Le Guin or Tolkien, who got the worst of it?

I don't think I would have liked any movie of Jesus, because I do not believe in him. I find the whole story full of holes and just a figment of mans' imagination.

as for Gibsons christ movie, why then call it The Passion of the Christ? I couldn't see any passion on screen, other than the passion of the romans beating the living daylights out of Christ.

Moving on before this gets any uglier ...

Glad to hear you agree, GW. Incidentally, for anyone interested, I believe SciFi will replay the whole miniseries, back-to-back, on Sunday.

Mrs. M- I take it you actually saw the miniseries?
Overall I thought the adaptations of both books (Wizard of Earthsea, Tombs of Atuan) were sub-par, but that the elements from 'Atuan' got far the worst of it.
I think style was horribly mangled in Atuan. One of the best elements of the book was the sense of isolation and claustrophobia generated by how it was written. The book opens with the selection of the young priestess and her removal from her family. From there until the closing chapter the rest of the book is completely set in the priestesses' compound, much of it in the dark underground tunnels. There is a terrible sense of lack of an outside world. All this is of course removed (eventually) when Ged arrives, first bringing a hint of the outside world to Tenar, and finally bringing Tenar to the outside world.
Compare this with the adaptation. First off, by making Tenar an orphan instead of 'the nameless one', she is no longer isolated from her fellow neophites- she is just another priestess in training (though apparently an especially gifted one). The filming of the underground maze is (as I think Mrs. M was hinting at) especially egregious, as the book scenes inside the maze were so evocative and created so much of the atmosphere for the book. Frankly I don't think the filmakers can use the excuse about darkness not being 'cinematic' material- I've seen scenes in many films that perfectly evoke the terror of being lost underground in complete darkness. These filmakers just didn't try. Finally, and most importantly, by intercutting between the Ged and Tenar storylines, we totally lose the impression of how isolated the priestesses' compound is. This is a fatal flaw, IMO. It destroys so much of what makes Tombs an interesting read.

Tying this back to PJ and LotR, I think that PJ & co. did this right in the films. The Shire, Rivendell, Moria, Isengard, Fangorn, Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith, and Mordor all evoked the same sense for me as they did in the books. I suppose Alan Lee and John Howe could be given a lot of the credit for this, not just because many readers have seen their images while reading the books (I had not), but probably more so because the two artists had spent so much time contemplating the most evocative scenes from the books, and how they could be rendered into visual media. It is to the PJ's credit (IMO) that many times he tried to exactly recreate one of their paintings.



On a slightly different note, is anyone up for discussing the disparate cultures in Earthsea and how they were brought to the screen, vs. the different cultures in Middle-earth and their adaptation?

Ol'gaffer said:

I don't think I would have liked any movie of Jesus, because I do not believe in him. I find the whole story full of holes and just a figment of mans' imagination.

as for Gibsons christ movie, why then call it The Passion of the Christ? I couldn't see any passion on screen, other than the passion of the romans beating the living daylights out of Christ.

Click to expand...

I thought we were speaking of how a subject is handled, not whether or not you believe it is "real" or not. After all, how many believe that either "Middle-earth" or "Earthsea" are "real" and yet you do not fault those who filmed either simply because that is the case?

Furthermore, many, many films are chock full of far more gore and mayhem than The Passion of The Christ and no one seems even mildly upset. Nor did The Passion show anything other than what happened as testified to by a number of witnesses present at the time whose words have come down to us. What Gibson filmed was nothing more or less than a fairly ordinary Roman execution, horrible though it was. Indeed, aside from the brief glimpse of the resurrected Christ, there were no miracles (Judas' demons might have been nothing more than a cinematic treatment of his guilty conscience!). No one walked on water, no wine was made from water, no one was healed, no one raised from the dead - except of course, for the brief moment at the end. So you cannot complain that The Passion was filled with hokey "religious" stuff.

So what made this fairly low-key cinematic presentation of suffering and death its undoubted power to move an audience both positively and negatively? Actually, it was the belief by many in that audience that the Man to whom it happened - and most historians believe that Jesus of Nazarath in fact lived and died as has been reported whether or not they believe in His claim to divinity - was in fact, the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world. Yet, even whether the viewer believed that or not, the film moved people on a level that all the "splatter" films and "goodfellas" movies do not, realistic as they may be. Why? Well perhaps even those who didn't believe in Jesus Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity were moved by the suffering and death of an innocent and good man. Who knows?

Finally, the term "passion" is the word used to define the suffering and death of Christ by the Church and has been since the beginning. It is not a term invented by Gibson and so it is no more subject to criticism than the fact that Jackson used the word "orc" to describe the nasties in LOTR. In both instances, the directors were referring to the language of the subject and not inventing terms of their own.

