warning: spoiler for harris's _hannibal_ follows.
you've got a good point concerning a bad adaptation not
necessarily being a bad movie. i guess that after reading the
book its hard for me to impartially judge it on its own
merits, but at the end of the movie where harry decides to
run off to the prison island and break the resistance leader
out... well thats just so gosh darned noble, it makes me ill.
;-)
i know that true hardboiled movies are made, but i've also
seen cases where the hardboiled nature of the book evidently
scared the movie makers off. my opinion is that they took the
cowardly way out and settled for a mediocre "formula" movie.
hannibal is a good example. the book was shocking... starling
becomes hannibal's buddy. the movie keeps starling all noble
and loyal to the cause and righteous and on and on ad
nauseum. the movie makers just couldn't stand the idea of
starling being a bad girl, so they changed it. my feeling is
that if they had stuck with the original plot, they could
have produced a more stunning, more shocking, and more
profitable movie. and truer.
miker
************************* carrie said:
well, I have heard that the book bears no resemblance to the
film, but a bad adaptation isn't necessarily a bad
movie.
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 16 Jan 2002 EST