|
MacGregor 26 2004 model
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote I didn't suggest anything like that at all. No need to. Correct! That's why I didn'r feel the need to suggest it! BB 'n RB! who'd a guessed it? Regards Donal -- |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Please, puleeasse, do not refer to "highly regarded" screenplay version of great works of fiction. Does that include Wuthering Heights and Treasure of Sierra Madre? I'm certain you never read B. Traven either. Did you know that the reclusive writer took part in that amazing bit of screenwriting? The incredible Of Mice and Men is a near perfect work, in all aspects because it's really not adapted at all.... You don't seem to mind displaying your ignorance for all to see! How about Willy Wonka or A Clockwork Orange? Yeah, all shallow efforts! Donal...you've managed to swallow the entire shoe store this time. Still worse, you never read Great Expectations or you'd have a refined apreciation for what was accomplished in the David Lean film. Let us know how Daredevil 2 is!!! Bluff and Bluster! Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the brilliance of a good book. And I may as well add....BWAAHAHAAHA! Of course. You enjoy it, so go ahead! Why shouldn't you proclaim your lack of culture loudly? Regards Donal -- |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
Donal wrote: Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the brilliance of a good book. Sometimes they can be much more. Perhaps you should look beyond the 'plot' and consider the cinematography... At a physical data content level a film generally contians far more data than a book. Cheers |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
In article , MC
wrote: Donal wrote: Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the brilliance of a good book. Sometimes they can be much more. Perhaps you should look beyond the 'plot' and consider the cinematography... At a physical data content level a film generally contians far more data than a book. For those with little/no imagination...... PDW |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the brilliance
of a good book. Of course they don't. In fact films are rarely good at all. Most books are also pretty bad. But there are exceptions, which you really should look into. I strongly suggest you read Great Expectations, then see the David Lean movie. I suspect you'll be moved on all counts. Seriously. RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
For those with little/no imagination......
Donal's comments seemed paramountly dumb until the comment above was written. Next we'll hear the theatre vs. cinema challenge. RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
BB 'n RB! who'd a guessed it?
More importantly, "who'd come up with it and labor on about it?" Only Donal and Scotty! Bwahahahahaa! RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
The imagination is in your mind, but not necesarily in that of the
author. Are you saying that you've never seen a film that is a greater work of art than the book it was based on? Have you seen Blade Runner? Cheers Peter Wiley wrote: In article , MC wrote: Donal wrote: Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the brilliance of a good book. Sometimes they can be much more. Perhaps you should look beyond the 'plot' and consider the cinematography... At a physical data content level a film generally contians far more data than a book. For those with little/no imagination...... PDW |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
In article , MC
wrote: The imagination is in your mind, but not necesarily in that of the author. So? Are you saying that you've never seen a film that is a greater work of art than the book it was based on? Yes. I read over 100 books a year, some years over 200, mix of fiction, non-fiction and tech stuff. If we're restricting this to fiction, I can safely say that I've never seen a movie that was better than the book. If you feel differently, this may well reflect differences in what you & I read. There's no movie I've ever seen that hasn't butchered the book's plot and character development in an attempt to get it small enough/simple enough for a film. Maybe if your reading taste runs to generic Westerns and the like, this isn't a problem. Not much plot to cut down. Have you seen Blade Runner? No. Nor have I bothered watching Terminator, Die Hard and other such ilk. Life's too short to waste it on such crap. PDW Cheers Peter Wiley wrote: In article , MC wrote: Donal wrote: Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the brilliance of a good book. Sometimes they can be much more. Perhaps you should look beyond the 'plot' and consider the cinematography... At a physical data content level a film generally contians far more data than a book. For those with little/no imagination...... PDW |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
Peter Wiley wrote: Yes. I read over 100 books a year, some years over 200, mix of fiction, non-fiction and tech stuff. 4 books a week is a lot. I bet you could get a reader badge for that. If we're restricting this to fiction, I can safely say that I've never seen a movie that was better than the book. If you feel differently, this may well reflect differences in what you & I read. There's no movie I've ever seen that hasn't butchered the book's plot and character development in an attempt to get it small enough/simple enough for a film. Maybe if your reading taste runs to generic Westerns and the like, this isn't a problem. Not much plot to cut down. Nope, never read Westerns. Have you seen Blade Runner? No. Nor have I bothered watching Terminator, Die Hard and other such ilk. Life's too short to waste it on such crap. Have you read the book Blade Runner was based on? If not, then how do you know the film and/or book is crap? Cheers MC |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
The imagination is in your mind, but not necesarily in that of the
author. Are you saying that you've never seen a film that is a greater work of art than the book it was based on? Have you seen Blade Runner? Well, I think Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is better written than the movie BUT, Scott did achieve a unique cinematic vision that will be long remembered. I've read early drafts of the script, and it was dumbed down quite a bit, even taking the directors cut into account. Now, Jaws the movie is clearly a better artistic achievment than the book. So is Stand By Me. Still, Donal's idea of comparing the film to the book is pretty sophmoric stuff. RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
There's no movie I've ever seen that hasn't butchered the
book's plot and character development in an attempt to get it small enough/simple enough for a film. Treasure of Seirra Madre is clearly better than the book...and I love the book. The film simply does what the book does faster and with sharpness. If a book contains a great central concept, above and beyond it's characters, a good or even superior screenplay can result. I believe in an economical writing style, which is central in good screenwriting. RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
Most people want a boat, like an Etchells, Soling,
or J-24, or something similar, that will make you into a better sailor. The purpose of a Mac-26 is to revealing how little the owner knows about sailing. The length of time it is kept reveals how clueless the owner is. Bart Senior (John W. Bienko) wrote What are the views of the experts re the above? |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
The Cat In The Hat?
