info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
[OT] Screenwriter. Character. Author. Fanfic?
4 views
Skip to first unread message
David V. Loewe, Jr
Jan 18, 2012, 3:26:34 PM1/18/12
to
Do the screen writers of FX's Justified understand Raylan Givens better
than Elmore Leonard does? That is the question asked in this
<http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/01/elmore_leonard_s_raylan_justified_fan_fiction.single.html>
Slate article.
Slate writer Tara Ariano goes so far as to describe Elmore Leonard's new
(and first since 2001) work featuring Givens as "fanfic." Given the
recent thread kicked off by Mr. Busiek, I thought I'd throw this article
out here for supplemental discussion.
Notes & Disclaimers:
A) I've not read any of Mr. Leonard's work featuring the Raylan Givens
character.
B) I've not seen any episode of Justified.
C) Because of various issues, most prominently health, I've not finished
Mr. Busiek's Fanfic thread.
D) Contrary to my normal practice, I'm going to repost the article in
its entirety.
----------
How good is FX’s Justified, returning for its third season tonight? Some
TV series inspire conventions, cosplay, and speculative fiction from
their fans. Justified may be the first show to inspire fanfic from its
creator. Elmore Leonard introduced U.S. Marshal Raylan Givens in the
novel Pronto, but hadn’t revisited the character since “Fire in the
Hole,” the 2001 novella which became the basis for Justified. The show
reignited his interest, and Leonard’s new novel Raylan—so inextricable
from Justified that the cover image is of actor Timothy Olyphant in
character—is out this week.
Leonard has explained that he wrote the book to give Justified producer
Graham Yost more story ideas for the second season and seasons to come.
Given that the writers of Justified wear bracelets reading WWED (What
Would Elmore Do?), you might think they’d slavishly followed Leonard’s
lead. But Raylan, surprisingly, reads like an alternate-universe version
of Justified, Season 2, with tantalizing possibilities for Season 3. The
changes Yost made, in fact, led to a much better story. It’s possible
that the writers of Justified understand Elmore Leonard’s best character
better than Elmore Leonard does.
First of all, if Yost and the Justified writers had followed Leonard’s
blueprint exactly, viewers would have been cheated out of the series’
best character and juiciest storyline. Mags Bennett is not even a
character in Raylan; in the book, the crime-bossing parent of hapless
nitwits Coover and Dickie is their dad, one Pervis Crowe. For the show,
of course, Yost crafted a rich yet tragic story for Mags (Margo
Martindale, who won an Emmy for the role), the alternately diabolical
and soft-hearted criminal mastermind who contrived a way to steal the
daughter she always wanted.
Leonard is known for his laconic style, and in Raylan, little space is
given over to the hero’s reflection upon his own motivations. But the
author’s reluctance to devote much of his work to describing a look, or
a pause, or the tension of a moment—all three of which are trademarks of
Olyphant’s Raylan—requires Leonard to ... make his Raylan talk. Book
Raylan is taciturn by any reasonable measure, but compared to TV Raylan,
he’s a chatterbox. Right from the book’s first chapter, this essential
difference is inescapable. “Give me his name,” Raylan asks a victim
whose kidneys have been stolen and are being held for ransom. “I swear
on my star you won’t have to pay for either one.” “I swear on my star”?
Try to imagine Olyphant’s Raylan saying anything so melodramatic. I sure
can’t.
Leonard’s economy of prose does help to give Raylan the same propulsive
pace fans enjoy on Justified. That said, when one subplot puts Raylan in
the compromising position of facing down a perp while wearing only
cowboy boots, some readers might wish Leonard would, you know, slow down
just a little and paint more of a picture. Sure, one of the conspirators
does take a moment to admire the figure Raylan cuts when he’s
unconscious and naked and lying vulnerable and exposed in a bathtub, but
since the book jacket has already put Olyphant’s likeness in some
readers’ heads, if Leonard devoted more detail to the scene, some
readers probably wouldn’t complain. This scene didn’t appear in Season
2—trust me, you’d remember—but Leonard’s told an interviewer it might be
used in the show, so … those readers who’d enjoy seeing Olyphant play it
out can hope that Yost will make it happen.
My own prurient preferences aside, Raylan offers Justified producers
plenty of story ideas that could lend themselves to TV, like a grabby
subplot that revolves around a trio of bank-robbing strippers. There’s
also a 23-year-old woman putting herself through Butler University with
the proceeds from her poker winnings; her plotline culminates—as all
poker stories must—with a climactic showdown at the gaming table.
If Justified producers do pluck those characters from Raylan, though, it
won’t be right away; the explosive Season 2 finale left numerous messes
that will need to be cleaned up in the early episodes of Season 3.
