this is why there SHOULD NOT be a movie

[ema]

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

lol. i try not to get into any really serious debates/arguments things becasue i like to win my argument. i get really competitive. ask anyone who knows me!

[alison]

Maybe - there are a few others too (didn't Luke Davies write Candy?) but being able to write a novel doesn't guarantee that you can write a screenplay. Often the opposite; it's an entirely different discipline. I certainly wouldn't be interested in writing a screen play of mine (unless maybe I was offered oodles of dollars ) - I just don't think I would do a very good job. Of course, a good script is important - most Australian films are let down by poor scripts - but in the end, it's the director who really authors a film.

[Tari]

Draoi's post in general has points i agree and disagree with but since i'm already late this is a quick response! lol

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 possible that people judge these two art forms over others - such as play to ballet or book to painting etc - because these two art forms are more "mainstream" then others. The theatre world is past it's prime as is poetry and unfortunately books are sliping and although these things will always be there they are still not as big as they were. if you catch my drift.

Perhaps the more interesting question we might ask, is why is it that Hollywood continues to create adaptations?

Is it possibly to do with lack of original ideas? is there really an original idea left in the world?

As for different ways of presenting ideas and thoughts. Every art form is a different way of presenting similar ideas and thoughts on varius aspects of life - human condition, life's unanswerable questions etc.

Anyhooz must dash! my rides here!

ciao ciao
~ Tari

[emerald_dragyn]

I'd be very interested in Pellinor movies... I definitely don't know about theatre though. I think it would be inappropriate for the book based on this reason alone:

Darsor and Imi! You couldn't get horses on stage easily (they're messy animals ) you couldn't cut them out and you couldn't use puppets- you may as well have a puppet Cadvan... and Stormdogs? Iridugul?

If the movie was done properly, I'd certainly love to see it. It would likely lose the poetic effect of the books, but it could still be a masterpiece!

Poor Ursula, I'd cry forever if that happened to me!

[danyl]

Is it possibly to do with lack of original ideas? is there really an original idea left in the world?

As for different ways of presenting ideas and thoughts. Every art form is a different way of presenting similar ideas and thoughts on varius aspects of life - human condition, life's unanswerable questions etc.

~ Tari

""Nothing of me is original. I am the combined efforts of everybody i've ever known."
Chuck Palahniuk


I agree. the entretainment industries, be it film, literature, theatre etc. are lacking the original ideas that they used to ahve. granted they are some, but now, with special regards to film, all they seem to do is adaptions.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying adaptions are bad. Draoi mentioned Memoirs of a Geisha. I saw the film before I read the book and was amzed at how close the film is to the text. Another brilliant adaption I think is, Silence of the Lambs. possibly one of the only instances where I would say the film adaption is better than the book.

I think Draoin is right in alot of ways, and it all depends on how the approach to the adaption is taken etc etc.
(id write as much as him but: 1. I would repeat what he said. 2. I couldnt write it as well.)

Darsor and Imi! You couldn't get horses on stage easily (they're messy animals ) you couldn't cut them out and you couldn't use puppets- you may as well have a puppet Cadvan... and Stormdogs? Iridugul?

But like someone pointed out earlier, if it was done in a 'different' way (e.g. the Lion King) then that wouldnt be a problem. it all depends on view point.

[Tari]

""Nothing of me is original. I am the combined efforts of everybody i've ever known."
Chuck Palahniuk .

A few points this is fact because the belief is a piece of art is a product of it's society thus if society doesn't change or only alters slightly over various contexts then the pieces of art are all going to address similar issues with similar outcomes. . .Example: Shakespeare is continuously relevant today because it adresses issues such as gender, race, etc which is all present in todays society.

I agree. the entretainment industries, be it film, literature, theatre etc. are lacking the original ideas that they used to ahve. granted they are some, but now, with special regards to film, all they seem to do is adaptions.

