Breaking! Mark Gordon to produce The Silver Chair

inkspot said:
I don't know Mark Gordon except I read over in the other thread that he produced "Saving Private Ryan" which was a pretty huge period piece/blockbuster/etc. I hope he will bring that kind of drama to SC but also stay true to the book and bring out the comedy, too. I believe he can do it! :)
Click to expand...

He seems mostly to do television -- which does not automatically disqualify him.
 
Oh goodie.

The guy who produced Speed 2, 2012, The Patriot, and the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen before basically being kicked out of movie making in favor of TV products like police procedural shows.
 
Better all of that, than someone like Andrew Adamson, who decided that Peter Pevensie MUST BE changed into a vain, stupid brat who didn't know his butt from a hole in the ground.
 
Copperfox said:
Better all of that, than someone like Andrew Adamson, who decided that Peter Pevensie MUST BE changed into a vain, stupid brat who didn't know his butt from a hole in the ground.
Click to expand...
Yup.

Ok, the only one of those films I saw was League, and it was not good. Great idea, poor execution. However, I do love Law and Order which is a police procedural drama, right? Has Gordon done any Law&Order?
 
ROFL! That is very hilarious.

So Criminal Minds, that is one my old mum used to watch as she was a Joe Mantegna fan, but I started to watch an episode the other day and found it to be too gritty. I hope we will not see a lot of grittiness in SC. Well, they can't really, and keep it G or PG.
 
inkspot said:
I don't know Mark Gordon except I read over in the other thread that he produced "Saving Private Ryan" which was a pretty huge period piece/blockbuster/etc. I hope he will bring that kind of drama to SC but also stay true to the book and bring out the comedy, too. I believe he can do it! :)
Click to expand...

That's good to hear, that he is good/experienced in the drama genre. There seems to be a lot of it in SC, so that might be a good thing. Just hope he sticks to the books. It always irks me when producer takes liberties to make the film how they think the story should have gone.

I'm all for creativity but sometimes it is taken too far... hope the characters stay true and storyline is linear.
 
Well said, Cryfion. As I remarked a time or three before you ever joined here, there is a very big difference between the two approaches in adapting books to movies.

THE GOOD WAY is illustrated by Emma Thompson's movie version of Sense and Sensibility. Jane Austen had actually been a bit negligent in the book when introducing the character of Edward Ferrars; that is, she simply _told_ us that Edward was a nice guy, without portraying _examples_ of his goodness, Emma Thompson shot scenes that _showed_ Edward practicing kindness and courtesy to people, so we could _see_ why Elinor would fall for him. This did not at all violate Miss Austen's intent.

THE BAD WAY is illustrated by the shabby action climax of Peter Jackson's first Hobbit film. There simply was no _reason_ why Thorin should be made into a helpless punching bag for Azog. If Thorin had fought a good fight but lost by bad luck, that wouldn't have been so bad; but Jackson chose to make him as powerless against Azog as an ant against a boot-heel. This was an _insult_ to a memorable Tolkien character, and there was no _need_ for it. ABSOLUTELY NO PURPOSE was served by this humiliation of Thorin, because it would have been _easy_ to show him needing help _without_ making him a totally wimpy dweeb.

It remains to be seen whether Mark Gordon will respect Lewis' material, or insult it with pretended improvements which are ANYTHING BUT improvements.
 
Chill, people. Producers change style from movie to movie. There is no reason to be assuming anything at all about how he's going to handle the movie, except for the fact that someone decided he's going to do a good job at it. With the wait we've had, I'm inclined to believe that someone for the moment.
 
Copperfox said:
Well said, Cryfion. As I remarked a time or three before you ever joined here, there is a very big difference between the two approaches in adapting books to movies.
Click to expand...

Thank you sir!

I am learning about just that actually. Studying Film as one of my BA degrees at university, we have merely brushed on this. Though from what I understand, producers must find a way to both satisfy the readers, in my opinion a better option (however biased I may be, as I believe the rest will follow as we saw occur in LWW), and the general public.

The only problem with films nowadays is that we are constantly having action shoved down our throats. So, sadly, people of my generation are not satisfied unless there is high action contained in film...

Gondorgirl said:
Chill, people. Producers change style from movie to movie. There is no reason to be assuming anything at all about how he's going to handle the movie, except for the fact that someone decided he's going to do a good job at it. With the wait we've had, I'm inclined to believe that someone for the moment.
Click to expand...

