It wasn’t that bad. It might not be the miniseries ever but is certainly better than Sci-Fi’s last attempt at a miniseries “5 minutes to midnight”? Does anyone remember that one.
Granted I have not read the books but seeing Earthsea has inspired me to check them out.
I just don’t think the movie was as bad as everyone is moaning about. It wasn't a "Taken" hell, it wasn't even a "Merlin" but it was a nice little show.
[deleted]
Read the books, it'll help you understand the howls of protest about the miniseries
shareI never read the books. When I saw the trailer (the first one were you seen nothing) I told my wife who LOVES I mean LOVES the books about it. She got her copies out and made me read them. I loved the books. I got 2 more to go. My wife and I liked the movie. It was not Wizard of Earthsea but it was the Ledged of Earthsea. She made a point to me. Take it as if it was told 100 or 200 years after it happened, maybe just maybe that is how it would be told. Not the truth any more but still a good story.
shareTaken by itself, it wasnt that bad of a series. However.. it was based off of a series of books. To change the story that everyone knows and modify the characters the way they did was just.. well.. wrong.
I think Mrs. Le Guin's comment about the Lord of the Rings on this page says it all:
http://www.ursulakleguin.com/UKL_Info.html#News
I agree with Le Guin's statement...and how can this Lieberman say that Paganism and Wizardry are alligned with masculine and opposed to feminine spirituality and faith? Isn't it the other way around or something...what the heck is he talking about? I'm sure the goddess worshiping female pagans out there would have a field day over that explanation.
The only good thing about this travesty is that it was SO BAD I now have to go back and re-read the books, just to get the bad taste of this junk out of my mind !!
"Igor, help me with the bags"
"OK. You take the blond and I'll take the one in the turban!"
[deleted]
Actually, I think this miniseries was pretty damn bad enough on its own merits. The dialog reeked, the direction and casting were terrible, and the story managed to be unbelievably trite while making no sense at all. As for the acting-- I choose to believe it wasn't the actors' fault, but was the result of the terrible direction, casting and screenplay. The only good thing about it was some of the cinematography, which was very beautiful. The effects were no better than fair, especially by 21st century standards.
It certainly is true that the miniseries doesn't look nearly as bad if you've never read, or better yet never heard of the books. The point is, they called it Earthsea! As somebody said on this board, they "shaved away most of the Earthsea story like a bad haircut"-- so why keep the frelling title?? Only to con some hapless viewers into seeing it. The Earthsea series are award winning classics, beloved of thousands, or millions, of discriminating readers. It's a crime to smear that series with this excrement. If they just wanted to make a lame, generic Sword and Sorcery miniseries, fine, but don't slander the Earthsea stories by pasting their title on it.
omg, i think everyone is being way to anal about this!!!
i mean come on, would you rather have some stupid ass show about eating bugs and retard pretty people prancing around on an island?
By shooting this movie down, you are shooting down hopes of any end to crappy reality shows.
you don't see me ranting and raving that they cut saruman out of return of the king and then killed him wrong in the extended edition, or how they threw arwin in the fellowship even though it was a male elf that saved frodo after weathertop, if you like the book fine, but never can you see a movie that is completly true to the book. especially a tv movie.
[deleted]
I've already replied to you once (http://www.imdb.co m/title/tt0407384/bo ard/nest/14028395), but I find you so objectionable that I shall do so again.
First off; liking the mini-series does not make anyone an idiot. I thought it was bland, but acceptable. Then again, I don't really rate the books as a masterpiece. They're quite good, and I'd not wish to take anything away from them - but several people have done better.
As for LeGuin's rather overly-pious and slightly pompous ramblings - pfft. No, I don't particularly care how the author feels about what was done to her work; she sold the rights, and now she has to live with it. Perhaps, had she read the smallprint in greater detail, things might have been different.
