Print Page | Close Window

...Now DONíT Read the Book!!

Printed From: Official RAZZIEģ Forum
Category: 2007 RAZZIEģ MOVIE FORUMS w/LYNX!
Forum Name: THE SEEKER
Forum Discription: Almost Nothing from the Original Novel Was Used in the Making of This Film...
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2181
Printed Date: October 30 2014 at 8:35am


Topic: ...Now DONíT Read the Book!!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: ...Now DONíT Read the Book!!
Date Posted: October 04 2007 at 2:15am

ONE of OUR PET PEEVES with HOLLYWOOD IS WHEN THEY TAKE a BELOVED CHILDREN's NOVEL and "RE-PURPOSE" IT to the POINT WHERE ANYONE WHO READ the BOOK CAN'T RECOGNIZE the FILM as HAVING ANYTHING to DO WITH WHAT the ORIGINAL AUTHOR WROTE. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0339291/ - LEMONY SNICKET IS ONE RECENT EXAMPLE. BUT http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=225&PN=1 - SEEKER OUT-DOES EVEN SNICKET in the LITERARY DISRESPECT SWEEPSTAKES.

BASED on a SERIES of POSTWAR BRITISH NOVELS (WHICH MAY HAVE INSPIRED J.K. ROWLING to CREATE HARRY POTTER) SEEKER as a MOVIE HAS CHANGED ITS MAIN CHARACTER from an ENGLISH BOY to an AMERICAN TEEN-AGE MALL RAT, ITS SETTING from WORLD WAR II to MODERN TIMES, and ITS TONE from ONE of CHILDLIKE WONDERMENT to the STANDARD "LET'S BLOW STUFF UP REAL GOOD" MIND-SET of TODAY's TINSEL TOWN TWADDLE.

ALONG with the REVIEWERS, WE SAY a BERRY BIG "BAH!" to the WHOLE TREND of "RE-IMAGINING" KIDDIE LIT, WHEN IT'S WHAT the KIDDIES READ THAT THEY WANT to SEE DEPICTED ON SCREEN.

FEEL FREE to GET IN YOUR TWO FARTHINGS BELOW... 

James (aka Generic American Kid): "Dude, where's my British accent??" 

 

 



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: Nasty Man
Date Posted: October 04 2007 at 2:44am

I heard a piece on NPR the other day where the books' original author was being interviewed. After holding out for decades about letting a film version be made, she talked about just how much of her original content has been "re-worked." It was one of the saddest things I've ever heard!

I only hope she got at least as much money for this as Dr. Suess' widow got for letting them make that horrible Cat in the Hat movie a few years back -- if you're going to sell your brain-child to the devil, you should at least get top price for it!



-------------
Everything SUX!


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: October 04 2007 at 6:05am
Let Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema be a lesson to all authors.  Wait until you find a director who not only loves your book, but understands it, who has a financier behind him who is willing to risk the capitol to make it right.  Most don't.  Almost $300 million in late 90s dollars was laid out for making Jackson's vision The Lord of the Rings up front.  It turned out that waiting all those years was the right decision.


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: October 04 2007 at 1:34pm

I see a unique irony in how Hollywood tries to tell us that uniformity is bad, then is uniform in these types of films themselves.  Probably their standard argument when defending a move like this would be, "You don't complain when Disney does it, so back off and don't complain with us."  Completely missing the point that Walt made changes that best helped the story arc in each case, and always tried to make each one a unique experience in its own right.  And there's no need to Americanize everything either; as the Potter films and The Lion the Witch and the Wardobe have proved (in the mainstream at least), children in general would be interested in other cultures and times if such a thing were presented to them in the proper way.  No doubt the various Asterix films made in France over the years would sell well if given a wider release; I myself enjoyed them.  Presenting a monchromatic view of the world as Hollywood often does is really no better off than what the Burmese government's doing at the moment, and perhaps by some obscure miracle, some of them might come to realize it.   

 



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 04 2007 at 1:40pm

LS movie was one of the best films ever made!

Response from Head RAZZberry: What the heck is "LS movie"?? Is that a typo, or some obtuse reference to a movie I'm unfamiliar with?? 

 



-------------


Posted By: whennow
Date Posted: October 05 2007 at 3:54am
This is what people were afraid Chris Columbus would do the Harry Potter movies. Who were the hacks that produced and directed and wrote this monstrosity.


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: October 05 2007 at 4:17am
Allen Smithee, no doubt, when all's said and done. 


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 05 2007 at 8:18am

LS movie is Lemony Snicket movie...sorry?

Response from Head RAZZberry: Anyone who could, even for a nanosecond, consider the hideous LEMONY SNICKET movie "one of the best films ever made" must surely never have read the brilliant series of most fortunate books on which it was based. The film's near total lack of respect for its source material was breath-taking, and disgusted not only me, but my son's entire 4th grade class, to whom I had read the first of the series' novels in aniticipation of seeing the movie version. Once they had seen the film, I actually apologized to his class for encouraging them to attend it... 

