|
Post by caucasoididiot on Mar 2, 2010 21:59:03 GMT -5
(^_^)
Actually, while I still marvel at Look Who's Talking coming from Odd John, I don't gather they were claiming that it actually was Stapledon's story. That doesn't really bother me. The quality of inspiration is not strained, even if the result isn't something I'm going to rush out to see.
Oh, and I don't really have anything against Mr. Ebert. Well, not much anyway.
Edit: Oh man, I just ran across a recent picture of Ebert. I had no idea he was in such bad shape. Joke retracted.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Mar 3, 2010 4:20:37 GMT -5
Ah well you didn't know. For other's who didn't know, he lost his lower jaw and can't speak. I feel sorry for the man. I will say while I didn't always agree with him, he has a passion and knowlege for film that I respect. And I loved his insightful commentary tracks on Dark City. He was on Oprah showing off a new device which gives him his original sounding voice. If you can put up with Op (which is tough I know) here's a clip.... Ebert on OprahSorry to go off subject.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoididiot on Mar 3, 2010 10:43:53 GMT -5
Agreed on all points above. While I don't always agree with him either I found his tastes in SF movies pretty close to mine, and his reviews were on them a good guide for me.
I haven't ever really reconnected with a lot of the US "buzz" since my return. If I should make a similar gaffe in the future it most likely is from ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by afriendlychicken on Mar 3, 2010 17:47:21 GMT -5
Every Friday, I visit Roger Ebert's web page to see his new reviews. He just posted that picture around two weeks ago. I had read somewhere that if you agreed with a movie critic at least 80% of the time, then that's probably the critic you should listen too. I mean, 80% is a really good percentage to be agreeing on. That doesn't happen very often in life. I agree on Look Who's Talking. They were just inspired by the child being able to communicate with it's parent while still in the womb part and not trying to do a movie on Odd John. I actually wasn't all that thrilled with Dark City. It seemed so familiar too me. I figured out they were in space about 20 minutes into the movie. I admit it's probably because I've been reading the genre for 30 years now and pick up on things like that in SF movies. I'm one of the few who back in 1993, when seeing The Crying Game for the first time, and not hearing about the controversial part, didn't know I was suppose to think 'she' was a 'she'. I could see the 'she' was a guy from the moment they showed 'her' singing. I didn't even know that was the twist all the critics were talking about. Too get back on topic here, since Ijon started the Miyazaki thread, "Howl's Moving Castle" is based on Diana Wynn Jones book of the same title. I wonder how they compare? T? P? MJ?, since I know you're a big fan of James Bond from your Mighty Jack's review site, I was wondering if you read Ian Fleming's novels? How are they as translations and, if you read them, what major changes were made from any of the novels? And were the changes for the better? EDIT: Just re-read that and my questions didn't sound right. They both can be enjoyable for different reasons as T? P? MJ? pointed out earlier. I guess I'm just asking, if you've read the books, which ones are so different that one does end up being better then the other? I think? I'm not sure anymore...
|
|
|
Post by mylungswereaching on Mar 3, 2010 22:23:18 GMT -5
You have to change some things because a movie isn't a book. I get annoyed when they either completely ignore the book so that if you changed the name of the movie and didn't read the credits you'd never realize their based on the same thing or give a message the exact opposite of the book. An war is glorious book becomes an antiwar movie.
