Graham_Wright
Well-Known Member
Ah!
layful:
layful:
Swallows and Amazons
- Thread starter Graham_Wright
- Start date
NormanS
Well-Known Member
What about them?
Tam Lin
Well-Known Member
Caught the second half. They’re have taken liberties with the storyline. Well done though.
maby
Well-Known Member
If they have taken liberties with the storyline, I will probably not like it - why do studios insist on doing this again and again? There are plenty of hungry authors around - if the studio does not like the original storyline, then get a new story written! Filming a different story under the title "Swallows and Amazons" is just trying to attract an audience under false pretences.
Seajet
...
I agree, don't mess with the classics !
huldah
Well-Known Member
Some years ago I met the hair stylist who worked on the film set of the early film. He described it as a happy film set.
Max Campbell
Active Member
There were too many adults. The whole point was a self-sufficient bunch of kids off the leash, and the film failed to show this.
PuffTheMagicDragon
Well-Known Member
It is almost impossible to transcribe a book accurately into a screenplay. They are two different things and ought to considered as two different works. Of course, if the original writer is writing the screenplay of his own book, that helps. One such example was a movie that I watched yesterday on my laptop and starred Michael Caine and Pierce Brosnan in "The Fourth Protocol".
"The Name of the Rose" was an excellent movie but differed from the book, which was a good read... but, even there, the English translation was nowhere near the original Italian written by Umberto Eco.
Then there are the re-makes. The Rider-Haggard classic "King Solomon's Mines" was filmed twice (that I know about). The one in the sixties impressed me as a youth but it was nowhere near the 2003 version.
I look at a book as an imaginary world into which I can immerse myself and, if necessary, I can go back to parts to parts that were not clear. A movie also immerses me into another existence but this time it is audio-visual. I listen to the script and observe the acting against the background of the quality of the cinematography and the special effects.
They are two different art forms; complementary, by all means, but totally different nonetheless.
"The Name of the Rose" was an excellent movie but differed from the book, which was a good read... but, even there, the English translation was nowhere near the original Italian written by Umberto Eco.
Then there are the re-makes. The Rider-Haggard classic "King Solomon's Mines" was filmed twice (that I know about). The one in the sixties impressed me as a youth but it was nowhere near the 2003 version.
I look at a book as an imaginary world into which I can immerse myself and, if necessary, I can go back to parts to parts that were not clear. A movie also immerses me into another existence but this time it is audio-visual. I listen to the script and observe the acting against the background of the quality of the cinematography and the special effects.
They are two different art forms; complementary, by all means, but totally different nonetheless.
Graham_Wright
Well-Known Member
My son at age around 6, read "Five go to Smugglers Top".
Some time later, it was shown on TV.
"Not as good as the book" he said.
The imagination is left to its own devices with the written word. Not so on TV.
Some time later, it was shown on TV.
"Not as good as the book" he said.
The imagination is left to its own devices with the written word. Not so on TV.
oldharry
Well-Known Member
With the new S&A film I found it strange that they turned all the characters round: Susan not even knowing how to light a campfire or cook, John being a fairly typically bullying bigger brother sending Roger off in tears. Nancy bolshy and not very nice, Mums Walker and Blackett harassed and not coping too well. Uncle Jim surly and unpleasant... and so on. All seemed a bit strange to me, but quite a good film with the children a great deal more true to life than Ransoms idealised butter wouldnt melt in the mouth, ne'er do wrong kids. Just not Arthur Ransom, so forget him, sit back and enjoy. IMHO anyway.
The only film -well TV series - that came over better than the book was Delderfields To Serve Them All my Days. Delderfield was not good at characterisation but wrote a story that depended on its characters. The characters really stood out in the TV serial, which in my view was outstanding.
LOTR made it through the conversion, though inevitably losing a lot on the way, unlike the sequel The Hobbit, which just turned from a rather deep childrens story to a blood and gore cheap spectacular, which I have never been able to watch all through. Loses the plot completely, swept away in the gore with bits of goblin, dwarf and orc flying all over the screen, doing nothing fro the already grossly weakened storyline.
