The fact that great books make shit or average movies is yawningly obvious. Likewise the fact that average books (with good plots) make the best films. Directors feel overshadowed by majorly famous novels (cf the terrible adaptation of Catch 22); with less well known books move-makers have more artistic and psychic freedom and can create.
The truly interesting exceptions are great books which ALSO make great movies, these are genuinely rare.
I'd suggest the Exorcist: the book and movie are equally superb. Maybe also the Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice.*
*Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility was fabulous. but the Austen novel was a bit shit.
The best films are short stories, not novels.
A certain truth in that. Certainly big long novels are notoriously hard to film.
Game of Thrones shows, however, how you do it? A big fat novel has to be a long scale TV drama, over several series. Then it can work.
They are hard to film because with a novel 90% of what happens happens in your head. That wouldn't work as a film genre with very few exceptions (Jarman for me).
The fact that great books make shit or average movies is yawningly obvious. Likewise the fact that average books (with good plots) make the best films. Directors feel overshadowed by majorly famous novels (cf the terrible adaptation of Catch 22); with less well known books move-makers have more artistic and psychic freedom and can create.
The truly interesting exceptions are great books which ALSO make great movies, these are genuinely rare.
I'd suggest the Exorcist: the book and movie are equally superb. Maybe also the Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice.*
*Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility was fabulous. but the Austen novel was a bit shit.
Great Expectations ? Grapes of Wrath ?
I don't think I'd want to see Grapes of Wrath as a film. I was even disappointed by To Kill a Mockingbird and that (the film) was an accepted classic.
I'd say that GoW is a better film and closer to the book that TKaM.
The fact that great books make shit or average movies is yawningly obvious. Likewise the fact that average books (with good plots) make the best films. Directors feel overshadowed by majorly famous novels (cf the terrible adaptation of Catch 22); with less well known books move-makers have more artistic and psychic freedom and can create.
The truly interesting exceptions are great books which ALSO make great movies, these are genuinely rare.
I'd suggest the Exorcist: the book and movie are equally superb. Maybe also the Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice.*
*Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility was fabulous. but the Austen novel was a bit shit.
Great Expectations ? Grapes of Wrath ?
Which versions??? I've only ever seen shit screen versions of the first, the second leaves me cold as a book AND a movie.
However there is one great Dickens novel which WAS turned into an acknowledged worldwide masterpiece. Oliver Twist the famous novel became Oliver! the musical, maybe the best musical Britain has ever produced, fabulous on stage and screen. Perhaps turning the book into a sequence of songs gave Lionel Bart the creative freedom he needed.
Oliver! is in my top ten favourite movies.
Bullseye! Bullseye!!!
By contrast Grapes of Wrath is a book I can pick up anytime and read a few pages with pleasure.
Likewise 1984, In Cold Blood, The Comedians and The Naked and the Dead.
They do seem a pretty grim set of mid 20C novels now that I group them together.
Surely the best Dickens film adaptation is the Muppets Christmas Carol (and I am being serious here).
I would have gone with Mickey's Christmas Carol personally (and I am being serious too).
I'm ashamed to admit I don't think Ive seen that one.
Fair's fair, I've not seen the Muppets version.
I first saw Mickey's Christmas Carol at school (it came out 83, I was born 82) and I've seen it many times since, played it for my daughters earlier this year. Its a very engaging and faithful rendition of the classic story while also working with the characters used to portray the story.
The fact that great books make shit or average movies is yawningly obvious. Likewise the fact that average books (with good plots) make the best films. Directors feel overshadowed by majorly famous novels (cf the terrible adaptation of Catch 22); with less well known books move-makers have more artistic and psychic freedom and can create.
The truly interesting exceptions are great books which ALSO make great movies, these are genuinely rare.
I'd suggest the Exorcist: the book and movie are equally superb. Maybe also the Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice.*
*Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility was fabulous. but the Austen novel was a bit shit.
The best films are short stories, not novels.
A certain truth in that. Certainly big long novels are notoriously hard to film.
Game of Thrones shows, however, how you do it? A big fat novel has to be a long scale TV drama, over several series. Then it can work.
Not just long novels. The BBC's Pride and Prejudice was a good series and took 6 episodes spanning a total of 5.5 hours to do justice to a regular sized novel.
I've always found books and the written word more stirring of the imagination than the film versions. Everybody will interpret a book differently, whereas with the film, you are actually concentrating on the interpretation of the the film maker/director/producer, the actors, the costume and set designers.... Similarly, a radio play allows you to design your own own version of the actors based on what their voice sounds like, where you think they are, how they dress, which is why when you meet them in real life, you can be very surprised at the reality.
