Posted by Drusilla on April 07, 1999 at 22:51:49:
In Reply to: Re: Re:Plots/Movies posted by David Pierce on April 07, 1999 at 21:55:16:
: For the books *are* the films. They are so fine in their present forms that there is no good reason to make them into movies. At least no participant on this bbs has yet presented a convincing explanation for the necessity of making films of Vance stories. You say you've long imagined Jack's works as movies--this is my point! This very process of imagination is what it's all about--not about actors trapped in celluloid. But perhaps I'm missing the obvious, which is entirely possible: a condition of mild turpitude has left me feckless.
: David Pierce
Ah well. Yes and no. So caught up in the ACTING! (BTW - I forgot about him). Let's talk visuals. Only now has cinema technology progressed to a point where a Vance film is even possible in my opinion. I confess, I am an extremely visually oriented individual. Books become pictures, pictures become books. Movies, at their best are both. Crass commercialism aside its still an art form, not merely actors trapped in celluloid. Think of the Giger sets in Alien. The thing I love best about Vance is the way he makes me see his worlds. His writing style comes second. Perhaps that is why I have not enjoyed his latest books as much as earlier ones. Anethema! I know. But there it is. I see these incredible vistas. Sometimes I just want to see how someone else sees them. Maybe I won't like it. But maybe I will. To me it's like saying Michelangelo shouldn't have painted the Sistine Chapel because it was all in the book.
A schmeltzer is more or less the opposite of a nimp.