[HPFGU-OTChatter]Simon Birch (was: "But the book was better!" )

Tue Apr 24 22:27:36 UTC 2001

They changed the name because john irving so disliked the script he wouldn't
let his nam be associated with it :{
--------------------------
Sent from heidi tandy' s BlackBerry Wireless Handheld 
Please reply to htandy at carltonfields.com

Confidential:  This e-mail may contain a communication protected by the
attorney-client privilege.  If you do not expect such a communication from
Heidi Howard Tandy, please delete this message without reading it or any
attachment, and then notify htandy at carltonfields.com of this inadvertent
mis-delivery. Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Starling <starling823 at yahoo.com>
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com <HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue Apr 24 17:28:01 2001
Subject: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter]Simon Birch (was: "But the book was better!")

The thing with Simon Birch/Owen Meany:
that book is just huge.  Irving wrote a dense book.  There's no way all that
book could have been fit into a movie.  The movie itself is OK.  not the
best i've ever seen, but it didn't suck.  
But if you've read the book, and you know just how much there is to that
story (and how much they  mucked with the ending of the movie), you have to
stick to the book.  

And why did they change the name?

Abbie, who read PFOM in high school and loved it so much she cried
starling823 at yahoo.com
69% obsessed with HP and loving it
"Ah, music," Dumbledore said, wiping his eyes.  "A magic beyond all we do
here!"
          -HP and the Sorcerer's Stone

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Marilyn Porter 
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, 24 April, 2001 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] "But the book was better!"

First things first: I'm new here.  Harry Potter fan since the first book
(read it to my son before he was born and haven't been able to stop).  Also,
our son is named Harry too.  Cept his full name is Harrison.  But his name;
Harry Porter, is awful close, don't you think? ;)
This is an issue I have always been interested in.  When I was much younger,
I would read a book and then  watch the movie, or, if I saw a movie and
loved it, I would read the book in order to get a deeper understanding.  But
sadly, most of the movies are VERY lacking.  I have to agree that Winona
Ryder's Little Women was great.  I haven't read A Prayer for Owen Meany but
since I enjoyed Simon Birch (flame me now!) I bet I would love the book so
I'll have to look it up.  Stephen King's The Stand was a great movie and the
made-for-tv version was as good as it could have been (King doesn't
translate to screen very well).  
Very often the movie is disappointing.  If i haven't read the novel first, I
don't tend to notice as much, but if I have, I'm always upset by what is
left out of the story and how the characters are portrayed.  My greatest
dream is to have Cameron Crowe's job.  To be a writer and director would be
heaven.  
Great discussion!

Marilyn Porter
wife to Kile (8/8/98), mom to Harry (11/10/99)
"Making the decision to have a child - it's momentous. It is to decide
forever to have your heart go walking around outside your body." - Elizabeth
Stone

----- Original Message ----- 
From: heidit at netbox.com 
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 7:33 AM
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] "But the book was better!"

An article today at Salon Magazine, at 
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/04/24/movies_books/index.
html was food for thought over breakfast.

My husband & I were talking about this last week, because of a blurb 
in Entertainment Weekly about a TCM airing of To Kill A Mockingbird - 
his favorite book ever (yes, if Harry had been a girl, we would've 
named the baby Harper!) and one of his favorite movies as well - the 
blurb said, to paraphrase, "The movie that makes it impossible to 
say, The book was better!"

Obviously, some books are better than the movies that were made based 
on them. The ones that come to mind from recent years are The Prince 
of Tides, which defiled an amazing novel, and Simon Birch, which 
annihalated all the wonder of A Prayer for Owen Meaney.
But Cider House Rules was wonderful, Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet was 
amazing (but to show that it's not consistant, his Frankenstein was a 
confusing mess) and I loved Little Women (the Wynona Ryder version) 
but I know others who loved the book as much as I do, and hated her 
adaptation, which was truly a labor of love for her.

The article talks about how to *read* movies, and wonders whether 
literary-obsessed people can *read* a movie with a look below the 
surface, to see the organization and control that goes into adapting 
and staging a scene.

It's an interesting read - and I'd love it if some of those who read 
it bring a discussion of the writer's concepts over here.

Any takers?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ( http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/2001

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HPFGU-OTChatter-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor	 
Click for Details
Click for Details	 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HPFGU-OTChatter-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 