burroughs, The Naked Lunch
> Richard Condon, The Manchurian Candidate
> Cornelius Ryan, The Longest Day
> Gunter Grass, The Tin Drum
> Ian Fleming, Goldfinger
> Saul Bellow, Henderson the Rain King
> Strunk and White, The Elements of Style
> C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination
> Agatha Christie, Cat Among the Pigeons
>
> The books above are but a fraction, a tiny fraction, of what would be
> entering the public domain on January 1. Imagine them being freely
> available to students and educators around the world.
suzeeq
Jan 1, 2016, 7:36:10 PM1/1/16
to
Your Name
Jan 1, 2016, 8:44:41 PM1/1/16
to
In article <n6761o$5tf$3...@news.albasani.net>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:
That's because "Classic" is a defined as being "boring crap that almost
nobody wants to read" (or watch, in the case of movies and TV shows).
"Classic" books, movies, and TV shows are picked by arty-farty fools
living in a silvery tower who have no understanding nor knowledge of
the real world.
wrote:
nobody wants to read" (or watch, in the case of movies and TV shows).
"Classic" books, movies, and TV shows are picked by arty-farty fools
living in a silvery tower who have no understanding nor knowledge of
the real world.
trotsky
Jan 1, 2016, 9:32:24 PM1/1/16
to
On 1/1/16 3:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>When Congress amended US copyright law in 1976, they extended the
>copyrights on works whose creators had produced them with the promise of
>not more than 56 years. Since then, almost nothing has entered the US
>public domain.
Not TV related.
>When Congress amended US copyright law in 1976, they extended the
>copyrights on works whose creators had produced them with the promise of
>not more than 56 years. Since then, almost nothing has entered the US
>public domain.
BTR1701
Jan 1, 2016, 10:27:18 PM1/1/16
to
Dimensional Traveler
Jan 1, 2016, 10:42:51 PM1/1/16
to
--
Now the Force-Ghost of DTravel since he was forced by shame to commit
hara-kiri with a dull light-spork after liking the Abrams/Bad Robot Star
Wars movie.
Michael Black
Jan 2, 2016, 12:01:20 AM1/2/16
to
Style" around.
The three I read would classify as "classic". But some of the other ones,
I think the movie versions of them are what classify them as "classic".
Do people read "Raisin in the Sun" or "The Manchurian Candidate"? There
are some that made it to movie because they were classic, but I think "To
Sir with Love" is a classic movie from a book I didn't really know existed
until I saw this list.
That has happened, I've read "The Anderson Tapes" and "The Taking of
Pelham 1-2-3" and other books because I knew they'd been made into movies,
and they aren't as memorable as the movies we remember.
So sometimes books can be throwaways yet still be influential.
Michael
Michael Black
Jan 2, 2016, 12:12:14 AM1/2/16
to
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 1/1/2016 3:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When Congress amended US copyright law in 1976, they extended the
>>>> copyrights on works whose creators had produced them with the promise of
>>>> not more than 56 years. Since then, almost nothing has entered the US
>>>> public domain.
>>>
>>>> Every year, Jennifer Jenkins and Jamie Boyle at the Duke Center for the
>>>> Public Domain list out all the works that today's artists would be free
>>>> to
>>>> work from -- as the creators who got their copyrights extended in '76 did
>>>> -- except for the retroactive extension of copyright terms. . . .
>>>
>>> In the next amendment of Copyright Law, it will be illegal to criticize
>>> Congress's motives in how it enforces the constitutional provision.
>>
>> Mickey Mouse demands it!
>>
> And Mickey wields a light saber now!
>
Is he off fighting "white slavers"? I found that comment interesting (I
> On 1/1/2016 3:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When Congress amended US copyright law in 1976, they extended the
>>>> copyrights on works whose creators had produced them with the promise of
>>>> not more than 56 years. Since then, almost nothing has entered the US
>>>> public domain.
>>>
>>>> Every year, Jennifer Jenkins and Jamie Boyle at the Duke Center for the
>>>> Public Domain list out all the works that today's artists would be free
>>>> to
>>>> work from -- as the creators who got their copyrights extended in '76 did
>>>> -- except for the retroactive extension of copyright terms. . . .
>>>
>>> In the next amendment of Copyright Law, it will be illegal to criticize
>>> Congress's motives in how it enforces the constitutional provision.
>>
>> Mickey Mouse demands it!