The point about The Passion being overtly gory and exruciating to watch wasn't for me because of the charecter that it was done to. It was because it was prolonged violence, almost similar to pornography. It continues for so long that it no longer is human, but an act in which the people involved are no longer actual people, they are just instruments comprising the act. There are no emotions or people outside the act itself, just the event that keeps dragging on.

As for comparing the Passions violence to other films such as Goodfellas and Scarface...Well let's just say that Goodfellas and Scarface are mobster movies in which violence is an entirely different issue than in a movie made about the bible.

Considering all the material that Gibson had at hand, it's almost tragic that he decided to film a two hour beating marathon in which, like you said, a traditional roman execution is dragged on in slow motion and extreme close ups of the wounds and blood for two hours. Not very low key imo.

haha, the bible is the most voilent book in the universe. from god exacting punishment, to child sacrifice to death and murder...the old question Gaffer....

HAVE YOU READ THE BOOK ??

Here s another lesson for movie maker gaffer:

when u film the last hours of a man on death row, you dont show pretty folowers on the sidewalk...

Havent seen Passion of chirst to comment further, but like lotr you dont seem to "get" the message from the author or the director, if it a bit more than skin deep.

I htink u need a bit of critical thinking class beforehand

Again, I should just ignore the postings of a man who has trouble with his grammar and capitalization. But it's in my nature to answer, even to stupidity.

I never said that the Bible isn't violent. I only said that Gibson had plenty of material to choose from in Christs life. Yet he decided to make a two hour film of violence.

Considering that you haven't seen the film, it's funny that you take part in an argument about the film. If you can call your posting taking part, when at best they are just mocking and insulting.

Ol'gaffer said:

I only said that Gibson had plenty of material to choose from in Christs life. Yet he decided to make a two hour film of violence.

Click to expand...

remember the term "adaptation", gaffer??? the only question is whether it was successful or not....PJ's was abysmal.

Ol'gaffer said:

If you can call your posting taking part, when at best they are just mocking and insulting.

Click to expand...

call it though provokign, gaffer

grammar and capitalization phhst, only for dimwitted

The Passion was a film about the arrest, trial and execution of a Man. It was a "vignette", if you will, of a few hours of the life of that Man and those surrounding him during His ordeal. It was a relentless presentation of injustice, violence and cruelty because Christ's arrest, trial and execution encompassed relentless acts of injustice, violence and cruelty - as well as acts of extreme humility (Christ's) and humanity (His Mother, Pilate's wife, the women disciples and even the two Centurians). There were acts of betrayal (Judas and Peter), pride (the High Priest and his followers in the Sanhedrin), stupidity (Barabbas) and venality (Pilate). It was a magnificent microcosm of all that is both right and wrong with the human race.

As for "violence", as fadhatter pointed out, the Bible is a violent book because the history it portrays is filled with violence.

However, the point that brought about this entire aspect of the discussion is whether or not it is possible for a filmed version of a book to remain "true" to the vision of the book's author. I pointed to Gibson's work as proof that indeed, it is possible to make an outstanding film without the director imposing his own "version" of the story on the audience.

Please, folks. I asked WM permission for an Earthsea adaptation thread to be placed in this forum, and he said only on condition that it also relates to adaptation of Tolkien's work. Let's try to keep this thread a little more related to Earthsea adaptation and LotR adaptation. I'm certain there are other forums for biblical discussions. Thanks.

Mod's comment.

In threads such as these, it is expected that comparisons will include other films and a certain amount of expanation of the comparison is also to be expected. However, in the case of "The Passion" it would seem that enough has been said. Further posts discussing this film will be considered Off Topic.

there is accusation that Mel Gibson was anti-semitic in his adaptation now personally, i think gibson is a terrible actor, but is a very thoughtful director. Any movie that can bring a reaction from the audience is a good movie first a foremost. It got a reaction from gaffer so it cant be so bad

Interpretation/adaptation is a fine thing, the whole new testament is interpretation from various disciples on the word of christ. Now none of that interpretation from the new testament, can u legitimize the Christian crusades against arabs, or the Spanish inquisitions against heretics, or the christian america against communists. The new testament was so sanitised that to fight for christ was bad: remember to turn the other cheek.

SO whilst everyone can have an interpretion, it doesnt means its correct. PJ's intepretation of the LOTR just doesnt work when compared to other people's work. Its shallow in content and inferior technologically.

PJ didn't try to make an artitistic statement like a mel gibson would, his lack of CGI saviness is evident. Looking through the commentaries, it didnt look like the LOTR team had a clear vision. it was ad lib stuff and excuses like the faramir debacle.

remember, once i thought i was wrong but i was mistaken

fadhatter said:

oh oh the censorhip big stick

it was already off-topic, unless the topic starter wanted another discussion on "adpatations" and interpretations

Click to expand...

