I see there are NO comments here for the made for TV movie "Moby Dick"? Not surprising. Not many watched it. I did, however, and loved it. Anyone else here like it as much as me?? If so, why? I liked it mostly because of Patrick Stewart as Captain Ahab. He rocked! ^______________^
"Trust in my self-righteous suicide"- System Of A Down
[deleted]
This is my favorite version of Moby Dick! My mom and I caught it on the Hallmark channel and we LOVED it! Patrick Stewart steals the show!
shareI saw this movie as a junior in High School as an alternative to reading the book. I'm curious as to how faithful it is.
A Columbus/Cuarón film: the best of both worlds (faithfulness and artistry).
I love this film.
shareI have taught the novel (a condensed version, Gott sei dank) and used the movie to ensure that it "stuck" with my students. I would say that if you've seen the Patrick Stewart version you don't need to mess around with the novel, especially if you're young. Just watch the movie, then go outside and enjoy the sunshine. The movie cuts out a lot of the tedium in the novel.
shareI thought this movie did the book justice, although the CGI left something to be desired.
shareare... you... serious... this is the worst movie I have ever seen. No joke... and I've seen ALOT of movies.. the acting is AWFUL along with the boring script and direction and it comes along to be a rediculous p.o.s.... have any of you ever seen any other movies?
share@ LChalmer00 » Wed Dec 14 2005 08:13:14
I agree with your comments and appreciate your having made them.
@veemee78 » Sat Dec 3 2005 AND OTHERS:
You observe, "I thought this movie did the book justice, although the CGI left something to be desired."
My responses:
1-NO MOVIE THAT HAS EVER BEEN MADE OR THAT EVER WILL BE MADE CAN POSSIBLY DO JUSTICE TO MELVILLE'S INCOMPARABLE NARRATIVE.
2-IN THE YOU TUBE SECTION ABOUT "MOBY-DICK," THERE IS LISTED A MODERN DOCUMENTARY FILM ABOUT HUNTING SPERM WHALES, IN PARTICULAR ALBINO SPERM WHALES. THE ALBINO WHALE THAT APPEARS EARLY IN THE DOCUMENTARY LOOKS COMPUTER-GENERATED ALSO, AND IT'S FRIGHTENING.
DURING THE DOCUMENTARY, PEOPLE WHO'VE ENCOUNTERED REAL WHALES DESCRIBE THEIR EXPERIENCES. ONE MAN FOUND HIMSELF IN THE MOUTH OF A WHALE, WHICH OPENED ITS MOUTH BEFORE RETURNING TO THE SEA. THE MAN SWAM OUT OF THE WHALE'S MOUTH, AND SURVIVED.
Are you serious? You're a teacher and you're recommending to NOT read the book? Tedium in the novel? Yikes! I certainly am glad I have me to teach my kids and not have to rely on teachers with your same ideas. The novel is a work of art, there is no way a movie can come close to representing the novel since the story about Ahab and the whale only makes up about 1 tenth (if that) of the novel. Granted, it was written in the mid 18 hundreds so its not easy to follow but please, do not think that if you see this movie that you need not read the book--as good as the movie may be, it is not anything like the book. The movie is entertainment, the book is an adventure.
share@chuck-barrick » Wed Oct 27 2010 13:04:11
You are absolutely right in what you say. I am a literature professor who's taught the book and shown the film. The book is far superior to the film. I cannot IMAGINE a teacher telling students to see the film in lieu of reading the book, which is one of America's greatest novels.
@ northernleitz » Tue Jan 18 2005 21:48:50
There is NO tedium in the book if you read it intelligently.
Impossible to compare. Different media, different art forms. It's like comparing a sculpture with a painting.
Both follow a story, and I can't tell you how closely the movie follows the book in terms of fidelity to the story. But the book is enjoyable for MORE than just the story. It's the way it's written. It's a good story, supurbly told, supurbly written.
The movie follows the story pretty well. But you can't put all the 19th century nuiances in a 1-2 hr. movie! I personally loved this movie, though! I thought all the characters were well done, especially Ahab and Starbuck!
" Theory! Don't give me Theory! I want some guarantees!" -Pendragon
@ ShrunkenHeadonKnightBus » Tue Aug 17 2004 21:30:36
The whaling scenes are reasonably faithful to the novel, but the cetology passages in the book and the wonderful humor that helps to make it a masterpiece are not in the film--to its detriment.
[deleted]
IT'S NOT.
Moby Dick Dick Dick Dick Dick........
Where is it censored? Where?
