←
→
mmoa_writes: (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] mmoa_writes at 10:18pm on 11/01/2009
I rather wished I listened to Thought For the Day, mostly so that I could appreciate the decision to have some humanist participants a bit more.

Now I wonder if they'll be following a similar route with Songs of Praise...

And this is the coolest...


Having now seen the third Watchmen trailer, I think I'm really looking forward to going to see the film when it's eventually released (maybe some time next decade from the sound of things), even if I don't think it'll be that great.
←
→
There are 3 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] alagbon.livejournal.com at 04:24pm on 13/01/2009
I just reread Watchmen, and I have my reservations about whether anyone short of Andrei Tarkovsky could direct a version sufficiently true to the ethos of the original (and then it would be like five hours long or something.) And Tarkovsky's been dead for twelve years anyway. Generally I've been less than whelmed by movie adaptations of Alan Moore, although V For Vendetta wasn't too bad.
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] mmoa.livejournal.com at 05:34pm on 13/01/2009
I think the mess made of Alan Moore's works epitomises the problem with adapting books to the medium of film, that almost every film has but usually isn't so obvious (unless the work is Alan Moore's, lol). It's essentially a lot like fanfiction - the pressure is no longer on the filmmaker the same way it is on for an entirely original piece of work, wrt to characterization, world building, plotting etc. So it goes flat. If they don't insist on adding so much detail from the book that the film becomes pedestrian and lifeless, then they leave out so much detail that the film is just substance.

I enjoyed watching V for Vendetta and I think it was more successful because the director and producers seemed to know why they were making the film in the first place. It wasn't faithful to the GN, and rightly so, which meant it could become a film in it's own right.

I'm curious though, what did Tarkovsky make (I am philistine 101 when it comes to films)?
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] alagbon.livejournal.com at 05:56pm on 13/01/2009
the pressure is no longer on the filmmaker the same way it is on for an entirely original piece of work
True. Add to that the fact that sometimes a writer's original vision clashes with what may be "marketable" and it leads to all sorts of problems.


Tarkovsky's most famous for Andrei Rublev, but he also did a version of Solaris that, in my estimation, is one of the best adaptations of a book to a film ever. When I first read the book I thought it was totally unfilmable, but Tarkovsky, somehow, did it (even though Lem himself didn't like it;) the spirit was captured quite well, with enough of the detail to keep it linked together. That, I think, is also what happened with V For Vendetta; there were necessary departures from the original but it was done quite well.

You would, incidentally, probably enjoy the works of Stanisław Lem; he has a kind of philosophically playful sense of humor that shows up even in his most serious works and it seems like something you'd dig.
[link] [parent] [reply]

January

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  1
 
 2
 
 3
 
 4
 
 5
1
 6
 
7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
 11
 
 12
 
 13
 
14
 
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
 19
 
 20
 
21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
 
 26
 
 27
 
28
 
 29
 
 30
 
 31