Coming off the shootout of “Bloody Harlan,” the Season 2 finale, Raylan
and Boyd Crowder (Walton Goggins) are still in an uneasy truce—that is,
until the season 3 premiere, “The Gunfighter.” Harsh words between
Raylan and Boyd quickly escalate to a physical fight—and as tends to be
the case when Boyd is concerned, his anger is not what it seems. Still,
both the exchange and its outcome neatly lay out both the conflict
between these two characters and the ways their shared Harlan background
continues to inform their lives into the present. All this is to say
that there’s plenty on Justified’s plate before it trots out the
felonious gyrators.
What’s the best evidence that, at least right now, Yost and the
Justified writers have Raylan Givens and his world pegged in a way even
Leonard can’t match? It wasn’t Leonard who wrote a storyline bringing
the awesome Karen Sisco to Kentucky. Oh, sure, she’s named Karen Goodall
when she appears in episode 2, and mentions a name change following a
brief marriage, but given that she’s played by Carla Gugino, it’s clear
she’s meant to be the heroine of Gugino’s sadly short-lived ABC series
Karen Sisco. (Though Leonard created Sisco, who was also played by
Jennifer Lopez in the movie Out of Sight, interviews suggest they’ve
changed her name for legal reasons.)
Anyway: Regardless of her maiden name, Gugino’s Karen is an intriguing
addition to the show. In both Raylan and Justfied, Raylan’s (justified)
shooting of gangster Tommy Bucks (Peter Greene) didn’t just catalyze
Raylan’s return to Kentucky; it’s become a kind of legend that precedes
Raylan everywhere he goes. Every crook whose path he crosses has heard
about it. Karen’s return into Raylan’s life suggests the possibility
that we could learn more about what else happened to Raylan in the time
between his leaving Harlan and his return. Plus, Karen’s just a great
character, with both coolness under pressure and fire smoldering under
the surface to match Raylan’s. Bringing her to Justified is a fantastic
idea, and it’s Yost who made it happen.
There are hints that Raylan and Karen shared A History when they were
both posted to Miami—a development which could the Justified door to any
number of indelible Leonard characters—but the start of Season 3 finds
Raylan still planning a future with Winona (Natalie Zea) and their
unborn baby. But while Leonard’s Raylan ends with the hero (somewhat
implausibly) finding a measure of happiness and peace, the story isn’t
near over for the Raylan of Justified—which means Yost will be able to
continue borrowing from Leonard’s plots, and continue improving upon
them.
--
"God was knocking on the door. And He wanted in real bad."
Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle - Footfall
than Elmore Leonard does? That is the question asked in this
<http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/01/elmore_leonard_s_raylan_justified_fan_fiction.single.html>
Slate article.
Slate writer Tara Ariano goes so far as to describe Elmore Leonard's new
(and first since 2001) work featuring Givens as "fanfic." Given the
recent thread kicked off by Mr. Busiek, I thought I'd throw this article
out here for supplemental discussion.
Notes & Disclaimers:
A) I've not read any of Mr. Leonard's work featuring the Raylan Givens
character.
B) I've not seen any episode of Justified.
C) Because of various issues, most prominently health, I've not finished
Mr. Busiek's Fanfic thread.
D) Contrary to my normal practice, I'm going to repost the article in
its entirety.
----------
How good is FX’s Justified, returning for its third season tonight? Some
TV series inspire conventions, cosplay, and speculative fiction from
their fans. Justified may be the first show to inspire fanfic from its
creator. Elmore Leonard introduced U.S. Marshal Raylan Givens in the
novel Pronto, but hadn’t revisited the character since “Fire in the
Hole,” the 2001 novella which became the basis for Justified. The show
reignited his interest, and Leonard’s new novel Raylan—so inextricable
from Justified that the cover image is of actor Timothy Olyphant in
character—is out this week.
Leonard has explained that he wrote the book to give Justified producer
Graham Yost more story ideas for the second season and seasons to come.
Given that the writers of Justified wear bracelets reading WWED (What
Would Elmore Do?), you might think they’d slavishly followed Leonard’s
lead. But Raylan, surprisingly, reads like an alternate-universe version
of Justified, Season 2, with tantalizing possibilities for Season 3. The
changes Yost made, in fact, led to a much better story. It’s possible
that the writers of Justified understand Elmore Leonard’s best character
better than Elmore Leonard does.
First of all, if Yost and the Justified writers had followed Leonard’s
blueprint exactly, viewers would have been cheated out of the series’
best character and juiciest storyline. Mags Bennett is not even a
character in Raylan; in the book, the crime-bossing parent of hapless
nitwits Coover and Dickie is their dad, one Pervis Crowe. For the show,
of course, Yost crafted a rich yet tragic story for Mags (Margo
Martindale, who won an Emmy for the role), the alternately diabolical
and soft-hearted criminal mastermind who contrived a way to steal the
daughter she always wanted.
Leonard is known for his laconic style, and in Raylan, little space is
given over to the hero’s reflection upon his own motivations. But the
author’s reluctance to devote much of his work to describing a look, or
a pause, or the tension of a moment—all three of which are trademarks of
Olyphant’s Raylan—requires Leonard to ... make his Raylan talk. Book
Raylan is taciturn by any reasonable measure, but compared to TV Raylan,
he’s a chatterbox. Right from the book’s first chapter, this essential
difference is inescapable. “Give me his name,” Raylan asks a victim
whose kidneys have been stolen and are being held for ransom. “I swear
on my star you won’t have to pay for either one.” “I swear on my star”?
