Dune

[swordinstone]

I remember growing up back in the dark ages of cinema, long before CGI when I thought that it would be great if special effects would come far enough along to allow things like Dune, Starship Troopers, The Lord of the Rings, etc., to be made into movies worthy of the books. Well, we're at that point technologically, however, I really have to say that this boon has been rather disappointing...

What exactly do you find dissapointing about the LOTR movies?

[Bridgeburner]

What exactly do you find dissapointing about the LOTR movies?

the special effects

[swordinstone]

the special effects

yeah, they TOTALLY SUCK! :roll:

[Megatron]

they are not tastefully implemented dear squire

[OnTheBounce]

Some people prefer the book, others prefer the movie.

Show me one person who prefers the movie that read the book first (and who doesn't characterize him/herself as "not a reader").

I'd say that the vast majority of really good movies were written either exclusively for the screen, or they were only inspired by something from another medium, whether that be a book, play, etc.

Go watch Breakfast at Tiffany's and then read Capote's novella that it was based on. Then sit down and watch Walkabout which was conceived by a cinematographer-turned-director and writen for the silver screen. You'll see what I mean.

What exactly do you find dissapointing about the LOTR movies?

While I have to say that the new films are far superior to Bakshi's '79 version, there's too much CGI in it for my tastes. Then add the fact that they cut out pretty much anything resembling singing...

OTB

[POOPERSCOOPER]

the special effects

yeah, they TOTALLY SUCK! :roll:

the second ones effects were all rushed, when those dogs things attacked it looked terribly fussy. They used some crappy claymation with the Ents at the end too, it made it look real cheesy.

[Mad Max RW]

Show me one person who prefers the movie that read the book first (and who doesn't characterize him/herself as "not a reader").

What's the point? I personally know several people who read the book and saw the movie and prefer the latter. I'm not gonna have them register here or give their home phone numbers to back it up. This argument is so stupid it's funny.

In case some people misunderstood me, because I get the feeling there are, I'm not saying the book is better than the movie, or the movie is the better than the book. The fact is, there ARE people who PREFER one over the other. And I KNOW some loser is going to say "OMGOMG!!LOL!!1! they must be idiots!!!1111!!" then you missed the point entirely.

[Stainless]

OMGOMG!!LOL!!1! they must be idiots!!!1111!!

hey.....someone was gonna say it. I just happened to get here first.

As for the Dune miniseries, I haven't found jack on them here in Aus.

I'm actually enjoying the new Dune books coming out. Next one out in sept so I'll be convincing some family member to buy it for themself so I can read it. :badgrin:

Not too much of a fan of the original Frank books. Dune and Messaiah were ok, but CoD was just too bloody long winded. There's only so many times that you can say you're going to kill someone before doing it.

As for lynch's movie. I'd don't mind it. It's so craptastic that I actually enjoy it (kind of like Lex.....the chick with the nice rack).

Then add the fact that they cut out pretty much anything resembling singing...

the bad thing?

[OnTheBounce]

What's the point? I personally know several people who read the book and saw the movie and prefer the latter. I'm not gonna have them register here or give their home phone numbers to back it up...

I've never met anyone that liked the movie better than the book that had experienced both. Perhaps that's because I've never known anyone to have read the book after having seen the movie, though. ("We don't know what we like, we like what we know," and all that.)

In case some people misunderstood me, because I get the feeling there are, I'm not saying the book is better than the movie, or the movie is the better than the book...

I see exactly where you're coming from. My point is simply that books tend to make poor movies, and also that the opposite holds true. I think that various media ought not to cash in on each other w/name-jingling franchise deals.

One thing regarding LotR is that I think it's telling that JRRT himself never did sell the rights to his books, it was his son Christopher whose tried to cash in on daddy's name at every turn of the way, all the way back to his finishing The Silmarrilion. Hell, he probably pulled the manuscript from his dad's chilling fingers...

OTB

[Bloodgeon11]

Was The Silmarrilion ever finished? I know it ends, but the last 70 or so pages seem to be cobbled together with all the grace and elegance of FO:T. I think not.

[atoga]

I can think of quite a few books better than movies. You can't just say that bibliophiles are more intelligent or can be a better judge of a movie's / book's merit more than a film critic. Movies are as legitimate an art form as books, and often they're a lot more successful in their arguments and less derivative than books can be. There's a ton of trashy books out there, and you shouldn't insult movies simply because they're more accessible to people with lower expectations and shorter attention spans.

