Pretty, Fizzy Paradise

I'm back! And reading! And maybe even blogging! No promises!

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Egads!!!

You know, it never fails. The day after I complain that some movie or other looks wretched, I find out there's always something worse.

Egads, how I do not like Goodkind's books. That's going to make for one wretched miniseries, if you ask me. (Though I know a few people who'll be happy about it.)

Though I admit, I do like seeing more fantasy books made into tv movies and the like. We can do such fun things with CGI after all. Maybe if this one does well, there'll be more. Ones that aren't based on books that make me twitch.

So I wish it well in theory, but I'm probably not going to watch.

...unless they cast someone really hot. In which case I totally will. I'm shallow.

12 Comments:

  • At May 14, 2008 3:48 AM, Blogger LurkerWithout said…

    I hope they get the director/producers who utterly butchered Cooper's story...

     
  • At May 14, 2008 9:50 AM, Blogger Diamondrock said…

    Reading those books was like watching a horrible trainwreck.

     
  • At May 14, 2008 10:00 AM, Blogger kalinara said…

    YOU!!! I keep missing you on AIM thanks to the new enforced diurnality! I totally have to ambush you!

     
  • At May 14, 2008 4:57 PM, Blogger Evan Waters said…

    I may have to see how they pull off the chicken of doom, mind you.

     
  • At May 15, 2008 1:51 AM, Blogger Julio Oliveira said…

    Well the first book is not that bad (I mean at least he was still writing fantasy instead of "stories of human edification" or some other nonsense. I actually like the books even though they are incredible stupid. The thing I like the most is that while Kahlan suffers 9 near rapes (oh my god, my IQ drops 100 points every time I think about the stupid repetition), she is quite proactive for a fantasy book character (most women in the books are... not many damsel in distress types). But the books are still sexist (but this is nowhere near the real problem of the books, that of Goodkind thining he is a genius).

    But yeah, is bad.
    [And yes, I know I shoudn't like the books, but if you skip the ham-fisted illogical philosophy... essentially skipping some of the long speeches, the books have a nice story... interesting things happen on them, but they are marred by the author arrogance).

    And now I will stop before I lose every bit of respect people may have for me.

     
  • At May 15, 2008 4:11 AM, Blogger Will Staples said…

    Ooh, I wonder if we'll get to watch Richard Sue slaughter evil peace protesters armed only with their hatred of moral clarity on the big screen now.

    Damn Nazi hack...

     
  • At May 15, 2008 8:53 AM, OpenID looking2dastars said…

    ...

    Maybe this means my hopes of a big-screen trilogy based on Raymond Feist's Magician isn't quite as unrealistic as I'd hoped.

     
  • At May 15, 2008 9:01 AM, Blogger kalinara said…

    Might be tricky, that one, considering how much Feist directly took from Tolkein. God knows how the copyrights work in that case.

     
  • At May 17, 2008 3:38 PM, OpenID looking2dastars said…

    Well, Feist's writing was based on the adventurers of his RPG group. Which - given the time he was gaming - would have been about the time the first edition of D&D came out and countless D&D rip-offs came out. And as any gamer will tell you, the first edition of D&D was derivative of a LOT of great fantasy works (Tolkien, Howard, Lovecraft...) to the point where the Lovecraft estate sued to have some of the monsters in the Monster Manual removed.

    Still, given that Tolkien himself based his elves and dwarves on some fairly standard mythological troupes, that would probably protect Feist and any filmmakers from any lawsuits. Tolkien doesn't hold the patent on Dwarves being short, hairy SOBs or Elves that are thin, beautiful hippies.

    Feist wasn't the most original world-builder, true. Midkemia is a fairly standard "medieval but with magic" world. But he has a gift for characterization that a lot of fantasy writers lack.

    Besides, if they could mount a case against Feist, I think the Tolkien Estate and George Lucas would own the kid who "wrote" Eragon by now.

     
  • At May 17, 2008 4:52 PM, Blogger kalinara said…

    Except that Feist actually used terms like "Moredhel" which are specific Tolkein inventions and concepts.

    Admittedly, it'd be fairly easy enough to just change them for a tv movie. But that does go a bit beyond most of the others you site.

    But I'm not arguing that he's very talented. I'm pretty sure I wore my copy of Silverthorn out. (I preferred Arutha and Jimmy and their ilk to Pug himself personally. :-))

     
  • At May 18, 2008 3:11 AM, Blogger LurkerWithout said…

    Me, I'm more an Erik & Roo fan...

    Is Moredhel an actual made up Tolkein word? Or something he adapted from another language base? But beyond that Feist and Tolkein's settings & books just don't feel the same. Beyond the whole hippy elf, Gruff Scotts dwarf archtypes both have...

    Now McKiernan and Tolkien, THATS a C&D lawsuit...

     
  • At May 18, 2008 3:22 AM, Blogger kalinara said…

    I don't actually agree on McKiernan. While he does use Elves and the like, he's fairly distinct setting wise. There are some trappings that are similar, I think the execution's very different. McKiernan's created entirely different cultures and physiologies behind most of the familiar forms.

    I'm fairly certain the Moredhil/Moredhel were the dark elves and thus part of the elven language(s) that Tolkein invented. Someone who knows more, I'm sure can correct me if I'm wrong.

    Wikipedia, which we all know is iffy in accuracy attributes it to Sindarin.

    Anyway, even though McKiernan probably has more similarities overall, I'd say Feist would have more of a problem because people get twitchier about things like invented words.

    Personally, I like both McKiernan and Feist far far more than I like Tolkein when it comes to character and storytelling.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home