OT: Old books and new movies

[Gary]

"Wuthering Heights is a novel by Emily Brontė that
was first published in 1847."

It's an old classic book. I've always heard of it but
have never read it. Never knew anything about it.
Last night, a movie version was on (Starz channel)

and I even passed up my "beloved" Gunsmoke episodes to
watch it. Glad that I did too.

It was a 2012 movie and was good. Well made and at
least I learned the basic story. A romantic tragedy.

I can understand now why it's so well known and remembered.
As I know that movies are just a shadow of the real
books, I'm going to look for this book and read it.

[Bruce]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 07:59:35 -0400, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:

>"Wuthering Heights is a novel by Emily Brontë that

I read the book but I preferred Kate Bush' version.

[Gary]

I googled. Wasn't Kate Bush version just a song about
it? Hardly comparable unless you knew the story first.

I've read many books first, then saw a movie version.
The movies always cut out many relevant parts. Many
times, best to read the book first, then watch a movie.

At least then, you can fill in the gaps that the movie
doesn't have time to show.

One example: Stephen King's, "The Shining."
It was a very scary book but the movie with
Jack Nicolson was almost a comedy.

Also, "2001, a Space Odyssey."
That movie won awards for the video graphics but they
totally screwed up the story. If I hadn't read the book
first, I would have been fairly clueless to the actual
story. The movie left out most of it.

[Dave Smith]

On 2020-07-10 7:59 a.m., Gary wrote:
> "Wuthering Heights is a novel by Emily Brontë that

It is a great book. I went through a phase about a decade back where I
read a bunch of the classics. Wuthering Heights was the best of the bunch.

[Dave Smith]

On 2020-07-10 8:28 a.m., Gary wrote:

> Bruce wrote:
>>
> I googled. Wasn't Kate Bush version just a song about
> it? Hardly comparable unless you knew the story first.
>
> I've read many books first, then saw a movie version.
> The movies always cut out many relevant parts. Many
> times, best to read the book first, then watch a movie.

Try that with the Cormac McCarthy stories that have been turned into
movies. It is remarkable how closely they stick to the story line of the
books.

> At least then, you can fill in the gaps that the movie
> doesn't have time to show.

Sometimes you have to pay attention to the background. There is a
chapter in Moby Dick where Melville describes how they use the ship's
mast to hoist whale carcasses. They shift ballast to one side so the
boat will cant to the opposite side. They attack lines to the whale and
then shift the weight back to the other side and as the mast straightens
it yanks the carcass up out of the water. It is a chapter in the book.
In the movie there is a scene with Captain Ahab speaking in the
foreground and the whale hoisting happens in the background, and happens
much faster than the slow process described in the book.

> One example: Stephen King's, "The Shining."
> It was a very scary book but the movie with
> Jack Nicolson was almost a comedy.

I was never much of a fan of King's books and just couldn't ever get
into that moview.

[graham]

On 2020-07-10 6:28 a.m., Gary wrote:

>
> Also, "2001, a Space Odyssey."
> That movie won awards for the video graphics but they
> totally screwed up the story. If I hadn't read the book
> first, I would have been fairly clueless to the actual
> story. The movie left out most of it.
>

I don't care!! That was one Saturday evening completely wasted! That was
a lousy film made from scraps on the cutting room floor.

[Gary]

I agree with you, Graham. As I said, the book is very good
but that movie totally sucked.

[Cindy Hamilton]

I didn't care for it. I just wanted to punch everybody's silly face.

Jane Eyre was good, though.

Cindy Hamilton

[Nemo]

> "Wuthering Heights is a novel by Emily Brontë that

> was first published in 1847."
>

> I can understand now why it's so well known and remembered.
> As I know that movies are just a shadow of the real books, I'm going to
> look for this book and read it.

"Jane Eyre" by her sister Charlotte is also a good read.

[Gary]

Again, I've seen the movie but not read the book.

[jmcquown]

On 7/10/2020 8:28 AM, Gary wrote:
>
> One example: Stephen King's, "The Shining."
> It was a very scary book but the movie with
> Jack Nicolson was almost a comedy.
>

Stephen King claimed he didn't like that movie.

Jill

[Bruce]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 09:34:15 -0500, Nemo <ne...@nospamatnotime.org>
wrote:

I believe I read that too. The things they made me do!

