Movie.

[Gibboniam]

Don't want to appear a stick in the mud, but my opinion is that no movie could ever do justice to these books. Hollywood destroys stories. Is Lord Foul a movie producer? I think so. Use the ring Thomas, destroy hollywood and all of Fouls minions!

[The Stoned Downer]

I agree its rare for a movie to do justice to the book it was based on especially a story as detailed and complicated as TCTC.

[Warmark]

im worried that every summary of TCoTC seems to say that he is the reencarnation of berek and theres no proof of that,

if they change it so that he is the reencarnation of berek his "im not your bloody berek" lines dont really work

[marshm]

Agreed, Warmark. But there has never been any proof he *is not* the reincarnation of Berek.

A friend had an intersesting idea twist... one we will only be able to acknowledge or not after the next three books are out. He thought it possible the history of the Land is a cyclical story, where TC will be named (by some eldritch folk as yet undiscovered) Berek. He would then return to the Land (or, more accurately, somewhere south of the Land) to begin the process of healing ad beginning anew (which, of course, would be beginning "a-old"). Berek's queen would be, of course, Linden Avery, who would have returned to (or stayed in) the Land, and left to the south, perhaps with the Ranyhyn.

Interesting thought... could work:

- Would explain why the Ranyhyn so quickly and eagerly reared to TC (not the whote gold - after all, TC IS the whote gold

- There is so little real detail discussed regarding the past, especially pre-Berek, that there could be an easy tie-in.

- There is aways the underlying glimmer that Lord Fould might know TC better than we would initially think possible.

Many more thoughts come to mind along this line.

[Ellester]

I agree and disagree with Gibboniam. If you go into a movie expecting an exact replica of the book, then it will fail miserably. But if you take the movie, as it’s own entity then you can appreciate it for what it is, an adaptation of a book. I think the LOTR’s is a good example. Parts were removed and parts were added. Parts of the second book were moved into the third movie, etc… But, it all worked and I enjoyed them very much.

After seeing The Fellowship of the Ring and finding out that Tom Bombadil’s part was missing I was frustrated and complained. After sitting back and taking it in, I realized what did his part really have to offer a movie? After thinking about it I realized, nothing. People even complained about the elves showing up at Helm’s Deep and the worg attack, which were not in the book. Me, I appreciated the surprises because I felt they added to the enjoyment of the film.

If one can sit back and not be so critical about the movie following the book to a T, then one can enjoy it for what it is, a movie, not a novel. A movie doesn’t have the luxury of fleshing out characters and moods as a book does because of time limitations. So a movie will never be as detailed as a novel. One just has to accept this and hope the movie stays faithful to the mood and feel of the books and catch the important parts of the novel and make sure they make it into the film. And if this can be accomplished, then it can be a good adaptation of a novel.

Also, unfortunately when you have prejudices about a book, then it takes away from the movie. Whereas a person who’s never read the book can love the movie. This is the case for the Harry Potter movies. I’ve liked them all, but I have never read the books. I have no idea if they are faithful to the novels, or if the books are 100% better? But I do know I enjoyed watching the films.

[marshm]

Ellester: Right on. The same can actually be said of movie "remakes" as well. But there are times a movie is better than a book, too. An open mind is the best approach. Some examples:

- The H.G. Wells Book and original movie "The War of the Worlds" are very different. I loved them both. I also look forward to the Spielberg rendition this summer.

- I thought Mario Puzo' "The Godfather" was a mediocre book, an "OK" read. The movie was *much* better.

- A friend recently said "A remake? You wouldn't see them make a remake of Ben Hur!" Well, Ben Hur *was* a remake.

I just wish they would make better decisions on which movies to remake. I'd like to see:

- The Andromeda Strain - great movie that could be done even better now. And with Michael Crichton as the author, funding would not be an issue.

- Colossus: The Forbin Project - Another great (and VERY underrated) movie - the concept behind The Terminator, 12 Monkeys and several other movies

[Ellester]

- The Andromeda Strain - great movie that could be done even better now. And with Michael Crichton as the author, funding would not be an issue.

imdb.com/title/tt0424600/
Ridley Scott is producing a tv mini-series of this. I doubt this is what you wanted to hear, as one would prefer a theatrical release (read more funding). But, I thought I would point it out.

Then again Dune and Lonesome dove are both very good television mini-series. Who knows what will happen?

[marshm]

Thanks for the heads-up. At least with Ridley Scott it has a chance to be well done.

[amanibhavam]

Adding my absolute favourite as an example how a movie adaptation can be equal or better to the novel: Blade Runner.

The Dune mini-series suck.

[Loredoctor]

am - agreed, Baron Harkonnen was a disappointment.

[Ellester]

Hmm.. Surprised you guys didn't like it. I enjoyed it along with Children of Dune, quite a bit. A ton better than the theatrical release and since it was a mini-series, they fleshed out the characters and story quite a bit. I own both and give them each a watch about every 5 months.