Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[slink]

But of course I'm biased, since I believe cinema to be humanity's greatest achievement and finest art form.

I kind of agree with you there, I just think the main problem is the industry stops most of them living up to potential. I find very few films that I am completely happy with. Most of which are low budget.
I am kind of torn between films and books though. If I had to choose one to keep it would probably be books. But then I'd miss the great movies...
Well, thank god I don't have to choose!

[jough]

See, I think you can make films "your own" just as much as books.  I don't think the imagination is limited or stifled in the least because you can see what someone looks like, or see an image.  With a GOOD film people will come away having not seen the same film because they brought their own perspective to it.

Don't think I'm ragging on books - I'm obviously a "reader" and always have two or three books that I switch between at any given time - but cinema is still in its infancy - even the best film can only be compared to a Henry James novel.  We're still awaiting the James Joyce or D.H. Lawrence of cinema.

The human imagination is wonderful, but I don't experience art to delve into my own imagination.  I see art (poetry, film, novels, painting) as an escape from self, as a temporary entry into someone else's imagination - that's what's so exciting about art to me.

[pmcd9]

Usually, Jough is right, a movie doesn't do a book justice, and the shortcomings can be distracting, but I think they have come as close as anyone ever has with LOTR.  They took a few detours with the second movie, but I understand the logic of their choices.  The Fellowship however, especially the scenes in the Shire and Lorian, are just about flawless.  They mirrored my imagination perfectly.

~Paul

[slink]

The Fellowship however, especially the scenes in the Shire and Lorian, are just about flawless.  They mirrored my imagination perfectly.

For me at least, the Fellowship is a tricky one to tell. Having just finished watching again (long oevrdue), I was again struck by the imagery Jackson has taken from various versions. For instance the Hobbits' first encounter with the Nasgul, under the tree stump, being an almost perfect replication of the 70's animated version. Which as far as I'm concerned, became how I always picture it.
And things like Arwen summoning the cascade of water, following some of the art by... someone, done a good few years back.
There are a few other bits too.
But through that, and the fact that I'm not old enough to have read it before I saw the animated version, I don't know if those images are what I would have pictured, or whether they're imprinted on me. When I read the books, I pictured those bits just like that.
Admittedly, the other bits that had no prior imprint, I pictured very closely to the film, and thus I do agree, that Jackson has done about the best job of adapting a book to film ever. And, on a hugely difficult project too, since the books almost legendary!

On another note, I think one of the other great adaptations, that surpassed the book in this instance, was Blade Runner, from Do Androids Dream...
It was very different from how I pictured the book, but the original version is one of my all time favourite films. It's just a stunning piece of cinema. Alas, Ridley Scott got his ugly mitts on it again and destroyed it afterwards. I've noticed he likes to do that with his films!

[Mite]

On another note, I think one of the other great adaptations, that surpassed the book in this instance, was Blade Runner, from Do Androids Dream...

I really disliked the movie. I thought he changed the whole theme of the book, i.e. "the difference or lack therof between human and highly advanced machine" became "is Harrison Ford's character an android or not". Of course, I saw the film years after the concept of cyberpunk had come into its own, so I can't view it as the groundbreaking movie a lot of folks make it out to be.

[Choop]

i've seen this argument before, and that's why i like the director's cut so much better. he's clearly not an android, and though he has hunted androids,  he obviously comes to the decision that any difference is too miniscule to matter. He doesn't run for fear of life, he runs to protect the object of his affection.

The studio cut butchers the film, and absolutely changes its point from that of the book and the director.

Mite, I may yet stop bustin' your chops. At every turn you impress me.

[jough]

I thought the director's cut was an improvement, but I'm waiting for the upcoming DVD SE to make my final judgement on the film.

The problem with making short stories into films is that they're... well, SHORT.  Not enough material there for an entire 2+ hour film.

[jough]

Yeah, Mite, you put these clowns to shame. You should post more.

And I should probably post a little less.

[Mite]

Thanks, guys. I'm tryin', but I'm shy.

I still haven't seen the director's cut, and I've heard everybody say it's vastly superior. Maybe I should bump it higher on my to-watch list.

[V-Adore]

Shameful confession: I somehow have failed to see "Blade Runner" yet. I am, in fact, some kind of Philistine.

Director's Cut, Director's Cut... I'll remember that.

[jough]

V-Adore, you can't be held responsible for having not seen any important film that was made and released before you were born.

Having said that, GET THEE TO THE VIDEO STORE POST HASTE!

But now I forget - is the DC the version with or without the cheesy voice-over?

[slink]

But now I forget - is the DC the version with or without the cheesy voice-over?

Without. *sobs*
It's a detective movie, it's got to have the voice over!!!
I do realise I am in a minority preferring the original, which didn't have the god awful sunset ending! Oh, and the wobbly unicorn.

[jough]

So Slink, basically what you're saying is that the film I remember so fondly is really a combination of the theatrical cut and the director's cut?

Dang.

I need that new DVD with the seamless branching and multiple audio options, then.

WHERE IS IT, WARNER BROS.? WHERE?

[slink]

So Slink, basically what you're saying is that the film I remember so fondly is really a combination of the theatrical cut and the director's cut?

Well, fair enough I may be misremembering slightly, but it was certainly the original that had the voice over.
As you said, the sooner they release a set with both versions, the better.
OK, the sunset end was in the original theatrical release, but not the workprint version. It was tacked on by the studio.
The unicorn is in the DC only, not the theatrical release.

It sounds like the SE version, which features a cut far closer to the original one, pre release, might turn out to be what I've been waiting for. Though again, I liked the voice over, and that will probably still be missing.
So I was right on all but one bit - the ending.

[FeeReep]

Well, I don't know whether or not your question was rhetorical, jough, but here's a brief history of the rights ping-pong that is Blade Runner:

BR was originally a Warner Bros. release with the Ladd Company, but Embassy Pictures (owned at the time of the original release by Norman Lear, whose production partner Bud Yorkin owned partial screen rights to BR) had a minority stake in the film. Embassy originally released BR on video (the international theatrical cut, which to me is still superior to any existing version, was released to VHS and sublicensed to The Criterion Collection for several LaserDisc releases, while the theatrical version [albeit in pan-and-scan] was released under Embassy's own label on LD due to the format's time limitations).

The Embassy company changed hands numerous times--its television division later sold to Coca-Cola (later Sony Pictures Entertainment) and became ELP Communications, which is why when you first saw BR on television it opened with either the Embassy or Columbia Pictures Television logos. The theatrical and home video divisions became Nelson Entertainment (which released later editions of BR). Ultimately the home video rights to the Embassy library would fall under New Line Home Video (the last company to release the European cut of BR on VHS) and Columbia/Sony retained the television rights, while the theatrical rights went from company to company (DeLaurentis Entertainment Group, ParaFrance Communication S.A., PolyGram Pictures) before Studio Canal became the current theatrical and home video rights holders.

Warner would buy back the rights to BR, if only for the 1994 "director's cut" re-release. They also acquired the home video rights, but again only for the "director's cut" (which remains the only version available on video and DVD). While the original theatrical releases remain currently unavailable on video, Warner was allowed to make the U.S. theatrical and "director's cut" versions available for television (they currently lease BR for broadcast on cable's Sci-Fi Channel).

Where will it all end? Warner Brothers and Studio Canal in a steel cage. Frog fight!