"MC" wrote... Are you saying that you've never seen a film that is a greater work of art than the book it was based on? Have you seen Blade Runner? |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
but much better for 'making out'.
"Lanod" wrote Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the brilliance of a good book. |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
The Cat In The Hat?
The Cat in the Hat is a top pick for 10 worst films of the year. Even kids don't like it. No doubt it's a DVD Donal will buy and a VHS Scotty will rent. Sorry, Scotty...no Betamax version! Bwahahahaha! RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
"MC" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the brilliance of a good book. Sometimes they can be much more. Perhaps you should look beyond the 'plot' and consider the cinematography... At a physical data content level a film generally contians far more data than a book. I only consider the "experience". I am not one of the literatii. I believe that a book, or film, should entertain, or inform. I have never seen a film that entertained me more than the book. In fact, whenever I have seen the film of a book that I have read, it was a total dissappointment. IMHO, the cinematography and special effects should compliment the film in a totally passive way. If you are reduced to admiring the technical production of a movie, then I would say that the movie was a complete failure - or perhaps you are as shallow as Bobsprit! Regards Donal -- Cheers |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... For those with little/no imagination...... Donal's comments seemed paramountly dumb until the comment above was written. Next we'll hear the theatre vs. cinema challenge. Paramountly!!! Funny - very punny indeed- you old fox! Regards Donal -- |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Now, Jaws the movie is clearly a better artistic achievment than the book You read Jaws the book?? You are obviously a man of culture! Still, Donal's idea of comparing the film to the book is pretty sophmoric stuff. Huh? Regards Donal -- |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
Paramountly!!!
Funny - very punny indeed- you old fox! My sense of humor is always Universal. At least we're United on that point. RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... but much better for 'making out'. Agreed! Oh yes. Memories - ahhhhh! Regards Lanod(e) -- (pronounciaton) "Lanod" wrote Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the brilliance of a good book. |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
If you are reduced to admiring the technical production of a movie,
Wow, what a one dimensional view of the cinematic artform. The truth is that film is a melding of many arts and a sophisticated viewer (which clearly Donal is not) can observe and enjoy the elements without disturbing the work as a whole. RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
Now, Jaws the movie is clearly a better artistic achievment than the book
You read Jaws the book?? You are obviously a man of culture! Taken in on it's own level, Jaws is well written and a lot of fun. I read many types of fiction just as I watch many genre of film. Donal, the more you write on this matter, the more you expose yourself as a simp. Best let it go. Get back to me if you ever read any Dickens. Actually, let me know if you read any King or even Alan Dean Foster movie novels! Bwahahahahaha! RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
Still, Donal's idea of comparing the film to the book is pretty sophmoric
stuff. Huh? And there you have it. RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... If you are reduced to admiring the technical production of a movie, Wow, what a one dimensional view of the cinematic artform. The truth is that film is a melding of many arts and a sophisticated viewer (which clearly Donal is not) can observe and enjoy the elements without disturbing the work as a whole. Pshycobabble! A film is something that you watch. It is either entertaining, or it is not. If you have to comment on the technical aspects of a movie, then it must have been a pile of crap. Regards Donal -- |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
Pretentious little prick, ain't he.
"Bobsprit" wrote ... Wow, what a one dimensional view of the cinematic artform. The truth is that film is a melding of many arts and a sophisticated viewer (which clearly Donal is not) can observe and enjoy the elements without disturbing the work as a whole. RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
(which clearly Donal is not) can observe and enjoy the elements without
disturbing the work as a whole. Pshycobabble! In other words, poor Mighty Joe Young doesn't savy the cinematic arts. Have another banana, Donal. Bwahahahaha! RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
If you have to comment on the technical aspects of a movie, then it must
have been a pile of crap. "Have" to comment? Poor Donal. RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
|
MacGregor 26 2004 model
You're living in the 20th century. This is the 21st.
