[Thanos]

Sort of, but the good parts got overwhelmed by Peter Jackson's lacking a sense of scale, especially at the battle for Minas Tirith, and his inability to be subtle. That's the essential problem with the majority of blockbusters since the first Star Wars film, with massive overuse of action and effects to hide the shallowness of the underlying story. Very few of the mega-films are able to escape this kind of trap.

[bootlegga]

Thanos Thanos:

Sort of, but the good parts got overwhelmed by Peter Jackson's lacking a sense of scale, especially at the battle for Minas Tirith, and his inability to be subtle. That's the essential problem with the majority of blockbusters since the first Star Wars film, with massive overuse of action and effects to hide the shallowness of the underlying story. Very few of the mega-films are able to escape this kind of trap.

There's nothing wrong with set piece battles - look at the Battle of Hoth in The Empire Strikes Back. It is arguably one of the greatest battle scenes in any science fiction film ever, while the craptastic CGI battles in the prequels (Phantom Menace et al) were generally terrible.

The trick is focusing on the combat and not just big explosions.

Unfortunately, too many directors are more interested in flashy special effects than the combat itself and it shows in the finished product.

[bootlegga]

Thanos Thanos:

That Niven/Pournelle partnership produced at least four classics with Lucifer's Hammer, Footfall, The Legacy of Heorot, and The Mote in God's Eye. Did multiple readings of all of them. Wanted a movie treatment of at least one of them too at least until The Hobbit films came along and made me decide that I don't want anything I love being made into a big-budget no-sense-of-proportion movie anymore.

I know I've said this before, but anyone who thinks a 2 hour movie will be able to capture everything a 400-600 page novel does is being unrealistic.

They are entirely different entertainment mediums and should be viewed as such.

Novels have way more time to develop characters, plots (and subplots) and the story itself and can do some things (like show characters thoughts and desires) easier than films can. Movies typically have to cut 2/3 to 3/4 of the material in the novel out right at the outset and try to make what remains compelling and interesting and it should be no surprise that the book is almost always better than the movie.

I typically watch movies adapted from novels with a grain of salt and only expect them to be entertaining - if they are close to the novel then it's a bonus.

[andyt]

Good novel = bad movie, and vice versa. A few exceptions, but it mostly holds true.

Personally there isn't a sci-fi movie that can hold a candle to a good sci-fi novel. Even with all the CGI etc they have now, it can't equal what you see in your mind, and few movies make the effort to explore the deeper themes of the books - it's all gee whiz bang crap. Same with comic book heroes - I haven't seen one good comic book movie yet. I guess Batman comes close, but then I haven't watched a whole batman movie, nor read many of the comics - batman always seemed like a sad joke.

Exceptions would be Blade Runner, 2001, Slaughter House 5, probably a few others.

[herbie]

Riverworld.
Five novel series that spawned a dreadful low budget movie and a worse remake.......

[Jabberwalker]

It was 'orrible, that Riverworld movie!

[raydan]

Dune

[Freakinoldguy]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Was watching a recently produced program the other day and they were saying that megaquakes on the west coast occur regularly about every 250 years, with the least one being in 1700.

Then we're 300 years overdue. So, until they perfect the science my guess is that none of the alarmists are going to be able to predict within centuries of when the event is going to happen.

It's only 65 years overdue.

My bad don't do math in the middle of the night but then it beg's the question. Who's right the 500 year geologists or the 250 year geologists and if they can't even agree why should we believe any of them.

So, it's 65 years overdue. If the truth be known I won't start panicking till I need oxygen from the Island being pushed so high that my house leaves the atmosphere.

[Thanos]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Thanos Thanos:

Sort of, but the good parts got overwhelmed by Peter Jackson's lacking a sense of scale, especially at the battle for Minas Tirith, and his inability to be subtle. That's the essential problem with the majority of blockbusters since the first Star Wars film, with massive overuse of action and effects to hide the shallowness of the underlying story. Very few of the mega-films are able to escape this kind of trap.

There's nothing wrong with set piece battles - look at the Battle of Hoth in The Empire Strikes Back. It is arguably one of the greatest battle scenes in any science fiction film ever, while the craptastic CGI battles in the prequels (Phantom Menace et al) were generally terrible.

The trick is focusing on the combat and not just big explosions.

Unfortunately, too many directors are more interested in flashy special effects than the combat itself and it shows in the finished product.

Both JRR and Christopher Tolkien's later notes were pretty specific that the number of combatants fighting outside Minas Tirith were about 100000 combined. Jackson looked like tossed in about a half-million Orcs alone. The number of Rohirrim looked like it was greater than the entire Orc-host from the book was. I assume that the reason for this was because of the CGI revolution that was breaking wide open at the time the films came out. Ditto for the Star Wars prequels. With Star Wars though it didn't matter because it wasn't George Lucas transferring a beloved and massively influential book to the screen. It was his own creation and for better or worse he had the absolute right to do it as he saw fit. LOTR was different though due to the millions of book-fans it had. Jackson's tendency for CGI overkill and unnecessarily deviating from the books, if not outright making things up like he's done through all The Hobbit films, isn't covered by the same kind of creator-owned excuse Lucas has.

I actually like the LOTR films. That being said though if they'd never been made, and fans were left alone to imagine Middle-Earth in their own minds, in hindsight I probably would have preferred it. Not seeing a mega-ninja Legolas sno-board down the stairs at Helm's Deep atop an Orc-shield is a bit of offensive piffle I really could have done without.

[Thanos]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Thanos Thanos:

That Niven/Pournelle partnership produced at least four classics with Lucifer's Hammer, Footfall, The Legacy of Heorot, and The Mote in God's Eye. Did multiple readings of all of them. Wanted a movie treatment of at least one of them too at least until The Hobbit films came along and made me decide that I don't want anything I love being made into a big-budget no-sense-of-proportion movie anymore.

