Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

This means war....

Okay, first go and read my friend andrewducker's post on the new Hollywood take on the greatest book ever The Three Musketeers.

Watched it? Okay.

All right, that's it, Hollywood, I'm taking away your X-Box. And your Wii. And your trousers. You only get them back when you learn to Respect The Bloody Books. You're turning Miss Marple into an American sex-pot, too, I gather. You ruined The Little White Horse with sparkly sentiment and cloying faux Englishness. You don't get to play in the European literary sand box any more.



( 25 comments — Leave a comment )
Mar. 30th, 2011 09:09 am (UTC)
Somehow I didn't think that you'd be enamoured of this film when it crossed your radar ;)

No amount of black leather, puffy shirts, tight trousers and long swords can really make up for improbable weapons, bizarre accents and (shudder) 3D.

Looks like they saw Ritchie's Holmes but missed the bit about actually reading the book...

I'm just grateful they've not got their hands on Prisoner of Zenda
Mar. 30th, 2011 09:11 am (UTC)
Have you seen what they're doing to Miss Marple? *shudder*
Mar. 30th, 2011 09:19 am (UTC)
I can't say that I'm particularly protective of Christie (though there are enough US female detectives they can mess about with if they want to), but I am torn about The Eagle (not, apparently, 'of the Ninth' which is in some ways a blessing and distancing from the original book). Should go and see it before criticising, but, OTOH, do I want to encourage them?
Mar. 30th, 2011 09:31 am (UTC)
Oh, they will. They own everything, remember?
Mar. 30th, 2011 09:15 am (UTC)
Take two Richard Lester movies and see me in the morning.
Mar. 30th, 2011 09:17 am (UTC)
This makes the Barbie version look good. Help?!
Mar. 30th, 2011 09:40 am (UTC)
Not to mention what they did to Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising.

I wish we could take the ability away from them, and I shudder at the thought of what they are going to do to The Professionals.

Mar. 30th, 2011 09:59 am (UTC)
Being serious for a bit, I think we can be a bit over-protective of books if we're not careful. James Bond is not Scottish. The hero of The Ipcress File comes from Burnley, not London. Planet of the Apes, apart from the final scene, does not take place on Earth. The Odyssey is not set in the 1930s American South. Great Expectations does not end with Pip tearing down the drapes at Satis House. Soylent Green is not people. Yet I've enjoyed films that have taken those sort of liberties with their source material. Even the first two Lester movies, the best screen adaptation of the novel I've seen, take liberties with the source material, simplifying the political complexity, adding humour and killing Rochefort.

Of course, that doesn't mean I think this movie will be any good, though with an original script by Andrew Davies it had the potential to be (I suspect the flying ships are not his idea, but come from rewrites by Anderson and Alex Litvak).
Mar. 30th, 2011 12:58 pm (UTC)
Even more amusing, the name of the hero of The Ipcress File et seq "... is not Harry and never has been." (I think the quote comes from Funeral in Berlin but it's a long time since I read them. However, this factoid amused me at the time.

Mar. 31st, 2011 03:37 pm (UTC)
I don't mind some liberties -- the Lester films are a good example, as is Valmont (a lower budget version of Les Liaisons Dangereuses which came out around the same timeas the Glenn Close version, which I found static, and which took considerable liberties with the plot while being much truer to the spirit). What I mind is the 'throw it out and redo it' attitude that seems to prevail sometimes. And I don't have as much faith as you in Davies, as he has form on speaking of his ability to 'improve' books he's adapted, which is I find a little arrogant. I don't want line-by-line fidelity, but a bit more care, attention and respect -- and less Americanisation, sometimes -- would be nice.
Mar. 31st, 2011 03:52 pm (UTC)
Fair enough. And yes, Davies is an arrogant sod (though with some reason to be), but I think the more jaw-dropping nonsense in that trailer (will Orlando Bloom actually twirl his moustache?) is nothing to do with him.
Mar. 30th, 2011 10:23 am (UTC)
Oh Kari. Shall I go beyond the pale forever if I say it looks as if it might be rather fun? Pirates of the Caribbean at Versailles? And very little to do with Dumas at all.

But I have told daughter we are not ever going to go and see The Little White Horse because of the multiple offenses committed by the trailer against ***my*** book. So I understand how this one is for you.
Mar. 31st, 2011 03:37 pm (UTC)
If they called it something else, maybe...
Mar. 30th, 2011 10:24 am (UTC)
France has had flying ships for centuries. Just not sharing with Nato.
Mar. 30th, 2011 01:21 pm (UTC)
they mess up everything. im still grumpy about alice in wonderland, tim burton! i used to like you, and now i don't so much :(
i don't mind fanfiction type things, as long as it's right. alice, on sci fi, was really good, because it kept to a lot of alicve in wonderland story, in a new way, and had a lot of the little details from the books popping up. but tim burton's version didn't do that. and so many otyher versions of other books don't have anything to do with the book other than character names. not just classical greats, but all sorts.
if it's a book worth making into a film, do it right, for heaven's sake! it's a popular book for a reason!
Mar. 30th, 2011 01:36 pm (UTC)
I haven't seen Eagle yet,1 but am desperately hooping it doesn't spoil one of my favourite books. I'm really sorry about Three Musketeers, Kari. I know it's your book. Perhaps they should just change the title and then they wouldn't even need to pretend to have read the book.

The film looks like it might be good fun if you don't think of the origins, but I doubt I'll see it at the cinema for one reason alone - 3D.

I suppose you hated the Dick Lester ones, too. I just saw the first one again on TV and must admit I enjoyed it immensely - but again, not thinking of the origins.

The best you can do is think of it as a movie _inspired by_ rather than _of_ the Three Musketeers.

And, please, if you're going to take away anything from Hollywood, take away their bloody 3D cameras.
Mar. 30th, 2011 10:11 pm (UTC)
Oh, and here I was actively not linking you to that, in hopes that it would somehow fly you by...

I'm sorry you had to see it. But I suppose you did. There probably wasn't enough outrage in the world, y'know?
Mar. 31st, 2011 03:38 pm (UTC)
I am going to make you watch it, too, you know. Be afraid.
Apr. 1st, 2011 08:10 am (UTC)
Why bother?
Mar. 30th, 2011 11:06 pm (UTC)
This kind of thing is partly the result of Hollywood's insistence on remaking old material rather than actively seeking for new ideas. Or I should say, Hollywood bankers -- it's apparently much easier to get funding for a picture or TV series if the bankers recognize the name of the project.
Mar. 31st, 2011 03:39 pm (UTC)
That does seem to be very true, sadly. Sometimes -- very rarely -- it can work, but mostly we just get films that are limper and limper.
Mar. 31st, 2011 03:38 am (UTC)
Oh, it'll be a great movie, 'cause it has, you know, fire cannons, and women flying through the air with swords, and it was filmed in 3D, and stuff. Yeah, a great movie. What was it about?
Mar. 31st, 2011 03:38 pm (UTC)
Mac, bite her for me...
Mar. 31st, 2011 04:18 pm (UTC)
Seriously, I feel your pain. Did you see the Robin Hood that came out recently? Or "Robin Hood: Men in Tights", for that matter? (I didn't see the latter. I couldn't bear to.)
Mar. 31st, 2011 05:37 pm (UTC)
I refused to see the new Robin Hood. The Costner was enough. I didn't mind Men in Tights, though, as it was meant to be ridiculous.
( 25 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

October 2016


Powered by LiveJournal.com