|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On December 10 2010 05:30 lac29 wrote:
With so much hype makes me believe this will be another The Walking Dead ... where those who have read the original prints will be disappointed with the TV conversion ... but those who haven't will probably love it.
people who know a book before seeing the movie remake will always be disappointed in most cases. Because they had time to build up their own images of how cahracters look and so on. Every one of us has different things he think are important in a story, leading to the common complaints about missing parts in TV adaptions.
My point being, in order to enjoy a TV adaption you have to view it seperated from the imaginations you build up while reading the book. And evaluate the TV adaption based not on your toughts on the book, but based on what you see when you watch it.
|
Braavos36402 Posts
From what I've seen, if the series is at it appears, it's probably impossible for me to be disappointed. I trust HBO, they just need to stick to the story line and it'll be a surefire hit.
|
On December 10 2010 05:53 Blobskillz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 05:30 lac29 wrote:
With so much hype makes me believe this will be another The Walking Dead ... where those who have read the original prints will be disappointed with the TV conversion ... but those who haven't will probably love it. people who know a book before seeing the movie remake will always be disappointed in most cases. Because they had time to build up their own images of how cahracters look and so on. Every one of us has different things he think are important in a story, leading to the common complaints about missing parts in TV adaptions. My point being, in order to enjoy a TV adaption you have to view it seperated from the imaginations you build up while reading the book. And evaluate the TV adaption based not on your toughts on the book, but based on what you see when you watch it.
You definitely could be right. It's just too hard to separate the two once you've seen the original vision from the book/comic. From a comic to movie perspective I just don't see why more producers/directors don't stick to the original. 300 and Sin City stuck very closely to the comic and they were awesome. So many other conversions to TV/movies are just so bad because they deviate. I see The Walking Dead deviating and it turning into a mediocre TV show. It makes me wanna just smack the ppl in charge and tell them STICK TO THE ORIGINAL!
|
The good thing about GRRM is that he wrote for TV, and I'm sure he designed his books with TV in mind. Every chapter is told from a different perspective and in a different setting, and they all end in small cliff hangers. It's basically perfect for TV, so that definitely gives me hope. It's just the sets and actors that worry me.
|
MOD EDIT: NO WAREZ, read the commandments.
User was warned for this post
|
On December 10 2010 07:02 lac29 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 05:53 Blobskillz wrote:On December 10 2010 05:30 lac29 wrote:
With so much hype makes me believe this will be another The Walking Dead ... where those who have read the original prints will be disappointed with the TV conversion ... but those who haven't will probably love it. people who know a book before seeing the movie remake will always be disappointed in most cases. Because they had time to build up their own images of how cahracters look and so on. Every one of us has different things he think are important in a story, leading to the common complaints about missing parts in TV adaptions. My point being, in order to enjoy a TV adaption you have to view it seperated from the imaginations you build up while reading the book. And evaluate the TV adaption based not on your toughts on the book, but based on what you see when you watch it. You definitely could be right. It's just too hard to separate the two once you've seen the original vision from the book/comic. From a comic to movie perspective I just don't see why more producers/directors don't stick to the original. 300 and Sin City stuck very closely to the comic and they were awesome. So many other conversions to TV/movies are just so bad because they deviate. I see The Walking Dead deviating and it turning into a mediocre TV show. It makes me wanna just smack the ppl in charge and tell them STICK TO THE ORIGINAL!
It definitely helps if they stick to the original, but it's not strictly necessary. Take the Bourne movies for example (Bourne Identity, Bourne Supremacy, and Borne Ultimatum. None of those are even remotely related to the books plot-wise. However, all of the movies are very well done and enjoyable in in their own right because they nailed the character of Jason Bourne, which is really the essence of the series.
|
I guess your idea of good is different from mine. I thought the first Bourne movie was above average. The rest are very much mediocre or slightly above mediocre (note that I have not read any of the books). I think it's easier to see how 300 and Sin City, both the movies and comics, were solidly above average.
|
On December 10 2010 08:19 lac29 wrote:
I guess your idea of good is different from mine. I thought the first Bourne movie was above average. The rest are very much mediocre or slightly above mediocre (note that I have not read any of the books). I think it's easier to see how 300 and Sin City, both the movies and comics, were solidly above average.
Actually, I thought that the first Bourne movie was the worst and that each successive movie got substantially better. To each his own, though.
|
I just see more movies/TV show adaptations that stick close to the originals being more successful.
