I wonder what "great" means. For example, the 3rd Harry Potter book is one I liked as a novel, but the film version was FABULOUS. Incredibly evocative of the book. They left some things out, but kept all of the right elements in.
If all the adaptations of the HP books had been that good, I would not be complaining (esp with book 6, how dreadful).
To Kill a Mockingbird--great book, great film.
When this professor made that statement LOTR movies were far in the future. I'm not sure about Princess Bride. I'm pretty sure it had been released.
I'd like to think he made the statement to generate discussion in the class but I don't really remember that happening. Although I do remember rolling my eyes at him.
I wonder what "great" means.
Well, the professor in question used Gone with the Wind as his primary example so...(which, granted, it is a pretty bad book, in my opinion, but I don't think it's that great of a movie either)
More Hunger Games casting:
- District 1 tributes: Jack Quaid and Leven Rambin
- Effie: Elizabeth Banks
You can make a great miniseries out of a novel (Fassbinder's Berlin Alexanderplatz).
That's next up in my queue!
Uhm, after I tackle Under the Cherry Moon and Lost in La Mancha.
To Kill a Mockingbird--great book, great film.
See! it would have been so easy to shoot him down but I really don't remember anyone bringing that up. It was over 20 years ago, though, and I don't have the best memory in the world.
A lot, I think, depends on how you define "great".
Yeah. "great fun," which, imo, GWTW still is, though exposure to politics and history have tarnished it from my "Twihardesque" devotion at, like 13 or so.
But it's not Great, as in "I was changed after viewing this," such as, say, The Wire or Perseopolis or "The Godfather(okay book, amazing film)
I hated Berlin Alexanderplatz. I couldn't finish it.