Given how wrong YouGov VI polls were at the general election, calm down.
Aren’t you a Tory? You might as well be happy about this poll.
TSE wants the Tories to crash and burn so that the annointed one (GO) can come back to save them and the country.
Don't be as stupid as HYUFD.
There is nothing stupid about it. You are an in the closet classically Liberal, fiscally dry as dust Orange Book LD, republican non Unionist (the latter two prevent you being a true Tory)
Classic Liberals (aka Gladstonian Radicals) *are* part of the Conservative Party
Putting my CFO hat on for a second, the current draft of the US tax treaty would cause many multinationals (even very small ones like us) some serious problems.
The basic tenet of international tax treaties is that the same chunk of profit should only get taxes once. Now, we can argue about where economic substance is, and where ultimately profits should accrue, but this is central.
If the US tax bill were to be passed in full, today, it would mean that many companies would need to choose between operations in the UK and the US. Having operations in both, and having economic value generated in both runs the very real risk of seeing the same dollar (or pound) or earnings taxed twice.
Given how wrong YouGov VI polls were at the general election, calm down.
Aren’t you a Tory? You might as well be happy about this poll.
TSE wants the Tories to crash and burn so that the annointed one (GO) can come back to save them and the country.
Don't be as stupid as HYUFD.
There is nothing stupid about it. You are an in the closet classically Liberal, fiscally dry as dust Orange Book LD, republican non Unionist (the latter two prevent you being a true Tory)
Classic Liberals (aka Gladstonian Radicals) *are* part of the Conservative Party
They are also part of the Liberal Party, Disraeli of course who actually was a Tory was more monarchist than he was classical liberal
The fact that great books make shit or average movies is yawningly obvious. Likewise the fact that average books (with good plots) make the best films. Directors feel overshadowed by majorly famous novels (cf the terrible adaptation of Catch 22); with less well known books move-makers have more artistic and psychic freedom and can create.
The truly interesting exceptions are great books which ALSO make great movies, these are genuinely rare.
I'd suggest the Exorcist: the book and movie are equally superb. Maybe also the Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice.*
*Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility was fabulous. but the Austen novel was a bit shit.
The best films are short stories, not novels.
A certain truth in that. Certainly big long novels are notoriously hard to film.
Game of Thrones shows, however, how you do it? A big fat novel has to be a long scale TV drama, over several series. Then it can work.
Not just long novels. The BBC's Pride and Prejudice was a good series and took 6 episodes spanning a total of 5.5 hours to do justice to a regular sized novel.
The unabridged Pride and Prejudice runs to between 10 to 15 hours when read aloud, depending on diction speed. Allowing for a fair proportion of that being descriptive narrative that is essentially redundant in a film or TV version, 5.5 hours seems about right, and indeed the 1995 BBC P&P was very good.
But then so was the 2005 film running at just over 2 hours. Abridged versions of P&P in audio format can be <5 hours duration so maybe it is reasonable to film the 'abridged' novel in 2 hours.
Personally for me the success of adaptations depends on a lot more than the duration. That said if the quality is good enjoy it for longer - I could have put up with many more hours of Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennett!
Comments
In any case on that note it's late so good night (ladies. Good night, sweet ladies..etc)
Anyway, time for bed.
Likewise 1984, In Cold Blood, The Comedians and The Naked and the Dead.
They do seem a pretty grim set of mid 20C novels now that I group them together.
I first saw Mickey's Christmas Carol at school (it came out 83, I was born 82) and I've seen it many times since, played it for my daughters earlier this year. Its a very engaging and faithful rendition of the classic story while also working with the characters used to portray the story.
Deepfakes told me he’s not a professional researcher, just a programmer with an interest in machine learning.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gydydm/gal-gadot-fake-ai-porn
If some chump off reddit with a normal pc can do this, nation states are not going to have a problem doing this properly!
https://youtu.be/3AIpPlzM_qs
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/11/alabama-senate-moore-jones-polls-290501
Much as I like 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep', Bladerunner is a far more coherent rendering of the basic story and the concepts explored in it.
Which is why News International have pursued this vendetta and flimsy tale with a vigour without peer.
Once it’s sorted I hope the police officers involved are properly investigated and if appropriate prosecuted. This has been a disgrace from the start
Fears grow across the Atlantic over Brexit fallout
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42315280
But then so was the 2005 film running at just over 2 hours. Abridged versions of P&P in audio format can be <5 hours duration so maybe it is reasonable to film the 'abridged' novel in 2 hours.
Personally for me the success of adaptations depends on a lot more than the duration. That said if the quality is good enjoy it for longer - I could have put up with many more hours of Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennett!