The old movie with Gregory Peck playing Ahab, not Mapple, was a lot better.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Criticizing the Published
- Thread starter Garren Jacobsen
- Start date
The old movie with Gregory Peck playing Ahab, not Mapple, was a lot better.
Trick
Auror
Agreed. I heard (unconfirmed, by me anyway) that the actor who played Ahab in the original silent movie played Mapple in the Gregory Peck-as-Ahab version. They made it a tradition by having Peck do the same.
That's cool. I didn't know that.
Incanus
Auror
Orson Wells played Mapple in the Peck version. Didn't know he ever played Ahab, though. Interesting.
Trick
Auror
It was just a rumor I heard. I can't find proof online, although Welles did put on a play of Moby Dick, I don't know if he was Ahab or not. I found two silent movies, The Sea Beast (1926) and Moby Dick (1930) which were both adaptations of the book, starring the same actor as Ahab and, as far as I can tell, the adaptations were nearly identical. Kind of funny actually, how similar they are only four years apart. Talk about being type cast.
psychotick
Auror
Hi,
What I want to know is who played the whale?
Cheers, Greg.
What I want to know is who played the whale?
Cheers, Greg.
- Thread starter
- #107
Garren Jacobsen
Auror
Aquaman...duh
See, I thought that was Orson Welles.
psychotick
Auror
Hi,
You mean Orson Whales?!!!
Cheers, Greg.
You mean Orson Whales?!!!
Cheers, Greg.
Incanus
Auror
Another interesting item about the 50's, Gregory Peck version: the screenplay was written by Ray Bradbury.
kennyc
Inkling
Ah yes!!! I'd forgotten that!
Miskatonic
Auror
Nobody is above being critiqued, regardless of how successful they have become.
Stephen King has had huge success but I have yet to find a book of his that I didn't find tedious with all the details he puts into the novel. Thank heaven I listened to the unabridged audio version of IT instead of actually reading the book. Otherwise I would have never finished it.
Stephen King has had huge success but I have yet to find a book of his that I didn't find tedious with all the details he puts into the novel. Thank heaven I listened to the unabridged audio version of IT instead of actually reading the book. Otherwise I would have never finished it.
Agreed.
In addition, there's nothing wrong with an honest critique of a successful work, even if you agree it's a good, entertaining story.
Example: yesterday, I watched the Hunger Games for the first time. Kids killing kids is not my cup of tea, but it's good to have a movie like this when you have a room full of teenagers that finished final exams and have nothing to do.
I enjoyed the movie and later read a few book-to-film comparisons, so it at least seems the movie is mostly faithful to the book. Anyway, things I thought were strong points: there were a couple districts who trained people to win the games and believe in the games; therefore, you had enough people willing to kill that the teens didn't have time to stare at each other teary-eyed, none wanting to make the first move. (Like at a school dance, only awkward because you need to kill the person you dance with.) The Careers alliance... okay, so they all understood "honored combat" would be inevitable. I can deal. The MC was a good person, better her than her baby sister, and she never killed the innocents.
My questions: would she have? The girl by the fire who died begging for her life, Fox Face, Rue? Would Katniss have killed any of them? It seems that the story did the dirty work for her so she could come off as a hero. How heroic would she have looked if she took out the bad guys early and all that was left were her and a bunch of unarmed 12-to-14-year-olds huddled together crying? What was the long-term plan for Rue? (I think the district 11 male was planning to keep her alive then off himself.)
So my only critique is that the hero is heroic because she was spared of committing vile acts. I'm not sure if her relationship with Peeta is meant as a feel-good thing or if the reader is meant to be conflicted. Peeta's a dick who kills an innocent who dies begging, screaming, crying, and in the book, slowly (later finished by Peeta). Katniss should know of his involvement, plus she caught him tracking her. It's odd that she marries him rather than just holding hands for the camera then slapping him off camera. Does she love him or willingly live a lie?
So my critique is this:
* entertaining? Yes.
* did I feel for the characters? Yes.
* weakest point: Heroine is conveniently heroic.
* likability factor: Peeta is a dick, though this doesn't necessarily count as a weak point. I was thinking about how Katniss forgave this jackass for hunting her, and not killing him showed she'd rather die than kill one who won't fight her. (Still not sure how she'd have dealt with Fox Face and Rue and Peeta if all three were alive and unwilling to harm her.) Maybe I'd find the tale forgettable if Peeta died and Katniss was the lone survivor.
Anyway, critiquing isn't "hating." It's being honest about what you liked and disliked as a reader or member of an audience, then trying to--as a writer--emulate what works for you and avoid "making the same mistakes" when you see what's not working for you. If you look at all successful creators as gods you can't judge, then you may as well declare, "Phantom Menace was extra spicy awesome sauce because Lucas made a zillion dollars." That's not showing respect for the business by accepting your lower place; it's being dishonest.
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
I believe strongly that an author should read a lot and use what he likes and doesn't like to inform his craft. I think that posts in that vein are useful. Your thoughts on Hunger Games were an example of that.
Here's what I object to (note: my interpretation from memory of the kind of comments I read in another thread b/c I'm too lazy to go look for the actual quotes):
Twilight was horribly written and was only successful because it marketed to tweens and bored housewives.
My objection is:
A. I think that the author of such statements miss what Twilight did well, which was connect with the audience. I only wish I could connect to a reader as well as Meyer did with me (and I'm not a housewife or a tween).
B. It makes the author of the statement sound, to me, like a bit of a jerk by implying that tweens and bored housewives don't have the ability to discern good writing and that only his definition of good writing is valid.
Yes. Meyer did a lot right. She got $3/4 of a million in advance as an unknown, first time author, before a single book was printed or marketed. Plus, the books were read by tons of people who weren't housewives or tweens. Plus the books are competently written, though not above a mere level of competence, in my view. What you see on writing forums when very successful authors arise in conversation is a lot of sour grapes. I've seen it with respect to Rowling as well.
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
Exactly.
To be clear, though, I don't disagree with Brian Scott Allen, Miskatonic, or Legendary Sidekick on the issue of criticizing published authors. As writers, it is absolutely useful to examine popular works. I just think that one has to be careful when saying someone who has achieved a lot more than you is a horrible writer.
What I've seen from traditional publishers is generally at least competently written. Eragon is about as bad as I've seen in Fantasy, and in that case it may be they just didn't edit the novel much from the originally-published version.
I have no problem criticizing anyone in the field on whatever aspects of their work deserves criticism.
I have no problem criticizing anyone in the field on whatever aspects of their work deserves criticism.
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
I read Eragon a long time ago. Truthfully, I don't remember much about it.
Did it do anything right? If not, why is it popular enough that any of us have heard of it?
- Thread starter
- #119
Garren Jacobsen
Auror
It was a classic heroes journey and for teens the protagonist seemed relatable. In short, the story was good but the writing was bad. It also had a lot of tropes, which if one isn't a fantasy vet, seemed amazing. It is a good introduction to the fantasy genre, but if you've read more than just LOTR and read some of fantasy's giants the book is just bland as milquetoast.
X Equestris
Maester
Not to mention that there were times where it just felt like Star Wars in a fantasy setting. Those decreased as you got into the third and fourth books, but it was kind of grating.
Similar threads
- Locked
