Posted by Per Sundfeldt on November 16, 1996 at 09:43:34:
In Reply to: Re: If you were adapting Vance... posted by Philby on November 16, 1996 at 06:08:46:
>Lets be honest any attempt by Hollywood to render a Jack Vance novel into a film
>would most likely be a joke.
Oh, how boring it is to be realistic. I was naturally suggesting an ideal situation where Vance would be treated respectfully, and asked what work might be suitable to adapt.
>Now, I love Vance's work, but his protaganists are often unidimensional pragmatists,
>and they are very interchangeable. Of course noble exceptions exist in the persona
>of my favourite character,Cugel.
There are basically three types of Vance heroes. The rogues like Zamp and Cugel; the extraordinarily competent modest men like Gersen, Reith, or Sklar Hast; and finally the competents-in-training like Ghyl Tarvoke, Glawen Clattuc or Gastel Etzwane.
I guess you are referring to the second category but IMO there are more individuality and depth to them than you give them credit for. If they would, horrid thought though it is, hire a Keanu, or a Schwarzenegger to do one of them it would be a disaster of course. But if, as you seem to suggest, cheaper and better Brit actors were used things might not be so bad.
One of my favourite movies is "Dune," butchered by de Laurentiis though it may be. David Lynch's movie *is* the novel, virtually page by page. A very respectful adaption to say the least. But still it is good. I don't give a fig that it failed commercially, and I hope they will release the much longer director's cut some day.
I mention "Dune" to remind you that faithful adaptions of SF works can be made.