|
|
|
Post by spackle on Mar 4, 2010 0:55:22 GMT -5
Too get back on topic here, since Ijon started the Miyazaki thread, "Howl's Moving Castle" is based on Diana Wynn Jones book of the same title. I wonder how they compare? This may contain some spoilers.... just sayin'. Howl's Moving Castle is one of my favorite Miyazaki films. I fell in love with the castle because I'd never seen anything like it, and I love the idea of the door that can open on four different places. I loved the movie so much I tracked down the book, and I ended up loving that, too. The movie is not all that faithful an adaptation, but one question here, do we worry so much about faithful adaptations when we're talking about a kids' book? The movie is faithful to enough elements of the book to satisfy. The book is more absurd, the movie focuses more on the love story, and adds a war (and cool flying machines!) that aren't in the book. I ended up appreciating each for what it was. Both have Sophie's great story arc, and Howl's shallowness. There were some delightful surprises in the book for me, such as where Howl came from. The castle that I loved so much in the movie is completely different in the book. No chicken legs, no fishy face, no chirping airbrake sounds! It's just sort of a big black castle that slides around the landscape. But it does have a door that opens onto four different places.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Mar 4, 2010 1:00:03 GMT -5
Chicken
Dark City was cut and rearranged in it’s theatrical version (ordered by the studio), the directors cut (recently released) restores the mystery, eliminates the opening narration and pushes back the first tuning so one wouldn’t know what was going on at first (I wish I’d seen it like that from the start). I think it’s a brilliant movie and I number it as one of my all time favorites. For me, it’s not about figuring out that they’re in space (I generally don’t play the Ellery Queen game when I watch a movie -even a mystery- and just let a story unfold). As stated earlier, I’m a character guy… I liked and was interested in what was going on with these people’s lives. That and the philosophical aspects are what makes the movie great for me.
Bond – Okay this will be a mouthful so buckle up.
Changes: Book bond isn’t as slick. And he isn’t really a love ‘em and leave ‘em womanizer. He actually cares deeply for the women in the stories and desires a real relationship. He’s more a hard ass (like Craig and Connery) but unlike the movie Bonds, he does express some regret when he has to kill.
Casino Royale and On Her Majesties Secret Service follow the books the closest. As does much of From Russia With Love. Moonraker was altered a lot. More humor, course they did the “Star Wars” thing – of the 2 I prefer the book because it’s not as camp. Dr. No is close but I like the movie better (thank god they got rid of the novel’s ‘bird poop’ storyline).
The actors vs book Bond: Except for Moore, who seems to be in a world of his own… each movie Bond took something from book Bond. Brosnan was always getting hurt for example; the spy game took its toll. That was straight from the book. Bond was a rough edged figure who had to be smoothed out. You get that from Connery and Craig.
My preference? The truth is it really isn’t a book or movie thing with me. I have a favorite movie Bond, but that’s more about personal taste. I like Connery’s Bond. He’s slick and a mean SOB. He’s not infallible but he is cool. I don’t like the comedic Roger Moore bond (Roger never wanted his 007 to be ruthless and had to be pushed into being a bad ass in scenes).
I’ve never been the kind of guy who gets locked into cannon and had to have it be this one absolute way. I like that movie Bond is larger than life, smooth and suave with a wealth of knowledge. But I like that book Bond is more grounded, rougher and sometimes introspective.
I enjoy ‘em both. Force me to pick… and I’ll grab a Connery 007 film off the shelf first.
Edit: Just to note - nothing I wrote was intended as a dig or a put down. I'm only writing about my own mindset and viewing preferences etc.
|
|
|
Post by afriendlychicken on Mar 4, 2010 18:41:21 GMT -5
Thanks Spackle and Tony? Pepper? MJ?. My questions were meant as 'just for arguments sake' and I enjoyed both your answers. It makes me want too visit the library and borrow some books. I've re-read my response on Dark City and The Crying Game and it did come off as kind of petty and shallow. I loved The Crying Game and Dark City was not about the mystery, it was more about the identity of the individual and it's sfx were used to tell the story and was not the story. After reading what you wrote, I want to see the directors cut. I know how Hollywood has screwed up quite a few classic films; ask Erich Von Stroheim, Orson Welles, Sergio Leone, Terry Gilliam...; and the narration issue sounds a lot like Blade Runner. And since I do love Metropolis; I can't wait to see the complete version; I'll give it another try. I wasn't thrilled with the studio cut, but I did like it, so I can see myself enjoying the director's cut much more. 2010: ODYSSEY TWO. Mrtia's mention of this in the 'new' mitchell movies section had me thinking about one of the few; even though I do read a lot; books to movie translations I can write about. The Arthur C. Clarke's novel is not a sequel to the novel version of 2001, but a sequel to the movie. The story is set near Jupiter instead of Saturn and it tries to answer questions about 2001 that people had been asking. Although I never understood that because the answers are there in the original in the first place. As a book, it's actually one of Clarke's better novels, especially when it comes to characterization, something in which he was never good at. He was always about the ideas, and the extrapolation there of. The movie and the book are pretty close except for a few changes. The book has a subplot on a Chinese Expedition on Europa. It is the Chinese who discover life there unlike the movie where it's only hinted at and isn't confirmed until Hal's final message. The book is more about the science aspect and the movie is about the cold war. They both worked in their own ways and this would be in the slightly changed department. I did enjoy the book more, though, because the ending works better in the novel. As a sequel to the original movie....well...not that great, but as a translation of the novel it's fine. Yes, it's nowhere near Kubrick's 2001, but it works if you view it as a science fiction 80's cold war movie. I like to view it as an alternate world version of 2001, something that Stephen Baxter and A. C. Clarke had worked on in The Time Odyssey trilogy before Arthur's death. It's actually the only movie I saw on it's opening day in December of '84. Maybe that's the reason I like it? I guess it caught the imagination of a 16 year old boy. And to think earlier I poo pood Dark City. What the hell was I thinking? Don't get me started on Minority Report...
