NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently those talentless morons, that rise to the top in Hollywood like floating turds, have decided to take another piece of my childhood and ruin it. Seems they are making a film 'based' on the Persuaders with Hugh Grant playing the Roger Moore role and George Clooney in the Tony Curtis role. Now George Clooney I can forgive, but Hugh Grant always plays a bumbling incompetent idiot and is just not right for the part. Is there nothing we can do to stop these people? :mad:

Yeah. Don't go see it.

I've been not going to see films for quite a while now - it doesn't seem to have stopped them.

I've been not going to see films for quite a while now - it doesn't seem to have stopped them.

But I'd imagine it's been quite effective in stopping you from seeing them. Job done.

But I'd imagine it's been quite effective in stopping you from seeing them. Job done.

Beat me to it.

I didn't see or rent The Seeker: The Dark is Rising because Susan Cooper's novel is a facet of my childhood that I'd rather keep unclouded by a crappy Hollywood adaptation. Now if Guillermo del Toro (pan's Labyrinth) had directed it....

You can't blame a lion for roaring, or fire for burning, so why harp on Hollywood for doing what it's done for decades? If the idea repulses you, stay away. I don't even know the source material, so I'll elect not to see the film regardless of the quality of its adaptation.

you must be very old to have a show from the early 70s be an integral part of your childhood that must not be violated by being made into a hollywood movie.

i guess they have (finally) run out of US tv series from '50-'90 to make into crappy movies.

i go see such films just so hollywood will continue to ruin other people child hood memories.
I will watch this one 5 times and buy 10 copies of the blue ray.

]
I didn't see or rent The Seeker: The Dark is Rising because Susan Cooper's novel is a facet of my childhood that I'd rather keep unclouded by a crappy Hollywood adaptation. ]

Oh, god, just the trailers for that made me want to curl up in a corner and cry. Such a good book, and such an utterly moronic looking movie...

Oh, god, just the trailers for that made me want to curl up in a corner and cry. Such a good book, and such an utterly moronic looking movie...

Agreed. From what friends who saw it told me, the kid protagonist is utterly unlikable and the mandalas they used in the film are not the same six from the novel. That book fired my 11-year-old imagination. I wasn't about to let Hollywood sully it for me.

Personally, I've never seen how a film has "ruined" anyone's memory of anything. Or am I the only one who has this amazing ability to separate out my memory of one thing from my memory of related things?

Weird.

I've read plenty of books that have seen shitty screen adaptations... and I still love the books. For that matter I've seen more than my fair share of movies turn out terrible sequels or (worse) TV series. But the originals are still good.

Hell, if one (not-so) artistic product could really "ruin" another one, I'd never be able to watch Star Wars again... I mean, I should have torn my eyes out watching the Holiday Special, but having survived it... nothing ruined. Nothing lost.

Honestly, I don't get it.

Personally, I've never seen how a film has "ruined" anyone's memory of anything. Or am I the only one who has this amazing ability to separate out my memory of one thing from my memory of related things?

Weird.

I've read plenty of books that have seen shitty screen adaptations... and I still love the books. For that matter I've seen more than my fair share of movies turn out terrible sequels or (worse) TV series. But the originals are still good.

Hell, if one (not-so) artistic product could really "ruin" another one, I'd never be able to watch Star Wars again... I mean, I should have torn my eyes out watching the Holiday Special, but having survived it... nothing ruined. Nothing lost.

Honestly, I don't get it.

Sure you get it. You're pretending not to get it make a point that it's inconsequential. That's fine, but why not just say that instead of using a cheap rhetorical device?

To me, the Star Wars "Christmas" special was my first taste of cashing in on a phenomenon. Even as a kid, I was repulsed. I had asked to stay up past bedtime to see it, and after the first segment, asked to go to bed. I suppose I just use the "ruin" terminology as a far quicker substitute for "I'd rather not sit through that feeling of turning a sincere effort at storytelling into a commodity beyond the story itself. It makes me queasy."

