FINALLY!!!

[Drygioni]

http://www.dragonlance-movie.com/movie/

I don't know if anyone else is as excited about this film as I am. Thankfully they didn't try to go live action with this one. I can only hope they do all of the "Chronicles" books and then the "Legends"


Kiefer Sutherland voicing Raistlin! I think thats going to as the kids say "rock"


If you are saying to yourselves "Self, what the heck is he on about?" Do yourself a favour and pick up the

Dragonlance Chronicles books.

[dharq]

/sigh...

Say it with me... "sorry, another addiction calls" 

Dragonlance. I can't even count the number of childhood hours I lost reading these books. Read. Re-read. Re-read some more.

Grade A cast. Haven't heard of the animation studio yet, but so far the concept art looks solid. Hopefully this movie will do the series justice...





And be spectacularly successful so they continue to make more and maybe even branch into Faerun at some point in the future.

[Arcdelad]

movies turning into books almost 100% of the time dissapoint me...there is so much vivid detail you can expound upon in a book, and the 2 hour attention span of the average american doesnt allow for it to translate well into movies...

some notable examples: Dune (80's version, but sci fi channel version too)...in the book the first 10 pages are about the planet itself and all the landscapes...this is reduced to a quick panoramic scroll at the begnning of the movie...

Jane Eyre (william hurt, late 90's)...how do you kill a bronte classic? take away the copius amount of jane's interior monologue and hope the grade b actor's expressions can do the same thing.....

the one book to movie conversion i have liked was harry potter 3...instead of trying ot directly port it from book to screen, the director just gave us an interpretation, thius freely bending plot and other paths from what the book had...this works for me becuase he clearly wasnt setting out to recreate the book on screen, but show how his viewpoint of the work could look visually...(this was the least well recieved harry potter movie btw)

honorable mention: The Twelth Warrior....have no talent? luck out that CG can make your stupid dinosaur island look good, and that john williams will canvas over the top of it to distract you from its crappiness? well...your in luck! just rip off an anonymous 10th century epic writer, and recreate beowulf! with bad actors! dont worry though...the general american public has no clue what beowulf, much less their own nose, is....your secret is safe with me creighton (or however you spell your stupid name, rip off guy)

[Vengeance]

Wow, finaly indeed...When did this book first come out? I dont even know.... and a most definite /agree with dharq, still readin whatever dragonlance book happens to fall into my hands (from my bookshelf..), tis is what keeps me up at night! Question though, will this look animated, as in cartoon or something close to that...seems Toonz Animation seems to imply that, lol, but then again what do I know about the publishers of movies?   
Being I dont want to fit some more stuff in since i was typing while arc replied ill put it in at the end...Arc your probly right, friend saw Eragon, really stupid, skipped alot of times, and the chars didnt even match the descriptions in the book...none of them. As to harry potter 3...dont talk about it.

[un4]

Hehe, I love the Realms myself, Dharq.  Still, Dragonlance is where I started a helluva long time ago.  Raistlin was always my favorite.  Thanks for finding this, Dry!

[Genoism]

movies turning into books almost 100% of the time dissapoint me...there is so much vivid detail you can expound upon in a book, and the 2 hour attention span of the average american doesnt allow for it to translate well into movies...

some notable examples: Dune (80's version, but sci fi channel version too)...in the book the first 10 pages are about the planet itself and all the landscapes...this is reduced to a quick panoramic scroll at the begnning of the movie...

Jane Eyre (william hurt, late 90's)...how do you kill a bronte classic? take away the copius amount of jane's interior monologue and hope the grade b actor's expressions can do the same thing.....

the one book to movie conversion i have liked was harry potter 3...instead of trying ot directly port it from book to screen, the director just gave us an interpretation, thius freely bending plot and other paths from what the book had...this works for me becuase he clearly wasnt setting out to recreate the book on screen, but show how his viewpoint of the work could look visually...(this was the least well recieved harry potter movie btw)

honorable mention: The Twelth Warrior....have no talent? luck out that CG can make your stupid dinosaur island look good, and that john williams will canvas over the top of it to distract you from its crappiness? well...your in luck! just rip off an anonymous 10th century epic writer, and recreate beowulf! with bad actors! dont worry though...the general american public has no clue what beowulf, much less their own nose, is....your secret is safe with me creighton (or however you spell your stupid name, rip off guy)

a picture can be worth a thousand words arc

I can't ever blame any move-from-a-book. Those directors are not the authors of the book, it is merely their representation of what they saw it as. If you really want to enjoy that kind of movie where you already read the book i think thats really important to keep in mind. For all those things that get cut out 50% of the time its because it doesn't help the story or bring anything new to the table and the other 50% is because of money/development time/and time restrictions in general. Gotta remember the people who produce / make the movie aren't the ones funding it, they have a budget and they aren't ever thinking "Oh i bet if im gonna leave this scene out people will really hate me, WOOT!" or similar situations. Being a producer is probably one of the hardest jobs (if you want to get it right at least). Sure some people do it better then others but gotta give em credit for trying. Animating a book is a really difficult thing, I think the reason it gets done so much today is because of the established title and popularity that the movie will have regardless of advertising.