Interesting....

After your very good post you throw in this.

I am aware that the thread had gone off topic to a certain extent. However, this was due to the need to explain the use of another comparison which was on topic. In fact you proved that the comparison was on topic in your post No. 31.

I do not indulge in "Censorship" I deal with posts according to the rules of this forum.

I brought up The Passion and I believe it is "on target" in this thread. The question has to do - if I understand it aright - with whether or not the filmed versions of the two works compared favorably or unfavorably to what the authors had actually written. A lot of people in the film threads have argued endlessly that it is not possible for any film to "be true" to the vision held by the author of a book that is being translated into this medium. I disagreed with that contention before - and I continue to do so now. In validation of my point, I mentioned the Harry Potter films which - whether one likes either the films or the books - were as true as possible to the author's "vision" of her tales - according to the author herself. In the same way, The Passion of The Christ is a straightforward film adaptation of the four Gospel versions of the arrest, trial and death of Jesus of Nazareth. This is not a religious observation, but an observation limited to a particular written work (the Bible) and its "translation" to film. As such, comments regarding the film should be no more "offensive" or "contentious" than comments about the Potter films or even LOTR itself.

It seems to me that the "problem" here is in the mind of those who because of the subject of the film and the Book from which it is adapted, immediately jump to the conclusion that "religious matters" are being discussed. I don't know about anyone else, of course, but that was not the intention of my comment! I was speaking solely and completely about the fallacious belief that screenwriters and directors simply cannot - for some entirely unknown reason - incorporate the author's meaning and vision in a film of that person's book. If Chris Columbus and Mel Gibson can do it, I don't understand why Peter Jackson couldn't - and don't tell me that LOTR is more difficult to bring to the screen than The Bible - at least with regard to characterization and moral worldview!

Columbus made those two films on a very tight leash. The movies where later criticised to being exact page to screen replicas of the books with no heart in them. So much for the perfectness of straight translations. When Alfonso Cuaron came aboard, the script was altered slightly after a discussion with Rowling, some things were changed and some were added. Surprisingly, the movie received not only another box office success, but was hailed as the best of the three Potter movies and even the fans were extremely pleased.

Thank God he was on a "tight leash" and whatever the critic say, I don't hear Potter fans complaining - unless it was about what was left out from the books! As for the third film, my husband (who saw the first two films but never read the books) didn't care for it. He couldn't understand why they had to change the "geography" (Hagrid's hut is suddenly located in a steep valley in the rear instead of across a level field in front of the school) and why the whole thing was so "dim and dingy" (the lighting was very different). However, he did like it better in the EE DVD.

The point here is that both Potter directors kept their characters true which, frankly, is all that matters. They stuck with the author's meaning and vision of her stories and did not decide that they "could do the whole thing so much better" as did Jackson and his cohorts. It is in the "translation" of the characters from book to film in which Jackson failed most miserably and, interestingly enough, translating the characters properly should have been far easier than turning all the other "visual" and "plot" elements from the book into film. The descriptions and dialogue were all there for him and his writers as well as a wealth of books and other writings which dissected the various characters which would make them easy to understand. Indeed, it required far more effort to do a "makeover" on just about everybody and, frankly, the only character he got consistently right - Gandalf - he absolutely ruined in the third film! That means that his characters were not only different (in some cases diametrically so) from the book, but were - in Gandalf's case at least, inconsistent within the context of the films themselves!

Hm.
Il' start with the statement that I haven't yet had the chance to watch the Earthsea miniseries. I DID read the novels, however, and I just DID read Ursula Le Guin's article. And with all due respect to one of fantasy's REALLY GREAT writers, I'm embarrased of it.
Why does Mrs Le Guin turn so much attention to the racial conflict between the book and the miniseries? This is the content of 90 % of the article. What about the actor's play? What about the director? The music? The recreation of the places ? The....
Well, ok. I can't say anything about that, because, like I said, I havent seen the miniseries. BUT I'm really amazed that an autor of this magnitute pays so much attention to this issue. She looks almost racist..... (or what you say in case that they are against WHITE, not against BLACK). Well, that is her right, she wrote the novels, but I think she is overreacting. Unless, of course, the miniseries are that bad that there is nothing else to make up for this failure. I'll see................
Thus speaking, I'm really impressed that there was no reaction from the defenders of the colored people's rights regarding the fact that ALL majior characters in the LOTR were white, and the ONLY black actors that appeared throughout the whole movie trilogy were the riders of the Mumakil, who are on the side of evil Well, I guess the diversity of other species in the movie (orcs, Uruk-hai, etc.) has diverted the attention of the aforementioned gentlemen. Or maybe they were just blown away by the goodies on the screen and didn't have time to notice what I noticed))))

EarthSea brought in 13.7 Million Viewers for the Sci-Fi Channel. This is the 2nd highest rated Miniseries on the channel.