And I couldn't care less that the main characters in the mini-series were white, any more than I care that in the books, they're not. Why apply our own baggage to a fantasy setting? Daft. There are plenty of powerful pieces written about race relations based in our own world - why try to shoehorn the concept into fantasy? Granted, it can assist in plot development, but that wasn't really what she was going for - she wanted to 'explore the issues'... I'm not convinced this was successful, or appropriate, in this instance.
One final thing - avoid lines like 'So just go away, you ignorant little kids', unless you really wish to portray yourself as a crotchetty old windbag. No-one cares how old you are, whether or not you still have all your own teeth, how you coped with rationing, etc, etc. Your point will stand (or in this case, fall) on its own merits.
Fool.
[deleted]
Ummm, no, by shooting down this crappy mini-series, we are shooting down a crappy mini-series which totally destroyed a beloved series of books. If you don't like what is on TV, don't watch it. Read a book - heck, read these books!
True, it is really hard, nearly impossible, to put everything from a book into a movie. One can stay true to the book without including every little detail from the book. Books are typically more detailed than movies because the thoughts of the characters can be more easily detailed, whereas in movies, that usually comes out in monologues or cheezy voice-overs.
In regards to this translation of book to movie - It's pretty sad when they can't even get the name of the main character right. His true name was Ged, not Sparrowhalk. I hate it when new characters are added to the production for no reason (who was that girl Ged was making out with in his village?!?). If they were not in the book, they are obviously neither important nor necessary.
By trying to meld the first two books together, they have destroyed both of them. The books are about taking responsibility for your actions and learning who you really are. Where in the movie was that? Even the magic aspect was destroyed. Invaders attacking Roke - I don't think so.
It was just a sad little mini-series that was a waste of 4 hours of my life the idiot producers, directors, and screenplay writers owe me that I will never get back.
<quote>By trying to meld the first two books together, they have destroyed both of them. The books are about taking responsibility for your actions and learning who you really are. Where in the movie was that? Even the magic aspect was destroyed. Invaders attacking Roke - I don't think so.</quote>
you talk about the invaders attacking roke as not being true to the story. yet it is. it might not have happened in a wizard of earthsea or in the tombs of atuan. but it DID happen. in tales from earthsea, before the school at roke was started and the island was protected by the women of the hand. they were betrayed by a male who let down the defenses of the island, allowing the invaders in. that is enough of a similarity to what happened with jasper and karg invaders in the movie.
so while its not in the first two books, its not accurate to say that its not true to the earthsea world
Too anal? Excuse me, cornpuff696, they called the miniseries 'Earthsea' and mutilated the story. They kept some of the names of the characters, but nothing else. It's really enough to make a true fan of the books furious. Added onto that, the casting was- not the best, the acting second-class...
Look here, about 'The Lord of the Rings', the fact that they cut Saruman out of 'Return of the King' theatrical edition was simply because if they had everything in the books, (which are among the best fantasy books ever written, but are LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG- like twice as long as the 'Earthsea' series)- was because they didn't have enough time to a) shoot the film, and b) make a film that wouldn't have people yawning. (p.s. You spelt 'Arwen' wrong. It's an 'e' not an 'i' and the male elf was called Glorfindel.)
True- you can never see a movie that is completely true to the book, but you can see a movie that captures the ESSENCE of the book. 'The Lord of the Rings' captured the essence of Tolkien's masterpiece. Andrew Davies 1995 'Pride and Prejudice' caught the essence of Austen's classics. But with dear, dear 'Earthsea', none of the essence of Earthsea was captured on screen. Even if they changed the plot slightly, if they kept the same themes and had good directing, casting and acting, it would have captured the essence of Earthsea and would NOT have indignant fans like myself 'ranting' as you call it, about the many, many, many faults of this tv miniseries.
I wouldn't mind this mini-series so much if I didn't know that people who haven't read the books before will believe this- nonsense. It's like 'King Arthur' and 'Troy'- mutilating the story, but managing to force the drivel into the minds of innocent watchers who haven't read the books, and making them believe it. If this weren't a problem, I really wouldn't care.
