Films from Novels

[Will in New Haven]

What if they bought the rights to and made a film of your very favorite novel, doesn't have to be SF.

What if the resulting film turned out to have no real resemblance to the book that you love.

What, however, if it were the general quality of, inset your own film here, although it ought to be "Casablanca," one of the great films of all time.

Could you recognize the quality? Would you _acknowledge_ the quality?

--
Will in New Haven

[JRStern]

I dunno, let's find out.

J.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 12:04:37 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
<willre...@yahoo.com> wrote

in<news:c35fb8eb-44a6-4c60...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

It’s unlikely that I’d see the film in the first place.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[Moriarty]

My two favourite books are LOTR and "Pride and Prejudice".

The first of these has had movies made from them that have been debated ad nauseum here, but I loved them.

The second has had many adaptions made, of varying quality. IMHO the best is the Fay Weldon dramatization of 1980 starring David Rintoul and Elizabeth Garvie but I think I'm in a minority there.

However to answer your question: yes, I would acknowledge the quality. But I'm struggling to think of an example. The Running Man, I suppose, but I saw the movie first.

Aha, got it! "Conan the Barbarian". That movie came out when I was right in the middle of reading and re-reading REH (and de Camp and Carter). But aside from the name and size of the title character wasn't a particularly faithful adaption. But a great movie all the same.

-Moriarty

[Kevrob]

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 3:44:57 PM UTC-5, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 12:04:37 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
> <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote
> in<news:c35fb8eb-44a6-4c60...@googlegroups.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> > What if they bought the rights to and made a film of your
> > very favorite novel, doesn't have to be SF.
>
> > What if the resulting film turned out to have no real
> > resemblance to the book that you love.
>
> > What, however, if it were the general quality of, inset
> > your own film here, although it ought to be
> > "Casablanca," one of the great films of all time.
>
> > Could you recognize the quality? Would you _acknowledge_
> > the quality?
>
> It's unlikely that I'd see the film in the first place.

I saw BLADE RUNNER at a pre-release screening, I was so interested
in what they were going to do with Dick's DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF
ELECTRIC SHEEP?. I liked both very much, but BR only faintly resembled
DADOES, IMHO. Since they changed the title, I can live with it.

Even if the resulting film is excellent, when they seriously rewrite -
and I mean rewrite, not just make cuts to fit a film's shorter length -
why bother to pretend it is a version of the original work?

Now, when the "adaptation" does violence to the underlying work, it
does tend to spoil my enjoyment. I think I'd have enjoyed the film
called STARSHIP TROOPERS more if the serial numbers had been filed
off, and it was an explicit parody of Heinlein. As it was, it was
a bit of a curate's egg.

Kevin R

[Moriarty]

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 7:04:40 AM UTC+11, Will in New Haven wrote:

And now I'm wondering how "The Wizard of Oz" was regarded by the kids and adults who grew up reading the books, when the movie was released in 1939.

-Moriarty

[Kevrob]

[1930s era proto-fanboy]

They ruined it! How could they make the slippers RED. They were
silver in the book! Silver slippers on the golden road, not ruby!

[/30EPF]

Kevin R

[erilar]

In article <c35fb8eb-44a6-4c60...@googlegroups.com>,

Isn't that the story of Jackson and LOTR? I love the books. I've read
them more than a couple times, including a German translation I thought
was pretty good. I enjoyed both Bored of the Rings and its German
version as well. And I enjoyed what Jackson did with LOTR. Film is not
print and vice versa. Sometimes a not-true-to-book movie can be good,
though it doesn't happen often. Sometimes a good movie can be made BY
not being true to a not-all-that-good book.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[erilar]

In article <925e2f4c-3100-4d31...@googlegroups.com>,

I wish I could remember. I was pretty young when I saw the movie(not
quite in 1939, when I had yet to learn to read), but I had read a couple
of the books when I did, in grade school.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[erilar]

In article <o6sbu72j0c4o.14um5crs1dkuc$.d...@40tude.net>,

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 12:04:37 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
> <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote
> in<news:c35fb8eb-44a6-4c60...@googlegroups.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> > What if they bought the rights to and made a film of your
> > very favorite novel, doesn't have to be SF.
>
> > What if the resulting film turned out to have no real
> > resemblance to the book that you love.
>
> > What, however, if it were the general quality of, inset
> > your own film here, although it ought to be
> > "Casablanca," one of the great films of all time.
>
> > Could you recognize the quality? Would you _acknowledge_
> > the quality?
>
> It’s unlikely that I’d see the film in the first place.

Oh, I've avoided many films of books, myths, or legends I know.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[Cryptoengineer]

Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote in
news:925e2f4c-3100-4d31...@googlegroups.com:

'The' movie?

TWWoO was published in 1900. There have been movie adaptions around
since 1908.

Very few people were able to grow up with the book, but no available
movies.

pt

[lal_truckee]

Oh hell, no.
I'm wedded to my prejudice, with no hope of change.

