Posted: July 28, 2000 at 19:00:54: by CantankerousOne
: This is pretty old ground by now, but here goes again: The quality of a movie has little or nothing to do with how close it remains to its original written source. There are great movies that stayed true to the book (e.g., Gone with the Wind) and terrible movies that stayed true to the book (e.g., Dune). There are great movies that strayed far from the book (e.g., The Natural), and terrible movies that strayed far from the book (e.g., The Bonfire of the Vanities). Some may disagree with my examples, but most everyone should agree on the principle.: Most of the people on this sight hope that PJ's movies will be faithful to Tolkien's vision because we're Tolkien fans, not Peter Jackson fans. But that by itself won't make them good movies. We'll just have to wait and see. : As for The Phantom Menace, it succeeded spectacularly at those things George Lucas knows how to do (create new worlds, races, machines, etc. -- the man's imagination is incredible) and failed miserably at those things he has no idea, or at least has long since forgotten, how to do (tell a story, create believable characters and relationships, etc.) Whether you loved the movie, hated it, or something in between (I'm in the third group) depends on how important these two side of filmmaking are to you. But the main thing that was wrong with Dune was that the producers and the Director did not understand the story. The whole story included four volumes and there was more written in between the lines then was in the text. Who here can tell me what exactly the golden path was? I am certain I know but I would guess there are a hundred answers. I will tell you what it was if anyone cares. Or perhaps this is not the proper place for such discussion. God I love those books.
|
