« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 »   Go Down

Author Topic: OT: Possession for Luciaphile and ?  (Read 2265 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kuanyin

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Karma: +9/-92
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
OT: Possession for Luciaphile and ?
« on: August 31, 2002, 01:55:18 AM »
Sorry to digress, but some of us HAD gotten to talking about the movie not long ago. And, hey, no DS fix today or Monday anyway, so why not?

Saw it. IF I had been seeing it simply as a movie, I probably would have loved it. Since it was a movie from my favorite book of all time, I merely liked it. They did a LOT right. But the wrong part, was just painful.

Now, I admit it has been years and I don't remember all the details of the book. What I thought was melodramatic and made up at the end actually was toned down a little from the quick check I just made of the book. (Ok, they threw in a nose punch, but took out the tree falling on the car, which I don't think would have been very believable in a movie . And at least there were no car chases or guns involved!)

I pictured Ash as being older and LaMotte as being younger, but that is quibbling. That part of the movie was superb. What stuck in my craw was Aaron Eckhart as Roland. As if ANYONE could believe this guy as a subserviant academic! And how in the world could he ALWAYS have a 3 day beard growth? Too hunky, too macho, too stupidly adamant about avoiding relationships because he "hurt" someone deeply once. Accckkk, give me a break. I thought the lovely Gwyneth was perfect in the role, I may be prejudiced there, I ALWAYS like her.

Anyway, overall, can't help but have mixed feelings. There is no way a movie can capture the depth of the book, but they did do a good job of getting the essence of it. I just wish the part they screwed up hadn't been so integral to the credibility.
Logged
"If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly, rather than not at all." G.K. Chesterton

Offline Raineypark

  • DSF God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2749
  • Karma: +13053/-14422
    • View Profile
Re: OT: Possession for Luciaphile and ?
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2002, 03:42:39 AM »
Thank you, Kuanyin, for letting us know what you thought of "Possession".  

I REALLY don't think I'm going to see it.  Like you, I LOVED the book and it kills me when they screw up perfectly wonderful novels into pathetic movies.  Unlike you, I don't like Paltrow at all, so I have even less reason to see it.  I think perhaps I'll just re-read the book and spare myself the grief!  ;)

Raineypark
Logged
"Do not go gentle into that good night.  Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
Dylan Thomas

Offline Craig_Slocum

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Muted
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 918
  • Karma: +9/-50
  • Gender: Female
  • Cute Craig
    • View Profile
    • Cheryl's Dark Shadows
Re: OT: Possession for Luciaphile and ?
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2002, 03:59:29 AM »
Quote
it kills me when they screw up perfectly wonderful novels into pathetic movies.


Yes, like "The Shining" (1980). I wouldn't call it pathetic, but they did leave out some key things from the Stephen King novel.
Logged
Cheryl,

Craig Slocum's #1 Fan

Offline Luciaphile

  • ** Collinsport Commentator **
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 1399
  • Karma: +446/-1242
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: OT: Possession for Luciaphile and ?
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2002, 04:06:32 AM »
I haven't seen it yet.  I'm not sure if I want to.  Possession is possibly one of my favorite books ever and I'm not certain I can bear to see it messed with.  If the reviews were good, but the ones I've read suggest this is one of those things they should never have attempted.

Okay, it's not DS, but this is one amazing book.  

Luciaphil
Logged
"Some people ask their god for answers to their spiritual questions. For everything else, there is Google." --rpcxdr-ga

Offline kuanyin

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Karma: +9/-92
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: OT: Possession for Luciaphile and ?
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2002, 06:47:17 AM »
Quote
Yes, like "The Shining" (1980). I wouldn't call it pathetic, but they did leave out some key things from the Stephen King novel.

Gosh, I would rate "The Shining" as an all-time GREAT movie! I know Stephen King didn't like it, but I don't understand.  [wink2] It certainly scared the crap out of me and images from it have NEVER left me. I never remember a lengthy book as well. I admit I haven't read the book, but I did see the longer miniseries that King was so thrilled with and I didn't think much of it.

The safest literature to use as a movie is the novella, or a long short story. Then, all the elements CAN be included and everyone might end up happy if it is done well.
Logged
"If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly, rather than not at all." G.K. Chesterton

Offline Mysterious Benefactor

  • Systems Manager /
  • Administrator
  • NEW SUPERNAL SCEPTER
  • *****
  • Posts: 16082
  • Karma: +205/-12187
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: OT: Possession for Luciaphile and ?
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2002, 08:38:48 AM »
Quote
Yes, like "The Shining" (1980). I wouldn't call it pathetic

I'd call 1980's The Shining worse than pathetic. I thought it was just a dreadful version of the book!! Jack Nicholson was way too over the top. And Shelley Duvall (who's normally quite good) was horribly miscast. If I'd been Steven King, I would have sued Diane Johnson, Stanley Kubrick and Warner Bros. on every conceivable charge that my lawyers could have come up with!

The 1997 miniseries with Steven Weber and Rebecca De Mornay was a much more faithful adaptation - and an infinitely better version to boot!
Logged

Offline Raineypark

  • DSF God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2749
  • Karma: +13053/-14422
    • View Profile
Re: OT: Possession for Luciaphile and ?
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2002, 05:08:26 PM »
I stand by a comment I made when this topic came up the first time: I would applaud a law that forbade a novel from EVER being made into a movie.  Movies should have to be made from original ideas.

Readers of novels bring their own imaginations to the process....no matter how minutely detailed the descriptions, we all envision those details differently.

My absolute, bar none, all-time favorite film is "To Kill A Mockingbird".....and the book is STILL better than the film!

Raineypark
Logged
"Do not go gentle into that good night.  Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
Dylan Thomas

Offline Luciaphile

  • ** Collinsport Commentator **
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 1399
  • Karma: +446/-1242
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: OT: Possession for Luciaphile and ?
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2002, 05:29:09 PM »
Quote
I'd call 1980's The Shining worse than pathetic. I thought it was just a dreadful version of the book!! Jack Nicholson was way too over the top. And Shelley Duvall (who's normally quite good) was horribly miscast. If I'd been Steven King, I would have sued Diane Johnson, Stanley Kubrick and Warner Bros. on every conceivable charge that my lawyers could have come up with!

I dunno.  I preferred the Kubrick version.  The emphasis shifted from the little boy to the father, but it seemed to capture the essence of the novel.  

As for King, he hates the Kubrick film, but I thought of all the adaptations except for Carrie, it was the one closest to the spirit of his books.  

It is possible to do a good adaptation on a book.  The Princess Bride, LOTR, the A&E version of Pride and Prejudice were all faithful and well done.  But it's tricky.  I adore Harry Potter, but the film felt forced to me.  They filmed the book, but lost the thing that made the book special; the Scorcese version of The Age of Innocence was another case like that.  Or you can take a film like Patricia Rozema's Mansfield Park, which ignored the book and what made the book special and was just a lousy movie.

Luciaphil
Logged
"Some people ask their god for answers to their spiritual questions. For everything else, there is Google." --rpcxdr-ga

Offline Julia99

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 2020
  • Karma: +272/-722
  • My Fans are Legion
    • View Profile
    • Barnabas & Company
Re: OT: Possession for Luciaphile and ?
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2002, 06:16:15 PM »
Its so gratifying to see so many Possession fans here.  It is also one of my most favorite books of all time (topping it is Wicked by Gregory Maguire or Vindication by Frances Sherwood ..anyone read them?)  I felt that the film was fine, Aaron was completely wrong to play Roland and that final kiss with Gwyneth lacked passion, IMO.  I am now in love with Jeremy Northam who played Ash.  I found the LaMotte actress terribly annoying, that strange smile she had on all the time made me wince. . also, i thought she was too young (contrary to K thinking she was too old) and too pretty.  I pictured Christabel a bit plainer.  Overall i did enjoy it for what it was worth but the novel is infinitely better.  I still teared up about the little girl .. . so sad neither one of them knew that the truth was OUT THERE. . .
Logged
Julia99

Offline Raineypark

  • DSF God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2749
  • Karma: +13053/-14422
    • View Profile
Re: OT: Possession for Luciaphile and ?
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2002, 09:35:58 PM »
Quote
the Scorcese version of The Age of Innocence was another case like that.