>>
> And Mickey wields a light saber now!
>
happened to see some of the interview, but didn't realize it wasn't a
rerun, and didn't hear the "white slaver" comment), since it kind of
references "Raiders of the Lost Ark", Captain Katanga implying that he
could get lots of money for Marion.
Michael
FPP
Jan 2, 2016, 1:21:09 AM1/2/16
to
--
Professionals built the TITANIC. Amateurs built the ARK. Idiots believe this.
Dimensional Traveler
Jan 2, 2016, 1:46:17 PM1/2/16
to
Jones movie, I suspect they are hoping for a resurgence of white
slavers. :D
Micky DuPree
Jan 15, 2016, 3:36:56 AM1/15/16
to
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> writes:
> The three I read would classify as "classic". But some of the other
> ones, I think the movie versions of them are what classify them as
> "classic". Do people read "Raisin in the Sun" or "The Manchurian
> Candidate"? There are some that made it to movie because they were
> classic, but I think "To Sir with Love" is a classic movie from a book
> I didn't really know existed until I saw this list.
>
> That has happened, I've read "The Anderson Tapes" and "The Taking of
> Pelham 1-2-3" and other books because I knew they'd been made into
> movies, and they aren't as memorable as the movies we remember.
I can think of three movies offhand that were better than their literary
> The three I read would classify as "classic". But some of the other
> ones, I think the movie versions of them are what classify them as
> "classic". Do people read "Raisin in the Sun" or "The Manchurian
> Candidate"? There are some that made it to movie because they were
> classic, but I think "To Sir with Love" is a classic movie from a book
> I didn't really know existed until I saw this list.
>
> That has happened, I've read "The Anderson Tapes" and "The Taking of
> Pelham 1-2-3" and other books because I knew they'd been made into
> movies, and they aren't as memorable as the movies we remember.
progenitors: _Twelve O'Clock High_, _Planet of the Apes_, and _The Stunt
Man_. People keep repeating the old saw about the movie never being as
good as the book it was based on because they simply forget about or
never bother to read the lesser book versions. But we remember our
disappointment when a movie adaptation doesn't live up to the original
book version.
I remember going back and reading the original books that the disaster
films _Airport_, _The Poseidon Adventure_, and _The Towering Inferno_
were based on. In all three cases, although there were some interesting
extra details, I felt the books were padded, which meant that the movies
(which always have to ditch some material when adapting from a novel)
were tighter narratives.
A really good novel needs more time for A/V adaptation than a feature
film can afford. But an overwritten novel can be pared down well into a
decent movie.
ObTV: The ideal format for adapting a good novel is a miniseries. The
original BBC adaptation of _Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy_ is still the
best I've ever seen. Great book, great miniseries.
-Micky
Lewis
Jan 15, 2016, 6:24:36 AM1/15/16
to
In message <n7ab2u$286$1...@pcls7.std.com>
--
Standing on the moon with nothing else to do
A lovely view of heaven but I'd rather be with you
Micky DuPree <MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
> ObTV: The ideal format for adapting a good novel is a miniseries. The
> original BBC adaptation of _Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy_ is still the
> best I've ever seen. Great book, great miniseries.
The BBC/A&E _Pride and Prejudice_ miniseries was similarly brilliant.
> ObTV: The ideal format for adapting a good novel is a miniseries. The
> original BBC adaptation of _Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy_ is still the
> best I've ever seen. Great book, great miniseries.
--
Standing on the moon with nothing else to do
A lovely view of heaven but I'd rather be with you
BTR1701
Jan 15, 2016, 9:00:20 AM1/15/16
to
Micky DuPree <MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> writes:
>
>> The three I read would classify as "classic". But some of the other
>> ones, I think the movie versions of them are what classify them as
>> "classic". Do people read "Raisin in the Sun" or "The Manchurian
>> Candidate"? There are some that made it to movie because they were
>> classic, but I think "To Sir with Love" is a classic movie from a book
>> I didn't really know existed until I saw this list.
>>
>> That has happened, I've read "The Anderson Tapes" and "The Taking of
>> Pelham 1-2-3" and other books because I knew they'd been made into
>> movies, and they aren't as memorable as the movies we remember.
>
> I can think of three movies offhand that were better than their literary
> progenitors: _Twelve O'Clock High_, _Planet of the Apes_, and _The Stunt
> Man_. People keep repeating the old saw about the movie never being as
> good as the book it was based on because they simply forget about or
> never bother to read the lesser book versions.