[Moriarty]

And if you'd bothered to read the OP - or maybe you did and you're just being deliberately stupid? - you'd see that the discussion was against movies of the 'general quality of, inset your own film here, although it ought to be "Casablanca," one of the great films of all time.'

TWoO released in 1939 is generally considered a classic, one of the all time greats. Every other Oz movie, before or since, is decidedly not.

-Moriarty

[J. Clarke]

In article <XnsA454C6A004...@216.166.97.131>,
treif...@gmail.com says...

For certain values. The 1908 version reportedly had a limited run in
two cities. It's not clear what kind of run the 1910 version had--it
was 13 minutes though which is hardly enough to cover more than minimal
material. Supposedly the studio went bankrupt during the production of
the 1925 version and many theaters that had ordered prints did not
recieve them, so again it's not something to which more than "very few
people" would have had access. The first film version to get a broad
release appears to be the 1939 version.


>
> pt

[J. Clarke]

In article <XnsA454C6A004...@216.166.97.131>,
treif...@gmail.com says...
>

Bear in mind that the '30s were not like today, you didn't just download
any movie that was ever made. The first one to get a wide enough
release that most people could see it was the 1939 version--the studio
that produced the 1925 version went under shortly after production and
many ordered prints were not delivered so its release was rather
limited, and the earlier ones had very narrow releases--the 1908 version
only played in two towns and that for a short time.

And seeing the 1939 version depended on the studio release schedule--if
you did not see it in 1939 and were not able to arrange a private
screening you didn't get to see it again until 1949.

[Cryptoengineer]

Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote in
news:b63d99c9-2267-4702...@googlegroups.com:

I'm perfectly aware that the 1939 movie is head and shoulders above the
other films before or since (most recently the 2013 abortion). That
said, there have been other worthy adaptions - Wicked (the show),
and 'Tin Man'. I'm also aware that the availability of old films
prior to VCRs was quite sporadic - I grew up in that time.

I was just pointing out that calling the 1939 film 'The Film' is
inaccurate.

The 1902 stage show looks like it would have been fun.

pt

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <0fd37724-2806-4aef...@googlegroups.com>,

Yeah, well, you know how that came about. Some studio exec said
"We're filming this in COLOR! It's stupendous, it's colossal,
it's expensive! She's not going to go around in GREY shoes!"

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <c35fb8eb-44a6-4c60...@googlegroups.com>,

Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What if they bought the rights to and made a film of your very favorite
>novel, doesn't have to be SF.
>
>What if the resulting film turned out to have no real resemblance to the
>book that you love.

Already happened.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <925e2f4c-3100-4d31...@googlegroups.com>,
Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote:

Dunno.

But the movie _Return to Oz_, which was a (in my opinion) skilled
melding of _The Marvelous Land of Oz_ and _Ozma of Oz_, was an
excellent sequel to the first *movie*. In fact, I'd watch the
second one ten times for every once I watched the first.

[J. Clarke]

In article <nKs1v...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com says...

>
> In article <925e2f4c-3100-4d31...@googlegroups.com>,
> Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 7:04:40 AM UTC+11, Will in New Haven wrote:
> >> What if they bought the rights to and made a film of your very
> >favorite novel, doesn't have to be SF.
> >>
> >> What if the resulting film turned out to have no real resemblance to
> >the book that you love.
> >>
> >> What, however, if it were the general quality of, inset your own film
> >here, although it ought to be "Casablanca," one of the great films of
> >all time.
> >>
> >> Could you recognize the quality? Would you _acknowledge_ the quality?
> >
> >And now I'm wondering how "The Wizard of Oz" was regarded by the kids
> >and adults who grew up reading the books, when the movie was released in
> >1939.
>
> Dunno.
>
> But the movie _Return to Oz_, which was a (in my opinion) skilled
> melding of _The Marvelous Land of Oz_ and _Ozma of Oz_, was an
> excellent sequel to the first *movie*. In fact, I'd watch the
> second one ten times for every once I watched the first.

Yeah, the first minutes in Oz, with the road in ruins and everything
fallen to crap, is one of the most chilling post-apocalyptic sequences
I've ever seen.

[C. E. Gee]

The film "Starship Troopers" missed the entire point of the novel; the point being powered combat suits. However, the film was entertaining in its own right.

"Bladerunner" followed the novel accurately, and was also entertaining.

Two excellent movies that took different routes.

So I'm guessing the skills of the filmmaker and quality of the film's screenwriters have much to do with the situation.

C.E. Gee aka Chuck

http://www.kinzuakid.blogspot.com/2014/02/science-fiction.html

[lal_truckee]

On 3/7/15 8:50 AM, C. E. Gee wrote:
> The film "Starship Troopers" missed the entire point of the novel; the point being powered combat suits.

What novel did you read?

