Quote:
Originally Posted by Urchinn
I agree with alot of your statements, Pyrrho, but I really feel that if any director re-imagines a book (which vastly differs from the movies that leave out part of the source...lets face it, it is difficult to be faithful to any book in 90 minutes of screen time) to suit his fancy (or commercial viability), then that director cannot complain if his financing company decides to alter the film in any way. I'm guessing that my major beef here is that one of my fave literary series (Hobbit/Lord of the Rings) was re-imagined into stupidity. If Miramax wanted to release a 30 minute non-violent version for kids, I cannot see how the Jackson camp could complain. Wow, I'm really getting off the subject here!
|
Do you think that it is okay to print copies of the book in altered form without the author's consent? If not, why feel differently about films?
As for the director versus the production company, that will get us into a very sticky kind of problem. Is it "art" or a business commodity? What kind of contract was signed? This will get us too far away from the subject of this thread, so I will not presently pursue this aspect.
By the way, I am not as unsympathetic to your thoughts about making movies from books as may appear from what I have said so far. I am a big Jane Austen fan, and no one has ever done any of her books properly on film. In
Pride and Prejudice, usually they make Jane less intelligent than she is in the book. The best version I have seen of it is in:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...dvdpricesearch
But they do some changes that I don't like (like making Jane less intelligent).