Movies I have To See

[David]

Peter Jackson is not directing the Hobbit, he is producing the Hobbit. However they have brought in Guillermo del Toro as director which I actually think is quite exciting. I also understand that they're bringing back John Howe and Alan Lee as conceptual artists, to keep everything consistent with the LOTR trilogy.

I think there's still a LOT of interest in the Harry Potter films, though I was very disappointed to discover that Emma Thompson won't be returning as Trelawney in the seventh film.

Re: The Watchmen - the more it's fate is questioned, the more curious I am (and the more I hate Fox).

[Morchaint]

hello purist myself here. I was even disappointed with LotR in quite a few spots cause they left some stuff out, and changed other stuff.

if you are a purist you already know what Im talking about.
if you are NOT a purist the list is too long to get into now.

[David]

I would describe myself as a purist. Books and Film are different media, and therefore excel at different story-telling devices and motifs, therefore I think it's unrealistic to expect a movie to be 100% identical to the book.

Having said that, however, there are several things in the LOTR films which I think would actually have worked better in filmic terms if they had followed the books more closely.

[Froggy the Great]

Agreed, the LoTR discussion is too long to get into.

I'd like a movie of The Worlds Inside My Head, but that means I'd have to write it down first.

[Morchaint]

I think that if they are going to make a movie from a book than they need to stay within 90% of the books content. if however they say this movie is related to, or in the universe in. etc. then they can do closer to 30-50% of what the book says. for those icky non hard core fans of the books in question.

[Digitalmaniac]

I would describe myself as a purist. Books and Film are different media, and therefore excel at different story-telling devices and motifs, therefore I think it's unrealistic to expect a movie to be 100% identical to the book.

.

Star Wars stayed faithful to the books but then they had George Lucas as the writer and director.

[Digitalmaniac]

I think that if they are going to make a movie from a book than they need to stay within 90% of the books content. if however they say this movie is related to, or in the universe in. etc. then they can do closer to 30-50% of what the book says. for those icky non hard core fans of the books in question.

Check the opening Credits. If it says "Based On" anywhere you can be sure that the screenwriter went far afield of the book. Some books don't translate because they are just too long

[Dhraakellian]

The LotR movies were excellent. They weren't the books, but then, well...

The LotR movies aren't so much J.R.R. Tolkien's LotR in movie form as they are Peter Jackson's telling of the mythology of Middle Earth around the War of the Ring and the end of the Third Age.

As for other movies...

I just watched Iron Man yesterday. 'Twas nifty. I think it would probably have been more nifty if I was actually familiar with the comic book version.

I have yet to rewatch Batman Begins and The Dark Knight from the copies I got for Christmas. With these, however, I have a little more background with the story. Most of my familiarity with the Batman story comes from the 1990s animated series, which I'm told is an excellent introduction to Batman.

[see317]

I would describe myself as a purist. Books and Film are different media, and therefore excel at different story-telling devices and motifs, therefore I think it's unrealistic to expect a movie to be 100% identical to the book.
.

Star Wars stayed faithful to the books but then they had George Lucas as the writer and director.

Also because Star Wars was a movie first, then the novelizations came out.

[altasilvapuer]

Actually, there is some slight discrepancy between Star Wars' movies and novelizations, but it's (doubly) in the opposite direction. From what I have heard and seen in references to the novelization elsewhere (I'm not that interested in reading the novelizations, myself, so my information's potentially not as accurate as it could be) the books are probably something like 90% accurate to the films. But there, the (in)accuracy is not in things left out, but in things added. A vast majority of almost insignificant details in the Star Wars Universe actually stem first from the novelizations' descriptions of things in the film that were either not described, were only lightly described, or weren't even noticeable as being interesting in and of themselves. A good example that I've recently discovered are the plums that the characters are seen eating in the Skywalker residence in Episode I. In the movie, they're just plums - with no explanation of where exactly these plums come from on a planet of endless sand dunes. In the novelizations, they're (somewhat shakily, still) explained as growing under the sand, from where they were a favourite meal of the Galoomp. (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Desert_plum)

Star Wars is far from my absolute favourite science fiction escape these days, mostly because I've begun to lean towards slightly more "realistic" science fiction (but still not really true "hard" science fiction), but the carefree "space opera" mindset of Star Wars (moisture in the air of a planet full of sand dunes, anyone?) is refreshing, too, in its own right.

-asp