Try to imagine Olyphant’s Raylan saying anything so melodramatic. I sure
can’t.
Leonard’s economy of prose does help to give Raylan the same propulsive
pace fans enjoy on Justified. That said, when one subplot puts Raylan in
the compromising position of facing down a perp while wearing only
cowboy boots, some readers might wish Leonard would, you know, slow down
just a little and paint more of a picture. Sure, one of the conspirators
does take a moment to admire the figure Raylan cuts when he’s
unconscious and naked and lying vulnerable and exposed in a bathtub, but
since the book jacket has already put Olyphant’s likeness in some
readers’ heads, if Leonard devoted more detail to the scene, some
readers probably wouldn’t complain. This scene didn’t appear in Season
2—trust me, you’d remember—but Leonard’s told an interviewer it might be
used in the show, so … those readers who’d enjoy seeing Olyphant play it
out can hope that Yost will make it happen.
My own prurient preferences aside, Raylan offers Justified producers
plenty of story ideas that could lend themselves to TV, like a grabby
subplot that revolves around a trio of bank-robbing strippers. There’s
also a 23-year-old woman putting herself through Butler University with
the proceeds from her poker winnings; her plotline culminates—as all
poker stories must—with a climactic showdown at the gaming table.
If Justified producers do pluck those characters from Raylan, though, it
won’t be right away; the explosive Season 2 finale left numerous messes
that will need to be cleaned up in the early episodes of Season 3.
Coming off the shootout of “Bloody Harlan,” the Season 2 finale, Raylan
and Boyd Crowder (Walton Goggins) are still in an uneasy truce—that is,
until the season 3 premiere, “The Gunfighter.” Harsh words between
Raylan and Boyd quickly escalate to a physical fight—and as tends to be
the case when Boyd is concerned, his anger is not what it seems. Still,
both the exchange and its outcome neatly lay out both the conflict
between these two characters and the ways their shared Harlan background
continues to inform their lives into the present. All this is to say
that there’s plenty on Justified’s plate before it trots out the
felonious gyrators.
What’s the best evidence that, at least right now, Yost and the
Justified writers have Raylan Givens and his world pegged in a way even
Leonard can’t match? It wasn’t Leonard who wrote a storyline bringing
the awesome Karen Sisco to Kentucky. Oh, sure, she’s named Karen Goodall
when she appears in episode 2, and mentions a name change following a
brief marriage, but given that she’s played by Carla Gugino, it’s clear
she’s meant to be the heroine of Gugino’s sadly short-lived ABC series
Karen Sisco. (Though Leonard created Sisco, who was also played by
Jennifer Lopez in the movie Out of Sight, interviews suggest they’ve
changed her name for legal reasons.)
Anyway: Regardless of her maiden name, Gugino’s Karen is an intriguing
addition to the show. In both Raylan and Justfied, Raylan’s (justified)
shooting of gangster Tommy Bucks (Peter Greene) didn’t just catalyze
Raylan’s return to Kentucky; it’s become a kind of legend that precedes
Raylan everywhere he goes. Every crook whose path he crosses has heard
about it. Karen’s return into Raylan’s life suggests the possibility
that we could learn more about what else happened to Raylan in the time
between his leaving Harlan and his return. Plus, Karen’s just a great
character, with both coolness under pressure and fire smoldering under
the surface to match Raylan’s. Bringing her to Justified is a fantastic
idea, and it’s Yost who made it happen.
There are hints that Raylan and Karen shared A History when they were
both posted to Miami—a development which could the Justified door to any
number of indelible Leonard characters—but the start of Season 3 finds
Raylan still planning a future with Winona (Natalie Zea) and their
unborn baby. But while Leonard’s Raylan ends with the hero (somewhat
implausibly) finding a measure of happiness and peace, the story isn’t
near over for the Raylan of Justified—which means Yost will be able to
continue borrowing from Leonard’s plots, and continue improving upon
them.
--
"God was knocking on the door. And He wanted in real bad."
Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle - Footfall
Wayne Throop
Jan 18, 2012, 4:26:57 PM1/18/12
to
: "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net>
: Do the screen writers of FX's Justified understand Raylan Givens
both have some ownership of a character/storyline/whatnot, and they
diverge. Which is the One True Version?
This would be much like dueling movie interpretations of a famous
character (such as Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, etc), except for the
fact that they aren't really co-equal, since one was the original.
On the other hand, I was exposed to the character via the TV series,
not via the book(s), and they seem to be doing a good job, even with
season 3 so far (which isn't very far (but the snatch-the-gun-from-the-
table-top trick was very nifty (and the superhuman-marksman-on-the-
shooting-range-subverted wasn't chopped liver neither, but I digress))),
so I soitny wouldn't jump up and down and insist that the series bend
things back to the diverged universe the original author's got.
