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

Done Gone Back to Gont, If Don't Nobody Mind. . .

An I may return to aragil's opening asking:

I've read all the six volumes of Earthsea, the first three that many decades ago, and even the pair of tales in The Wind's Twelve Quarters, and assigned A Wizard for at least a dozen summers to my AP students (as companion and counterweight to Melville's Moby), and been considerably psyched since reading a few years back that the Sci-Fi Channel was already at work on a mini-series (though more than faintly disappointed that now I'd never be the one to write the screenplay which would persuade my beloved Oo Kay to grant the film-rights to me: the opening shot-sequence, of the hawk's flight bright on the empty sky spiraling high above the heart of the Archipelago and down over the Gontish Sea to Re Albi and Ten Alders on the mountainside, has soared in my mind's eye for a very long time, and my mind's ear too, with the mournful lilting lyricon of Shadowfax's second album singing); and thus I awaited with breath abated for the cable-premiere at last last month -- and man oh man what a massive let-down!

There's so much to deplore in this horrid hack-job
of an insensate God-awful adaptation that
I hardly know where wi' me bile to begin;

and as the primal purpose of my present posting,
beyond emphatically underlining my poll-opinion,
is to reawaken this thread of royalstar's starting,
so's we might could discourse at some greater length
upon so potentially fruitful and illuminating a subject
(in all of the free time for Web-weaving I wish I had),
let me end here, but for now, by saying -- and the Man
from Montana will hear & know the depth of my feeling --

what was done to Ursula's original by the Sci-Fi Channel
makes the Kiwi Kaiser look like Akira bloody Kurosawa!

Such an interesting thread. Discussion ranging far and wide and getting completely off the point. I didn't see the Earthsea mini-series. I don't think it has been broadcast in Britain yet, but I will watch it first chance I get. Judging from the Dune mini-series it could be mediocre or judging from the Children of Dune mini-series it could be above average. Which is more than could be said about the first Harry Potter film and The Ten Commandments directed by Cecil B Deville, both of which were over-inflated drags that could have benifited from the talents of ruthless editor. Dear Mrs Maggott, a good film adaptation should not be a carbon copy of a book, be it The Bible or LOTR. A good director is not a slave to the written word, but someone who has the courage to follow his own vision of the source material and the skill to put his or her's vision on the screen. I consider PJ to be a good director. I stopped watching Mel Gibson's films after Braveheart which featured good performances and technical values, but was an abysmal adaptation of Scottish History. Honestly, William Wallace done up like a Rangers supporter, in a badly fitting kilt, and an English/French princess seducing him in a prison cell when the real princess was all of 9 years old when Wallace was executed. Psycho has also been mentioned and the reason given for the failure of the second film was that the surprise was known to everyone, and not the fact that Alfred Hitchcock didn't direct it. You want to see how a film should be adapted read the book by Robert Bloch and then watch Hitchcock's film. Object lesson. There is no such thing as a perfect adaptation, but an open mind when watching can help. Liz in Aberdeen

You disapprove of Mel Gibson's portrayal of William Wallace because it was not historically accurate. Therefore, as good as the film was otherwise, you disliked it. I don't approve of Peter Jackson's portrayal of Aragorn, Elrond, Frodo, Gandalf and a whole lot more characters in the films because they, too, are not according to the reality that matters: Tolkien's. All of the "great things" that Jackson provided in the films are to me of absolutely no interest, good as I have admitted that they are. If the characters stink, to my mind, the film stinks - and that even includes films where the director has been "true to the story" he is filming in which the characters, in fact, "stink". I don't bother to see such films nor am I interested in seeing films that take stories I do like and turn them on their heads.

As for that very, very old chestnut about the films not being the book, well, that has been addressed too many times to address it here again. Suffice it to say, I prefer it when a book I like is translated into film, it is done in such a way that I "know" the characters. I don't mind if the plot is changed or peripheral people are left out. I do mind if a strong hero is made into a wuss or a noble man is made ignoble.

