MovieChat Forums > Safe Haven (2013) Discussion > Why do they only keep using Sparks' newe...

Why do they only keep using Sparks' newer works as source material?!

posted 11 years ago by amhamilt2
7 replies | jump to latest

They have great potential in adaptations of The Guardian, A Bend in the Road, and The Rescue.

"These pretzels are making me thirsty"

[–] Yorick_Brown 11 years ago

"A Bend in the Road" and "The Guardian" are in development hell right now.

Adaptations of his recent works is just striking while the iron is hot.

Expect more adaptations of his earlier work later on this decade and the next.

Take us down and all apart
Cherry Tree
Lay us out on the table

You're sharp alright...

[–] theatre81 11 years ago

I would *LOVE* to see a movie adaptation of The Guardian! Talk about a true thriller/romance movie!! His early 2000s books are incredible. Not to say his current books aren't; I love all of them, but I'd love to know why directors, producers, etc.. don't want to make movies out of his older books.

What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.

[–] sacrificialclam 11 years ago

SPARKS'S

PLEASE LEARN PROPER GRAMMAR

*********************************
www.cashcrate.com/225863 Sign up to get paid

[–] Angel_Buffy 11 years ago

Actually I think Sparks' is correct. When a word ends in 's' and you are making it possessive as in 'Sparks' novels', you don't put a second 's' on the end because it sounds kind of weird when you pronounce it out loud. Probably if you looked into the history of English and grammar you'd discover they used to put in the 's' and it just dropped out overtime, because it sounds unnatural when you say it out loud.

And as to why they're not making movies of his older work....they probably will start. It's probably pretty good publicity for the film and the book when the come out at about the same time and since he has such a high output, they just keep making the new ones. Eventually they'll probably go back and do the older ones as well. If you look at the list of his films, it's really since 2008 when they started making one every year or two.

Notebook was in 2004 so there was a big gap of four years and before Notebook there'd only been two other movies.

So I think more of his older work will be made before to long.

[–] sacrificialclam 10 years ago

Sorry, but no. Sparks' will never be right unless there are more than one Sparks. The Sparks' car would be correct if you were referring to Nick's entire family's vehicle but in this case, it's a singular person, Nicholas Sparks, thus the extra 's is needed. Nicholas Sparks's novels. Nicholas Sparks's movies. Nicholas Sparks's life.

And no, it does not sound unnatural when you say it out loud. Do you say "Chris shovel" when you're talking about someone named Chris owning a shovel or do you say "Chris ess shovel" when you're talking? You put the extra S on when you're talking thus it needs to be on anything that ends in an S.

*********************************
www.cashcrate.com/225863 Sign up to get paid

[–] Angel_Buffy 10 years ago

Right you are. A little research tells me that while it is under *some* debate, and some writers still use no 's', in general it's accepted that an 's' is added. I did find a couple of places that suggested that it was an old fashioned grammar rule to drop the 's', but I wasn't able to verify if this was true or not. If it was an archaic grammar rule it would explain why in churches in prayers the saying is 'in Jesus name we prey' and not 'in Jesus's name' which is how I was originally taught the rule that the 's' was dropped. Since it's an older saying, it would make since if it were an older grammar rule, but now I'm just speculating.

But basically yep, the 's' should be there. You're right.

Next we can debate the Oxford Comma ;-)

[–] sacrificialclam 10 years ago

Oxford comma:

Totally useless.

My English professor in college hated that thing.

*********************************
www.cashcrate.com/225863 Sign up to get paid