| VIP |
|---|
Subscribe to become a VIP member of SST!
· Request More Often
· Unshared Requests
· Request Countdown Timer
· Request Ready Indicator
· Your Request History
· Access To The VIP Forum
· Add More Favorites
:: Click Here To Upgrade ::
:: Give VIP as a Gift ::
|
|
|
|
View previous topic ::
View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Yvond
Lieutenant
Joined: Apr 02, 2002
Member#: 39
Posts: 178
   
|
 Posted:
Mon Aug 04, 2003 4:17 pm Post subject: Seabiscuit |
 
|
Anyone else think it sucked?
My wife and I had just finished reading the book (which is amazing, btw), and decided to see the movie last night. Both of us were completely disappointed. Too many changes in characterizations (esp. Tom Smith), a focus on the wrong plot elements, a sanitization of Howard's divorce, large historical innacuracies in several key races---especially the last Santa Anita race, choppy editing, and a lack of focus.
Seems to me like they didn't do a very good job of showing how bad a shape Seabiscuit really was in, and the amazing work Smith really did with him to turn the horse around. No mention whatsoever of the handicap weights(!) assigned to Seabiscuit after he started breaking track records---which is really what makes his story so good, considering he often carried 20-30 lbs. more than the rest of the field and still won handedly. A very, very poor portrayal of how he would taunt and tease his opponents by playing with the lead as raced against his competetors. He was so good at breaking the spirit of other horses that often times they would suddenly prop up and stop running against him in the middle of a race or workout. That and Howard baited Riddle into the type of race that would be run against War Admiral, not Riddle dictating the terms to Howard. Arrgh!
All in all, way too much of a focus on Howard, not nearly enough on Seabiscuit. They could have used that wasted time to show that Pollard actually got hurt earlier---almost died, acutally---before breaking his leg. That's what makes the story so good. Pollard crashes, his chest caves in, shatters several ribs and a collar bone, almost dies, barely recovers, gets back into working shape, and suddenly has his leg broken (almost sheared off, actually). By all accounts, you would think it would be a spirit breaking, career ending injury. But then he rehabilitates with Seabiscuit and comes back to finally win the race that had alluded the team 3 other times previously.
BAH. The story could have been *so* much better. This just reinforces my belief that 99% of all adaptations from books to movies completely ruin the story. That and Hollywood's utter disregard for historical accuracy.  |
|
 |
 Legolas
Commander
Joined: Aug 08, 2002
Member#: 178
Posts: 857
Location: Drunkest state in USA
|
|
Posted:
Mon Aug 04, 2003 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: Seabiscuit |
|
Hmmm. sorry Yvond I have not seen the movie, nor have I read the book. So what that means is, I am going to go off topic.
1st thing. I am sure glad JLO and Ben Affleck's movie flopped.  Tellls ya that hype doesn't always sell. 
Second thing. This post reminds me of a small film called Lord of the rings. Where yvond talked about how much it sucked and then somthing about about the end of the world.... 
Yvond, at the end of your post you stated that 99 percent of all "adaptations" from book to movies, well, just read what you wrote.
| Yvond wrote: |
My wife and I had just finished reading the book (which is amazing, btw), and decided to see the movie last night. Both of us were completely disappointed. |
Now at the beginning of your post you said you were disappointed. see look here....
| Yvond wrote: |
| This just reinforces my belief that 99% of all adaptations from books to movies completely ruin the story. That and Hollywood's utter disregard for historical accuracy. |
So why Yvond? Why do you look forward to these adaptaions? Why do you get so disappointed? 
I said it before in regaurds to LORD OF THE RINGS. But I will say it now as well. MOVIES AND BOOKS ARE DIFFERENT. DON'T SIT THERE AND COMPARE THEM... rather enjoy them speratly in thier own medium.
I am not in any way trying to piss ya off. I am however, trying to help your movie experiences...
As a film goer i feel its my duty. cheers! |
|
|
|
Yvond
Lieutenant
Joined: Apr 02, 2002
Member#: 39
Posts: 178
|
|
Posted:
Mon Aug 04, 2003 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
Leggy, I don't know if it's humanly possible for you to interact with me without shouting. You should try it some time. Might even do you some good...especially since your responses tend to get pretty childish when all you do is yell. Oh, and a spell checker would help too. 
