This could be fun

[Voron]

I could make a list of all the disparities (major and minor) between the book and the recent movie remake of The Count of Monte Cristo.

This would serve the following purposes:

a) It would illustrate how the cocksmokers in Hollywood love to butcher some of the most beloved classics of our time. Subsequently, it would relieve some stress that I've been feeling watching these movies over the years.

b) It would shame those of you who haven't read the book, which caused you to believe that the movie was actually good, into running to your nearest book retailer and buying a copy.

c) It would be a test for me to see just how well I remember it after reading it 3 or 4 times.

d) It will likely please other Dumas fans.


So, what do you guys think?

[Acies]

Run with it, as long as it does not turn into a debate about child porn I imagine could be interesting

[Searyx]

Just because the book is better does not mean that the movie sucks. The movie is BASED on the book just like "JFK" was BASED on real life events.

[findar]

most book-> movies have gaping disparities due to what the director views as important, and what he can fit in w/ budget and time... tho w/ the LOTR there are some parts that completely boggle me how he didnt include them

[Fingul]

I say go for it. I'll try to patch up anything that you slip on if your memory doesn't hold out =)

Searyx, That's not why the movie sucked. For people who've read the books, it sucks because it takes very well loved characters, and messes them around. Part of Dumas' allure is his elegantly woven storylines. You can't just clip and paste, and tear them up and expect the result to hold up.

I find that if I haven't read the book first (rare thing, since I prefer reading) then I can judge the movie purely on its cinematic strengths / faults. If I've read the book first, the movie HAS to stand up to that, or else it's failed in its attempt to be a valid derivative work.

Fingul Sereguin
Necro - Retired
Veeshan

[Eager Val'Sharess]

The fact is, huge amounts of the best novels are dedicated solely to description. (As opposed to folks talking) You take out the description, and sometimes you aren't left with much.

[Lucidor]

An author can draw your minds eye to anything he wants and point out every tiny detail that fills pages. But when you try and turn this visual naration into a movie you are hard pressed to draw attention to every verbal description short of making a 100+ hour slideshow.

A scene that took 15 pages to outline in-depth could be panned over in seocnds when you get to the screen, and so that element of detail feels lost.

Not to say that a lot of book->movie ventures don't skip material; Just when they do try and fit a ton in you can still feel a little lacking in content.

So when I see a film version of a novel, I really enjoyed, I try not to expect a carbon copy of that experience. I think a good re-telling should try to recreate the essence of the written work without destroying the characters' presence.

In sumation, I can stand some lesser things being left out just don't go and fnck it up by adding in your own ideas of how the story should play out.

[Actovus]

Are you kidding me? That movie was absolutely awesome. I bought the book and read it again after seeing that film. How rare is it to have a throwback to old traditional style movies without cartoons thrown into real action. CGI is getting lame and I at least enjoyed an old fashioned movie that didn't rely on computer effects for once to entertain. Yes, the story is a little different than the book, but consider budget a little? I thought they did a nice job. I'm buying the DVD.

[Szlia]

Newsflash: Books are not movies. Apples are not Oranges.

When you see a movie based on a book, you don't go there to see the book (or the only way would be to make the text scroll up on the screen - note that the now lost version of Greed lasted 9 hours or so because D.W. Griffith [EDIT - AAAaaaaaaah shame on me, It's Erich von Stroheim who directed this!], amongst other things, shot the pages of the book it is based on... at least the rumor says so... ). You go there to see a) nothing more than a movie if you never read the book it is based on b) What the director and/or the scenarist have done with the book, if you read it already.

With b) you get to see the Vision (we are on an EQ board after all :P ) of a director and/or scenarist ON a book you read. How will the story change? Will there be new characters? Or characters that got removed or merged with others? What is the meaning of the changes that were made? What does it say on the book?

That's the kind of question you can ask yourself in a b) scenario.

In the same line of thoughts, I am looking forward to Red Dragon to compare it with Michael Mann's Manhunter since they are both based on the same book

Now of course you can compare a very subjective *entertainement value*, or see how well the movie does against all other movies and the book against all other books to determine which one is the best in its own medium... but does that really make sense?

Edit: spelling

Edit 2: Fixed my bad memory....

[Voron]

Szlia, it's not as separate as you seem to think it is. A book is a work of art, and so is a movie, but when you attempt to make a movie BASED on the book, you're intertwining the two in a pretty big way. In such a case, you have to do your best to interpret the book on film -- NOT to make a completely different work of art. Furthermore, when a book is as popular worldwide as The Count of Monte Cristo is, you have a much higher obligation to pay proper homage to the author by not twisting the plot to your own liking.

Aside from that.... look -- when the original story is one of the most popular novels of one of the most popular authors in history, do you REALLY think the DIRECTOR can change it for the better?? Apparently they do, and it's a disgrace to both filmmaking and mankind.

Actovus, the story isn't "a little different" -- it is MAJORLY different, as I will illustrate first thing tommorow. If you honestly thought that the movie was awesome after reading the book, then, no offense, but I would not want you critiquing movies for me.

Lucidor, I perfectly understand the issue of description being a huge part of a book and not of a movie. That is not my beef. I never expect the movie to be 10% as good as the book that it's based on, but I would still be extremely happy with it if it is done right. Tommorow, I will show you how, in this and 99% of other cases, the director took an ageless classic story, BUTCHERED it into little pieces, tossed a lot of his own shit into the mix, and tried to present it as a work of art comparable to the original.

[Szlia]

A book is a work of art, and so is a movie, but when you attempt to make a movie BASED on the book, you're intertwining the two in a pretty big way. In such a case, you have to do your best to interpret the book on film -- NOT to make a completely different work of art. Furthermore, when a book is as popular worldwide as The Count of Monte Cristo is, you have a much higher obligation to pay proper homage to the author by not twisting the plot to your own liking.

No no no! I strongly disagree with that. There is nothing an artist "has to do", there is nos such things as "a much higher obligation". And why doing a movie based on a book in the first place if it will only mimic the book?

Al Pacino's "Looking for Richard", Richard Loncraine's "Richard III", Peter Greenaway's "Prospero's Books" or Orson Wells's "Othelo" interest me a lot more than any Kenneth Branagh or Laurence Olivier Shakespearean adaptation (ok ok I have not seen them all but you get the idea…).

Oh and:

Aside from that.... look -- when the original story is one of the most popular novels of one of the most popular authors in history, do you REALLY think the DIRECTOR can change it for the better?? Apparently they do, and it's a disgrace to both filmmaking and mankind.

A great story for a book can be a very bad story for a movie and vice-versa. And personally I will always prefer an ambitious or even pretentious screenwriter/director to one castrated by respect.

[VelMonk]

Black Hawk Down followed the book pretty well.