Furthermore, I for one very much appreciated the Potter films because I recognized the people and the places. You may think that those films and others that make an effort to remain true to their source material are dull and uninteresting, but if film directors were so great at making "better" chararcters than the authors of the books they film, then they should write the books themselves instead of taking well loved works and making them into "hubris hash".

Wow Mrs Maggott, that told me. What I did try and get across, and probably failed in the endeavor was this. No two people see the same film or read the same book. Now for me Peter Jackson pretty much hit the nail on the head with his films, Mel Gibson failed on all counts with Braveheart. But that is my opinion, and that and a quarter will make either an interesting discussion or get you a cup of coffee. You have your opinion and I would like think that we could have and interesting discussion. Anyone who feels as strongly as you do about these matters deserves to have their opinion respected. So do I. Now to close I am going to quote my favourite film director, Hitchcock and say " It's only a movie."

Liz in Aberdeen.

no1liz said:

Wow Mrs Maggott, that told me. What I did try and get across, and probably failed in the endeavor was this. No two people see the same film or read the same book. Now for me Peter Jackson pretty much hit the nail on the head with his films, Mel Gibson failed on all counts with Braveheart. But that is my opinion, and that and a quarter will make either an interesting discussion or get you a cup of coffee. You have your opinion and I would like think that we could have and interesting discussion. Anyone who feels as strongly as you do about these matters deserves to have their opinion respected. So do I. Now to close I am going to quote my favourite film director, Hitchcock and say " It's only a movie."

Liz in Aberdeen.

Click to expand...

Sorry. I was a tad "testy" last night and when you hear the "films aren't books" point (yet again), it just gets, well, old. I don't think that anybody expected the book made into films en toto, so to speak. However, the changes Jackson made to the characters did not seem to make sense to me as a necessary part of adapting the book to film. Yes, I could see him leaving out the Old Forest/Bombadil/Barrowdowns plot for the sake of time. And I could even see him substituting Arwen for Glorfindel so as to "introduce" the lady. However, where he took it from there absolutely lost me. So did his "ignobling" of Aragorn who, lets face it, until the third film is a positive wuss. (No wonder Elrond had no respect for him!).

Anyway, this has all been covered at great length before. It's, as you so intelligently pointed out, all a matter of taste - nor is it all that important anyway.

Again, sorry for my "testiness" in my last post.

What a nice apology Mrs Maggott, And for my part if I upset you I'm sorry. I joined this forum to make friends and someone who has strong opinions such as yourself is the type of person I want to be freindly with. Now, what did you think of the Earth-Sea adaptation? Did you see it or any of the Sci-Fi channel's versions of the Dune Saga? I must check and see if it has been broadcast here in the UK. I did so much want to see it, but no luck so far. Liz in Aberdeen

I saw the series, but it has been so long since I read the books, that my opinion is somewhat questionable. However, there were some things that I do remember. The book, "The Tombs of Atuan" make the series presentation of the temple what I would call diametric to the book. In the book, the old High Priestess dies and the Temple functionaries go to look for a "new" H.P. (very much as they do with the Delhi Lama). She is brought back to the Temple as a very young child and spends her life learning about not only her duties, but the unlighted maze beneath the great mound. One day, the young wizard comes (looking for something, but I don't remember what) and he brings - for the first time - light into the antechamber and the maze. She watches him enter the maze, knowing he will become lost. He does. Ordinarily, such thieves are left to die of thirst, but she becomes obsessed with him - and saves him and eventually, he takes her away from the Temple to freedom but there is no "love affair" at least that I remember.

Now that is certainly not the story as it was filmed. So I must assume that the rest of the series was as "different" from the books as this point was. I really don't believe that in the end, the "dark thing" the young wizard releases is only his "darker self", but I don't recall. Someone who has read the books more recently would have to testify to that.

As for "friendship", I would be honored (I love Scotland! and I have a very funny story to relate from my youth when time allows!).

Never watched the Earth-sea series, but I think we should add another vote:

LLOYD ALEXANDER

Got the worst out of all of them. Disney's adaptation of his prydain Chronicles ("The Black Cauldron") was completely off.