The only film -well TV series - that came over better than the book was Delderfields To Serve Them All my Days. Delderfield was not good at characterisation but wrote a story that depended on its characters. The characters really stood out in the TV serial, which in my view was outstanding.
LOTR made it through the conversion, though inevitably losing a lot on the way, unlike the sequel The Hobbit, which just turned from a rather deep childrens story to a blood and gore cheap spectacular, which I have never been able to watch all through. Loses the plot completely, swept away in the gore with bits of goblin, dwarf and orc flying all over the screen, doing nothing fro the already grossly weakened storyline.
Seajet
...
Old Harry,
' bits of goblin, dwarf and orc flying ' - are you sure that wasn't a night in Gosport ?
The Hobbit, Lord Of The Rings and Harry Potter are other cases which prove one cannot make a film of a book; the only exception I can think of is ' Master and Commander ' which itself is twisted from reality - the French super-warship ' Acheron ' in the film being based on the USS Constitution ' old ironsides ' but we can't have an American baddie can we !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ803AtGM2I
' bits of goblin, dwarf and orc flying ' - are you sure that wasn't a night in Gosport ?
The Hobbit, Lord Of The Rings and Harry Potter are other cases which prove one cannot make a film of a book; the only exception I can think of is ' Master and Commander ' which itself is twisted from reality - the French super-warship ' Acheron ' in the film being based on the USS Constitution ' old ironsides ' but we can't have an American baddie can we !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ803AtGM2I
Last edited:
oldharry
Well-Known Member
Old Harry,
' bits of goblin, dwarf and orc flying ' - are you sure that wasn't a night in Gosport ?
The Hobbit, Lord Of The Rings and Harry Potter are other cases which prove one cannot make a film of a book; the only exception I can think of is ' Master and Commander ' which itself is twisted from reality - the French super-warship ' Acheron ' in the film being based on the USS Constitution ' old ironsides ' but we can't have an American baddie can we !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ803AtGM2I
...night in Gosport? No, Seajet, no dwarfs in Gosport. The odd dragon and probably a few elves too, but no dwarfs. I have it on the best authority: they all moved out to Chichester because of the illegal immigrants fleeing the collapse of the NHS on the IoW, stowing away on the Wightlink ferries.
Acheron has a striking resemblance to Constituion. I built a 3ft model of Constitution once, so am reasonably familiar with her lines. Dont forget though she was built to beat anything the RN could get across the Pond. But it is irritating when film makers think they can do a better job than the literary giants they are trying to improve on. They never succeed.
Scotsailor
N/A
I bought the recent film on DVD probably 6 months ago. I loved the books as a child and read them avidly. I hated the film … it was as though the Director thought the story wasn’t interesting enough. They put in this other story about spies. However, in my opinion, the spy story took over and it belittled the pure joy of kids exploring an island on a lake in sailing boats. The spy story itself doesn’t make sense unless you also view a deleted scene on the train. I hated that they changed the girls name to Tatty. Really? … I hated that in the film Susan couldn’t cook. I hated that they didn’t describe sailing procedures properly. I also thought the acting was poor although the two youngest children were quite good. Well that’s my opinion
Seajet
...
Scotsailor,
I agree !
My first boat was a Caricraft 10 with which I explored Winermere, Conniston and Ullswater - the books are a combination of all three - and went into the little harbour on ' Wild Cat Island ' - that was 44 years ago, since then I visited the ' Nancy Blackett ' - Arthur Ransome's own boat which the ' Goblin ' of ' We Didn't Mean To Go To Sea ' is based on, at a Portsmouth ' International Festival Of The Sea ' - I must have had something in my eye.
I agree !
My first boat was a Caricraft 10 with which I explored Winermere, Conniston and Ullswater - the books are a combination of all three - and went into the little harbour on ' Wild Cat Island ' - that was 44 years ago, since then I visited the ' Nancy Blackett ' - Arthur Ransome's own boat which the ' Goblin ' of ' We Didn't Mean To Go To Sea ' is based on, at a Portsmouth ' International Festival Of The Sea ' - I must have had something in my eye.
