this is why there SHOULD NOT be a movie

[Bridie]

i know i probably shouldnt have made a new thread but i had to get everyones attention right away.

Ever heard of eathsea quartet? im sure you mus have. im halfway through the last book myself and i love love love them. they are joint number one on my fave books list (along with The pellinor books). Now i know goro mayiziaki is has made a film (which differs abit but sounds okay compaired to this)

http://locusmag.com/2005/Issues/01LeGuin.html

The sci-fi chanels adaptation of "earthsea". Well it made me feel sicker than sick to read this! they took apart the book and stiched it back to gether and made a FREAK! they didnt include ursula and her books had been around for years! now do you think theyd up and coming authors such as alison? i doubt it. Hollywood has no respect for authors, or so it seems.

So now im saying to you NO MOVIE!!!! WE DONT WANT IT TO END UP LIKE EARTHSEA.

rant over!
bridie xoxo

Oh and i know there are other threads but can you please keep this here for a little while? just while i seethe in anger at lest . I mean i just went on the sci fi chanels website and it says that Tenar wasnt the high preitess and kossil was next to be pretess and that ged had a lover before going to roke and then nearly had another when on roke?!

[danyl]

Ive never read Earthsea, but read that linked article anyways. If a movie of the Pellinor series means that the same happens as with Earthsea, then i say

NO

just like bridie

[Tari]

I think the idea of a movie of the Pellinor series is heated atm because fantasy and sci-fi have in recent years had a large band wagon appear because of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. It wouldn't get the attention it deserves or the budget it deserves either. It would be considered a band wagon movie really.

As for chopping and sticking books back together to make movies it happends to a lot of books that are made into movies. Look what happened to "Queen of the Damned" for example it's a mixture of about three of the books from the series all chopped and pasted back together.

~ Tari

[Bridie]

uhh i hate that movie too... DEATH TO EVIL HOLLYWOOD PRODUCERS!

[Becks]

I don't mind 'the queen of the damned' it was okay, but nothing spectacular...

If it was made into a movie, it would take too much time, I'd say if it was made into a film with ALL the parts in, EVERY SINGLE LAST LITTLE part it would take ...oooo... quite a few hours if edited. I think they'd miss out a lot of parts in it...like Harry Potter, I DETEST those movies....the books are okay, but nowt special....but these are Alisons books...they would give the books a bad name...

[Tari]

How about this then. What about a stage production of The Gift? compared to a movie how do you think that would fare?

~ Tari

[Ellesmaeya]

a book is like a child, making movies of them is just plain annoying and very embaressing in the future. its like the 'Eragon' movie coming out, the actors are all WRONG!!!! imagine what the hollywood producers would do to Cadvan!!!!!! *faints*

[danyl]

r.e. Eragon.
am i the only one that pictured Ayra as dark haired.
theyd probably cast a blonde Maerad

[Tari]

r.e. Eragon.
am i the only one that pictured Ayra as dark haired.
theyd probably cast a blonde Maerad

Don't be so mean to the producer, casting agents, directors and writers, luv. Alot of other factors come into play.

Sorry if I seem rude but I know many and it's a very very very difficult industry to get what you want in if you don't know the right people.

~ Tari

[Hurlz]

A stage production, I think, would be a bad idea.
Take into account how long it would take, cost etc. Plus throughout the Pellinor books there are many different settings [in this case stage settings] and a lot of the books are made up of Maerad and Cadvan travelling [which would be nearly impossible to achieve on a stage]. Plus special effects and such for the magery and creatures...

Then again, they produced the 'Lion King' on stage. So I suppose if you're creative enough anything is possible

[Tari]

A stage production, I think, would be a bad idea.
Take into account how long it would take, cost etc. Plus throughout the Pellinor books there are many different settings [in this case stage settings] and a lot of the books are made up of Maerad and Cadvan travelling [which would be nearly impossible to achieve on a stage]. Plus special effects and such for the magery and creatures...

Then again, they produced the 'Lion King' on stage. So I suppose if you're creative enough anything is possible

you'd be surprised the special effects achievable on a stage! lol i've seen and been part of quite a few you would not expect - example: glowing characters, and wire works for stunts - and like you said Lion King worked well beyond what many people thought.

As far as cost is concerned entertainment industry s all about risks and cost is part of that risk. just like casting and locations etc are. Everything is a risk because the industry itself is a Risk to itself!

~ Tari

[Draoi]

Hi all. For fear of offending individuals in the course of the following post, I first wish to write a short disclaimer: The following are my own personal views on the pros and cons of screenplays. My intent in writing them is certainly not criticise or invalidate anyone else’s opinion, but rather to consider the issue from an alternate perspective, and to put forward some further points for discussion. I am by no means an authority on the subject of screenplays, and it is quite likely that being a professional Cinematographer, my point of view is somewhat subjective.