Theatre is no exception in this case. . . . Musical's are now "mainstream" and they are all based on adaptations of other texts, movies, famous peoples lives etc etc.

Another brilliant adaption I think is, Silence of the Lambs. possibly one of the only instances where I would say the film adaption is better than the book.

Ever seen and read Tuck Everlasting? Another example where the book was written first and is worse than the movie. which i personally thinks takes it to another level of intellect.

I think Draoin is right in alot of ways, and it all depends on how the approach to the adaption is taken etc etc.

Everything in the entertainement industry is "original" because it is a "new" or "alternate" approach to similar topics and themes really. Theatre and Cinema, in particular are all loved because of their new or alternate approach. Think about it. If you saw a Shakespeare film - Othello for example - in the traditional "shakespearean" style someone could twist this style and modernise it placing it in a different context and even switching the focus of teh characters etc etc.

Thats my twn cents worth and if it makes little sense i'm sorry my head is spinning and i should really go to bed. . .

~ Tari

[danyl]

Everything in the entertainement industry is "original" because it is a "new" or "alternate" approach to similar topics and themes really. Theatre and Cinema, in particular are all loved because of their new or alternate approach. Think about it. If you saw a Shakespeare film - Othello for example - in the traditional "shakespearean" style someone could twist this style and modernise it placing it in a different context and even switching the focus of teh characters etc etc.

I'm not saying that a text cannot have original aspects, but on the whole things are no longer a original as an entirety. Tha's why I used the Chuck Palahniuk quote of
"Nothing of me is original. I am the combined efforts of everybody i've ever known."
Things can have original aspects but not be entirely orignal. Most things have been done or seen before.

[Draoi]

By that argument we should never attempt to create anything for fear of it not being entirely original.

In the film industry, being able to catagorise things into genres based on reccuring plot points/characters/setting is a very usefull thing indeed. A film advertising itself as a "romantic comedy" for example, by displaying it's unoriginal characters and plot - boy and girl meet, boy and girl fight an awful lot for 2 hours of movie, boy and girl suddenly realise they love eachother in the last 5 mins - can immediately garantee a select target audience. Likewise, if I know that i like "romantic comedies" then I can identify films I will enjoy based on these "unoriginal" classifications. In this way, a completely original work is at somewhat of a disadvantage. Thus, I feel that the fact that both us, and our creative works, could be described as "the combined efforts of everybody you've ever known", is a good thing - it means that everyone else can relate!

[Draoi]

Hey, just realised that we're starting to stray from topic. I previously wrote:

Perhaps the more interesting question we might ask, is why is it that Hollywood continues to create adaptations?

Tari, you responded...

Is it possibly to do with lack of original ideas? is there really an original idea left in the world?

I certainly agree with you to an extent, however the reason I had in mind is much less thought provoking indeed! MONEY! It has been proven again and again that adaptations make profit. You save money on scripting (you get payed less to adapt someone else's idea than to think up your own), have a garanteed audience, and a biggi - you only adapt an already popular book so you aren't taking risks, and the studio you're pitching to will be more likely to fund it.

[Silver Serpent]

Draoi- you either have the power to read minds, or you're a genius (therefore resulting in me being one too).
It's a more or less done deal for all- the critics are too wrapped up with the book to bother about the film; fans will love it anyway because their favorite book has finally become really famous, and the author(s) and publishers help promote the movie because a) they get money fro the film and b) they get international (supposedly) acclaim..everyone (in the industry) is a winner..

[emerald_dragyn]

But like someone pointed out earlier, if it was done in a 'different' way (e.g. the Lion King) then that wouldnt be a problem. it all depends on view point.

mm, but I think that Darsor is such a character in himself that a puppet or a costumed person simply wouldn't do him justice or make the adaption true enough to to the book. I like that about a movie- you could use a beautiful, big shiny horse

[Tari]

mm, but I think that Darsor is such a character in himself that a puppet or a costumed person simply wouldn't do him justice or make the adaption true enough to to the book. I like that about a movie- you could use a beautiful, big shiny horse

Have you actualy seen the Lion King onstage? . . . .just thought i'd ask because actors and puppets can do so much! People would have laughed at the idea a few years ago and now people are praising it. . .