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Paramountly!!! Funny - very punny indeed- you old fox! My sense of humor is always Universal. At least we're United on that point. RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
More likely, you're on drugs made from plants in Columbia.
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Paramountly!!! Funny - very punny indeed- you old fox! My sense of humor is always Universal. At least we're United on that point. RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
Nobody can write a book from a screenplay better than Alan Dean
Foster! IMO, of course. :o) I agree! RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Actually, let me know if you read any King or even Alan Dean Foster movie novels! King??? Don't wait up for my reply! Regards Donal -- |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:29:42 -0000, "Donal" wrote: "MC" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the brilliance of a good book. Sometimes they can be much more. Perhaps you should look beyond the 'plot' and consider the cinematography... At a physical data content level a film generally contians far more data than a book. I only consider the "experience". I am not one of the literatii. I believe that a book, or film, should entertain, or inform. What about inspire, invigorate, motivate or otherwise move you? I would suggest that they could all be covered by "entertain, or inform". However, I do agree that they merit special mention. I was attempting to distinguish the technical aspects of a film's production from the viewable result of the technicians' efforts. IMHO, you should be unaware of the "effects" while you are watching a movie. I have never seen a film that entertained me more than the book. In fact, whenever I have seen the film of a book that I have read, it was a total dissappointment. In many cases, if you saw the movie first and then read the book, you would think the book didn't live up to the movie. That's possible. However, usually the book contains much more than the film. IMHO, the cinematography and special effects should compliment the film in a totally passive way. ??? Is art worthless and meaningless? No. Are you one of those nitwits who think that if it doesn't rhyme it's not poetry, No, although some people produce meaningless jumbles of words, and call them poetry. I do enjoy that Japanese form of poetry (13 sylabills?) that doesn't seem to rhyme at all. and that you could throw paint on a canvas as well as those no-talent artists represtented in the MOMA? I get angry about the UK's Turner Prize. Piles of bricks, unmade beds, and dead sheep are not art to me. I must also admit that I don't understand Van Gogh. A field of yellow flowers either looks accurate, or it looks like a smudge. However, when I saw my wife's reaction to that painting, I recognised that she was affected in the same way that a piece of music can affect me. I guess that our brains are wired differently. We all respond to different things. Regards Donal -- |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... If you have to comment on the technical aspects of a movie, then it must have been a pile of crap. "Have" to comment? Poor Donal. Absolutely. If you are watching a movie, and you are aware of the effects, then the movie must be boring. Regards Donal -- |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
IMHO, you should be unaware of the "effects" while you are watching a movie.
Yeah...like in Blade Runner where everyone was CERTAIN the Spinners could really fly....or in Frankenstein where Karloff just had a bad hair day...or in Jurassic Park....yeah those were real T-Rexes!!! Sure...all poor films because of attention drawn to elements that were obvious effects. Might as well throw Citizen Kane in with it's myriad of easily spotted opticals! Oh...and let's not forget King Kong where that was so clearly a real ape! Donal, you are truly a moron! Bwahahahaha! RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
If you are watching a movie, and you are aware of the effects, then the
movie must be boring. Star Wars? You weren't aware of the effects? You were bored? How about Alien? You are one unsophisticated dude. You can't observe obvious effects artistry AND enjoy a film? Let's give Donal some gum to chew and he'll pass right out!!! Bwahahahahahaha! Kaching! RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
Actually Donal is not a real moron. It's done with special effects so well that
you can't tell the difference. Wow! Seamless! Now that's art! RB |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... IMHO, you should be unaware of the "effects" while you are watching a movie. Yeah...like in Blade Runner where everyone was CERTAIN the Spinners could really fly....or in Frankenstein where Karloff just had a bad hair day...or in Jurassic Park....yeah those were real T-Rexes!!! Sure...all poor films because of attention drawn to elements that were obvious effects. What a complete twit you are! If the effects were any good, then you would believe that the dinosaurs were real! You shouldn't have time to sit there and wonder at the amazing effects. Might as well throw Citizen Kane in with it's myriad of easily spotted opticals! Oh...and let's not forget King Kong where that was so clearly a real ape! Times move on, Bob! Regards Donal -- |
MacGregor 26 2004 model
If the effects were any good, then you would believe that the dinosaurs
were real! Ohhhhhhhhh.....so if the effects looked real, you would have thought the T-Rex was real. I see. You did this to yourself. I didn't even provide the rope! RB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com