In that, I seem to be as guilty of using cheap devices as I accused you of being.

Apologies.

you must be very old to have a show from the early 70s be an integral part of your childhood that must not be violated by being made into a hollywood movie.

i guess they have (finally) run out of US tv series from '50-'90 to make into crappy movies.

Older than that - I can just about remember watching Get smart the first-time around. Oh yes, they have just remade that as well.

Older than that - I can just about remember watching Get smart the first-time around. Oh yes, they have just remade that as well.

Into the second best movie I've seen this year(after Dark Knight). Maybe I'm not hindered in enjoying it by having seen the first one, but my mom saw the original, and she liked the new one too.

Its silly as hell, but also incredibly funny.

Into the second best movie I've seen this year(after Dark Knight). Maybe I'm not hindered in enjoying it by having seen the first one, but my mom saw the original, and she liked the new one too.

Its silly as hell, but also incredibly funny.
it was a very funny show. you should check it out on tv sometime (it must be playing on SOME channel)

Agreed. From what friends who saw it told me, the kid protagonist is utterly unlikable and the mandalas they used in the film are not the same six from the novel. That book fired my 11-year-old imagination. I wasn't about to let Hollywood sully it for me.

I was totally in love with Will Stanton when I was about 7. The idea of turning that solemn, otherworldly choirboy into a typical American preteen is just evil. *nod*

Personally, I've never seen how a film has "ruined" anyone's memory of anything. Or am I the only one who has this amazing ability to separate out my memory of one thing from my memory of related things?

Weird.

I've read plenty of books that have seen shitty screen adaptations... and I still love the books. For that matter I've seen more than my fair share of movies turn out terrible sequels or (worse) TV series. But the originals are still good.

Hell, if one (not-so) artistic product could really "ruin" another one, I'd never be able to watch Star Wars again... I mean, I should have torn my eyes out watching the Holiday Special, but having survived it... nothing ruined. Nothing lost.

Honestly, I don't get it. i don't know that a really bad adaption ruins a book or an earlier film for someone who has already experienced them, but it does make it hard to interest other people in the original... you have add a disclaimer to your praise such as, "this is a great book but you'll enjoy it more if you don't see that wretched movie", or "this is a great movie, but make sure you rent the 1973 version not the 2002 remake... yeah the one with christopher lee not the one with nicolas cage".

It gets worse - what have they done to Snorky in this new fangled version of the Banana Splits
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7567840.stm

capitolism and art should never sleep in the same bed, though i don't have the slightest idea what the o.p. was talking about.

capitolism and art should never sleep in the same bed, though i don't have the slightest idea what the o.p. was talking about.

Until they start doling out several million dollar grants to make movies, that's not going to happen. It takes a lot of people to make a film and a lot of time, and those people have rent to pay.

Personally, I've never seen how a film has "ruined" anyone's memory of anything. Or am I the only one who has this amazing ability to separate out my memory of one thing from my memory of related things?

Weird.

I've read plenty of books that have seen shitty screen adaptations... and I still love the books. For that matter I've seen more than my fair share of movies turn out terrible sequels or (worse) TV series. But the originals are still good.

Hell, if one (not-so) artistic product could really "ruin" another one, I'd never be able to watch Star Wars again... I mean, I should have torn my eyes out watching the Holiday Special, but having survived it... nothing ruined. Nothing lost.

Honestly, I don't get it.

I know what you mean here but there is a way in which films can ruin a book for me. I'm not often bothered by knowing the ending but the film can play with the imagery in my head as I read the book.

I then also can't help thinking sometimes that the film was not as good, that it missed the point to go for money, as though they didn't trust that the book was good as written.

One exception was Trainspotting, where the film and book were both good in their own ways.

I know what you mean here but there is a way in which films can ruin a book for me. I'm not often bothered by knowing the ending but the film can play with the imagery in my head as I read the book.

