The Worst 'World'

The book really isn't that long . . . the beginning is a little tedious, but of course the action picks up!

bobstay



"Ah, but what do we do now we've got them Lulled? . . . We've makes a Pounce. . . ." --Mr. Peabody

I'm kind of a stickler for The Book Version--of anything! It drives me up the wall when movies or TV shows "twist" the original--unless, of course, the media version does it "better" or just as well ... (Hornblower being a prime example of the good stuff, the AWFUL TNT Lost World another example of the bad)

Yes, I too was disappointed with the annoying political correctness of this version, but the one redeeming bit was this: The adventurers (the good guys) and Rev. Kerr (a bad guy) both ended up having the same objective--to keep people away from the plateau. Sure, their motives were worlds apart, but they ended up with the same purpose. Or WERE their motives worlds apart . . .?

The most frustrating thing for me was that not only were the theme/gist and context of the book changed, but new major characters were introduced precisely for the purpose of achieving that end (Rev. Kerr and his Anne-of-Green-Gables-lookalike niece). And was it me, or was Malone just a wee bit of a complete idiot in the first half? Could Roxton have been more slimy?

Now that I've had my little spew, I have to confess I did end up liking the character of Roxton; I grew accustomed to Anne/Agnes; even ol' Malone got to be less of a puling greenhorn and I was quite happy for him to have wrecked his life but gotten thegirl.

Which goes to show, I suppose, that my modern sensibilities were satiated . . . *sigh*

bobstay



"Ah, but what do we do now we've got them Lulled? . . . We've makes a Pounce. . . ." --Mr. Peabody

<<<A glorified "Classics Comics" approach, perhaps.>>>

What a hoot - so true...

I am guilty of just that...when I read, I get very nervous - impatient. I don't necessarily find it relaxing. Now mind you - I LOVE books...have a house full of 'em...worked in a library at one time...but I find reading novels very tedious. I am much more the encyclopedia/dictionary type - give me the facts, just the facts...not all the fluff in between. So I often rely on a movie to get a glimpse into a novel - then, IF the story is interesting enough, I just might read the book. Got addicted to Hornblower that way. Read Jane Austin's works because of it. Same with Shakespeare's Hamlet...and a few others.

Now - here's the problem - if a movie does a poor job at interpretting the tale - I probably won't look into the book. I guess I miss out on a lot of great literature because of it....my loss...


das

Do we interpret the book as it was written - or update it, making modern 'political' and theological statements in the process...??

I do not particulary like it when a movie is used to promote some idea or concept that the original author did not intend. But if that liberty is taken in the making of a tv movie..well, I can live with it. However, movies made for the big screen should be able to pack a punch...and in that form an accurate interpretation of a story seems reasonable.

It's funny, though - often when literature - even true history - is translated accurately onto the screen, many people don't like it. Sometimes I'm like that. If I'm looking to use a movie as an escape from the pain of reality, I don't want to be entertained with more reality or disturbing messages. But if I'm in a mood to 'think' - then such movies are extremely stimulating, even if they leave me with 'unhappy' feelings inside.

I believe that this newest Lost World was an attempt to appeal to younger audiences who have no concept of the true ignorance of man during the Age of Reason. To fully explain it to a modern audience would have taken another four hours, if not more. And then to do that, first they would have to overcome the currant ignorance of man that exists today...no small feat....

Basically, I guess I'm saying that the modern audience just might not understand the 'political' issues of the day that are dealt with in the book, and the statement it made. By updating it, although possibly doing the book (and history) an injustice, they avoid leaving the modern audience in a mental fog as to what the story was all about.

'Tis a shame, though. But isn't that how history is re-written??? Or should I say - isn't that how we 'forgive' the sins of our fathers?? And in turn, by thus forgiving those sins do we not forget their bitter results, leaving us destined to repeat them???

das

The excellent 'Hornblower' and 'Shackelton' productions were that precisely because, when taking literary license, the screenplay was faithful to the spirit of the story. 'The Lost World' in its latest incarnation is the worst because it was the best: this movie came far closer than the previous silly efforts in sticking to the original plot (granted, I never saw the 1924 version), and was so close to the original in scope and production that I fear no one will ever again attempt a film version of this great novel. Having set a permanent bar, the screenwriters nonetheless added in new plot twists, new characters both gratuitous and ridiculous, and worst of all; they rewrote history. The essence of the original novel was the triumph of civilized man in the waning Age of Reason on the eve of the Great War. Challenger, Roxton, Sumerlee, and Malone trumpet their conquests and seek more on the book's closing page. However the movie appeals to the sensibilities of the modern eco-tourist. Roxton goes native, and Challenger et al. commit professional self-immolation in what becomes a giant (and very cheap)morality play on environmentalism. To re-write the chracters' motives thusly was to take the story out of the historical context in which it was formed, depriving the viewer of a taste of the last heroic exploration age before the darkness fell.