|
DianeGretnaGreen
Posts:
14
Registered:
9/13/99
|
|
(9 of 9)
Oct 26, 2002 1:02 PM
|
|
In comparing the book vs. the A&E version, there is hardly any similarity. I was surprized. However, I like both versions. Therefore, it does not matter to me.
Diane
|
|
|
4legs.
Posts:
2
Registered:
3/11/02
|
|
(8 of 9)
Oct 22, 2002 1:00 AM
|
|
Please read my thoughts-I couldn't watch this beyond what I'd call the 'overture'.Poor acting,far too many 'special-effects{SFX}';another disappointment.
|
|
|
dasNdanger
Posts:
46
Registered:
4/9/01
|
|
(7 of 9)
Oct 12, 2002 8:55 AM
|
Regardless whether you believe the Bible to be the Word of God, or just a good piece of fictional literature...it's not a book I'D want to monkey with - just in case.  But look how they have translated that book onto the screen...although movies like the Ten Commandments hold fairly true to the 'original', others, like a recent adaptation of the Flood account, diverge from the book to the extreme. Now, if they will do such a thing to a book that some people believe to have been inspired by the greatest Author himself, God...little o' Doyle doesn't stand a chance... And I agree - it's as if they think they know better than the author himself. Yet, I know when I write a little fan fic, I put stuff in that many overlook as unimportant, but to ME it is making some small statement - or it may have an overall influence on the outcome of a story. Even if it seems unimportant to the reader...it is important to me... das |
|
|
hamish
Posts:
3,051
From:
Location, location - everything is location
Registered:
6/20/01
|
|
(6 of 9)
Sometimes the movie is better
Oct 10, 2002 4:17 PM
|
|
Case in point, IMHO: The Shining, with Jack Nicholson
Stephen King did not like the movie because it wasn't true enough to his book and so, a few years ago he wrote a TV screen play from his book. I saw his version and didn't like it at all. Very tame, almost hokey, with a too-sugary ending. For me, anyway.
I have never read the book - in fact I have never read any of King's books, yet the theatrical version of The Shining is one of my all-time favorites, with some truly scary scenes.
I always consider the books and movies to be separate things. Sometimes they agree and sometimes not. Sometimes the movie is very true to the book and the movies stinks.
"One never knows, do one?" FW
|
|
|
Thera
Posts:
3
Registered:
1/7/00
|
|
(5 of 9)
Oct 10, 2002 1:46 PM
|
|
The author of the book was writing for particular (contemporary) readers, whose experience, knowledge, attitudes, and even prejudices were different from our experience, knowledge, attitudes, and even prejudices.
Not to forget that he was writing for particular publisher whose opinion on how a book must be written, including certain taboos, must had been taken into account.
No way we can see the book in the same light as the first readers.
No way Doyle could have written the same book fifty years later.
And anyway, we always have the original book.
The meek shall inherit the Earth. Am I sufficiently meek? I wonder.
P.J. Wodehouse.
|
|
|
LadyFlier
|
|
(4 of 9)
Oct 9, 2002 8:38 PM
|
|
Further Question:
Has ANY movie version remained faithful to the BOOK?
Every movie production has taken liberties with the classic work.... as though they totally "knew better" than Sir Arthur himself. Or that Doyle's tale needed improving, which it didn't.
thank god for the original book!
LadyFlier
|
|
|
Ldj33
Posts:
3
Registered:
10/7/02
|
|
(3 of 9)
Did the screenwriters Read this Book?
Oct 9, 2002 8:31 PM
|
|
OK, I just finished watching the second half (taped it) and I am just shocked at the ending. THEY DIDNT BLOW UP THE CAVES!!!!!! THE Chief's son helps them out! And CHALLANGER is supposed to experiment with the explosive clay! AND WHERE ARE THE DIAMONDS? IF Lord John Roxton had lived happily ever after with a prehistoric princess their little crew wouldn't have had the adventure with the POISON BELT!! THEY DONT PRETEND it never happened! THEY JUST DO NOT DISCLOSE where the exact location of the Plateau! IT is true that the real public would have turned it into some JURASSIC PARK by now for family vacations and RICH Eccentrics would have pet Aguanadons roaming their ranches in Tennessee, BUT WHAT HAPPENED TO STAYING TRUE TO A CLASSIC?
|
|
|
LadyFlier
|
|
(2 of 9)
Where did the girl come from
Oct 7, 2002 5:11 PM
|
|
In the first movie, she appeared in London for the first time in Challenger's parlor where she was introduced as Paula MapleWhite, daughter surviving the missing cartographer and landscape artist John MapleWhite. The ensuing exploratory expedition was ultimately set up for funding through the Newspaper as a "rescue mission to bring back MapleWhite." And to Challenger's delight, the project receives twice as much money for the rescue effort. Paula is brought along for her jungle and medicinal plant knowledge as well as to recover her father.
In the book (I'm 3/4 through it) no reference to her appears.
The fanatical Missionary is referred to in one sentence as "an angry priest". That's the only reference to the Peter Falk character by way of book. The person who shoves the tree trunk bridge off of the pinacle is a sherpa native carrying gear and supplies. The whacky guy yells across the gorge: "We coulda killed you in the cave last night, but this is better. Now you have to die slowly."
I don't know WHEN Paula MapleWhite is going to show up in the text.... if at all.
They are well into the expedition including fighting the teradactyls, and the first night after the carnivores ravage the little herbivores outside the expeditions safe cave and campfire. No women are on the expedition team of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
In the first movie, she was in place and she became pivotal to a roaring ending.
Sir John Roxton is more respectable in the book than the movies.
Prof. Summerlee is a very sympathetic character in the first silent movie. He's kind of a doark in the new movie.
Religious discussion is nowhere to be gleaned in the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle test.
This all I have time for right now.
Bon viewing tonight, friends!
LadyFlier
|
|
|
Ldj33
Posts:
3
Registered:
10/7/02
|
|
(1 of 9)
Has anyone read this Book?
Oct 7, 2002 2:47 PM
|
|
Where did the girl come from? Where did the manical man of God sabotaging the expedition come from? John Roxbury was actually was a likeable character in the book! Prof. Samalie apologized to Prof. Challanger immediately after seeing the first dinosaur, and they actually had some interesting exchanges about science and displayed a mutual respect for eachother's knowledge. Don't get me wrong, I liked the first half of the movie, but I wish it would have stayed more true to the book- which was entertaining enough without adding a religion/evolution debate and new characters!
|
|
|
|
|