[dharq]

I think part of the problem with book->movie translations is just what you said geno--people see things their own way and expect to see them their own way. I think movie adaptations are generally pretty good if you accept them for the story they are instead of the story you expect them to be. I mean seriously, if these movies were judged without the book, they wouldn't necessarily be bad; it's just that people expect a different story than what they get and don't like it.

Eragon for example. I like it. Is it the book? Not so much. But is it still a decent movie? Sure. Yeah, it has some pacing problems and the acting is poor in some spots; but ya know, I grew up in the 70s. I remember seeing Episode 4 in the theater. I remember thinking even back then that the acting in that movie was god-awful, but ya know, it was still a fun movie. Episode 1 was the same. The 3rd Matrix flick was the same as well. All good movies on their own. None earthshattering good, but all good, forget-your-daily-grind fun.

Peter Jackson's LoTR trilogy was an exception. A great movie that was so well made that people forgot the book didn't match it in many cases. Only the diehards gripe and moan against those films even though they deviate wildly and in some cases almost sacrilegiously for the diehard. So? They're still stunningly good film-making.

Even the Dune films were fun. True, like Arc said, they don't match up well to the books, but they're still fun movies to watch. Oh, and let's not even get started on the X-men films. 

Don't know, I guess I'm weird about that kinda thing. Even when directors do things that I don't like or understand, I still try to understand that it's their vision--and as long as they do all they can to bring it to me, I can be critical and still enjoy it at the same time.

[Shadowwolf]

Theres two Book to Movie jobs that I can think of at this early hour on my way to the place I dont see enough of (Bed) and those would be:

Catch Me If You Can - Not a big Leo fan, but i'm sorry, damn good movie and did the book proud.

The Bourne series (Bourne Identity, Bourne Supremacy and soon to come Bourne Ultimatum) - Matt Damon...hes lucky hes married or hed have 1 more stalker. The movies just did the books justice so well. In fact, I think more people went and got the books after seeing the first movie as most people never even knew they existed till that movie was released.

If you get a Director with the desire to make it true to book and the freedom to do so, then chances are the movie does the book proud. Yes it can never replace the book, but its still fun to watch. More often than not, and I know this from working for Universal and was present during the Bourne shoots and also during the Box Office "Hulk smash thru floor for rock bottom numbers" that the studios dont always give the flexibility to the directors in doing these movies. Hulk started out decent from the dailys I saw, then the studio forced changes, forced actors, forced digital enhancements, all to hype it up and make a killing on merchandise as they had hoped to turn it into another franchise like the Mummy series became. As we all saw, too many forced changes made it a crap movie. These are the things that can quickly make a book to movie endeavor turn sour very quickly and easily.

[Threlin]

I have always had a love/hate relationship with books turned into film. Of course I realize the limitations of constraining any volume of written word into a sparse two or three hours of film...and the right of the director to put his or her own spin on things. Still, the more I love a book, the more offended I am by huge changes in the movie...which is how I figure most folks are.

I loved the LoTR series by Jackson. Yet the one thing that chapped my hind-quarters was his using of Gimili as comic relief in the Two Towers. That was almost unforgivable to me...almost. I just feel a need to take up for my dwarf friends... 

I was a huge fan of Stephen King's work while he was still writing for the love of writing (instead of just churning out books for the money). I thought the television mini-series of The Stand (one of my favorite novels) was very well done. So was the tv mini-series of The Shining. The movie? Not so much for me. I mean...kill off Dick and put in a hedge maze? Awwww...c'mon!

And Shadow's correct on the Bourne series...great adaptations!

It all comes down to personal taste, I reckon. So I'll hold judgement on the Dragonlance adaptation. I always loved those books, as they were my 4th venture into the realms of fantasy behind 2 Thomas Covenant series and Lord of the Rings. I only read the first two trilogies by Weiss and Hickman, but they were excellent reads from what I recall all these decades later.

Interesting topic!

[Darkling]

Hehe, I love the Realms myself, Dharq.  Still, Dragonlance is where I started a helluva long time ago.  Raistlin was always my favorite.  Thanks for finding this, Dry!

