That's one of the things I always mourne when I see a great book made into a movie. Movies never give litterature due justice. And Donaldson's erudite narrations are astoundingly beatuiful throughout the series.
I think the script writers did a good job with LOTR - but I still saw the emptiness in the story.
Covenant's story is one that is has so much depth and substance - even though it is a fantasy - that I do fear it would loose some of it's impact on the big screen.
And how do you turn the visual image of someone who could be so devastatingly cruel and brutal to Lena - into a "hero" for later movies?
So - while I love contemplating who might be able to portray TC in such a role - I also harbor a heart felt dread of this wonderful series being reduced to the big screen. Because it would - indeed be a reduction.
Hopefully - any screenwriters who have or might try to tackle the job will have more skill than I have imagination for how to do the job most effectively.
I wish them the very best of luck and success though.
How are they going convey great narative dialogue
Moderators: Orlion, kevinswatch
-
Spotteddoe
- Servant of the Land
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 7:50 pm
How are they going convey great narative dialogue
Spotteddoe
Few authors have conveyed so clearly the true meaning of the phrase "Unto Thine Own Self Be True."
Thank you Mr. Donaldson.
Few authors have conveyed so clearly the true meaning of the phrase "Unto Thine Own Self Be True."
Thank you Mr. Donaldson.
This has historically been the problem with Stephen King's movies as well. there's so much going on in the characters' heads that it's nearly impossible to film the source material's intent.
So the tragedy of books like Cujo, Pet Sematary, and Christine is lost and we're left with rote horror films.
So the tragedy of books like Cujo, Pet Sematary, and Christine is lost and we're left with rote horror films.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
-
wayfriend
- .
- Posts: 20957
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
Well, when they say that a movie is a different medium from the books, this is what they are talking about.
TCOTC the movie will be an adventure movie; there won't be a lot of monologging or (think Dune) people staring off into space while they voiceover. Complex inner turmoil and charater growth will be reduced to bare essentials.
However, don't fear. Sometimes these aspects are done justice in a movie, but you don't see it until many repeated viewings. After seeing FOTR EE about three times, I can say that I now see how the complex relationship between Frodo, Aragorn, and Boromir is the spine of the movie, and how the complexities of their situation play out very successfully.
On the other hand, this is a good example where the movie brings out different aspects of the story, and although they are different they are good. In truth, I am much more emotionally involved in movie-Frodo, when he takes the Ring and departs the Fellowship, than I am with book-Frodo; book-Frodo was rather inexplicable at this point, whereas movie-Frodo has been built up properly for this moment.
"Different, Not Inferior" - that's the mantra to keep in mind.
TCOTC the movie will be an adventure movie; there won't be a lot of monologging or (think Dune) people staring off into space while they voiceover. Complex inner turmoil and charater growth will be reduced to bare essentials.
However, don't fear. Sometimes these aspects are done justice in a movie, but you don't see it until many repeated viewings. After seeing FOTR EE about three times, I can say that I now see how the complex relationship between Frodo, Aragorn, and Boromir is the spine of the movie, and how the complexities of their situation play out very successfully.
On the other hand, this is a good example where the movie brings out different aspects of the story, and although they are different they are good. In truth, I am much more emotionally involved in movie-Frodo, when he takes the Ring and departs the Fellowship, than I am with book-Frodo; book-Frodo was rather inexplicable at this point, whereas movie-Frodo has been built up properly for this moment.
"Different, Not Inferior" - that's the mantra to keep in mind.
.
Well, there's the rub. Different not inferior only works sometimes, and is very subjective. I thought the LOTR films were crap, and conveyed very little of the books (which, to be fair, I'm not a huge fan of). Some books translate very well, while others don't . Chrichton's books lend themselves well, Donaldson's do not. It would be a shame if the Chrons become an "action movie". What an utter waste of good source material.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
I have been lurking these movie thread a while a percolating my thoughts. I personally hope that the movies act as an outline/backdrop/icon for what I have built in my mind when I read the books.
For example, In my minds eye I imagine Saltheart at the end of Lord Foul's Bane, and I wonder if the movie would play off that image or just be watery and pale in comparison? I already have this enduring and powerful image of him slogging through lava carrying covenant and meanwhile shedding any vestige of frailty to become this ideal of perfection. And is that going to be what I feel when I see that sequence on the screen (note: they couldnt possible cut that bit)? Is what I will see on the screen like an icon for what is already in my head? I will see the giant throw covenant to the "shore" as he goes under, but I will have the power invested by more than one read of the SRD narrative as the frame over which that new fabric rests.
To some extent when I watched the extended version of LOTR, this idea worked for me. The movies actually got me in the ballpark -- and my deeply held feelings that came from reading the books a dozen times fleshed out what I saw on screen. I experienced alot of emotion watching the movies that was engendered not from the movie but from the books. So if a covenant movie can get me in the ballpark maybe it will be ok.
On the other hand, maybe not ... If the emotion you feel is all centered around being upset that the movie is not the book, then you are in trouble.
For example, In my minds eye I imagine Saltheart at the end of Lord Foul's Bane, and I wonder if the movie would play off that image or just be watery and pale in comparison? I already have this enduring and powerful image of him slogging through lava carrying covenant and meanwhile shedding any vestige of frailty to become this ideal of perfection. And is that going to be what I feel when I see that sequence on the screen (note: they couldnt possible cut that bit)? Is what I will see on the screen like an icon for what is already in my head? I will see the giant throw covenant to the "shore" as he goes under, but I will have the power invested by more than one read of the SRD narrative as the frame over which that new fabric rests.
To some extent when I watched the extended version of LOTR, this idea worked for me. The movies actually got me in the ballpark -- and my deeply held feelings that came from reading the books a dozen times fleshed out what I saw on screen. I experienced alot of emotion watching the movies that was engendered not from the movie but from the books. So if a covenant movie can get me in the ballpark maybe it will be ok.
On the other hand, maybe not ... If the emotion you feel is all centered around being upset that the movie is not the book, then you are in trouble.
-
Warmark Jay
- Elohim
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:37 pm
- Location: San Diego
- Contact:
Cail, you're right on with your thoughts on how screenwriters translate books into movies. Crichton, IMHO, has been a hack since he made made the crossover into directing films (he directed "The Great Train Robbery" and "Westworld", based on his own material) and writes knowing full well that anything he publishes will be picked up by a studio. So he makes it easy for Hollywood; stock characters, wooden dialogue, and camera-ready set pieces. Having read LOTR many times, I'd argue that Tolkien really wasn't that good at dialogue or character development, and left much in the way of description of events and scenery ("Return of the King" is erratic in this regard). So IMHO, Peter Jackson and crew had to fill in a lot of gaps. (I enjoyed the movies, BTW).I thought the LOTR films were crap, and conveyed very little of the books (which, to be fair, I'm not a huge fan of). Some books translate very well, while others don't . Chrichton's books lend themselves well, Donaldson's do not.
"That must be the King."
"How do you know?"
"He hasn't got sh*t all over him."
"How do you know?"
"He hasn't got sh*t all over him."
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 62038
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 32 times
- Contact:
I'd read the books many times before I saw the LotR movies, and I think Warmark Jay has a point. Tolkein wasn't a novelist, he was a linguist, and all of middle-earth sprang up to justify his creation of the elvish tongue.
Oh, and Cail, I think that those movies you mention were a lot worse than just rote horror films. (Although possibly because I'd read the books so often.)
--Avatar
Oh, and Cail, I think that those movies you mention were a lot worse than just rote horror films. (Although possibly because I'd read the books so often.)
--Avatar