As am I. The change is likely with good reason and, as mentioned by a few before, this producer has done many dramatic shows/interpretations, which I believe to be a good thing as there are many dramatic scenes in SC.

For myself, it is just worrisome that the characters may be changed or specific/important plot points will be let go of, as in PC and VoDT respectively.
 
I wish that "action shoved down our throats" WERE the only problem with cinematic adaptations. Much worse than the action level is THE DISTORTING OF THE PERSONALITIES OF CHARACTERS.

Edgar Rice Burroughs created Tarzan as a highly intelligent man, who learned civilized knowledge as soon as he had the opportunity, but still kept his jungle skills. Most early Tarzan movies, however, chose to CONTRADICT Burroughs head-on, turning Tarzan into a benign goon with scarcely more brains than a hamster. Between those movies and the original Tarzan books, the true contrast is not about which version had more chases and bloodshed in the plot; the contrast is all about WHAT THE HERO IS LIKE AS A PERSON.
 
I'm really happy they are going to continue the series. I know lots of people didn't like Dawn Treader but I enjoyed it. I've loved all the Narnia movies so far. I'm not one to nit-pick over book to movie comparisons. The movies can't be exactly like the books, because they'd probably be about 4 hours or more. In my opinion, if you want the movie to be exactly like the book then go read the book. ;)

I just hope Liam Neeson still does the voice of Aslan. It wouldn't be the same if he didn't.
 
Remaking Peter Pevensie into a USELESS DORK, who couldn't even come up with the single-combat idea till Sexy Caspian provided it, is LIGHT-YEARS BEYOND merely "not being exactly like the book." It was INTENTIONALLY HOSTILE to the whole SPIRIT of the book.
 
Copperfox said:
Much worse than the action level is THE DISTORTING OF THE PERSONALITIES OF CHARACTERS.
Click to expand...

To be sure! However, in reference to the masses, i.e. the general public/people who don't read the books, that distortion I think is hidden or unknown. Also the audience, which in my opinion is younger children/perhaps teens, would not be keenly aware of it I think. I know when I first watched PC, though am sad to admit it now, I gave Peter's reaction as being concerned about losing the throne to Caspian/thought it was odd slightly, but didn't think much about it past that. I was too distracted with what was going on elsewhere.

Going back now, Pete is even like that at the end, when he's handing Caspian his sword to "look after." I didn't quite buy his acceptance, and that was just because of how he acted throughout the rest of the film. Sad really.

Copperfox said:
Remaking Peter Pevensie into a USELESS DORK, who couldn't even come up with the single-combat idea till Sexy Caspian provided it, is LIGHT-YEARS BEYOND merely "not being exactly like the book." It was INTENTIONALLY HOSTILE to the whole SPIRIT of the book.
Click to expand...

If by "INTENTIONALLY HOSTILE" you mean the producers thought more of making money than the quality of their work/message within the text then I am apt to agree with you. And though I feel like I'm beating a dead horse somehow when I say this: Most films nowadays are made to just bring in the dough. I think it was brought up in another discussion that if a film isn't a blockbuster today raking in millions it's viewed as a failure. It is rare to see a film that has a good, eh that's being too optimistic- decent plot, contains any sort of message, and makes complete sense the first time you see it. Oh, and doesn't have action sequences every five minutes.
 
The fact that children aren't aware of good things being ruined only makes the ruining STILL MORE DESPICABLE; the children are not even being given a CHANCE to appreciate a classic message. And speaking of messages--

Money is FAR FROM being the only motivation in making stupid or immoral films. A lot of Hollywood figures actually feel a warped "sense of mission," like it's their DUTY to pull down and pollute noble stories.
 
Copperfox said:
The fact that children aren't aware of good things being ruined only makes the ruining STILL MORE DESPICABLE; the children are not even being given a CHANCE to appreciate a classic message. And speaking of messages--

Money is FAR FROM being the only motivation in making stupid or immoral films. A lot of Hollywood figures actually feel a warped "sense of mission," like it's their DUTY to pull down and pollute noble stories.
Click to expand...

In many instances on the grounds of political correctness, the curse of our age!
 
That was annoying for sure. Poor, noble Peter. :/

The worst damage they could do in this coming film character-wise would be with Puddleglum. They could make seem too gruff rather than glum, etc., or somehow downplay his moment of bravery in whatever silly way to spoil the meaning of such a breakthrough.
 
Back
Top