[Bruce]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 08:28:36 -0400, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 07:59:35 -0400, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:
>>

>> >"Wuthering Heights is a novel by Emily Brontë that

>> > was first published in 1847."
>> >
>> >It's an old classic book. I've always heard of it but
>> >have never read it. Never knew anything about it.
>> >Last night, a movie version was on (Starz channel)
>> >
>> >and I even passed up my "beloved" Gunsmoke episodes to
>> >watch it. Glad that I did too.
>> >
>> >It was a 2012 movie and was good. Well made and at
>> >least I learned the basic story. A romantic tragedy.
>> >
>> >I can understand now why it's so well known and remembered.
>> >As I know that movies are just a shadow of the real
>> >books, I'm going to look for this book and read it.
>>
>> I read the book but I preferred Kate Bush' version.
>
>I googled. Wasn't Kate Bush version just a song about
>it? Hardly comparable unless you knew the story first.

Even without comparing I prefer Kate Bush' version:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1pMMIe4hb4>

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Friday, July 10, 2020 at 2:15:50 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> Even without comparing I prefer Kate Bush' version:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1pMMIe4hb4>
>

Fingernails on a blackboard.

[dsi1]

My mom took me to see that movie. The only other movie she ever took me to see was "Thunderball." Seeing a movie with my mom was a rare occurrence. It probably meant something. Maybe she was mad at my dad - I can't say what it was.

The Blu-ray version on a modern HD screen is astounding and shows what was possible in the 60's when a director insisted on using state-of-the-art cameras and lenses along with a digital transfer done with loving care.

[Dave Smith]

I used to like her music, but the choreography on that one is so weird
it is a little off putting.

[Bruce]

She made an alternative version for all the doubters:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk-4lXLM34g>

[dsi1]

Ms. Bush in a Japan song competition. I don't know how she did or what the audience reaction was to her unusual vocals. That thing on her chest had a wired microphone in it so she do her dance moves. The wire runs down her leg and attached to her foot. Hee hee.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl29LfVo-h4

[Ed Pawlowski]

I think you are being too polite.

[Bruce]

Maybe she's a bit too alternative for all y'all :)

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Friday, July 10, 2020 at 3:17:26 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> She made an alternative version for all the doubters:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk-4lXLM34g>
>

More fingernails on a blackboard.

[Bruce]

That's because it's the same song :)

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

It was posted twice, twice nails on a blackboard.

[Bruce]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 19:13:54 -0700 (PDT), "itsjoan...@webtv.net"

<itsjoan...@webtv.net> wrote:

>On Friday, July 10, 2020 at 6:01:53 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:53:38 -0700 (PDT), "itsjoan...@webtv.net"
>> <itsjoan...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, July 10, 2020 at 3:17:26 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>> >>
>> >> She made an alternative version for all the doubters:
>> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk-4lXLM34g>
>> >>
>> >More fingernails on a blackboard.
>>
>> That's because it's the same song :)
>>
>It was posted twice, twice nails on a blackboard.

I think you made your point.

[Hank Rogers]

Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 19:13:54 -0700 (PDT), "itsjoan...@webtv.net"
> <itsjoan...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, July 10, 2020 at 6:01:53 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:53:38 -0700 (PDT), "itsjoan...@webtv.net"
>>> <itsjoan...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, July 10, 2020 at 3:17:26 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> She made an alternative version for all the doubters:
>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk-4lXLM34g>
>>>>>
>>>> More fingernails on a blackboard.
>>>
>>> That's because it's the same song :)
>>>
>> It was posted twice, twice nails on a blackboard.
>
> I think you made your point.
>

Indeed. <sniff>

[Leo]

On 2020 Jul 10, , Bruce wrote
(in article<09fhgfha72cej09lk...@4ax.com>):

> I believe I read that too. The things they made me do!

I read “R.U.R." as an assignment. Anybody else? Anybody? Those were the
good old days when we read fiction that creepily became true. “Animal
Farm” and “1984” are the here and now. Who’d a thunk it?

[Bruce]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:47:40 -0700, Leo <leobla...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

Soon, we'll hear a knock on the door in the middle of the night. "You
are under arrest for having thought something racially stereotyping!"

[Leo]

On 2020 Jul 10, , Bruce wrote

(in article<h4nigf5qjb48rmqt9...@4ax.com>):

> Soon, we'll hear a knock on the door in the middle of the night. "You
> are under arrest for having thought something racially stereotyping!"

Support your local “brownshirt” or pretend to. Interesting times.

[Gary]

I don't blame him. The movie was bad.