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Mar 5, 2010 0:44:56 GMT -5
It's been ages since I saw 2001 and as I get older and wiser my opinions have shifted (believe it or not I didn't used to like Vertigo - I watched it again a couple years back and it just clicked... I was like "Oh, now I get what Hitch was doing". Like a lot of people I got too hung up on the mystery and couldn't understand why he revealed all a half hour before he ended the movie... "Because it wasn't about the mystery MJ, it was about the guys obsession"
Speaking of Hitch, he's another that would adapt something and often just use to the barest bones of the original. Completely retool it. The difference being that -using a recent example- a Joshua Logan (Director of Sayonara) was a capable director, whereas Hitch was a brilliant one with a singular vision.
And thanks for putting up with my Bond zeal. Someone asks me about Bond and I geek out and start rambling on. ;D
|
|
|
Post by afriendlychicken on Mar 5, 2010 4:15:32 GMT -5
It's been ages since I saw 2001 and as I get older and wiser my opinions have shifted (believe it or not I didn't used to like Vertigo - I watched it again a couple years back and it just clicked... I was like "Oh, now I get what Hitch was doing". Like a lot of people I got too hung up on the mystery and couldn't understand why he revealed all a half hour before he ended the movie... "Because it wasn't about the mystery MJ, it was about the guys obsession"Speaking of Hitch, he's another that would adapt something and often just use to the barest bones of the original. Completely retool it. The difference being that -using a recent example- a Joshua Logan (Director of Sayonara) was a capable director, whereas Hitch was a brilliant one with a singular vision. And thanks for putting up with my Bond zeal. Someone asks me about Bond and I geek out and start rambling on. ;D Yea! You're always going on about this James Bond guy. Who is he? WHO IS HEEEEEEEEEE!? I love Vertigo. I think it's Hitchcock's creepiest film. Scotty is not only obsessed, he's in love, basically, with a ghost. He never actually meets 'her' so he was never in love with 'her' in the fist place. He fell for Judy, but is too obsessed with his image of what he believes to be the person he fell in love with. He's just in love with his image. I always felt the Barbara Bel Geddes character was the key to the movie. If she played it wrong, the movie falls apart. She played it perfectly, and when she exits the film, all hope is lost. She doesn't get the credit she deserves for the roll. It's okay not to like 2001. There are classic films I don't like even though I admit they are good movies. The Maltese Falcon, Francis Ford Coppola's 1970's films, E. T. (I have a personal vendetta against Spielberg). I realized that one of my favorite directors, Andrei Tarkovsky, also translated novels to screen. The novella that was used to make Ivan's Childhood I've never been able to find. I did read both Solaris and Roadhouse Picnic. I loved the books and I loved both of Tarkovsky's films made from them. That makes me realize now that it depends on the artist involved. A great writers book given to a bad director will usually end up being a bad film. But with movies, a bad author's book can be turned into a great movie with a good enough director. Only on rare occasions; Grahame Green and Carol Reed, Noel Coward and David Lean, Ernest Hemingway and Howard Hawks; do we get lucky enough to get the best of both worlds.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoididiot on Mar 5, 2010 10:45:36 GMT -5
