Capuchin

Members
  • Content Count

    996
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Capuchin

  1. Capuchin

    Films vs. Books

    The definitive answer is: it depends. If imagery/scenery/setting is important to the book, then the film will often be 'better' because it can do in a five second pan what would take dozens of long-winded pages. If characterization is the most important factor in the book, then the movie might be better or worse, depending on casting and direction. When plot/action/etc. are the memorable parts of the novel, then it's a real toss-up -- the film will be better when the screenwriter, director, and camerman are great, it will be worse when those people are mediocre, and it'll be somehwere inbetween elsewhen. The major thing, to my mind, is that you simply cannot squeeze a decent novel down to 90 minutes without cutting something important. There just isn't enough 'room' to show everything. Add to that the fact that they're different media, and some things have to be 'translated' into visual images, and the differences become substantial. The only film that ever came close, in my not-so-humble opinion, to matching the printed word was *A Boy and His Dog*, and that was from a Harlan E. short story. A good example of what translating a novel into film would take, if done properly, was an analysis I saw a few years ago -- to do *The Count of Monte Cristo*, as written, would require a _minimum_ of 87 hours. Since idiots have tried to do the story in that many minutes, none of the movies are any good. When you have to leave out murders, lesbians, and drug use, you're gutting the story. Basically, movies and books are two different things, and whichever one is derived from the other, trying to determine which one is better is comparing apples to oranges.
  2. Recent remakes are usually nowhere near as good as the original (just thinking about Carol Burnet's version of GWTW makes me laugh, but that was just a few scenes and is obviously an exception). I've been bitterly disappointed by remakes of everything from "War of the Worlds" to "The Thomas Crown Affair." If you had the power to put certain movies off-limits, what would your list be? My top picks: Jewel Robbery The Divorce of Lady X A Boy and his Dog (the one based on H.E.'s short story) Tovarich
  3. Capuchin

    September 2008 schedule is up

    Yeah! I love Kay Francis. Always have, always will. This looks like the best schedule in a long time. The 23rd looks interesting -- tv night. The one movie that always throws me is *The Buccaneer* -- there's something about Yul with hair that just doesn't seem right. The only bad part is that now that I've been reminded of many of those movies and realized how long since I've seen them, I'll probably hit the DVD stacks and watch many of them before September.
  4. Capuchin

    What movies shouldn't be remade?

    Personally, I prefer the 1931 *Maltese Falcon* to the Bogart version, but that's just me. Many great movies have been remade, done at least as well as the original. *Cat People* is a great example. *Ocean's Eleven* is another. I'm sure that, if someone really cared about production values and appropriate casting, most classic movies could be remade/updated. (The only thing really wrong with the new version of *The Thomas Crown Affair* was the decision to change the Dunaway role into a flouncing tramp with less sex appeal than roadkill). But there are a few roles/stories that were captured so perfectly in their original version that remaking them has to be disappointing. Add to my original list: *The Stepford Wives* (I know it was remade, but thankfully that dreck has all but sank out of sight.)
  5. Capuchin

    Boring, repetitive schedule

    While TCM is my channel of choice (quite often the worse thing on TCM is better than the best on other channels), there are a few things I am tired of seeing. Repetition -- it used to be (or so it seems) that I had to keep on top of the schedule because once they showed a movie, it wasn't on again for years. Now, there's five showings every six months of movies I don't care for, taking schedule time away for a wider variety. Idolizing -- yes, Charlie Chalin, Harold Lloyd, and others of their ilk were great. We understand that. We have all the DVDs available of their work and semi-legit tapes of everything of theirs ever broadcast. We don't need reshowings every other month. 'Importance' over entertainment -- I watch tv for enjoyment. Picking a movie because of its cultural impact or because it was a turning point isn't high on my list of priorities. I want what the movies are supposed to be: an escape. I've seen all the 'important' movies, and they're generally great, but a steady diet of them can't exactly be called entertainment. I often have the feeling that the current crop of TCM schedulers are wannabe film-school profs who are taking the list of movies that don't make the cut for 'The Essentials' and assigning them to us rather than picking things we might like to see. Every month, as soon as I get 'Now Playing," I sit down and mark the movies I want to see. It used to be rare when there was nothing circled for a day; now, there are whole weeks left blank.
  6. This is probably much too modern to ring any bells here -- I read that the movie rights to "Practical Demonkeeping" by Christopher Moore (1992) had been sold, but nothing's ever been done with it.

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us