That said, all I can say again is that if we re-read the books enough, we'll forget the nightmarish miniseries, and Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea is one of the best fantasy lands out there- ever.
(And, p.s., I know it's silly, but I'm a bit of a grammatical freak, and I'd like it if the next time you posted, you'd spell names correctly, i.e. Arwen, and use capital letters after a full stop. Sorry!)
I don't wish to nit-pick, really, but allow me to point a couple of minor issues out to you, on the back of this rather pompous line:
"(And, p.s., I know it's silly, but I'm a bit of a grammatical freak, and I'd like it if the next time you posted, you'd spell names correctly, i.e. Arwen, and use capital letters after a full stop. Sorry!)"
Ok. Let me take a brief look at your effort...
"Look here, about 'The Lord of the Rings', the fact that they cut Saruman out of 'Return of the King' theatrical edition was simply because if they had everything in the books, (which are among the best fantasy books ever written, but are LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOONG- like twice as long as the 'Earthsea' series)- was because they didn't have enough time to a) shoot the film, and b) make a film that wouldn't have people yawning. (p.s. You spelt 'Arwen' wrong. It's an 'e' not an 'i' and the male elf was called Glorfindel.)"
Now let us remove the first parenthetic clause...
"Look here, about 'The Lord of the Rings', the fact that they cut Saruman out of 'Return of the King' theatrical edition was simply because if they had everything in the books, - was because they didn't have enough time to a) shoot the film, and b) make a film that wouldn't have people yawning."
I'm not sure where to start picking at this... 'the fact that...' 'was simply because if' is poor construction. More importantly, the use of punctuation is shaky, and when you get right down to brass tacks, it just doesn't really make sense. Whilst I'm indulging my inner-pedant - you wanted 'spelled'. 'Spelt' is a kind of wheat. Passingly ironic to mis-spell that in a line pointing out a mis-spelling...
Couple more minor points before I get bored. That second parenthetic clause in the above extract - no need for parentheses at all, here. And later on - please use 'none' as it is intended - a contraction of 'not one'.
You're not the only grammar-nazi in the world ;)
Ok, I'm really sorry about that hypocritical, pompous post before... about the grammar where I made stupid mistakes, too... I tend to post things and then a few days/weeks/months later I go back and I'm like, "OH gosh I should NEVER have said that!" And I did make some very stupid mistakes... *hits self on head*
But I'm getting off-topic about the movie now.
It was decent in its own right, but in essence, I don't think it was Earthsea.
Am I making sense? I hope so!
SPELLINGS
"Spelt" - this is the usual British past participle of "Spell".
"Spelled" is the usual US equivalent.
Both correct?
I think most "difficult" aspects of English were made easier for the new settlers! "Color" instead of "colour" etc. At least "tung" and "wimmen" didn't stick!
I wish I'd seen the deleted post before it was deleted...
shareI too believe that it is a disservice to persons who get a distorted view of a work of liturature or of history from what they have seen in a movie. That said, have you never noticed that those who get all of their information from the tube are alway the most ignorant our society has to offer?
sharei think id have to agree with cornpuff here, you people are attacking her/him more than you are the movie. ok, so maybe you guys didnt think of this, maybe the producer liked the idea of the books, and the title, but wanted to change it to his own ideas in order to make it more entertaining. I for one loved the movie, and think that you all should get over it. Have you ever thought that maybe the producer< director(whatever)wanted it to be more entertaining than factual to the book?
i mean< i am a true die hard fan of Stephen King and i must say that many of his books have been slaughtered...but you dont see me downtalking the movies for that...they were still good movies and i think you people should see the movie how it is, not how well it was based off a book
I think Ms. Leguin made a good point in her response that, with the exception of Ogion as the token minority, the producers of the "Earthsea" miniseries sacrificed the racial diversity of the books in order to make some nice, safe, mainstream McFantasy with almost exclusively white characters. While I can understand that the SciFi Channel is running a business, and that a show of this stamp will bring in the most revenues, I still find it pretty disgusting. While there were plenty of other things that bothered me about this spectacular turd of a movie, I still find that aspect the most disturbing.
shareOnly redemption factor = kristin kreuk.