That makes me realize now that it depends on the artist involved. A great writers book given to a bad director will usually end up being a bad film. But with movies, a bad author's book can be turned into a great movie with a good enough director. Only on rare occasions; Grahame Green and Carol Reed, Noel Coward and David Lean, Ernest Hemingway and Howard Hawks; do we get lucky enough to get the best of both worlds. I think it was a thought something along that line that had me pose this question in the first place. 2001 and 2010 also illustrate how there can be more than one axis along which a given project can be "true" to the original. I thought of the sequel as a decent movie on its own, good as an adaptation of the novel, yet disappointing as an adaptation of the film. But then 2001 itself is an interesting case of the film and novel being simultaneous collaborations that nevertheless contain some notable differences. What were your thoughts on Solaris, by the way? Lem is hands down my favorite SF writer (unless I've just finished one of Wells' best). I caught the Tarkovsky film once long ago and liked it (though I was disappointed not to see a few mimoids, symmetriads, asymmetriads, etc). I also enjoyed the US version (which felt more like a Tarkovsky remake than a Lem re-adaptation, but that's similar to the issue with 2001/2010). Lem claimed never to have seen either, but based on reports he felt that if the novel represented a river delta then the movies had focused on a single tributary within it. That's probably inevitable in a novel to film adaptation, and in this case didn't bother me. Neither film was quite "the" cinematic version of Solaris I'd like to see, but each was "a" satisfying version. As for Bond, I've only read Moonraker. But I'm reminded of the Matt Helm books and films. For a while I was spending lots of time on trains and airplanes and so would sweep thrift stores for paperbacks. I found some of the Helm books that way and found them nicely done examples of "hard-boiled" detective fiction take on the spy genre. Later I found the Dean Martin movies in a similar way. Luckily I had already heard not to expect anything like the same thing, as the films are campy Dean Martin vehicles. If I'm in the right mood I find them enjoyable, and have even pondered a martini drinking game based on them. (^_^) I suppose that, for me, it's a question of how much "elasticity" the original concept has. How far can it be creatively stretched without snapping? If it does snap, does the director have the chops to reintegrate into something as good, perhaps even better? I think what rubs me the wrong way are projects that seem to fall between those two stools. There's also the closely related question of being true to the world itself. By that I'm thiking of things like science in SF, history in historical dramas or the portrayal of foreign cultures. I'm thinking here of what might be called the Disney "Small World Effect," or the imaginary history of something like Last Samurai. Artistic license is a necessary part of all fiction, but there are some nasty pitfalls in it. Edit: I also meant to point out how my last point about being true to reality might raise issues if the source fiction in some way isn't. Old SF novels based on outdated scientific ideas would be one example.
|
|
|
Post by afriendlychicken on Mar 5, 2010 19:36:23 GMT -5
Both the book and film; I've only seen the Tarkovsky version; of Solaris are tough to deal with. They are both extraordinarily intellectual and philosophical that comparisons are not easy. It's two great minds looking at the same issue from slightly different perspectives.
Lem's and Tarkovsky's versions are slightly veiled religious allegories where Solaris represents the Mind Of God and Hari's death and rebirth represents the Resurrection of Christ. Lem starts on the space station so we can be brought right into the situation of Solaristics and the study of Solaris and it's corporeal phenomenon from the very start. Tarkovsky has a 40+ minute introduction on Earth. I like Tarkovsky's intro. It not only reinforces the lack of communication issues but goes into the state of mind of the characters, especially Burton and the relationship between Kelvin and his father. The audio commentary on the disc describes the City of the Future sequence as being a failed attempt by Tarkovsky on trying to film the future while completely ignoring the fact that the scene also represents Burton's state of mind. His drive lasts 10 minutes of film time. Kelvin's trip to Solaris takes only around 2 minutes. Since Kelvin hasn't been there, doesn't believe Burton and is trying to escape his father, he is not affected yet by Solaris so his trip seems shorter.