~ Tari

[Tari]

Tari, you responded...


I certainly agree with you to an extent, however the reason I had in mind is much less thought provoking indeed! MONEY! It has been proven again and again that adaptations make profit. You save money on scripting (you get payed less to adapt someone else's idea than to think up your own), have a garanteed audience, and a biggi - you only adapt an already popular book so you aren't taking risks, and the studio you're pitching to will be more likely to fund it.

Yeh i thought money also but it's my answer to many things. . .why did the russians joint eh war? . . .Money! . . . why did jack stick his thumb in a pie? . . .money. . .okay mayb not that one but you get my drift. My history teacher told me to stop thinking everything revolves around money. . .sadistic was not the word he used but began with 's' . . .lol/ . . .

~ Tari

[Lemur_Girl]

this is just my opinion on a few of the topics discussed, even though I know that most people aren't really interested...

First of all, there is something that as been bugging me. Everyone has freedom of choice, meaning if the author has given consent, then it is alright for filmmakers to portray the book in their own way, in an artistic sense. An example is Howl's Moving Castle. Miyazaki read the book, and saw it in that way, so he made a film, an artistic expression, which by no means has to follow any set of rules as long as it is legal. People complain about adaptions, say this or that was missing, but they went to see it anyway. You don't actually have to see a film just because you read the book, it's something called free will. If you're so upset, why don't you just not go to see it? Or put the time and effort into it that they did? Of course everyone is allowed to state their opinions on the film, say whether they liked it or not, but I think it should be taken as something on it's own, not a mere exact extension of the book.

Nothing is original. That is an aspect of any of the Arts that cannot be avoided. Many artists build on other artist's styles or works, but they are still considered an artist. However, the film industry is often taken as something else, something that can be torn to peices and rejected, as it often is. What happened to the notion that film is an art, too? That it is something that stands on it's own, not as some sort of service that turns popular literature and art into something that can be digested more easilly?

How would you feel if you had created something that you felt was a sincere artistic expression of your interpretations of things around you (including books) and people hated you for it? If they didn't even consider it worthy of acceptance for what you believed it was? This is what I'm trying to say, this is what I believe it sometimes feels like.

Now, I know that I am playing the Devil's advocate and being biased towards the notion that all filmmakers are artists, something I like to think, but sadly not all people or filmmakers see it this way. I am a film and animation freakazoid and I sincerely apologize if I have offended anyone. These are my opinions alone, and I just thought I'd share them. I agree completely with everything in Draoi's first post, by the way.

[Tari]

For someone who was raised in a Oakville zoo you have some good points Lemur Girl

How would you feel if you had created something that you felt was a sincere artistic expression of your interpretations of things around you (including books) and people hated you for it?

Unfortunately that is the job and the risk of being an "artist." The risk of someone hating what you've done and the risk of people liking what you've done.

Of course everyone is allowed to state their opinions on the film, say whether they liked it or not, but I think it should be taken as something on it's own, not a mere exact extension of the book.

That true people are allowed to state their opinions on whether they liked the end product or not but unfortunately society will dictate the main stream response and making of teh film etc etc. And also, people who have read the book will automatically use it and their interpretation of it as a basis for their opinion it's part of humanity.

However, the film industry is often taken as something else, something that can be torn to peices and rejected, as it often is

Again society dictates this. I think much of hollywood lost it's belief in "art" when it began cashing in on everything! And the lack of original scripts and having to base their movies on things like books is a product of this cash in and the band wagon's people just jump on.

Again just my opinion so please feel free to rip it apart and take noting to heart.

~ Tari