And not beceause of the acting.
I've read the books and loved them but i still enjoyed this. I enjoyed it since when i realised it was different from the books, i didn't compare it to the books because it hardly has anything to do with the books.
And all you people posting messages to purely stomp on other people's opinions, you should stop trying to force everyone to think your way. Maybe if you try respecting others they will respect you. Try tolerating others and their views for once. Otherwise why would we have free will!
I think that this movie had some good points and some bad. While there were some embarassing screwups over details (like getting the main character's true name and his ordianry name the wrong way round) most of the things that they chose not to follow from the books were not terribly important to the story line. Race relations was not a big issue in the books and so the fact that the actors were white doesn't really matter. The fact that the object of the quest is now an amulet rather than a ring is completely irrelevant (no one ever put the ring on in the books).
On the other hand I think that Hallmark and the Sci-Fi channel have captured the heart of the story well. In my view the whole point of the shadow was that it was Ged's darker side, his pride and arrogance. Once he realised this fact, he was able to overcome it. This is true in the books and in the movie.
Finally the people who complain that the events of the books were compressed in the movie have forgotten an important fact. Hallmark, who was the main backer of this movie, is not one of the big movie companies like New Line Cinema and Metro-Goldwyn Meyer, therefore of course it cannot afford to create a lavish and epically scaled movie and so it has to run the main events of the book together in order to capture the spirit of the book in the movie.
while most critics of Earthsea in this forum have been grousing about it's inaccuracy, I am coming from a place that is completely untouched by the books. It illogical for people to expect a four hour miniseries to be loyal to an epic series such as this. However, it is not irrational for someone to expect the production to measure up to todays standards of sciece fictiion and fantasy shows. Earthsea did not. The casting for one thing, was completely off. the main character should have been much more brooding, a dangerous sort of element which was completely lacking in the cherubic features of the actor who's name escapes me at the moment. Danny Glover has to be one of the worst choices for this that I can ever have imagined. the day he inspires mystery is the day I sprout wings. Besides this the real crime was the writing. There is an important factor in fantasy and sci fi is the language used, typically it is either shakespearean in nature to convey the epic nature of most fantasy stories, or common and modern to establish realism that helps the reader or viewer establish a connection. the problem with Earthsea was that it was hovering in between these to norms. It was obviously attempting the epic standards, especially with Lord-of-the-rings-esque introduction to te story, but the language much to common. My best example is the line where Ged mentions to Ogion that he hasn't taught him anything yet. Ogion answers by saying that Ged "hasn't figured out what I'm teaching yet." It is obvious that this is supposed to be one of those mysterious enigmatic lines meant to endow the speaker with wisdom, but as i was watching I was thinking of a thousand different ways that it could have been said more eloquently. I shouldn't be able to do this, the writers should either make the mysterious character beyond my comprehension, or so simple that I must assume there is somehing more going on. The Earthsea waffled between grandeur and simplicity which made for trite and unrealistic dialogue, completely ruining the story. they simply missed their opportunity by not making a choice and trying to appeal to everyone, those that wanted the epic story from their beloved books, and the everyday jow schmo such as myself. I wonder what this could have been if only someone had made a decision.
shareThe only this that was good was the music. (I'm a music person and I get soundtracks all the time)
(\ /) This is Bunny. Copy him to help him
(O.o)on his way with world domination.
(> <)
I completely agree. Legend of Earthsea was definitely not good, but also was not the hideous atrocity that some of the posters claim. In the scheme of previous written material being brought to TV/Movies, I would say LOTR did the best job so far but as such its an outlier, not typical. X-men and Spiderman for example were wildly popular but were NOT faithful to the original comics.