I then also can't help thinking sometimes that the film was not as good, that it missed the point to go for money, as though they didn't trust that the book was good as written.

One exception was Trainspotting, where the film and book were both good in their own ways.

I think you have helped me clarify what it is that bothers me - it is not that it spoils the original for me but that they have managed to make something bad out of material that had the potential to be so good.

Apparently those talentless morons, that rise to the top in Hollywood like floating turds, have decided to take another piece of my childhood and ruin it. Seems they are making a film 'based' on the Persuaders with Hugh Grant playing the Roger Moore role and George Clooney in the Tony Curtis role. Now George Clooney I can forgive, but Hugh Grant always plays a bumbling incompetent idiot and is just not right for the part. Is there nothing we can do to stop these people? :mad:

Look, I'm not trying to be nasty, but this'll definitely sound that way:

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.

If you don't like it, don't go see it.

I think you have helped me clarify what it is that bothers me - it is not that it spoils the original for me but that they have managed to make something bad out of material that had the potential to be so good.

I watched 21 recently, loved the book, hated the film - it may have been because I'd read the book first and therefore I was fairly excited when I heard the film was being made, which then ran below expectations.

It may have been because I went in expecting to see visualisation of scenes I had in my head, which then didn't transpire.

It may just be that the film sucked.

It's tough, a good film can be made of a rubbish book and vice versa so I get AnarchyL's point.

I think it's more that the film itself is disappointing, or the book, but that shouldn't affect the original.

i don't know that a really bad adaption ruins a book or an earlier film for someone who has already experienced them, but it does make it hard to interest other people in the original...Maybe, but that can be true when they make a good adaptation/remake as well, perhaps especially in the case of a film remake. Indeed, I'd argue that a good remake, in my experience, makes it damn near impossible to interest people in the original... especially if the original is old enough to be black-and-white. If people see a shitty remake, I can say, "No, trust me. You want to know why someone thought this was worthy of a remake? See the original." Generally, people are willing to trust my judgment in such cases, especially if I give them a few tantalizing clues as to why the original is so great. But if they see a great remake and I push them toward the original, they are almost invariably disappointed: they really cannot see the original as I saw it. It's their love of a remake that "taints" the original; not dislike, but appreciation.

I think the problem is less pronounced and more anecdotal when it comes to books adapted to film. Many people who enjoy a good film will rush to pick up the book. On the other hand, there are always a few who would have read the book, but don't see the point after seeing the movie... especially if I'm to tell them, being honest, "Yes, the film got it right. Spot on."

I know what you mean here but there is a way in which films can ruin a book for me. I'm not often bothered by knowing the ending but the film can play with the imagery in my head as I read the book.Again, I find that problem is more pronounced when it's a good film than a bad one.

Having reread The Lord of the Rings since the release of the films, I do find myself sometimes picturing Frodo or Aragorn as depicted in the film. Even more so some of the settings. And I do have a pang of regret when I can't quite remember how I saw them first, in my mind, so many years ago.

But when the film sucks, how does it get into your head so strongly? Maybe I am unique after all, but I just don't have any trouble putting a bad representation out of mind... my imagination swings back to the good representations because they realized something I wanted to see--it's a temptation to linger on them. But a bad film has never had that effect on me--even when I read the book for the first time after seeing the film.

I then also can't help thinking sometimes that the film was not as good, that it missed the point to go for money, as though they didn't trust that the book was good as written.Yeah, I notice that all the time. I just don't understand how it "ruins" the book for anyone.

I suspect that there is a certain narcissistic psychology of ownership at work here. This was especially evident, recently, in the release of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as a film--fans of the book were harsh, complaining that it twisted the story or distorted the characters or in myriad ways was not "true" to the "original." The sense was that it hadn't been done "right." The fact is, I'm a fan of the story in every incarnation (radio, TV), and I quite liked the film... It's a good film as long as you're not constantly comparing it to something it's not. The fallacy in this case was all too obvious precisely because there was no "true" story that hadn't already been twisted and toyed with in almost every possible way... and the author himself was instrumental in the writing of the screenplay, yet another reading on the story he wanted to tell.