I tried to give a brief critique of Seabiscuit as my wife and I both saw it. If that offends you to the point where you have to jump all over my case, then I'm sorry that I seem to provoke you so easily. I was looking forward to Seabiscuit because I knew that it would be a movie where the emphasis is on characterization, not mindless action/violence/sex/drugs/etc. I didn't go because of the hype.
I don't hate all adaptations. "The Princess Bride" is amazing, especially since the book is satirical, but for completely different reasons than the movie is (the book is satirical with politics between France and England, the movie is satirical with fairy tales). "Band of Brothers" is a second example of another adaptation I loved. So I don't hate all adaptations, just bad ones. Seabiscuit is a bad one. A very bad one, and there is no reason why it needed to be. "Band of Brothers" proves that you can be true to the book, true to historical accuracy, and still provide an amazing adaptation in a different medium than its original. If anything, it just re-enforces why Seabiscuit is so bad, and why LOTR is so utterly worthless, unless you like to see special effects substituting for plot and butchering proper characterization and depth. MTV generation indeed.
I think the most amusing thing about your response is that you just jumped down my throat without even having seen the movie...something that you were deeply offended about when I refused to see TTT (after seeing FOTR), but still told everyone that the adaptation sucked anyway. Neither did you read the book. "Hello Kettle? This is the Pot calling..." LOL
For once, Leggy, it would be nice if you could actually separate the man from the words the man writes.
LOTR still sucks, btw. |
|
|
|
Cocles
Commodore
Joined: Mar 06, 2002
Member#: 15
Posts: 2587
Location: Los Angeles, CA
    |
|
Posted:
Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
Actually I think that was one of Leggy's stronger posts, Yvond. Yes, Lego's bound to jump on you whenever he has the slightest inkling for feeling bored. In this case however I think he had a valid point.
You seem to come into these movies with such strict expectations that it's a wonder you bother even seeing them in the first place. The same story will mean different things to different people, and from what you've shown, unless the filmakers share the EXACT same vision YOU had of the book you're going to hate it with a vengeance.
The Author of SeaBiscuit adored the movie when she saw it and feels it is exactly what she was hoping the film would be. So go fig, apparently the author had a different view of her story than you did. Nothing wrong with that. But it's unfair of you to expect everyone to think the EXACT same way you do.
No matter what, adaptations are always going to be an interpretation of the source material. With you it's unfortunately always going to be a roll of dice as to whether the film follows what YOU felt was important about the book, as opposed to what someone else felt was important.
Unless you like gambling I suggest you stay away from adaptations, since they obviously upset you. |
|
|
|
Yvond
Lieutenant
Joined: Apr 02, 2002
Member#: 39
Posts: 178
|
|
Posted:
Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
Of course the author is going to say she loves it. She'll sell more books that way and it's the politically correct thing to do, regardless. Doesn't mean she was telling the truth though.
I went because people who had seen it said that it was pretty close to the book. And, I actually went in with pretty low expectations, hoping to set aside the differences. I disliked it so much because it had the potential to be one of the best movies of the year, but instead, fell flat.
All in all, I was bored with it. Nothing stirred you to care about the characters, let alone Seabicsuit, aside from Pollard and Howard, perhaps. And that's why I felt compelled to write. |
|
|
|
Legolas
Commander
Joined: Aug 08, 2002
Member#: 178
Posts: 857
Location: Drunkest state in USA
|
|
Posted:
Tue Aug 05, 2003 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
*SLAPS SLEF ON HEAD* Doh! I can't believe it. Yvond, do you really need to take everything so personal??? Come now "buddy boy" my post wasn't an attack on you. Don't flatter yourself . I was merely trying to show to you that you seem to have high expectations… Yvond I don't hate, nor do I jump down your throat on everything... It was a comment on your views, I like your views, they give me somthing to do at 11:30 at night.
Now first off you need to read this part twice. Cause it may need to sink in a bit…  When I, Legolas, type in CAPLOCKS. It does not mean that I am shouting. It's really just to grab your attention and have you focus on those words… I'll try to start typing in bold and have things underlined next time. I was tired last night so I can understand the confusion. 
Now as for the pot calling the kettle black. What were you thinking? You can't even begin to compare the two… Try and stay with me on this one pale, cause it was the comment of yours that bothered me the most.  I went off topic in my thread, starting this whole nonsense now. I was in no way referring to the movie "Sea Biscuit" or the book. I was "again" commenting on your lack of ability to hold movies and books on separate fields. There is a reason for books and a reason for film. However, you tried comparing that statement with yours about the film "THE TWO TOWERS"(again not shouting)  . You said it sucked and that it was a raping of Tolkiens books, without seeing the movie.
So Yvond your statement about the pot calling the kettle black would have only worked had I said the film or the book was bad or good without having seen or read them. DUH! (That was a shout )
And by the way Yvond, you are not that much older than me. I think you might be part of that "MTV Generation". Heck at least you probably could remember when it first came out. I don't I wasn't even 2 months old.
Now be sure and take this with a grain of salt old boy. I would hate to get your blood pressure up. Yvond you act like you are 50. Or maybe even 65. You curse at the modern world, and grumble about everything. But don't change. That is one of my most favorite characteristics about you. I hope no one adapts you. |
|
|
|
Obi-son
Captain
Joined: Sep 10, 2002
Member#: 211
Posts: 1897
Location: Winchester,Va, USA
|
|
Posted:
Tue Aug 05, 2003 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
ah ah
_________________
If you have it you don't need it. If you need it you don't have it. You need it to get it and you certainly need it to get more of it. Which means you don't have it to begin with people just know. |
|
|
|
Caliburn
Guest
|
|
Posted:
Tue Aug 05, 2003 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
Leggy loves emoticons :-) |
|
|
|
zev
Cadet 4
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Member#: 359
Posts: 18
Location: Missouri
|
|
Posted:
Tue Aug 05, 2003 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
I saw the Seabiscuit least week and I thought it was a very good movie. Pretty much everyone was clapping at the end, and some were even crying. I really liked it and thought it was well done.
I had not read the book before hand, so I am doing it now. While i am only around 100 or so pages into it, I have seen some slight differences, however none to big to totally ruin the movie.
I have not read any of the Lord of the Rings books, however I really enjoyed the movies. Some of my friends who saw them and had read the book thought they were great, but thats them.
Band of Brothers was a good book and a great miniseries. The advantage it had over other adaptations was that it was broken up making it around a 10 hour movie. Pretty much any book thats adapted into to a 10 movie is going to be very true to the book. However, hollywood wouldnt make much money if each movie was 10 hours. So, while I can see your view and understand it, I try an see the book and movie as totally seperate things, and usually I like them both. |
|
|
|
Legolas
Commander
Joined: Aug 08, 2002
Member#: 178
Posts: 857
Location: Drunkest state in USA
|
|
Posted:
Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
| zev wrote: |
I saw .....
Pretty much any book thats adapted into to a 10 movie is going to be very true to the book. However, hollywood wouldnt make much money if each movie was 10 hours.....
So, while I can see your view and understand it, I try an see the book and movie as totally seperate things, and usually I like them both. |
This last part here. That's what I was trying to tell you..."s-e-p-e-r-a-t-e".  zev from Missouri, you get a gold star! CHEERS M8 (not shouting just read it as it were full of enthusiasm.)
oh cal! I loooove the emoticon,I feel that they add more meaning to my posts. Besides they would be able to be taken the wrong way more easily if i did not have them. |
|
|
|
Cocles
Commodore
Joined: Mar 06, 2002
Member#: 15
Posts: 2587
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
|
Posted:
Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
Scanning through past threads I came upon this one. And since the last time I read it, something has changed: I've now seen Seabiscuit.
Yvond. You're on smack. Seabiscuit is the best film I've seen this year and a sure nomination for best picture come awards time in a few months.
Your determination from the moment you walked into the theater, to hate this film unless it was an exact translation of the book, has left you blind to how this movie stands on its own.
This a wonderful story about good people. The type of story I am shocked someone like you wouldn't enjoy. Yvond, you complain that Hollywood vomits nothing but sex and violence, yet when a film comes out possessing the virtue you’ve been seeking you attempt to knit-pick it to death on a basis no one else quite frankly cares about.
It is obvious nothing will every please you. So, give us a break and find some other way to work off that strange quirky anti-adaptation chip on your shoulder.
To the rest of you, this film is wonderful. Go see it.
Cocmeister approved! |
|
|
|
Caliburn
Guest
|
|
Posted:
Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
| Cocles wrote: |
To the rest of you, this film is wonderful. Go see it.
Cocmeister approved! |
Is it drama? Then I am not gonna watch it, I *bleep*ing hate drame :-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