In my opinion, the REALITY of the situation is that in almost every case huge changes are made to the original stories when they are transferred to TV/Movies.
Some posters have commented that LOTR was done well and compared Earthsea to it, but if we are to be fair, LOTR had a budget of HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars which naturally results in better actors, screen-writers, more takes, more discussion, etc.
I'm simply saying that in the universe of TV-miniseries, Earthsea was 2.5/5, not 0/5.
Also, for the real fans of Earthsea, I assert that Miss Leguin completely choked and screwed up the "spirit" of the characters and spirit of the Earthsea universe in her own continuation book - Tehanu. If Legends gets a 2.5/5, Tehanu gets a 0.5/5
OMG!
And for all of Miss Leguin's protests and all of the fan support, I believe it is literally true that she DID SELL OUT. The choice of selling the rights to the story was hers. May she reap the appropriate rewards for HER CHOICE.
For starters, I do agree with what A V Baker said about Le Guin – it’s a bit much that she sells off her rights to Earthsea without obtaining any creative control and then (sitting pretty on a mountain of gold) complains about what they did to her story. You might as well sell off your child into slavery and then complain when they’re mistreated.
None of which changes the fact that it *was* mistreated. Earthsea is a very good (or bad!) example of what happens when crass commercialism doesn’t gel with creativity. If I wanted a comfortable mix of sex, violence and comedy I would sit down and watch some enjoyable trash like The Scorpion King, ideally with a healthy stock of beer next to me (alright, enjoyable is too strong a word, but you get my point).
If I wanted to watch intelligent fantasy about power, responsibility, growing up and self discovery, I’d sit down and watch something based on the Earthsea books. Or so I would have thought.
Instead we have a fully grown Ged wrestling with some attractive girl making out like they’re some sort of professional martial artists. We quickly get some hardcore cheese lines before segueing into a random bit of sex with two other people because they couldn’t think of any other way to distract people from realising that these new characters were talking about plot. Then bung in some hackneyed torture room scene to show what a bad man we’re dealing with. Just so we all know where we stand.
Because what we have here, ladies and gents, is the end result of what happens when the money men get their hands on a book adaptation when they haven’t actually read the book, and don’t find out what’s in it till their most of the way through pre-production.
“Earthsea? Loads of people read that, and Lord of the Rings has done really well. Make it happen!”
“Yes sir!”
Two months and several thousand dollars later…
“Hi Jerry, look, I’ve read your script, and I wondered if it was some sort of joke?”
“How do you mean?”
“Well, like, loads of the main characters aren’t white, the female lead is on the wrong side and she’s too young for him to screw. And there isn’t an actual bad guy. I think we’re gonna have to make some changes…”
“I… I’m not sure that’s a good idea, sir…”
“Nonsense, everyone likes wrestling, sex and one dimensional villains. Make it happen!”
“Yes, sir…”
Now some of this, I don’t have a problem with. I understand the need add in or increase the element of romance in a story to make it sell. It didn’t bother me in Lord of the Rings and it doesn’t bother me here. So likewise no problem with casting a young attractive pair of equal age as Ged and Tenar to give it some added appeal. And while the modern language grated in a fantasy setting, I get the need to make it accessible, so fair enough. Note I don’t *approve* of the above, I just accept the need for it.
But I do agree with Le Guin’s comments about them “whitewashing” Earthsea. Some people have said race isn’t really an issue here, but I believe the producers made it an issue. If I could believe for one second that the reason the majority of the previously coloured characters are now white was based on them choosing the best actor for each role irrespective of the skin tone of the actor or the character, then I would commend them for their unbiased approach to casting. Unfortunately I have two reasons for believing this was not the case – 1) The acting sucked. 2) There would still have been a greater diversity than actually exists on screen. Which leaves me with the alternative, which is that they were worried it wouldn’t sell as well without a majority of white faces. The fact that they were probably right only makes things worse.
And then there was Vetch, of course, where it was painfully obvious that they either hadn’t been able to afford Jack Black or that he’d very wisely said “No.”
