The Movie Thread

[Dowly]

Saw The Martian yesterday. I liked it overall, though I think Scott missed an opportunity to make it even better. If the Earth scenes would have been removed and the whole movie would have taken place on Mars until the very end, him being completely alone would have worked better.

Good examples of this formula are Cast Away and Moon.

[Sailor Steve]

I watched Joyeux Noël last night. Made in 2005, it's a highly fictionalized telling of the 1914 Christmas Truce. Made-up characters aside, it does recount many of the real events of that historic moment. Extremely well made and acted by a cast of mostly unknowns, and everyone speaking their own language (English, French and German), I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Saw The Martian yesterday. I liked it overall, though I think Scott missed an opportunity to make it even better. If the Earth scenes would have been removed and the whole movie would have taken place on Mars until the very end, him being completely alone would have worked better.

Good examples of this formula are Cast Away and Moon.

Half the book takes place on Earth, the rescue operations, preparation, mutiny...
The best thing about the book was reading how the rescue operations were handled.

Originally Posted by Dowly

Saw The Martian yesterday. I liked it overall, though I think Scott missed an opportunity to make it even better. If the Earth scenes would have been removed and the whole movie would have taken place on Mars until the very end, him being completely alone would have worked better.

Good examples of this formula are Cast Away and Moon.

But Cast Away didn't take place solely on the island, nor was he alone all the time?

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

But Cast Away didn't take place solely on the island, nor was he alone all the time?

He was alone on the island and during that, we didn't see anything of the outside world.

@Betonov: Haven't read the book, so I can't comment much on that. I just thought it would have had more of an impact if not much of the rescue attempts were shown and instead we would've learned about them through the messages.

[STEED]

Just watched The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey oh dear what went wrong?

Why was The Hobbit a single book made into three films? Clearly Peter Jackson milked this one on the back of TLOTR three books which were made into three films and so he did again with a single book! Way too long and drawn out in parts and I was left with a bitter taste in my mouth. I find it hard to bother with parts two and three when they arrive on TV as I just don't give a toss to care.

What a massive let down this was.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by STEED

Just watched The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey oh dear what went wrong?

Why was The Hobbit a single book made into three films? Clearly Peter Jackson milked this one on the back of TLOTR three books which were made into three films and so he did again with a single book! Way too long and drawn out in parts and I was left with a bitter taste in my mouth. I find it hard to bother with parts two and three when they arrive on TV as I just don't give a toss to care.

What a massive let down this was.

Not a Hobbit fan myself, but the above illustrates just what a "no-win" situation adapting a book, particularly a very popular book, to film really is; if Jackson had made a single film and lopped off or compressed parts of the book to keep a single film adaptation manageable, there would be other Ring fans complaining and saying it should have been made into a multi-part adaptation. I really do feel sorry for the director or screenwriter faced with any popular book adaptation: ya just can't win for losing...


<O>

[STEED]

Originally Posted by vienna

Not a Hobbit fan myself, but the above illustrates just what a "no-win" situation adapting a book, particularly a very popular book, to film really is; if Jackson had made a single film and lopped off or compressed parts of the book to keep a single film adaptation manageable, there would be other Ring fans complaining and saying it should have been made into a multi-part adaptation. I really do feel sorry for the director or screenwriter faced with any popular book adaptation: ya just can't win for losing...


<O>

Read the comments on amazon, Hobbit fans are going nuts telling people don't buy the box set and wait for the extended box set, what more!

No thank you.

[Sailor Steve]

There's a guy out there who made what he calls "The Tolkien Cut". He edited out everything that wasn't in the book. It's about the length of two movies that way.

[Betonov]

Someone should make a Weir cut on the Martian. So much good stuff from the book was cut. About 4 hours of movie time.

I mean, they left out the duct tape quote, the bloody duct tape quote

How the hell can you leave out the duct tape quote out of a movie based on a book that's a love story to duct tape.

And sooooo much detail how he made things, how he made compost, how he jerry rigged the rover etc.

And a lot of the humor that really shined in the book was also gone. Gems like this


So much left out.



But I still loved it

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Someone should make a Weir cut on the Martian. So much good stuff from the book was cut. About 4 hours of movie time.

I mean, they left out the duct tape quote, the bloody duct tape quote

How the hell can you leave out the duct tape quote out of a movie based on a book that's a love story to duct tape.

And sooooo much detail how he made things, how he made compost, how he jerry rigged the rover etc.

So much left out.



But I still loved it

So, basically, you're saying they should have made a multi-part movie...

The whole "keep it in, take it out" problem with adaptations is one reason why more and more such stories are now going to the cable/web limited series method of presentation such as was done with "The Man In The High Castle". The real downside is, for some of the more 'epic' type stories, the impact of the big screen theater experience is lost. Again, the dichotomy of maintaining faithfulness to the original story versus the technical and marketing limitations of film production...


<O>

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by vienna

So, basically, you're saying they should have made a multi-part movie...

A miniseries would be nice.
But also hard to watch for some, Andy Weir really goes into details.
He explains why he can't regrow potatoes, how can he make compost despite some biological issues, the calculation on how much water he needs per plant and step by step how he made his water making device...

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Betonov

A miniseries would be nice.
But also hard to watch for some, Andy Weir really goes into details.

Details is exactly why the movie was the way it was. It wasn't that so much that irritated me so much as there were some changes completely from what the book did...but in the big picture most were relatively minor.

I loved it but saw room for improvement.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I watched Joyeux Noël last night. Made in 2005, it's a highly fictionalized telling of the 1914 Christmas Truce. Made-up characters aside, it does recount many of the real events of that historic moment. Extremely well made and acted by a cast of mostly unknowns, and everyone speaking their own language (English, French and German), I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I liked that movie as well and watched a second time.

[Rhodes]

Wrap out the holiday season with the best Christmas movie of all time!!!