From Page to Screen

It seems that many of the arguments against screenplays are based on personal gut reactions. I agree that it is often extremely disappointing to see an adaptation of a favourite book where the filmmaker’s representation is not as you imagined it. But are reasons such as “I have been disappointed with adaptations in the past”, and “they always cut out my favourite line” fair justifications for never again attempting a screenplay? Other justifications used in such debates often consist of lists of “All time worst adaptations”, of which there are many, just as there are many terrible books, terrible pieces of music, and many terrible original works too. Is it the fact that it is an adaptation that makes it shocking?

In immediate response to these criticisms I will content myself with a list of films adapted from books that are loved by the world. I strongly encourage everyone to see each and every one of the following award winning screenplays:

• The Godfather
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Gone With the Wind
• A Clockwork Orange
• One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
• Stand By Me
• The Wizard of Oz
• Fight Club

And more recently:

• Memoirs of a Geisha
• About a Boy
• Lord of the Rings

So far, I have merely outlined the common arguments for and against creating screenplays. However, my personal opinion is that this comparison, despite in some sense being inevitable, is very rarely formed into an objective, useful or justified argument, due to its basis on an individual emotional response. In other words, in a debate such as this, it often comes down to a personal gut reaction rather than a logical response. Thus, I thought it would be interesting to examine the subject from a more rational point of view.

All too often discussions about adaptations from literature to film have been based on categorical claims for the superiority of one of the two art forms. Such claims do not seem to be often made of other forms of adaptation: plays to ballet or opera, poetry to music, paintings inspired by books, or any of the plagiaristic works of the greatest of all adaptors – Shakespeare himself. For some reason, film and television are put in the position of having to defend themselves where these other adaptive art forms are not.

Is it fair to compare entirely separate mediums against the same criteria? Both film and literature are concerned with telling a narrative. But a film tells its story in its own language. Camera movement, Camera position, Mise-en-Scene, Lighting, Sound, and Editing are some of the main elements of the vocabulary that filmmakers use to express a narrative. Therefore, a film of a novel is not a simple mechanical copy of the source – it is a translation from one set of conventions, to an entirely different method of communicating meaning.

Perhaps the more interesting question we might ask, is why is it that Hollywood continues to create adaptations? And why is it that audiences continue to go and see them? Film has proved itself to be the ultimate hybrid - combining aspects of not only literature - fiction and drama - and painting and visual effect, but also mime, dance, music, photography itself. Film is capable of drawing upon all aspects of its artistic heritage to interpret experience and tell stories. If you go to a movie expecting an exact replica of the narrative in the book, but told visually, yes of course you will walk away disappointed. Film is not, and will never be, an exact translation of something you read. The entire language of film is different. Time is different, space is different, perspective is different. If you go to an adaptation, knowing and accepting that it will be an entirely different representation, and expecting to judge the film on it's own merits as a separate experience from the book, you will probably find that you enjoy it a whole lot more.

My personal view is that screenplays should be as true as possible to the original intent of the author. This does not insinuate a carbon copy screenplay, but rather one that adapts and brings to life those essential elements in the author's work.

[alison]

Nice post, Draoi. (I'd add Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility as an excellent screenplay adaptation...) I agree, a film is a different medium and a different artform, and to slavishly put a book on screen isn't going to do either artform any favours. However, the le Guin story, which I kept up with at the time, is not untypical of what can happen when those making the film just want to cash in. As soon as I heard Ged was a nice white boy from Canada I lost interest - how can you ignore the racial politics in those books? And because it takes so much money to make films, producers often decide they have the right to make artistic decisions, to the detriment of everyone.

My husband has written a few screenplays, a good friend is a director, and I know a lot of actors, so I do know something about film. It's a tough industry and not a good place for writers.

If it ever happens that a film is made from these books - and who knows? -though I'm not hanging out for it, I just hope it's made by someone who loves and understands the books, and so can make the transition into a movie without destroying the soul of the book. Yes, the story would have to change to work on screen, but the important things would have to be paid attention to. But the fact is that if it did happen, I would have very little influence on the outcome. JK Rowling was very much the exception here.

[Tari]

But the fact is that if it did happen, I would have very little influence on the outcome. JK Rowling was very much the exception here.

That is not entirely true. Several aussies authors with books and movies based on those books - Melina Marchetta and Looking for Alibrandi classic example - Melina wrote the screenplay and the book - lol i only know this coz she told me last year. . . anyhooz. It's not entirely true but to save money it's not uncommon for a smaller book title to have the screenplay written by the book's author. . .

JK Rowling didn't write her screenplays yet influenced them yes. But HP is also a very well known series.

~ Tari

[Bridie]

*is ashmed of my poor aruging/debating skills.*
*slinks off into a dark corner to hide*