If not as obviously, the same can be said for many adaptations, which are (inevitably) reinterpretations. I'm suspicious of any outcry about about "ruining" something from "my" childhood because I suspect that at the heart of it, this is a claim to holding the only legitimate interpretation of a text or work of art. This perspective also fails, I think, to recognize that adaptation is an act of translation which, to carry through an interpretation, may need to change details or re-envision a character. It's similar to the problem of interpretation facing a judge who wants to understand the "intent" of legislation (say, for instance, the U.S. Constitution). Is the author's "intent" captured by the literal meaning of the words, or is the author's intent buried in the principles underlying those words? If the author's intent is in the words themselves, then we should resent any adaptation that alters our favorite novels, because they get it "wrong." If, however, intent has something more to do with the principles underlying the text, then we should at least have an open mind.

This assumes, of course, that we take up author's intent as our mode of interpretation. Perhaps we prefer to think of the effect on the audience, or a broader social value. In any case, however, the act remains interpretive: and the decision as to whether to hold to literalism is, in itself, interpretive. We cannot get around that, and this being the case we have no claim to "ownership" on interpretation of a text. That means we should have an open mind as to its reinterpretation.

I pretty much never watch any films that come out these days 'cause most of them seriously suck, that and well my friends go to see some of them and they just tell me that the films they've watched where suckish but entertaining.

I pretty much never watch any films that come out these days 'cause most of them seriously suck, that and well my friends go to see some of them and they just tell me that the films they've watched where suckish but entertaining.

Film definitely sucks these days. Most of the actors and actresses cannot act. The films suck for plot, character development, etc. Too much emphasis is placed on idiot humor and special effects.

Film definitely sucks these days. Most of the actors and actresses cannot act. The films suck for plot, character development, etc. Too much emphasis is placed on idiot humor and special effects.

I started to compile a list of movies from the past couple of years that were great but I realised that to do it justice I'd have to go on for aages. There are definitely plenty of worthy movies and the likes of Norbit aren't a problem if you don't go and see them.

I was totally in love with Will Stanton when I was about 7. The idea of turning that solemn, otherworldly choirboy into a typical American preteen is just evil. *nod*

Isn't that just called growing up?

I didn't see or rent The Seeker: The Dark is Rising because Susan Cooper's novel is a facet of my childhood that I'd rather keep unclouded by a crappy Hollywood adaptation. Now if Guillermo del Toro (pan's Labyrinth) had directed it....
Don't. it's soo far off the book that it's practically a separate entity.

I suspect that there is a certain narcissistic psychology of ownership at work here. This was especially evident, recently, in the release of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as a film--fans of the book were harsh, complaining that it twisted the story or distorted the characters or in myriad ways was not "true" to the "original." The sense was that it hadn't been done "right." The fact is, I'm a fan of the story in every incarnation (radio, TV), and I quite liked the film... It's a good film as long as you're not constantly comparing it to something it's not. The fallacy in this case was all too obvious precisely because there was no "true" story that hadn't already been twisted and toyed with in almost every possible way... and the author himself was instrumental in the writing of the screenplay, yet another reading on the story he wanted to tell.

Adams himself notes (in the intro to the Guide omnibus dealy) that pretty much every incarnation of the series is almost entirely unrelated to every other incarnation of the series. He apparently found this rather amusing.
I also recall (although I may be wrong. I haven't read said intro in some time) that fans of the original radio drama frequently said that the books were terrible, because they were different from the radio version. :p

I think the moral of this story is that people like to complain. And they'll find something to complain about even if there's nothing actually wrong. If everybody in the world suddenly was provided with a free house, complete with running water, electricity and central heating, people would complain about the effect on the housing market, that the houses were too small, and that they were the wrong color. Its just how people are.