Eh. Wadayagonnado.
"I see them long, hard times to come." --- Justified opening theme
: Do the screen writers of FX's Justified understand Raylan Givens
: better than Elmore Leonard does? That is the question asked in this
: <http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/01/elmore_leonard_s_raylan_justified_fan_fiction.single.html>
: Slate article.
Interesting. Two people (or to sets of people, one set of size one....)
: <http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/01/elmore_leonard_s_raylan_justified_fan_fiction.single.html>
: Slate article.
both have some ownership of a character/storyline/whatnot, and they
diverge. Which is the One True Version?
This would be much like dueling movie interpretations of a famous
character (such as Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, etc), except for the
fact that they aren't really co-equal, since one was the original.
On the other hand, I was exposed to the character via the TV series,
not via the book(s), and they seem to be doing a good job, even with
season 3 so far (which isn't very far (but the snatch-the-gun-from-the-
table-top trick was very nifty (and the superhuman-marksman-on-the-
shooting-range-subverted wasn't chopped liver neither, but I digress))),
so I soitny wouldn't jump up and down and insist that the series bend
things back to the diverged universe the original author's got.
Eh. Wadayagonnado.
"I see them long, hard times to come." --- Justified opening theme
Wayne Throop
Jan 18, 2012, 4:37:57 PM1/18/12
to
: thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
: (but the snatch-the-gun-from-the-table-top trick was very nifty (and
: the superhuman-marksman-on-the-shooting-range-subverted wasn't
"Was that really necessary?"
"Yes, or I wouldn't have had to do it, now would I?"
--- Arlo Givens and Ava Crowder
(quote approximate, possibly misremembered)
"Oh, I have GOT to get me one of THESE!"
--- Eugene Fitzherbert
(also possibly (but less likely) misremembered)
: (but the snatch-the-gun-from-the-table-top trick was very nifty (and
: the superhuman-marksman-on-the-shooting-range-subverted wasn't
: chopped liver neither, but I digress))
Oh, and the frying-pan-fu was excellent also.
"Was that really necessary?"
"Yes, or I wouldn't have had to do it, now would I?"
--- Arlo Givens and Ava Crowder
(quote approximate, possibly misremembered)
"Oh, I have GOT to get me one of THESE!"
--- Eugene Fitzherbert
(also possibly (but less likely) misremembered)
tphile2
Jan 19, 2012, 8:12:35 AM1/19/12
to
On Jan 18, 2:26 pm, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net>
wrote:
I have not read Leonard or seen Justified either but have seen enough
of similar cases. The answer is yes, in many cases the screenwriter
knows more than the novelist.
Converting between medias is a major effort that includes others like
comics, radio etc. What works in one media doesn't always work in
another or needs serious and necessary changes. Screenwriters try to
avoid the novelist involvement because they regard their work as
sacred. Novelists have a hard time accepting deletions, additions or
changes needed. They can't stand the idea that there are mistakes or
someone else improving on what they did. Sometime the novelist
objections are purely mercenary to get more money and not creative
objections.
but its a case by case situation. It's not all onesided.
btw it's to be expected that writers would side with the novelist.
Since they are in the same boat.
wrote:
> Do the screen writers of FX's Justified understand Raylan Givens better
> than Elmore Leonard does? That is the question asked in this
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/01/elmore_leonard_...>
> than Elmore Leonard does? That is the question asked in this
of similar cases. The answer is yes, in many cases the screenwriter
knows more than the novelist.
Converting between medias is a major effort that includes others like
comics, radio etc. What works in one media doesn't always work in
another or needs serious and necessary changes. Screenwriters try to
avoid the novelist involvement because they regard their work as
sacred. Novelists have a hard time accepting deletions, additions or
changes needed. They can't stand the idea that there are mistakes or
someone else improving on what they did. Sometime the novelist
objections are purely mercenary to get more money and not creative
objections.
but its a case by case situation. It's not all onesided.
btw it's to be expected that writers would side with the novelist.
Since they are in the same boat.
Robert Carnegie
Jan 19, 2012, 10:55:20 AM1/19/12
to
On Jan 18, 9:26 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net>
consumed and enjoyed the original work, it's for people who didn't -
or they wouldn't change stuff. The other way around, book of a movie,
it's done respectfully. After all, there's stuff there to be seen
that you can't change, or you look stupid.
However, sometimes stuff changes that the movie /had/ meant to do when
the novel or the comicbook was written - thus a humanoid Jabba the
Hutt appears in the Star Wars graphic novel. Also, there /have/ been
cases where a character has to not look like a particular actor who
didn't consent to their representation.
If an audience member is emotionally attached to one telling of the
story that they trust as a true biography of the people involved, an
alternate version probably feels like slander against friends.
In a very few cases, you can get away with a new version in which the
cast recognise and deal with the existence of the previous version
that they're contradicting, for instance, that they - the fictional
people - signed a contract and cashed in. Or, someone just cashed in
on them anyway. I assume that something like this hangs around _The
Real Ghostbusters_.