But to me the most unforgivable moment happened before the real show had even started. Far worse than the Ged/Sparrowhak switch (“Ged? What kind of a secret name is that? How can you be a mysterious powerful wizard when you’re secret name is Ged? Might as well have his secret name be Bob. Now Sparrowhawk, that’s a cool secret name…”). I am talking about the complete switch around for the priestesses of Atuan, who go from a sinister, eunach-served decaying order who *worship* the evil forces known as the nameless ones, to a shiny bunch of nuns who are *protecting* the whole world from this evil. And why? Why, dear gods, why? Because the powers that be simply could not stomach having the female lead start out anything other than pure, good and innocent. And more importantly, they assumed that *I* couldn’t, either.
And to me that is the fundamental difference between the books and the film. The books “Wizard of Earthsea” and “The Tombs of Atuan” (aimed primarily at children, lest ye forget) at no point talk down to you or pander to your preconceptions. Yet “Legends of Earthsea”, in spite have being savagely butchered to *appeal* to a wider age range, repeatedly assumes that the watcher is incapable of having any deeper thoughts than “Mmmmm… Kristen Kreuk.”
To see a property like Earthsea reduced to a Xena/Hercules clone can only be a sad thing, as far as I’m concerned.
Kristen Kreuk is cute though…
Mmmmm… Kristen Kreuk
I largely agree with you BTW.
It seems people who read the books didn't like the movie and those who liked the movie didn't read the books.
Yeah, I could kind of see myself LIKING it if I never heard of the books(as some nice and cheesy adventure with a big bad guy, a cute priestess and a plucky wizard), but I don't think I would ever LOVE it the way I love the books.
As it is I think it sucked.
I agree with you whole heartedly about the "i think it sucked" statement, but to tell you the truth, i haven't even read the books and i think its a disgrace to classify this as an actual professionally-produced movie.
First-off, yeah the acting was crude....very very crude, but i guess you cant do much with a role when the important lines are a mix of dry comedy and incompetency.
Secondly, the storyline completely lacked depth and, from what i hear, excluded all the important facts and underlying issues that the author had integrated into her books. All you hear about are wizards, priestesses and secret-names with little or no explanation behind the importance of their role in the story .
So what im basically trying to say, is that although this typical good-versus-evil story was a supposed complete failure in portraying Ursula LeGuin's critically acclaimed works, it was also a complete failure in that it held absolutely no entertainment value.
In conclusion, i think it should be made illegal to air such rubbish on television...especially when kiddie-shows like Barney outranks it.
For starters, I do agree with what A V Baker said about Le Guin – it’s a bit much that she sells off her rights to Earthsea without obtaining any creative control and then (sitting pretty on a mountain of gold) complains about what they did to her story. You might as well sell off your child into slavery and then complain when they’re mistreated.I don't think that's entirely fair to Le Guin. When she signed away the rights, it sounded like it was going to be a better film than it turned out and that she would be included the the planning stages of the film. In the end, she wasn't included at all, and the makers then turned around and basically said their adaption was faithful to the intent books.
the movie was garbage. using your own words, the only way you can defend this movie is to compare it to other bad movies.
hollywood has lowered the bar so far i guess 'taken' is something to strive for...
pure garbage. if not for the books, which is to say if this was an original script based on nothing, it would have never been made.
well, personally, i dont think it was THAT bad. i just watched it, and, well...shawn ashmore is pretty cute, and him and kristin look sweet. okay, seriously tho, hehe:
they changed the effing plot so many times i was swearing at the TV screen! YEVAUD, for GODS SAKE! YEVAUD!!! ...er, yeah. but i liked the riddles and all. it was mindless, fluffy stuff, with okay acting and gorgeous soundtrack/cinematography. better than the generic sword and sorcery stuff, but so untrue to the book. it'd be really good if i hadn't read the books, but...
oh, how do you POST a message on a board, instead of REPLYING to one?...