Not in TL's world, Patrick. Didn't you get the memo?
We've all got to like and respect Altman, and pretend we
Sort of like the emperor's new clothes.
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick King
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
movie based on a book they loved, are free to hate it
and say bad things about it.
--- Terrill Lankford < firstname.lastname@example.org>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: jimdohertyjr < email@example.com>
> >Sent: Feb 9, 2007 7:27 PM
> >To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >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
> 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
> >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
> (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.
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Feb 2007 EST