Fast Learner
First Post
I'd always considered myself to be unfortunate to have never read the Earthsea books, but at least for now I'll consider myself fortunate, so that I can watch the miniseries on its own merit.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Earthsea trailers
- Thread starter Krug
- Start date
John Q. Mayhem
Explorer
There's not a whole lot I hate more than movie people screwing up books, but I think I'll watch this anyway if it comes in movie rental places. I loved Sci-Fi's Dune movies.
EDIT: What's this?!?! No Nemmerle? Heaven forfend!
EDIT: What's this?!?! No Nemmerle? Heaven forfend!
Last edited:
krunchyfrogg
Explorer
Wow.
This is the first I'm hearing of this movie.
Although even LeGuin is not happy with what she's seen so far, I'll see this movie. Heck, I saw Dungeons & Dragons, and it won't be that bad.
This is the first I'm hearing of this movie.
Although even LeGuin is not happy with what she's seen so far, I'll see this movie. Heck, I saw Dungeons & Dragons, and it won't be that bad.
John Q. Mayhem said:
Actually Nemmerle has a much bigger role in the TV movies. There are some serious changes and concessions made to attract casual LOTR fans and Harry Potter fanatics. The entire section covering the training of Ged after he leaves for Roke is way too Harry Potter Like...
I posted my review in another thread.
I guess how bad it is is dependent on what your expectations are. I had recently reread the first two books when I got the assignment to review the show so I was more than a little put of. People who 'got' the story of the novels will be somewhat confused by the path the TV show takes.
They amalgamated the first two books.. and I guess I saw too many concessions to connect the Fantasy aspects to recent movies like Harry Potter.. a lot of the drama and gravitas of the first book are missing.
That said the acting is pretty good overall. I like Glover's tak on Ogion. I think Ashmore did a good job with the character as written for TV, but I'm not happy with Kreuk or the stereotypical "Brittish bad guy" character they introduce. Funny though that they changed Ged from a swarthy character to a hobit looking white guy but managed to maintain Le Guin's insistence that the bad guys were white. That change really changes the perspective of the conflict a bit to me.
The most disappointing scene for me was the Dragons of Pendar battle - it's not there... sadly.
I guess how bad it is is dependent on what your expectations are. I had recently reread the first two books when I got the assignment to review the show so I was more than a little put of. People who 'got' the story of the novels will be somewhat confused by the path the TV show takes.
They amalgamated the first two books.. and I guess I saw too many concessions to connect the Fantasy aspects to recent movies like Harry Potter.. a lot of the drama and gravitas of the first book are missing.
That said the acting is pretty good overall. I like Glover's tak on Ogion. I think Ashmore did a good job with the character as written for TV, but I'm not happy with Kreuk or the stereotypical "Brittish bad guy" character they introduce. Funny though that they changed Ged from a swarthy character to a hobit looking white guy but managed to maintain Le Guin's insistence that the bad guys were white. That change really changes the perspective of the conflict a bit to me.
The most disappointing scene for me was the Dragons of Pendar battle - it's not there... sadly.
Last edited:
Elrik_DarkFury
First Post
Those people will sell everything for money.
I was so happy when i first saw the news, but now i don't know...
I am going to see the thing if i can, but i already am prepared to be dissappointed.
_______________
The Wizard
I was so happy when i first saw the news, but now i don't know...
I am going to see the thing if i can, but i already am prepared to be dissappointed.
_______________
The Wizard
Last edited:
SynapsisSynopsis
First Post
John Q. Mayhem said:
I think most of the problem is the belief that movies based on books should be faithful to the books they're based on (and, in LeGuin's case, that her reading of the book is priveleged over anyone else's; I suppose Lieberman's mistake here was in framing his point with 'what LeGuin meant the book to do,' rather than with 'what the book actually does').
Ian McEwan has a better handle on it. The movie version of his Enduring Love was just released, which he didn't want to be much involved with because he knew he'd be tempted to hug the book too closely (he gave notes instead of writing the screenplay). Two quotes from McEwan about adapting novels: "The role of the novelist musn't be to hover around the project like its bad conscience"; and "There are only two reasons to adapt your own novel. One is to stop anyone else doing it, and the other is to get paid."
I'd like to see filmmakers do more with their adaptations, personally. Harold Pinter's screenplay of John Fowles' The French Lieutenant's Woman is a good example. Purposefully unfaithful, but impressive (what else do you expect from Pinter though?).