JAWS was much better than its book version.
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> writes:
>
>> The three I read would classify as "classic". But some of the other
>> ones, I think the movie versions of them are what classify them as
>> "classic". Do people read "Raisin in the Sun" or "The Manchurian
>> Candidate"? There are some that made it to movie because they were
>> classic, but I think "To Sir with Love" is a classic movie from a book
>> I didn't really know existed until I saw this list.
>>
>> That has happened, I've read "The Anderson Tapes" and "The Taking of
>> Pelham 1-2-3" and other books because I knew they'd been made into
>> movies, and they aren't as memorable as the movies we remember.
>
> I can think of three movies offhand that were better than their literary
> progenitors: _Twelve O'Clock High_, _Planet of the Apes_, and _The Stunt
> Man_. People keep repeating the old saw about the movie never being as
> good as the book it was based on because they simply forget about or
> never bother to read the lesser book versions.
anim8rfsk
Jan 15, 2016, 11:12:45 AM1/15/16
to
In article
<1151831289474558717.406610...@news.giganews.com>
,
Oh God yes.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
<1151831289474558717.406610...@news.giganews.com>
,
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Default User
Jan 15, 2016, 2:15:13 PM1/15/16
to
Micky DuPree wrote:
> A really good novel needs more time for A/V adaptation than a feature
> film can afford. But an overwritten novel can be pared down well
> into a decent movie.
A bit of a reversal was the first season of "Dexter", which was
> A really good novel needs more time for A/V adaptation than a feature
> film can afford. But an overwritten novel can be pared down well
> into a decent movie.
based[1] on the first novel. Because there was a lot more TV and it
wasn't all that long of a book, they had to pad the TV show. That led
to some extra stuff like Dexter's birth father and such that weren't in
the novel.
1. But with some significant differences, especially at the end, which
I won't spoilerate.
Brian
Lewis
Jan 15, 2016, 5:46:30 PM1/15/16
to
In message <n7bgfq$jn7$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
were quite bad.
I found the TV Series True Blood to be hilarious (enough so that my wife
banned me from watching it with her) and terrible, but plenty of other
people liked it. The books it is based on are unreadably horrid.
--
I'll have what the gentleman on the floor is having.
Default User <noe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Micky DuPree wrote:
>> A really good novel needs more time for A/V adaptation than a feature
>> film can afford. But an overwritten novel can be pared down well
>> into a decent movie.
> A bit of a reversal was the first season of "Dexter", which was
> based[1] on the first novel. Because there was a lot more TV and it
> wasn't all that long of a book, they had to pad the TV show. That led
> to some extra stuff like Dexter's birth father and such that weren't in
> the novel.
The TV series was good, the books were not. Not at all. In fact, they
> Micky DuPree wrote:
>> A really good novel needs more time for A/V adaptation than a feature
>> film can afford. But an overwritten novel can be pared down well
>> into a decent movie.
> A bit of a reversal was the first season of "Dexter", which was
> based[1] on the first novel. Because there was a lot more TV and it
> wasn't all that long of a book, they had to pad the TV show. That led
> to some extra stuff like Dexter's birth father and such that weren't in
> the novel.
were quite bad.
I found the TV Series True Blood to be hilarious (enough so that my wife
banned me from watching it with her) and terrible, but plenty of other
people liked it. The books it is based on are unreadably horrid.
--
I'll have what the gentleman on the floor is having.
Default User
Jan 15, 2016, 6:39:32 PM1/15/16
to
Lewis wrote:
> In message <n7bgfq$jn7$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
> Default User <noe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > A bit of a reversal was the first season of "Dexter", which was
> > based[1] on the first novel. Because there was a lot more TV and it
> > wasn't all that long of a book, they had to pad the TV show. That
> > led to some extra stuff like Dexter's birth father and such that
> > weren't in the novel.
>
> The TV series was good, the books were not. Not at all. In fact, they
> were quite bad.
Well, we'll have to disagree on that, at least for the first few books.
> In message <n7bgfq$jn7$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
> Default User <noe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > A bit of a reversal was the first season of "Dexter", which was
> > based[1] on the first novel. Because there was a lot more TV and it
> > wasn't all that long of a book, they had to pad the TV show. That
> > led to some extra stuff like Dexter's birth father and such that
> > weren't in the novel.