Once on the space station, I feel the book and movie are pretty much the same. Lem's book concentrates more on the Solaristics. What we learned, what gaps and misunderstandings there are and, at times, he wonders why we even bother to keep trying. It's the only book I ever read that I was stopping on virtually every page to think about things. He does describe more activity on Solaris than the movie. I think it had more to do with the inability, at the time, of Russian films sfx then with Tarkovsky, so I can understand why the mimoids, symmetriads and asymmetriads weren't shown. The film focuses more on the visitors and their meanings, especially the Kelvin/Hari relationship, and has some truly creepy moments.
The only real difference to me is Lem's novel is more pessimistic and Tarkovsky's film is optimistic. The novel ends with the knowledge that we may never understand anything that happened on Solaris and the ultimate futility of it all. The film ends with the re-conciliation between Kelvin and his father that the planet Solaris provides that only, we the viewers, can see. Kelvin can never know that Solaris showed sympathy towards him for, at least, making the effort to understand 'it'.
To sum it all up, it goes back to what T? P? MJ?'s earlier post mentioned. I loved both for very different reasons and they both worked fantastically in their own forms.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoididiot on Mar 5, 2010 20:36:49 GMT -5
Lem's and Tarkovsky's versions are slightly veiled religious allegories where Solaris represents the Mind Of God . . . I don't disagree with that, but neither do I think it's complete. What makes Lem so fascinating is that he straddles the religious and scientific world-views. I view Solaris (the novel, I only saw the movie once a long time ago) as more of an ontological novel in which such a religious interpretation is only one aspect. I also see the planet as symbolic of the cosmos, and solaristics of science in general. "Newtonian" science aimed to explain its totality and thought it was on the verge of it at the end of the 19th century, just before Relativity and Quantum Mechanics threw it all into a cocked hat. The article of "faith" that is irreducible even from science is that the cosmos is comprehensible, but the question running through much of Lem's work is, "Ah, but what if it isn't?" Somewhere in Mummi's blog he had some thoughts on horror coming in two types: a sort of very personalized horror of individual torment and a more cosmic horror, one where the horror for human beings lies in their insignificance. Solaris neatly melds those, with the "visitors" being the individual self-tormenting reflections of the ungraspable otherness. The movies sort of focus on the more personal side of that, in part so that they can have a resolution (albeit an ambiguous one). I read something on Lem's website once that he struggled for years to come up with a resolution for the novel before realizing that the theme was one which precluded a resolution. I think you hit it on the head with effects limitations keeping Tarkovsky from showing the solaristic phenomena. I remember when I saw the film being refreshed that it wasn't the roller-coaster action flick that most Hollywood SF seems to aim to be. But ironically I was thinking that a dash of ILM was needed to bring that to life. But I thought the film caught a major aspect of the novel well, if not quite the entirety. By the way, my "spirit" screen name is "Ijon the Ashen," which is straight from Lem. Did you read the one with the robot monks contemplating "cosmicide" as the only falsifiable test of God's existence? Edit: A nice encapsulation that occurred to me is that I think Lem would further ask, "Why assume there is even a Mind of God to be known?"
