...............vroom vroomHorrim Carabal wrote:SRD needs to be creative consultant AT A MINIMUM and hopefully more than that. I know he has said he's not interested, but come on. Drive a dumptruck full of money up to his ranch or something...get him onboard.
Is it unrealistic to even attempt to make a movie?
Moderators: kevinswatch, Orlion
-
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 1369
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2018 9:19 am
- Location: Plasticdisguiseville
Re: Ben-Hur 2016
- Horrim Carabal
- <i>Haruchai</i>
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:13 am
- Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
- wayfriend
- .
- Posts: 20957
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
IIRC, his publishers asked him to produce a treatment, which isn't really a screenplay, more like a flavor for what a screenplay could be. How the story could be told in the cinematic format. Presumably so that they could more easily sell the movie rights. I am sure other authors have been requested for the same thing, especially when there was no one else who would do it. But it doesn't mean that a movie is in the works.
- Horrim Carabal
- <i>Haruchai</i>
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:13 am
- Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
It also doesn't mean a movie is NOT in the works!wayfriend wrote:IIRC, his publishers asked him to produce a treatment, which isn't really a screenplay, more like a flavor for what a screenplay could be. How the story could be told in the cinematic format. Presumably so that they could more easily sell the movie rights. I am sure other authors have been requested for the same thing, especially when there was no one else who would do it. But it doesn't mean that a movie is in the works.
- wayfriend
- .
- Posts: 20957
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
I'm afraid it does. They wouldn't be trying to make it more enticing to potential buyers if it was already sold or even if there was serious curiosity.Horrim Carabal wrote:It also doesn't mean a movie is NOT in the works!
I hope you guys have seen the Movie News thread and have read about the rise and fall of the Orloff project.
- Horrim Carabal
- <i>Haruchai</i>
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:13 am
- Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
No...wayfriend wrote:I'm afraid it does. They wouldn't be trying to make it more enticing to potential buyers if it was already sold or even if there was serious curiosity.Horrim Carabal wrote:It also doesn't mean a movie is NOT in the works!
I hope you guys have seen the Movie News thread and have read about the rise and fall of the Orloff project.
Can you provide a link?
- Horrim Carabal
- <i>Haruchai</i>
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:13 am
- Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
- Horrim Carabal
- <i>Haruchai</i>
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:13 am
- Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Agreed there. Those two have single-handedly killed my interest in Star Wars (mainly due to what they did to Luke, my favorite SW character). I didn't even see the last movie.darthbuzz wrote: And please no direction from J J Abrams or Rian Johnson.
Anyway, a Chronicles TV series would be better than a movie at this point. Get it on Netflix, HBO, Showtime, wherever. And get SRD involved as a consultant or something.
How reliable is is the website Movie insider? I just saw the below article posted today. Not sure about the "Saturn and his representatives" comment though.
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.
-
- Servant of the Land
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:17 am
- Location: Maplewood, NJ
- Contact:
I agree with several comments on this thread arguing that the first two series could be made into films. An HBO series with perhaps a season for each book might be easier than a feature-length movie but the technical parts of portraying a fantasy world are no problem now. The internal thought parts have to be externalized through new dialog and good acting, and the story might have to be altered in some ways to make good film. But it is do-able. The one part that might be impossible to capture in a non-cheesy way is the health sense, ie. the earthpower-based sixth sense of things are right or corrupt relative to their natures. Adding an aura around things would look cartoonish. But there may be creative solutions to this that I have not thought of.
I agree. I can picture in my mind how things look to people in the Land with health sense. But I can't see how it would look good on film.mhoram99 wrote:The one part that might be impossible to capture in a non-cheesy way is the health sense, ie. the earthpower-based sixth sense of things are right or corrupt relative to their natures. Adding an aura around things would look cartoonish. But there may be creative solutions to this that I have not thought of.
It's sort of like Zaphod's two heads in the Hitchhiker's Guide movie - there is no way to make that not look ridiculous, regardless of how good the effects are, because it's just a ridiculous thing. Or any superhero with "stretching" powers. Some things just don't translate well visually, no matter how much money you spend on CGI.
Agreed - it would be difficult to show health sense. However, I think it is possible to show it indirectly.
Examples - touching a rock (sorry forget the name of the stone in first book that Triock uses) and showing it heat up could be pretty easy CGI. Or showing plants come back from near death (even if a scene never happens like that in first book could create a scene) then have two characters talk about how that was healed with health sense. Or showing Covenant rugged before going into Glimmermere and coming out fresh afterwards. That example is easiest because even in the books there is some discussion about how powerful Glimmermere is.