>
> The TV series was good, the books were not. Not at all. In fact, they
> were quite bad.
Brian
Lewis
Jan 15, 2016, 11:44:43 PM1/15/16
to
In message <n7bvvf$1cp0$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
I read the first three thinking "one of these must be good" but no.
Predictable, excessively dumb, and remarkably uninformed on the subject.
--
What the hell's goin' on in the engine room? Were there monkeys? Some
terrifying space monkeys maybe got loose?
Predictable, excessively dumb, and remarkably uninformed on the subject.
--
What the hell's goin' on in the engine room? Were there monkeys? Some
terrifying space monkeys maybe got loose?
Default User
Jan 16, 2016, 12:58:51 PM1/16/16
to
Lewis wrote:
> In message <n7bvvf$1cp0$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
> Default User <noe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Well, we'll have to disagree on that, at least for the first few
> > books.
>
> I read the first three thinking "one of these must be good" but no.
> Predictable, excessively dumb, and remarkably uninformed on the
> subject.
As I said.
> In message <n7bvvf$1cp0$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
> Default User <noe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Well, we'll have to disagree on that, at least for the first few
> > books.
>
> I read the first three thinking "one of these must be good" but no.
> Predictable, excessively dumb, and remarkably uninformed on the
> subject.
Brian
Micky DuPree
Jan 22, 2016, 5:42:48 PM1/22/16
to
"Default User" <noe...@invalid.invalid> writes:
> Micky DuPree wrote:
>> A really good novel needs more time for A/V adaptation than a feature
>> film can afford. But an overwritten novel can be pared down well
>> into a decent movie.
>
> A bit of a reversal was the first season of "Dexter", which was
> based[1] on the first novel. Because there was a lot more TV and it
> wasn't all that long of a book, they had to pad the TV show. That led
> to some extra stuff like Dexter's birth father and such that weren't
> in the novel.
I kind of liked that story line, but with one problem. It would later
> Micky DuPree wrote:
>> A really good novel needs more time for A/V adaptation than a feature
>> film can afford. But an overwritten novel can be pared down well
>> into a decent movie.
>
> A bit of a reversal was the first season of "Dexter", which was
> based[1] on the first novel. Because there was a lot more TV and it
> wasn't all that long of a book, they had to pad the TV show. That led
> to some extra stuff like Dexter's birth father and such that weren't
> in the novel.
look like someone else was Dexter's biological father. That couldn't
be, though, since Dexter had already achieved a DNA match with the guy
from the first season.
I thought the first season of _12 O'Clock High_ was great at getting
into details that the movie or even the novel couldn't get into. The
problem with an open-ended series, though, is that until cancellation,
they're operating under the constant pressure of needing to stretch out
the material.
-Micky
anim8rfsk
Jan 22, 2016, 5:49:56 PM1/22/16
to
In article <n7ub8s$vh6$1...@pcls7.std.com>,
MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
> "Default User" <noe...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
> > Micky DuPree wrote:
>
> >> A really good novel needs more time for A/V adaptation than a feature
> >> film can afford. But an overwritten novel can be pared down well
> >> into a decent movie.
> >
> > A bit of a reversal was the first season of "Dexter", which was
> > based[1] on the first novel. Because there was a lot more TV and it
> > wasn't all that long of a book, they had to pad the TV show. That led
> > to some extra stuff like Dexter's birth father and such that weren't
> > in the novel.
>
> I kind of liked that story line, but with one problem. It would later
> look like someone else was Dexter's biological father. That couldn't
> be, though, since Dexter had already achieved a DNA match with the guy
> from the first season.
>
>
> I thought the first season of _12 O'Clock High_ was great
+1
> "Default User" <noe...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
> > Micky DuPree wrote:
>
> >> A really good novel needs more time for A/V adaptation than a feature
> >> film can afford. But an overwritten novel can be pared down well
> >> into a decent movie.
> >
> > A bit of a reversal was the first season of "Dexter", which was
> > based[1] on the first novel. Because there was a lot more TV and it
> > wasn't all that long of a book, they had to pad the TV show. That led
> > to some extra stuff like Dexter's birth father and such that weren't
> > in the novel.
>
> I kind of liked that story line, but with one problem. It would later
> look like someone else was Dexter's biological father. That couldn't
> be, though, since Dexter had already achieved a DNA match with the guy
> from the first season.
>
>
> I thought the first season of _12 O'Clock High_ was great
0 new messages