Do you think the opinion of Chandler fans in 1973 moved the
box office at all? Of course not.
With all due respect, Richard, I WAS a Chandler fan in 1973
and, yes, I do think my opinion was the very one they were
playing to when they decided to make the film. Why make a
movie based on a book at all if you think there are no people
out there who care about the original work? If you're just
going to do some obscure story, why not save the money and
not buy the film rights? It is more expensive to make a film
based on a book, even an old one than it is to do an original
work. But, of course, the original work requires more effort
and is a bigger gamble. Of course they knew Chandler fans
would go to a movie based on Chandler's book. I guess they
also thought that Altman was so hot that we'd forgive his
completely screwing up the story. They were wrong about that!
Both Chandler's work and Bogart's old films were very big
items in the culture of the late 60s and early 70s. They've
never gone out of style. Take a look at Polanski's much more
successful Chinatown. Polanski openly stated he was trying
for the Chandler mystique. Unlike Altman, though, Polanski
didn't have to pay for the rights!
Patrick King
--- Richard Moore <
moorich@aol.com> wrote:
> --- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Patrick King
> <abrasax93@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I get your points, Steve, but this is exactly
the
> > essense of the problem. Why does Altman or
any
> film
> > maker make a derivative film and then choose
to
> depart
> > entirely from the original idea? Why not take
the
> idea
> > that was inspired by the original work, call
the
> new
> > detective Milton Pharlow or something and
move
> forward
> > with an original story? The answer is,
the
> producer
> > and/or the director want to glam on to the
success
> of
> > the popular book. So I come to this film
having
> read
> > the book at least four or five times, and I'm
not
> > treated to a visual rendition of this story
I
> enjoyed,
> > but to some different story set in a
different
> time
> > frame, with characters I can't even recognize.
And
> I'm
> > expected to be philosophical about this
and
> "enjoy"
> > the film as pure cinema and because Robert
Altman
> > directed it. Personally, I think
that's
> rediculous.
> > Hollywood can be as creative as it wants
with
> original
> > screenplays. I wish they'd make a lot more
of
> them.
> > But if they want to leach off the hard work of
a
> > writer who's created a huge readership
through
> trial
> > and error, the least that readership can demand
is
> a
> > faithful rendition. Altman's Long Goodbye
is
> > tantamount to taking a Harry Potter novel,
making
> > Harry 30-years-old, setting the story in
modern
> Texas,
> > and changing Hogwart School of Witchcraft
and
> > Wizardry, into a Piggly-Wiggly
cashregister
> training
> > school. Rowling fans would not put up with
this
> and
> > neither should we Chandler fans!
> >
> > Patrick
>
> I have to ask: are you serious or is this
a
> send-up?
>
> Do you think the opinion of Chandler fans in
1973
> moved the box
> office at all? Of course not. So why should
the
> producers care?
> The going against the Chandler grain would
have
> helped the buzz--
> given the reviewers something to write and been
a
> net positive.
> AChandler fan, I saw the movie when it was
released
> and quickly
> realized I was in for a far-flung trip. I was not
a
> fan of Elliot
> Gould (who, along with most movie-goers in 1973,
I
> considered
> a 'leading man' not a character actor) but after
a
> bit of
> adjustment, I enjoyed the movie. It helped that
I
> was a Leigh
> Brackett and Sterling Hayden fan and was
curious
> about the
> performance of Jim Bouton. I bought the DVD
over
> the holidays and
> hope to view it again soon and form a
current
> opinion.
>
> Does the existence of "Satan Met a Lady", the
1936
> film, detract
> from my opinion of the Dashiell Hammett novel
THE
> MALTESE FALCON or
> the John Houston film adaptation of 1941? Of
course
> not. So let us
> celebrate or criticize the Altman film
without
> getting too
> hysterical about it.
>
> Richard Moore
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free
Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 12 Feb 2007 EST