You can all go ahead and say 'I bet Tasslehoff Burrfoot was TB's favorite character.' You'd be right. That Kender was undoubtedly what made that series right there with Raistlin.

I can honestly say that I will be waiting for the DVD version of this one. The movie theater production will be good, but not great. According to the website, the movie will be 90-100 minutes long. That is way to short to tell this story as well as it should be told on the big screen. The DVD version should be better as you usually get more stuff in it (i.e. director's cuts, deleted scenes, and all kinds of movie extras). I will save my $40-50. The big screen theaters shall not get my money like that.

I have read this series I'd say 5 times since discovering it. I am now reading the series concerning Amber, who happens to be my new favorite in the series. She is a character with many flaws, Good turned to Evil by Takhisis, inner conflicts, character perfections and flaws...I could go on. If you haven't read the series focused around Amber, you should. You may like that monk too (I can't remember his name) and his Kender companion (can't remember his name either, but he is no Tasslehoff which impressed me that he wasn't given similar characteristics).

That is about all I can say atm for this. I will watch it, and pray it is not as awful as Dungeons and Dragons the Movie - never should have been made. The Sci-Fi channel sequel was much better.

[Luise]

Well I must say that I was very impressed with LOTR series- actually watched one dvd with the boys tonight- wow I love that Helm's Deep battle scene. I was frustrated a bit how they chucked out Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Whites (sorry for bad spelling- past my bedtime),- but then ..how long can a movie be?

I have to mention one other movie...which is truely showing my age- I thought that the "Gone with the Wind" movie with Clarke Gable was just as good as the book.

[Drygioni]

Tas was my favorite too TB. I can't count how many times I read those books as well.

One thing that I think will be this film's saving grace is, its animated. Unless you're spending hundred's of millions like on LOTR and the Potter series, the result will be something like the D&D movie.  I just hope they pull the best parts for the film. Obviously unless its a 4 hour epic theres no way to capture the entire scope of the book.


                     

[Arcdelad]

I understand what your saying about a picture being worth a thousand words geno...I guess it boils down to a comparison of mediums at its core...both mediums fall under the same restrictive infulence of company owners and execs...book publishers hire editors to make sure the product will sell, and movie execs do the same and have focus groups to make changes and all that jazz...

from a purely untouched from financial obligatory restraints though, books offer a vastly more expansive pallete to choose from...language and film are both human constructs that can be bent and manipulated to show a certain thing, but language is much more primal and malleable - you can convey meaning as precise or ambigious as youd like in a much more effective manner than you can with imagery...imagery gets ported into our brain and our raw senses enjoy it, but in order for us to analyze what we are feeling it still needs to be translated into language internally...if I look at a sunset my initial sensory reaction is one of wonder and awe...for me to understand what I am feeling those words "that is awesome and wonderful" must be connected to my senses, and thus I can fully undestand what I am feeling. I am butchering the explanation of this, but Walt Whitman (by far the most excellent american poet of all time) had this sense nailed down in his "Leaves of Grass" collection...

I am okay with book movies...but I think the good ones take the greatest liberties and are most blatant in their interpretations...I like Harry POtter 3 becuase its very clearly not trying to reproduce the book, but rather views the source material as an allegorical reference...the movie is darker, plot is vastly different, and when taken in the political and worlds event climate of its release it had a very poignent message to say about the world that went far beyond the intent of JK Rowling. A book is great in its own right - so instead of trying to reproduce or gravy train off of its greatness in a visual medium (which can never truly happen), view it as simply a base source to make something brand new and completely different.

This happens all the time..."O" and "Ten Things I hate About You" took classic shakespeare as base material and made something modern and fresh, while still maintaining the base link to the source material. Once a work of art leaves the artist it is no longer his own, but the public owns it, and all interpretations that touch it ae as valid as the creators (although certain interpretations are much more justifiable due to textual or in thsi case visual evidence). Thus, instead of trying to chase that elusive "what did the writer mean" end of the rainbow, take your own meaning, make it new, and make something great.

[Jandris]

It is such a joy to hear others who have read the same books I have. I loved Dragonlance, esp. Raistlin  who was unapologetic about who he was and what he wanted and Tas the best person to adventure with  I once made the mistake of expressing my likes at work and got the bug-eyed stare. Thankfully they no longer ask if i am still playing that "kid's game". I remember watching the animated The Hobbit with my son when he was younger not a bad adaptation but definitely geared for a younger audience. I am looking forward to seeing what they do with Dragonlance. I enjoyed LoTR, haven't seen Eragon yet, I am so behind but wow calls 

[Vengeance]

Quote Tas..."...you think Ill jump off the world if I put my head to the wall and stand on it?...Nope, didnt do it, mabye jumping off the roof?"