I can't fathom why Martin Scorcese didn't choose to film "House of Mirth" instead of "The Age of Innocence"?  It's her finest story, in my opinion, and I'm pretty certain I've read every word of fiction Edith Wharton ever wrote.  Twice.

Raineypark
Logged
"Do not go gentle into that good night.  Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
Dylan Thomas

Offline Raineypark

  • DSF God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2749
  • Karma: +13053/-14422
    • View Profile
Re: OT: Possession for Luciaphile and ?
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2002, 09:45:09 PM »
Quote
(topping it is Wicked by Gregory Maguire or Vindication by Frances Sherwood ..anyone read them?)  

Never read "Wicked", but I have managed to hang onto my copy of "Vindication" through many a bookshelf purge.

These days, I consider whether a book is something I'd like my daughter to read someday, and either keep or donate it to the library accordingly.  

"Vindication" is high up on that list of "must reads".

Raineypark
Logged
"Do not go gentle into that good night.  Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
Dylan Thomas

Offline Philippe Cordier

  • (formerly known as Vlad)
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 1411
  • Karma: +50/-1037
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: OT: Possession for Luciaphile and ?
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2002, 11:27:58 PM »
Quote
Never read "Wicked", but

I, unfortunately, did read "Wicked."  Being an active devotee of the original Oz books by L. Frank Baum, I detested that book from start to finish, for what it did to the characters, for its "moral" outlook, and for the writing, which I thought was crap.  Sorry to offend fans of "Wicked"; I did have a sci-fi fanatic friend who thought it was great.
Logged
"Collinwood is not a healthy place to be." -- Collinsport sheriff, 1995

Offline kuanyin

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Karma: +9/-92
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: OT: Possession for Luciaphile and ?
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2002, 07:59:16 AM »
Quote

I can't fathom why Martin Scorcese didn't choose to film "House of Mirth" instead of "The Age of Innocence"?  It's her finest story, in my opinion, and I'm pretty certain I've read every word of fiction Edith Wharton ever wrote.  Twice.

Did you see The House of Mirth with Gillian Anderson (of Xfiles) in it? Not having read the book, I can't compare. She was good in it, and it was VERY sad and rather depressing.

Which is kind of refreshing in today's can't have an unhappy ending, they don't test well movie world.
Logged
"If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly, rather than not at all." G.K. Chesterton

Offline Julia99

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 2020
  • Karma: +272/-722
  • My Fans are Legion
    • View Profile
    • Barnabas & Company
Re: OT: Possession for Luciaphile and ?
« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2002, 09:12:44 AM »
Quote
"Vindication" is high up on that list of "must reads".


I'm reading her new book, The Book of Splendor, set in 1601 Prague .. highly recommend it.
Logged
Julia99

Offline Patti Feinberg

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • DSF God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3291
  • Karma: +1729/-3046
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: OT: Possession for Luciaphile and ?
« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2002, 04:15:39 AM »
Quote
I'd call 1980's The Shining worse than pathetic. I thought it was just a dreadful version of the book!! Jack Nicholson was way too over the top. And Shelley Duvall (who's normally quite good) was horribly miscast. If I'd been Steven King, I would have sued Diane Johnson, Stanley Kubrick and Warner Bros. on every conceivable charge that my lawyers could have come up with!

The 1997 miniseries with Steven Weber and Rebecca De Mornay was a much more faithful adaptation - and an infinitely better version to boot!

MB...lol...I think the Jack Nicholas version is the scariest movie ever!!!
I cannot watch it if my husband (or other grown-up) is not at home.

I [size=10]loathe[/size] Shelly Duval[puke]!!!

She is nails on the chalk board!!!

I saw no reason to re-do the book!!

Patti

who loves Midnite for the turtle...thanks honey
Logged
What a Woman!
Pages: 1 2 »   Go Up
« previous next »