[ExI] Heinlein critique

[Dan TheBookMan]

> On Friday, May 29, 2020, 11:24:59 AM PDT, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: 
> Read FilmFlam - details how movie directors change books and other sources.
> Mostly what they do is re-write it.  Harry Potter films - few wanted to direct
> those because the author wanted the films to be just like the books, and to
> the director, that meant that they could not add any creativity of their own.
> It is rare the movie follows the book faithfully, for that reason.  

Show Quoted Content
> On Friday, May 29, 2020, 11:24:59 AM PDT, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: 
> Read FilmFlam - details how movie directors change books and other sources.
> Mostly what they do is re-write it.  Harry Potter films - few wanted to direct
> those because the author wanted the films to be just like the books, and to
> the director, that meant that they could not add any creativity of their own.
> It is rare the movie follows the book faithfully, for that reason.  

Well, sometimes the same happens in theater. I don't expect movies to be like the book. That's not always a bad thing. For instance, Kubrick adaptation "The Shining," while certainly not a perfect film, worked for me despite its departures from the novel. And I enjoyed the novel. Ditto for his "2001," which goes way beyond the Arthur C. Clarke short story "The Sentinel." And I enjoyed that short story, though, full disclosure, I read it long after seeing the film. I feel the same way about the John Carpenter film "The Thing." It's a fine adaptation of the John W. Campbell novella. (By the way, one Lovecraft scholar claims Campbell basically plagiarized Lovecraft's _At the Mountains of Madness_ for his novella.)

Of course, I agree some adaptations not only radically change the story, but make it worse. "The Day of the Triffids" is a bit let down from the Wyndham novel for me. Granted, Wyndham didn't write a masterpiece, but the film rushes through everything. I think the problem is, of course, to do justice to the novel would've required a much longer film -- maybe a miniseries. (It's not that long of a novel, but it does have many incidents in it.)

> Lord of the Rings - same thing.  Horrible distortion of the books - for one,
> Frodo is depicted as a teen, whereas in the book his is in his 50s.  Bilbo is
> depicted as a wimp.  Much, much more of that.  I hated those movies (great
> sets, though).

Well, a bit problem with making films -- as opposed to books -- is the money involved. This kind of means you have to sell many tickets or downloads to recoup the costs and make a decent profit. That disciplines movie production in the direction of appealing to more people. Now, a noticeable thing here is that the trials and tribulation of the young appeal to all, while the middle aged tend to appeal mostly to the middle aged, and the old mostly to the old. Yeah, there are exceptions, but this tendency means a shift toward younger characters. (Not extremely so -- else every big film would be about newborns.:) Look at a film like 2012's Amour, in my opinion the best film of that year. (The Act of Killing and Beyond the Hills are close runners up IMO.) And it was nominated for a raft of Oscars and won one. Yet it made a pitiful $25 million. Why? Well, it's an art film for one, but not an inaccessible one. Instead, it's about an old couple -- old as in their eighties -- played by old actors. I think that explains the low box office receipts. (That said, the film was profitable -- almost tripling its budget at the box office. But US receipts were below its budget.)

Regards,

Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200529/97dd6555/attachment.htm>