And as for the Harry Potter movies, those that I've seen, which often
seem to plain not get the characters or how the events originally told
revealed personality - I've decided to say, a wizard did it. Or a
witch, the same one who biographised Albus Dumbledore.
Actually, a long series of stories is liable to contradict itself
anyway - but also maybe to touch the reader or viewer's heart, or, at
least, to callouse that heart with a few clunkers along the way. Or
to allow us to reflect that if we've read and remember older stories,
some others may have joined along the way, and when viewing Captain
Kirk or Spider-Man's attempt to win the heart of / keep his secret
identity from his 200th girlfriend, we likewise should not be thinking
about more than a couple of the other 199, and not even all of the two
dozen who took their turns to be the one and only love of his life.
Because he isn't. Edith Keeler, Gwen Stacy, Carol Marcus, Mary-Jane
Watson, Elaan of Troyius, and /maybe/ what's-her-name in the Kirk-
resurrected novels, is about enough to include.
> : "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net>
> : Do the screen writers of FX's Justified understand Raylan Givens
> : better than Elmore Leonard does? That is the question asked in this
> : <http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/01/elmore_leonard_...>
> : better than Elmore Leonard does? That is the question asked in this
> : Slate article.
>
> Interesting. Two people (or to sets of people, one set of size one....)
> both have some ownership of a character/storyline/whatnot, and they
> diverge. Which is the One True Version?
>
> This would be much like dueling movie interpretations of a famous
> character (such as Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, etc), except for the
> fact that they aren't really co-equal, since one was the original.
>
> On the other hand, I was exposed to the character via the TV series,
> not via the book(s), and they seem to be doing a good job, even with
> season 3 so far (which isn't very far (but the snatch-the-gun-from-the-
> table-top trick was very nifty (and the superhuman-marksman-on-the-
> shooting-range-subverted wasn't chopped liver neither, but I digress))),
> so I soitny wouldn't jump up and down and insist that the series bend
> things back to the diverged universe the original author's got.
>
> Eh. Wadayagonnado.
I think maybe a movie or TV show of a book isn't for people who
>
> Interesting. Two people (or to sets of people, one set of size one....)
> both have some ownership of a character/storyline/whatnot, and they
> diverge. Which is the One True Version?
>
> This would be much like dueling movie interpretations of a famous
> character (such as Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, etc), except for the
> fact that they aren't really co-equal, since one was the original.
>
> On the other hand, I was exposed to the character via the TV series,
> not via the book(s), and they seem to be doing a good job, even with
> season 3 so far (which isn't very far (but the snatch-the-gun-from-the-
> table-top trick was very nifty (and the superhuman-marksman-on-the-
> shooting-range-subverted wasn't chopped liver neither, but I digress))),
> so I soitny wouldn't jump up and down and insist that the series bend
> things back to the diverged universe the original author's got.
>
> Eh. Wadayagonnado.
consumed and enjoyed the original work, it's for people who didn't -
or they wouldn't change stuff. The other way around, book of a movie,
it's done respectfully. After all, there's stuff there to be seen
that you can't change, or you look stupid.
However, sometimes stuff changes that the movie /had/ meant to do when
the novel or the comicbook was written - thus a humanoid Jabba the
Hutt appears in the Star Wars graphic novel. Also, there /have/ been
cases where a character has to not look like a particular actor who
didn't consent to their representation.
If an audience member is emotionally attached to one telling of the
story that they trust as a true biography of the people involved, an
alternate version probably feels like slander against friends.
In a very few cases, you can get away with a new version in which the
cast recognise and deal with the existence of the previous version
that they're contradicting, for instance, that they - the fictional
people - signed a contract and cashed in. Or, someone just cashed in
on them anyway. I assume that something like this hangs around _The
Real Ghostbusters_.
And as for the Harry Potter movies, those that I've seen, which often
seem to plain not get the characters or how the events originally told
revealed personality - I've decided to say, a wizard did it. Or a
witch, the same one who biographised Albus Dumbledore.
Actually, a long series of stories is liable to contradict itself
anyway - but also maybe to touch the reader or viewer's heart, or, at
least, to callouse that heart with a few clunkers along the way. Or
to allow us to reflect that if we've read and remember older stories,
some others may have joined along the way, and when viewing Captain
Kirk or Spider-Man's attempt to win the heart of / keep his secret
identity from his 200th girlfriend, we likewise should not be thinking
about more than a couple of the other 199, and not even all of the two
dozen who took their turns to be the one and only love of his life.
Because he isn't. Edith Keeler, Gwen Stacy, Carol Marcus, Mary-Jane
Watson, Elaan of Troyius, and /maybe/ what's-her-name in the Kirk-
resurrected novels, is about enough to include.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Jan 19, 2012, 12:21:30 PM1/19/12
to
On 2012-01-19 10:55:20 -0500, Robert Carnegie said:
> And as for the Harry Potter movies, those that I've seen, which often
> seem to plain not get the characters or how the events originally told
> revealed personality - I've decided to say, a wizard did it. Or a
> witch, the same one who biographised Albus Dumbledore.
Interestingly, this is one of those rare cases where the original
> And as for the Harry Potter movies, those that I've seen, which often
> seem to plain not get the characters or how the events originally told
> revealed personality - I've decided to say, a wizard did it. Or a
> witch, the same one who biographised Albus Dumbledore.
novelist DID have absolute veto power over the scripts.
--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jan 19, 2012, 12:37:30 PM1/19/12
to
On 1/19/12 12:21 PM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On 2012-01-19 10:55:20 -0500, Robert Carnegie said:
>
>> And as for the Harry Potter movies, those that I've seen, which often
>> seem to plain not get the characters or how the events originally told
>> revealed personality - I've decided to say, a wizard did it. Or a
>> witch, the same one who biographised Albus Dumbledore.
>
> Interestingly, this is one of those rare cases where the original
> novelist DID have absolute veto power over the scripts.
Yep. And I thought they did pretty well; however, after about movie 2
> On 2012-01-19 10:55:20 -0500, Robert Carnegie said:
>
>> And as for the Harry Potter movies, those that I've seen, which often
>> seem to plain not get the characters or how the events originally told
>> revealed personality - I've decided to say, a wizard did it. Or a
>> witch, the same one who biographised Albus Dumbledore.
>
> Interestingly, this is one of those rare cases where the original
> novelist DID have absolute veto power over the scripts.
they stopped any pretense of trying to cram the whole story into two
hours and went with the assumption "you've read the book, you can fill
in these blanks". That did, of course, make the movies less effective
overall for those two or three people who went to them and hadn't in
fact read the books. :)
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Dimensional Traveler
Jan 19, 2012, 12:53:37 PM1/19/12
to
On 1/19/2012 9:37 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 1/19/12 12:21 PM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On 2012-01-19 10:55:20 -0500, Robert Carnegie said:
>>
>>> And as for the Harry Potter movies, those that I've seen, which often
>>> seem to plain not get the characters or how the events originally told
>>> revealed personality - I've decided to say, a wizard did it. Or a
>>> witch, the same one who biographised Albus Dumbledore.
>>
>> Interestingly, this is one of those rare cases where the original
>> novelist DID have absolute veto power over the scripts.
>
> Yep. And I thought they did pretty well; however, after about movie 2
> they stopped any pretense of trying to cram the whole story into two
> hours and went with the assumption "you've read the book, you can fill
> in these blanks". That did, of course, make the movies less effective
> overall for those two or three people who went to them and hadn't in
> fact read the books. :)
>
Why should I spend all that time reading the books when I can just watch
> On 1/19/12 12:21 PM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On 2012-01-19 10:55:20 -0500, Robert Carnegie said:
>>
>>> And as for the Harry Potter movies, those that I've seen, which often
>>> seem to plain not get the characters or how the events originally told
>>> revealed personality - I've decided to say, a wizard did it. Or a
>>> witch, the same one who biographised Albus Dumbledore.
>>
>> Interestingly, this is one of those rare cases where the original
>> novelist DID have absolute veto power over the scripts.
>
> Yep. And I thought they did pretty well; however, after about movie 2
> they stopped any pretense of trying to cram the whole story into two
> hours and went with the assumption "you've read the book, you can fill
> in these blanks". That did, of course, make the movies less effective
> overall for those two or three people who went to them and hadn't in
> fact read the books. :)
>
the two hour movie? :P
Lynn McGuire
Jan 19, 2012, 1:05:07 PM1/19/12
to
I think that they were all 2.5 hours or more. Or
maybe just movies 4 through 8.
Lynn
tphile2
Jan 19, 2012, 12:37:58 PM1/19/12
to
but that is a kind of unique case. She was still writing the books
while the movies were getting made. So the movie people were kinda
blind about what all to keep and what can be safely deleted. For
example they were gonna leave out the Black House Elf until she said
don't do that.
If all the books were finished before doing any movie. It would have
turned out very different.
Another factor is that the books were so large and filled with details
that fitting it into a 2 hour movie is problematic and feels like
something from Readers Digest. More than book 7 should have been
split in half. However the 2 hour limit is due to Theatre airings.
Dvds and extended editions market is changing that. So large novels
can be made into larger movies
tphile2
Jan 19, 2012, 1:31:08 PM1/19/12
to
I am sure there has been many a student who tried that dodge and
deserved the F they got for it. ;-)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jan 19, 2012, 1:53:55 PM1/19/12
to
On 1/19/12 12:37 PM, tphile2 wrote:
> On Jan 19, 11:21 am, Lawrence Watt-Evans<l...@sff.net> wrote:
>> On 2012-01-19 10:55:20 -0500, Robert Carnegie said:
>>
>>> And as for the Harry Potter movies, those that I've seen, which often
>>> seem to plain not get the characters or how the events originally told
>>> revealed personality - I've decided to say, a wizard did it. Or a
>>> witch, the same one who biographised Albus Dumbledore.
>>
>> Interestingly, this is one of those rare cases where the original
>> novelist DID have absolute veto power over the scripts.
>>
>> --
>> Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
>> Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...
>
> I am not certain it was "absolute" but they did listen to her a lot.
They were CONTRACTUALLY required to not just listen. She was able to
> On Jan 19, 11:21 am, Lawrence Watt-Evans<l...@sff.net> wrote:
>> On 2012-01-19 10:55:20 -0500, Robert Carnegie said:
>>
>>> And as for the Harry Potter movies, those that I've seen, which often
>>> seem to plain not get the characters or how the events originally told
>>> revealed personality - I've decided to say, a wizard did it. Or a
>>> witch, the same one who biographised Albus Dumbledore.
>>
>> Interestingly, this is one of those rare cases where the original
>> novelist DID have absolute veto power over the scripts.
>>
>> --
>> Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
>> Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...
>
> I am not certain it was "absolute" but they did listen to her a lot.
pretty much dictate anything she liked; that was the condition under
which she licensed the rights. Hell, she was the one who selected the
director and then guided selection of all the actors. These are not
things that writers are allowed to do. Ever.
Unless you're J.K. Rowling and making more money on the books than the
movie studios will make on the films.
Bill Snyder
Jan 19, 2012, 1:56:58 PM1/19/12
to
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Michael Stemper
Jan 19, 2012, 2:05:20 PM1/19/12
to
In article <ff2cddc0-acb3-408f...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, tphile2 <tph...@cableone.net> writes:
available for time-pressured students:
<http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/homework.htm>
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
I feel more like I do now than I did when I came in.
>On Jan 19, 11:53=A0am, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Why should I spend all that time reading the books when I can just watch
>> the two hour movie? =A0:P
>> Why should I spend all that time reading the books when I can just watch
>
>or the Cliff Notes or Wikipedia plot section.
>I am sure there has been many a student who tried that dodge and
>deserved the F they got for it. ;-)
For _The Lord of the Rings_, there's an even more condensed summary
>or the Cliff Notes or Wikipedia plot section.
>I am sure there has been many a student who tried that dodge and
>deserved the F they got for it. ;-)
available for time-pressured students:
<http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/homework.htm>
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
I feel more like I do now than I did when I came in.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jan 19, 2012, 2:16:41 PM1/19/12
to
On 1/19/12 2:05 PM, Michael Stemper wrote:
> In article<ff2cddc0-acb3-408f...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, tphile2<tph...@cableone.net> writes:
>> On Jan 19, 11:53=A0am, Dimensional Traveler<dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>> Why should I spend all that time reading the books when I can just watch
>>> the two hour movie? =A0:P
>>
>> or the Cliff Notes or Wikipedia plot section.
>> I am sure there has been many a student who tried that dodge and
>> deserved the F they got for it. ;-)
>
> For _The Lord of the Rings_, there's an even more condensed summary
> available for time-pressured students:
> <http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/homework.htm>
>
Alas for how the movies were close enough to the books to make even the
> In article<ff2cddc0-acb3-408f...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, tphile2<tph...@cableone.net> writes:
>> On Jan 19, 11:53=A0am, Dimensional Traveler<dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>> Why should I spend all that time reading the books when I can just watch
>>> the two hour movie? =A0:P
>>
>> or the Cliff Notes or Wikipedia plot section.
>> I am sure there has been many a student who tried that dodge and
>> deserved the F they got for it. ;-)
>
> For _The Lord of the Rings_, there's an even more condensed summary
> available for time-pressured students:
> <http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/homework.htm>
>
lazy recognize something's wrong with that one. But then, the lazy will
just watch the movies and the teacher can just focus on the stuff that's
in the books. "Write an essay on Tom Bombadil's relationship to the rest
of the work" should do nicely.
Robert Carnegie
Jan 19, 2012, 8:50:01 PM1/19/12
to
On Jan 19, 5:37 pm, tphile2 <tphi...@cableone.net> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 11:21 am, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2012-01-19 10:55:20 -0500, Robert Carnegie said:
>
> > > And as for the Harry Potter movies, those that I've seen, which often
> > > seem to plain not get the characters or how the events originally told
> > > revealed personality - I've decided to say, a wizard did it. Or a
> > > witch, the same one who biographised Albus Dumbledore.
>
> > Interestingly, this is one of those rare cases where the original
> > novelist DID have absolute veto power over the scripts.
>
> On Jan 19, 11:21 am, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2012-01-19 10:55:20 -0500, Robert Carnegie said:
>
> > > And as for the Harry Potter movies, those that I've seen, which often
> > > seem to plain not get the characters or how the events originally told
> > > revealed personality - I've decided to say, a wizard did it. Or a
> > > witch, the same one who biographised Albus Dumbledore.
