|
Post by Ashe Raven on May 17, 2005 8:54:44 GMT
I have to say it, and sorry if I offend, but even if Wells didnt like Orson Welle's radio play, it didn't detractfrom one important matter...
...it was damn good
|
|
|
Post by bittersound on May 17, 2005 10:52:18 GMT
No it's not
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on May 17, 2005 15:11:41 GMT
heathen
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on May 17, 2005 19:11:44 GMT
I have to disagree with Charles about No "Faithful film" being made since World War 2. I though the 1960 "Time Machine" and the Ray Harryhausen"First Man In the Moon" were pretty faithful. Yes, they made changes ( the girl in Moon) but they did adhere to the basic story and setting. And I though the idea of having the prologue to "Moon" in 1966 and then flashing back to circa 1900 was brilliant. I guess it depends on your defination of faithful. If you mean a wooden, word for word tranlsation, no they were not and I have no hesistation in saying that a totally faithful rednition of almost any book would probably make a not very good movie.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on May 17, 2005 23:54:18 GMT
Though it should be obvious, the definition of a faithful film that uses a novel as its source is:
One which allows the viewer to come away with an understanding and appreciation of the source text’s original context and intent.
Pal’s “The Time Machine” and the Harryhausen “First Men in the Moon” fail to accomplish this by wide degrees. The evolutionary aspect was largely ignored in "The Time Machine" (as was the climactic far future dying Earth scenes), and so was the lampooning of Capitalists and the dystopian dissection of the utilitarian Communism of the Selenites.
In fact no Wells film since “Things to Come” has approached 'getting it right.' Its sad for me to say because I do have sentimental attachments to most of those old films. Even the borderline absurd '96 "Island of Dr. Moreau."
Its as I've said before; I’d be happy if a Wells-based film were as faithful to its original text as “Name of the Rose” or “Remains of the Day” were to theirs. But of course that means making the film more for the sake of art and intellectual honesty than the board room's demographic chart.
|
|
ClaytonForrester
Full Member
This kind of defense is useless against THAT kind of power!
Posts: 112
|
Post by ClaytonForrester on Jul 5, 2005 5:51:12 GMT
At last,someone who agrees that yes,good ol' Stevie is in fact a villain in terms of this particular series of events.Huzzah!
|
|
|
Post by bittersound on Jul 5, 2005 15:42:12 GMT
I have to disagree with Charles about No "Faithful film" being made since World War 2. I couldn't agree more, does anyone remember the brilliant film version of Dalton Trumbo's "Johnny Got His Gun"? (anyone mentioning that terrible song/video that samples/rips it, "One" by Metallica, will have very bad things done to them.)
|
|
|
Post by robkral on Jul 15, 2005 7:04:51 GMT
FALLINGSTAR:
It appears that all your posts here are BEFORE seeing ANY of the recent WOTW films.
Can you post us an update AFTER you've seen them?
AS far as title is concerned: I was peeved that ID4 (as bad as it was) didn't acknowledge HGWells one bit. Clearly its an adpatation.
Asylum's version: It IS the story of WOTW, adapted, things changed etc etc, but in the end, it is the same story. (I'm not going into whats the same and whats different, essentially, it is the overall same story with many of the key scenes, ideas and themes included). Because of this, it'd be more annoying to me if it WASN'T called WOTW.
Believe me, I do understand the frustration that in all these years we have not seen the full faithful, big budget period time setting etc WAR...very surprising actually. THAT movie, if it ever happens, WOULD be deserving of the "HGWell's" title, but including it on adaptations gives HG more credit than the adapting writer.....isn't this the biggest nod that adapting writer can give to the source material?
|
|