So basically a lot of "establishing" shots of the power and effects of health sense and Earthpower without create a fake aura.
Examples - touching a rock (sorry forget the name of the stone in first book that Triock uses) and showing it heat up could be pretty easy CGI. Or showing plants come back from near death (even if a scene never happens like that in first book could create a scene) then have two characters talk about how that was healed with health sense. Or showing Covenant rugged before going into Glimmermere and coming out fresh afterwards. That example is easiest because even in the books there is some discussion about how powerful Glimmermere is.
So basically a lot of "establishing" shots of the power and effects of health sense and Earthpower without create a fake aura.
Not every person is going to understand you and that's okay. They have a right to their opinion and you have every right to ignore it.
-
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 1369
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2018 9:19 am
- Location: Plasticdisguiseville
There are numerous creative effects in the Marvel Universe films that could fit neatly into The Land.starkllr wrote:I agree. I can picture in my mind how things look to people in the Land with health sense. But I can't see how it would look good on film.mhoram99 wrote:The one part that might be impossible to capture in a non-cheesy way is the health sense, ie. the earthpower-based sixth sense of things are right or corrupt relative to their natures. Adding an aura around things would look cartoonish. But there may be creative solutions to this that I have not thought of.
- wayfriend
- .
- Posts: 20957
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
First of all, I do believe that it's possible to represent health-sense in some way, but I would suggest only doing it when it serves the story ... not something that's "on" all the time.
For example, when Covenant first "sees" that a tree is unhealthy.
This implies that it only works when shown from a characters' point of view.
For example, when Covenant first "sees" that a tree is unhealthy, we get a brief glimpse of how he sees the tree, with health sense effects enabled.
But the key, I think, is developing a visual language for things like sturdiness, rot, poison, evil, or heartiness.
I like the idea of an ICONIC language, involving shapes and colors. These shapes would combine into a weave-like pattern which would be shown wrapping the object or glowing from within the object. Green tendrils for healthy growth, yellow hexagons for strength, purple blotches for poison.
For example, when Covenant first sees a tree, we might see some thin green tendrils wrapping the tree, and then this may fade to reveal a column of yellow hexagons within the tree, but the hexagons are broken, and have missing pieces. This is Covenant first noticing that the tree is growing, but then noticing that it's core is compromised and failing.
The whole thing doesn't work unless you provide examples to the audience in order to establish a meaning. The audience needs to see it, and then someone needs to say aloud what it means. It doesn't take long to build a language that doesn't need explaining.
Then you can add to it and make it critical to the story.
When someone looks at Covenant, we can see Covenant from their point of view ... but no iconography. "You are closed to me."
When we first meet Saltheart, we might get a health-sense glimpse showing great strength as an armor of bold yellow hexagons.
Imagine if evil appears as an emerald fog ... the audience would know all about the Illearth Stone the minute they see it.
Those are my thoughts. Had them for a while.
For example, when Covenant first "sees" that a tree is unhealthy.
This implies that it only works when shown from a characters' point of view.
For example, when Covenant first "sees" that a tree is unhealthy, we get a brief glimpse of how he sees the tree, with health sense effects enabled.
But the key, I think, is developing a visual language for things like sturdiness, rot, poison, evil, or heartiness.
I like the idea of an ICONIC language, involving shapes and colors. These shapes would combine into a weave-like pattern which would be shown wrapping the object or glowing from within the object. Green tendrils for healthy growth, yellow hexagons for strength, purple blotches for poison.
For example, when Covenant first sees a tree, we might see some thin green tendrils wrapping the tree, and then this may fade to reveal a column of yellow hexagons within the tree, but the hexagons are broken, and have missing pieces. This is Covenant first noticing that the tree is growing, but then noticing that it's core is compromised and failing.
The whole thing doesn't work unless you provide examples to the audience in order to establish a meaning. The audience needs to see it, and then someone needs to say aloud what it means. It doesn't take long to build a language that doesn't need explaining.
Then you can add to it and make it critical to the story.
When someone looks at Covenant, we can see Covenant from their point of view ... but no iconography. "You are closed to me."
When we first meet Saltheart, we might get a health-sense glimpse showing great strength as an armor of bold yellow hexagons.
Imagine if evil appears as an emerald fog ... the audience would know all about the Illearth Stone the minute they see it.
Those are my thoughts. Had them for a while.
.