|
|
|
Post by afriendlychicken on Mar 5, 2010 23:17:11 GMT -5
Lem's and Tarkovsky's versions are slightly veiled religious allegories where Solaris represents the Mind Of God . . . I don't disagree with that, but neither do I think it's complete. What makes Lem so fascinating is that he straddles the religious and scientific world-views. I view Solaris (the novel, I only saw the movie once a long time ago) as more of an ontological novel in which such a religious interpretation is only one aspect. I also see the planet as symbolic of the cosmos, and solaristics of science in general. "Newtonian" science aimed to explain its totality and thought it was on the verge of it at the end of the 19th century, just before Relativity and Quantum Mechanics threw it all into a cocked hat. The article of "faith" that is irreducible even from science is that the cosmos is comprehensible, but the question running through much of Lem's work is, "Ah, but what if it isn't?" Somewhere in Mummi's blog he had some thoughts on horror coming in two types: a sort of very personalized horror of individual torment and a more cosmic horror, one where the horror for human beings lies in their insignificance. Solaris neatly melds those, with the "visitors" being the individual self-tormenting reflections of the ungraspable otherness. The movies sort of focus on the more personal side of that, in part so that they can have a resolution (albeit an ambiguous one). I read something on Lem's website once that he struggled for years to come up with a resolution for the novel before realizing that the theme was one which precluded a resolution. I think you hit it on the head with effects limitations keeping Tarkovsky from showing the solaristic phenomena. I remember when I saw the film being refreshed that it wasn't the roller-coaster action flick that most Hollywood SF seems to aim to be. But ironically I was thinking that a dash of ILM was needed to bring that to life. But I thought the film caught a major aspect of the novel well, if not quite the entirety. By the way, my "spirit" screen name is "Ijon the Ashen," which is straight from Lem. Did you read the one with the robot monks contemplating "cosmicide" as the only falsifiable test of God's existence? Edit: A nice encapsulation that occurred to me is that I think Lem would further ask, "Why assume there is even a Mind of God to be known?" Nice. You've just stated the differences between novels and movies. A novel usually has much more of an ability to describe many different aspects of the idea the writer is trying for and will be more detailed and complex. Books can describe through words their meanings, so it can take a more conversational tone. In film, the attempt to recreate the novel to the screen almost demands simplification since the process of it's creation is the complicated part. I think that's why they tend to throw away the elements like historical accuracy, science and intelligence for that 'it's a small world' feel that is easy for them. In the past, an effort would at least have been made for some accuracy. Then, if not viable, they would try something different. Now, Hollywood is just very lazy. And Hollywood never allows facts to get in the way of telling a 'good' story. The religious aspects are more visible in the film. In the novel it's only through Hari's death that you really notice it. The film is typical Tarkovsky, religious icons, floating characters, the constant reminders of fire, water, earth and air. And pain...a lot of pain. I won't go into the mind of god (And what a great philosophical question arises from that statement) idea because that would open up a whole new can of worms. It's all in the perspective. I do know how you feel. Where's the great movie of Moby Dick? Of any Edgar Allan Poe story? I'm dying for a good version of War Of The Worlds on film. At least you had an intelligent movie made from Solaris. War of the Worlds adaptations keep throwing in mysticism and religious iconography and miss the whole idea of the book. The idea of being helpless before a superior force and the inability to understand their motives are tossed out in the films. A little jab at British Colonialism, Mr. Wells? I liked the Newtonian science being superseded by 'Modern Science' observation. The book is still prescient today, with the big bang, bouncing and bubble universe theories all still argued for vehemently by their supporters. I take Halton Arp's stand. If the big bang theory is proven correct, fine. But if not, they will have an awful lot of explaining to do for being misled for so long. I haven't read that Lem story. Is it in the Cyberiad? I was looking at my 20 year old copy of The Ultimate Guide To Science Fiction by David Pringle book and couldn't find it. Then checked the internet...still nothing. And to think, I thought your screen name was a description of your status while in Japan.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoididiot on Mar 5, 2010 23:49:37 GMT -5
And to think, I thought your screen name was a description of your status while in Japan. Heh heh, that was just gravy! But I was in Japan when I chose it, so perhaps subconsciously . . . It's from The Star Diaries, by the way. Yes, that's some of what I was alluding to earlier, the idea that unless you have a whole miniseries to work with big chunks of most any novel must be left out or simplified. The old adage of "what you leave out is as important as what you leave in" then applies. I suppose the first step in the novel to film process is thus a form of distillation. I like it when a director is able to at least suggest some of the missing elements, like the way The Manchurian Candidate nodded to the book's incest subplot with a simple kiss (not that you could have left that in at the time). Whenever I see films that I know are adaptations but am unfamiliar with the novel I tend to be quite forgiving of loose ends, as I suspect that's where a lot of them come from. I agree with you on War of the Worlds, by the way, and Orson's adaptation being the best to date. Makes me wish radio drama was still a living art.
|
|