>
> > Interestingly, this is one of those rare cases where the original
> > novelist DID have absolute veto power over the scripts.
>
> I am not certain it was "absolute" but they did listen to her a lot.
> but that is a kind of unique case. She was still writing the books
> while the movies were getting made. So the movie people were kinda
> blind about what all to keep and what can be safely deleted. For
> example they were gonna leave out the Black House Elf until she said
> don't do that.
- rapid mental review... oh, the house-elf belonging to Mister Sirius
> but that is a kind of unique case. She was still writing the books
> while the movies were getting made. So the movie people were kinda
> blind about what all to keep and what can be safely deleted. For
> example they were gonna leave out the Black House Elf until she said
> don't do that.
Black. Whew!
For me, the first film just didn't give the kids characters - or
Hagrid, who seemed to be there mostly to tell them secrets and then
tell them that he wasn't supposed to tell them the secrets. He's
worth more than that.
The second one altered the confrontation - you know, the scene with
the monster - in my opinion losing the point of the scene character-
wise from the book, although right now I don't remember the details of
either.
So that's why I don't rate the films as biography. Unless, as I say,
it's the books that dramatise the story of one Muggle-cuddler who was
just amazingly lucky.
tphile2
Jan 19, 2012, 9:39:14 PM1/19/12
to
On Jan 19, 1:05 pm, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
wrote:
quite and education in the process.
Reminds me of The Eye of Argon. another great piece of literature
wrote:
> In article <ff2cddc0-acb3-408f-995f-ed5f4c26c...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, tphile2 <tphi...@cableone.net> writes:
>
> >On Jan 19, 11:53=A0am, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> Why should I spend all that time reading the books when I can just watch
> >> the two hour movie? =A0:P
>
> >or the Cliff Notes or Wikipedia plot section.
> >I am sure there has been many a student who tried that dodge and
> >deserved the F they got for it. ;-)
>
> For _The Lord of the Rings_, there's an even more condensed summary
> available for time-pressured students:
> <http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/homework.htm>
>
> --
> Michael F. Stemper
> #include <Standard_Disclaimer>
> I feel more like I do now than I did when I came in.
LOL thats a great summary of LotR, I am sure it will give students
>
> >On Jan 19, 11:53=A0am, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> Why should I spend all that time reading the books when I can just watch
> >> the two hour movie? =A0:P
>
> >or the Cliff Notes or Wikipedia plot section.
> >I am sure there has been many a student who tried that dodge and
> >deserved the F they got for it. ;-)
>
> For _The Lord of the Rings_, there's an even more condensed summary
> available for time-pressured students:
> <http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/homework.htm>
>
> --
> Michael F. Stemper
> #include <Standard_Disclaimer>
> I feel more like I do now than I did when I came in.
quite and education in the process.
Reminds me of The Eye of Argon. another great piece of literature
William December Starr
Jan 28, 2012, 9:50:52 PM1/28/12
to
In article <jf9q6q$3b0$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> Michael Stemper wrote:
class is and with what degree of voluntariness they're taking it.
>> For _The Lord of the Rings_, there's an even more condensed summary
>> available for time-pressured students:
>> <http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/homework.htm>
>
> Alas for how the movies were close enough to the books to make
> even the lazy recognize something's wrong with that one. But then,
> the lazy will just watch the movies and the teacher can just focus
> on the stuff that's in the books. "Write an essay on Tom
> Bombadil's relationship to the rest of the work" should do nicely.
If that's on a test being given in the classroom, yes. If however
the student is to write the essay on his own time, the task just
becomes an exercise in online research. And I don't think that kids
today are, in general, so naive and simple that they don't know
that some jokers have salted the net with lies, or how to tell when
they hit one.
(Besides, how does one get an entire essay out of "That's a trick
question"?)
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> Michael Stemper wrote:
>> tphile2<tph...@cableone.net> writes:
>>
>>> or the Cliff Notes or Wikipedia plot section.
>>> I am sure there has been many a student who tried that dodge
>>> and deserved the F they got for it. ;-)
I think that whether they "deserve" to fail depends on what the
>>
>>> or the Cliff Notes or Wikipedia plot section.
>>> I am sure there has been many a student who tried that dodge
>>> and deserved the F they got for it. ;-)
class is and with what degree of voluntariness they're taking it.
>> For _The Lord of the Rings_, there's an even more condensed summary
>> available for time-pressured students:
>> <http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/homework.htm>
>
> Alas for how the movies were close enough to the books to make
> even the lazy recognize something's wrong with that one. But then,
> the lazy will just watch the movies and the teacher can just focus
> on the stuff that's in the books. "Write an essay on Tom
> Bombadil's relationship to the rest of the work" should do nicely.
the student is to write the essay on his own time, the task just
becomes an exercise in online research. And I don't think that kids
today are, in general, so naive and simple that they don't know
that some jokers have salted the net with lies, or how to tell when
they hit one.
(Besides, how does one get an entire essay out of "That's a trick
question"?)
0 new messages