I know I've said this before, but anyone who thinks a 2 hour movie will be able to capture everything a 400-600 page novel does is being unrealistic.

They are entirely different entertainment mediums and should be viewed as such.

Novels have way more time to develop characters, plots (and subplots) and the story itself and can do some things (like show characters thoughts and desires) easier than films can. Movies typically have to cut 2/3 to 3/4 of the material in the novel out right at the outset and try to make what remains compelling and interesting and it should be no surprise that the book is almost always better than the movie.

I typically watch movies adapted from novels with a grain of salt and only expect them to be entertaining - if they are close to the novel then it's a bonus.

The more you love a book the more difficult it is to accept changes that are made to it in a TV/movie version, especially when those changes are made for specious reasons. Like big-explosion moments to appeal to morons. Or endless scenes from Littlefinger's brothel on GOT just to appeal to the pervs that really only watch HBO for the boobies and wee-wees. My gripe is that the original fans of adaptations, we people from Nerdville that have sustained these genres for decades before TV and movies finally paid attention, should be put ahead of casual viewers who never cared and that never had any emotional stake in these kind of stories.

[Yogi]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Thanos Thanos:

That Niven/Pournelle partnership produced at least four classics with Lucifer's Hammer, Footfall, The Legacy of Heorot, and The Mote in God's Eye. Did multiple readings of all of them. Wanted a movie treatment of at least one of them too at least until The Hobbit films came along and made me decide that I don't want anything I love being made into a big-budget no-sense-of-proportion movie anymore.

I know I've said this before, but anyone who thinks a 2 hour movie will be able to capture everything a 400-600 page novel does is being unrealistic.

They are entirely different entertainment mediums and should be viewed as such.

Novels have way more time to develop characters, plots (and subplots) and the story itself and can do some things (like show characters thoughts and desires) easier than films can. Movies typically have to cut 2/3 to 3/4 of the material in the novel out right at the outset and try to make what remains compelling and interesting and it should be no surprise that the book is almost always better than the movie.

I typically watch movies adapted from novels with a grain of salt and only expect them to be entertaining - if they are close to the novel then it's a bonus.

That is why I've always preferred to see the movie & then read the book. To do otherwise will definitely lead to disappointment.

[raydan]

Thanos Thanos:

The more you love a book the more difficult it is to accept changes that are made to it in a TV/movie version, especially when those changes are made for specious reasons. Like big-explosion moments to appeal to morons. Or endless scenes from Littlefinger's brothel on GOT just to appeal to the pervs that really only watch HBO for the boobies and wee-wees. My gripe is that the original fans of adaptations, we people from Nerdville that have sustained these genres for decades before TV and movies finally paid attention, should be put ahead of casual viewers who never cared and that never had any emotional stake in these kind of stories.

As I've said before, it's a business, and as such they make business decisions. They don't really fu**ing care about original fans or nerds.

[bootlegga]

Thanos Thanos:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Thanos Thanos:

That Niven/Pournelle partnership produced at least four classics with Lucifer's Hammer, Footfall, The Legacy of Heorot, and The Mote in God's Eye. Did multiple readings of all of them. Wanted a movie treatment of at least one of them too at least until The Hobbit films came along and made me decide that I don't want anything I love being made into a big-budget no-sense-of-proportion movie anymore.

I know I've said this before, but anyone who thinks a 2 hour movie will be able to capture everything a 400-600 page novel does is being unrealistic.

They are entirely different entertainment mediums and should be viewed as such.

Novels have way more time to develop characters, plots (and subplots) and the story itself and can do some things (like show characters thoughts and desires) easier than films can. Movies typically have to cut 2/3 to 3/4 of the material in the novel out right at the outset and try to make what remains compelling and interesting and it should be no surprise that the book is almost always better than the movie.

I typically watch movies adapted from novels with a grain of salt and only expect them to be entertaining - if they are close to the novel then it's a bonus.

The more you love a book the more difficult it is to accept changes that are made to it in a TV/movie version, especially when those changes are made for specious reasons. Like big-explosion moments to appeal to morons. Or endless scenes from Littlefinger's brothel on GOT just to appeal to the pervs that really only watch HBO for the boobies and wee-wees. My gripe is that the original fans of adaptations, we people from Nerdville that have sustained these genres for decades before TV and movies finally paid attention, should be put ahead of casual viewers who never cared and that never had any emotional stake in these kind of stories.

I agree with your sentiment (I loved the novel Battlefield Earth, but haven't even bothered with Travolta's terrible looking film of the same name), but I have come to realize that in most cases, it is simply impossible to make a film 100% faithful to the novel for any number of reasons (budget, time, difference in the two forms, etc).

As to your second point about ignoring the true fans, the problem is that there often isn't enough of them to justify making a film in the first place. That means dumbing it down for the masses so that it has a chance of being profitable.

Take Watchmen for example - it was a comic based on a niche audience and it is generally considered faithful by many diehard fans, yet was not commercially successful by studio standards.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

but haven't even bothered with Travolta's terrible looking film of the same name

DON'T!! DON'T!!

$1:

That means dumbing it down for the masses so that it has a chance of being profitable.

Looks like GDT has done this. He finally caved with in and is going to make At The Mountains of Madness as a PG movie rather than stay true to the story and risk an R rating......all about studio execs wanting to milk more cash from it.

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/artattack ... rrible.php

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

My bad don't do math in the middle of the night but then it beg's the question. Who's right the 500 year geologists or the 250 year geologists and if they can't even agree why should we believe any of them.

It's not so much a lack of agreement as new evidence being uncovered. The program I was watching about it was produced this year so I'd assume the information available would have been more up to date.