Carrie Pruett wrote:
> Terrill wrote:
> >Hey, you could be right about everything and I
may eat my words. I >just
> >think t's best not to jump the gun and speculate
on these things. [box
> >office receipts]
>
> damn, Terrill, you wanna put Entertainment Weekly
out of business, that's
> all they ever do :). just to be clear, i like Clint
and I like both the
> Connelly and Lehane books, I'm just not very
optimistic about hollywood
> adaptations in general.
>
I'm with you there, but I was actually talking about the
speculation on the quality of a movie before one has seen it
personally (or before it has even started filming), NOT what
the box office receipts will eventually yield. When I was a
teenager I used to track box office, but I outgrew that
quickly. I'm still shocked that many years later the rest of
the country fell in love with that sport. It is so
meaningless when it comes to the discussion of whether a
movie is any good or not. And you're right, magazines like
Entertainment Weekly have made this the new conversation
piece for the gang at the water cooler. That's an upside down
set of values if ever there was one, and probably a
contributing factor to the diminishing quality of films in
general.
Despite the fact that film adaptions are often atrocious, I'm
usually optimistic when a book I love is turned into a movie.
If the movie fails, it doesn't ruin my appreciation of the
book. And often a movie can fall short of a book and still be
very good in its own right. WHO'LL STOP THE RAIN, the
adaption of Robert Stone's DOG SOLDIERS, is a good example of
this. I like the movie a great deal, but the book is even
better. I'm still glad they made the film.
TL
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 05 Jul 2002 EDT