[deleted]
This version is closer, in some ways, to magnificent book. I salute the teleplay writer and I also feel Stewart was exceptional. Too bad there's no money in making another feature film version.
Nothing exists more beautifully than nothing.
I always feel that it's a mistake to have a film remake & this is a perfect example, definitely not a patch on the 1956 Moby Dick.
shareWrong. Closer to book in some respects. Peck was miscast.
Nothing exists more beautifully than nothing.
Yeah. "Closer to the book in some respects."
All except the words. As some of the commentators have pointed out, the beautiful poetic language that made for great dialogue in 1956 is toned down in this version to compensate for the illiteracy of the modern day.
@pygmalion6 » Wed Aug 30 2006 14:25:32
You are spot on in what you say. I watched the film for the second time today; I've been angry ever since. It belittles the book.
@ The_Dying_Flutchman » Thu Jul 27 2006
In reply to someone who'd praised the 1956 film starring Gregory Peck, you remark, "Wrong. Closer to book in some respects. Peck was miscast."
Peck himself felt he was miscast. He said as much when the 1956 film was not commercially successful.
I, however--a university professor who has taught the book & shown the film--agree with the people who claim that the 1956 movie is better than the 1998 TV version. Patrick Stewart is good, but the televised version drops much of Melville's splendid language, which the 1956 film retains.
@The_Dying_Flutchman » Thu Jul 27 2006
ANY ACTOR WHO PLAYS AHAB WILL BE MISCAST.THERE IS SIMPLY NO WAY TO REPLICATE MEVILLE'S CONCEPTION OF THE CHARACTER--"A GRAND, UNGODLY, GODLIKE MAN."
HAVING MADE THESE REMARKS, I'LL GO ON TO OBSERVE THAT I'VE RECENTLY WATCHED THE 1956 FILM AGAIN, AND I AGREE WITH PREVIOUS POSTERS THAT IT'S SUPERIOR TO THE 1998 VERSION. PATRICK STEWART DOES WELL WITH THE SCREENPLAY HE WAS GIVEN, BUT GREGORY PECK IS, FINALLY, BETTER THAN STEWART AS AHAB.
@waltzer1963 » Wed Jul 26 2006
You observe, "I always feel that it's a mistake to have a film remake & this is a perfect example, definitely not a patch on the 1956 Moby Dick."
I emphatically agree. The 1956 film is far better than the 1998 film and, for that matter, than the 2010/2011 production.
Your post is in 2004! Well, i liked this movie very much. Great performances of Patrick Stewart as Captain Ahab, Piripi Waretini as Queequeg, Henry Thomas as Ishmael, Dominic Purcell as Bulkington, Vivianne Benton as Sal Coffin. All are Best. I enjoyed to play Piripi Waretini as Queequeg and Henry Thomas as Ishmael, Patrick Stewart as Captain Ahab.
**(SPOILERS)**
This movie was such a good movie. Yes, this has written in 2004. hey, Anyone doesnt have a new positive topic about this excellent movie.
This movie is excellent! It's my favorite version. =o)
shareYes I loved it too, because I love the book and this movie was faithful to the language and power of the book. The John Huston 1956 version was one of the greatest disappointments of my movie-going life - Gregory Peck was more wooden than his leg...
Never saw this message board before. Interesting, especially since I thought this poor, beleagered TV-mini adaptation was long forgotten since '98. I should know -- 'cause I'm the poor, beleagered schmuck who WROTE the damn thing. Been living down attacks from hardcore Melvillites ever since. They still remember. Thanks to those for your positive thoughts. Anton Diether
shareI loved this movie! But did anybody notice the fantastic score? It's brilliant and is available on CD - well worth buying!
shareSorry but it was perhaps one of the worst movies I have seen, the $10 it cost was a complete waste, better spent on bread and milk.
While not as bad as the Texas Chainsaw Masacre TNG it's not far behind.
The original TV based Moby Dick of the 50's was much better.
The endless over acting, lousy special effects, and countless goofs made this version easy to turn off and not ever play it again.
Anyone see the city of skyscrapers on the horizon, in shot so many times that it must have been deliberate, do the producers think all viewers are stupid ?
Being an Australian it was easy to see the many Australian actors in this film, and I have to say they make lousy sailors of that era.
Perhaps best described as a total failure, a movie no person would ever see again, out of 10 ? sorry but it would be stressed to get a 2/10, dissapointing.
I didn't notice the goofs you mention.
I just watched it on tv where I live and liked it so much, I looked up for it on the imdb boards!