SCI FI scores with Legend of Earthsea
WEDNESDAY - DECEMBER 15, 2004

The SCI FI Channel mini-series event Legend of Earthsea continued the network's tradition of highly-rated December mini-series this week, averaging nearly 3.7 million viewers over two nights. The fantasy mini-series stars Shawn Ashmore ("X-Men"), Isabella Rossellini (Blue Velvet), Kristin Kreuk (Smallville), and Danny Glover ("Lethal Weapon").

Part 1 earned a 3.0 average household rating on Monday night, drawing over 3.4 million viewers to the cable network. Part 2 improved on that success with a 3.4 rating, or over 3.9 million viewers. Earthsea was cable's highest-rated entertainment program on both nights.

The finale episode also managed to best the 2-hour July premiere of Stargate Atlantis (3.2), making it SCI FI's highest-rated program of the year.

Based on the best-selling novels from Ursula K. Le Guin, Legend of Earthsea tells the story of a reckless young wizard and his journey to save the mystical land of Earthsea from being destroyed by an evil tyrant. The complete, 4-hour mini-series will air again on Sunday, December 19 from 7 to 11 p.m. Eastern/Pacific.

Click to expand...

my niece says kristin kreuk in in the mini-series so she loves it

The Earth-Sea books sound interesting. I'd like to check those books out as I've heard good things about them. I didn't see the miniseries but when it comes out on DVD I'll check it out...Just as I did with Dune. I wasn't too happy with the Sci-Fi Channel's Dune miniseries, especially the ending. I think PJ did it a lot better with LOTR then was done with Dune...both movie and miniseries.


I've seen movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey and the sequel 2010 and read Arthur C. Clarke's books..and liked the books better. I have to say that I almost always like the books better.

The first two Harry Potter movies were indeed the truest examples I've seen to the books, almost word for word. But after the first movie the second HP movie seemed nothing more than a repeat of the first. I have yet to see the third movie but I've heard mixed reviews.

I'm wondering what the result will be when they actually make a movie of C.S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia.

Narsil said:

I have to say that I almost always like the books better.
...
The first two Harry Potter movies were indeed the truest examples I've seen to the books, almost word for word.

Click to expand...

Here's a question I don't think I've ever asked: Do you like film adaptations better when they are word for word copies (like Harry Potter), or do you like them better when they explore other aspects of the story and deviate somewhat from the book?

I'm always reminded of the 1998 remake of Psycho with Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche (and even Viggo). The film is proportedly a shot-for-shot, camera angle-for-camer angle, line-for-line remake of the original, but in color. This sounded so unappealing to me that I never saw it, and quickly turned the channel recently when I saw it on tv. I guess that in the case of a book-to-film adaptation there is the advantage of seeing a beloved story in a new media, but I'm not sure I would actually appreciate it if the movie was exactly the same as the books. Why not just read the book, which is almost invariably better?

It all depends upon how the director "explores" the story. I am sure that H.P. fans would not have appreciated a film that basically changed the characters of the central figures. In other words, if Harry was a loud egomanic, Ron was dull witted and Malfoy was a good old boy. The "exploration" one expects in such a film is how the director is going to bring to the screen the essence of the book's story and not simply another story altogether even though that story may contained the same names and places.

As for the remake of Psycho: as noted that involved a movie remake of a movie and not an adaptation of a book. No one could improve on the original - especially for its "surprise" value. Once the surprise is gone, then really all one has to "look forward to" is Hitchc-o-c-k's nuances and the performance of the actors. Of course, these cannot be "reproduced" only imitated. There is a difference between an honest adaptation and an imitation.

Frankly, the "fudge value" of a director is directly inverse to the popularity of the book. Therefore, a relatively unknown book or a children's story that is very simple (Polar Express) provides a greater scope for the director and scriptwriter to "invent" than does a very well known and/or popular book(s). For instance, C. B. DeMille was very, very careful indeed when he filmed The Ten Commandments! He did not have a huge scope for invention. Indeed, he personally spoke to the audience in the original release to "apologize" for his "temerity" in filming a Biblical story! Talk about respect for the Author! In the same way, the Potter books were far too popular for the audience to lightly accept a significant digression from the author's characters and plot line. And I'm sure more Tolkien advocates would have loved these films better if Jackson had stayed true at least to Tolkien's central characters. I know that certainly I would.