Not in TL's world, Patrick. Didn't you get the memo?
We've all got to like and respect Altman, and pretend we
understand him.
Sort of like the emperor's new clothes.
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick King
To:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: The Long
Goodbye
Sure, and the public who spent their $12 to see
a
movie based on a book they loved, are free to
hate it
and say bad things about it.
Patrick King
--- Terrill Lankford <
lankford2000@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: jimdohertyjr <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com>
> >Sent: Feb 9, 2007 7:27 PM
> >To:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: The Long
Goodbye
> >
>
> >What I did say is that a filmmaker making a
movie
> based on source
> >material from another medium owes some fidelity
to
> that source
> >material.
>
>
> That's just not true. In the real world of books
and
> film, the only thing a filmmaker owes a novelist
is
> a contract and a check. If the movie made
breaks
> with the spirit of the contract, the author (or
his
> estate) is free to sue the filmmakers afterwards
-
> as is happening right now with Clive Cussler.
But
> few, if any, producers would have given any
novelist
> the kind of control Cussler had over SAHARA.
I'm
> sure there was nothing in the Long Goodbye
contracts
> that promised absolute (or any, for that
matter)
> fidelity to the source material. The cost of
the
> rights for a book are miniscule compared to the
cost
> of making and marketing a motion
picture.
>
> It is a "seller beware" situation. Anybody out
there
> who wants to protect their books from the shame
of
> "misadaption" should just turn down that
filthy
> money when the producers come calling. And
they
> should leave instructions with their executors
that
> they never want Hollywood ruining their good
name
> after they are dead as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If he has contempt for the material, why make
the
> movie?
> >Why not make a movie from an original
screenplay
> that he believes
> >in? Or make a movie from a
novel/play/whatever
> that he believes in?
> >Why make a movie based on a novel he has
contempt
> for, by a novelist
> >he has contempt for, featuring a character he
has
> contempt for?
>
>
>
>
> Maybe he has something to say about all of that
as
> well. Who said all art must be generated out
of
> respect?
>
> (And for the record, I believe you are putting a
lot
> of words in Altman's mouth.)
>
>
>
> >
> >The film may be good or bad depending on the
skill
> of the director,
> >cast, and crew, but that's not the
point.
> >
>
>
>
> I beg to differ. That IS the point
exactly.
>
>
>
>
>
> >The point is what the filmmaker owes to
the
> originator of the
> >material, and for members of a list devoted to
the
> work of people
> >like Chandler to defend as meretricious a piece
of
> crap as Altman's
> >film on the basis that "It's good in its own
right,
> and, anyway we
> >can't really expect a director like Altman to
do a
> faithful version
> >of Chandler and have to judge it on its
own
> merits," quite frankly
> >mystifies me.
> >
>
>
>
> As does your opinion to anyone sitting on the
other
> side of the aisle, Jim.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again. I
like
> both the book and the movie, but for
completely
> different reasons. I'm not sure why they
can't
> co-exist in our universe, but hell, I'm
just
> vacationing here anyway.
>
> TL
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo!
Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Feb 2007 EST