Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: The Long Goodbye

From: Brian Thornton ( tieresias@worldnet.att.net)
Date: 15 Feb 2007


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