Note: I guess reading the Bourne books is not worth it?
|
On December 10 2010 08:25 lac29 wrote:
I just see more movies/TV show adaptations that stick close to the originals being more successful.
Note: I guess reading the Bourne books is not worth it?
The Bourne Identity is one of my favorite novels ever. It's a great thriller and is substantially better than its movie version. In fact, it's kinda funny how different the plot is from the movie. The only things that are similar are some of the names of the characters and the fact that Bourne has amnesia. The bad guy in the Bourne Identity isn't even the CIA; it's another assassin, Carlos, who is modelled after the real world assassin of the same name.
The follow up books, the Bourne Supremacy and Bourne Ultimatum are also good and worth reading, though neither is as good as the Bourne Identity.
|
The books in the early editions even had another name for Bourne. The name Bourne was reedited after the movies were in production.
In the earlier books the name of the male lead was Borowski and they renamed that to Bourne for the movies.
And generally speaking the books written by Robert Ludlum are quite good when you are looking for thriller books.
|
On December 10 2010 08:36 Blobskillz wrote:
The books in the early editions even had another name for Bourne. The name Bourne was reedited after the movies were in production.
In the earlier books the name of the male lead was Borowski and they renamed that to Bourne for the movies.
And generally speaking the books written by Robert Ludlum are quite good when you are looking for thriller books.
Not to drag this too far off topic, but I don't recall seeing a "Borowski" show up anywhere when I first read the Bourne Identity, which was about ten years before the movie came out (and I'm pretty sure that the version of the book that I had was the original paperback version).
|
On December 10 2010 05:22 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 04:57 CaptainFwiffo wrote:On December 09 2010 19:34 Ajunoo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Yes, Eddards death actually was what got me really interested in the books. You usually read with the silent assumption "well, he's the hero, and even if it might look grim right now, he will pull through" - and then he just....dies. That "realism" is a great part of what makes grrm's books special to me, and I have no reason to assume that it will be any different in TV form + Show Spoiler +The funny thing is that after the later books, Ned's execution seems almost quaint... After the Red Wedding, I was in a pretty dark mood... Wherever I went, children wept, animals fled, and flowers wilted and died under my gaze. Ah glorious times in SoI&F. If only Feast of Crows wasn't such an abysmal disappointment and if only ADWD wasn't taking a decade to complete... How I would love this series.
I didn't think A Feast of Crows was that bad. Actually the ending made the whole book worth it. I enjoyed seeing the stories of some of the other characters.
|
On December 08 2010 12:48 Robstickle wrote:
Also the actress thinks Cersei is meant to be smart. That's worrying.
Cersei also thinks she is smart - perfect!
|
On December 10 2010 20:34 grigorin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 12:48 Robstickle wrote:
Also the actress thinks Cersei is meant to be smart. That's worrying. Cersei also thinks she is smart - perfect!
Cercei isn't actually that stupid, at least not in the beginning of the series. But she seems impatient and her gullibility grows throughout the books.
|
Braavos36402 Posts
well i think cersei was pretty stupid in the beginning too, you just didn't have confirmation because you didn't hear her POV
once you heard the pov its like "yeah ok you're stupid" lol
|
+ Show Spoiler +The great thing about Cersei is that she thought that she was Tywin with tits, but the person who was the most like Tywin was Tyrion, the child he disliked the most. What's even better is that Tywin knows that.
|
On December 10 2010 08:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:36 Blobskillz wrote:
The books in the early editions even had another name for Bourne. The name Bourne was reedited after the movies were in production.
In the earlier books the name of the male lead was Borowski and they renamed that to Bourne for the movies.
And generally speaking the books written by Robert Ludlum are quite good when you are looking for thriller books. Not to drag this too far off topic, but I don't recall seeing a "Borowski" show up anywhere when I first read the Bourne Identity, which was about ten years before the movie came out (and I'm pretty sure that the version of the book that I had was the original paperback version).
ok my fault I looked it up, he was named Borowski in the german first edition, god knows why :D
|
![[image loading]](http://nsa19.casimages.com/img/2010/12/06/101206032125793968.jpg)
Don't tell me I'm the only one seeing baldurs gate portraits in those?
|
United States7166 Posts
that's fanmade, from a long while back before we got actual shots of the actors in their roles... in fact dany's casting changed as you can see
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
