Zipper Sisters and Others > Deryni Movies

Real movie news

<< < (3/4) > >>

Alkari:

--- Quote from: Milo on June 02, 2010, 08:22:21 am ---... I have yet to see a book made into a movie that wasn't a huge disappointment.
--- End quote ---
Oh, there have been a few - but I agree that they are few and far between.  I loved what they did a couple of years ago with No Country for Old Men, and I agree with you about the LOTR adaptation.  That was actually much, much better than I had expected, and if they hadn't gone on with some of that ridiculous battle stuff in the last movie (Legolas jumping onto the elephant, etc), it would have been even better.

I hope that any delays with the DR movie is because they are developing a quality script.  Alas, many movies these days seem to be produced on the basis that if you use enough whizz-bang special effects, it will make up for deficiencies in script.  Of course we hope for some great special effects for the magic in DR, but I really, really hope that these are not allowed to overwhelm the actual story or the characters.  

It is interesting to go back to book adaptations made long before CGI and today's special effects, and look at how good a movie can be when the producers concentrate on story and acting quality.  If you don't already know it, try David Lean's 1948 movie of Great Expectations - an absolute classic. (And one of the scariest openings, all the better for being in b/w)

Elkhound:
"Gone with the Wind"; much better than the book, IMHO.

BalanceTheEnergies:

--- Quote from: Elkhound on December 02, 2008, 09:51:39 pm ---
--- Quote from: tenworld on December 02, 2008, 07:48:12 pm ---(which it should being about a series of books on intolerance)

--- End quote ---

One would think so.  But it is amazing how intolerant some people who profess to be tolerant can be of ideas they don't agree with.

Look at Proposition 8.  Mind you, I am disappointed in what the people of California decided, but if we believe in democracy, why should we try to circumvent decisions (as some people are) arrived at democratically if we disagree with them? 

--- End quote ---

Forgive me for dredging up an old comment, but given the present socio-political climate, it must be said: democracy must have limits, or it is merely the tyranny of the majority. It is wrong to put minority rights to a majority vote, because the risks of perpetuating discrimination are too great. This is particularly true for unpopular minorities. The Founding Fathers and their contemporaries saw the inherent danger of such tyranny, which is why they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

(In all candor, I regard the actions of the American men who voted to extend the vote to American women nothing short of miraculous. I tend to like what William Tecumseh Sherman said in another context: " 'Vox populi'? Vox humbug.")
 

Elkhound:
How then, are we to distinguish between an enlightened despot, whose decrees we agree with in content, over a democracy that votes in provisions whose contents we do not?  Some might argue that a despot or an oligarchy is preferable, as it is easier to reason with and persuade one person, or a few, than with a multitude.

Alien:

--- Quote from: BalanceTheEnergies on June 05, 2010, 07:07:54 pm ---
 The Founding Fathers and their contemporaries saw the inherent danger of such tyranny, which is why they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

--- End quote ---
Actually what we got was no direct voting - The Electoral College elects the President and V-P, the senior legislative house in each state elects senators. The presumption in 1786 being that Electors and State Legislators will be more responsible than ordinary citizens.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version