That said, I think the LOTR books were a lot more successful than the movies. The movies weren't that interesting and had nothing in them to distinguish them from other token fantasies. On top of that, they weren't very visually appealing - most of the special effects were pretty gaudy - nor was the music or dialogue that well done. The books, however, were fun, well written, imaginative, and pretty much invented fantasy, so hats off to 'em.

[axltrauts]

the LOTR movies (and any book based movie) in my opinion gives you a visual of the book itself. and it's pretty hard to capture the feeling and the style of the original maybe cause they are diferent persons with some diferent opinions, or the duration of the movie itself.

u'll just have to watch them with different "eyes"

[OnTheBounce]

I can think of quite a few books better than movies. You can't just say that bibliophiles are more intelligent or can be a better judge of a movie's / book's merit more than a film critic. Movies are as legitimate an art form as books, and often they're a lot more successful in their arguments and less derivative than books can be. There's a ton of trashy books out there, and you shouldn't insult movies simply because they're more accessible to people with lower expectations and shorter attention spans.

I agree very much with this. Yes indeed movies are a legitimate form of art, and when dealing with a subject on their own terms can be just as powerful if not more so than a book.

In fact, when the Motion Pictures Production Code (AKA "Hayes Code") was adopted in the US back in 1930 -- it was mainly a list of "thou shallt nots" -- there was a long section at the end that tried to explain why it was that movies had to be more tightly regulated than stage plays, books or any other form of art. Mainly it was the illusion of reality that was the issue, which you don't get with any other medium; the fact that it can seem very much as though real events are being portrayed, even when everything about it is fictional and contrived. (Yes, this centered mostly on the feared impact on youths and those of weak intellect.)

Basically, to restate my position, it's not that one form of art is better than one or the other. It's more about sticking to a medium's "turf". You wouldn't expect a track and field star to compete with swimmers, or vice versa, would you? I think it's the same issue between books and movies.

I advocate shying away from adapting books to movies. For instance, if any of you have ever read James Clavell's King Rat you know it was a powerful, gritty novel about POWs at Changi, Singapore during WWII. A movie was made of it, but it really doesn't compare to the book, although this is partially due to the fact that many of the issues in the book couldn't be dealt w/in film during the '60s. (Things like deprivation homosexuality.) Still, it would have been better to take the basic premise, use another title and an original screenplay and stuff that into cans of celluloid.

OTB

[Franz Schubert]

I agree very much with this. Yes indeed movies are a legitimate form of art

I would say that foreign/independant films are a legitimate form of art. However, Hollywood movies are simply a vehicle some people use to make themselves filthy rich. Although it's easy to enjoy a lot of Hollywood films, make no mistake: It's not art.

and when dealing with a subject on their own terms can be just as powerful if not more so than a book.

Not in a fictional story. Books are superior because they allow more room for the reader's imagination to create its own "images".

Another advantage books have over movies is that since it takes longer to read a book, it gives more time to become attatched to the characters and immersed in the plot. Even well-paced movies often have to cram too much content into too little time.

Yet another advantage books have over movies (assuming the book is well-written) is that books are never spoiled by actors' poor performences

there was a long section at the end that tried to explain why it was that movies had to be more tightly regulated than stage plays, books or any other form of art.

I still can't figure out why art has to be regulated in the first place... damn conservatives!:rant:

Basically, to restate my position, it's not that one form of art is better than one or the other. It's more about sticking to a medium's "turf". You wouldn't expect a track and field star to compete with swimmers, or vice versa, would you? I think it's the same issue between books and movies.

This is true. However, compare the numbers of actual geniuses that have worked in the movie industry to the number in the field of literature, historically... it's a fairly one-sided comparision, and I think there's something to be said for that

Still, it would have been better to take the basic premise, use another title and an original screenplay and stuff that into cans of celluloid.

True, but that would require a lot of originality and much more effort, two things that have been in short supply in the entertainment industry lately

[Mad Max RW]

This is true. However, compare the numbers of actual geniuses that have worked in the movie industry to the number in the field of literature, historically... it's a fairly one-sided comparision, and I think there's something to be said for that

I think that's an unfair comparison seeing how much longer literature has been around. Now if you compare them starting from the early 20th century, it's no longer one sided.

[Megatron]

I agree very much with this. Yes indeed movies are a legitimate form of art

I would say that foreign/independant films are a legitimate form of art. However, Hollywood movies are simply a vehicle some people use to make themselves filthy rich. Although it's easy to enjoy a lot of Hollywood films, make no mistake: It's not art.

