MovieChat Forums > Gary O. > Replies
Gary O.'s Replies
[quote]Hmm. On the surface, there seems to be a LOT of buzz about this, admittedly. So what amazes me is that amid ALL the buzz, the number of people and sites that want to speak this into reality have had so much to say about it. That is, except FOR CBS All Access and IMDb. And with a project slated for 2019 (which we are six weeks away from), IMDb almost always has something listed this close to its possible release. Don't get me wrong. I'm hoping FOR it. I'm just saying, I'll believe it when it happens. So far, 100% of what I have found online came from sources I have NEVER heard of. IMDb and CBS are the FIRST wide sources I would expect to see info on. And right now, there's nothing.
For a project with a 2019 date, there is no buzz about actors chosen, shooting locations, production updates, no teasers, nothing. This kind of project is epic in scale (and far too big to remain completely under wraps). This is probably not even something that can be shot, let alone completed in a year's time, especially since production hasn't even started - and we are 6 weeks from 2019.[/quote]
You could very well be right there. I along with many others, want to see this done very badly and so we possibly get carried away.
Agreed; extraordinary news!! It appears that the new miniseries will try to be reasonably true to the book as well. That, for me, is good news indeed!
[quote]C&U ?[/quote]Sorry. I mean [b]Complete and Uncut.[/b]
Hopefully, this one pans out. I just hope it's faithful to the novel.
I wonder which version it will be based on: the original set in 1980 or the C&U set in 1990?
[quote]Politicians who are aligning with Trump are pissing off moderates as well. Most on the right agree with his policy, but his rhetoric is very clearly a problem. [b]Since it's inciting right-wing rejects to send bombs in the mail to Trump's enemies,]/b] then every politician who aligns with him deserves what they get as far as having their feelings hurt while dining in restaurants. [/quote]Then Bernie Sanders is responsible for inciting the shooting of Steve Scalise as well. Or, how about the Las Vegas massacre? Wasn't that done by a Trump hater?
It strikes me that more care should be taken before making this type of statement.
I thought the one with Denzel Washington was really pretty good. I prefer the one with Walter Matthau though.
[quote]
I always loved the look on 'Garber's' face when he realises the Japanese visitors can speak English![/quote]
That was brilliant!! It was one of my favorite parts as well.
Howard did quite well here, I thought.
In response to the OP, I don't see why it wouldn't have worked. Elvis wasn't a great actor but I thought he was good.
[quote]
I do not expect a millenial to understand how men acted in te 19th/early 20th century.
[/quote]Good point. The OP is judging a 19th Century character by 21st Century mores, and that is most unfair.
Obama was a decent man; I don't say otherwise, but I just disagreed with most of his policies.
I thought it was a good movie. My wife liked it as well.
Yup. If Trump even THINKS you don't like him, you'll go off to the camps, never to return.
Why the name-calling?
Have you noticed that all of his pre-CT incarnations seem to have the initials 'RF'? Glen noted this in the last of the mass meetings before The Four left on their trip, but what the significance was, was not clear.
King has not said what the RF initials signify, at least to my knowledge.
If the change makes sense, then yes; I'd agree with you. Getting back to Dracula, the changes made in BSD make no sense, at least from my perspective,because they added themes that the 1897 novel did not even hint at. Here, I am referring to reincarnation, Elisabeta, etc. Now, BSD was very good from a artistic level. The sets were spectacular and the cinematography was excellent as well. It was the script that failed, at least IMO, as it strayed too far from the novel.
Getting back to this series, and the source novel, I understand that the 1963 film is very faithful the Shirley Jackson's 1951 work. I have it on DVD and it is excellent.
Your point, good and noble sir, is well-taken, but the flip side of the coin is that major deviations are not really needed to produce a good quality work, either.
An example could perhaps be found in the Tom Clancy novel 'The Sum of All Fears'. In the novel, the villains were Muslim extremists and Marxist terrorists. The movie changed them, seemingly for no other reason than to be PC, to (what else?) neo-Nazis and White South Africans. This was completely unnecessary. The movie would have worked fine with the original villains. I understand that Clancy was not pleased with this change, and I can see his point, as the change made no sense.
Were my novel, 'The Pale Horse' ever to be made into a movie, I'd insist on the retention of the political orientation of the bad guys. It makes more sense that way.
Now I admittedly am blue-skying; not that I expect TPH to be made into a movie, so this is a fantasy I can afford.
I prefer the movies to at least have a passing resemblance to the source material. I haven't seen this series so I can't comment directly on it, but I don't like Hollywood's tendency towards butchering a novel. In general, the closer a film is to the book the better I like it.
Case in point: 'Bram Stoker's Dracula'. Not only did the basic plot of the film change from what was in the book by adding stuff the book doesn't even hint at, we find that the very theme is changed from that of a classic story of good and evil, (the English vs the Count) to that of a sappy love story between Mina and the Count that is nowhere to be found in the 1897 novel.
On the other hand, one of my favorite miniseries is 1994's ABC production of Stephen King's 'The Stand'. It was very faithful to the book and in large part because of this, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Complete fidelity to a novel or short story is rarely possible because not everything transfers well from one medium to another and I recognize this. But whenever possible the movie should remain faithful to the book.
Hopefully this gives another perspective on the subject.
I believe I saw the film first, as when I read the book for the first time, I recall wondering who Rita Blakemoor was. Still, I was impressed by the fidelity of the film to the novel. That's one of the reasons I like the mini-series as much as I do.
<No, she's got a nasty case of bipolar disorder, and doesn't seem to like taking the medications that would keep her sane.
Welk, sane-er.>
Is that right? ;-)