 



-------------


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: October 05 2007 at 3:29pm
Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events was merely okay, which, compared to the mischievously lovable books, is in itself an unfortunate event.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 12 2007 at 9:48am

I've read the first book about 5 times and read only books 1-6. I have yet to read the other half but I thought the movie was close to the book and it was a movie, so they couldn't just add all the details in it. I was okay with the movie being in different order but the movie overall was one of the best films ever made.

Response from Head RAZZberry: I have stood by and listened to you defend an awful lot of crap on this Forum over the past few months, but I cannot sit idly by while you defend one of the greatest abominations (and bastardizations) of a children's literature classic in modern Hollywood history as "one of the best films ever made." The LEMONY SNICKET movie was, to put it as politely as I can...TOTAL GARBAGE!  Its utter disrespect for its source material -- and for everyone who read those books and came to the theatre hoping to see them presented in movie form -- was beyond staggering -- I might even argue it was criminal. The novels, with their brilliant use of vocabulary, their wonderfully snide tone, and their wide-eyed wonderment at the incredible predicaments the three orphans constantly find themselves in, are among the finest examples of recent writing for young readers. The film (over which I got the distinct impression the obviously un-literate Jim Carrey had undue influence) ran roughshod over the tone, plotting and quality of Handler's work and, without improving one syllable of it, managed to mangle it beyond recognition.  For one thing, the movie (and specifically Carrey's most unfortunate interpretation of Count Olaf) constantly replaced the literate, wildly amusing humor of the books with juvenile bathroom and sex jokes -- Now, there's an improvement!  

I think it's significant that Paramount was clearly looking at LEMONY SNICKET as their equivalanet of HARRY POTTER, and had planned a series of what would have been MOST unfortunate films. When the first one died a deservedly ignoble death at the hands of both critics and movie-goers, the idea of a franchise (thank God) died with it. I am hardly alone in reviling this film, moviewizguy, so I suggest you move on to defending some other piece of cinematic stench and abandon this argument... 

 

 



-------------


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 2:13pm
Originally posted by Head RAZZberry

"the obviously un-literate Jim Carrey"

                                                                                            -- That would explain why it took him so damn long to read "The Number 23". Seriously, the spin was almost as thin as the plot of the movie, and it took him what seemed like weeks to read that small a book. I mean, I finished the last "Harry Potter" book in less than a day! Then again, I'm a speed reader and I didn't have anything to do that day.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 3:10pm

Well, the books were much darker than the film and the film was trying to make it a family-friendly film without going too deep on the death stuff. And, although you don't agree, Jim Carrey was PERFECT for the role of Count Olaf! Even some critics suggest that! He played it wonderfully and not as dark as potrayed in the book, which is why most of the humor from the movie comes from him.

Response from Head RAZZberry: As long as we're beating a dead horse...The whole POINT of the LEMONY SNICKET novels was their "dark tone" -- albeit, with a sarcastic twist. If that isn't what the film-makers wished to make, WHY did they buy the rights and go through the motions of "adapting" the books in the first place? It's arguably the equivalanet of "re-imagining" THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK as an all-singing, all-dancing, "happy feet" Broadway musical...

Can we please just agree to disagree...and move on?? 

 



-------------


Posted By: Alaninho
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 6:28am

un-literate? as in illiterate? haha sorry head razz im sure you see the irony.

anyway we dont need to agree to disagree, we could just all agree that moviewizguy is wrong 80% of the time 

Response from Head RAZZberry: The use of "un-literate" was deliberate on my part -- Although the word may not exist, I used it to imply that Carrey is not widely read (nor does he often make even vaguely literary references in his work) as opposed to implying that he was incapable of reading (the literal definition of "illiterate")...

 



-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 12:06pm
ok...I'm just saying I liked the lighter version of the story.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 16 2007 at 9:01am

That's still a good reason for it taking him weeks to read a 100 page book...          ;           ;           ;           ;  

Originally posted by Alaninho

un-literate? as in illiterate? haha sorry head razz im sure you see the irony.

anyway we dont need to agree to disagree, we could just all agree that moviewizguy is wrong 80% of the time 

Response from Head RAZZberry: The use of "un-literate" was deliberate on my part -- Although the word may not exist, I used it to imply that Carrey is not widely read (nor does he often make even vaguely literary references in his work) as opposed to implying that he was incapable of reading (the literal definition of "illiterate")...

 

                                                                                            

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: March 17 2008 at 5:56pm

I'm not going to even bother to see this crap, even for FREE! My 2 hours could be put to better use...Like bitching about all the other "Razzie" worthy movies in this forum!  

 



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger



Print Page | Close Window