Why can't a hollywood movie be 'art'? I'm guessing LOL 2 XTREME FAST N FURIAS! probably isn't art, but if poetry, songs and pictures can be art why not liek put them together and make really stupid movies that don't make any sense but are arty.

o yea that is a foreign film, silly me

[OnTheBounce]

I would say that foreign/independant films are a legitimate form of art. However, Hollywood movies are simply a vehicle some people use to make themselves filthy rich. Although it's easy to enjoy a lot of Hollywood films, make no mistake: It's not art.

That's an unfair generalization, to say the least. While I'd say that the majority of Hollywood films are garbage there's quite a few real gems that have come of that cesspool, too, and they were produced by major studios. Now, if you wish to qualify your statement w/a "in the last 10 or so years" I might go along with it.

Not in a fictional story. Books are superior because they allow more room for the reader's imagination to create its own "images".

Which also means that the images are limited to a reader's imagination, where a film can take you beyond those limitations. If you can put the impact of sight and sound to work in your imagination better than the best film directors and the cohorts that are working for them, my hat's off to you...and God help us all if you ever stumble into a scenario like the one in Forbidden Planet...

Another advantage books have over movies is that since it takes longer to read a book, it gives more time to become attatched to the characters and immersed in the plot. Even well-paced movies often have to cram too much content into too little time.

My argument is that neither film nor books are superior, but rather that they have their own strengths and weaknesses. Yes, what you're saying is correct, I'm not denying that, however, film can and will do things that books cannot, regardless of how powerful your imagination is.

Yet another advantage books have over movies (assuming the book is well-written) is that books are never spoiled by actors' poor performences

And assuming that a movie is well-directed it can't be mussed up by inferior cover art.

(BTW, bad acting is usually largely the fault of bad direction. Just ask anyone who's ever worked for Lucas...)

This is true. However, compare the numbers of actual geniuses that have worked in the movie industry to the number in the field of literature, historically... it's a fairly one-sided comparision, and I think there's something to be said for that

See Max's comment above, he hit the nail on the head. People have been writing for several thousand years. Photography is only about 150 years old, and motion pictures only about 100. The art has advanced quite a ways in only a short time.

True, but that would require a lot of originality and much more effort, two things that have been in short supply in the entertainment industry lately

Yes, but that's also the case in every other industry.

OTB

[Viktor]

[
I remember growing up back in the dark ages of cinema, long before CGI when I thought that it would be great if special effects would come far enough along to allow things like Dune, Starship Troopers, The Lord of the Rings, etc., to be made into movies worthy of the books. Well, we're at that point technologically, however, I really have to say that this boon has been rather disappointing...

OTB

While I couldn't give a monkey's about Dune or LOTR, the lame, Mobile Suitless movie version of Starship Troopers royally sucked! I knew it was doomed the moment they linked Paul Verhoeven to it....

[atoga]

Not in a fictional story. Books are superior because they allow more room for the reader's imagination to create its own "images".

So? Films can convey a lot of images which books can't. Maybe you could imagine the stargate from 2001, or the nightmarish interzone from Naked Lunch, but actually seeing it validates the imagery and drives the point home. It's not as if films leave no room for thought; if anything, they are more open ended for the viewer because of all the media elements involved, as opposed to a book's text on a page (and that's that).

This is true. However, compare the numbers of actual geniuses that have worked in the movie industry to the number in the field of literature, historically... it's a fairly one-sided comparision, and I think there's something to be said for that

Well, considering the relatively short lifespan of movies (let's say 100 years), the presence of literature for a much longer time, and the fact that so much more literature is created than movies, I'm going to disagree with you. There are quite a few genius filmmakers - Fellini is probably the most notable - and there are hundreds more who have created very solid movies. On top of that, filmmakers are forced to innovate and use ways that books don't in order to get their point across, and rarely resort to literary terms and devices. Take Pulp Fiction for instance - while such pulpy stories have been written in the thousands, only Tarantino has ingeniously weaved these stories together so boldly and with brilliant dialogue and execution, bringing all the stories to a satisfying climax and giving the viewer a revelation.

[Megatron]

Books into movies are usually bad though, and lose some momentum of the book. I think movies based on shorter stories are usually better as they have something to base it off and can more-or-less follow the story while having some freedom, while novels into movies usually seem rushed and to quick. Mabye some stories should be left on paper.