[David Johnston]

On 3/7/2015 9:50 AM, C. E. Gee wrote:
> On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 12:04:40 PM UTC-8, Will in New Haven wrote:
>> What if they bought the rights to and made a film of your very favorite novel, doesn't have to be SF.
>>
>> What if the resulting film turned out to have no real resemblance to the book that you love.
>>
>> What, however, if it were the general quality of, inset your own film here, although it ought to be "Casablanca," one of the great films of all time.
>>
>> Could you recognize the quality? Would you _acknowledge_ the quality?
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>
> The film "Starship Troopers" missed the entire point of the novel; the point being powered combat suits.

I'm pretty sure the novel had other points which the film missed.

However, the film was entertaining in its own right.
>
> "Bladerunner" followed the novel accurately, and was also entertaining.

No it didn't. (Follow the novel accurately). Among the many
differences, Rachael is always fully aware that she's an android in "Do
Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", and Deckard is married and goes back
to his human wife in the end after being seduced by Rachael.

[John F. Eldredge]

And it had nothing in common with the novel named "Bladerunner", other
than the title. They (mostly) used the plot from "Do Androids Dream of
Electric Sheep", and used only the title from Nourse's novel
"Bladerunner".

[David Johnston]

"The Bladerunner". Don't forget the the "the". I avoided going there
this time. But I do think that novel would make a great movie although
they'd probably remove his inability to actually run. But what would
they call it?

[Shawn Wilson]

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 12:46:31 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:


> No it didn't. (Follow the novel accurately). Among the many
> differences, Rachael is always fully aware that she's an android in "Do
> Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", and Deckard is married and goes back
> to his human wife in the end after being seduced by Rachael.

And they left out the heartbreaking scene where his brand new (real) sheep is killed.

[Don Bruder]

In article <cm156s...@mid.individual.net>,

Excuse me - Pedantic mode on:
The title of the Nourse novel is "The Bladerunner", not "Bladerunner".
End pedantic mode.

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[Don Bruder]

In article <mdfnj9$u0d$2...@dont-email.me>,

Guess I should have read to the end of the thread before putting in my
two pence...

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-03-06, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>What if they bought the rights to and made a film of your very favorite
>>novel, doesn't have to be SF.
>>
>>What if the resulting film turned out to have no real resemblance to the
>>book that you love.
>
> Already happened.

Did you get the t-shirt?

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "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://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <Ze2dnR0GObdec2bJ...@earthlink.com>,

David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>On 2015-03-06, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>What if they bought the rights to and made a film of your very favorite
>>>novel, doesn't have to be SF.
>>>
>>>What if the resulting film turned out to have no real resemblance to the
>>>book that you love.
>>
>> Already happened.
>
>Did you get the t-shirt?

No.

[William December Starr]

In article <XnsA454C6A004...@216.166.97.131>,
Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> said:

> Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote

>
>> And now I'm wondering how "The Wizard of Oz" was regarded by the
>> kids and adults who grew up reading the books, when the movie was
>> released in 1939.
>
> 'The' movie?
>
> TWWoO was published in 1900. There have been movie adaptions
> around since 1908.

And yet, nonetheless, the 1939 "The Wizard of Oz" is indeed "the" movie.

Heck I don't even like it, but I still have to acknowledge that fact.

-- wds

[Kevrob]

On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 10:00:03 AM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <Ze2dnR0GObdec2bJ...@earthlink.com>,
> David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
> >On 2015-03-06, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>What if they bought the rights to and made a film of your very favorite
> >>>novel, doesn't have to be SF.
> >>>
> >>>What if the resulting film turned out to have no real resemblance to the
> >>>book that you love.
> >>
> >> Already happened.
> >
> >Did you get the t-shirt?
>
> No.

I did. When I went to a pre-release screening of BLADE RUNNER, they
were giving out T-shirts with the movie logo on it. My bad luck, they
only had "small" left, and I wore a "medium," then. I took one, anyway.
I gave it to my then-girlfriend, but worse luck, she dumped me about a week
later, so I neither got to wear it nor appreciate it otherwise. :(

Kevin R

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <mdhq8j$8hj$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

As I said upthread, it's okay, but the sequel is better. :)

[Scott Lurndal]

"C. E. Gee" <thelast...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 12:04:40 PM UTC-8, Will in New Haven wrote:
>> What if they bought the rights to and made a film of your very favorite novel, doesn't have to be SF.
>>
>> What if the resulting film turned out to have no real resemblance to the book that you love.
>>
>> What, however, if it were the general quality of, inset your own film here, although it ought to be "Casablanca," one of the great films of all time.
>>
>> Could you recognize the quality? Would you _acknowledge_ the quality?
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>
>The film "Starship Troopers" missed the entire point of the novel; the point being powered combat suits. However, the film was entertaining in its own right.
>
>"Bladerunner" followed the novel accurately, and was also entertaining.
>

As for "Bladerunner", when I went to see it, I was expecting Nourse, not Dick.